Toyota thing dude!

My impression is, he is indirectly exactly saying this - but these days we are no longer used to such refreshingly open directness and honesty.

Its the weight and shape of the cruiser that makes them thirsty. An inline 6 around 4 liters with a turbo would be more sensible choice. Especially for towing. Toyota probably don't make one anymore.

Agree, on recent bush bashing trip a Friend with his 200 series used 150ltr of diesel why my 2010 Dmax used 85ltrs, Dmax was used to do forward scouting ( extra driving) Both vehicles towed same camper and similar load driving on same tracks in tandem With fuel @ $2.38 litre, difference soon adds up

wel all the comparisons so far are a stock 2.8 vs fully loaded old series 70 series running 35s!!!

exactly and the over a thousand dollar a year registration cost for a v8 registration is also massively more money. I love petrol v8s but diesel v8s are stupid for a boxy old wagon or ute. You also can modify any engine and get more power, Toyota arent idiots screwing around in some backyard shed, they spend billions on research and development and the reason most of their motors are de tuned is for longevity, thats why they hold their value so bloody well.

Ronnies Dahls V8 is tuned.... lol

@@gregbuell1009 - he needs it retuned - or another "stage added" if it struggled with that van. (As in "really tuned", not just a minor remap.)

@@gregbuell1009 Have a look at “Car Expert” channel on KZfaq. They compare latest model V8 vs 2.8 under stringent dynometer and caravan towing. 2.8 wins in every category when both standard for towing.

I had an MQ Triton and they would split intercooler hoses because of the high psi. And that was dead stock.

Says it is more stressed!!

!00% right!!! I love Andrews videos but this one..... a short discussion with somebody more familiar to engineering would have helped tremendously😉

Thanks for stating it. Intake and exhaust mass are a direct correlation to engine power. I a diesel, that number is right around 1cf/m per hp, doesn’t matter if it’s a 2.8 GD, a 4.5 VD or a 16L I-6 in a Freightliner.

beat me to the comment

Agreed, that's why a v8 patrol is a better choice

it’s a nice glib saying that has been repeated since time immemorial when 14 litre Bentley engines output only a few tens of horses. Yet it has found to be false from one generation to the next with smaller engines leapfrogging older larger designs time and time again while needing less regular services and longevity increasing so very substantially that some of us remember up. until the late 1970’s, when the Japanese got their act together, engines would need 3000 mile old changes, points and plugs would need adjustment between services and engines and gearboxes would seldom cover 50,000 miles before a head-off overhaul and it was rare for anything to last to 100,000 miles before being scrapped. Anyone who started driving year 2000 vehicles and newer don’t realise how things have improved. How bad they were up until 1980 or so from when they improved by leaps and bounds. As an illustration of quality, up until the mid 1970’s it was common for new cars to only have six months of warranty and exhausts and batteries would seldom last the year out. By the second year, rust would bubble through panels such as the wings and door skins and sills. The Japanese and Italian vehicles would sometimes fail their first MOT at their third birthday due to structural rust. By their fifth birthday is was commonplace to see cars with great big holes you could stick your fist through in wings. The early Japanese imports were very reliable compared to European brands but were rust buckets. With today’s engines being so economical, powerful, refined and reliable, one has to wonder where all that fuel went on those wheezy old crocks of yesteryear. Was it just poured almost without control into the cylinders to be wasted in heat, smoke and noise? Even with all the lead poison added to petrol, the plugs needed gapping every 3000 miles or so and replacing every 12,000 and the exhaust gasses of even petrol engines stank to high heaven. Yes there are some mistakes made by engine designers even today but we should consider ourselves to be probably at near the peak design, efficiency and reliability of the internal combustion engine that uses fossil fuels.

​​@@hedydd2Oh my god, you're so correct. I recall we'd see cars along great western highway as a child with bonnets up, steam pouring out of some, broken belts, hoses shred, radiator core cracked plus many with fuel supply issues, heat evaporation etc. Reliability has jumped ahead leaps and bounds. Fuel economy also, I was constantly on the road mid 70's through to 2000's I'd have to call into fuel stations continuously to continue travels throughout my day our company had accounts at numerous servos in many towns. By late 80's economy had jumped ahead big time, I could leave work, fill up and travel all day returning home with fuel to spare. I see a review on new BMW 7 series, from Melbourne to Sydney with fuel to spare on arrival, unreal 6.6 lts per 100. That's a big heavy car. People now days don't know what unreliable is, and think if it can't get 250K it's crap. I recall knowing 100,000M (160K) was considered remarkable, nowadays that just your run in mileage. This Toyota 4 cylinder will be reliable for certain.

