The Land Rover Discovery TDV6 you see here is this magazine’s 2013 4X4 Of The Year. For more information read about the 2013 4X4OTY.
This article was originally published in the February 2014 issue of 4×4 Australia.
The Disco’s ‘TDV6’ designation means it has the low-spec 3.0-litre V6 bi-turbo diesel engine, the base model in the current Discovery 4 range. It made the starting grid in last year’s 4X4OTY thanks to that engine – which replaced the outgoing 2.7-litre V6 turbo diesel – and the new eight-speed automatic gearbox.
Meanwhile, this Prado GLX diesel auto is the facelifted model for 2014. It has the same powertrain as before, and the same chassis at this spec level, but comes with new exterior styling and interior detailing. The GXL is the second of four Prado specification levels but it’s still less expensive than the base-model Discovery.
POWERTRAIN & PERFORMANCE The Prado’s D-4D 3.0-litre four-cylinder turbo diesel and five-speed automatic appeared in late 2006, in the previous generation 120 Series Prado. With minor revisions to engine and gearbox, the driveline was carried over into the 150 Series when it launched in late 2009 and soldiers on today.
It claims a modest (by today’s standards) 127kW but a slightly more encouraging 410Nm of torque. On the road it performs better than the numbers suggest; the fact that maximum torque is available from just 1600rpm and doesn’t diminish until 2800rpm is a clue that this is a nicely flexible engine.
This flexibility gives more performance then the power figure suggests and makes life a bit easier for the five-speed automatic gearbox, with the two working in harmony to produce a fuss-free and generally refined driving experience. The engine’s impressively quiet at highway speeds too, the ambient noise helping to mask the diesel rattle you hear at lower speeds.
Drive the Prado in isolation and the powertrain offers little reason for complaint. However, drive it back to back with the Discovery TDV6 and its star starts to fade. The TDV6 is the low-power version of the Discovery’s 3.0-litre V6 bi-turbo diesel, yet it’s significantly punchier than the Prado’s engine despite having to cope with a 250kg-odd weight penalty.
The TDV6 not only has 22 per cent more power and 27 per cent more torque than the Prado but its superb eight-speed automatic makes far better use of the available power than the Prado’s five-speeder. And it’s faster to react, smoother shifting and generally more intelligent.
The Discovery’s engine is also quieter and more refined than the Prado, so the whole powertrain offers a level of sophistication and refinement that’s a cut above what’s on offer with the Prado.
It’s a pity that Land Rover saw fit to replace the conventional shift lever with a rotary dial with the new eight-speed. You get used to the dial but it smacks of gimmickry and means the only way to manually shift is via the steering wheel paddles. That’s fine on-road but isn’t great in the dirt, where you’re often using far more wheel rotation. The saving grace is that the sophisticated eight-speeder works just fine in Drive, making manual manipulation largely redundant.
While the Discovery clearly out-grunts the Prado, there’s little between the two for fuel economy; our test figures were as good as identical though the official ADR figures slightly favour the Prado. Fuel range is another thing; the Discovery’s barely adequate 82.3-litre capacity falls short of the Prado’s 150 litres.
RIDE & HANDLING The Discovery and the Prado are both separate-chassis designs but that’s about it for platform similarities. The Prado is relatively old-school, with a live-axle at the rear and conventional coil springs all around. In contrast, the Discovery has fully independent suspension and height-adjustable air springs.
Despite a firmer ride than the supple and plush-riding Prado, the Discovery is more stable and composed on crook roads, especially at higher speeds. It’s also a more engaging and enjoyable drive, with better feel at the wheel and more connectivity between driver and road. It may be bigger and heavier but the Discovery actually feels the sportier of the two.
On the down side, the Discovery can suffer from steering rack rattle on corrugated dirt roads and the low-speed ride on very rough secondary roads isn’t as good. The Prado does a better job of road-shock isolation and is almost always comfortable regardless of the road surface. On good quality roads there’s little difference between the two.
OFF ROAD The Prado’s on-road comfort is largely due to plush long-travel suspension and this is also the key to its considerable off-road prowess. In GXL spec, the Prado doesn’t have much in the way of special off-road kit – aside from electronic traction control. But that doesn’t matter, it does the job just fine.
In contrast, the Discovery has driver-selectable programs for different off-road conditions (the much-mimicked Terrain Response system) along with height-adjustable suspension and a self-locking, self-proportioning electronic centre diff and electronic traction control. Our test vehicle was also equipped with the optional ($1060) electronic rear locker.
Even with all the Discovery’s extra features, there’s not much between the two off-road; both have their strengths and weaknesses.
The rear locker is a major plus and it means that on broken ground the Discovery often does things a little more easily than the Prado, even if it is far more prone to lifting wheels. The height adjustable suspension is also handy as the Discovery has more clearance on full lift than the non-adjustable Prado suspension. Not so good is the fact that the Discovery’s suspension is hard-riding and prone to topping out when lifted from the standard position. But the Discovery has a better driving position with more all-around visibility.
