A note on the high cost of bushwalking

[Moondog55]

Dieselpane is a technique for extracting the maximum amount of energy from fuel.
Basically the engine sucks in a measured amount of Propane with the combustion air, a very lean mixture and a much lower amount of liquid fuel ( diesel oil ) is injected into the chamber later; at the point where normal compression ignition takes place.
So the vehicle is burning a mixture of two fuels, one liquid and one gaseous at the same time. About 10-30% of the fuel could be Propane. It means that you need two fuel tanks and if you ever run out of one you can't drive.
With petrol it has many benefits, for one you can up the compression ratio too high levels

[sailfish]

I have come to the realisation that small cars are a false economy. They cost way more to buy and much much more to maintain, like 4 times the parts costs, they wear out much faster and break easily. They are also inconvenient, uncomfortable and noisy so you arrive tired sore and with jangled nerves.

The only thing going for them is the fuel is a little less cost.

My recent experience (blown tranny at 60,000 kms) indicates that all these extra costs far outweigh any saving in fuel costs. Then I live in a country town so I don’t do as much urban driving as some, probably shifts the equation somewhat. I have also found my little AWD car that is supposed to get 5.5 L/100km in fact gets over 7 on the HWY due to windage (not taken into account in specs tests) so this is not very significantly less than my sons Verada. I know which is the more comfortable and relaxing to drive………


Ken

[sthughes]

I have come to the realisation that small cars are a false economy. They cost way more to buy and much much more to maintain, like 4 times the parts costs, they wear out much faster and break easily. They are also inconvenient, uncomfortable and noisy so you arrive tired sore and with jangled nerves.

What have you been driving? I had a Toyota Yaris for just under 3 years, it cost half as much as my Outlander, cost similar to maintain, parts weren't an issue and it certainly didn't break easily. It was very comfy, about the same noise and much more fun to drive (especially after adding proper wheels/tyres and cruise control for the long trips). I usually got high 6's to low 7's at 110km/h and they were rated 6.1L/100km at the time, but with slower driving 5's were quite doable. But yeah I upsized as it just wasn't big enough for what I wanted and although it never broke, regularly taking on fire & forestry trails with 140mm ground clearance and a cavalier attitude wasn't ideal and at times it just wouldn't go where a 4x4 would no matter how many clunks, thumps and underbody dents I was willing to cop. As a second car I'd buy one in a flash if I could justify the cost, which due to fuel savings I almost could if I was doing as many km's as I was up until this year.

Aerodynamic efficiency (ie. windage) is factored in during ADR testing even though the vehicles are stationary on a dyno. However the average "speed" is only 69km/h even in the extra-urban cycle so being an exponential(ish) relationship means it doesn't take account of long high speed journeys very well.

[DonQx]

I have come to the realisation that small cars are a false economy. They cost way more to buy and much much more to maintain, like 4 times the parts costs, they wear out much faster and break easily. They are also inconvenient, uncomfortable and noisy so you arrive tired sore and with jangled nerves.

Sounds like a pretty broad generalisation.

Not true in our case ... quite to the contrary.

[Moondog55]

Road condition dependent I tend to agree, small cars tend to have very limited ground clearance despite the ADRs, give me 16inch rims on tall tyres anyday over little cars For the roads I drive on. Around town tho the little Renault is OK, freeway diving is fine but once you hit the dirt and gravel it suffers badly and the underbody seems to find every single bigger rock.

[Moondog55]

Best bush vehicle I have ever driven was the old Morris MOKE, and 40 miles per gallon into the arguement

[sailfish]

I have come to the realisation that small cars are a false economy. They cost way more to buy and much much more to maintain, like 4 times the parts costs, they wear out much faster and break easily. They are also inconvenient, uncomfortable and noisy so you arrive tired sore and with jangled nerves.

Sounds like a pretty broad generalisation.

Not true in our case ... quite to the contrary.

Yes it is, I did indicate in my experience and in the country. My mechanic is of the same opinion about the cost of small car parts. I have never bought a new car and of the 6 cars that I have owned, the most expensive to maintain have been a Subaru L series and Holden YG Cruze. The latter giving the most stupid and expensive problems at the lowest Kms of any car I have owned.

Regards,
Ken

[Tony]

Interesting thread.

Before I started bushwalking I did car rallying (Datsun 1600), for the cost of going in one rally I can bushwalk for a whole year, and that includes cost of fuel and yearly trip to NZ.

I will never complain about the cost of bushwalking, it is a very cheap hobby/sport or what ever you want to call it.

As far as cars go, for many years I owned Datsuns, mainly 1600 but our main car was a 180B SSS which my wife owned this car since 1979 whic was before we met, we only sold the 180B SSS about 7 years ago the clock had gone over many times, it was a great car but parts was starting to become scarce, I sold my last 1600 (68 model) a few years before.

We purchased a 87 VL Commodore, my father brought this car new in 87, it had only done 92K, what a heap of Sht, after 100k the whole car fell apart, except for the engine which was supplied by Nissan.

In 2000 we purchased a new Subaru Forester (2l) and still have it, 180k and still going strong and yes I have done some long rough outback trips in it, the only problem I have had with it is I have replace three CV boots, I have replaced the brakes pads once, 10l/100k around town 8.5l/100k on trips.

