Member - Craig D (SA) posted:

Good one Truckster...I did!

Trevor R (QLD) posted:

Agree with you again on this Trucky. I don't know why anyone with knowledge of the 3lt failures would risk their hard earned on one, when for a few bob more they could get the same shape of vehicle with an ever reliable motor. Not that I'm biased or anything hahaha.

Trevor.

Leroy posted:

it's another 7 G's difference on a new purchase price. that's why the 3.0l is attractive. When I bought mine they were still asking $40k for a series 2 3.0 and $50k for second hand 4.2l of a similar vintage oh and you had to pay stamp duty on top of that also!!! Or I could pay $48k drive away for a new 3.0l. Was a no brainer at the time.

Leroy

Andrew (Bris) posted:

The 4.2 doesn't have an auto trannie.
Why tire both legs pressing the pedals.

Truckster (Vic) posted:

> it's another 7 G's difference on a new purchase price. that's why the 3.0l is attractive.

1) Theres a reason that its more expensive...

>Was a no brainer at the time
but its not anymore is it.

Leroy posted:

and the reason it's more expensive is a combination of marketing/demand. Nissan don't really want to sell it anymore but they don't have a replacement. They would prob loose all big diesel sales to toyota if they dropped it.

Leroy

blown4by posted:

Why would you want poor fuel economy and less pulling power?

Trevor R (QLD) posted:

blown4by,

I want poor fuel economy and less pulling power because...... long after the pulling power has stopped and the fuel economy is ZERO in a stffed 3lt I will still be tinkering along for many a year to come.

Trevor.

Truckster (Vic) posted:

Ignorance is bliss

blown4by posted:

Must be a lot of ignorant people around then cos I see more 3 litres Patrols in the outback of WA than 4.2's and haven't seen one stopped on the side of the road yet. It's fine to be biased but there is more than one point of view so at least respect the other persons right to have one.Tunnel vision well that's another thing!

kesh posted:

Friend has late 2002 which disintegrated at 70000km. (and I think that qualifies for s.3)
They are probably a very good motor (Renault, which also owns Mack trucks) but the electronic controls to turbo, injection system etc. are probably the Archilles heel in this Au. (or Pacific) set up.
kesh

Leroy posted:

that is series 3. Anyway what happened with your mate getting on to Nissan to come to the party?

Leory

Outbacktourer posted:

This engine is supplied BY Nissan TO Renault, in fact perhaps the only item BY Nissan in the technology sharing agreement.

IMHO the nature of the failures point to overfueling and/or overboost. S3 had different loom and ECU but it would be advisable for every 3.0Di to fit at least a boost gauge and probably a EGT Gauge so in case something plays up (like the MAF sensor) you know about it before the engine is damaged.

kesh posted:

Leroy. The motor is being replaced by Nissan (the dealer says its a new one, but who knows) and Mal. has to pay for the labour plus "consumables".
I did post this on the previous but its probably hidden in the ruck by now.
kesh

Leroy posted:

Kesh,

I can't remember how old it is but I supose it's a reasonble outcome. It's probably being rebuilt which if done correctly is as good as a new short motor.

Leroy

Leroy posted:

u idiot.

Leroy

Truckster (Vic) posted:

jesus 120, you will get tarred and feathered saying things that people dont want to hear.

Leroy posted:

it's a gross generalisation not something I don't want to hear. so suddenly in 2005/6 everything is now ok? that's what's being implied. Mind you the same engine is used as in the s3.

Leroy

120scruiser (NSW) posted:

Do you work on them and have 1st hand experience?
No I thought not.
Well I do and I have done the research and deal with these things everyday so don't say its a generalisation until you have the experience I have with them.
I'm not being derogative, just spelling my experience which is hearsay on this forum.

Leroy posted:

No i thought not? How can you answer for me? I work on mine all the time and assist others also! Please enlighten me as to why post 2004 everything is ok as I asked in my previous reply if you have done the research?

Leroy

120scruiser (NSW) posted:

I am not going to get into a slinging match on here and if I rememer correctly you were the first one to jump down my throat.
Maybe the 2004 on will be crap to but its too early to tell.
In my experience some are good and some aren't.
Either way they aren't built to last in the engines, why, I don't know. Maybe design flaw, maybe due to the sulphur in the fuel content as scottcamp researched.
All models have problems.
Look at the current Prado that cracks the inner guards near the fire wall. Toyota deny its their fault, bull bar and suspension manufacturers deny its theirs. Maybe its a design flaw in these too, AND I OWN A 2005 PRADO.
Getting cranky doesn't resolve to the fact that there was/is, what ever, a problem with them and their reputation is damaged as is the 100 series torsion bar problem, as is the prado inner guard crack problem.
I am not going to justify to this forum because as soon as you do, you get reply's from people stating "another 2nd and 3rd hand comment".
I work on them and have been through the engine dilemas as well as many other expensive problems on these and many other makes and models including TOYOTA.
Its great to have a debate and I hope there is no love lost or grudges held as I have said before, EVERYTHING ON THIS AND ANY OTHER FORUM IS HEARSAY UNTIL YOU EXPERIENCE IT FIRST HAND AND THEN IT BECOMES FACT. Store everything you read in the back of ones mind for future reference.
Cheers
120scruiser