Trailer towing

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 11 Jun 2008, 23:49

Bloody 'ell 'furry, that is some reply!

So good, I think I'll print it off for reference when I collect the trailer.

It's a twin axle jobbie, and I imagine it'll be in fairly good nick. They have a good reputation around here, and specialise in trailers only.

Not having driven a standard Jimny on road, I can't really comment, but agree that the Diamond Back off roading tyres that it runs on, plus suspension mods are not conjusive (sp) to a decent road driving experience. It is pitifully slow though, and damned thirsty too.
Standard seat gives me horrendous bum ache after half an hour too.

shouldn't even be talking about 'jap crap' in here.

fastandfurryous · Unread post by **fastandfurryous** » 12 Jun 2008, 01:50

C.J. wrote:I imagine it'll be in fairly good nick. They have a good reputation around here, and specialise in trailers only.

I really really wouldn't trust a reputation. Check the brakes, check the tyre pressures (the trailer should be running somewhere between 45-50psi.) and check all the lights. I've yet to rent a trailer that had everything right and working properly.

C.J. wrote:Not having driven a standard Jimny on road, I can't really comment

Given that mechanically they are essentially a three-quarter scale Range Rover, it's no surprise that they drive just like one. You can feel the beam axles bounce around a bit, but other than that I think they're great. An XUD 1.9TD engine would be a brilliant engine to shove in there and a definite upgrade.

lexi · Unread post by **lexi** » 12 Jun 2008, 08:04

Xud has it`s torque far to high up the rev range for a fourby.........it`s my only complaint of the engine. How many times on the Xantia when in the lowest speed of a gear do you put the foot down and .........nothing?

Unread post by **CitroJim** » 12 Jun 2008, 08:10

You'd be better off with a 2.1TD then. It has all the low-down grunt missing from the 1.9TD

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 12 Jun 2008, 09:09

This thread is starting to wander....

....sounds like a plan though.

C.J. · Unread post by **C.J.** » 12 Jun 2008, 09:14

fastandfurryous wrote:
C.J. wrote:
Given that mechanically they are essentially a three-quarter scale Range Rover, it's no surprise that they drive just like one. You can feel the beam axles bounce around a bit, but other than that I think they're great. An XUD 1.9TD engine would be a brilliant engine to shove in there and a definite upgrade.

I've driven a Range Rover, and I'm currently 'trying'

to sell my off roading Disco, but I must say, I've found them both extremely comfy tbh.

The short wheelbase on the Jimny is its on road downfall I reckon. Reminds me of the mk1 mini ride. All bounce and little comfort.

fastandfurryous · Unread post by **fastandfurryous** » 12 Jun 2008, 11:24

lexi wrote:Xud has it`s torque far to high up the rev range for a fourby.

Given that its peak torque is at 2250 rpm and it runs out of puff at 4500 still with something like 80%-85% of it's max torque, I think that's a major improvement on the Jimnys existing 1.3 petrol engine, which has naff all below 3000 rpm, and revs to over 6000, still with sod-all torque.

Anyway, that's actually not as irrelevant as it might sound, as one of the things you have to remember when towing a lot of weight (as you will be when towing a flatbed with a Jimni on it) that you musn't let the engine drop out of its torque band. In order to do so, you will almost certainly have to rev the engine harder in each gear than you're used to, and change down on hills much earlier than you're used to.

Bizzarely, Given that speeds are generally a bit lower, and you tend to take your time over the journey much more, I often get better economy when towing than I do when driving normally.

andmcit · Unread post by **andmcit** » 12 Jun 2008, 11:43

fastandfurryous wrote:Bizzarely, Given that speeds are generally a bit lower, and you tend to take your time over the journey much more, I often get better economy when towing than I do when driving normally.

That is bizarre. I don't buy it; how can the mpg be better when
you're lugging a whole load more weight than running normally,
irrespective of your speed/gearing!?

Must be the way I drive and I always seem to be towing big heavy cars...

Andrew

fastandfurryous · Unread post by **fastandfurryous** » 12 Jun 2008, 15:01

andmcit wrote:
fastandfurryous wrote:I often get better economy when towing than I do when driving normally.
That is bizarre. I don't buy it; how can the mpg be better when
you're lugging a whole load more weight than running normally,
irrespective of your speed/gearing!?

Because I tend to drive rather hard, and rather too fast when just driving, and I drive much more gently and much much slower when towing.

Bear in mind that when on the motorway/dual carriageway the vast majority of your fuel consumption is caused by wind resistance. When you look at wind resistance it's a function of the frontal area, but a square function of the speed. Thus by reducing speed from say 80mph to 50mph, the wind resistance drops by nearly a factor of three. Even allowing for the increased frontal area, that's still a massive drop in power requirement.

Plus on winding roads when not towing I tend to make best use of accelerating on straight bits and then slowing for the corners. When towing, I try to maintain a more constant speed suitable for the road, meaning far less power needed (and also less wear on the brakes, but hey)

It's probably a function of just how much fuel I use when driving normally rather than how much I use when towing.