Patrol diesel 2.8 litre vs 4.2 litre

Submitted: Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:48
ThreadID: 19112 Views:3679 Replies:12 FollowUps:50
This Thread has been Archived
Ok, so I'm looking at Patrols to buy and have ruled out the 3.0 l petrol.

I'd like to use it for towing a CT through sand occasionally, somtimes with 4 adults and 2 kids on board. High fuel costs are painfull, so I'm condidering a diesel over the 4.2 l petrol.

How does the 2.8 litre td compare with the 4.2 litre td for my purposes outlined above?

Anybody care to commment on fuel consumption or power needed to tow through sand and up hills with these 2 engines?

Thanks.
Poe :)

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:55

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:55
For towing you would go the 4.2 anyday. Check the archives, it has been asked before.

Basic figures for GQ
TD42 14/100
TB42 20/100
2.8 16/100

- these figures are without towing.
The 2.8 GQ is pretty useless for towing, I know of 3 that the owners have done engine conversions within 6-12 mths of buying them.
AnswerID: 91580

Follow Up By: Poe - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11
Thanks Truckster.

Cheers,
Poe :)
0
FollowupID: 350187

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:23

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:23
Also the 2.8 only has the car running gear out of 200zx's...
0
FollowupID: 350194

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 20:30

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 20:30
Truckster where did you get the fuel figure of 16/100 for the 2.8 from? My 2.8 tdi gu has averaged 11.33 ltrs/100kms over the last 100000kms (yep that's 100,000kms) of trouble free motoring. I don't tow anything other than my 7x5 box trailer around town and down to the coast with the boat on it but I have done two trips to the tip of Cape York, at least half a dozen trips into the Vic High Country, s.......te loads of trips into the Brindabellas, and only today returned from a 2600 kms trip into the Melbourne mountains including Deep Creek 1 and 2, Mt Selma, O'Tooles loop, Morning Star and a number of others - and the old 2.8 still returned and average 12.0 ltrs/100 kms on this trip - and most of it was done in low range.
The 2.8 does have a low rev torque problem but that is overcome by knowing the vehicle and learning to drive it accordingly. Having said that I would not buy a 2.8 to tow a heavy trailer through sand.

Cheers
Pete
0
FollowupID: 350377

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:56

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:56
He pulls them out of the sky.

I agree with you he is as usual way off with his facts .

11/12 is the norm for the 2.8.
0
FollowupID: 350488

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:43

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:43
Poe with my gq I get around 17 per 100ks 4.2 efi
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350549

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:27

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:27
From the 3000+ people on the combined patrol forums I run/moderate, from numerous other4b forums that are out there....

Johnno1 posted this followup
11/12 is the norm for the 2.8.

LMAO now also a Patrol expert as well as knowing everything about USA Toyotas. You havent got Shi+ right yet in anything. You are an expert alright - drip under pressure.
0
FollowupID: 350592

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:57

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:57
Also the post below from Bundy man
And I get about 16L/100km on the highway

Any further questions
0
FollowupID: 350611

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:22

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:22
Well I guess I just got an unusual one (but then so too are the other two 2.8 patrols in my club). I have kept fuel/milage records since I bought the vehicle and my maths are right as well. I can understand how Bundyman gets 16/100 (Quote: And I get about 16L/100km on the highway (and yes I drive it the way you would if you weren't paying for fuel).).
I don't wish to get into an argument (hence my ignoring Johonno1 as I guessed it was the same bloke who posted all those ACCURATE (??) toyota stats) - but simply point out that my more that 100,000kms of records show that my 2.8tdi returns between 11 and 12 ltrs/100kms on average.
Cheers
Pete
0
FollowupID: 350640

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:12

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:12
Enough said.

