Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Team-BHP Reviews > Long-Term Ownership Reviews


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th January 2006, 10:41   #46
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,955
Thanked: 15,648 Times
Default

Gypsy had the same thing, 4H was on the fly because there was no locking but for 4L you had to stop and then do it. But it was like a manual gearshift and no reverse business was required.
tsk1979 is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 10:50   #47
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N.A
Posts: 6,834
Thanked: 1,503 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979
Gypsy had the same thing, 4H was on the fly because there was no locking but for 4L you had to stop and then do it. But it was like a manual gearshift and no reverse business was required.
Hmmm there's no manual shift here and you can shift IN to 4L on the fly. The reverse business to get OUT of 4L is their 'recommended practice' so I follow it all the time.
Steeroid is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 10:55   #48
BHPian
 
RedOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 310
Thanked: 19 Times
Default

Electronic transfer case, as available in the Safari, usually does not require the stop & reverse routine, but yes, on older 4WD systems reversing would be to unlock the diff. Reversing after shifting out of 4L would release the wind-up stress on the diff and gearbox.

You could check with TATA (if you find someone knowledgeble) on locking diffs and driving in 4H on tarmac, just to be safe.

Gears,
Red-One.
RedOne is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 11:07   #49
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,955
Thanked: 15,648 Times
Default

I guess 4L locks the diffs. In gypsy once I got stuck in 4H. The front right and rear left wheel started spinning as they had no traction. So I shifted into 4L, and bingo, she crawled out with not difficulty. In older gypsy's you had to get out and do some manual thing with the hubs. Newer gypsy's do away with this nonsense.
Safari has limited slip diffrential, so even if your one wheen completely loses traction, still the other wheel will be given rotations.
tsk1979 is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 13:56   #50
GTO
Team-BHP Support
 
GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bombay
Posts: 47,753
Thanked: 89,442 Times
Default

Quote:
In older gypsy's you had to get out and do some manual thing with the hubs. Newer gypsy's do away with this nonsense.
Actually, the system of older gypsies is better as they give you a choice.

The manual thing you are referring to is "locking" the free wheeling hubs and thereby "engaging" the front axle only when required for 4x4 mode.

Due to the lack of free-wheeling hubs in the newer gypsies, the front axle is working full time, whether they are being used for 4x4 or not. My Jeep has free-wheeling hubs too.

GTO
GTO is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 17:23   #51
BHPian
 
adityapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mumbai, Philadelphia
Posts: 288
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer
According to me the old Safari looks much better than the Dicor. I have also heard from my friend that Scorpio's CRDe engine is much more responsive and drivable than the Dicor's.

how about getting a old safari at dirt cheap rates ( 1.5 to 2.0 L) and plonking in a scorpio CRDe engine and gearbox in it to have the best of both the worlds ? Any views on the feasibility of this option ?

~A
adityapd is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 19:21   #52
Senior - BHPian
 
v1p3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: BLR - chasing cars...
Posts: 4,836
Thanked: 26 Times
Default

Try finding a Scorpio CRDe engine... you will also need the complete wiring harness and ECM. If you can find this, and someone to mate it, then you are set for the ultimate Indian SUV!
v1p3r is offline  
Old 19th January 2006, 21:33   #53
Senior - BHPian
 
kpzen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Faridabad
Posts: 5,545
Thanked: 1,599 Times
Default

Both Mahindra and Tata are there with diesel engine technology from long time but Wonder how mahindra is able to produce great diesel engines whereas tata struggle in this department..
kpzen is online now  
Old 20th January 2006, 09:35   #54
BHPian
 
adityapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mumbai, Philadelphia
Posts: 288
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kpzen
Both Mahindra and Tata are there with diesel engine technology from long time but Wonder how mahindra is able to produce great diesel engines whereas tata struggle in this department..

exactly my thought...and wonder how mahindras struggle endlessly in the handling and high speed stability department where the Tatas seem to have an upper hand !!!

~A
adityapd is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 15:35   #55
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N.A
Posts: 6,834
Thanked: 1,503 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kpzen
Both Mahindra and Tata are there with diesel engine technology from long time but Wonder how mahindra is able to produce great diesel engines whereas tata struggle in this department..
Mahindra has produced ONE diesel engine and modified a couple of others, all with help from AVL and others.

Please remember that the Tata range of Diesels is not restricted to the Safari or the Indica. They have developed - either by themselves as in the legendary 407 or even the original 207 or with help from Cummins or other diesel specialists - a whole range of engines from small capacity HSDs for passenger cars to large load-carriers and even the Tata-Hitachi range of earthmovers.

While I agree that the Scorpio engine is a gem, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion as you have that Mahindra produces great diesel engines.

For the record, let us look at two turbocharged engines from Tata w.r.t their nearest competition:

Old Tata Safari Diesel 1948cc 90ps @ 4300 rpm 190nm @ 2000~3000rpm
(483 DL Turbo engine)

GVWeight 2690 kg

Old Mahindra Scorpio 2609cc 109bhp @3800rpm 255 nm @ 1800 rpm

GV weight 1910 kg

Another comparable engine (in terms of size)

Skoda Octavia 1.9 tdi 1896cc 90bhp @ 4000 rpm 210nm @ 1900 rpm

When compared to the Scorpio, an engine that was 33% bigger produced about 21% more power and 33% more torque.

