Trevor R (QLD) posted:

Is that right? You getting better economy out of your V8 than the 3lt Patrol? How much better?

Very interesting if you are.

Cheers Trevor.

KSV. posted:

4 pistons need to jump up and down twice faster then 8. While I cannot comment from personal experience between vehicles in question, I can compare V8 Commodor and 2.2 4 cylinders Camry we drove side by side from Melbourne to Alice Springs and back. Commodore actually consumed 1 liter less, would you believe it or not. Being sort of company vehicle (thus my company pays for petrol and service) it been never at mercy in regards to hard acceleration. I honestly believe that if I used it more gently, difference would be even bigger.
Serg

Martyn (WA) posted:

KSV,
Steady Neddy, if two engines are doing 3500 rpm the pistons are all moving at the same speed, with eight you have twice as many more to fill with vapour. I agree with what your saying about economy don't get me wrong but I don't believe it has got anything to do with one engines pistons going faster than anothers at the same RPM. My 4.2 turbo Patrol used to do the same litres / hundred up hill and down dale, my 3.0 Td is all over the place due to the computer dictating how much fuel the engine needs to maintain an efficient burn. Well that's my slant on things anyway. No offence meant at all if any is taken.

Member - The Crow (QLD) posted:

The Cruser has been gettin around 17.2 ltrs per 100ks while the patrol used upto 19 ltrs per 100ks towing. Thecruiser is gettin 11.2ltrs city and highway with out any load. The Patrol was around 11ltrs. I think thats pretty good for the cruiser when you compare the engine sizes. Mind you the cruiser only has 5000ks on it yet so I would expect it to get better.

KSV. posted:

Martyn,

My comment about “4 pistons twice faster” should not be interpreted exactly of course. Thing is that 4 cylinders engine usually sits on much higher RPM then 8 cylinders at the same speed. Although not necessarily twice, if course. On this example with Commodore vs Camry at 110 km/hr V8 was at 1200RPM while Camry’s one as 2200RPM. Obviously at the same RPM pistons jumps at the same rates, but thing is V8 needs far less RPM to achieve the same result.
Cheers
Serg

Member - Marilyn B (WA) posted:

Do you know if you can get an auto in the Toyoto 76 4.5 litre series? Certainly looking at all options. ? price as well?

KSV. posted:

Nope, thankfully only manual. If you lock yourself on auto then go for LC200 – the same engine (even bi-turboed and tuned for more torque) and auto-only.

Member - Graham H (QLD) posted:

Maybe so but where do you put all the gear.
Our neighbours have just traded an almost new petrol vers of these as they found that it suffered badly from a lack of luggage space. They bought a 100 series cruiser and cant believe the difference.
Also found the Kia very thirsty towing a 2200kg van.

My 2005 TD Cruiser does about 6.3 km per litre towing a 2700kg van at maximum legal speed( and sometimes over)
Went from Brissy to Yamba and kept a check. Was reasonably happy with that as we were in a bit of a hurry and so were pushing it fairly hard. Expect to get better on a more leisurely trip

Gerhardp1 posted:

When travelling with a caravan, I would have thought the obvious place to put all the gear would be in the van not the car.

The link was expressly for the diesel, the petrol is like any other V6 (including the Toyota V6) in that it drinks like a sailor on shore leave after 6 months at sea. No-one should expect good economy in a V6 petrol in a heavy 4WD.

Comparing the Sorento to the 100 series is also a bit silly, they are completely different in price and size, and the Diesel Sorento will kill your 4.2 litre on economy. The 100 series will also tow more and be safer at the 2700kg limit of the Sorento, but it will also be heavier on all aspects of running cost including tyres, fuel, servicing.

Your neighbours obviously changed their requirements for vehicle luggage capacity sometime after buying the Sorento, as it's pretty obvious when you look at them that they aren't as big as a 100 series (or my Jackaroo for that matter, which can carry more than a 100 series).

Member - Graham H (QLD) posted:

Well I wouldnt put it all in the van as there are both weight and space restrictions.
Also some stuff is much easier carried and accessable from the back of a 4by. Dont fancy running back to the van to get a drink out of the Waeco.
I wasnt comparing the two. I was stating why the people changed and the car was only 4 months old. Admittedly a bad choice.
The original post was asking about towing a van of the same weight as mine.
I would therefore suggest a Cruiser or a big engined Patrol would be a safer tow vehicle than the Kia.
Also it is much less stressful on both the vehicle and the driver if you are towing in the mid range of capacity rather that at the extreme top end of it.
A bit like a fully loaded Mini trying to keep up with a V8 at 100kph. The Mini would be ringing its guts out while the V8 is just cruising. Which would last the longest???
To me reliability and comfort is a bit more important than outright economy.
Also in the remote chance I might need attention to the Cruiser, parts service and dealer availablility is a big factor as in this day and age of electronics etc, staying with the mainstream can be advantageous. Eg Neighbour dinged a mag wheel on the Kia Took 4 days to get one freighted out.
Plenty of Cruisers around to borrow or buy one off.
Its horses for courses and everyone is different but I had a 3.0 Patrol and bought a van which was 100kg too heavy so had to buy the Cruiser and I couldnt be happier.
Much better to ride in, goes better ( bigger motor) Not a lot heavier on fuel considering.
Servicing costs are similar within reason, most diesels have more expensive service costs so presumably the Kia is the same especially with a hitech common rail with much closer tolerances etc. Just my rant for the day

Go Fishing posted:

Had a Kia Sorrento myself, brand new. Suspension was shocking. Back end was skip on almost prefect roads. Installed OME suspension that fixed 80% of the problems.

Interior was nice, better than the Prado. Rear cargo was woeful in size. Pathetic to be honest. Roof rating no better, 45kg or something stupid like that.

13.5L / 100km city or country. Could not get under this figure no matter how lightly I was driving (no load and only 1 person). Journo's, who would drive normally, were getting 16 - 18L / 100km.

Tiptronic would somethimes have a heart attack up a steep hill. Dash would go blank, couldn't change gears manually or slot it into Auto. Had roll to the side of the road and switch the engine off the reset the auto. Scary stuff.

Sold it after the year and took a massive hit on resale value. No one wants them second hand. I added Stereo, Tints, Bull Bar, Suspension, Spotties, Rhinos about $4K all up. Lost $14K in 1 year. I know cars devalue as soon as they leave the dealer and lose the most in the 1st year but that is obscene. I was almost begging people to buy it.

Never again.

Have a new 07 Prado Auto GLX D4D. Room in the back is in another world. Accessories as long as your arm as well. Beautiful and economical.

Member - Graham H (QLD) posted:

You can expect A 100 TD to use about 14-18 l/100k when towing, depending on the weight of the van, the load in the car and type of terrain.
Still better than a friend who has just been around the big block and at times was using up to 30l/100 k in a 4.5 petrol towing a 25 foot fully kitted Jayco. I suggested he get lighter boots. LOL

Member - Marilyn B (WA) posted:

Regarding your friends that turned the Prado and Caravan, can you tell us if it was because of the characteristics of the prado or simply was it drive error?

Member - Phil G (SA) posted:

Hi marilyn,
Hard to say, and usually theres more than one factor in why these things happen. It was an 18 foot caravan being towed by a 90series prado; may have been some crosswind; driver was competent and aged in his late 50's, staight section of road. He was at a loss to explain what happened, so i can't really comment further. But I'd guess that stability was an issue, and I'd guess that a bigger tow vehicle with a wider track may have been more forgiving.