[CATS]

Mmmmmm?

Pasnini said
"The rail pressure limiter on Some NS are quite weak upgrading these can provide a performance benefit"

Now is that rail pressure limiter a sensor or a regulator? Will have to ask him I suppose.

Anyway. All this opens up a whole new area to fiddle in

Unfortunately this weekend my wife has use of my Pajero with a weekend away so cant take some measurements but will have a look see at some stage.

CATS



Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[peterpot]

Cats you are quite correct. My appologies. Went back and read it twice and still read it wrong! Probably all the other info I was trying to take in a the same time. Glad to see your wife is also as keen on using the Pajero!

Ok so the fuel rail has a fuel pressure sensor on the one end and a fuel pressure limiter on the other end. I would believe that a fuel pressure limiter is the same as a fuel pressure regulator. I know some of the chips etc bump the fuel pressure up in an effort to improve the performance. So if the fuel rail pressure is "genuinely down a bit" the performance would obviously be "down a bit". I see another member has "challenged / questioned" his comment though. I will go and Google some more on the rail pressure limiter.

[CATS]

Just some feedback.

So this last week I hookef up the Xplorer and headed off to Kosi bay from Gauteng. Before the trip. I added an electric fan to my Pajero to run with the aircon, which for some reason my Pajero came without. Most seem to have this as standard? I also removed the nudge bar "garnish" plate to increase airflow to the intercooler.

Now I dont know if I am just getting used to the gearbox or if the small changes made any performance difference, but I really had an enjoyable trip. The Pajero did really well and pulled good. Anyone that did have done that trip will know the pass up to Jozini! Killer when towing! Anyway I did pretty well and even passed a local bakkie on the way up! I was impressed.

I have noticed though that I need to keep the revs between 2500 and 3500 to get the best results. On my old gen3 it was happy between 2000 and 3000 and maybe that is where I went wrong with this one in the beginnning. So slip it in manual part on the auto and stick it in a gear that keeps the revs sweet and it flew up there. OK flew when towing up Jozini equate to 80km/h in 3rd gear and 2nd every now and again, but with the weight I towed up there I was pretty impressed. Temp also stayed just below half on the dashboard guage, although the OBD2 tool showed I touched on 102degC for a short while. Go figure how one can trust the std guage?

All in all I was impressed and really enjoyed the trip. Maybe my first impressions was a bit harsh? Maybe it just needed a service, which it got a while back, maybe my adjustments made a difference? Whatever

CATS

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[CATS]

Sheesh my spelling and grammar is terrible. But I aint retyping any off that long winded post

CATS

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[Roelf_le_Roux]

I don't believe the fan really made a difference. You know I'm doubtful about those big ugly bumpers, with the weight of a gothic church and airflow of a shipping container, so that may have made a difference. But I really believe you are just settling into the drive-style and characteristics of the automatic Pajero.

[NatureFan]

CATS, I am just so glad you enjoyed the trip and feel better about your car now. I just love mine - never felt more safe and comfortable on a trip, never been able to drive for such long stretches without aches and pains on getting out, never felt so confident behind the wheel - as I do in the Pajero. Never had so little trouble and few repairs. So it doesn't have the top speed of some others, but it has a HUGE amount of good will and many, many other benefits. My Stallion and I have done just on 200k km together now and only just getting started! Hope you enjoy yours for many years to come.

[peterpot]

