Chris posted:

Thank you to all who replied to my question. Your advice is truly appreciated. Will particularly heed the advice regarding 4x4 driving courses and fuel capacity. Hope to see you on the road sometime.

Bob posted:

Bill, that's not very flash economy. The Pajero will make it from Mt Dare to Birdsville on less than its 90 L tank will hold ;-)

If you really needed the range in the Pajero without jerries you could pay the xtra to have an auxiliary tank fitted, just as you did with the airconditioning in the Prado

Bill posted:

Bob you must read carefully!!! I didn't travel from Mt Dare to Birdsville. Oodnadatta to Birdsville with detours is 700km - much further than Mt Dare to Birdsville. (We didn't go to Mt Dare as they were out of fuel because of closed roads) You have to allow for unforeseen circumstances such as this when you travel in the outback. I guess you calculated the distance from Mt Dare to Birdsville and thought a Pajero would do it on 90l. 700km would stretch it even on the highway - I was never able to go that far when I had one! However the path from we took crosses the Simpson Desert which has over 1000 sand dunes. Please don't try to do it without doing your homework and checking with experienced four wheel drivers. By the way a friend completed the trip you refer to in a Pajero which had been fitted with a 150l tank. He made it but still carried jerries in case. Take Care!!!!

Bill posted:

Bob you must read carefully!!! I didn't travel from Mt Dare to Birdsville. Oodnadatta to Birdsville with detours is 700km - much further than Mt Dare to Birdsville. (We didn't go to Mt Dare as they were out of fuel because of closed roads) You have to allow for unforeseen circumstances such as this when you travel in the outback. I guess you calculated the distance from Mt Dare to Birdsville and thought a Pajero would do it on 90l. 700km would stretch it even on the highway - I was never able to go that far when I had one! However the path from we took crosses the Simpson Desert which has over 1000 sand dunes. Please don't try to do it without doing your homework and checking with experienced four wheel drivers. By the way a friend completed the trip you refer to in a Pajero which had been fitted with a 150l tank. He made it but still carried jerries in case. Take Care!!!!

Bill posted:

Oh Bob - lash out and get airconditioning - it's well worth it, but don't get aftermarket air as was fitted to my Pajero. The Prado air is absolutely great. If you ever go outback I recommend it.

Bill posted:

Bob - me again and sorry to keep on about this but check out the treck notes on this site. The recommendation for Mt Dare to Birdsville in 6cyl petrol is 200litres. If you do it carry 6 Jerries. I carried one.

Bob posted:

Bill, I think Mt Dare to B'ville is about 550km from memory. Yes I took 200 L, and so did my friend in a 3.0 L Pajero. But we both used just under 90 L. I agree that it is better to err on the side of safety, but the recommendation of more than twice the requirement is a bit over the top. I wonder how many incidents have been caused by people carrying the weight of all that unnecessary fuel?( I did read carefully-your extra 150 km took an extra 30 L.)

I've had two Pajeros. Both did 100 k without a single problem. Most of their mileage was in the bush. Air was standard on both. I bought a new LX470 in July 1999 (first car to seriously let me down in the bush - fuel line fell apart) and a TD5 discovery last year. We now use the Lexus as a family car and bitumen cruiser (frankly I wouldn't trust it in the rough again) and the Disco as the bush vehicle. The Pajeros were better built than the Lexus or the Landy, despite ten years of evolution.

Bill posted:

Bob I really have trouble following your logic. You've chosen a proven unreliable vehicle for the bush and a huge fuel guzzling four wheel drive for the highway!! Better go back to a Pajero I think don't you?

Bill posted:

Bob - just checked - Mt Dare to Birdsville is 523km so the extra 28litres actually took me an extra 177km. Not bad eh? 15.8l/100 in desert conditions!! I still can't get over the fact that you had to carry 6 jerries!!!

Bob posted:

Bill

According to Westprint its 549 km, and that's without any side excursions etc. No doubt the Prado is capable of shortcuts that other vehicles wouldn't dare attempt.

I must have missed something in the literature about the Discovery, or someone failed to inform mine because it hasn't broken down yet like the Lexus. I suspect the Lexus shares the same shoddy workmanship as the Prado.

You seem to have a hang-up with jerry cans. What do you carry water in? It is the contents that makes the weight - not the container. A plastic jerry weighs about 500 gm (guesstimate) What does your auxiliary tank weigh? at the end of the trip I store the jerries in a shed _ you're stuck with a ridiculous tank which if full is a dead weight to lug around, and if only half full is pointless.

The Lexus uses more fuel than the Prado, but not much. On the Anne Beadell Hwy it returned 17.8 L/100km towing a trailer. By the way, it has an auxiliary tank as standard.

