Michael's new (old!) G-wagon

[michaelgroves]

Great pictures, even if the place was a let down at least you got to get her out and get her dirty eh

So am I seeing things correctly??? IS there a factory winch mount on the front??? Cool truck for sure, add some tall/skinny mudders and let'er rip. I'd think that with that diesel you'd be better off with taller tires then us gas motor folks are. But then I have no idea how accessible lower diff gears are? I'm sure they're not as common as say parts for my Toyota are, but I'm sure they're out there. Some 255/85's would be perfect on that rig IMO.

Cheers

Dave

No, what you're seeing is the sump/steering guard and the recovery pintle in the bumper (both standard factory). Actually, I don't have the pin - for some reason someone mounted a CB aerial where the pin goes!

I would imagine changing diff ratios on a G-wagen would be verrrry expensive. But it'ss only a 4-spd manual box, and it is really revving the guts out of the engine at 60mph (70 is maxxed out). So taller tyres would help with that. My only concern is whether I'd be struggling with a low enough 1st gear. Come to think of it, it's where having the synchromesh transfer 'box might be a great advantage - routinely pull off in low range and change to high when on the move!

Ok.. a few more pics:


Grounded again!





Stuck in some deceptive ruts. We had to get pulled out of there with a winch again, (in preference to the few minutes of digging it would have taken).





Just a general view of the wet site...





Washing off in the river afterwards. It still took a lot of time with a pressure-washer when I got home! I don't mind the occasional bit of mud, but it's not something I would do often just for the fun of it.





We drove it up a ramp to see the axle articulation. It's one area where the G-wagen is relatively weak (better than most, probably, but nowhere near the best-in-class), and why the difflocks are so important. Of course, it is also the main reason why the G-wagen feels so much more stable on the road than a Discovery or Defender.

 

[michaelgroves]

Underbody shots

And as requested, a few of the undercarriage! Not ideal, as it wasn't very high off the ground, and the light was fading. And it was dirty!


Front Right




Rear Left

 

[zimm]

are those bfgoodrich dot drag slicks on there? im shocked you made it anywhere at all.

 

[michaelgroves]

are those bfgoodrich dot drag slicks on there? im shocked you made it anywhere at all.

LOL, yes, I did say they weren't good!

 

[Crookthumb]

are those bfgoodrich dot drag slicks on there? im shocked you made it anywhere at all.

They look like Michelin 4x4 XPCs.

 

[michaelgroves]

They look like Michelin 4x4 XPCs.

Hole in one! (no, I don't mean I got a puncture...)

 

[Root Moose]

Did i read somewhere that turbo'ing the NA 3.0 was relatively straightforward?

Radius arms inherently bind. That said, I'm sure there must be some tuning you can do to get more articulation out of that suspension.

 

[michaelgroves]

Did i read somewhere that turbo'ing the NA 3.0 was relatively straightforward?

I've also read that adding a turbo is feasible, and I'll be looking into it. Something needs doing!

Radius arms inherently bind.

True-ish. And although the G-wagen doesn't need to articulate like a classic Range Rover, it could do with a bit more axle movement. Removing the anti-roll bars might be a first step, but I'll read up on what the experts say works.

 

[Root Moose]

From what I've read about Broncos and even the TNT setup on my XJ, bushings are critical. Some of the Bronco guys add a hinge point to one of the arms at the axle that is pinnable but I wouldn't do that - no need for a ramp queen.

Good point about the anti-roll bars - the images above look really constrained - too constrained to only be the design of the suspension. Maybe it's possible to fangle up some Jeep style disconnects?

 

[39Ronin]

From what I have read on the forums adding a turbo to the OM617 isn't a great idea, there are a few differences between that and the OM617A (turbo version).

This a Post from Hipine (Dave G) from Pointed Three forums. He expalins the differences I refered to above:

First of all, I can't tell you why you should or shouldn't do anything. That's up to you alone, of course. But your follow-on questions related to differences between the 617 and 617A, a subject I have researcehd a little bit.

The list of changes made to the engine from 617 to 617A is long. As a matter of fact, MB published a whole book a hundred or so pages long dedicated JUST to the differences between the 617 and 617A. This was in addition to the engine and chassis service manuals normally produced. They went to quite a length to train their mechanics at the time (1979) that the 617A was NOT just a 617 with a garret turbo grafted on.

One point the book stressed was the change to the engine oiling system that sprays oil onto the undersides of the engine's pistons to help cool them. The 617 has no such provision and it was added (along with changes to the pistons themselves, and oil pumping volume and capacity) to help the pistons in the 617A better handle the heat stresses of the added fuel that would be burned in a forced induction combustion chamber. This seemed to be an important thing to the original engineers. based on the amount of time they spend talking about it in the change book. Things like cam, valves, and valve train components are different from the 617 and evolved through the early years of the 617A as well to help get that more dense air charge into the combustion chamber where it can do some work. The injection pump, injectors, and pre-ignition chambers are also different to better deliver fuel and take most efficient advantage of the added air charge supplied by the turbo. Remember that in a diesel engine, it's not just about how much fuel you deliver, but about WHEN you deliver it. Increasing the injection pump's stroke can deliver more fuel to match some of the extra air coming in, but you reach a point of diminishing returns where that extra fuel is coming in so late that it doesn't burn efficiently and is mostly wasted as smoke. So in order to take advantage of the extra air in the combustion chamber you have to deliver more fuel earlier, necessitating a larger DIAMETER injection cylinder, not just a longer stroke. And of course the various parts directly involved in the plumbing (intake, exhaust, oiling lines, etc) are different to accommodate the turbo and the air and oil flow that it requires to function properly.

