Nissan 2.8 lt or 3.0 lt

Submitted: Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00
ThreadID: 1886 Views:9170 Replies:7 FollowUps:4
This Thread has been Archived
We have finally settled on the Nissan Patrol for towing a 17ft van but are still undecided which is the better motor to choose. Will the 2.8lt have a comparable performance & fuel economy to the 3.0lt or are the two miles apart in both power, economy & service costs. Also which of the two are likely to have any mechanical probs if any ???
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: troy - Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00
Cam, 2.8 vs 3.0lt are chalk and cheese. (assume we are talking turbo diesels here)

3.0 uses direct injection. 2.8 doesnt.

buy the 3.0lt. Towing may be a challenge with the 2.8lt.

AnswerID: 6276

Reply By: Stuart - Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00
Cam, l upgraded my old GU 2.8lt TD to a new 3.0ltTD and have never looked back! The new one is twice as good on fuel and has a lot more useable power down low. The 2.8 lt is a very capable and sweet little engine, just in the wrong vehicle?? Also the 3.0lt has its oil changed at 10.000kms, where the 2.8lt is 5000kms. Which at the end of the day will save you $$$ over the life of a vehicle. Have not heard of any major mech problems yet, but only time will tell. Hope this helps.
AnswerID: 6280

Reply By: Member - Nigel - Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Sep 02, 2002 at 00:00
Definately the 3.0, or else the 4.2 :)
AnswerID: 6283

Reply By: Brian - Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00
Cam See "Nissan Patrol 3.0 vs 4.2 ???" in this fourm. I am in the same boat ,after much research I have decided on the 4.2 td st wagon for 3 main reasons (1)-long running motor heaps of power !!! (2) Not the mechinical problems that the 3.0l has (3) fuel economy difference is minimal. hope this helps
AnswerID: 6306

Follow Up By: Cam - Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00
Brian, when you mention mechanical problems of the 3.0lr could you be specific as it would help greatly in arriving at a decision.
0
FollowupID: 2787

Follow Up By: Brian - Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002 at 00:00
Cam the problem i have heard (mainly in this forum, (search"patrol" and look at the past posts ) fuel pump does not like bad fuel/ or water in fuel if it gets through the filters it will stuff the pump, it is a sealed unit not fixable in OZ & $6000 for a new one. Heads that are unmachineable(after overheating cos of front pully bearing) new one costs $4000. Front pully bearing failures . These are just a fue. I have only herad these things , mainly on this fourm but also from people i bump into and mates in the NT & FNQ. I may be wrong about these things ??? however i have heard next to nothing bad about the 4.2TD.
Search this fourm for the answers.Let me know what you find, Hope this helps.
0
FollowupID: 2803

Reply By: fred - Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00
A little exaggeration is not too bad but to say the 3.0 litre is twice as good on fuel as the 2.8 litre is a bit over the top
Recent trip with 2.8 and 3.0 indicated the 3.0 was marginally better on fuel - but not towing
AnswerID: 6310

Follow Up By: Stuey. - Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Sep 03, 2002 at 00:00
Fred, when you have tested both engines to their full capacity, let us know!!!
0
FollowupID: 2788

Reply By: Robyn - Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002 at 00:00
I don't want to cause a stor but I think we need to be a little careful about attributing problems with certain vehicles to simply the 'manufacturing' element. I am always wary when I read that someone's had a 'problem' such as 'blown turbos', 'head overheating because of front pully bearing failure' and 'fuel pump problems after dirty fuel'. Now I'm not suggesting these aren't genuine problems BUT, I have seen enough disrespectful treatment of 4WDs by some drivers (towing and not towing heavy loads) to lead me to the conclusion that a significant contributing factor may well be the driving and maintenance habits rather than just the manufacturing. Eg I cannot understand why someone who drives at 100-130 km/hr towing more than a tonne (not to mention what's on the roof rack) in 5th on corrugated dirt roads for hundreds of km should be surprised that he ends up with a problem under his bonnet!!! I'd remind him at the same time that he's probably done a really goood job of sandblasting the underside of both his 4WD and the camper he was towing! My point is we need to look at the whole picture. As far as fuel goes, there are precautions you can take (extra filters and additives) that minimise the risk. Cam, stick to your budget (I assume you have set a limit) and the 3.0lt is terrific if you treat it with respect it deserves on and off the road.
AnswerID: 6371

Follow Up By: Brian - Friday, Sep 06, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Sep 06, 2002 at 00:00
Robyn I hear what you are saying. I have driven the new 3.0l nissan and it is a great unit, heaps of power zippy, but it all comes down to money. For me a purchace of $60,000 + is a major thing and the vehicle will have to last me 10 to 15 years(treating it well) other wise it is not finacinaly viable. A vehicle that is expensive to maintain (no matter how good it is) is unsuitable. In my mind it is when a vehicle runs out of warranty that you find out how realy good it is !...Brian
0
FollowupID: 2867

Reply By: Robyn - Friday, Sep 06, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Sep 06, 2002 at 00:00
I have every confidence you'd look after your vehicle. We bought the 3l for exactly the same reasons you mention and we really did our homework on looking at long term costs. We were concerned about the longer term viability of the 2.8l and we could not afford the through-life costs of the larger diesel and petrol models noting that we intend having our vehicle for at least 10-15 yrs. Good luck!
AnswerID: 6439

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)