Four-Wheel Drive

THOSE OF US LUCKY ENOUGH TO FIND OURSELVES IN THE EARTH’S SECRET PLACES HAVE OUR DEBTS TO PAY. IF WE ABUSE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH OUR 4X4s, OR TAKE FOR GRANTED OUR RIGHT TO GO THERE, ONE DAY THESE RIGHTS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. Andrew St.Pierre White

1

WHAT IS FOUR WHEEL DRIVE?

The tricky part of choosing a four-wheel drive vehicle is that modern off-roaders have dual personalities. Many are required to cruise economically and comfortably, negotiate heavy traffic, and when the road ends, these same vehicles are asked to climb hills more suited to a mountain goat. Armed with insight as to how vehicles are designed to cope with these demands is of significant advantage to the buyer and operator .

4x4 or 4x2?

A 4x2 with axle differential lock can do almost as much as, and can go just about anywhere that a 4x4 can go. This statement, often used as selling hype on the showroom floor, is untrue and misleading. The difference in the off-road ability of a high-clearance 4x4 and a similar 4x2 with axle differential lock is dramatic. The difference in the off-road ability of a high-clearance 4x2 with differential lock and a similar vehicle without differential lock is also dramatic, but only under specific conditions. Why are these differences so vast?

The dual personality of a 4x4: Asked to cruise the highways in comfort and economy one day, then asked to tackle a mountain trail the next. What amazes me is the skill of the vehicle designers and engineers. So many 4x4s built today can do both things so well. Left: Land Cruisers and Hilux on the coastal plateau of Angola. Right: The Range Rover was one of the first vehicles that did both really well.

Half the load, double the traction

A 4x2 transmission means that of the four wheels on the ground, two are driven. Therefore, 100% of the pulling force necessary to push the vehicle is divided between these two wheels. Add two more driving wheels and things change dramatically. The pulling force is now divided amongst four wheels instead of two, halving the load on each wheel and thus doubling the effective traction. So in the laboratory, when the terrain under the vehicle remains constant, a 4x4 has twice the pulling ability of a 4x2.

In the real world with rocks, grass, mud, and sand challenging the grip of the tyres, things get even better for the 4x4, because the pulling qualities of the ground under each wheel are never equal or constant. For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the 4x2 has its rear differential locked and the 4x4 has no axle differential locks.

For our 4x2 to move, one of its two driving wheels must lie on terrain that will support the pulling effort. If not, both driving wheels will spin. In the case of our 4x4, it will move if any one of the four wheels has enough grip to support the pulling effort, with the following proviso: should one of the wheels on any one axle lose 100% of its traction, the demand for traction is transferred to the other axle. For a moment, the vehicle effectively becomes a 4x2, until conditions change. As the vehicle moves, conditions change by the millisecond, during which time traction is transferred from one wheel to another and from one axle to another. So, not only is the traction load split between left and right wheels, it is simultaneously split between back and front.

Another way to illustrate how these vehicles differ in ability is to ask how each driver feels about driving over difficult terrain. While the 4x2 driver moves along the trail, he is concerned that conditions are going to get too difficult for him to continue. The 4x4 driver, on the other hand, is excited about the prospect that the trail will get tougher, and that his or her vehicle will be challenged. Yet another way of looking at it is to count the broken differentials that litter 4x4 trails. These shattered components mostly come from 4x2s that, having completed 80% of the trail, were asked to overcome a steep, rocky climb that stood between them and an overnight stop. And so the driver, loath to turn back, throws caution and good sense to the wind and attacks the slope like a test pilot attempting a new climb-to-altitude record.

The reason for needing to rush the slope is the lack of low transfer gearing. Without it, the vehicle has no choice but to race. The trouble is, the high speed means that wheels bounce violently and the vehicle loses even more traction. It’s a vicious circle—the more speed, the less traction, which means that more speed is needed and so on. However, low transfer gearing means that the steepest, roughest slopes can be taken slowly, carefully, and with little or no risk of vehicle damage. Extra low gearing is as essential to an off-road machine as is all-wheel drive. Without it, it’s not an off-roader, nor is it particularly good at heavy-duty pulling. For example, low gearing saves clutch wear when pulling trailers up steep pull-offs.

