Built like a Mercedes (?)

formatting link

Yes I knew you would be saying "my dick is bigger than your dick". All so very predictable.

Huw

Reply to
Huw
Loading thread data ...

Yes, they have heavier duty undercarriage elswhere in the World to carry one ton. In America and possibly Canada they fit soft springs to provide a more comfortable ride. In Europe and especially Asia and some middle Eastern countries these things are beasts of burden.

As I said, different suspension.

Yes, the Hilux is sold as a 1 ton - but not NEARLY all

Almost all Hilux sold in most areas ouside North America are rated at 1 ton with the HD underpinnings. They have never been sold here downrated to half a ton.

Legal limit to tow here is 3.5 tons and 4 tons with rare coupled brakes. Once more capacity is needed than 3.5 tons then the pickup loses favour to

7.5 ton commercial forward cab trucks which are ten a penny common.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Right, thus my point that Americans are harder on our vehicles. Three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the States are capable of far more than your "one ton" vehicles, because they NEED to be capable at that level.

Reply to
Max Dodge

Ahh yes, the bitter reply of a person who has lost after finding out that the facts prove him wrong. Its not about penis size, its about truck capacity.

Don't be claiming you have such tough, heavy duty equipment if you haven't got it, the ladies hate when that happens.

Reply to
Max Dodge

We have a right one here folks!

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Before you stumbled onto usenet we had all agreed this was the way to follow up a post. Top posting is for newbies.

Reply to
Richard Sexton

Oh, it is the "we had all" boy's. I've two words for you folks and they are not "get well". I'm sure you are aware that NOBODY or any WE ALL set's any rules. You may ask nicely for people to follow a pattern, but that's as far as you all go.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

I fail to see any logic behind your assertion.

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

200,000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of '60s American engines, revisionist history and memories of GM-built junk dominating people's memories notwithstanding. I've put that much on several engines of that era personally. The slant-6 in particular was notorious for just running and running and running and running regarless of neglect (you could kill one through deliberate abuse because it was a long-stroke engine and dropping it into a low gear at 70 mph and popping the clutch would pretty well stretch the rod bolts). If I had a dollar for every person I met who said "I'm just going to run it until the slant-6 blows up and then put a 440 in" and *never* managed to kill the slant-6, I'd... well... I'd be able to take the family out for pizza at least :-)
Reply to
Steve

The failure would appear to be on your end, then. The statement made was clear and cogent.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

A few European cars reached that service but not without a rebuild or two if my memory serves me. 70's had better engines. 80's would be better still and would certainly reach 150,000 miles given normal service. Most engines from the early 90's to today are capable of reaching 200,000 miles no problem but the majority never do because of age related reasons. The cars are scrapped before the mechanicals wear out. However an ever increasing number do high mileages in a short period with their original owners. Second and third owners tend to cover much fewer miles.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Huw wrote:

That was very much NOT the case over here. Engines of the 70s and 80s saw dramatically reduced lifespans, for a number of reasons. For one thing, draconian emission control mandates kicked in in 71, again in 73, and again in 75. The carmakers were attempting to comply with basically inadequate technology. Band-aids like putting the engines into an excessively retarded timing mode to combat NOx (and burning exhaust valves in the process), operating lean throughout the entire operating regime to combat HC and CO (Lord knows how many 70s heads I've seen cracked between intake and exhaust valve seat due to hot, lean combustion and a perpetually hot exhaust valve from the retarded timing). For another thing, the fuel crisis and emissions crunch effectively slowed R&D on new engines and on replacement tooling. A LOT of 70s engine blocks were cast and machined on worn-out tooling. Years ago I saw a comparison of key measurements taken on a 70s Chrysler block compared to a 1950s vintage Hemi block and the 50s Hemi was practically blueprinted from the factory, while the late block had a pretty bad deck height variation on both decks. And it was pretty good by the standards of the day. If you want to see horrific production variation, look at a big-block Chevy (454). It was so bad that there used to be an industry designing and selling esoteric things like custom-offset roller rockers, so that weekend racers could fine-tune their production blocks with the lifter bores cast-in as much as 4-6 degrees off so that they wouldn't have several cylinders with radically different valve timing than the others!