The Prado’s main strengths centre on its simple, robust and soft-riding long-travel suspension. There are no airbags to rupture or complex control systems to worry about. Its wheel and tyre package is also more practical and offers a far greater range of replacement off-road-functional rubber.
The 255/5519s on the Discovery aren’t as practical and you can’t fit a smaller wheel due to the larger brake package standard on the Discovery 4 compared to Disco 3. There is a bespoke aftermarket 18-incher that will fit but we haven’t tested it and can’t comment on it with regards to brake caliper to wheel clearance and the potential for rocks or other debris to be caught there.
CABINS & ACCOMMODATION The Discovery has an advantage in terms of space and accommodation as it’s slightly bigger than the Prado; size-wise it’s more a competitor for the LandCruiser 200.
The Discovery 3, with its box-like body, set a new standard in cabin flexibility and space efficiency when it was released in 2004 (2005 in Australia) and the D3’s body and cabin architectures were retained for Discovery 4. In contrast, Toyota’s Prado 150 went backwards from the 120’s cabin functionality due to the redesign of the third-row seats.
In the 120, the third row seats folded up against the rear windows and, apart from rattling on rough roads and impairing some vision, they worked well. They were also easy to remove if not needed. The 150’s third row folds onto the floor, reducing the depth of the cargo area. From 120 to 150 series, the seating capacity was also reduced from eight to seven and the fuel capacity from 180 to 150 litres (no disadvantage here, given the Discovery’s seven seats and 82.3-litre fuel capacity).
In this base-spec Discovery (as in base-spec Prado GX) third-row seats are an option ($2500) but when fitted, they are more spacious and comfortable than Prado’s. There’s also more space behind the seats when the third row is in use.
Thanks to the Discovery’s horizontally split rear tailgate, that storage space is also far more useable as items stowed behind the third row can be held in place by the lower tailgate when the main part of the tailgate is opened. With the Prado’s side-opening single rear door, items stowed behind the third row tend to fall out when the door is opened. Despite the minor improvement in access to the Prado’s third row in the 2014 facelift, it’s still easier to get into the Discovery’s third row.
More points go to the Discovery as all seven seats fold individually, and the middle and third rows can lie completely flat. The Discovery’s second row is also more spacious for three adults than the Prado’s, and its front seats are more comfortable, though there’s not much in it and your personal preferences may be different.
PRACTICALITIES As mentioned, the Prado is ahead on tyre and wheel practicality, and fuel capacity – both important criteria for Australians. However, the Discovery counters with a 3500kg towing capacity against the Prado’s 2500kg. Both offer similar payloads but points for the Prado’s under-bonnet layout, with plenty of room for a second battery.
SUM UP Make no mistake, the Discovery 4 is one very clever, capable, enjoyable and refined vehicle. In most key areas it’s comfortably ahead of the Prado. Its powertrain is considerably more sophisticated and refined and outperforms the Prado.
The Discovery also handles better and is a far more engaging on-road drive. Perhaps more significantly, the cabin is bigger and far more functional. It’s also as good as, if not better than, the Prado off-road.
An extra trick up the Discovery’s sleeve is that it should be relatively simple to upgrade engine performance to the SDV6’s 183kW and 600Nm, a fair jump from the 155kW/520Nm TDV6 engine tested here. All the mechanicals are identical.
The Prado wins back points on pricing, wheel and tyre practicality, standard fuel capacity, and its simple and robust chassis design. Service in remote areas and resale value are also major attractions, as with all Toyota 4x4s. All this makes the Prado a sensible and sound purchase, even though it’s not as good a 4×4 as the Discovery.
SPECS: Land Rover Discovery 4 TDV6 Engine: V6 bi-turbo diesel Capacity: 2993cc Power: 155kW @ 4000rpm Torque: 520Nm @ 2000rpm Gearbox: Eight-speed automatic 4X4 system: Dual-range full-time Construction: Separate chassis Front suspension: Independent/adjustable air springs Rear suspension: Independent/adjustable air springs Tyre/wheel spec: 255/55R19 Kerb weight: 2570kg GVM 3240kg Payload: 670kg Towing capacity: 3500kg Seating capacity: Five (seven optional) Fuel tank capacity: 82.3 litres ADR fuel consumption*: 8.8L/100km On-test consumption: 11.0L/100km Touring range**: 698km
*Australian Design Rule Combined-Cycle claim **Based on test consumption, with a 50km safety margin
SPECS: Toyota Prado D4-D GXL (Auto) Engine 4cyl turbo diesel Capacity 2982cc Power 127kW @ 3400rpm Torque 410Nm @ 1600-2800rpm Gearbox Five-speed automatic 4X4 system Dual-range full-time Construction Separate chassis Front suspension Independent/coil springs Rear suspension Live axle/coil springs Tyre/wheel spec 265/65R17 Kerb weight 2320kg (approx) GVM 2990kg Payload 670kg Towing capacity 2500kg Seating capacity Seven Fuel tank capacity 150 litres ADR fuel consumption* 8.5L/100km On-test consumption 10.9L/100km Touring range** 1326km
*Australian Design Rule Combined-Cycle claim **Based on test consumption with a 50km safety margin
After we were so impressed with the features, upgrades and performance of the LandCruiser 79 we had on the 4X4 Of The Year test, we really didn’t want to give the double-cab GXL back to Toyota. They offered to swap the Toyota Hilux SR5 we’d been using for the previous three months for this Merlot Red LC79 single-cab. Done deal!
The Cruiser is pretty much all standard bar a genuine Toyota colour-matched heavy duty steel tray. That, plus air-conditioning, which is incredibly still a $2761 option, takes the price of the truck up to $74,715, plus on road costs.
There is a pretty extensive range of genuine accessories available for the 79 including steel and alloy bullbars, side steps, tow bar, steel or alloy trays, and even a Warn winch.
With the air-intake snorkel and front and rear axle diff locks standard on the GXL, plus the inclusions of cruise, electronic traction and stability control, we are pretty happy with the level of equipment.
The single-cab 79 is the only model in the 70 Series range to achieve a full five-star ANCAP safety rating. To achieve this it now has thicker chassis rails and an extra crossmember to improve torsional rigidity, plus an additional three SRS airbags over the two front airbags that are standard across the LC70 range. The extras are A-pillar-mounted side airbags and a driver’s knee airbag. We hope Toyota see fit to introduce these safety features across the full range.
The two big ticket changes that really make driving the 79 different to the previous model are the longer top gear in the five-speed manual gearbox, and the inclusion of electronic traction control. The VDJ 70s have always been geared too low for highway speeds, meaning they’ve sucked diesel like there was no tomorrow. The new ratios drop the cruising revs significantly to reduce fuel use.
At 100km/h the engine is now pulling just on 2000rpm, where in the past it was closer to 2800rpm. This may not sound like a big difference, but it’s now far more relaxed at this speed and it saves fuel. Unfortunately the fuel tanks have been cut from the twin 90-litre ones to a single 130-litre unit, so touring range is reduced.
The GXL 79 has front and rear lockers as standard so traction is rarely an issue, but now with ETC and long-travel live-axle suspension you need them less because the nicely calibrated ETC does the work for you. It’s still great to have the lockers as back up, though.
We got the keys to the red 79 straight after 4X4OTY testing, and we still had the Mercedes-Benz cab-chassis in the carpark, so we loaded them both up for the comparison test found on page 64 in this issue. Then it was Christmas break time, so I loaded it up with camping gear and set off to the Victorian High Country for some touring and camping with friends.
A problem we have found with the 79s and the genuine Toyota trays is that the location of the rear number plate is the lowest point at the back and scrapes over the smallest of bumps. We lost the rear plate off both the double-cab on 4X4OTY and this single-cab.
Anyone driving one of these vehicles off-road should secure the front plate using all four corners, and then relocate the rear one to a higher point on the tray.
Total KMs: 3267km
Date Acquired: Dec 2016 Price: $74,715 KM this month: 2055km AV fuel: 12.3L/100km
HANDHELD UHF CB radios have a tonne of handy uses – having a yarn with fellow travellers, spotting on tough 4×4 tracks, getting directions while reversing the camper trailer – and once you’ve used them, you’ll never go back to yelling at the top of your lungs.
GME’s TX6150 unit is a rugged five-watt, 80-channel UHF radio that’ll outperform many others at twice the size. Plus they can survive a knock and a dip in the drink as they are rated to IP67 (water and dustproof).
Included in the sealed, blow-moulded carry case is a desktop 240V fast charger, a 12V trickle charger with a ciggie lighter plug, two handsfree earpiece mics and two handheld speaker mics.
I haven’t used the earpiece mics, but I’ve found the handheld mics can be securely clipped to your collar via the swivelling clip, making for easy hearing given it’s right up next to your ear. The mic will also easily pick up your voice.
Each radio is packed with a removable lithium-ion 2200mAh battery, which easily lasts a whole day’s work. The specs even suggest a full 24 hours’ use on low power settings, given the built-in intelligent battery management system. The great thing with these removable batteries is that extra batteries can be purchased and charged ready for use, if you should need communications over extra-long periods without the ability to recharge.
These tiny diecast radios ‘feel’ solid, unlike cheap plastic junk. And, given they’re small enough to slip into your pocket, there really is no reason why you shouldn’t cart them everywhere you go.
Since we reviewed these units, the TX6150 has been replaced by the TX6155, which has a longer battery life. They retail for $329.95 as a single unit, or $599.95 if you opt for the kit, like this one.
RATED
Available from: www.gme.net.au RRP: $599.95 (TX6155) We say: Invaluable for short and medium distance communication.
Replacing brake rotors and pads is a basic maintenance job for your 4×4. If you have zero experience on the tools and you’re not confident working on vehicles, then don’t attempt this job –– you don’t want to be messing with the brake system.