100% that's why they don't make 2.8l diesel locomotives .. .

Yeap me too ,, come on Toyota do the right thing by your extra loyal customers put the v6 diesel in the commercial versions that do carry or tow weights , the 300 if anything should have the 4 cylinder instead, it carry kids to school or to the bus stop, and a few tow road train vans behind them

I think you'd want that hot vee debugged for a few more years yet.

@@NickSaravanos I believe your right in the de bugger stage

@@holdenbrougham1056 yeah. As a matter of principle I think never buy a new engine unless you’re on a 3 year lease and don’t care.

i honestly think the only reason toyota havnt put it in the 79 is the lack of supply, they cant make 300s fast enough while the 1gd has been around for a while

So the 200 LC V8 engine is unreliable then.

I generally agree with all you have said but Toyota is not really in the business of intentionally putting out an engine that will be so over boosted that it will compromise their own reliability requirements. I suspect that the 2.8 stock internals have been fully engineered for all that boost.

@@Renegade040 not sure where you pulled that from. The 200 is still not highly strung and is still detuned from factory.

Every time I see the highly strong argument I laugh at the person's poor understanding of how engines work.

Everyone in the world always says that Toyota engines are under stressed and that's why they last so long. But obviously that does not apply to the 2.8 litre because then it will not fit your small minded Theory

With Auto box…Yes…🥇

@@johanvandenheever5170auto is for women and desexed men

Bear in mind fuel prices are only ever going to go up. But, if you're always towing or carrying heavy loads, it still may make sense.

You’re right, I am addicted to 1hz 78 series Land Cruiser, is the best car has ever built, my engine 1 hz is 23 years and still running more powerful than the modern cars ,

@@dryohanamwandamd1857 Right Buddy. Awesome engine and some black smoke from the exhaust pipe when it has to work hard.....

I think mine will run another 40 years 😂😂

@@dryohanamwandamd1857 As long there is diesel fuel for sale mate, than we swap to olive oil :-))

I looked at a 1hz non turbo 105 series recently. Main concern for my folks (I'm 16) was the lack of ABS. We just put a deposit down on a 1fz fe 4 speed auto gxl 105 with 330,000km on the clock. Talked to some experts and 300k km is well within a good range to buy, it's completely untouched, service history, original logbook and manual and doesn't even have a snorkel. That 1fz fe is a lot more comfortable, it'll go just as long as a 1hz in terms of longevity but it's also a hell of a lot more powerful. Main problem, fuel. I'm 16 and unemployed as of right now. Obviously looking for a job but 20l/100km is going to hurt the bank. But also I hear those 1hz can be a risky buy if you don't have history on it due to oil changes being far more necessary on the diesels than the petrols. Overall I'm beyond happy with what will be my car within the next 4 days. Now all I need is my P plates. So stoked to take it on it's first long trip with a mate I've had since I was a embryo.

The 4.2 inline 6's are still common in Africa....why do you think they are better....am very curious after reading your comment as i wanted to buy one

Because an I6 is always smoother and balanced than a 4 or V8

The torque is what you need and the 4.2 did a great job but I had an F100 with a 351 cui and it would drink fuel if I pedaled it hard but just cruising, loaded or not, towing or not it was good for 20l/100 but I could tow almost anything if needed and it was an old truck when I bought it still with the original engine.

Yeah...the GD 2.8L as a 4.2L 6 cyl would be awesome.

@@seanworkman431 you mean it had good torque even without a turbo....

Wow!

Fantastic, how often would you do that? And how nice would you be if your vehicle broke?

@@user-ei9pn9mx2jI move at least 35 Rhinos a fortnight, it’s more common than you think mate.

Were you moving your mother-in-law in with you? 😂

I'm not sure this is the typical use of the vehicle that Toyota would have taken into account when they designed a new model....

