Page 10 of 10

Re: 4.8L Performance upgrade options

Posted: 21 Jul 2018 21:50
by Michael
All are TD42 turbo motors, they just made a mistake on the one dyno sheet stating its a 4.5

Julian, the one producing 180kw is a true reading. Its a very powerfull beast and has severely modified everything. The quick dropoff in power is because of the governer that was set to 3,800rpm initially so fuel was basically nothing at 4,000rpm.
Its been fixed now, but not been on a dyno again.

Peter, glad the power and torque match up :thumbup:

Re: 4.8L Performance upgrade options

Posted: 21 Jul 2018 21:53
by Michael
Oh yes, did a pre dyno on a NA 4.5 and it only produces 88kw and 250Nm on the wheels. Its not in tip top shape, but gives a good idea on how the peteol engine is so different from the diesel engine on the power curve

Re: 4.8L Performance upgrade options

Posted: 10 Sep 2018 20:34
by CarloG
FUEL CONSUMPTION UPDATE
As promised here are some fuel consumption figures pre- the upgrade and post. (recall that i changed the manifolds - ceramic coated - installed a free flow exhaust and had a unichip installed) Filter is still standard although a k&n is going in this week. ( :naughty: we've had this online debate - im trying it anyway :biggrin: )

Below a summary.
- The towing figures are based on towing my boat which has the aerodynamic properties of a large country cottage. The before and after were almost the same route as well and incorporate going to the coast and back.
- The post conversion towing figures include half of those km towing at 130km/h at about 26l/100. I would therefore estimate about 22L for general towing at my normal speeds of 100 which is a 10% improvement.
- the best I got without towing was 16l/100 over a 1000km stretch - thats a 28% improvement.

So.... conclusions:
1. in rand savings its not going to make for a great ROI vs the cost... but thats not why we bought a patrol in the first place!
2. It does however mean that i have saved taking an extra jerry can on my 6 week 7000km botswana trip in December/January.
3. Pity that the performance itself is not noticable as outlined in the discussion earlier in the thread.
Fuel Consumption.JPG
Fuel Consumption.JPG (76.82 KiB) Viewed 468 times