hypermile homestead vehicle

[bondvagabond]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

If you go with taller tires but not wider I think you could see some slight gains. I am making the assumption that the aero is so bad on a samurai that the slight increase in drag from taller tires will be lost in the noise so to speak. I know the guys modding the samurai like the shorter 5th but that is for much larger tires, where they are trying to get some torque back.

I currently have 225 75 15s with out any lift. I have no trouble with the tire touching. If you could find a 225 70 or 65 you may see some improvement. If the tires are wider than stock I would bet you would loose a little mileage. This is assuming that the increase in tire drag is lost in the rest of the drag of the rig and that the engine is still in an effecient rpm range for your speed. I know these things love to rev and need to be wound up a bit to make head way.

My cousin has an old willy's wagon that he always puts tall narrow tires on for fitment reasons.

It says on your tagline that you only get 18.23mpg's out of your samurai, are you running in 4x4 a lot? I know from my experience with using hypermiling techniques in old toyota 4x4's that I could get about 15% over epa stock, I hope I could do this with the samurai too. Have you tried any driving tricks with yours? do you have super low gears in it or anything?

You are the only sammy owner on hear so your info would be super valuable to me.

[winkosmosis]

A spool is for dedicated offroad vehicles, not vehicles that see street use. I'd be scared to drive a spooled vehicle on the highway, especially on ice or wet roads. It's hard on the axleshafts and tires too.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by bondvagabond

My cousin has an old willy's wagon that he always puts tall narrow tires on for fitment reasons.

It says on your tagline that you only get 18.23mpg's out of your samurai, are you running in 4x4 a lot? I know from my experience with using hypermiling techniques in old toyota 4x4's that I could get about 15% over epa stock, I hope I could do this with the samurai too. Have you tried any driving tricks with yours? do you have super low gears in it or anything?

You are the only sammy owner on hear so your info would be super valuable to me.

18ish is the average. My last couple tanks have been even worse. I have a webber carb with no heat, so I get a bit of icing when the temp and humidity are right. It is cold winter now (10-15 below F) So some is idling just to get the thing warmed up enough to move under it's own power, and all is 4x4 right now. All my driving out here is short trips so I never really get to get it up to temp. In the summer I consistently see 20mpg. Only one paved road out here the rest is muddy dirt road so plenty of drag when any moisture is on the ground. With the samurai I had before I did a lot better. A warmer climate similar to western Oregon with an earlier model (taller 5th gear) and slimmer tires I consistently got 22-24 mpg driving spiritedly.

[DonR]

Does anybody make a selectable locker for your axle set-up. Open diffs until you flip a switch or throw a lever.

ARB makes a compressed air actuated locker
ECTED is electrically actuated
OX is cable actuated

Or the tried & true Detroit Locker.

Don

[bondvagabond]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

A spool is for dedicated offroad vehicles, not vehicles that see street use. I'd be scared to drive a spooled vehicle on the highway, especially on ice or wet roads. It's hard on the axleshafts and tires too.

As I stated before, I've run this setup on a similar truck here in the NW where it rains a bunch, and I am comfortable with it. I ride my bike around town, and only used it to drive on the hwy out into the woods.

You are right though, everyone must make there own decisions when it comes to safety. I would not recomend this setup for someone else.

I have heard on the suzuki samurai sites that the lock right type lockers that engage through sentrafucial force are more likely to break things, because they get spinning up to speed then engage. The spool is harder on the truck than stock, but if you are easy on the pedal, like anyone who wants to get the big mpg's is, I should be fine.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by bondvagabond

I have heard on the suzuki samurai sites that the lock right type lockers that engage through sentrafucial force are more likely to break things, because they get spinning up to speed then engage. The spool is harder on the truck than stock, but if you are easy on the pedal, like anyone who wants to get the big mpg's is, I should be fine.

The only locker that engages by centrifugal force is the Gov-Lock, it has a clutch that ramps up to a full lock when wheel differentiation occurs in excess of 9mph, and combined speed does not exceed 20mph (assuming 30" diameter tires) . They take a bit of driver education to use effectively, and the need for wheelspin does suck, as does the sudden slam when it ramps into a full lock. But these are relatively expensive full carrier replacements, so I can't imagine anyone installing one aftermarket. They're the OEM de-facto locking option on GM pickups.

Lock-Rite and similar "lunch box" lockers engage before wheelspin has an opportunity to occur, and remain engaged any time torque is applied to the axle. If you apply power through turns they behave mostly like a spool - the advantage being that you can learn to coast through turns to avoid the tug on your steering wheel and the scrub of the tires. The other advantage of course is you can cram 'em into your existing open carrier without having to set up your gears again. Half hour start to finish install on non-3rd-member axles.