Truckster will dispute it however.
0
FollowupID: 350690

Reply By: Gossy - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:00

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:00
I have a 2.8 td patrol (GQ 1996). I am very impressed with what I can do in this veh. I carry a fair bit of gear and it does it fine, but I hate to say this but I am going to agree with the others who will comment in this (most members are bias to big diesels).
If you are carrying 4 adults and towing and want to go thru sand I would not go for the 2.8 but lean toward the bigger diesel. I think you would regret it later on if you went for the 2.8td just to save on fuel. Obviously there is a big difference in the fuel cost between the 2.8 and 4.2 but you would soon forget about your saving's if you don't have enough "grunt" to get up the hills whilst on holidays fully laden and have to be recovered all the time!
Mine is great but I don't tow and don't have kids etc so that extra weight is not an issue for me.

good luck with your choice.
AnswerID: 91581

Follow Up By: Poe - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:13

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:13
Thanks Gossy.

'Tis a pain in the arse being such a tightwad sometimes.

Poe :)
0
FollowupID: 350189

Reply By: Peter McGuckian - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:11
Depending on what you want to spend but you might Have a look at the 3.0l diesel in the GU. Your should get around 11.5l/100km and it tows well.

Peter
Peter
VKS Mobile 1906

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 91584

Follow Up By: Poe - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:17

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:17
Thanks Peter. I'd love to buy a later model but $ won't get me there yet.

I'll get my budget 4WD and campertrailer and enjoy them whilst dreaming of newer shinier toys. Got to get one of those powered parachute thingys at some point too! What a blast.

Poe :)

0
FollowupID: 350191

Reply By: bundyman - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:17

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:17
Poe,

My work vehicle is a 2.8L and while excellent for highway work they do have very little torque off idle and you would have to work the clutch to start off in the sand, especially with a fully laden vehicle and trailer. And although zippier on road the little bugger is working hard and has given me some grief with overheating problems. My opinion would be the big diesel 6 for your needs. Otherwise expect a few clutch replacements if you do a bit of sand work. Best bet would be to find a Nissan dealer and take both types for a test drive (or shop around until you can drive one of each). Find a decent size hill (on the bitumen) and try doing a standing start in each. This will give you a bit of an indication as to which vehicle will be easier to get moving when loaded up in the sand. You'll see what I mean by using the clutch in the 2.8L. If they come in an auto you wouldn't have to worry about it. And I get about 16L/100km on the highway (and yes I drive it the way you would if you weren't paying for fuel).

Cheers,
Hughesy
AnswerID: 91587

Reply By: beatit - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:18

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:18
G'day Poe,

I can tell your a Nissan man, so why not the 4.8? Lets face it most of us have our 4b for pleasure, very few are lucky enough to have them for work. So why get excited about a couple of litres of petrol when you're on that 4 week annual leave from the slavery.

Having driven all sorts over the last 15 years find it hard to argue against displacement when towing over sand.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 91588

Follow Up By: beatit - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:21

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:21
PS

I get 3.2km to the litre towing a large trailer over sand and haven't got stuck yet.
0
FollowupID: 350193

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 00:21

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 00:21
beatit, you wouldnt get stuck ,youre got a 4.8 petrol,whats the use of a deisel that gets a few more kms when you are stuck
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350463

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:58

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:58
Low down torque is the diesels advantage amongst others .

0
FollowupID: 350489

Follow Up By: beatit - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:06

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:06
G'day Johnno,

It was a toss up on the old diesel V's petrol question. At the purchase time the bride was driving all of 1.5 Km to work, now driving these short distances aint good for any car but I had it in my mind that a diesel would suffer even more. But no regrets.

Kind regards
0
FollowupID: 350495

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:19

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:19
That might be so but I really could not say.
0
FollowupID: 350498

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:15

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:15
Johnno 1 ,the big petrols have alot of torque.Ive had both petrol and diesel 4.2 gq and there isnt much diff
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350542

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:47

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:47
Of course there isn't we all know that but also those who know their stuff which you clearly do not realise that the maximum torque of a Td motor comes in at around 1800-2000 rpm which is far more useable and down low compared to the petrol which requires more rpm to deliver the same torque.