Having a good clean work area with plenty of light is a good start. You won’t need any fancy tools for this one, just a basic socket set, a clamp (to push in the piston back into the calliper) and some way of removing brake fluid from the brake fluid reservoir (syringes from a chemist are an option).
After jacking the vehicle up, make sure you use a vehicle stand for support.
Then you’re all set to take off the road wheel, unbolt the calliper and remove and replace the rotor and pads. Some rotors are secured to the hub with a single screw, others are integral with the wheel bearing assembly and may require considerable extra work.
Brake callipers are bolted onto the carrier and are usually pretty simple to remove. You just have to make sure that the calliper is supported at all times –– don’t leave it hanging on the brake hose alone, as the hose is not designed to support the calliper’s weight and doing this may damage the hose. A piece of welding wire or an old coat hanger will do for support.
You should be able to complete this job in under two hours, and save a few bucks doing so.
01. Parts needed for this job include a set of two rotors and four brake pads.
02. After wheel nuts are loosened, raise the vehicle and support with stands.
03. Remove the wheel nuts and take road wheel off.
04. Remove the securing bolts for the brake calliper.
05. Remove calliper and support with wire to a suspension component.
06. Remove rotor. Some sit loose on hub, others are secured, with bearings or screws.
07. After wiping clean with solvent, fit the new rotor to the hub assembly.
08. Remove the outer brake pad from calliper.
09. Remove some brake fluid from reservoir before step 10.
10. Using a clamp on the old inner pad, push in the brake piston.
11. Brake pads often fit in a certain position. This one has it marked on the back of the pad.
12. Fit new pads to calliper assembly, checking each is properly seated.
13. Re-attach calliper to mount and secure bolts to correct torque.
14. Re-fit wheel, remove stands and jack and torque wheel nuts to specification. Top up brake fluid.
Want to install an electric brake controller? Here’s how!
Mastered this! How about rebuilding a live-axle front knuckle
THE LATEST instalment of Readers’ Rigs features a MWB Nissan Patrol, a neatly modified BT-50 and a bush-capable D-Max, among a heap of fresh-looking rigs.
Check out more Readers’ Rigs here.
Get involved and shoot through some photos of your 4×4 to our Facebook page and, you never know, we may feature it in the mag one day!
1988 GQ MWB NISSAN PATROL – RICHARD GRIFFEY
WHAT IT’S GOT: 4.2L turbo-diesel; Nissan four-speed auto with upgraded valve body; twin Nissan transfer cases with Marks adaptor; rear axle moved back 300mm to make MWB; GU Patrol diffs with 4.8 GU brakes; ARB Air Lockers front and rear with ARB compressor; Superior Engineering Superflex front arms; Superior sway bar disconnects; Superior drag links and tie rods; Three-inch King Springs; TJM shocks; Trail Gear Creeper locks bead lock rims; Federal 37-inch tyres; ARB Bullbar; custom rear bar with wheel holder; custom rock sliders; Warn 9.5 CTI-s winch with synthetic rope in the bullbar; Warn M8000-s winch with synthetic rope in the rear bar; Oz4WD triple row light bar in front bar; Oz4WD seven-inch LED driving lights; Rhino Pioneer roof rack; Oz4WD single row light bar; Eight EVP mini light bars; Oz4WD cross driving lights; Airtech snorkel; Recaro seats; custom long-range tank; two-inch body lift; triple Odyssey batteries; Engel fridge; PWL alloy radiator; and a three-inch Beaudesert Exhaust system.
2012 MAZDA BT-50 – JUSTIN RODNEY
WHAT IT’S GOT: Three-inch Old Man Emu lift kit with 500kg constants; 33-inch BFG muddies; 16-inch Sunraysia steel rims; ARB bullbars; ARB side sliders and sidesteps; Dominator 12,000lb winch; Illuminator nine-inch spot lights; 32-inch LED light bar; LED tray lights; LED light strip for the tray; under-tray tool boxes; 70-litre custom water tank under the tray; high-lift jack and shovel on the roof; Rhino racks and roof basket; Kings side awning; ARB Safari snorkel; Three-inch turbo back exhaust; and a GME UHF system.
2002 90 SERIES TOYOTA LC PRADO 3.0TD – DON KALAPP
WHAT IT’S GOT: Lifted, muddies, snorkel and winch. It exceeded my expectations for a budget 4×4.
ISUZU D-MAX – JASON BARTON
WHAT IT’S GOT: Always more to do, but so far it has a snorkel; turbo timer; Opposite Lock steel winch bar; bash rails with sidesteps; DPChip; HPD catch can; Ironman two-inch lift; scan gauge; Couplertec rustproofing; and an upgraded stereo. It’s mainly a beach driver: Double Island, North Stradbroke and Fraser Island. It’s been on a few coastal mountain trips. More to set-up for a Cape run next year, including a rooftop tent.
2015 MITSUBISHI MN TRITON – JOHN LEE
WHAT IT’S GOT: Suspension is a bit sad, but I’m going to put a two-inch lift with constant 300kg load.
