Nissan 4.2 or 3.0lt

Submitted: Saturday, Aug 10, 2002 at 00:00
ThreadID: 1689 Views:2670 Replies:9 FollowUps:9
This Thread has been Archived
I have never owned a 4 wheel drive however I would like to buy a Nissan Patrol.I have made up my mind about all but the donk.Iam going with a diesel but can't deside on the 3.0lt or the 4.2lt.I don't think that we will buy a van but are thinking of a camper trailer.I can't see us doing any radical rock climbing or extreme 4 by 4ing just your avarage stuff , beach , out back, ect.Would like to know the best option thanks Peter.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Nigel - Saturday, Aug 10, 2002 at 00:00

Saturday, Aug 10, 2002 at 00:00
The Turbo 4.2 is the best option, especially if you intend to keep it for a while, as I believe the smaller engine will cost more to maintain long term.

I also think the larger engine would be more suited if you intend doing many long trips.
AnswerID: 5580

Reply By: andrew - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
I had been keen on updating to the new GU patrol but have ended up going with the Toyota 100 for a number of reasons. 1. The 3.0lTD motor is just too complicated, too electronic and thus a real nightmare if it decided to breakdown in the bush. 2. The 4.2lTD motor has been confirmed to me by rural Nissan dealers (of all people), and some remote Telstra service guys, to be a motor that if pushed much over 110km/hr, it WILL overheat. Yes, a motor that Nissan claims to be for our Aussie conditions will overheat if pushed a little. I have also been told that some dealers have to keep a spare motor on hand. All reasurring stuff. The old naturally aspirated 4.2L diesel motor is the best performer all round but Nissan, in their wisdom, dont have that as an option. They feel us 4w drivers want more power, however in doing this have stuffed up big time. I have just bought a Cruiser 100 standard, with the NON turbo 4.2 diesel that I know from experience is a damn good, reliable and non overheating motor beyond the 110km/hr limit.
However it is all horses for courses. Good luck.
AnswerID: 5581

Follow Up By: Cobra - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
Andrew, without starting a flame war, I reckon you have had your leg pulled.
0
FollowupID: 2410

Follow Up By: Andrew - Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00
Nissan & Toyota would be rubbing their hands together over the continual squabbling by the Cruiser men verses the Patrol men. I don't really give a rats. If the brand you buy gives you a long, trouble free run and gets you to all the out of the way places you always dreamed of...... THREE CHEERS!!!. Tell me however. Who has ever had a perfect, low cost to run, ultimate reliable man made machine?. None of us. Anything (Nissan or Toyota or whatever) will eventually stuff up. Your truck's success (or lack of) during it's life with you will ultimately reflect the maintenance and care it recieves from you.
0
FollowupID: 2432

Reply By: Cobra - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
Peter,
I have a 2.8itd which has not given me any problems. A lot of the club (Land Rover) members have either the 3.0L or 4.2L which run ok. We have not had any overheating problems with the 4.2 which have had trips to the Cape, Simpson etc. The only problem on the Simpson run was a 100 series with clutch and gearbox which was eventually trucked home for major repair. I don't believe that these vehicles have any more electronic problems than any other modern 4by. In fact, some of our members have dropped Toyota and Land Rover in favour of the Patrol. If I could afford it, I would upgrade to the 4.2L because it is a better tow vehicle. On a normal run without trailors, the 4.2L only puts in about 2L more than I do on refuelling.
AnswerID: 5586

Reply By: StephenF - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
I'm sick of hearing that computer-controlled motors are "too complicated and a nightmare if they break down in the bush". Is anybody seriously suggesting that the old coil/distributor/points/carby petrol motors are better in any way than modern electronic-ignition fuel-injected ones, or that "dumb" mechanically-injected diesels are better than electronically controlled ones? The reason modern diesels are gradually overcoming the gutless, smelly, noisy reputation of their predecessors is because of electronic engine management. The fact that the Patrol 3l TD is as powerful as the 4.2l TD says it all.

And what's more likely to break down in the bush, a box of moving, spinning, reciprocating, breakable parts, or a solid-state electronic component with zero moving parts? In any case, in the unlikely event of an electronic component failure there is always a limp-home mode.