Is it possible to bolt up a turbo to the 617? Yes it is. Will the 617 run fine after that? Yes it will. How much will it's life be shortened? Nobody knows for sure. I let my guide be the fact that people who know how to do it right and had the resources to do so chose to design and build a substantially different power plant in order to accommodate the turbo. That was enough for me to choose the 617A over a 617 with added turbo. A scandenavian company called STT did a good business in the 80s adding turbos to 300GDs and other 617's. The engines didn't all blow up right away. I think some folks on this list are driving STT modified trucks. So it certainly can be done.

One other thing to consider is the transmission that's behind that motor. I'm hearing more and more of Getrag 5-speed trannys that are not long for the world when used behind a 617A. They seem to have their share of troubles even with the 617. So if you do decide to turbo it, give some thought to the trans too. JMO

-Dave G.

 

[michaelgroves]

Ronin39: Good info, thanks!

 

[Root Moose]

Some great info in that text snippet. The under piston oil squirters in particular are worth knowing about.

That said, the text reads like the typical hobbyist that gets into a "space shuttle programme" quality build up plan - over-engineering to the nth degree what could be a simple project. I know it well because I am guilty of it in a big way myself.

I am far from expert on these trucks and diesels but I will throw out my two cents anyway.

Stick a mild turbo setup on it. Something under half a bar of boost. Put an EGT in it. Do a little bit of tuning. Any increase in compression, even only a few pounds of boost will likely really wake the truck up.

Is the OM617 externally the same as a OM617A? The above text seems to imply it given the context of the assumptions made by technicians in the field. If it is, swap in a OM617A when (if?) you end up grenading the OM617. Given vintage there is no electronics to swap, right? The injection pump is the main driver and it is a "simple" mechanical device.

That's my take on it. Some ideas to ponder.

Love these trucks. Can't wait till Crown Assets Disposal starts releasing the Canadian military units. Hopefully there will be something worth buying left over.

 

[discotdi]

Cool truck but considering that the engine is underpowered and it has no torque, rides worse than an RRC or D2, and is waaay more expensive than any older LR's, why did you buy it? Just can't see buying that when in Eng. it is so easy and cheap to outfit a LR with all of the best off road mods.And so expensive to do the same on the G.
Is it just because you live in the land of Rovers and wanted something different? I realize that you fly the LR flag so I am not saying "buy a LR it is better than everything" it just seems a LR would is better than this particular vintage and engined Gwagen. Again I think Gwagens are cool, but I did not know the older diesels were so pathetic in the power dept.
don't get me wrong it is your money and whatever your reason for buying it is non of my business, but was curious if you did have some compelling reasons for the purchase.

 

[michaelgroves]

Cool truck but considering that the engine is underpowered and it has no torque, rides worse than an RRC or D2, and is waaay more expensive than any older LR's, why did you buy it? Just can't see buying that when in Eng. it is so easy and cheap to outfit a LR with all of the best off road mods.And so expensive to do the same on the G.
Is it just because you live in the land of Rovers and wanted something different? I realize that you fly the LR flag so I am not saying "buy a LR it is better than everything" it just seems a LR would is better than this particular vintage and engined Gwagen. Again I think Gwagens are cool, but I did not know the older diesels were so pathetic in the power dept.
don't get me wrong it is your money and whatever your reason for buying it is non of my business, but was curious if you did have some compelling reasons for the purchase.

Fair question. I've always liked what I've seen and read about the G-wagens. They were introduced about 10 years after the Range Rover was, and I get the impression that the Benz engineers took a long hard look at the RR when designing the G. In doing so, they did many of the things Land Rover should have done in the first place: beefing up the weak points, lockers in the diffs, and a sychromesh transfer box. Tom Sheppard (Vehicle Dependent Expedition Guide) was always very impressed by them, and has got a G-wagen as his latest expedition truck.

So when the opportunity came to buy one cheaply, I did so. So far, I'm enjoying it despite its weaknesses, and if I fall more in love with it, I might decide to get rid of my 2004 Defender 130 and get a later model Geländewagen.

It's not a good vehicle to buy as a "play" truck, because of the price and scarcity of parts and accessories. But it may well be worth it to spend money on it as a good expedition truck, because of its excellent basic design and reliability.

And power isn't high on my list of must haves

 

[discotdi]

gotcha. so really it is a cool truck that is well built and you got the chance to pick one up for a good price. Were these originally built for the military and then became civilian? Just wonder if that is why the Benz engineers did the things that Rover did not. Like the lockers etc. I guess Benz upped the power band later with turbos etc? keep the pics coming, like to see it shod with those beefy tires in the future.