Gypsy is an offroad legend around the world ! Known by the name samurai , jimny etc , it has been destroying even land cruisers and land rovers ! Lightweight (but tough) , capable even with an 80 hp esteem engine which was built for economy, higher payload than even bolero , reliable , that's why Indian army still prefers it , so and so that safari coudn't complete with it ! Reliability , light weight is what you need in the himalayas ! Also being petrol powered , no need to worry about climatic change ! Haters are thar fanboys !
Weight is not a problem. Heavier cars like Pajero ( 2500 kilos) have also destroyed Thar. Think about humvees that can destroy jeep wranglers. It's all about momentum. The gypsy has higher power to weight ratio to create momentum, but sometimes torque when multipled with weight and frictional coefficient too can help maintain enough tractive effort in order to create momentum, but that defends only if the vehicle is driven at a lower rev, i.e under 2500 rpm. In this case Thar was poor both in terms of tractive effort and power to weight ratio.
@@GRcorolla-bt3mn Humvee is an assault vehicle and it's not a true off road vehicle. It is used for different purpose and that's only H1 other models are garbage and useless. Pajero has big engine with loads of power, Indian version had a useless underpowered diesel engine. The real off road vehicles have light weight and powerful engines.
@@cranky1812 I am talking about old 1990s humvees, they were not too heavy back then with lesser armor, weighing under 3 tons and were still capable than any other 4x4 of it's time. Newer humvees are heavy because of which they use stiffer suspensions to bare that much load. Yes I agree that power to weight ratio always wins but that doesn't mean you can say heavy cars cannot be capable. Heavier 4x4 vehicles need to be operated at least possible rpm within the torque band. There are toyota v8 diesels that generate only 300hp but 1000nm of torque does loads of magic to keep pulling, no matter if those vehicles also weigh 3 tons ( a land cruiser with 5 people onboard for example) , they would still keep pulling. Although a vehicle with higher power to weight ratio might just zoom over, but what if that particular vehicle was as heavy as let's say a 70 series land cruiser? Torque would work better. After all momentum also depends on tractive effort which is a function of torque, weight and frictional coefficient of the tyre. Best is combination of both power and torque.
@@GRcorolla-bt3mn what's the point of making a heavier vehicle when a lighter vehicle can do much better? Regarding the friction, good tyres with good transmission and transfer case will do the job. Why need a V8 if same results can be achieved by a V6 or inline 4 turbo? Why add heavy duty suspension when you don't need it? Especially in present when we have the advantage of using ECU's with traction control, slip control and electronic dif locks.
@@cranky1812 did I say a V6 cannot perform as good as a V8 anyhow? Like I just gave the example of a toyota V8 diesel engine which makes loads of torque to keep pulling even if it profuces only about 300hp. There are v6s, inline 6s or even 4 bangers that do the job too, no doubt. Secondly by adding a driveline(i.e gearbox, transmission, axle) with lower(larger) crawl ratio, don't you think that would make your vehicle more heavier? A driveline that could bare loads of stress and send higher torque output would weigh a lot. And I talked about stiff heavy duty suspensions because modern humvees are heavy due to their armour and logistics and being a vehicle with all independent suspension it would create a negative camber angle which would lead to tyre wear. To prevent that, they have stiff suspensions. Never did I mention that they do any better off the road because soft coilovers work better. And the old humvees didn't have stiff suspensions and were lighter. My only point was all about how heavy vehicles too can be capable. And that's only possible with torque even if the vehicle has a poor power to weight ratio. Lighter vehicles like the gypsy have higher amount of power to weight ratio which helps in creating momentum. But a heavier vehicle on the other hand increases tractive effort and then multiplies it with the tyre's frictional coefficient, and with a higher torque output from the engine, it would multiply the tractive effort even more. Except they have to be driven at a slower crawling speed. The gypsy's torque is too low and has to be revved all the way to 4000 rpm to achieve that, which is useless. A vehicle that generates a near flat torque all the way from 2500 rpm or lesser would work better in generating enough tractive effort to keep pulling. It only comes to a scenerios like deep slush, where the tractive effort fails due to 0 frictional coefficient and instead higher power to weight ratio would seem better. The gypsy works better on slush. When it comes to slow driving applications, over boulders and solid ground , a heavier vehicle with loads of torque would work better.