Full-time four-wheel drive

It has been suggested that a 4x4 with an open centre differential is, by virtue of having three open differentials in the system, driven by only one wheel at a time. This, I believe, is misleading. In ideal traction conditions, this type of vehicle is being driven by all four wheels simultaneously, with 100% of the traction effort being split 25% each. Moving on a smooth tar surface, a full-time four-wheel drive vehicle requiring a very modest 25% pulling effort on each wheel experiences neutral cornering, even tyre wear, and improved handling. This means that four-wheel drive is an important safety factor for any vehicle equipped with it, improving stability on gravel, providing better braking, and increasing overall safety, and four wheels doing the work greatly reduces the impact on the environment.

Off road, and even on gravel, the centre differential must be locked immediately, not just prior to tackling difficult terrain. Imagine a vehicle moving off road with its centre differential open. It is still putting 25% pulling power to each wheel, a great improvement over 50% of a two-wheel drive, but this is not going to be maintained because the traction requirements are changing constantly and the differentials in the system will cause the pulling power requirements of each wheel to change with the terrain. As one of the wheels loses traction, it will rob pulling power from the others by spinning free. Lock the centre differential and it then requires two of the four wheels to lose traction for the same to happen. Moreover, one front and one back must lose traction before pulling power is going to be absorbed from the other wheels. That is why the centre differential must be locked whenever there is a chance that the demands on the pulling effort may change, i.e. on any surface other than smooth tar.

Axle differential locks on 4x2s

The axle lockers offered on 4x2 high-clearance pickups improve the vehicle's ability over uneven terrain to an extent few would believe. The important word here is ‘uneven’, for it is on this type of terrain that the difference in the vehicle’s performance is dramatic, and nowhere else. For the differential lock to make any difference, the terrain must be the kind that will force one of the driving wheels to have insufficient traction to drive the vehicle.

This happens when weight is taken off either driving wheel, and occurs in all terrain where the suspension is moving with high vertical movements. If the ground is flat and there is similar traction on both driving wheels, a differential lock will have little effect. In some situations, it can even decrease traction.

Typical of the 4x4s seen as ‘wasters of the world’s resources’, ‘polluters of the environment’, and altogether ‘unnecessary’, is the Toyota Prado. It’s a 4x4 and also a very safe, spacious, comfortable people carrier. Are the opponents of 4x4s frustrated at the vehicle’s excellent ability off road due to its four-wheel drive? Probably not. Maybe they think that four-wheel drive is bad for the earth—an opinion based on ignorance, I think. Or are they suffering from envy? Perhaps it’s none of these, but the vehicle’s size, because the drivers of large vehicles can exert their will on the traffic easier than those in smaller cars. This, I believe, is the route of almost all the loathing of 4x4s

NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS

There is an unequivocal sentiment among the general motoring public that 4x4s are a nuisance. Why? Are we really damaging the environment, or are we just scapegoats? The perceptions are that 4x4s are: unsafe, gas-guzzlers, environmental hazards, destroyers of roads, and altogether unnecessary. Many feel that a 4x4 on the road that is not being used for a 4x4 application should be discouraged or even banned. Maybe a bit of realism will even things out.

‘4x4s harm the environment’

It is impossible to generalize because there are small ones and big ones, ones with emission control and older ones without, just like regular cars. But how is it possible for 4x4s to be especially bad? To affect the fuel consumption and therefore emissions, four things could add to it: the vehicle’s extra weight, loaded roof-racks, the 4x4 transmission, and a larger and higher body that increases wind resistance.

