Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user. If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
zuffen wrote:I have an early Rangie with the 1UZ in it.
Without doubt this is the best engine they ever put fuel in.
I had a very hot John Davis 4.6 engine that drank fuel and wouldn't rev past 5500, now I have an engine happy at 6500 and using less than half the fuel of the original.
My LT77 doen't like the torque so I'll change to the Toyota auto.
Whilst the RR produced torque lower down the rev range it produces much less torque. My "butt-o-meter" tells me the 1UZ has no less torque down low but heaps more up top.
I can get the front end unstuck in round-abouts. accelerate at 2,500 rpm and both front tyres let go and this is with 12.5r33x15's!
I would never go back.
I had the 3.5 and it would hold at 6500rpm doing donuts on the beach, my 3.9 would hold at the same sitting in the driveway the day the 351 Ford owner brought it, but had everything happen down low better than the 3.5, and would also climb rocks in low 1st at zero rpm on the tacho and the ignition light flickering with 255/85x16's ! Both stock motors, the 3.5 from a Rover car in the Rangie when I brought it, unfortunately the conrod knock got bad after 2 years.
Others don't believe a stock TB42 will do 6500rpm, mine does.
Pat,
Brisbane, Australia,
JK 4door Rubicon, currently 4 Sale :(
It's a Jeep thing, I don't understand........
I adapted the 1UZ to the LT77 trans (mistake #1) and used the rangie flywheel machined to fit the Toyota crank.
Pretty straight forward conversion, but really tight fit.
All up cost was around $6,000 but a lot of this was spent on the rest of the drive line.
The only stuff I didn't do myself was the flywheel machining and a couple of oil lines.
On the transmission front I've ditched the Toyota Auto idea as it won't handle the torque from my supercharged engine that is being built.
I've opted for the old faithfull (and bulletproof) Torqueflite coupled to an LT230. I don't drive long distances so the lack of a 4th gear won't matter.
I'm hoping the vehicles light weight (1650KG) will let it spin the tyres before it snaps axles and R&P's.
On a really good day my knackered 2 1/4 litre petrol engine develops, oh about 35 brake horsepower, but being a transmission/ chassis enthusiast rather than an engine one I can,t be bothered replacing the old donk until she blows up.
Bill.
IIRC a RaRo will lose 47% through it's drive train if an fourspeed auto is fitted. Worse for a Torqueflight better for an LT77 but not a lot!
On a 4 wheel rolling road (not a 2 wheel as the figures are bolloxed) my Tdi does 147bhp at the flywheel at 4100rpm and 278ft/lb at 2300 rpm. I don't know the at the wheels figures 'cos the rolling road print out is converted back to flywheel as it looks more impressive. Using a loss of 45% tho that gives me 81bhp at the wheels and 153 ft/lb. BTW it's not standard On a journey of 500 miles with an average of 55 mph it gives 34mpg with an all up weight of 2.5 tonnes on 31" tyres. I change out of fifth for traffic lights! 60mph to 80 mph acceleration in 5th is better than a 3.5V8 thanks to the torque.
It's okay off road to!
I didn't think 50bhp ATW was too bad for a tired 3.5V8.
Lao Tsu wrote: IIRC a RaRo will lose 47% through it's drive train if an fourspeed auto is fitted. Worse for a Torqueflight better for an LT77 but not a lot!
Do you have a source to back this up?
Lao Tsu wrote: On a 4 wheel rolling road (not a 2 wheel as the figures are bolloxed) my Tdi does 147bhp at the flywheel at 4100rpm and 278ft/lb at 2300 rpm. I don't know the at the wheels figures 'cos the rolling road print out is converted back to flywheel as it looks more impressive.
If you read up on dynos you will find that flywheel power/torque figures measured on a chassis dyno are pure fiction (as are most rear wheel power/torque figures)
Lao Tsu wrote: IIRC a RaRo will lose 47% through it's drive train if an fourspeed auto is fitted. Worse for a Torqueflight better for an LT77 but not a lot!
Do you have a source to back this up?
Sadly no - I shall have a firtle around to see where I came up with it - if I can't find it then it's most likely to be a flash back due to a a misspent youth.
Lao Tsu wrote: On a 4 wheel rolling road (not a 2 wheel as the figures are bolloxed) my Tdi does 147bhp at the flywheel at 4100rpm and 278ft/lb at 2300 rpm. I don't know the at the wheels figures 'cos the rolling road print out is converted back to flywheel as it looks more impressive.
If you read up on dynos you will find that flywheel power/torque figures measured on a chassis dyno are pure fiction (as are most rear wheel power/torque figures)
I agree - as I said, these are figures from a four wheel rolling road but the print out gives 'at the flywheel figures'. Mind you I tend to think that to much reliance on figures is a bit on the 'need to get a life' side, if the vehicle goes well. who cares?
auto_eng wrote:At first I thought the 50.2 at the wheels was pretty low but after talking to a few other Rangie owners it seems that is about the right figure for a 3.5 V8. I was told a lot of Cruisers are only in the 40's for newish ones.
Good to see some of the bigger engines are putting out bigger numbers.
Hahaha my 3.5 with the 35" rubber running standard hi range gearing throu a ZF auto (4speed) puts down about 40Kw allt he HP is consumed by the torque convertor
Hoping to get wheel figure to around 100Kw then i will be happy.
I think the wolf and supercharger along with 1.4:1 highrange gearing should help (the torque convertor wont chew as much ponies then).
allt he HP is consumed by the torque convertor 