Bill posted:

Bob you continue to confound me!!! You keep a vehicle in which you have lost confidence ... and it carries 24l less than the mighty Prado. To serious travellers that extra fuel without the hazard of jerries is invaluable ... but I must tell you that it is not obligatory to keep it full!!
Check the sales figures and then ask a few owners and dealers why Prado is chosen over Pajero (apart from the obvious better lines) and 95% of people questioned will tell you it's the extra fuel carrying capacity. Try comparing the number of Mitsubishis and Toyotas at your next 4wd destination!!! And how big is the Disco's tank? 80 litres isn't it?? LOLOLOL Great for England!!!

Bob posted:

Bill
I make the point again - if you want an auxiliary tank in the Pajero you can pay the $700 and have it fitted. If you want air in the Prado you pay the extra $2000 and have it fitted. The fact that these items aren't standard doesn't mean you can't have them.
At the 4wd destinations I frequent there aren't any other vehicles- I presume the Prado fan club meets in the car parks of shopping centres.
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find out how much fuel the Discovery holds, but then I guess you chose the Prado without really finding out about the alternatives.
Bill, it strikes me that with your shrill defence of the Prado you may have an inferiority complex: couldn't afford the Cruiser so has to make do with the copy of the Pajero, now has chip on shoulder. Have the guts to try a few other vehicles Bill. You may be surprised to find that there are competent vehicles out there that don't wear a Toyota badge. Some of us are game enough to try something different.

Bill posted:

Bob I was never disputing the price difference. My experience in motoring has been that aftermarket items are not as reliable as OE. If people choose to fit a larger tank to their Pajero I have no problem with that. I think it's a very good idea and since it's not available as OE, that's the best alternative available to them. I realise that the Pajero is substantially cheaper than the Prado but remember that you get what you pay for!! One only has to examine the two vehicles to see why and it is undoubtedly linked to the fact that a Pajero in remote areas is a fairly rare sight.

Chris posted:

I hope Bob and Bill eventually agree to disagree-isn't that what this forum is for?
Thanks Mike,we will carry fuel for emergencies and buy another snatch strap-ours got dirty helping someone else!

Bill posted:

Bob started it Mike.

Trev posted:

Bill & Bob. We did Birdsville to Oodnadatta last year. Did 829 km with a couple of diversions and used 128 litres of fuel averaging 15.44 litres/100 in the Explorer. We have two auxiliary tanks fitted as I don't like to carry fuel in the cabin. I'm prepared to put up with the extra weight as it only gets used for holidays.
Trev

Bob posted:

Trev
How have you found the Explorer? The new release looks very attractive if not a bit pricey. I don't think Bill would approve of you auxiliary tanks if they didn't come standard :-) How much did they cost and who supplied them?

Bill posted:

Bob please stop annoying me with your ramblings. Let's face facts .. we have both owned Pajeros and we now both own Toyotas. I feel I have made an excellent decision. You are not happy with your move. I think you should go back to a Pajero. I wonder if they've improved their fuel economy, gearbox, brakes, steering box, cooling system? These were just some of the reasons why I changed. Why did you move?

Bill posted:

Now Bob was it $700 to upgrade the tank? How much do you think to upgrade the wheels and make them a decent width for off roading? Then maybe an engine upgrade to a modern quad cam, 4 valves per cylinder? mmmm it's adding up Bobby boy!!! But then again if you're in the Lexus and Porsche league I'm most surprised that the price of A/C is an issue. I suspect that you have never owned a Lexus and never will own a Porsche and most likely drive an early 90's Pajero - which was a very nice vehicle for its time - as was the FJ55 I once had, in its time!!! Just remember you made the first uncharitable comment so you must be prepared to take all I give you! I have plenty of ammunition!! LOLOLOL

Bill posted:

Hmmm I've stumped you this time eh Bobby boy?? No answer!!! Oh and name calling is very childish!!! But I did raise some good points don't you think? ... maybe that's why you're stumped for an answer!!

Bob posted:

Bill
It isn't obvious to me what you are trying to say. My last Pajero was purchased in Nov 95. It was a quad cam V6 (153 kW). The wheels were the same width as the other 4 wds of the day (7"). Unlike the Prado, air conditioning came as standard. The big drawback of this car was its need for premium fuel which meant adding octane booster when away from the big smoke. However it went like the clappers. Or were you referring to your Prado RV 4 cyl with cheese cutter tyres?

Rather than continuing to demonstrate your ignorance try a site like http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/index.asp which lists some basic specifications (like fuel capacity and engine type).

Bob

Bill posted:

Bob you really are a disagreeable person. I was replying to the two MALs and you made unpleasant comments regarding my fuel consumption. Why oh why did I take your bait??? This forum is for people interested in sharing information and should not be used to annoy others.
Check the Mitsubishi site if you want to find details of the Pajero you used to own. The engine has never been a quad cam and the tyres are 235 compared to 265 on the Prado. The tyre size that you refer to on the RV is in fact the same as that on the Pajero GLX. I own a Grande by the way. I must agree with you on the fuel - my Pajero like yours needed high octane unleaded - on standard unleaded it pinged when working hard - a real pain and extra expense.
I have nothing further to say on the subject and will post no further replies so go and annoy someone else. But I have had a good laugh - at you.

