Help a guy out...

Pskhaat

2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
Before Uni I wanted to go to GMI because I loved engines and everything about them; I read it all and studied as much as a high-school kid could. Alas, I'm no automotive engineer and I didn't end up at GMI. But I still love the discussions :)

Redline said:
The legendary low-end torque from the 4.0L straight-six in my previous LJ Rubicon was very nice on paper, but was simply not enough to easily overcome heavy modifications driving on-highway.

You stated the exact problem when you said ``driving on-highway.'' Don't get me wrong, highway driving comprises at the very least 80% of our travels. Low end torque simply does not fit the bill for you nor anyone who wants/needs the highway performance. That's where you need HP, an engine that can rev to get the HP, and a torque curve peaking higher to facilitate the HP factor.


Though the torque peak may be higher than we sometimes think ideal, there is often a high percentage of that torque peak available at a low RPM.

It is important to look not only at the torque number, but the first derivative or slope of that curve. One that slopes upwards too much with increasing RPMs (high t') will perform quite differently at the exact same torque as another engine where t' is near 0.

I'm not sure I understand your statement that "The 2UZ-FE's torque curve is too high and too flat." Too high, I understand, but usually people argue against a torque curve that has an abrupt peak, not one that is too flat?

I will without doubt stand corrected looking at your 2UZ-FE chart below. I havn't seen as much detail of the 2UZ-FE's curve, it is indeed peaky. It really doesn't drive that peaky, rather drives like a much more rounded or flat curve; and would have sworn it's shape to be different. That looks much more straight-6'y than V8'y. Don't know if the LC's slight differences in components might flatten that out?

You're correct that most folks always look for that flat torque curve; magazines love to espouse them as always a good thing. A flat curve allows someone to utilize their gearing more. However, that only applies really to racing and street use.

On full-time off-highway use (not high-speed) it is beneficial to have a long, steep, steady descent from the torque peak. This is called the torque rise. In off-highway or line-haul or tractor use you want to be driving with RPMs above the torque peak. The concept is that when driving in that rise any hill, obstruction, rock, ledge, water that causes your RPMs to drop will actually cause an increase in torque output from the engine allowing it more easily overcome and labor over said obstacle.

In our modern high-rev engines it's pretty tough to drive that high, we can employ some level of gearing to bring that curve down lower not just for the peak itself, but also to allow more driving on the rise. Look at the venerable 2F with a peak at 1800, or the 1HZ at 2200, or the Cummins 5.9/6.7 ISB at somewhere around 1600 (guess).


I only wish the 4.7L V8 torque curve were even flatter, not falling off so dramatically after the 3400-RPM peak.

But that's actually a good thing for off-highway use :)
 

Pskhaat

2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
hoser said:
I'm not sure if you could use a brake proportioning valve on the 100's brake system but it might be something worth looking into.

The 100 has an electronic brake distribution system and no proportioning valve. It's all controlled electronically. As such the system has varying biases (not consistent) based on the pedal, and during light braking the rears get more braking force. This is the reason I speculate the 100 drives and slides a little differently on ice than the 80.
 

ShottsCruisers

Explorer
pskhaat said:
Before Uni I wanted to go to GMI because I loved engines and everything about them; I read it all and studied as much as a high-school kid could. Alas, I'm no automotive engineer and I didn't end up at GMI. But I still love the discussions :)



You stated the exact problem when you said ``driving on-highway.'' Don't get me wrong, highway driving comprises at the very least 80% of our travels. Low end torque simply does not fit the bill for you nor anyone who wants/needs the highway performance. That's where you need HP, an engine that can rev to get the HP, and a torque curve peaking higher to facilitate the HP factor.




It is important to look not only at the torque number, but the first derivative or slope of that curve. One that slopes upwards too much with increasing RPMs (high t') will perform quite differently at the exact same torque as another engine where t' is near 0.



I will without doubt stand corrected looking at your 2UZ-FE chart below. I havn't seen as much detail of the 2UZ-FE's curve, it is indeed peaky. It really doesn't drive that peaky, rather drives like a much more rounded or flat curve; and would have sworn it's shape to be different. That looks much more straight-6'y than V8'y. Don't know if the LC's slight differences in components might flatten that out?

You're correct that most folks always look for that flat torque curve; magazines love to espouse them as always a good thing. A flat curve allows someone to utilize their gearing more. However, that only applies really to racing and street use.

On full-time off-highway use (not high-speed) it is beneficial to have a long, steep, steady descent from the torque peak. This is called the torque rise. In off-highway or line-haul or tractor use you want to be driving with RPMs above the torque peak. The concept is that when driving in that rise any hill, obstruction, rock, ledge, water that causes your RPMs to drop will actually cause an increase in torque output from the engine allowing it more easily overcome and labor over said obstacle.

In our modern high-rev engines it's pretty tough to drive that high, we can employ some level of gearing to bring that curve down lower not just for the peak itself, but also to allow more driving on the rise. Look at the venerable 2F with a peak at 1800, or the 1HZ at 2200, or the Cummins 5.9/6.7 ISB at somewhere around 1600 (guess).




But that's actually a good thing for off-highway use :)

What does all that stuff you wrote have to do with recommending the 80 vs the 100? Regardless of all that info, and peaks, and curves, the choice is clear. The V8 kills the 6.....everywhere. One drive tells all.
 

Pskhaat

2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
ShottsCruisers said:
I find these 80 vs 100 engine dicussions rediculous...The old 6 in the 80 is outdated, underpowered, rough and roaring at mid-to-high RPMS, and simply sub-par to the new V8.