Gypsy ya 2nd generation jimny jo keh lo , ye thar se 25 saal purana model hai...thar 2010me aayi aur gypsy 1985 me...Aur saale suzuki waalo ne coil spring wala model india me kabhi launch hi nahi kia 1995 wala..., Jo ki 2nd gen gypsy ka hi facelift version tha videsho me ...Suzuki apni cars ka kharaab version yaha lati hai
Clear winner gypsy
Gypsy is an offroad legend around the world ! Known by the name samurai , jimny etc , it has been destroying even land cruisers and land rovers ! Lightweight (but tough) , capable even with an 80 hp esteem engine which was built for economy, higher payload than even bolero , reliable , that's why Indian army still prefers it , so and so that safari coudn't complete with it ! Reliability , light weight is what you need in the himalayas ! Also being petrol powered , no need to worry about climatic change ! Haters are thar fanboys !
absolutely
Land cruiser
Then Old major Jeep vs gypsy king which is better
right
No words to say.
It was amazing off-road trip😍
Wish you all the best guyz..
Gypsy king forever 🔥
Nobody can beat gypsy
All 4x4s aside, the sheer joy of watching a Gypsy accomplish something comes from the base desire to watch an underdog succeed.
Gypsy forever 💫🔥🔥
Gypsy king only 🔥🔥
Wow I catch you guys here, let the passion in your heart excites you 😊😊😘😘😘
Gypsy❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Gypsy is like leopard. Small, compact and powerful. Thar is like tiger. Big, majestic, powerful.
You are comparing a Thar which has MLD with a Gypsy that has an open diff ...not fair . Fit a difflock in the Gypsy and do a rematch ....GYPSY is king
Gypsy is anyday better on trails than the Thar, even with open diffs
😍😍😍😍
From Fb to here
Luv to u Guys ♥
Gypsy is love
that gypsy is even not a 4 wheel..amazing
But the roar of gypsy engine
Just amazing
Gypsy💯💯
Thar is best
@@sonuvasudeva4658 😂
@@sonuvasudeva4658 gypsy has better power to weight ratio and is more reliable than thar. Served army for years for a reason
@@sonuvasudeva4658 Kitna bara unpadh garelu hain tu 🤣
Gypsy s offroad capasity is best than that
is gypsy ki engine mein kuch modify hua ki nahi?
Nahi. Just free flow exhaust
@@Kashmiroffroad Any modification on a Suspension and all please
Gypsy🔥🔥
Ilike only gypsy king.....❤❤❤❤
The king is a gypsy
Gyps king of off-road
I am from north east India in Mountain n worst road Gypsy is best. Thats why Gypsy is king of offroad.
Chetta super❤❤❤❤
Thar Di
gypsy victorious 🤓
King to king hota hay
Thar isn't even a competitor for gypsy
Total waste of money thar.. gypsy the global king 😎
Thar fanboys can never understand gypsy / jymny's capabilities as they love thar only for showingoff their muscularity.
I love gypsy so mush❤❤❤
Maruti Suzuki gypsi is best then thar I like gypsi is the king of ofording Rawdyrator is gypsi
Last point sums up all .... if the intended use is to drive to far of destinations and mild off-roading, Thar is a better bet any day.
Yes👍
Wow!
Thar is thar only thar
Thar always ❤️❤️
😂😂😂 Thar struggling by it's own weight. Needs to cut fat 😂😂😂😂.
Weight is not a problem. Heavier cars like Pajero ( 2500 kilos) have also destroyed Thar. Think about humvees that can destroy jeep wranglers. It's all about momentum. The gypsy has higher power to weight ratio to create momentum, but sometimes torque when multipled with weight and frictional coefficient too can help maintain enough tractive effort in order to create momentum, but that defends only if the vehicle is driven at a lower rev, i.e under 2500 rpm. In this case Thar was poor both in terms of tractive effort and power to weight ratio.
@@GRcorolla-bt3mn Humvee is an assault vehicle and it's not a true off road vehicle. It is used for different purpose and that's only H1 other models are garbage and useless.