Weight: The average 4x4 is between 100 and 180 kilograms heavier than a similar 4x2. At most, that’s 2% of a two-ton vehicle. Not many 4x4s are over two tons, but for this argument, let’s add 2% onto the weight. Roof racks: Especially if they are loaded, racks can increase fuel consumption at higher speeds by up to 25%, this from my own tests. This figure varies considerably between vehicles and rack designs. 4x4 transmissions can cause additional fuel consumption. However, the increase is miniscule. Even full-time 4WD systems have little or no effect on fuel consumption, and in all my experiments with 4x4s to disprove this, I have concluded that the difference is barely measurable.

So, what percentage increase is this really? Is it a 0.1% difference in fuel emissions caused because we drive a 4x4 instead of a 4x2? Is it even as much as this, since we drive with loaded roof-racks only once or twice a year, and many 4x4s drive in 4x2 on the tarmac? I cannot help but view it like this: If you feel guilty about the extra 0.1% increase in emissions, make up for it by a couple fewer trips to the store in the family saloon.

‘4x4s are destroyers of roads and tracks.’

In fact, both scientifically and practically, the opposite is true. A 4x4’s pulling force on the road surface (the force exerted on the road surface to set a vehicle in motion) is one-half that of a 4x2. Once differentials are locked, this is reduced still. The result is reduced wear and tear on the country’s roads. While on a good tar surface this variation makes little or no difference, on gravel roads and on slippery mountain roads it does. So many roads and tracks in rural areas are destroyed each year by rains as the tracks, already worn by vehicles, are subjected to erosion. Serving small rural communities, the vehicles that travel these roads are mostly light pickups and taxis. They are almost all 4x2s, not 4x4s. If these vehicles were 4x4s, there would be a significant reduction in road surface wear and a reduction in erosion. Surely, then, 4x4 is good for the environment? It is the users of 4x4s damaging the environment by thoughtlessness, not the vehicles. I guess you can say the same about guns: It’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the people with the guns.

‘4x4s are less safe than 4x2s.’

All-wheel drive provides improved traction, four times that of a similar 4x2, and as a result there is a reduced chance of wheel spin, more neutral steering, and therefore a significant reduction in the chance of skidding and spinning, the main cause of vehicles rolling. In addition, the high driving position gives an improved view ahead. In opposition to this evidence is the fact that most 4x4s (even those just built to look as if they can drive on rough terrain) have a higher centre of gravity and therefore reduced stability, resulting in a higher chance of a roll as a result of a swerve or collision. More alarming, though, is the tendency of some people to overload their roof-racks, making some models far more dangerous. Insurance and vehicle hire firms substantiate this statement in their roll-over accident statistics.

Another spat is that drivers of smaller vehicles complain that they cannot see past the larger 4x4s. This is true, but It is not the 4x4 that’s the problem; it’s the vehicle’s size that is the factor here. When people have a go at 4x4s, it’s never because of the vehicle’s four-wheel drive but rather its size. And perhaps many 4x4 drivers drive aggressively, and that’s a problem. Again, this has nothing to do with 4x4 or damage to the environment, but has everything to do with a large vehicle being driven questionably.

Typical rural roads eroded by the passage of 4x2 vehicles servicing local communities. The wheel spin and accelerated wear of the track eventually leads to runaway erosion. If the majority of vehicles plying this route were 4x4s, the onset of erosion would have been very much slower.

And another debate is, as a pedestrian, if you are hit by a 4x4, you are more likely to die. This argument is because of the 4x4’s larger size. Again, it isn’t the fact that it’s a 4x4; it’s the vehicle’s size that is the issue. On the other side of this argument is the absurd idea that being driven over by a 4x4 is safer because of its increased clearance. Either way, being hit by a vehicle, 4x4 or otherwise, is going to be hazardous.

‘Drivers of 4x4s who do not use them in 4x4 terrain should be discouraged from driving them.’