My home "fleet" consists of a pair of early-eighties Jap buzz-boxes and a late-eighties efi Commodore. The Japs are a nightmare to keep tuned and running properly, while the Commodore starts first time and just keeps going. I know which one I'd trust a long way from anywhere.
AnswerID: 5591

Follow Up By: Tonyy - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
Well said Stephen!

After all, what sort of engine management systems do most modern aircraft use? How about the space shuttle?
0
FollowupID: 2413

Follow Up By: Voxson - Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Aug 11, 2002 at 00:00
well said..... well said..
0
FollowupID: 2419

Follow Up By: Pathfinder - Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00
Stephen - I agree with some of what you say; unfortunately the reality under extreme, isolated conditions tends to suggest otherwise. Most high-tech Pajeros, Prados and these days Cruisers and Patrols don't get off road much and therefore don't have there long-term durability tested. Similarly, even 4WD mags so-called long-term test vehicles are only kept for 10-40K km. In the real world, I am personally aware of many cases of electronics failing after they have been subjected to 200K km (but often less than 100K km) of heat, moisture, dust and vibrations. Yes, old petrol engines have problems too, but they can usually be fixed in the bush and certainly the nearest town - not so, with high-tech electronics and don't kid yourself that you can always rely on a 'limp home' mode. Personally I prefer the durability of a mechanically-controlled diesel (and yes, they can break, but the experience of rental companies, tour operators and 4WD clubs proves that they fail to proceed much less often than similarly used high-tech vehicles) - peace of mind is worth more than a bit more power and slightly better fuel economy...
0
FollowupID: 2422

Follow Up By: Robert - Thursday, Aug 15, 2002 at 00:00

Thursday, Aug 15, 2002 at 00:00
In regard to mechanical verses electronic: What is best?- really depends on the individuals mechanical ability.
If you don't have any mechanical ability then you're stuffed, regardless of the type of engine. Your main concern would be the size of your wallet and the nearest help. If you are mechanically minded then it's a different story. When an engine fails to start you have far more chance of fixing the problem with non-electronic, as compared to electronic. Even qualified competent mechanics, in fully equipped workshops have major headaches with electronic engines. For myself, what's important is that it can be fixed on the spot if it breaks down, not so much that it is the most reliable. It's all very well to say it won't happen, that's no help if it does.
When far away from help, and nothing happens when the key is turned - Give me non-electronic any day.
0
FollowupID: 2479

Follow Up By: Stephenf - Thursday, Aug 15, 2002 at 00:00

Thursday, Aug 15, 2002 at 00:00
Robert and Pathfinder, electronic engine management systems weren't invented yesterday - they are a mature technology and their reliability is proven. I would rather benefit from the gains in power, efficiency and reliability that electronic systems provide than soldier on with yesterday's technology.
0
FollowupID: 2485

Follow Up By: Robert - Friday, Aug 16, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Aug 16, 2002 at 00:00
I'm not totally against electronics. For instance I think electronic ignition is far superior to having mechanical points. Electronics does has its place, I just don't think that complex electronic management systems are the way to go, especially for vehicles designed for use in remote areas.
It comes down to what one considers the most important - gains in performance or being able to fix an engine if it stops. Even if the individual has no mechanical ability, there's still the chance someone else might pass by who has. As to reliability of electronics, I think that's very debatable. In my twenty-four years driving petrol carby/distributor vehicles, I have never had one completely fail and leave me stranded.
0
FollowupID: 2491

Reply By: Mikef_Patrol - Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00
Hi Guys

I'll put my 2c worth in here..Yep, electronics do break down, but as has already been said, so do mechanical bits. If your electronics last 3 months, chances are they will last forever.

We have had our 3.0L TDi Patrol Manual for just over 3 months now and are really pleased with it. The fuel consumption on a trip recently with our 1320kg (GVM) Jayco camper trailer on the back was 13.5l/100k @ 95kph criuse, in 5th gear, up hill and down dale, so no complaints there.