Pajero has big engine with loads of power, Indian version had a useless underpowered diesel engine. The real off road vehicles have light weight and powerful engines.
@@cranky1812 I am talking about old 1990s humvees, they were not too heavy back then with lesser armor, weighing under 3 tons and were still capable than any other 4x4 of it's time. Newer humvees are heavy because of which they use stiffer suspensions to bare that much load.
Yes I agree that power to weight ratio always wins but that doesn't mean you can say heavy cars cannot be capable. Heavier 4x4 vehicles need to be operated at least possible rpm within the torque band. There are toyota v8 diesels that generate only 300hp but 1000nm of torque does loads of magic to keep pulling, no matter if those vehicles also weigh 3 tons ( a land cruiser with 5 people onboard for example) , they would still keep pulling. Although a vehicle with higher power to weight ratio might just zoom over, but what if that particular vehicle was as heavy as let's say a 70 series land cruiser? Torque would work better. After all momentum also depends on tractive effort which is a function of torque, weight and frictional coefficient of the tyre. Best is combination of both power and torque.
@@GRcorolla-bt3mn what's the point of making a heavier vehicle when a lighter vehicle can do much better?
Regarding the friction, good tyres with good transmission and transfer case will do the job.
Why need a V8 if same results can be achieved by a V6 or inline 4 turbo? Why add heavy duty suspension when you don't need it?
Especially in present when we have the advantage of using ECU's with traction control, slip control and electronic dif locks.
@@cranky1812 did I say a V6 cannot perform as good as a V8 anyhow? Like I just gave the example of a toyota V8 diesel engine which makes loads of torque to keep pulling even if it profuces only about 300hp. There are v6s, inline 6s or even 4 bangers that do the job too, no doubt.
Secondly by adding a driveline(i.e gearbox, transmission, axle) with lower(larger) crawl ratio, don't you think that would make your vehicle more heavier? A driveline that could bare loads of stress and send higher torque output would weigh a lot.
And I talked about stiff heavy duty suspensions because modern humvees are heavy due to their armour and logistics and being a vehicle with all independent suspension it would create a negative camber angle which would lead to tyre wear. To prevent that, they have stiff suspensions. Never did I mention that they do any better off the road because soft coilovers work better. And the old humvees didn't have stiff suspensions and were lighter.
My only point was all about how heavy vehicles too can be capable. And that's only possible with torque even if the vehicle has a poor power to weight ratio.
Lighter vehicles like the gypsy have higher amount of power to weight ratio which helps in creating momentum. But a heavier vehicle on the other hand increases tractive effort and then multiplies it with the tyre's frictional coefficient, and with a higher torque output from the engine, it would multiply the tractive effort even more. Except they have to be driven at a slower crawling speed. The gypsy's torque is too low and has to be revved all the way to 4000 rpm to achieve that, which is useless. A vehicle that generates a near flat torque all the way from 2500 rpm or lesser would work better in generating enough tractive effort to keep pulling. It only comes to a scenerios like deep slush, where the tractive effort fails due to 0 frictional coefficient and instead higher power to weight ratio would seem better. The gypsy works better on slush. When it comes to slow driving applications, over boulders and solid ground , a heavier vehicle with loads of torque would work better.
the video i was wating for 😍
Gypsy king winner
Tyres on the gypsy won
Gypsy king is king
Change gypcy tyer
Good
👍👍
Body weight is less compare to thar...
Gypsy ya 2nd generation jimny jo keh lo , ye thar se 25 saal purana model hai...thar 2010me aayi aur gypsy 1985 me...Aur saale suzuki waalo ne coil spring wala model india me kabhi launch hi nahi kia 1995 wala..., Jo ki 2nd gen gypsy ka hi facelift version tha videsho me ...Suzuki apni cars ka kharaab version yaha lati hai
Patti wala behtar hota hai army k liye. Wajan carry karne k liye bhai
Is liye Indian army me thar se jada gypsy use hota hai
Oo bhai off roading tyres to lga lo yara
What do you mean by off roading tyres?
@@Kashmiroffroad mt tyres
I think yusmarg uphill