TheSamba.com :: View topic - Syncro Off-Road Abilities vs. Competition

Wed May 29, 2013 9:49 pm

MTV1960 wrote: I was wondering if when the front and rear lockers are engaged are the wheels supposed to turn in unison or is one going to break free? I was on a steep trail with loose dirt and noticed that when my rear stock locker was engaged the right wheel was spinning and the left was doing nothing.
When the lockers are engaged both tires will spin at the same speed even if one is in the air. It sounds like yours aren't working properly.

Thu May 30, 2013 7:26 am

> The front locker is an upgrade with a go westy decoupler and solid shaft replacing the VC.

The first hint that you are not locked is if any of the 3 green lights do not turn on, on the locker control panel, when you pull the 3 knobs to engage.

Tranny Betty's 3 knobs unengaged, show me yours engaged:

Here is center diff engaged, see the light in the center of the control panel (ignore the slight glow on the front locker light, thats just spill over light from the illumination of the locker panel, my headlights are on, so my interior instrument cluster lights are on also. You can tell from the light on the heater controls)

Thu May 30, 2013 8:27 am

Jon_slider wrote: > The front locker is an upgrade with a go westy decoupler and solid shaft replacing the VC.

Of course it is always possible to keep the VCT and have the front locker, (as in my case).

The result:

1)Still very good capabilities offroad! (Better than any no locker, (normal), 4wd).
2)Unbeatable performance onroad, especially if it is powered with a beefy engine.

Thu May 30, 2013 1:21 pm

Compare a stock Vanagon Syncro to a stock Toyota 4Runner in 4wd mode?

Thu May 30, 2013 1:28 pm

a stock vanagon syncro, with stock sized tires and a factory locking rear differential (the bulk of those produced) will in my mind out-compete a stock toyota base model in most conditions. At the very least be comparable.
The factory syncro will have plenty of suspension travel (both up and down), a low range gear, and a locking differential. It certainly won't be spanked by the toyota.

Now start modifying the two vehicles, and it's likely that you can build a modified toyota that can out-compete a modified syncro....
But that's not the question.

The last time i went wheeling in my syncro I had two guys in it that had both purchased new Toyota trucks. They said they wouldn't have taken their trucks through what we had just gone through, and were surprised that we went through what we had so effortlessly.

Thu May 30, 2013 1:49 pm

randywebb wrote: Compare a stock Vanagon Syncro to a stock Toyota 4Runner in 4wd mode?
Sleep or cook in a yota...

All of the 4rummers that i have been in and driven were dogs, their truck counterpart seems to always be more capable.
You can bob a old T10 yota and have a very capable rig but they are uncomfortable.

Thu May 30, 2013 3:58 pm

randywebb wrote: Compare a stock Vanagon Syncro to a stock Toyota 4Runner in 4wd mode?

JEEP CJ, (WITHOUT LOCKERS) VS SYNCRO, (AND OTHERS), SAME TERRAIN:

Thu May 30, 2013 5:06 pm

Basically one wheel drive on each axle for the CJ. I wonder how a 2WD Vanagon with TBD would fare under the same terrain?

Thu May 30, 2013 7:32 pm

I love Syncros, but that video is laughable. If the evaluation of what was presented is considered 'the same terrain', I say horsepucky. The Syncro (which has a front locker - a huge advantage), is shown successfully moving through moderate terrain at the beginning. The next bit of video is a poorly driven Jeep Grand Cherokee in WAY more difficult terrain - even some edged ledges as its tape ends. Then a couple more vehicles in even MORE difficult terrain. C'mon guys - watch it again and see if you don't agree.

As for the 4Runner comment above "a stock vanagon syncro, with stock sized tires and a factory locking rear differential (the bulk of those produced) will in my mind out-compete a stock toyota base model in most conditions. At the very least be comparable. " So, a Syncro with a rear locker vs 4Runner of the same year as it also came from the factory in its most trail worthy? Not a chance. As it happens, the 4Runner was not available that year with a rear locker, which is a huge disadvantage. I would still choose the 4Runner in a New York minute. It would leave the Syncro well behind. And the more difficult the terrain, the farther behind it would be.

As noted above, the Syncro was designed primarily as a more capable street version, and it is that and also way more capable. But I am sure to ruffle feathers here when I say that as it left the factory it would not keep up with a 1987 4Runner offroad as it also left the factory. The 4Runner was designed specifically with the offroad environment in mind, and it shows. It survives decades of service in dusty, rocky 3rd world environments and its overbuilt components have no pattern of failures. Even to this day, the 4Runner and its mechanical twin the Pickup are one of the most popular offroad worthy platforms of their day.

DougM

Thu May 30, 2013 7:41 pm

Direct comparisons between a van chassis and an SUV chassis are inherently a little silly.

Thu May 30, 2013 9:02 pm

not at all

one is often faced with the choice of camping in comfort here (and hiking in, or mtn. bike, trail M/C, etc.) vs. getting further in to where you want to be but with less camping comfort (tent or roof platform with tent on it; or sleeping in the pickup bed)

Thu May 30, 2013 9:03 pm

I also could not find that big squared off rock in the Syncro portion of the video.

Doug, if you were to pick one vehicle with comparable off-road or bad-road performance to a Syncro, what would it be?

Traction seems much better than a Subaru Forester, tho Gnd. Clearance is not that much greater...

Thu May 30, 2013 9:15 pm

Agree traction is better than a Forester, though the newer models are pretty good. I am biased against electronic systems on the trail tho...

On ground clearance, I'd say the Syncro is worlds better. We used to use a concept at Toyota of "real world ground clearance" which meant that the actual inch measurement was one thing. But the real world thing is what drags and can it handle regular abuse. The Syncro has that very impressively covered. The guards and skidplates are well thought out so you can drag gently over boulders and such all day long without issue. On a Forester you'd be leaving exhaust parts, and pieces of other expensive bits on the trail.

On the comparable vehicle, I'm going to really get the hate. I think the most comparable vehicle in interior room, van, etc would be a GMC Safari AWD van. Owww, I'm wincing at myself, cause the Syncro is an icon and this is cruel. But the AWD Safari will actually do OK on the trails, its a rugged commercial chassis and has plenty of power. Lacks a low range, but its power makes up for that along with its torque converter auto trans. Yeah that would be my answer. There are a few out on the trail - one in my local club with a pop top, actually.

DougM

Thu May 30, 2013 10:23 pm

A lot of homework! :D

1)So let's start from "the missing part" in comparison video posted.

The fact is that SYNCRO with both lockers has no problem to overcome such obstacles! If you have some experience with SYNCRO offroad driving you know it.

2)Syncro does not missing low range! It has the powerful G gear, and with it you can climb vertically, if there is enough traction, especially with a stronger than stock engine!

It is enough low to give you, with only 70 hp. engine, more torque in wheels than a vehicle with 175 hp., but without G!

(And it is possible to change to the next 1st gear on the fly without stopping
as happens with most vehicles with low range!)

Please have a look:

"For those of you who think you can’t compare the so called underpowered T3 syncro 1600TD engine with the 175HP TDI powered T5 4motion : you’re right, but not in the way you thought !!