Well said 👍

in ranger land..... the 3.2 goes forever, the high boosted 2L variants, blow intercooler end caps, rubber intake pipes under high pressure.... theyre shit!

​@@lllllukeifywhat? the 3.2 ranger engine is known to be one of the most unreliability and prematurely failing engines ever created in the 4wd world.

@@lllllukeify what are you smoking lol, the 3.2 and 2.2 ranger engines are horrenous. by far the most commonly replaced motor in our workshop. the 2.0 are alot better, even better than the new 3.0 v6

im smokin tyres and diesel with my 3.2 bud! egr dont count as engine failure, just bypass the shit.... and heroes buy the 3.2 and drive them like shit contributing to that failure rate, plus one of the most sold engines, theres heaps out there... and ive just never had trouble with mine its awsome.. had a hilux and a dmax at work and the 3.2 smoked them both? thats all i got to go on... 320K on the clock, never missed a beat, service well, drives in the country whole life, purring along at a dollar ten, twenty fourty... its awsome?@@mitchell5064

This is such a contradictory comment, the 2.8 also flows far better than the 1VD, has a far more efficient intake and exhaust and deals with heat far better. Just because you have more displacement doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stronger, more reliable or powerful motor. A motor that is going to burn less fuel, at a far more efficient rate than a bigger motor is going to last longer and perform better than a bigger less efficient motor, especially when you looking at casting qualities of key components. You need to get your mind out of the 80’s

@@MaCcAM40a3 So Toyota, on purpose, put an outdated version of the v8 in the landcruiser, because there is no reason why the 1vd cant have an intake and exhaust as efficient as the 2.8. All things being equal, the v8 is superior. There is no replacement for displacement.

@@gullf1sk except things aren't equal, thats the point. Ofcourse displacement in an identical motor will beat out a lesser displacement motor. But that is never the case, we look at real world situations not imaginary bench racing in your mind. Not my fault you all fan boy over a motor which is poorly developed and done cheaply because its only offered in 2 markets around the world.

@@gullf1sk the 1vd was outdated 10 years ago. 1gd is a better engine. period, its allready been proven since its come out over 7 years ago

You must be hoping for the 9 litre V16 and the wonderful benefits that’ll provide.

Because the 2.8 is auto. Use the 2.8L manual in the hilux and do the same towing test and you will be suprise 😂

@@hieuphan4264 Since Toyota do not make a 70 series with a 4.5 V8 auto, then there is no comparison. How much does it cost to do an auto conversion on the V8? $25k plus? I agree that the auto being able to run with the torque converted unlocked was the reason the 2.8 did so well but the only valid comparison is V8 manual vs 4cyl auto.

35" tyres vs 33 as well

You're full of it mate,V8 is a slug,get used to the idea. Even modified it is a joke,proof that burning heaps of fuel doesn't produce power

He did one pass and that was it, he needed to double check it. TBh looks like he can’t drive for shiz

I think that Ronny’s surprise said it all. The 2.8 is just better for nearly every use case. V8 sounds better though :) Ronny also does more miles in a year than Andrew does in 3+. He knows about longevity since he doesn’t flip his trucks after a couple trips. He tows regularly and drives his vehicles harder. This isn’t a knock against ASP and his channel. Still great. Just the truth. Get which you prefer!

I watched Ronnie’s comparison as well but don’t think it was a fair comparison. Would be interesting to see what the 76 was like with the same size tyres and load as the 79

Highly strung engines seldomly outlast a tractor engine. It wasn't a level playing field. Bigger engine, bigger bearings and engine components, longer life expectancy. That's why trucks have big engines, not small ones, carry the load at long distances. The 2.8 would be ok as a Toorak Tractor around the city.

People seem to forget that the v8 is limited by the 5 speed manual. If you watched ronny dahl"s video you will have notice that he said that in 3rd gear the engine was not operating in the powerband, it was revving too low. and in 4th gear it was revving too high which is also not within the powerband. Not only that but the diff gear ratios are also different on the v8. A better comparison would be to give the v8 the same 6 speed auto from the 4cylinder and change the diff gear ratios to match the 2.8 4 cylinder and also put the same size tires.

