132KW Amarok

[Brent Clark]

I am told that the torque is still 400Nm and the increase in the Kw is due to a change to the head. The boost pressure etc. is all the same.

I could not get a confirmation whether or not the 500 Rpm band of peak torque had been extended or not.

[Fluffy]

I am told that the torque is still 400Nm and the increase in the Kw is due to a change to the head. The boost pressure etc. is all the same.

I could not get a confirmation whether or not the 500 Rpm band of peak torque had been extended or not.

Once again I am confused, this time not officialy.

If the torque hasnt changed then there is no way you can develop more Kw for a given RPM.

[Brent Clark]

Time will tell, as we will get the graphs at a point in time...

[Fluffy]

Time will tell, as we will get the graphs at a point in time...

Brent, nothing you can do can make a motor develop more power on its own.

You either make it develop more torque or extend the RPM which then has a side effect of more power. Its a scientific fact.

PS - I assume you know this and expect the graphs to verify it.

[Mad Manny]

I am told that the torque is still 400Nm...

If the torque hasnt changed then there is no way you can develop more Kw for a given RPM.

Brent, Fluffer;
AFAIK Peak Torque is up - to 420 or 440 or somewhere there.

Fluffy, I'm not sure if you are implying that kW & Nm are linked & as you increase or decrease the one so the other must increase or decrease.
Toyota has a 2.5 producing 75kW & either 200Nm or 260Nm.
Toyota also has a 3.0 producing 120kW & the 343Nm or 400Nm

[GeckoCampers]

The changes on the 132kW engine compared to the 120kW are: turbocharger, high pressure fuel pump, injectors, egr valve (cooler and valve now separate), and a few other changes, as well as new software. Converting 120kWs to 132kW via retrofitment of the parts is not possible.

Cheers,

[stephenplumb]

Power (kw) is the rate of doing work (the nm or torque) so when the engine can spin faster, without loosing too much torque, then the result is more power. The typical f1 engine does not have too much torque, but the rate of doing the work is very high, hence the high power. Like wise a typical heavy truck has enormous torque, but can not do the work very fast as they normally max out around 2000rpm.

Cheers
Stephen

[PUW]

Was chatting to a mate of mine yesterday, bought his wife the RAV 2.2 diesel. He said that it towed his boat better than his father in laws amarok tdi 4motion. There still seems to be an problem with the power delivery of these vehicles...

[gavinlg]

Was chatting to a mate of mine yesterday, bought his wife the RAV 2.2 diesel. He said that it towed his boat better than his father in laws amarok tdi 4motion. There still seems to be an problem with the power delivery of these vehicles...

Or most likely your mate is talking rubbish. I have about 4 years worth of driving experience in the current shape 3.0 diesel hilux, and my old man has had the 120tdi amarok since last year in January. I can say with certainty that the amarok is more torquey and has a wider spread of power/torque from about 1200rpm up to the redline than the hilux. It's faster, more punchy, and smoother/quieter. The amarok has no problems with towing whatsoever.

[Brent Clark]

Brent, nothing you can do can make a motor develop more power on its own.

You either make it develop more torque or extend the RPM which then has a side effect of more power. Its a scientific fact.

PS - I assume you know this and expect the graphs to verify it.

I am told, but believe when I can verify the facts... The source is the dude responsible for the VW aftersales service, Dealer technical training etc..... so we wait...

[Mad Manny]

Was chatting to a mate of mine yesterday, bought his wife the RAV 2.2 diesel. He said that it towed his boat better than his father in laws amarok tdi 4motion. There still seems to be an problem with the power delivery of these vehicles...

I must agree with Gavin, although the RAV4 @ around 110kW & 300Nm of torque is not far behind the 120kW Amarok,
the only reason the RAV4 could be felt to tow better would be better
power to weight ratio.
Remember, also, that the RAV4 4wd only sends power to the front wheels when towing...

[Brent Clark]

Remember, also, that the RAV4 4wd only sends power to the front wheels when towing...

How do you get this?

The RAV 4 system is totally electronic, it sends power to where it is needed, as it is needed...

[KEKPIET]

Or most likely your mate is talking rubbish. I have about 4 years worth of driving experience in the current shape 3.0 diesel hilux, and my old man has had the 120tdi amarok since last year in January. I can say with certainty that the amarok is more torquey and has a wider spread of power/torque from about 1200rpm up to the redline than the hilux. It's faster, more punchy, and smoother/quieter. The amarok has no problems with towing whatsoever.

Lucky I don't need to listen to a mates stories. I own a Amarok, and I tow very heavy loads, not only small dingy's, and if there is a vehicle that can, it is the Rok!!!. Gaveling I totally agree with you. They can at any time bring that Rav, I'l show them.

[Mad Manny]

How do you get this?

The RAV 4 system is totally electronic, it sends power to where it is needed, as it is needed...