The tendency of any type of locker to be "hard on the truck" depends entirely on the driver's attitude. Some drivers consider off-pavement vehicle enhancements an excuse to drive more aggressively, push their vehicle harder, and those drivers will break more parts and blame everything but themselves for the breakage. Other drivers consider such enhancements to be safety devices which allow them to get from A to B with less fanfare, allowing them to choose a safer line rather than necessitating a risky line because they believe it'll have more traction. When used in this way, no locker will be hard on the vehicle.

So now this thread is 5 pages deep consisting of you telling all comers why you're sticking with your original plan. Cool I guess, but why post in the first place?

[bondvagabond]

Originally Posted by shovel

The only locker that engages by centrifugal force is the Gov-Lock, it has a clutch that ramps up to a full lock when wheel differentiation occurs in excess of 9mph, and combined speed does not exceed 20mph (assuming 30" diameter tires) . They take a bit of driver education to use effectively, and the need for wheelspin does suck, as does the sudden slam when it ramps into a full lock. But these are relatively expensive full carrier replacements, so I can't imagine anyone installing one aftermarket. They're the OEM de-facto locking option on GM pickups.

Lock-Rite and similar "lunch box" lockers engage before wheelspin has an opportunity to occur, and remain engaged any time torque is applied to the axle. If you apply power through turns they behave mostly like a spool - the advantage being that you can learn to coast through turns to avoid the tug on your steering wheel and the scrub of the tires. The other advantage of course is you can cram 'em into your existing open carrier without having to set up your gears again. Half hour start to finish install on non-3rd-member axles.

The tendency of any type of locker to be "hard on the truck" depends entirely on the driver's attitude. Some drivers consider off-pavement vehicle enhancements an excuse to drive more aggressively, push their vehicle harder, and those drivers will break more parts and blame everything but themselves for the breakage. Other drivers consider such enhancements to be safety devices which allow them to get from A to B with less fanfare, allowing them to choose a safer line rather than necessitating a risky line because they believe it'll have more traction. When used in this way, no locker will be hard on the vehicle.

So now this thread is 5 pages deep consisting of you telling all comers why you're sticking with your original plan. Cool I guess, but why post in the first place?

Because it is a site for people who are into making there cars more fuel efficient than stock. There are people on this site who know a lot more about that then me. I posted on this site to get lots of great free information on this subject. Thanks for the info on the lockers, my knowledge of them was purely seat of the pants, before. I had experienced a lock right 'wind up' and then let go, I prefer the slipperier but more predictable spool. But everyone is different.

I have gotten some great info from people on this thread about fuel efficiency, and a surprising amount about lockers.

One thing I learned was about how they dropped the 5th gear ratio, when they swapped to fuel injection, I was sold on the earlier carbed models, but if the fuel injected ones get the same mpg with a lower tranny gear, and slightly more power, I now plan to get a fuel injected one and swap in an earlier tranny with higher gearing, if I can make sure it will bolt up.

I never would have thought about that if it weren't for a post here, great site, even if some people can get a little crabby. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you check out this thread, if it is so lame, why is a cool kid like you here?

[thatguitarguy]

play nice...

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by bondvagabond

One thing I learned was about how they dropped the 5th gear ratio, when they swapped to fuel injection, I was sold on the earlier carbed models, but if the fuel injected ones get the same mpg with a lower tranny gear, and slightly more power, I now plan to get a fuel injected one and swap in an earlier tranny with higher gearing, if I can make sure it will bolt up.

I am 99.9 percent sure that the engine and tranny bellhousing stayed the same then they went to the fuel injection. Just the head changed.

88.5 they changed the gear ratio. You will know it has the short 5th gear if the dash has square vent holes. The early ones had round vent holes. I think they got fuel injection in 90 or 91, a couple years later they discontinued in USA and brought in the tracker/sidekick.

[bondvagabond]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

I am 99.9 percent sure that the engine and tranny bellhousing stayed the same then they went to the fuel injection. Just the head changed.

88.5 they changed the gear ratio. You will know it has the short 5th gear if the dash has square vent holes. The early ones had round vent holes. I think they got fuel injection in 90 or 91, a couple years later they discontinued in USA and brought in the tracker/sidekick.

That sounds like the way to go, does anyone know if the early fuel injected samurais would be compatible with those open source real time mpg-ometers? My scanguage helped a ton when playing with my wifes 05 corolla.