When compared to the Skoda, the engine is pretty much par of the course

What really made the difference was also that the vehicle with the smaller engine was ALSO 40% heavier (4x4).....I'd say the old engine was pretty competent for its size....


Now when we come to Common Rails, it is another story altogether....the Dicor engine does NO justice to its size when it comes to BHP figures, though Torque is massive (no biggie since it is directly proportionate to cc).


Compare smaller diesels...the Tata 1.4 litre NA engine compared to the best known small capacity foreign diesel, the Peuguot TUD5:

Indica V2 DL 1405cc 53bhp @ 5000 rpm 85 nm @ 2500 rpm

Peuguot TUD5 1517cc 57bhp @ 5000 rpm 96nm @ 2600 rpm
Esteem/Zen D

Palio 1.9 D 1910cc 63bhp @ 4500 rpm 120nm @ 2500 rpm

The homegrown Indica engine was right up there with the slightly bigger Peuguot engine and though the Fiat engine was 25% bigger it only pumped out about 16% more peak power though torque was 29% more. This, despite the TATA engine being extremely FRUGAL - which is quite an achievement.

The addition of a turbocharger to the Indica meant that it now matches (actually both power and torque are about 8-9% more) the output of an engine thats 25% larger. Compare these with figures for the older 1.7 litre Turbo engine of the Siena and things fall into perspective.

You can do similar comparisons for other engines...Sumo(N.A) v/s Bolero v/s MM550 v/s Qualis, for instance:

1948cc/67bhp@4500/12kgm@2500 v/s 2498cc/72bhp@4000/15.5kgm@2000 v/s 2112cc/62bhp@4500/12.3kgm@2000 v/s
2446cc/75bhp@4200/15.4kgm@2400

Let us therefore not jump to conclusions, then.

Last edited by Steeroid : 20th January 2006 at 15:46.
Steeroid is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 15:50   #56
Team-BHP Support
 
Rtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bombay
Posts: 5,769
Thanked: 212 Times
Default

All that looks great on paper Steer, but that Indica engine is nasty, plain and simple. It is by far the worst engine I have ever experienced in an automobile!

I haven't driven the turbo'd one, but I'm not exactly holding my breath either.
Rtech is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 16:05   #57
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N.A
Posts: 6,834
Thanked: 1,503 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rtech
All that looks great on paper Steer, but that Indica engine is nasty, plain and simple. It is by far the worst engine I have ever experienced in an automobile!
Meant for a purpose, serves that purpose. About 10,000 people think so every month.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rtech
I haven't driven the turbo'd one, but I'm not exactly holding my breath either.
Please do - you wont catch the plague...
Steeroid is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 16:06   #58
BHPian
 
adityapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mumbai, Philadelphia
Posts: 288
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeroid
What really made the difference was also that the vehicle with the smaller engine was ALSO 40% heavier (4x4).....I'd say the old engine was pretty competent for its size....
u've pretty much hit the nail on the head steeroid...the weight is the biggest culprit of the safari...both old as well as the Dicor ..( didn't know that the 4X4 was so heavy as to tip the scales at a massive 2.7 Tons)

This excessive bulk surely did contribute in a way as a damper to improve the ride quality over those bone jarring pot holes.

Wonder how other SUVs like the scorpio and the endeavour ,etc have managed to tip the scales on a lighter side in comparison to the safari...

A 80 / 20 ( paretto) analysis of the main factors contributing to the safaris weight would give some good pointers to the Tata engineers to trim that extra flab and make a the safari a more nimble beast...

~A
adityapd is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 16:17   #59
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N.A
Posts: 6,834
Thanked: 1,503 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adityapd
A 80 / 20 ( paretto) analysis of the main factors contributing to the safaris weight would give some good pointers to the Tata engineers to trim that extra flab and make a the safari a more nimble beast...~A
If someone can give me a carbon fibre/other composite bonnet, doors, fenders and a tailgate I figure we could get the weight down to Scorpio levels.
Steeroid is offline  
Old 20th January 2006, 16:20   #60
Senior - BHPian
 
amitoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 2,954
Thanked: 1,591 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeroid
If someone can give me a carbon fibre/other composite bonnet, doors, fenders and a tailgate I figure we could get the weight down to Scorpio levels.
OR, you can go on a diet, Steer!
amitoj is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tata Safari 2.2 VTT : 125000 kms Long Term Report rrsteer Long-Term Ownership Reviews 87 14th July 2012 20:02
Long Term Review : 1994 Tata Sierra Dippy Long-Term Ownership Reviews 53 25th April 2012 14:36
Long Term Review - Tata Indigo LX 2004 pankaj09 Long-Term Ownership Reviews 26 10th August 2009 20:33
Short Term vs Long Term Ownership, New Car vs Used Car Ownership architect The Indian Car Scene 10 9th May 2008 11:39


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 16:03.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks