The Thailand Special Thread - New Developments/News

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

Sounds like opinion to me.

What does the term highly strung mean? Is there an actual definition or is it just a label given to something when the engineering doesn't conform to existing viewpoints?

High strung, highly stressed. Pretty self explanatory isn’t it.
Don’t expect these things to be around in 20 years time with over 500k on the clock like the low stressed 100 series Land Cruiser or 5L Hilux.
What isn’t opinion NVH is through the roof on these when they’re blowing their **** out trying to pull up a hill with a load behind them. That is fact and it makes for a very average driving experience. Fortunately they have a stereo which can drown out the engine noise.

[prydey]

More opinions. There is no facts in there at all.

What about an AMG 4.0L v8? 550+kw. 900nm torque? I don't hear too many negative comments about that yet the bore and stroke sizes are very similar. Compared to older technologies it's a lot of power and torque from a much smaller capacity engine.

Where is the evidence that says a particular engine is stressed?

It seems conjecture to me due to not conforming to preset views.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

More opinions. There is no facts in there at all.

What about an AMG 4.0L v8? 550+kw. 900nm torque? I don't hear too many negative comments about that yet the bore and stroke sizes are very similar. Compared to older technologies it's a lot of power and torque from a much smaller capacity engine.

Where is the evidence that says a particular engine is stressed?

It seems conjecture to me due to not conforming to preset views.

As I said, it’s self explanatory.
Compared to say a 100 series, the bi turbo is pushing the same power and more torque through two fewer cylinders and 2.2 litres. High combustion pressure and power output spread across four smaller cylinders.

Why does Cummins offer 6.7, 9, 15 litre engines… why don’t they just hike up the 9 litre to do the job of the 15 litre?

It’s a fact. Four cylinders not used for performance are average at best. The diesels used in utes are awful and scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If you think they are good you need to sample some more vehicles.

What is the longevity of that Mercedes grenade verses a Barra or Toyota JZ/Nissan RB…

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by smoo

As I said, it’s self explanatory.
Compared to say a 100 series, the bi turbo is pushing the same power and more torque through two fewer cylinders and 2.2 litres. High combustion pressure and power output spread across four smaller cylinders.

Why does Cummins offer 6.7, 9, 15 litre engines… why don’t they just hike up the 9 litre to do the job of the 15 litre?

It’s a fact. Four cylinders not used for performance are average at best. The diesels used in utes are awful and scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If you think they are good you need to sample some more vehicles.

What is the longevity of that Mercedes grenade verses a Barra or Toyota JZ/Nissan RB…

The big issue facing diesel is emissions levels as well as required fuel economy targets for Euro 6
or it’s equivalents in overseas markets, I believe the US is even tougher on NOX emissions
for diesel vehicles that fall under CAFE (under 8,500 lb GCWR).
Ford tried the smaller 2.0 Ecoblue diesel in Ranger Everest but it was crystal clear that
most buyers already paying a premium for a Ranger/Everest would go a step further
and pay extra for the smoothness of a V6 diesel that was a descendant of the Terry’s 2.7 V6.
^^^^^^This was Ford’s best move, converting most previous 2.0 buyers to the V6
An outstanding success that the other Thai special brands simply cannot currently match…

Without starting an argument, the situation with Cummins larger truck diesels is different in that
those larger diesels are used mostly in heavy tonnage hauling or towing where the size of
the air pump (engine) determines the level of power and torque under constant load.

So if an owner of a Ute is going to do a lot of heavy towing, then those small diesels
will probably be found wanting as will the vehicle, maybe a larger Ute is required for that.
So yeah, the new Landcruiser 3.0 turbo having issues is not a good start but then,
Toyota probably asked for this problem by not trying to transition buyers earlier, it clearly
sold as many V8 Landcruisers as possible ahead of the 300’s release…..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by smoo

As I said, it’s self explanatory.
Compared to say a 100 series, the bi turbo is pushing the same power and more torque through two fewer cylinders and 2.2 litres. High combustion pressure and power output spread across four smaller cylinders.

Why does Cummins offer 6.7, 9, 15 litre engines… why don’t they just hike up the 9 litre to do the job of the 15 litre?

It’s a fact. Four cylinders not used for performance are average at best. The diesels used in utes are awful and scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If you think they are good you need to sample some more vehicles.

What is the longevity of that Mercedes grenade verses a Barra or Toyota JZ/Nissan RB…

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine has the same reliability as a larger one. Reliability and durability are the questions. How can you prove the smaller engines are close to their limit, or stressed to the point of being unreliable? It's all conjecture based on preconceived viewpoints.

Funny you mention the barra though. Ford used to have 4.1L engines with about 80kw... The same capacity then ended up with over 300kw and a mountain of torque, yet still claimed to be durable and reliable.

How is it measured?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine has the same reliability as a larger one. Reliability and durability are the questions. How can you prove the smaller engines are close to their limit, or stressed to the point of being unreliable? It's all conjecture based on preconceived viewpoints.

Funny you mention the barra though. Ford used to have 4.1L engines with about 80kw... The same capacity then ended up with over 300kw and a mountain of torque, yet still claimed to be durable and reliable.