I also own a 2001 Nissan Pulsar, we use this car as our general runabout, 230k and the only repair was a few years ago I had to replace the air conditioning TX valve, I still have the original brake pads, 6-7l/100k, town and country, I take this car bushwalking when I do not need to go on dirt roads.

Tony

[sthughes]

small cars tend to have very limited ground clearance despite the ADRs, .

Holden Barina Spark = 132mm
Holden Cruze = 143mm
Holden Commodore = 100-110mm

Ford Fiesta = 109mm
Ford Focus = 100mm
Ford Falcon = 150mm

Toyota Yaris = 140mm
Toyota Camry = 129mm
Toyota Aurion = 145mm

Nissan X-Trail = 200mm
Nissan Patrol = 210mm
Mitsu Outlander = 210mm
Subaru Forester = 220mm
Toyota Landcruiser = 225mm
Land Rover Disco 4 = 185-310mm

Conclusion: Car size and ground clearance are unrelated. If you want clearance you need a soft roader or proper 4x4. I want a Disco 4.

I always thought taller tyres were better, but despite similar driving over similar distance in each I have had 3 punctures in my 70 profile tyres and had 0 in my prevoius 35 profile tyres. Of course the 35s were on a car weighing 35% less and would have been useless in sand etc. But it's interesting.

Fuel economy has as much to do with how you drive as the car you drive.

[Penguin]

I want a Disco 4.
.

Heart over head decision making again . You need a good V8

In 4WD's it is not just ground clearance but approach and departure angles and wheel base as well.

Boy this is getting off topic.

[Moondog55]

Not really, buying a quarter million dollar 4 X 4 would add greatly to the cost of bushwalking.
My father had a really nice high-spec Commodore when he retired, we drove up to Mt Mackay to look at the view, short 7k trip cost him about $3k in repairs, tore off the air-dam/front spoiler, and cracked the sump of the auto transmission.
Reminds me of the bloke who drove his hugely expensive Ford V-8 ute up to Falls Creek one winter, 18inch wide mag wheels and 45 aspect tyres, put on the chains at the service bay and took off sharply. Add zero wheel arch clearance to old style diamond chains?? Instant scrap metal on the front.
Sometimes you really do need old fashioned wheels and tyres.

[sailfish]

small cars tend to have very limited ground clearance despite the ADRs, .

Holden Barina Spark = 132mm
Holden Cruze = 143mm
Holden Commodore = 100-110mm

Ford Fiesta = 109mm
Ford Focus = 100mm
Ford Falcon = 150mm

Toyota Yaris = 140mm
Toyota Camry = 129mm
Toyota Aurion = 145mm

Nissan X-Trail = 200mm
Nissan Patrol = 210mm
Mitsu Outlander = 210mm
Subaru Forester = 220mm
Toyota Landcruiser = 225mm
Land Rover Disco 4 = 185-310mm

Conclusion: Car size and ground clearance are unrelated. If you want clearance you need a soft roader or proper 4x4. I want a Disco 4.

I always thought taller tyres were better, but despite similar driving over similar distance in each I have had 3 punctures in my 70 profile tyres and had 0 in my prevoius 35 profile tyres. Of course the 35s were on a car weighing 35% less and would have been useless in sand etc. But it's interesting.

Fuel economy has as much to do with how you drive as the car you drive.

Just a note on the Holden Cruze, there are two completely unrelated series called Cruze. The older YG series no longer in production has a ground clearance of 180 mm just 4-5mm shy of the Jimney or Disco 4. Also has good clearance angles, 1.5L 74KW 985 kg Kerb. This is the one I have.

Regards,
Ken

[sthughes]

In 4WD's it is not just ground clearance but approach and departure angles and wheel base as well.

Boy this is getting off topic.

Yeah it is, and I agree ground clearance is just a good starting point for getting off road. What's most important all depends on the circumstances, but always the most important thing is a working brain.

Heart over head decision making again . You need a good V8
.

Dunno Penga, the Disco 4 V8 sounds okay to me, although it is a bit thirsty compared to your Toy it's comparable otherwise and the car sure looks better Gotta follow the heart a bit, with a dash of sensibility thrown in. If I really followed the heart I'd end up with something silly like an MX-5. And without a heart it'd be a Landcruiser-yawn

Sometimes you really do need old fashioned wheels and tyres.

I agree.

Just a note on the Holden Cruze, there are two completely unrelated series called Cruze. The older YG series no longer in production has a ground clearance of 180 mm just 4-5mm shy of the Jimney or Disco 4. Also has good clearance angles, 1.5L 74KW 985 kg Kerb. This is the one I have.

Yes, the old 4x4 Cruze is a totally different beast to the new one. That will certainly go places. Further than most of todays soft roaders I'd bet, just don't crash it! Beats me why they named them the same

[walkinTas]

Crickey what do you drive that uses 22L/100km?!

Get a Prius and you'll only spend like $35-40

I ponder Keith Lancester's approach more than once. Perhaps the answer is get a bike.

[Son of a Beach]

This topic moved to 'techno-babble'. It's about technical 'gear' that's not strictly bushwalking gear.