I would not expect you to understand the importance of this for economy and useability.
0
FollowupID: 350550

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:27

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:27
Thanks for enlightening me,But I need to inform you that I was talking about the Gq Patrol ,that isnt produce as std with a trubo diesel.Please take time to read whats in front of you.Also you still have answered my question,Do you start school the same time as I do
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350563

Follow Up By: Member - Karl - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:42

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:42
I agree with Uppy. The main to to consider also is not whether petrol is better than diesel, who has the better low down torque etc - but it comes down to the ability of the person driving the vehicle. If you can't drive the conditions you are going to get stuck regardless.
0
FollowupID: 350565

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 13:03

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 13:03
ofcourse it does. That is a given , but the same driver in both vehicles will do much better in a T/D model .
0
FollowupID: 350570

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 17:49

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 17:49
I agree with Carl,and Johnno1 you need to get out more
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350620

Reply By: Member - Andrew O - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:24

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:24
High fuel certainly are painful, and whats worse is you are reminded of them regularly. However, I suggest you do the maths on the petrol - they are alot cheaper to buy, and depending on how far you travel, and how long you are intending to keep it, a petrol can come out cheaper in the long run. Certainly won't have a shortage of power to tow with either.
Cheers
Andrew
AnswerID: 91589

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 00:38

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 00:38
Hi Andrew, Its great to see other people drive petrols on this forum,is good to be a leader and not a lamb
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350465

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:59

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:59
Petrol 4b's are for woodies and shopping mum's.

We all know that.
0
FollowupID: 350490

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:19

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:19
Hi Johnno1,thanks for your informed reply.I take it you will be starting back to school the sametime as I do
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350543

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew O - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 14:29

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 14:29
Actually Uppy, I recently upgraded from the GU3.0 td to the GU4.2tdi. But that was done with very serious consideration of the petrol. Things that swayed me in the end were engine simplicity, low down torque, better diff ratio, engine braking versus the touchy throttle, the constant reminder of petrol pricing, no room for a 2nd battery, worse turning circle. In the end I bought what best suited me, and as a bonus, my wife thinks it was the right choice too.

There are still perfectly valid reasons for buying a petrol, and I reckon its worht considering all options, not discounting an option because of one comparatively minor cost difference.

Cheers
Andrew
0
FollowupID: 350579

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:33

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 16:33
Johnno1 posted this followup
We all know that.

Yea, birdys 180kw GQ, or Darrens 200kw 80series he raced in winch challenges, and was raced in outback challenges, was for his mum...

Another expert post from our resident moron Johnno. Make the most of it, school goes back soon..
0
FollowupID: 350594

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 17:45

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 17:45
Hi Johnno1 .When you say we .who do you mean?.Awaitting your very informed reply.Also stop upsetting Truckster,he has given alot of good information on the forum over the years
uppy
0
FollowupID: 350617

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:15

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:15
Anybody who has been around 4b's and driven long distances in them knows T/D is the only way to go.
0
FollowupID: 350691

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37
THANKS ,for your answer.Ive done both in petrols and diesels .You still have not answered my question,Is WE,your many voices talking in you little head.Also what do you drive and where
uppy
0
FollowupID: 350731

Reply By: Member - Jimbo (VIC) - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 18:30

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 18:30
Poe,

There are a million (or thereabouts) GQ 4.2 petrols running LPG. This will give you more power and torque than a diesel and will be cheaper to run. Forget L/100km, consder $ per km and the dual fuel alternative is by far the most cost effective.

Cheers,

JIm.
AnswerID: 91636

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:01

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:01
LPG ??

Are you kidding ?

No thanks , and this is why not.

http://www.utes.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=90
0
FollowupID: 350493

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 14:15

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 14:15
One would have to hold that article under major suspicion when the writer cannot get basic but important facts correct.

Quote:
>Remember excise will increase until it is at the same level as ULP

End Quote

Not true, never was true.