2003 4.8L NISSAN GU PATROL – DEAN BROOKE
WHAT IT’S GOT: I’ve had it for five years; it’s got dual batteries, a homemade rear-wheel carry, jerry cans, rock sliders, 147L long-range tank and a 70L long-range sub tank. Engine was on gas, but no more planning to rebuild and turbo it. It’s done two trips over to Tasmania and it’s been up to Broken Hill.
2014 JEEP WRANGLER – MATT GREENE
WHAT IT’S GOT: I’ve had it since new. It’s got a 2.5-inch AEV lift; AEV geometry brackets; Synergy Manufacturing adjustable track bars; tie rod and drag link; TeraFlex rock crusher bar; Smittybilt 10,000lb x20 winch; Fuel Off-Road ‘Anza’ rims; 33-inch MTs; and an Oricom radio. Next up re-gear for 35s and lockers. Best place is Vic High Country, up Billy Goats and around Moroka Trail.
2016 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER – ALEX SAID
WHAT IT’S GOT: A two-inch suspension lift; four-inch stainless snorkel; three-inch exhaust and tube with heavy duty clutch; and dual batteries, soon to be three. At the moment I’m building a custom alloy canopy. To be honest, it’s been quite boring with touring so far. I really want to hit Fraser Island and Cape York in the not-too-distant future.
JEEP UK has launched a limited edition Renegade, designated the Desert Hawk.
The off-road, trail-capable Desert Hawk is powered by a 170hp (127kW) 2.0-litre MultiJet diesel donk mated to a nine-speed automatic transmission. It comes standard with a Jeep Active Drive Low 4×4 system, with its 20:1 crawl ratio.
Also helping the Jeep Renegade on remote adventures is 8.7 inches (220mm) of ground clearance, skid plates, hill-descent control and 8.1 inches (205mm) of wheel articulation.
A Selec-Terrrain system includes Sand and Rock modes, while the Jeep can ford water to a depth of 19 inches (482mm).
“Designed to enhance Renegade’s already very strong appeal in the UK, and capable of delivering Jeep’s legendary off-road capability, the new Renegade Desert Hawk version is an attractive proposition for buyers,” said Damien Dally, head of brand, Jeep UK.
“Sporting and agile on-road and rugged and capable off it, this limited edition newcomer fits perfectly into Renegade’s highly successful family.”
The desert-inspired Jeep’s rugged appearance is enhanced by 17-inch Low Gloss Black wheels, an exclusive bonnet and rear body panel decals. Colour options include Alpine White, Anvil, Black or – exclusive to the Desert Hawk and what we’d pick – Mojave Sand.
A unique aesthetic addition is the use a Moab desert map logo on the seat base of the exclusive black leather and fabric seats.
Unfortunately, the 100 examples of the Desert Hawk are only available in the UK, and the units, priced from £28,995 ($47,000 approx.) are expected to be snapped up quickly.
‘SALAD isn’t a meal on its own’, we hear you say. And normally we’d agree with that sentiment.
However, Roothy has cobbled together a salad we reckon could leave a belly satisfied.
“It’s essentially an apple and beetroot salad, but with a few tiny, little Roothisms chucked in just to make it something a bit special,” Roothy said.
All you’ll need to whip up this simple and healthy bush meal are a bunch of peeled and chopped apples, an equal quantity of diced beetroot, some beaten walnuts, olive oil, balsamic vinegar, honey and horseradish.
First, fry up some oil in a pan and add the walnuts until they brown. In a separate bowl, add two tablespoons of olive oil, two tablespoons of balsamic vinegar, a few squirts of honey, a teaspoon of horseradish and then stir through.
Put the beetroot, apple and walnut in a serving bowl, then pour the oil/vinegar/honey/horseradish concoction on top. Stir through again before indulging.
“There you go: it gets the kid’s vote of confidence, too. It is good stuff guys – it’s probably even healthy!”
If your belly’s still groaning for more, check out some of these simple bush meals.
I JUST about choked on my coffee when the morning TV news announced that – shock, horror – new cars use more fuel and produce more greenhouse gas than what’s claimed on the government-mandated yellow windscreen label.
The news came off the back of a press release from the AAA, Australia’s peak motoring organisation that represents the various state and territory based motoring ‘clubs’, the NRMA, RACV, RACQ, RAA, RAC, RACT and AANT, names no doubt familiar to most readers.
So how long did the AAA take to work this out?
The fact that the fuel labels, which give a fuel-use figure obtained in a laboratory and not on the road (see breakout), significantly understate real-word fuel use has been well documented for more than half a decade across all sort of motoring publications, both print and online, and even in the general media, TV included.
It’s also something car buyers have noticed, posing questions like “why does my car use more fuel than what is on the windscreen label?” Even Australian Consumers Association via its magazine Choice, which usually doesn’t delve too far into motoring matters – it’s more into washing machines and vacuum cleaners – published a story on it some six years ago.