On the other hand, oil technology *was* getting better in that time frame. While all 60s engines were *capable* of long life, not all of them got fed decent oil. I don't know if you've ever seen an engine run on some of the ancient dino oils, like old Quaker State and Pennzoil from the 70s, or some of the refinery brands too... but WOW. The stuff would about turn to chewing gum in an engine. Today you can pretty much buy any oil and it will at least be harmless. That was not at all true in 1965. Nor really in 1980, for that matter.

To be honest, even the "bad" American engines of the 70s could do so IF the owner didn't just keep hammering on it when it started to ping because the analog vacuum octopus operated EGR wasn't working anymore, or because the primitive computer-feedback controlled carb was refusing to enrich when it should, etc. etc. etc. But the cars of the 70s and 80s were so soulless and pathetic that I think most of the owners hoped they'd blow up sooner rather than later.

Reply to
Steve

but then pooh, i fail to see any logic period, everytime you post.

Reply to
theguy

Well, they sure wouldn't want to hear what I towed over Vail Pass, Colorado with a 318 (5.2L) in that old 79 D-150, would they?

Nor would they want to hear what it gets for fuel economy either.

Budd

formatting link

formatting link
> a new version of the L200 has recently been launched>

formatting link
>

formatting link
> a new version of the L200 has recently been launched>>

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Interesting because as I remember it there were few emmission controls in Europe until catalytic convertors became mandatory some time around 1989/90. Before this we had a decade of 'lean burn' engines which were surprisingly economical, especially as during this time fuel injection became dominant either in single point or multi point types. The exhaust was not clean though and did stink. Even after catalysts became mandatory the fuel was not cleaned of sulphur and bad egg gas and failed Nicasil was a problem up until about 95.

And yes, oils improved. That is the same on both sides of the pond because the American Petroleum Institute standards predominate and set the minimum standard for oils everywhere.

While all 60s engines were *capable* of long life, not all of

No we didn't have that problem but we didn't have the emmission controls either.

We had the 112hp 0-60 in 8.2 seconds VW Golf GTi and the Peugeot 206 GTi affordable pocket rockets. Lots of high performance bigger cars as well. I had a Golf GTi and an MG Montego and an Audi Quattro. All lovely cars in their way and substantially high performance. Then there was the Rover 3.5 Vittesse and lots of exotics from Italian Ferrari, Lamborghini etc. The start of BMW M series. The list goes on.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

In many ways, the European timetable for phasing in emission standards made a lot more sense than the US. We were the guinea pigs. We also had to do it before digital EFI was possible. We broke a lot of engines in the process, and our cars got a bad rap in that time frame, too. In some ways it was deserved because the cars *did* break. But the reasons they broke were largely because of government edict, not bad engineering. A lot of the early Japanese cars that started the "Japanese cars are more reliable!" mythos were exempt from the more stringent emission controls because their engines were small enough.

One thing you guys did very wrong was delay so long in getting rid of leaded fuel. But you beat the crap out of us in terms of getting better diesel fuels on the market in recent years.

Reply to
Steve

It was uncommon. Generally in the 60's 100,000 miles was about time for a rebuild. At the very least the heads rebuilt. Sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule.

Reply to
miles

That may be true of an engine getting average care. My point is that the majority of the engines (I'd almost say "all," but some of the Chevrolet blocks were so soft they'd never make it) were CAPABLE of 200k or much more, but not everyone gave them decent oil or care. Single-grade oil was still used more often than multi-grade, and non-detergent oil was still in common use. I remember both as late as the mid 70s. We always used good multi-grade oils, and never had any engine from that era from

2 manufacturers (Ford and Chrysler) that did *not* last way, way past 100k miles. In fact the 1949 Plymouth flathead six engine that my grandfather had rebuilt in 1964 is still running (not frequently, but it runs fine) on that rebuild today, with about 100k since the rebuild. I've still got the receipts... a complete overhaul for about $600. Times have sure changed!
Reply to
Steve

Yes, during the sixties 100,000 miles was the exception, not the rule. Valve jobs at under 50,000 were not unheard of. Cams and lifters were also weak spots. And rocker arms.Timing chains usually needed replacement around 100,000 as well.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

You forget I worked for Toyota and also worked in Africa, where the Hilux WAS available as a half ton, And Toyota UK did, at least up to a couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. Wasn't able to get the specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not downloads the e-brochure.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.