How is it measured?

To be fair, that 80kw was with points ignition, single cam and a carburettor.
It took the best part of 30yrs and many revisions to free up its potential and make it a reliable 300kw+ torque monster.
It was always a lazy truck engine.

The Ecoblue is highly technical in design to begin with and at 157kw is closing in on its peak from the get go.
To meet euro6 and achieve its NVH levels it uses wet belt technology which owners are experiencing engine failures due to delamination despite scheduled servicing and well before recommended scheduled replacement.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

My uncle has had two Isuzu D-Max's, both with that 3.0 diesel. I know it's fashionable to love that engine, its fans seem to like that it comes from their truck range. And it certainly sounds like a truck engine too, it's never not heard in the cabin, be that idling, accelerating or cruising. Imagine listening to that for hours on end, especially under load trying to tow a caravan.

So yeah, I'd much rather a used Everest/Ranger over the Isuzu stuff.

Did 600km in a DMax recently on the highway, that engine is rough as guts, it's tough as nails though, and built like a brick shit house - it would be great in single cab tray back application, super basic and reliable where you flog the *** out of it on the daily using it for its intended purpose.

Not sure it's great for carrying passengers as the family bus though.

Isuzu DMax is peak fleet queen, Toyota was good in the 2005-2015 era with their older 3L diesel engine but that 2.8L one is a bit of a turd

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Did 600km in a DMax recently on the highway, that engine is rough as guts, it's tough as nails though, and built like a brick shit house - it would be great in single cab tray back application, super basic and reliable where you flog the *** out of it on the daily using it for its intended purpose.

Not sure it's great for carrying passengers as the family bus though.

Isuzu DMax is peak fleet queen, Toyota was good in the 2005-2015 era with their older

Yet people seem to be buying them in reasonable numbers now as spending tightens.

I'd have a new Everest, but they dont offer one under 55k unfortunately which is the top end of the budget.

In September Isuzu were offering the 1.9l LS-M MUX RWD @$47Kda which got my interest initially.
At that price the alternatives are GWM Tank 300 petrol or LDV D90...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

To be fair, that 80kw was with points ignition, single cam and a carburettor.
It took the best part of 30yrs and many revisions to free up its potential and make it a reliable 300kw+ torque monster.
It was always a lazy truck engine.

The Ecoblue is highly technical in design to begin with and at 157kw is closing in on its peak from the get go.
To meet euro6 and achieve its NVH levels it uses wet belt technology which owners are experiencing engine failures due to delamination despite scheduled servicing and well before recommended scheduled replacement.

Can you provide the link to where the engineers have said the engine is close to its limit?

There is another version with 175kw so 157kw isn't maxxed out. Is 175kw the peak? It's pure speculation.

As for the claims of engine failure due to wet belt technology, how is that related to engine capacity and apparently being over stressed? I'm not familiar with any failures myself and have only heard it being an issue with transit.

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine is better than a bigger one but simply being smaller doesn't mean it is unreliable or not durable.

Happy to be proven otherwise with facts, other than just anecdotes.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine has the same reliability as a larger one. Reliability and durability are the questions. How can you prove the smaller engines are close to their limit, or stressed to the point of being unreliable? It's all conjecture based on preconceived viewpoints.

Funny you mention the barra though. Ford used to have 4.1L engines with about 80kw... The same capacity then ended up with over 300kw and a mountain of torque, yet still claimed to be durable and reliable.

How is it measured?

What do you mean how it’s measured, 2.0 litre pushing the same power nd torque as say something with 50% extra capacity is going to be under more stress than the larger engine. Simply, the smaller cylinders are doing more work.
As I said, why don’t Cummins crank up the 9 litre to give it the same specs as the 15… what do you think is going to have a longer lifespan?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by smoo

What do you mean how it’s measured, 2.0 litre pushing the same power nd torque as say something with 50% extra capacity is going to be under more stress than the larger engine. Simply, the smaller cylinders are doing more work.
As I said, why don’t Cummins crank up the 9 litre to give it the same specs as the 15… what do you think is going to have a longer lifespan?

Yes, it will be under higher loads or stresses. Does that automatically mean it won't be a reliable or durable engine?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

Can you provide the link to where the engineers have said the engine is close to its limit?

There is another version with 175kw so 157kw isn't maxxed out. Is 175kw the peak? It's pure speculation.

As for the claims of engine failure due to wet belt technology, how is that related to engine capacity and apparently being over stressed? I'm not familiar with any failures myself and have only heard it being an issue with transit.

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine is better than a bigger one but simply being smaller doesn't mean it is unreliable or not durable.

Happy to be proven otherwise with facts, other than just anecdotes.

C'mon mate, 18kw isnt much, they haven't taken it any higher so 175kw is obviously as much as they can extract with a warranty, as I said, 157kw is obviously close to peak for that engine.

