As usual, a neat technical explanation from Gerrit!
I don't think it was intended to be as much, but the limitation on turning angle is an indirect protection for the outer CV joints.
A CV at an acute angle, at high torque .....
Gerhard Fourie
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
It is a little tricky to compare published turning circle figures, because one is never certain whether the figures are calculated over the tyres or over the bodywork, but here is what I could find:tonton wrote:I wonder how our tanks compare with other brands on this...
Pajero Gen 2: Wheelbase 2725mm, Track F/R 1465mm/1480mm, Turning Circle 11.8m, Inside Turning Radius 4.16m
Pajero Gen 3: Wheelbase 2780mm, Track 1560mm, Turning Circle 11.4m, Inside Turning Radius 3.88m
Prado 120 Series: Wheelbase 2790mm, Track 1575mm, Turning Circle 11.6m, Inside Turning Radius 3.96m
Land Cruiser 100 GX (105 Series): Wheelbase 2850mm, Track F/R 1605mm/1600mm, Turning Circle 12.0m, Inside Turning Radius 4.13m
Land Cruiser 100 VX (100 Series): Wheelbase 2850mm, Track F/R 1620mm/1615mm, Turning Circle 11.8m, Inside Turning Radius 4.01m
Patrol Y61: Wheelbase 2970mm, Track F/R 1605/1625, Turning Circle 12.2m, Inside Turning Radius 4.21m
So it can be seen that the Gen 2 is a little worse off than the Prado, despite having a narrower track and a 65mm shorter wheelbase. It equals the Land Cruiser 100 VX that has a 125mm longer wheelbase and a wider track.
The parameters that determine the turning circle are wheelbase, steering angle and track width.
The steering angles for some of these are:
Gen 2: 32.67° (inner wheel) and 29.75° (outer wheel)
Gen 3: 36.5° (inner wheel) and 31.67° (outer wheel)
Land Cruiser 80: 35° (inner wheel) and 31° (outer wheel)
Patrol Y61: 35° (inner wheel) and 31° (outer wheel)
Gerrit Loubser 
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
To add a figure to Gerrit's list:
My Touareg (mono-coque, IFS & IRS), has a turning circle of 11.6m.
The Pajero's turning circle therefore seems to be very similar to that of most large (LWB) SUV's.
My Touareg (mono-coque, IFS & IRS), has a turning circle of 11.6m.
The Pajero's turning circle therefore seems to be very similar to that of most large (LWB) SUV's.
Gerhard Fourie
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
Here's another comparable vehicle:
Isuzu Trooper: Wheelbase 2761mm, Track F/R 1514/1519, Turning Circle 11.6m, Inside Turning Radius 4.04m
Steering Angles: 34° (inner wheel) and 32° (outer wheel)
The differences between the vehicles are not huge, but the Gen 3 comes up as the turn-on-a-tickey-leader whether the spec sheet turning circle is considered or whether some figure of merit is used to take account of the different sizes of the vehicles on the list (e.g. by dividing the wheelbase or the diagonal distance from front wheel to rear wheel by the turning circle). The Gen 2 is in the middle of the list in terms of turning circle, but comes in last place if the figure of merit calcs are done.
Isuzu Trooper: Wheelbase 2761mm, Track F/R 1514/1519, Turning Circle 11.6m, Inside Turning Radius 4.04m
Steering Angles: 34° (inner wheel) and 32° (outer wheel)
The differences between the vehicles are not huge, but the Gen 3 comes up as the turn-on-a-tickey-leader whether the spec sheet turning circle is considered or whether some figure of merit is used to take account of the different sizes of the vehicles on the list (e.g. by dividing the wheelbase or the diagonal distance from front wheel to rear wheel by the turning circle). The Gen 2 is in the middle of the list in terms of turning circle, but comes in last place if the figure of merit calcs are done.
Gerrit Loubser
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
Thanx Gerrit and Gerhard. It makes for interesting reading and the fogs of puzzlement is starting to clear for me. Just for more interest sake I also have the 95 Colt DC V6 3.0 and the front suspension setup is basically the same with torsion bars and diff position. SimonB mentioned the turning circle is 2m shorter on the bakkie. The only difference might be the wheel base and the steering mechanism (not sure about the track width). Would that account for the shorter turning circle? Does the steering mechanism have any impact?
Cobvs, I am not sure that it is possible for the Colt 4x4 to have a shorter turning circle than the Paj.
I don't have the data for the older (pre 1997) Colt, but this certainly is not the case with the later 1997+ 4x4 model (Model code K70). The K70 basically uses the Pajero Gen 2's front suspension and the steering angles as well as the track widths are identical to those of the Paj. The K70 has a much longer wheelbase, though, than the Pajero (2960mm vs. 2725mm).
The only possible result of this all is that the turning circle must be larger for the bakkie. I have a Colt Rodeo 4x4 spec sheet (K70) that claims the turning circle to be 12.8m, i.e. 1m greater than that of the Paj.
I don't have the data for the older (pre 1997) Colt, but this certainly is not the case with the later 1997+ 4x4 model (Model code K70). The K70 basically uses the Pajero Gen 2's front suspension and the steering angles as well as the track widths are identical to those of the Paj. The K70 has a much longer wheelbase, though, than the Pajero (2960mm vs. 2725mm).
The only possible result of this all is that the turning circle must be larger for the bakkie. I have a Colt Rodeo 4x4 spec sheet (K70) that claims the turning circle to be 12.8m, i.e. 1m greater than that of the Paj.
Gerrit Loubser
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
Based on the facts you have given so far it should be the same. Mmmm, think I need to find an open stretch of field and do a comparison. Maybe it is just feeling different ...
Site Admin
Interesting post Gerrit. This was not my perception when moving from the Colt to the Pajero. My best example is the parking garage I parked at the time when I switched vehicles. There is a ramp which I cannot get round with the Paj without doing a 3 point turn, but the Colt made it easily.
Simon Bloomer
Can it be that the stops are different on the Pajeros (to protect the CV joints)?
My Gen1 turns like a oil tanker!
My Gen1 turns like a oil tanker!
Gerhard Fourie
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
If you want to shoot somebody, make sure you aim at his head, not your own foot.
Me
Hmmm. Feels like a road car but turns like a 4X4.... Sounds like a Pajero to me!Cobvs wrote:Based on the facts you have given so far it should be the same. Mmmm, think I need to find an open stretch of field and do a comparison. Maybe it is just feeling different ...
Anton