This is an everyday debate from the pens of ill-advised people who want to be seen as tree-huggers, irrespective of the stupidity of their arguments. I can’t see why we must take my wife’s Corolla on a weekend family trip, just because we probably won’t need four-wheel drive. My choice would be to leave the Corolla locked up and take the 4x4 because it’s a smooth, quiet, safe, and roomy station wagon. It has a frugal turbo-diesel engine, spewing out similar emissions as many medium-sized family saloons. But it has four-wheel drive! What’s wrong with that? Now, if I want to, I can go a little higher into the mountains, and if it begins to rain, I can keep my family safe. And in the week, I can use the same car because it seats all my kids with their own seatbelts as well as their friends, instead of taking a second car to the swimming pools. I just do not see any logic in this argument.

FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES

4x4s have changed a great deal since first produced in any number, but at no time has this change been as swift as in the past 20 years. Between 1948 and 1968, vehicles like the Jeep CJ, Toyota Land Cruiser, and Land Rover changed very little; they remained utilitarian, functional machines. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the market changed and Jeep built the Cherokee with power steering, Toyota produced a station wagon with wind-up windows, and Land Rover created a 4x4 offering the smooth ride of coil springs, the Range Rover. Even the Range Rover, the leader in the leisure 4x4 market for decades, was a year and a half in production before the introduction of carpets.

Comparing the sales brochures (below) of many of these originals with their modern equivalents reveals a completely different marketing strategy—vehicles that were once photographed climbing mountains are now seen in the polished environment of the shopping mall. This illustrates how the image for most 4x4s has changed from rugged workhorse to urban fashion statement. To compound the problem of choosing a suitable vehicle, manufacturers are creating 4x4s without true off-road ability and often advertise them as off-roaders.

It is true that in the modern world, comfort is as important as off-road working ability, but many 4x4s are becoming so sophisticated that while being brilliant on road, they make themselves less suitable for wilderness travel. Sophistication makes servicing and repairs easy in the city but often impossible elsewhere.

The introduction of the term SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) has blurred things even more. Now, almost all station wagons, 4x2 or 4x4, are listed as SUVs. Also, purpose-built, rugged overlander trucks are also called SUVS. In my view, SUV should only be used to describe urban runabouts with some off-the-tarmac ability built in—although many have absolutely none, because while the chassis suggests off-road ability, the wheels and tyres mean that any off-road ability is severely compromised.

As a result, all 4x4s in the showroom are a compromise between a town vehicle and off-roader. Therefore, in selecting a vehicle designed for this double life, the buyer should ask this question: ‘How much time will I be spending on tarred roads and how much off road?’ And, ‘If I intend to go off road, do I want to travel into the wilderness?’ What follows is a guide to variations in design and original equipment and features that will be encountered when selecting a 4x4 vehicle.

From left to righT: Range Rover’s first brochure of 1970, and third brochure in1974. Mercedes G_wagen’s first brochure in 1979 and circa 1990, the luxury brochure with the introduction of the luxury range.

ENGINES

The ideal power plant for an off-roader is able to produce its power at low RPM. Engines that do this can be driven in higher gear ratios in difficult terrain, which is advantageous because the higher the gear ratio, the less chance of wheel spin and the more delicately the driver can control the engine’s power output. Engines designed with long piston strokes tend to do this.

Good off-road driving techniques calls for selecting the right gear for the conditions. If the gear ratio selected is too high, a more powerful engine may still have the torque to get through, but if the gear selected is too low, a big engine could, if not handled skillfully, cause excessive wheel spin. For a novice driver, therefore, high power is often a disadvantage, but for the experienced it’s mostly an advantage. For long-distance travel, larger engines are more reliable because they rev slower and work less, but with the penalty of higher fuel consumption.

PETROL VS DIESEL ENGINES

It is never an easy choice, but should be. What do you expect from your 4x4? Are you towing? Are you spending lots of time on the road and then a short time off it? And when you are off it, what kind of terrain will be tackled? Once you have answered these questions, and more, you should come to the conclusion that petrol is the way to go, but for one thing: fuel consumption and range. These are the two main advantages diesel has over petrol. Diesels are usually more expensive to buy, more expensive to service, require more frequent maintenance, and are slower (a general observation). They are also noisier than petrol, diesel fuel smells terrible when spilt, and diesel is often more prone to being contaminated with water or other chemicals.

Occasionally one gets a brilliant vehicle without a good choice of engines. This is the fantastic Land Cruiser 105. It was built with a thirsty 4.5-liter 6-cylinder petrol or an underpowered 4.2-liter 6-cylinder diesel. Apart from both engines' reliability, neither engine did justice to the chassis. Toyota never built it with the turbo-charged version of the diesel, which is unfortunate, as it would have made a truly amazing wagon. The choice between diesel and petrol is often a difficult one.

If you want to go fast, rev high, and pull a heavy trailer, then a diesel is probably not the ideal choice. I don’t care how many kilowatts is produced, diesels are more prone to overheating and do not like sustained high-revs in hot climates—if they did, race cars would have them. So, if you are a more sedentary driver, happy that on hot summer hill climbs the engine may lose some of its pulling power, and that while idling, the clatter is sometimes intrusive (older designs), then a diesel may be a better choice. The additional range of a diesel vehicle, due totally because it uses less of the stuff, is another advantage, which, again, is about fuel consumption. So to summarize, get a petrol and put up with the consumption knowing that because it’s often cheaper to service, at the end of the day, the cost-to-run difference is not significant.

However, when driving off road, petrol engines do have their advantages, and as you will see, again, petrol comes out on top. A large-capacity petrol engine is a good choice off road, even if its power output is similar to that of a smaller turbo-diesel. They perform a lot better in the rough, but are a lot thirstier than diesels, especially if the going is slow, through thick sand or on rutted tracks.

Diesel engine turbo chargers boost power after the engine has, on average, reached 1200 RPM or more. A petrol engine will work at much lower revs, down to 600 RPM in some cases. The difference here is a mere 600 RPM, which doesn’t sound much, but low rev power is a distinct advantage off road. Turbo-charged vehicles often have to take a tricky climb one gear lower than their petrol counterparts, because at some point in the climb, the revs drop to below where the boost is working, and the engine loses lots of power and torque. Another terrain where small-capacity turbo-charged diesels often struggle is on dunes, where momentum cannot be maintained because of turbo-lag.

Some turbo-diesels are fitted with an intercooler, a radiator which cools the hot air pumped by the turbocharger, which itself is powered by hot exhaust gases, before it enters the combustion chambers. They often increase power output by over 20%. Like petrol engines, diesels are controlled by microprocessors. This is good and bad. It improves reliability and tuning accuracy. It also means that power output can be increased by adding an ECU tuning chip. Another advantage of a turbo-charged engine is that altitude has less effect on performance than it has with a normally aspirated engine.

For operations in Third World countries, diesel engines are the better choice for the reason that local truck transport relies on diesel and it is available more often and in more places. In these countries, the fuel is frequently contaminated with dirt and water, with the result that fuel-related problems cause more breakdowns than any other factor. Ideally, dual fuel filter systems should be fitted. At the very least, spare fuel filters should be carried.

But if you want to be the king on and off road, nothing beats a big petrol engine. In addition, for reliability, whether petrol or diesel, nothing beats normally aspirated large pistons.

Engine modifications

The four-wheel driver’s vehicle has two kinds of life: on and off road. However, modifications to improve on-road performance may have detrimental effects on the vehicle’s off-road abilities. Vehicle manufacturers always strive to increase engine power without increasing the engine’s size or weight. One of the ways of doing this is to improve the engine’s capacity to breathe. Increasing the amount of air that can be consumed by an engine during the combustion cycle increases engine power. Fitting free-flow exhaust systems or grinding and smoothing inlet and exhaust valve ports will increase airflow.

Modifications