Arctic Amarok

**Trailrider** · 2012/11/21, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Scrat

there should be articulation pics at least

Here you go

Will post full report later.

**JeanCT** · 2012/11/21, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jengel

Hence my comments . . .glorified dirt road truk and mall crawler. Like you, been there done it and know the difference.

Ja Jengel, maybe you should post that in the toyota arctic truck section as well.

I don't get it...is the Amarok a nail?? Cause everytime one sticks out it gets hammered.

Cheers,

Jean

**PieterV** · 2012/11/21, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mario Ferreira

Hiers hulle: Myne links, Middel is Standaard 4motion met bietjie groter bande as standaard en regs die Artic.

Mario, jou trok lyk great 8)

**Jengel** · 2012/11/22, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by SpoegENplak

I don't get it...is the Amarok a nail?? Cause everytime one sticks out it gets hammered.

Jean, nowhere did we say anything about the Amarok . . . . the discussion is about the practical implications of such an upgrade and in our eyes being a half done job. To give this modification a worthy credibility they should at least have looked into the mechanical engineering of the drive train as well. They did the cosmetics and that's where they stopped.
Let's make a list of premature failures that can be expected:
1. Tail shaft and universals
2. Gearbox overheat
3. Steering system
4. Upper and lower control arms joints
5. On a manual gearbox the clutch
6. Wheel bearings
7. Front side shafts

. . . . and we can add a few more.
Please note . . I said nothing about this particular vehicle

. These type of extreme modifications will ruin many trucks including Land Rovers

**JeanCT** · 2012/11/22, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jengel

Jean, nowhere did we say anything about the Amarok . . . . the discussion is about the practical implications of such an upgrade and in our eyes being a half done job. To give this modification a worthy credibility they should at least have looked into the mechanical engineering of the drive train as well. They did the cosmetics and that's where they stopped.
Let's make a list of premature failures that can be expected:
1. Tail shaft and universals
2. Gearbox overheat
3. Steering system
4. Upper and lower control arms joints
5. On a manual gearbox the clutch
6. Wheel bearings
7. Front side shafts

. . . . and we can add a few more.
Please note . . I said nothing about this particular vehicle

. These type of extreme modifications will ruin many trucks including Land Rovers

I got that, hence the comment of posting it in the toy section as well. I had a closeup look at one 2 years ago in Atlantis dunes and it had about 2 finger width of up travel on the front suspension. It looks nice but it's not practicle.

The nail part was not directed at you.

Cheers,

Jean

**Jengel** · 2012/11/23, 05:08 AM

Jean, to be honest I did not know there was a thread on the Toyota version of this as well. I'm here in Australia currently and I am amazed at how people sometime think. I consider myself as being a true 4x4'er with practical approach and do most modification myself after serious research. I do a lot of beach driving as that is the 'highway' to your camping spot. Trip after trip you see the guys with their oversized tyres, suspension lifts and the breakdowns due to excessive wear and geometry change. I changed my tyres from stock 29" to 32" and changed diffs from 3.5 to 4.5 ratio to compensate for torque loss. I do obstacles at crawl (idle) speed where others need 35" and V8's and speed. Which vehicle will last?

**Trailrider** · 2012/11/26, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jengel

the discussion is about the practical implications of such an upgrade and in our eyes being a half done job.

You seem to forget that Arctic Trucks don't build these and put them on a salesroom floor.

These conversions are done to the client's spec.

If the client wants an Arctic conversion done with 33" / 35" / 44" wheels he can have it. If he wants the axles moved and diffs and gearboxes changed it's done. It's about about what the client orders and pays for.

You can have a 35" AT conversion on your 4x2 bakkie if you want.

But turning around and criticizing AT for doing a conversion on a 4x2, or stating that they do half done jobs if someone got the conversion without doing anything to the diffs is a bit unfair IMO. The client decides what he wants done and what not.

In your case, you'd certainly want everything done (obviously). Someone else might not feel as strongly about it.

Did it occur to you that some people only want the cosmetics?

**Jengel** · 2012/11/27, 11:03 AM

OK, not to argue too much . . . larger wheels means more braking torque required due to the diameter change. No mechanical mods = longer braking distance = rear-ending = @#$%^&*()!!
And is that what a client want that pay for the looks and forget about the dynamics?

**brroom** · 2012/11/27, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Jengel

OK, not to argue too much . . . larger wheels means more braking torque required due to the diameter change. No mechanical mods = longer braking distance = rear-ending = @#$%^&*()!!
And is that what a client want that pay for the looks and forget about the dynamics?

+1! I also say you can't just change the design of a vehicle to that extent without changing a number of other things.That diff is going to take alot of strain from that diameter as well.
I do like the way it looks though! Perhaps VW should consider designing a car like that from scratch as an option as well :P

**Trailrider** · 2012/11/27, 11:45 AM

I think too much is being made of very little.

Trucks need more space to brake than cars. I don't see trucks rear ending cars all over the place.

Mens pas mos maar net aan by die voertuig wat jy bestuur. Ek sou nou nie die baba met die badwater uitgooi nie.

Having done 4x4 low range stuff with both an Arctic Hilux and Arctic Amarok, I had no problems. Yes, the gear ratio might be different but low range first still took me where I wanted to be. The outer edge of ability, that 0,5% (if that) of places where the old gearing would have made it and this will not, would you ever be able to even get there without the improved ground clearance, suspension etc?

I think the pro's outweigh the con's. You are likely to need / use the better ground clearance, improved approach and departure angles and better traction much more often then the very limit of the 1st gear low range? How many people use their expensive DC's for grade 5 stuff anyways?

Don't get me wrong. I read the concerns with interest. But what is done / not done in a conversion is down to client choice. If a client fits 33" wheels where 35" would be better it's hardly AT's fault. As for the extra stress on components, I guess that would come with the territory. Maybe someone that can afford an Arctic conversion can also afford to buy bearings a couple of times more during the life of the vehicle. Arctic Trucks is churning out these conversions at a rate so I'm sure if it's so bad we'll start hearing about issues at some stage or another? Haven't heard anything yet?

I just get to drive these things so I thought I'd share some pics. Certainly made for some interesting conversation so far! Keep it coming.

**Trailrider** · 2012/11/27, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by brroom

Perhaps VW should consider designing a car like that from scratch as an option as well :P

Don't know about VW, but Chev Trailblazer is well into the R&D of exactly that and you might very well be able to buy an Arctic version off the Trailblazer right of the showroom floor in future.

I heard rumours that Hilux and Ranger are looking at this option as well. now that would be good news!?! 8)