Brent, AFAIK it uses that Part-Time Haldex clutch system whereby drive is ONLY sent to the rear wheels when slip is detected on the fronts.
Similar to other Soft Roaders (Freelander, Evoque, CRV, X-Trail, Koleos, Captiva, XC60, XC90 etc)...

[Mad Manny]

I totally agree with you. They can at any time bring that Rav, I'l show them.

Just a point, the 2.2 Diesel motor in the RAV4 was also fitted to the Avensis.
It was fitted to the Lexus IS in the UK & other markets where it delivered 140kW & over 400Nm of Torque.
Good motor that...

Does anyone know the rolling mass of a RAV4 compared to a 'Rok Bi-Turbo 4 motion..?

[Brent Clark]

Brent, AFAIK it uses that Part-Time Haldex clutch system whereby drive is ONLY sent to the rear wheels when slip is detected on the fronts.
Similar to other Soft Roaders (Freelander, Evoque, CRV, X-Trail, Koleos, Captiva, XC60, XC90 etc)...

Manny
AFAIK there is not one Toyota with a Haldex system... VW, plenty... Toyota like the torsen route in the middle..

[Brent Clark]

Just a point, the 2.2 Diesel motor in the RAV4 was also fitted to the Avensis.
It was fitted to the Lexus IS in the UK & other markets where it delivered 140kW & over 400Nm of Torque.
Good motor that...

Does anyone know the rolling mass of a RAV4 compared to a 'Rok Bi-Turbo 4 motion..?

RAV 4 VX 2.2 - 1585 Kg, Rok = 1886 Kg

[grips]

I have read the comments on the 8 speed auto gearbox of the new Amarok. ZF has always build some of the best gearboxes available. I am sure that the wide ratio choice will do the Amarok good. It is specially designed for economy. It might do good in off - road conditions but you but cannot beat a transfer case. You got 8 speed with the Amarok. If we take the new Ranger 6 speed auto and ad its transfer ratios you have a choice of 12 ratios. The first low on the Amarok is not as low as suggested have a look at the ratio comparison below.

Amarok ZF 8HP ratios
1st gear 4.696
2nd 3.160
3rd 2.104
4th 1.667
5th 1.285
6th 1.000
7th 0.839
8th 0.667
R 3.300

Ford Ranger 6R80
1st 4.17
2nd 2.34
3rd 1.52
4th 1.41
5th 0.87
6th 0.69
R 3.40

Ford Ranger Transfer ratio
2.02 low range
1st 8.42
2nd 4.73
3rd 3.07
4th 2.84
5th 1.78
6th 1.39
R 6.89

Yes diff ratio`s do differ but it is about available gearbox ratios . If you do this caculation wit a 4 speed auto with low range you still beat the Amarok with available ratios. Wonder how you are going to reverse out of a real tight spot with a 3.300 ratio. You can never beat a transfer case off- road. 8 Speed may be better for the open road but having a look at you last ratios ( 8th and 6th ) for the boxes I doubt. A real granny 1st like in some older boxes have ratios of about 6.7 to 8.0 but the t – case has still the advantage.

[ThysleRoux]

How do you get this?

The RAV 4 system is totally electronic, it sends power to where it is needed, as it is needed...

I agree with Manny (a truly mind boggling experience ) - the RAV defaults to front wheel drive and the transfer of power power to the rear is electronically controlled when needed (when there is a loss of traction at the front). During high way towing, there should not be traction loss, so it will effectively be a front wheel drive vehicle, without the drive train losses of a 4wd vehicle. The same should however apply to the 'Rok, but I assume it defaults to RWD. I suspect Manny's comment of power to weight ratio and gearing is the real reason why it feels as if the RAV tows better.

[Mad Manny]

Thanks Thys.

I know this is an hi-jack, so apologies.

Getting back to PUW's statement that his friend finds the RAV4 2.2 diesel a better tow vehicle than the Amarok.
Now, before I go further, no one is saying the Amarok is not a great tow vehicle.

The stats;

RAV4 2.2 Diesel
110kw @ 3600rpm
340Nm @ 2000 - 2800 rpm
Weight 1660kg
Power to weight ratio 62

Amarok Bi-Turbo 4 Motion
120kw @ 4000 rpm - 5000 rpm
400Nm @ 1500 - 200 rpm
Weight 2083kg
Power to weight ratio 58

So, assuming the boat is the same weight & all else is equal, the RAV4 should tow as good as, if not better than the 'Rok.
At 100km/h (in top) the RAV will rev at just under 2000rpm, the 'Rok at 1910rpm
At 3600 rpm the RAV produces, theoretically, 340Nm, compared to the 'Rok's 320Nm.
I say theoretically as peak outputs can only be achieved at sea level at full throttle...

So lower weight is largely where the RAV4 scores...

Again, I am not saying the RAV4 is a better tow vehicle or that the 'Rok is not good.
I'm just pointing out that the differences are much smaller than one would expect...