Frank posted:

Bob I've watched you and Bill arguing for a while now. Bill said he wanted to end it and I must point out as he did that this forum is not for petty arguments. Oh and how did the Pajero have 36valves???? 6 valves per cylinder??? LOL

Bob posted:

You're absolutely right, and that'll teach me to reply late at night after several reds. The sticker on the side actually says '24 valve DOHC'. With two banks of cyls that makes it a quad cam none the less.

Ted posted:

That was on the old models Bob. The current models are 2 valves per cylinder - a long way behind most modern engines

Arthur posted:

No Bob to be a quad cam you need four cams over each cylinder. Pajero are cheating if they said quad cam when in fact it was twin cam!! It's really quite simple!

Bob posted:

Ted
I was interested in your comment that the current Pajero's 12 valve motor was a long way behind most modern engines. Even with 'inferior' technology it still manages to out power the Prado by 8 kW (140 v. 132 kW) and has the same torque (303Nm). By all accounts the drivetrain and transmission are superior to anything else on the road.

Ted posted:

Bob .... check the fuel consumption figures - the new Pajeros are real gas guzzlers compared to 24 valve engines - as you say they've done it to keep the price down - but what you save at the showroom you soon lose at the petrol station. Sure they get buyers who buy on price - a friend of mine bought a Pajero recently for that very reason. We have done a number of trips together and over the same terrain at the same speed for the same distance he consistently uses 3l/100km more than me. That's on average $3 per 100km extra that it costs him. If it wasn't for the huge depreciation that his vehicle has suffered he'd be selling it now he tells me, but as he said to me just the other day, "Who wants to buy a one year old Pajero?" He can't find a serious 4wder who's interested in his vehicle even though he's got all the good stuff added on to make it suitable for off road/outback travel - long range tank etc. He's in a bind - the vehicle isn't attractive to the "mums" taking kids to school and shopping as most are used for and the serious 4wders also aren't interested! Poor bloke! And you know the pity is that it's quite a nice vehicle despite the lines which are generally thought of as being ugly.

Ted posted:

Bob I'm not talking about published figures - I'm telling you REAL figures which my mate and I calculated!!

Ted posted:

Oh Bob please don't get me started on figures .. you don't know what you're in for!! Do you really think that the Overlander figures were calculated under different conditions with the opportunity for one vehicle to use more power than the other??
A properly conducted test would ensure that both vehicles covered the same distances at the same speed under the same conditions and I'm sure that this was done. Therefore no extra power would have been used .... but just a moment - of course - the Pajero is more than 100kgs heavier so it has to work harder. Now on the figures you quoted and assuming that max power was used at all times (which as I have already explained to you would not have been the case) then a 6%power increase was achieved with a 7.29%increase in fuel consumption mmm something about fuel efficiency there which I'll leave you to ponder on Bob. I'll give you a clue ... it's probably to do with 24valves versus 12 valves.
My figures however indicate 25% greater fuel consumption under the SAME conditions - same speed same roads same winds same loads except for of course the extra kerb weight of the Pajero. My mate was not a happy man!! But like yourself and other Pajero owners he sticks by his vehicle and continues to feel it's better than mine - we enjoy a bit of light hearted banter about it but in his heart of hearts I think he knows that I and all other Toyota owners are really "Kings Off The Road"

Ted posted:

Let me guess - it would have to be a V8 disco and a turbo patrol LOL. His were 14.9l/100 mine were 11.9l/100, although my best ever at a steady 100kph was 11.3l/100. Bob it is of absolutely no concern to me who believes my figures. I conducted the testing, I know exactly what I did and that is all there is to it. You are obviously not at all mathematically inclined Bob when you compare a % difference with a l/100km difference. Have you ever heard of the expression "compare apples with apples" Your comparison should have been 25% compared with 7.29% OR 1l/100km compared with 3l/100km. I seem to have to keep correcting you Bob.

Ted posted:

Bob, Look back at your previous postings. You have now done precisely what I TOLD YOU to do - you've compared apples with apples - well done - your loosening up those rusty mathematical joints. But the major flaw in your logic is - the vehicles would not have been using maximum power. In fact my experience is that max power is rarely used. They would have been using comparable power if they were tested in comparable conditions. If the conditions were not comparable then the figures are invalid.
Thus for sdame power used the Pajero uses more fuel - and the explanation is simple - a less efficient engine - because of 2 valves per cynlinder.

Ted posted:

make that cylinder and same

Bill posted:

Excellent choice ladies! May you have many happy kilometres of safe comfortable driving. Bob won't be happy that you didn't choose a Pajero, but I think you're definitely on a winner - the most economical and reliable mid sized 4wd available!!
Good luck and I hope you haven't been too put off by old Bob and me. If the truth were known we're probably like boys in the playground trying to get the attention of two pretty girls LOL

Bill posted:

Actually I have just scrolled back through this fairly large volume and I think Bob has argued with a number of people! He also argues with Goran and even sometimes gets nasty with him! At least he was always civil to me ....