Rather than push it further they offer a 3.0l V6 @184kw/600nm, a mere 9kw more for 50% increase in capacity and 2 extra cylinders.
The 2.0l is maxed. It was a better engine than the 3.2l but only in the absence of what PX3 should have come with, the V6.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by prydey

Yes, it will be under higher loads or stresses. Does that automatically mean it won't be a reliable or durable engine?

As I said I’d bet the house these things aren’t going to be around with 500,000km in 20 years time like a 1hdfte are now.

Either way, it’s a dog of an engine with poor NVH along with all the other four cylinders. I have some second hand embarrassment for the buyers of the previous Gen Raptors who forked out ~$85k to have these things power them.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by smoo

As I said I’d bet the house these things aren’t going to be around with 500,000km in 20 years time like a 1hdfte are now.

Either way, it’s a dog of an engine with poor NVH along with all the other four cylinders. I have some second hand embarrassment for the buyers of the previous Gen Raptors who forked out ~$85k to have these things power them.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

C'mon mate, 18kw isnt much, they haven't taken it any higher so 175kw is obviously as much as they can extract with a warranty, as I said, 157kw is obviously close to peak for that engine.

Rather than push it further they offer a 3.0l V6 @184kw/600nm, a mere 9kw more for 50% increase in capacity and 2 extra cylinders.
The 2.0l is maxed. It was a better engine than the 3.2l but only in the absence of what PX3 should have come with, the V6.

Again, it's speculation and doesn't answer the question.

No one is asking whether one engine is better than another. Simply, why is the small engine considered unreliable and not durable?

Who can know if it will be capable of high km? It hasn't been around long enough yet but there plenty of high km examples around.

Whether or not a bigger engine is available is irrelevant. Buyer preference is irrelevant. That's a completely different topic.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by smoo

As I said I’d bet the house these things aren’t going to be around with 500,000km in 20 years time like a 1hdfte are now.

Either way, it’s a dog of an engine with poor NVH along with all the other four cylinders. I have some second hand embarrassment for the buyers of the previous Gen Raptors who forked out ~$85k to have these things power them.

Hard to find examples with half those k's at this stage but I think you'll be proven correct, I certainly wouldnt want to run one too long out of warranty as we just dont know.
The 1KD in my Prado couldnt compete with the bi turbo for refinement and grunt but theres plenty of examples still going strong with north of 350k on them.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

Again, it's speculation and doesn't answer the question.

No one is asking whether one engine is better than another. Simply, why is the small engine considered unreliable and not durable?

Who can know if it will be capable of high km? It hasn't been around long enough yet but there plenty of high km examples around.

Whether or not a bigger engine is available is irrelevant. Buyer preference is irrelevant. That's a completely different topic.

Actually, a quick look at Gumtree, and im not claiming it as concrete evidence although it is a snapshot of the used market, the highest K examples of the 2.0l are 166k Ranger and 140k Everest, and not many even close to those figures so there arent necessarily plenty of high k examples out there.
Infact most high k examples of Ranger are 3.2l from the PX2 era onwards.

Can you provide evidence of plenty of 2.0l's with over 250k ks on them as thats what is generally considered high milage.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Actually, a quick look at Gumtree, and im not claiming it as concrete evidence although it is a snapshot of the used market, the highest K examples of the 2.0l are 166k Ranger and 140k Everest, and not many even close to those figures so there arent necessarily plenty of high k examples out there.
Infact most high k examples of Ranger are 3.2l from the PX2 era onwards.

Can you provide evidence of plenty of 2.0l's with over 250k ks on them as thats what is generally considered high milage.

I know you're familiar with carsales...

This discussion has gone far enough as it's not really on topic.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

Can you provide the link to where the engineers have said the engine is close to its limit?

There is another version with 175kw so 157kw isn't maxxed out. Is 175kw the peak? It's pure speculation.

As for the claims of engine failure due to wet belt technology, how is that related to engine capacity and apparently being over stressed? I'm not familiar with any failures myself and have only heard it being an issue with transit.

I'm not suggesting a smaller engine is better than a bigger one but simply being smaller doesn't mean it is unreliable or not durable.

Happy to be proven otherwise with facts, other than just anecdotes.

Just FYI, that 175 Kw Ecoblue 2.0 diesel was tuned for Euro premium diesel (60 centane)
While the 157 Kw version happily drinks our regular diesel with 46 centane.

Tuners hate them because it already runs 25 psi boost standard.
Ford has done such a great job with it.

[Franco Cozzo]

Sort of curious about 2.3 Ecoboost vs 2.0 Biturbo for fuel efficiency and longevity in Ranger, obviously diesel is going to beat out the unleaded job in all situations because diesel is more efficient.

I'm coming up on 250,000 in 1.6L Ecoboost, it's tired though but I'll keep it until it flogs out.

[Charliewool]

Son in laws 2l Bi turbo Raptor “failed to proceed” back in January at just over 80,000ks.. 90% hwy use. Serviced by the book, and always by original selling Ford dealer..
Interestingly, when it arrived at service dept and while it was still on the flatbed, the service manager simply said “new engine required, it’ll be 3-4 weeks and here’s the keys to your loaner”… Apparently a pretty common occurrence..
He’s now just unloaded it and bought a SWB Lariat