Maintenance on any modern motor is going to be expensive, so might as well get used to it .. and that's any brand of motor.

Others will have their say also i'm sure....

Regards
MikeF
AnswerID: 5603

Follow Up By: Member - Nigel - Wednesday, Aug 28, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Aug 28, 2002 at 00:00
Electronics generally will last for a long time if they survive the first 3 months, but that doesn't really apply if the electronics is subjected to large amounts of shock, excessive heat or dust. If the vehicle electronics are well protected then there shouldn't be a problem. Time will tell if the manufacturers got it right, and then I'll think about upgrading from my GQ.
0
FollowupID: 2672

Reply By: Richard Cowan - Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00
Peter, Horses for courses I think. I recently bought a 4.2 Turbo Diesel.
The 3.0 is very responsive to drive and about $6,000 cheaper than the 4.2 turbo diesel. It is well suited to the average person doing touring and highway work.
The disadvantages are complexity and the engine's dislike for poor quality fuel (common in Oz), due to the very high fuel pressure in this type of engine. The turbo also comes in relatively late, making progess rather jerky on rough trails.
I bought the 4.2 because of simplicity, ruggedness, reliability (old fashioned truck engine) and the fact that the turbo spins up just above idle, making it a good trail machine. The difference is big engine/small turbo or small engine/big turbo. Both engines can be improved with intercooler (4.2) and chip fiddling (3.0) if you have a spare $2,000, before replacing stuff (bigger turbo, 3" exhaust etc.).
Both are good vehicles, but have different strengths.

AnswerID: 5607

Reply By: Andrew O - Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Aug 12, 2002 at 00:00
Peter, I've owned the 3.0ltr manual for 18 months and done 2 trips to the outback, and numerous weekend jaunts. Like yourself, we just do "your average stuff". Wife & two kids have plenty of room (for themselves and the gear), and the car goes like a dream. This engine has been used in light trucks in europe for a number of years prior to its release in Australia. I service it myself, and its a cinch. Cheers.
AnswerID: 5616

Reply By: sean - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2002 at 00:00
I have had a 3.0 l for since May 2000 (over 2 years) with 50,000 on the clock. Car has been over all sorts of terrain.

At 20,000ks the engine stopped. The charge wire from the alternator shorted on the AC pipes, battery did not charge and no power means no electronics. I connected the second battery and this got me to a NIssan dealer.

At 35,000ks the fuel filter became blocked and motor progressively lost power. First noticed enginine couging at 3500 revs. After about 2,000 ks car would not go over 100ks. I was bush at the time. Problem silved with change of fuel filter.
during this trip we did approximately 100ks of bulldust (3 rd gear powering through) which also completely blocked the air filter (repalce on route) so after this, a snorkel was fitted to help keep the dust out.

At 40000 ks shocks compeltey worn adn replaced with Bilstiens and 2 inch lift with new springs

Motor has heaps of power. It can work hard all day. I can tow a 16ft van at 120ks all day and motor does it easily. Power is NOT a problem. The power is very usable and there is very little turbo lag.

I believe that it is a very good vehicle but electronics can always be a problem. It is really a matter of whether its worth paying another $5000 or so for the peace of mind.

Fuel consumption - around town driving easy on the right foot - 12.5 litres/100 ks.
Highway with full roof rack at 105-110ks - 14.5 litres/100ks
Caravan below 100ks - better than 6km per litre.
Caravan above 100ks - worse than 6km per litre but never below 5km per litre.

top speed - 155km/h after a while. Realistic top cruising speed - 135km/h (only if you have the right rubber).

Would I buy again - answer is YES.

Feel free to email me if you want more info.

Sean

AnswerID: 5702

Reply By: PETER - Wednesday, Aug 28, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Aug 28, 2002 at 00:00
Peter i had a disco - will never again have a disco.the manufacturers dont give a toss and thats it.
loved patrol but believe for my money got best value with pajero.

phone the racv or nrma and ask their advise before you spend.

searched the net and can advise that the best deal was from john biastos of framkston nissan and keith giles of peter lees mornington for pajero

regards peter
AnswerID: 6096

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)