In its release the AAA said that following the recent Volkswagen ‘scandal’ it commissioned real-world fuel-use and emissions testing to see how the results stacked up again figures obtained in a laboratory setting.
The AAA has released some initial findings, with full results to be published in mid-2017. Predicably it suggests: “It’s critical that real-world testing is introduced to ensure motorists aren’t asked to pay more for regulation that fails to deliver environmental benefit.”
Trouble is, if the AAA bothers to think about it sufficiently, real-world testing is hugely expensive and time consuming compared to laboratory testing, and it’s still flawed. The crux of the matter is that real-world testing lacks 100 per cent accurate repeatability and therefore accurate relativity of fuel use between one model and another, which is a key consumer concern. This is something the current laboratory test delivers.
Don’t believe the fuel consumption labels
The problems with real-world testing are manifest. First you need to do all the testing on days when the temperature, humidity and wind are all identical, as all these atmospheric factors affect fuel consumption, otherwise out goes repeatability. You’ll also need a consistent traffic pattern and identical density for 100 percent repeatability. Good luck with that!
Then you need one test driver, given that different drivers use differing amounts of fuel on identical roads. Even then you’ll have to hope your driver is 100 per cent consistent from one day to the next. Good luck with that, too.
At this point the AAA would probably say that with enough kilometres over enough days and with a sufficiently large team of drivers all the variations will average out. That’s certainly true, but only to a point. You will never get perfect averaging without doing an infinite numbers of tests. That’s a mathematical given. In fact, you’ll never even get close, given there are so many different models and powertrains within any model range.
Fuel Comparison test: Diesel, petrol or LPG?
For example, Australia’s most popular new car, the Toyota Hilux, has four different engines, four different gearboxes and two different drivelines (4×4 and 4×2), not to mention the different cab and body styles, which all affect weight. All up there are more than 30 different Hilux variants, and Toyota lists more than 20 different ADR fuel figures, figures which don’t take long to establish in a laboratory but would take an inordinate amount of time to achieve in real-world tests. However, we know that the ADR test understates real-world figures, so there is a problem here even if the AAA has just woken up to the fact.
Given the different ways people use and drive their cars, and the infinite variety of driving environments and traffic conditions encountered, there will never be a definitive fuel-use figure that everyone will experience with any particular vehicle. Whatever figure you come up with will only ever be a best guess in terms of what any particular owner will experience with their new car.
Despite its shortfalls the ADR test shouldn’t be replaced with real-world testing, as it still has value for its base-line relativity and easy process. In fact, it has to remain the starting point for fuel-use measurement until someone comes up with a more accurate in-lab test.
In the meantime there’s an easy and near instant fix to the label problem given there’s a relatively consistent pattern in the way real-world use differs from the ADR laboratory test. The AAA says “20 per cent on average higher” while pointing out some figures “up to 35 per cent higher”. Back in 2011, 4X4 Australia said, “if you want a general guide, add 15 to 30 per cent to the ADR figure and you’ll probably be somewhere near, if not in, the ballpark”.
Instead of squandering countless more millions on real-world testing, probably paid for in the long run by members or customers of the various motoring organisations that the AAA ‘umbrellas’, the AAA could lobby the Federal Government right now to scrap the current ADR figure and replace it with a ‘real-world estimate’ figure.
How? You simply take the current ADR combined-cycle figure and add 20 per cent. Simple. Job done. It would involve very little cost (just printing new stickers) and would be a generally reliable guide for the consumer. If you want to be a bit more non-specific you could quote an estimated real-world range of ADR plus 15-30 per cent and scrap the current urban, extra-urban and combined-cycle figures that seemingly do more to confuse than inform.
BEHIND THE LABEL
FUEL consumption labels attached to the windscreens of new vehicles sold in Australia were first required by law in 2001 for vehicles up to 2700kg Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) under the Australian Design Rule (ADR) 81/00. Two years later the ADR was amended to include vehicles up to 3500kg GVM, which bought in medium and heavy 4x4s and light commercials. It was known as 81/01. In 2008, ADR 81/02 added separate ‘urban-cycle’ and ‘extra-urban cycle’ fuel-use components to supplement the existing single-figure ‘combined-cycle’ fuel claim.
To arrive at the ADR figure the vehicle in question is put through a fixed test sequence in a laboratory on rollers. The ‘test’ covers a theoretical 11km and is done in two parts. The first, or urban cycle, consists of a cold start then a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. The maximum speed is 50km/h, the average speed is 19km/h and the distance ‘covered’ is 4km.
The extra-urban cycle is conducted straight after the urban cycle and consists of approximately half steady-speed driving with the remainder being accelerations, decelerations and some idling. The average speed is 63km/h, with one spike that reaches 120km/h. The total second test ‘distance’ is 7km.
Tallied together the urban and extra-urban figures become the combined-cycle figure.
DANA Australia has officially opened its brand new, state-of-the-art facility in Keysborough, in Melbourne’s south-east.