I have been in a "mind set" to establish the reason for the difference in performance between the Gen3 (NP) and the Gen4.1 (NS). I travelled and towed with my Gen3 extensively and it was superb. While the Gen4.1 is a brilliat vehicle and I love it to bits, there is a seious lack of torque as far as I am concerned. Some opinions are that the difference is "just in the mind". With towing (Jurgens XT 120) plus fuel consumption I cannot agree. Also simply looking at the performance figures it is clear there is a difference.
To recap: Done a decat, fitted a 76mm free flow system from turbo to tailpipe, replaced SCV, checked the little filter / sieve in the CR pressure pump, checked and adjusted turbo boost, adjusted tappets, removed and cleaned inlet manifold, checked the in tank filter, checked air cleaner restriction, checked MAP sensor, checked fuel rail pressure, plus regular servicing filters lubes etc. and more I will probably still recall.
I have been watching comments on the Pajero Sport 3.2 DID (of approx same MY) as they have the same engine setup as the Gen4.1. I have also been following the Australian forums where I have also found further interesting comment. The inlet manifolds are different (flapper valves) and later versions got VNT turbo's.
The consensus is that the Gen4.1 auto is "torque restricted", as it also appears is the Pajero Sport 3.2 DID auto in SA. Comment is the 3.2DID manual is not. I travelled with a 3.2 DID manual (also towing a similar rig) to TITD's Baberton and watching fuel consumption and general performance can say it was identical to my Gen4.1. The description "torque restricted" is exactly how I find my Gen4.1. (and many others that I have driven) ie the performance from +- 2500 RPM is absolutely "flat". ie no torque curve / turbo boost that one can sense / experience. My son has a Triton DC 2.5 diesel (bags of torque once the turbo lag is over), tows a heavier rig than I do and I almost battle to stay with him at 110km/h. Overtaking while towing I find a hazardous task that requires planning and careful execution.
So why "torque restrict" the engine? There was a transmission change from the Gen3 (NP) Aisan auto transmission to Gen4.1 (NS) with a Jatco auto transmission. Speculation is that "they" were worried that the Jatco could not handle the torque typical of the Gen3 (NS) and therefore "torque restricted" the motor. I have found a number of posts where this was challenged by owners who have remapped or chipped their vehicles and done considerable mileage. Also numerous Gen 4.1 here as well as Aussie tow big rigs with their vehicles and I cannot find any reference to the transmission being "underated / inadequate". Jatco have been making auto's for many years and have been fitted to a number of vehicles including BMW's. Other speculation is that only the auto was "torque restricted" as one cannot drive around the turbo lag with an auto. This I do not believe as the 3.2 has never suffered turbo lag.

[CATS]

Peter - And still no noticeable improvement after all of that?

Personally I just think the Mitsu boys under turbo'd the gen4.1. Which should bode well for longevity I would think.

In the gen4.2 they just put back a bigger turbo from the gen 3 but with fancy variable vanes and torque is back.

I have grown accustomed to the torque and power of my gen4.1 and now know better how to use the engine revs and gear ratios to get the best out of the combination.

I just get in and drive.

CATS

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[peterpot]

Howzit Cats saw you too late the other day to greet. (Had a clever oke behind me up to "tricks")
Yes Cats after all that still no big "wow". I got very excited about the exhaust though. What I did was remove the second section of exhaust (so to speak the section next to transmission). I made a temporary section with a matching flange that went from the existing exhaust flange to the side of the vehicle (made a straight through so to speak). The improvement was very very impressive and prompted me to go for a 76mm free flow. Unfortunately the outcome was disappointing. I always stand and watch technicians working on my vehicle and I was not impressed with their work. I had to constantly interfere to ensure that it was a reasonable instillation - that should be the owners responsibility. As far as the performance goes it is a little better but still not what it should be.

Talking transmissions I see some one has a transmission failure with a 2015 140 kw version. This is very unusual. These 140 kw versions evidently have also reverted back to the Aisian auto box.

Well after all this investigation I have now relented and am seriously considering a remap. I just cannot live with it as it is. I find the vehicle very "thirsty" irrespective of driving style (except if one has to drive unrealistically economically) and then when one needs the performance to tow etc it does not do that as it should.

[Gemaskerde Tuinvurk]

So here you can see the torque curve drop.quite dramatically after 3000rpm. The mechanic reckons it's more than he is used to (my 2007 BK has 182k kms on it). He reckons it might be injectors... But suggested I use a fuel liner cleaner additive for 2000 or 3000 kms and then test again.

I'm tempted to use 2so given I post I recall reading a long time ago from 4epikanini where he tested the mitsi and Wynn's additives. But given my EGR is also blanked off, is it still worth it? Or should I just try use the fuel line cleaner? ( Mekor rivonia quoted me R400 for a bottle!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk