Leroy posted:

and the relationship between the engines? Get with the times Pops. There are may CR diesels on the market now producing similar if not more kw/l and reliably! compare with other diesels not the early 3.0l nissan which we all know had problems.

Leroy

Snowy 3.0iTD posted:

My comment was a general one relating to the simple fact that more power out of a smaller capacity engine equals higher internal stresses on components, leading to shorter life-spans. I assume you have already thought that one through?

Leroy posted:

my comments were relating to the old mindset of big donk = big power. Go back 20yrs and you were getting 80kw out of a holden 6 cycl. eng. and now look at a barina. You are making similar power with a 1.6l 4cycl engine. It's called progress.

Leroy

Member - Oldplodder (QLD) posted:

Snowy, doesn't wear also relate to the actual power output while you are driving?
Drive on full throttle and full power all day will result in a lot less engine life than driving on half throttle most of the time!
The choice is yours about engine life, use the right foot accordingly.
Also metal and lubrication technology has progressed a long way since the old cast iron blocks of the 60s (The 80s holden engine was 60s technology) , and even the 50s when decokes every 30,000m was normal.

Snowy 3.0iTD posted:

Oldplodder alloy technology and lubricants have progressed quite a lot. But the capacity of the engine is determined by nunmber of cylinders and the bore and stroke of the pistons. Generally for the same number of cylinders the smaller the engine capacity the smaller the bore and stroke. Power is generated by force of the bang inside your cylinder and the number of bangs per second, assuming they haven't got it doing some amazing rev speed, then to get more power they have to make the bang bigger producing more force. More force on a smaller area (like the top of smaller piston) equals higher stresses, which are then transmitted to the conrdod, to crankshaft etc. I am not knocking the newer engines, and am all for new technology, but there is a reason why you still see old landcruisers getting around 20 years of more after they were built, I certainly don't expect that my 3.0L engine will still be around in 20 years time.

Leroy posted:

you keep talking about 3.0l engines and we are talking generally about modern diesels. You talk about the top of a small pistons, alloys have also progressed.

Leroy

Snowy 3.0iTD posted:

You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, go to your local library, pick up a book on Engineering Mechanical Design, and one on the Engineering Properties of Materials and have a read on the sections of basic stress-strain analysis, how steel and alloy materials react to internal stress's, fatigue failure and then have a think about how it all relates. Knowledge is the greatest treasure a person can have.

Leroy posted:

if you read between the lines of what i said - metalurgy has progressed also. Look at the big trucks and how many kw/l they produce. Look at all the new diesel offerings in new cars. go on....I dare you...have a look.

Leroy

Member - Oldplodder (QLD) posted:

Snowy & Leroy.

Snowy, yes I agree. There is a mechanical effeciency there, power from the stroke.
But most cars these days are not driven to maximium power, or maximum bang.
Either the air is limited (petrol engine) or fuel is limited (deisel engine) to control that power. Therefore stresses are lowered from the maximum available.
Think about it, when you design a machine, there is usually a duty cycle include in the calcs. Whether it is a bearing, a crane, or any other machine.
So an engine that is driven at half power is going to give more life than another engine driven at full power. So whether it is 1.0l or 5.0l, life will be extended by driving it at lower than maximum power.
By the way, are not all the older holden 6 cyl. engines you mentioned about the 2.8l to 3.0l mark anyway. 129, 149, 179, 186 ci?

PS - I also have a 30 year old beetle, and like a lot of landcruisers, it has only done 300,000k, and still going strong. Know a few beetles with well over 500,000k.

Member - Andrew W (VIC) posted:

I think it indicates the guy from Glasshouse needs to learn how to drive when towing!!
My Navara 2.5 Diesel manual get between 15 and 17 l/100 km when towing my 23' Scenic (which is probably a fair bit heavier than the Jayco) - and i travel at the max speed limit most times.

Gerhardp1 posted:

How do you cruise at 100k and get the tecnique wrong?

His was an auto, but that shouldn't matter at cruising speed, since presumably it has a lock up convertor.

Assuming your van is heavier is a false assumption, since you (nor I for that matter) don't know how much the Glasshouse dude's van weighs, nor do you know if he had it loaded to the hilt, and/or the car loaded to the hilt as well.

The point is, his fuel consumption was 22.5, coming from his lips. None of his previous tow vehicles had used so much fuel as this thing.

The only other huge fuel reading we encountered was a bloke towing a 24 foot cabin cruiser, who arrived next to us in the van park at Cairns because it was too rough to put to sea. He was towing with a v8 disc - his wife thought it was using about 20l per 100 when I asked her - I didn't believe that, they can't do that just pulling themselves along!

Asked him later after quite a few reds, and he said morosely "more than 30 but I'm not saying how much more".

His technique was definately wrong - he chose the wrong vehicle.

Pavo posted:

I wonder how much fuel the 24 foot cabin cruiser would use per hour when cruising along at a fair pace...he's probably used to the fuel bills.

F4Phantom posted:

I have a 2.5L navara, but mine puts out 57kw and around 170nm. So basicly its quite slow. On the plus side it uses barely more fuel from towing, the engine is known to do around 500k's without a rebuild and I get 7.6L/100km around town with road tyres and 11.5L with muddies. I like the fact that 55L or so gets me a tick over 700km in a tank. Anyway the point is, I can only dream of the new 2.5L in my car as all that power would be nice, but I do wonder if it will last as long. I agree that more power should probably put more stress on the engine. Also I have towed around 1 tonne and it is fine but not much power. The thing is, with a tonne in tow it uses around 10 to 15% more fuel - not 150% more like the newie. To use 22.5L the things electronics must just pump the fuel through good and proper, because you cant have power without burning more juice. We have to remember that most of the car buying world is not like the majority of people here, who not only know about engines but do all the basics at home. Most people buy, sell, upgrade and waste lots of money all the time. They dont care about the engines lifespan as we all know cars over 200k are worthless.

Member - Andrew W (VIC) posted:

Sorry to say this but the guy who claims his Navara is using 22l/100 'cruising at 100 kph' is either talking complete bull bleep or he has got one sick motor! - Forget the weight bit if you want, my 2.5 Diesel gets over 600 kms per tank on freeway use, towing the van (which works out at just over 13 L/100 kms). That is not from someone i met in a car park somewhere in the Glasshouse mountains, that is based on 36,000 kms travelled with it so far.
Thats fact - not second hand gossip!!

Leroy posted:

i agree with andrew. i was towing 2+ ton and I wasn't using 20+/100km in a 3.0l Something NQR.

Leroy

Gerhardp1 posted:

Pavo, his boat used 40 litres per hour when returning from one of the islands, it was a 3 hour trip.

You are correct that he was used to fuel bills. He was certainly one of those who doesn't keep a car for the long haul, so when you lease the wrong vehicle/boat for a 3 or 4 year lease you are stuck with the fuel bills if they drink too much, but you are rarely stuck with engine overhauls.

NicI posted:

There sure are a lot of variables here, but here's another similar anecdote on power and fuel consumption:

A guy I know covers lots of distance in a current Hilux 3LTDi (claimed 120Kw/353Nm) with 800Kg of traytop camper and towing 1.2t of trailer at a steady 100Km/hr - getting 11-12.5L/100km. A decent load with good figures, surely the Nissan YD motor with its (claimed) 128Kw/403Nm should do as well if not better ?

NicI posted:

Waddo, it's very refreshing to hear from you as a person with 1st-hand experience with a YD-powered vehicle, which was the feedback I was after. I'm trying to decide between a current Hilux 3LTDi and the Nissan YD - similar prices and performance, although Ron Moon thinks the Nissan is superior offroad.

NicI posted:

Hi Waddo, also: how does the 6-speed perform ? I hear 6th is a big gap from 5th, an overdrive, true ? If so, will it hold 6th on long climbs ?

Cheers,

Nic

Member - Andrew W (VIC) posted:

e-mail me at apwaddo@bigpond.com and i will happily send you all the details. If i post on here the anti-nissan lobby will come out of the woodwork!