John, I know it seems moot but I've always been a firm believer in at least knowing your engine and where/how to drive it. Personally, I may agree on the 1FZ's outdated'ness and underpowered'ness, but I wouldn't say sub-par to the 2UZ-FE. They're for vastly different markets and uses. How many times can you rebuild/rebore/rehone a 2UZ block vs. a 1FZ? Something we realistically don't care about in the States, but I imagine would be pretty important to someone in S.A.

I still like the way the 1FZ-FE drives off-highway better than the 2UZ-FE all day long. :costumed-smiley-007
 

ShottsCruisers

Explorer
pskhaat said:
John, I know it seems moot but I've always been a firm believer in at least knowing your engine and where/how to drive it. Personally, I may agree on the 1FZ's outdated'ness and underpowered'ness, but I wouldn't say sub-par to the 2UZ-FE. They're for vastly different markets and uses. How many times can you rebuild/rebore/rehone a 2UZ block vs. a 1FZ? Something we realistically don't care about in the States, but I imagine would be pretty important to someone in S.A.

I still like the way the 1FZ-FE drives off-highway better than the 2UZ-FE all day long. :costumed-smiley-007

I'm just trying to remove the techno for the original postee so he can evaluate.
And on the trail....I'll give a small nod to the 6 downhill-only. Everywhere else, especially climbing rocks and ledges and steep hills....the V8 is a true wonder. In the 100 you can also remain in 4-Hi much longer vs the 80. (That includes my 4.88 LX450). I can't imagine of I regeared my 100!
 

Brian894x4

Explorer
I don't mean to use the word "bashing" in too strong of terms. (I knew I should have stayed out of this.)

In fact...allow me to bow out now. I have strong feelings about the reliability and design of the 80, but the last thing I want to do is get into an argument with my Expo friends. I think the 100 is an awesome vehicle, but I just disagee with the some of the statements being made about the 80.

I think others do too, but don't want to be to argumentative about it.
 
Last edited:

24HOURSOFNEVADA

Expedition Leader
AAHH...we are all friends on this forum and when I started the thread I was and still am looking for information to make a good choice. I'm tired of getting a different car every couple of years. I enjoy what you have written and the information you have given me.
 

calamaridog

Expedition Leader
Brian894x4 said:
In fact...allow me to bow out now. I have strong feelings about the reliability and design of the 80, but the last thing I want to do is get into an argument with my Expo friends. I think the 100 is an awesome vehicle, but I just disagee with the some of the statements being made about it.

I think others do too, but don't want to be to argumentative about it.


Friends don't let friends bow out:sport_box

My leather power seats and seat warmers work great. Back off:gunt:

The 80 is a great vehicle and so is the 100. For that matter, I'd rather be driving an FJ62, the finest Land Cruiser ever available in North America. As these vehicles get older, more and more people will find themselves in the newer models.

Frankly, I can't wait until the 2008 model is affordable in the used market.
 

Redline

Likes to Drive and Ride
pskhaat:

Good points. I knew the term 'torque rise' but like the way you explained it.

You are correct about the Cummins 5.9B/ISB. I believe most years/models peaked at 1600-RPM, though I think I remember a couple of versions peaking at 1500?

Interesting how my old '96 Power Stroke peaks at 2,000-RPM (actually it is the same from 1900-2100) which is high for a slow, low-revving diesel. Though the peak is higher than the 5.9 Cummins (I have owned two 12-valve Cummins and really love the engine & the company) it still seams to have 'enough' torque and horsepower for pullin'. Enough is enough :) but I like to drive a Cummins with a manual trans more. Can't beat the low end.

Back on topic... The little 4.7L V8 seems to have plenty of torque and power for most situations and the five speed auto seems an excellent match.
 

ShottsCruisers

Explorer
Brian894x4 said:
I don't mean to use the word "bashing" in too strong of terms. (I knew I should have stayed out of this.)

In fact...allow me to bow out now. I have strong feelings about the reliability and design of the 80, but the last thing I want to do is get into an argument with my Expo friends. I think the 100 is an awesome vehicle, but I just disagee with the some of the statements being made about the 80.

I think others do too, but don't want to be to argumentative about it.

Don't stay out. :chowtime:

I'll bet the tone of this 80 vs 100 discussion would change if the original postee asked about which was better for the Rubicon and hardest Moab trails. Then, this thread would sound like 100 bashing. :jumping:
 

Dirty Harry

Adventurer
ShottsCruisers said:
I'll bet the tone of this 80 vs 100 discussion would change if the original postee asked about which was better for the Rubicon and hardest Moab trails. Then, this thread would sound like 100 bashing. :jumping:

No, then it would sound like Land Cruiser bashing in general! Jereme already has a Wrangler with coilovers and Krawlers so I don't think he is getting a late model Cruiser to go rockcrawling.

Considering he has an HJ45 I don't think that the power and comfort of an 80 are going to be too hard on him either. :)
 

ShottsCruisers

Explorer
Dirty Harry said:
No, then it would sound like Land Cruiser bashing in general! Jereme already has a Wrangler with coilovers and Krawlers so I don't think he is getting a late model Cruiser to go rockcrawling.

Considering he has an HJ45 I don't think that the power and comfort of an 80 are going to be too hard on him either. :)

TRUE! My buddy's stock Wranger went through the Rubicon far easier than his friends 80...it's size...it matters! :oops:
 

24HOURSOFNEVADA

Expedition Leader
True, but the jeep must go. They'll have to bury me in the HJ45 before I'd give that up (At least that's how I feel for the time being).


Shotts, the more I see pics of your cruiser on mud the more I dig it. when I find the one, I'll post up the build for sure.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
189,276
Messages
2,915,023
Members
231,959
Latest member
lkretvix
Top