The new facility, designed from scratch to meet the needs of Dana’s customers, replaces the outgoing Hallam facility. That original site, not far from the new facility, provided driveline solutions for the passenger and commercial vehicles for the past 40 years.
However, due to the ever-changing landscape, particularly with the passenger-car business, Dana has had to shift its focus towards growth and establish a new base.
“With this facility, we’ll be able to combine design, engineering and manufacturing to enable greater efficiencies. Having all of these assets under one roof will aid us in responding to customer needs more quickly, while maintaining high quality, thereby better supporting our customers in achieving their sales and production goals,” Dana President and CEO, Mr Jim Kamsickas said.
“This 10,000 square metre facility will help strengthen relationships we carry with us across the world in commercial vehicle, light vehicle and aftermarket space.
Watch our video: Dana Australia’s Ultimate 60 rear-axle kit
“We believe in Australia, and we’re excited to invest in this industry. We see great things on the horizon,” Mr Kamsickas added.
Dana, in partnership with developers Frasers Property, officially set in motion the production for the new facility with a soil-turning ceremony back in April, 2016.
A goal was set to have the facility in operation by November that year (a rather optimistic 202 days). And, despite the wettest winter in 10 years, the completion date was only pushed back to mid-December.
Anthony Maugeri, the Southern Region General Manager of Frasers Property, said at the opening ceremony, “We’re not just a developer and the relationship finishes here. We’re also the owner and we look forward to a long and prosperous relationship.”
The brand-new Keysborough facility is the first of three new Dana facilities in development across the world, including a new axle manufacturing operation in the USA and a new gear manufacturing plant in Eastern Europe.
In Australia, exciting times are ahead for an industry looking to tackle the increasing popularity of Light Commercial Vehicles. And Dana has the right man in the driver’s seat – Peter Langworthy, Dana Australia’s Managing Director. His hard work has guided the business through this most recent transition, and the future looks bright.
“We’ve got more investments that we’re talking to Dana in the US about. More product that we’ll be releasing to the market for our current customers, but also for future customers,” Mr Langworthy said.
“It’s so important that we retain jobs in this country, it’s so important that we retain customers across our businesses, and that’s what we’re setting out to do.”
Anyone with a yearn for 4×4 adventure could do worse than check out the Border Track in South Australia’s Ngarkat Conservation Park, a remote and surprisingly beautiful part of that state’s Mallee Country.
As its name suggests, the Border Track follows more than 50km of the fence line marking the boundary between Victoria and South Australia. Surveyed in 1850 the border was intended to follow the line of 141 east longitude. The privations suffered by the surveyors who cut this line through what is largely waterless country rivalled the exploits of Burke and Wills, and the party almost lost their lives on three occasions.
One horrific encounter with a bushfire saw one of the surveyors climb down a well to avoid the flames, only to be almost burnt to death by boiling fat dripping down from his dead horse lying in the flames above.
The surveyors started from a marker on a beach near the Gawler River in the south, but on reaching the Murray River in the north they found, to their horror, that their line was 3.6km to the west of the border with New South Wales. One of the surveyors must have been named Murphy because they marked the border with timber stakes in mounds of soil, and shortly after the survey was completed a huge bushfire swept through the Mallee, destroying 200km of markers.
With the country dry and denuded, the mounds (which were principally sand) simply blew away leaving no trace of the surveyors’ herculean efforts. The survey notes were also lost and 64 years of legal argument ensued between Victoria and South Australia over this ribbon of disputed no man’s land. The argument was finally settled in Victoria’s favour in 1914 by London’s Privy Council.
With many tracts of land adjoining the incorrectly marked border having been bought and sold over the intervening years, moving the border was simply too problematic. While the true reason for the survey error was never made public, it seems the most likely cause was the incorrect location of the starting point on the Gawler River.
Today, much of the Ngarkat Conservation Park probably still looks as it did in the 1850s despite failed attempts at farming the land in years gone by. Driving into the park from Bordertown by way of the sealed Ngarkat Highway, it’s difficult not to be underwhelmed.
The flat, sandy country is covered by a uniform cloak of olive green scrub just a few metres high, punctuated here and there by the occasional taller eucalypt. However, someone once said “never judge a book by its cover” and Ngarkat is no exception as the scrub comprises a wide range of flora.
After significant rain, quite impressive stands of wildflowers can spring up to paint the otherwise drab native bush with splashes of vibrant colour. Apart from the occasional kangaroo or emu grazing on the roadside, or delicate tracks in the sand, there is little to be seen in the way of animal life, probably due to the arid climate and lack of surface water.
Birds are another matter altogether and campers can expect to be woken at first light by a cacophony of bird calls as the avian residents proclaim their territorial ownership to all and sundry.
A good place to start exploration of the Park is Pertendi Hut just off the Ngarkat Highway. This restored shepherd’s hut, being little more than four concrete walls, certainly won’t win any architectural prizes; however, it would offer welcome protection in inclement weather. One thing SA Parks seems to generally do better than its interstate counterparts is the provision and maintenance of campground facilities.
While probably not to be taken literally, the Pertendi Hut facilities could be said to be “clean enough to eat your lunch off”. Near the hut a small grove of (introduced) pines provides campers with protection from the elements,while a more expansive cleared area is available for larger groups.
Fire rings are provided, but the park is subject to a blanket fire ban between November and April. From 2017 SA Parks are planning to adopt the absurd system of visitors having to pre-purchase entry and camping permits online. No doubt they will be installing satellite Wi-Fi at all park entry points to enable visitors to comply!
From Pertendi Hut a track east to the border intersects with Centre Track, which is an easy run to the northern boundary of the park near Pine Hut Soak campsite and the start of the Border Track. Tracks in the park are largely unmaintained and, while not particularly corrugated, the undulations worn into the sand (not surprisingly) seem to resonate perfectly with 4×4 suspensions at anything above 15 to 20km/h.
Anyone who has driven the Simpson Desert will soon see many similarities in required driving technique. It takes a little while to get your eye in and be able to pick which undulations are likely to see vehicle passengers thrown upwards, only to crash back down just in time to meet the vehicle’s next leap into the air. In short, the park’s 4×4 tracks are long and slow with some added rock and roll – basically a rollicking beat from start to finish.
The northern half of the Border Track is one way to avoid the possibility of collision between oncoming vehicles on the narrow sandy track that has numerous dunes with blind crests. With tyre pressures reduced to 15psi or less the driving is relatively easy, but a high-clearance 4×4 is a definite advantage. As are good tyres to cope with the occasional deep, soft sand.
During long weekends and school holidays the track experiences a surge in traffic and the face of many dunes can be quite chopped up from preceding drivers who think the only way to the top is by pedal to the metal. In hot, dry weather a degree of momentum may be required, but the track is only open during the cooler and wetter months. If the sand is at all moist most 4x4s won’t experience any difficulty climbing the dunes.
The Border Track can be driven in several hours, but to properly take in the beauty of the park this is a journey best done over a couple of days. That being said, there are only three small campsites available to travellers, and severe penalties exist for anyone caught camping outside of these designated areas. The moral of the story is simple: make camp early or risk missing out and having to face several hours more driving.
Penalties can be severe for those who disobey the regulations. If you think you’re unlikely to be caught out in such a remote area, be warned that both police and parks officers can drop in at any time – as testified to by a 4pm visit to your correspondent’s campsite at The Gums by two police 4x4s.
Two of the track’s campsites, The Pines and The Gums, arguably offer more pleasant camping opportunities than Doggers Hut much further to the south; however, none of the three provide any facilities. The Gums, being roughly halfway along the track and tucked away a couple of hundred metres down a side track, is perhaps the preferred place to overnight.
From the southern end of the track’s one-way section visitors have a choice of travelling west back to Pertendi Hut and the Ngarkat Highway, or continue south out of the park and turn east into Victoria to follow the southern boundary of the Big Desert National Park. Here sand begins to give way to patches of clay and, after rain, the mud larks will be in seventh heaven as they navigate several large bog holes found along here.
This track ends at the Nhill to Murrayville Road, and for anyone whose appetite for sand driving has not been fully sated there is a very expansive campground at Big Billy 40km to the north, where a number of large dunes can be found. Be warned that with Big Billy having 2WD access you can expect it to be very busy during holiday periods.
The Border Track offers an interesting and at times technically challenging 4×4 driving experience less than a day’s drive from either Melbourne or Adelaide.
TRAVEL PLANNER
WHERE Ngarkat Conservation Park is located 70km north of Bordertown and is approximately four hours travelling time from Adelaide or six hours from Melbourne.
WHEN TO TRAVEL The Border Track is closed from November to April. As summer temperatures regularly exceed 40ºC, be sure to visit the park during the cooler months.
STAYING THERE Park entry fees of $10 per vehicle and a camping fee of $12 per vehicle per night apply and are paid on entry. Pine Hut Soak and Pertendi Hut campsites have toilets. Patchy reception can be found near the Park’s northern and southern extremities, but anyone needing a mobile fix can get one in the middle of the Border Track at Hensley Trig, the park’s highest point. In warm weather flies can be chronic, making fly veils a valuable bit of kit.
SUPPLIES The nearest sources of fuel and supplies are Bordertown in the south or Pinnaroo in the north, so make sure you plan ahead before the trip.
ROAD CONDITIONS All tracks within the park are largely unmaintained requiring low tyre pressures (15-20psi) and high clearance 4x4s to cope with sections of deep, soft sand. Carrying a shovel, recovery equipment and traction aids such as MaxTrax is highly recommended. The rough and bumpy Border Track is unsuitable for camper trailers.
MAPS Good quality paper maps and a 4×4 GPS are recommended.
CONTACTS SA Department for Environment and Heritage, Lameroo SA Phone: (08) 8576 3690 Website: National Parks, SA
What’s your next off-road destination? Find out and explore.