Power considerations in 4cyl 4wds

Submitted: Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 15:49
ThreadID: 18630 Views:2223 Replies:8 FollowUps:2
This Thread has been Archived
I am looking to purchase a cheap 4wd to replace an old '82 Sierra. I am currently looking at a '83 dual cab Hilux 2.2D and a '89 Pathfinder. The primary use of the vehicle will be on the sand dunes, with some use in national parks. The power output of the Sierra was fine for my needs, but as the other vehicles are heavier I was wondering if I am likely to run into any trouble climbing hills with the 4 cyls, especially the diesel hilux?
any comments would be appreciated.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member -Dodger - Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 15:55

Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 15:55
If the lux is not turbo then go for the petrol pathy. It will have more go in the sand.
The 2.2d was a bit underpowered.
I used to have a handle on life, but it broke.

Cheers Dodg.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 89101

Reply By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 16:40

Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 16:40
I went to lancilen dunes with my Daihatsu and one of the other guys had an 87' pathy, went quite good even though it was clapped out and rusting apart.
I reckon a 2.2d Diesel would be a slug!
AnswerID: 89104

Reply By: theshadows - Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 17:48

Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 at 17:48
dont forget the rocky.A very underrated 4WD. Under 6 grand will get you a good condition MQ patrol as well.

shadow
AnswerID: 89109

Reply By: jacy_m - Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 00:59

Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 00:59
The pathfinder seems to be dripping a lot of oil so I might give that one a miss.

What would you expect to pay for the hilux with 12 months rego, 280kms (45k since engine rebuild)

There doesnt seem to be too many Rockys for sale in the Newcastle area and I'm not sure if require something the size of the Patrol.
AnswerID: 89181

Reply By: harry55 - Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 08:40

Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 08:40
Hi,
I owned a 2.2l Hilux twin cab for a few years, bought it new back in about '82. Good car but really a slug. It pumped out 46kW which was hardly enough to maintain highway speed into a mild headwind. Not the best in the scrub either, light in the back and a poor turning circle made for "interesting" driving techniques. Go for the Pathfinder - I think it would suit your needs better.

cheers,
Harry
AnswerID: 89191

Reply By: Member - Matt Mu (WA) - Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:13

Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:13
Jacy,

You would be dissapointed with the Hilux, even the 2.8 was a slug but at least its bearable. The Daihatsus are very under rated, the feroza is the little option but still alt bigger than the Sierra and the Rocky has the options of TDiesel and a largerpayload. The drivelines in these are unbreakable, very much an over kill for their size, which is good!!

Unfortunately(for buyers) the Hiluxes hold their value, the Feroza is pretty easy to find (ususaly but go the widetrack) and the Rocky can be harder to find in good condition.

What about a later Sierra? 90 on gives you 1.3 and five speed with the wide track and then later you have the coils! I had a 90 and fitted a 1600 16valve imported Swift motor and that thing was a bullet. Great in the sand, on the highway and I used to pull my 4.2m Quintrex runabout up the coast at 110km/h from Bris to Caloundra all the time, plenty of second looks there!!

Goodluck!

Matt.
AnswerID: 89217

Follow Up By: jacy_m - Monday, Dec 20, 2004 at 19:21

Monday, Dec 20, 2004 at 19:21
Thanks for the advice.

I have decided to try and stick with the Suzuki or a Diahatsu as they seem to suit my needs best. Would ideally like a 5speed but as it is not going to be my main car I could put up with the slow hwy driving if I wanted to take it further afield.

I am currently looking at a 89 vitara. Is anyone able to explain to me the main differences between the sierra and vitara and how they may handle in the sand?
0
FollowupID: 348450

Reply By: Gossy - Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:25

Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:25
Many members here are a bit bias with the big diesels. I have a 2.8 diesel patrol. I have done Robe (S.A.) without any problems with my mate who has a big petrol Landcruiser. The only difference was his fuel bill in Kingston was $80 and mine was $33.
I carry a lot of gear (fridge and an old army trunk full of recovery gear) even before water and jerry cans etc. The car drives exactly the same as it is unladen. If you are buying a car for a purpose (and not towing) then a 4 cyl will do just fine and you will appreciate it at the servo.
I will admit that he did better on "Big Red" than me probably due to the extra "grunt" when putting down the foot; but how many times do you encounter "Big Red" on a 4wd trip?
Good Luck
AnswerID: 89219

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (WA) - Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 13:36

Friday, Dec 17, 2004 at 13:36
heard a few different things about the 2.8s but those that own them seem more than happy. personally I quite like the normally aspirated diesal 6 as they get good economy with flexible power range on normal windey bush tracks 30-50kph. this may change if I actually ever drive a td
0
FollowupID: 348146

Reply By: Aandy(WA) - Monday, Dec 20, 2004 at 23:45

Monday, Dec 20, 2004 at 23:45
The only 4 cylinder engines to consider are the turbo diesels such as in the Prado. They are far better than the 6 cylinder petrol for sand dune or for that matter any off road work as they produce heaps of torque at half the revs of the petrol engines. 4 cylinder petrol engines just aren't adequate for any serious off road work and barely suitable for highway travel. Normally aspirated diesels are OK off road but quite unsuitable for highway travel.
AnswerID: 89673

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)