When talking about top speed the T5 4motion is far superior. But most of us want a syncro because we want to drive it offroad from time to time.
When not thinking of ground clearance, one would think the T5 superior to the T3 when offroading when it comes to the engine. The T5’s 175 HP TDI engine has a maximum torque of 40 KgM at 1900 rpm, the T3 1600Tdwith 70 HP has a maximum torque of 13,8 KgM at 2500 rpm...
Lets make some calculations and see what the gearbox does with this power :-)

To make the comparison honest, we put on the same tires with a diameter of 72 cm and a circomference of 2262 mm.
The cars in this comparison : T3 JX diesel 70HP 16” syncro 1600TD,
T3 DJ petrol 112HP 16” syncro 2100i
T5 TDI diesel 175HP 4motion
For the results in Nm : 1kg 9,81Nm (about 10N), 1 HP = 736W

A Torque at the wheels at maximum torque and in smallest gear (V1 for the T5 and G for the T3)

T(Kg) = (Max torque x 0,85) / wheel radius x (smallest gear x final drive)

T3 1600TD T = ((13,8x0,85)/0,36) x (6,0300 x 6,17) = 1212,266 Kg
T3 Petrol DJ T= ((17,4x0,85)/0,36) x (6,0300 x 5,43) = 1345,187 Kg
T5 4motion175HP T=((40x0,85)/0,36) x ( 3,9200 x 4,60) = 1703,022 Kg

B Speed (S) in km/h in smallest gear (V1 or G) at max engine torque and Rpm (revs a minut)

S = (N/Ix) x U x 0,05753 in km/h
N is Rpm, Ix is total drive, U is circumference wheel

T3 1600 TD S = (2500/37,205520) x 2,262 x 0,05753 = 8,744 km/h
T3 2100i DJ S = (2800/32,74) x 2,262 x 0,05753 = 11,129 km/h
T5 4motion 175HP S = (1900/16,422) x 2,262 x 0,05753 = 13,712 km/h

As the speed of the T3 DJ and the T5 are too long for offroading we’ll have to calculate it at the lower speed of 8,744 km/h (the better speed)

C. Calculation of rpm at “the better speed”

T3 petrol : rpm = 2800/11.129 x 8.744 = 2200 rpm
T5 4 motion 175 HP : RPM = 1900/ 15,056 x 8.744 = 1100 RPM

D. Recalculation of torque at the wheels in function of these new rpm’s

T3 1600TD : T=((13,8x0.85) / 0.36) x (6.03x6.17) = 1212,266kg
T3 2100i DJ: T=((16.8x0,85) /0,36) x (6.03x5.43)= 1298,802 kg
T5 4motion 175 HP T= ((22X0,85)/36) x (3,57x4,6)=853,032 kg

E. Conclusion

The T5 4motion 175 HP has in it’s lowest gear a lot less torque then a T3 1600TD.
The DJ engine, 112HP waterboxer has the most torque on the wheels

By Michel Thevissen"

http://busman.be/pagina39.html

Thu May 30, 2013 10:46 pm

Next important thing:

1)Please do not compare T3 SYNCRO to American or Japan vans!

It is so sophisticated in terms of active and passive safety that a lot of space and time is needed to explain, once more!

2)The comparison to TOYOTA 4RUNNER has to specify the generation.

If you are talking about the same era 4RUNNER, with solid axles and leaf springs, yes, this is for laughs!

3)Talking about progression, from 1985, (SYNCRO introduced), to nowadays,you see that all the good boys trying to imitate SYNCRO in terms of suspension, transmission, steering. Some succeed it, after...30 years, some not yet!

Thu May 30, 2013 11:00 pm

Next there are some "comparison videos", without "missing parts".

(It seems that you like them as I do! :D)

1)

2)

3)

4)

Thu May 30, 2013 11:17 pm

5)

6)

http://s361.photobucket.com/albums/oo57/hellenic_v...rimmed.mp4

7)

http://s361.photobucket.com/albums/oo57/hellenic_vanagon/?action=view&current=VSDISCOVERY1.mp4

8 )

http://s361.photobucket.com/albums/oo57/hellenic_vanagon/?action=view&current=VSDISCOVERY2.mp4

Thu May 30, 2013 11:37 pm

9)

10)

Thu May 30, 2013 11:49 pm

A small series on sand:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Thu May 30, 2013 11:53 pm

7)

SYNCRO 1st attempt