@@maxKporterand carry the same load

Yep bring BACK the inline SIX Australia was built on the old six banger

@@benjamintresham9649No doubt about it the 1HDFTE motor was the best motor Toyota built. They must have had rocks in their head to stop building it. Don’t talk to me about emissions, that is or should be irrelevant.

Off the showroom floor the 4.5 makes 1kw more power, running at lower temps and able to last 20 years with minimal servicing, higher tolerance for engine oils. The difference comes from the gear box. If you spend $10k on both motors the v8 will have twice the hp.

@tosgem so spend almost 100G for the v8 and then have to spend another 10 k to be able to beat the 4 cylinder ... okay keep adding .

@@unna1996 mate, on carsales I'm seeing 2.8's in the low 90's and V8's in the mid and high 90's. The price is not that much different. And both are a ripoff. But that's not even the point I was making. The v8 idles along, producing the same hp in a detuned state as the 2.8 does at a much higher stage of tune, running 28psi of boost. You don't buy the V8 to beat the 2.8 in a drag race, I'm just saying it demonstrates the difference in the engines that you can tune the v8 up and get 300kw out of it for $10k, where as that power is unatainable for the 2.8, at least for anywhere near that price. The V8 would be cheaper to build a 12s quarter mile car out of than the 2.8. But that is not the point of these vehicles!

have to disagree with the V8 idling along. If you have actually used them in the field loaded as I have with National Parks and RFS you have to ring the V8s neck to get them moving and to keep moving. Not to forget they sit at 2500rpm at highway speeds which drinks fuel.@@tosgem

@@lawrenceproctor8613 you're talking about gearing issues. Look at the temps the v8 runs at under loads compared to the 2.8 (Hilux or Landcruiser)

Specific gravity or BMEP - maybe you came across that... *Specific gravity makes fuel float on water - you know 0.85g/L. (Or I missed the dead pan satire..Down like a balloon of lead - lol....)

Heck, there will be more variables than you can shake a stick at. Specific fuel consumption will be highly linked to parasitic losses including bearing friction, piston friction and power consumption in oil, coolant and cooling fan fluid pumping loads. Before varations in compression ratio, bore to stroke ratio, scavenging performance and valve overlap effects and BMEP is investigated, including implications on injection timing, flame propagation (Wobbe Index etc) and the efficiency of the turbocharger and intercooler process. It's a bit simplistic to be able to say with any certainty that the smaller engine will be less efficient and use more fuel for the same load.

Sure you did.

Yeah well these aren’t planes mate

He's 100% wrong

@@craigporter5543 😂😂😂

Do you get the V8 diesel in Canada?

no we don't get any of the good trucks @@stevespatrol

Ronny’s hill tow test is interesting in that the 2.8 did it better than the V8

Yeah, I watched Ronnie's, was a bit hard to compare the 2 considering he was running 35s and had a few engine mods too. Car Expert did a test with standard cars so were comparing apples with apples.

Hang on, isn't Bob your mother's brother ? Just sayin' 🤪

Hang on, similar performance, you're not serious. The 2.8 out accelerated the V8 under continuous load. Connected to he caravan (3.5T), the 2.8 reached and maintained continuous operation, the V8 couldn't maintain continuous operation, almost halting having to go back to 1st gear twice on the main incline. It was a decisive victory to the 2.8. Fuel economy was recorded under those extreme continuous loads, not per usual towing as in the caravan towing. My V8 76 drank fuel towing, my son's 2.8 Prado sniffs fuel in comparison towing his van. The 2.8 may have consumed more fuel, but at least he achieved a circuit with time to spare over the V8. Interestingly, the 2.8 achieved better results than the Prado 2.8 tested just weeks earlier. In that test his van was 2.8 tonne as he was testing against a Jeep that was limited to 2.8 tonne & Prado 3 tonne. Nothing similar in it, the 2.8 was a clear outright winner.

You're talking about a different tow test. Car Expert used a 2t load and standard cars, not a modified troopy like Ronny.

8 speed auto? What you been drinking?

@@DJTrumpMAGA sorry i meant 6 speed, but the same principle applies with the more gears and auto tuned to make best of the engine

@@DJTrumpMAGA Note that there are 8speed transmissions being put behind the 4.5 V8 in Australia which are producing impressive performance numbers. Toyota just needs to catch up with 2 extra gears. Haha….

@@michaelkeenan6668 yeah it's a pretty unreal combo I want to see the 2.8 vs a 4.5 8 speed I think everything would be a different story the V8 becomes a absolute weapon 🤘🏻

Let’s face it if they had an auto V8 version from factory no one would buy the 2.8 but an auto is hard to pass up these days.

Depends on what you expect: the 7l engine will easily run over one million km, the 2.8 will retire after 300‘000km… No pros without cons….that‘s technology…

​@@cleemensassmannshausen8354 fair point, but it's not simply a matter of kw/litre. Lots of factors at play, not a simple conversation for the comments section

Was it a Toyota diesel.... if yes.... what is your opinion on it

@@martinarthur8928 Cummins diesel and I loved it. I don't think Toyota makes a diesel with that much torque.

Agreed. It does seem a big straight-six would be the best compromise between power and longevity. I think more manufactures would go straight- six if packaging was easier (especially on transversely mounted engines).

Considering the 4 cylinder is in the Hilux and the Prado, the longevity has already been established.

Also worth remembering that the v8 is basically 2 banks of the d4d motor from the 4 cylinder so basically the same technology just running under less load

no lol @@scott13april

@@jayd3931 and now massive coaster buses lol.

At the moment the 2.8 is nice and tight, wait till the honeymoon is over, LOL.

​@@magicalvortexyou know this engine has been out for ages towing vans and boats, for those that don't want the shit rig that is the 70 series

Not unheard of for any tow vehicle in a headwind.

Pfft amateur. I get that every day in a petrol 105 series 🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭😭😭

@@JimBob-vb8oz your grandchildren thank you for doing your part in cooking the planet

@@PhilipMakowski the whole planet runs on carbon, some of us want to help.

@@PhilipMakowski I’ll think of that while I’m eating my baby whale steak tonight

got it in one

You shouldn't have to spend another fortune on the engine after spending a fortune on the car in the first place. Also, as soon as you do mods on the engine, your warranty is gone. Make the car what the people want in the first place, but not Toyota.

i would like to know what this magic tune is that gives these crazy increases with no proof and bugger all supporting mods. what's your theory behind why the 4.5 can handle more because of extra cylinders and capacity? bigger is not always better. facts are the 2.8 has well and truly outperformed the4.5 in almost every aspect of testing. what you beleive means nothing against evidence.

​@@Luke-rt9gyMate even if the thousands of people who own & mod these things tried to convince you of what you can get out of them you still wouldn't believe them. So pack up your 4 pot screamer & go watch something you might have a clue about.

@@hartzland7658 lol i beleive in evidence you beleive whatever your told. most people exaggerate. for example some people like yourself pay people to change oil on your vehicle, come home and put comments on youtube implying others have no clue.

When you call people morons you lose peoples respect and invalidate your own statement/s even if it is true as people immediately switch off and dismiss outright.

as an actual engineer, I feel the need to point out a smaller engine can absolutely outperform a larger lazy engine. Capacity has some correlation with power output, but there are far more variables that can increase power than pure capacity. Simply have a look at the old 7L behemoth engines used in some of the American saloons. An F1 engine is 1.6L. A GTR is 2.6L 6 Cycl An STI is 2.5L 4 Cyl The engine design, compression, boost and timing can provide efficient and reliable power, and still not be overly stressed. engine 'stress' can be designed out which is why some blocks handle power and boost, and some can't handle more than 7 psi. the more you know 🤷‍♂️

@@michaelbaylis1631 Hahaha, yes, small engines can help perform large capacities easily, but life is always shorter. Also, a number of people have said that the new 2.8 out performance the Hilux with the same engine, and this is probably down to lower gearing. I am actually a motorcycle engineer by trade with years of building racing engines In motocross and road racing. So it’s nonsense at 2.8 is superior to the V8 engine that in the land cruiser 70 series is detuned its designed use. The same engine was in the 200 series and had far more power. I also actually drove in Europe preproduction tour coaches and had to report back to the manufacturer. This is when the manufacturer decided to tune an engine to suit its needs because when it had the full power it would overheat easily on hills with a full load of passengers and luggage. I put down an engineering background because really who cares when you’re fully qualified someone always thinks I know more .

Not be "overly stressed", but still stressed. Would you consider that the engine is just the block and not everything else around it like the turbo. Engineering 101, hit a piece of steel hard enough, for long enough, and it will succumb to fatigue. We couldn't find steel with the right mechanical properties to do certain jobs because they didn't exist. They were either to hard and brittle, or too soft and would fail. Got to go for a compromise, and life expectancy always fell into the equation. @@michaelbaylis1631

well said @@michaelbaylis1631

@@michaelbaylis1631 - yes the peak pressures an engine can handle are knowable, exceed these you will destroy things - until then, tune away... Is 70psi too much for an LS?? lol... (time always tells - science, math, engineering) (By "stress can be designed out" - meaning, there are good blocks and bad blocks, top fuel billet blocks have more meat for "engineering" reasons - horses for racetracks.)

💯

So will the rest of the car… by 500k on any landcruiser you would have replaced/completely overhauled every single part - unless your just highway driving.

These things fail before 200k kms in some cases, can't even count the amount of hiluxes and hiaces I've seen blowing huge amounts of white smoke yet look like they drove off the showroom floor they are that new. It seems the hilux is the new d40 navara aka shit box of the dualcabs

I have a 1995 1 HZ 80 series .It has been everywhere, (Anne Beadall highway Canning, Googs track, and on the dirt throughout ; NSW, QLD, SA and WA ) , tows a fully loaded 1 ton brick with the original; gearbox, (with some syncros. wearing out) diffs, starter motor and transfer case.I blew an engine as a result of a workshop error. The most recent drama was a head light relay fixed for $100 over easter by the old bloke auto sparky in Port Augusta. I am very proud that I will enter the crematorium (horizontally) well before the 80 series wears out. @@reubs91

No doubt about that and I wonder what the diff ratio is too.

@@jefftheaussie2225 diffs are same or maybe 4.3 instead of 4.1

Because the 2.8 comes from the factory in a much more highly tuned state than the V8. Better exhaust, more gear ratios to use, 27psi of boost compared to the 8psi of the V8, much better air intake for the size of the motor.... the list go's on and on. Apply the same highly tuned state to the V8 and it would be a lot better than the 2.8.

That may be but Andrew is saying stock V8 is vastly under tuned and just needs a tweak to be hands down a better engine. 2.8 is already highly tuned to get the performance it does and has no room for improvement (much)

Maybe Ronny Dahl is having buyers remorse and is wanting to flip it at the best possible price. Who wants to buy the 2.8?, the Toorak Tractor.

That test was not fair, 35 VS 31, different weight, auto vs manual, also who knows the real power of Ronny's so called "tune", i've seen plenty of bad tuneups, or abused tuned engines that perform worse than stock.

Bullet's 4 cyl uses more fuel towing (18-20 L/100k) than my V8 gets with a slightly bigger van (16-17L/100k). He does fang it though.

@@magicalvortexmy house is in toorak… I ain’t never gonna drive japs cars …have some self esteem buddy

He didn’t say no substitute for cubes, he said they are designed for different applications.

Further to Ronnie's testing, go over to Car Expert where he puts stock V8 against stock 4. No-one can say it's because of weight, tyres, or anything else but the 4 cylinder absolutely smashed the V8. V8 having to go to 1st gear just to pull van up incline 4 cylinder pulls well on. We all know you can tune a V8 but that comes at further cost where you can get into a 4 cylinder from dealer and just get into it. Should you want, it can be tuned also bearing in mind it already performs better than the V8 it doesn't require a extensive tune to still outdo a tuned V8. Car Experts tests clearly takes speculation out of it, 4 cylinder clearly better option.

We will see how long the 2.8 engine lasts over time my old 1984 landcruiser ute did at least 1 million kms

Yes I drove 6 x v8s and the 2.8 in its standard form overshadows the v8 in its, std form . If both are tuned to same spec the 2.8 will still eat a v8! Fuel economy is, 100% better, the auto gearbox is a game changer. I jyst got my 76 wagon in 2.8 auto, and it surprized me beyond expectations! The normal person do NOT drive around with 650kg of wood in their car!! I bought this cruiser as my everyday driver, and so far it is phenomenal. Stop firvmcing ur biased opinion on people. U suck!

No