0
FollowupID: 350577

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:31

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:31
Mad Dog - I don't wish to give any credence whatsoever to Johonno1 but whoever wrote that article about excise was right on the money. Two federal budgets ago Treasurer Costello clearly pointed out that exercise on automotive gas will increase annually to 2012 when it is intended that it be at the same level as other automotive fuels - this was to enhance Manildra's (and probably other producers as well) chance of getting a larger share of the market with their ethanol.
0
FollowupID: 350642

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:50

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:50
nup, instead of listening to the crap that was wriiten on various forums at the time I suggest you research the matter from official documents to learn the truth. Yes there will be excise but not to that degree and on the 31st march 2004 the government defered the start of the annual excise increments to 1st july 2011.
0
FollowupID: 350645

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:59

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:59
So polite yet - sorry I didn't know about the deferral but I do have the relevant budget documents in my office that indicate that this is the governments intention. So what happens now.....do they make the jump in one single bound.
0
FollowupID: 350647

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 21:17

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 21:17
It was Dec 2003 when the Gov announced that starting 2008 LPG excise will be applied in yearly increments rising to a max of 12.5 cents in 2008.

March 2004 the Gov announced the start will be delayed until 2011

This is no secret, it's all over the web and was reported in daily newspapers. Unfortunately there was a great deal of crap posted on various forums from people who read the headlines and not the body.
0
FollowupID: 350650

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 21:20

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 21:20
That's 12.5 cents a litre...not a tankfull :)
0
FollowupID: 350651

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:17

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:17
Mad Dog you really dont understand the excise very well do you.

As PAtrol says it is fact ..

Go away andresearch a little before you post again please.
0
FollowupID: 350692

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:23

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:23
HERE is the Governments version of the facts which is the same as I posted above. Maybe you should inform them they are wrong.

0
FollowupID: 350698

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:42

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:42
I stand corrected.

That is what I like to see. Facts to back up a statement. Not much of that around here though.
0
FollowupID: 350700

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:57

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:57
Mad Dog - that works for me. But how does that relate in $ terms. For instance we had a dual fuel V8 Land Rover with us over the Christmas break in the Vic High Country. The cheapest gas he was able to buy was at a mobil service station on the highway near Pakenham - this was at 35.5 cents per litre. If you translate the 12.5 cents per litre to a % rate it is approx 35% of the retail value on this price. From memory I think that that is not too far off the actual excise on petrol and diesel (given that excise is a federal tax). There is however and additional 3 to 8 cents per litre levied by the Federal Govt and transferred to the States (except Qld) where there is an 8 cent per litre rebate funded by the State Govt. - bugger this is getting complicated ain't it no wonder it is nigh on impossible for anyone to work out the real pricing components of fuel. But then again what's it really matter - if we want to continue travelling and driving in the best country on the planet we have to pay what the going price is. If they (governments) weren't getting the money this way they'd have to get it from some other source which could even be more painful on the hip pocket. I guess we just have to grin and bear it.
Thanks for the debate. Stand fast Johonno1 who had nothing to offer in real terms.
Cheers
Pete
0
FollowupID: 350702

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Victoria) - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 09:30

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 09:30
I think the big difference between the proposed LPG and the petrol excise is that the LPG excise is not expressed as a percentage so with the natural price increases excise will not increase and obviously when 2011 arrives LPG will be priced above the present level as will petrol. Still it's a long way to 2011 and anything could happen between now and then.

I've had a good run with dual fuel over the last 15yrs. Not as cheap as it once was and not the best fuel for outback touring but the majority of my driving is well within distance of a supply and with my long range petrol tank I have no problems.

Have a good day Pete

0
FollowupID: 350707

Reply By: patrolgu - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 18:31

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 18:31
For what it's worth I have a 2.8l TD intercooler GU and have just returned from a trip to Robe. We had a 4.2l TD GU with us and also a 4.5l (i think)100 series criuser. My 2.8 performed extremely well, even out-performed the others on most occasions. The intercooler makes a hell of a lot of difference. You do have to rev them pretty hard as they are sluggish down low, but they are way lighter than the 4.2 and seem to respond accordingly. We were not towing, but i was carrying 4 adults and did not have a problem, even up steep, very loose sand dunes.

You will struggle to find a second hand GU 4.2 TD as poeple tend to hang on to them.

My 2.8l uses a little less fuel than the bigger one, but i wouldn't say it's enough to sway you either way. It revs higher on 100 so that's probably why it's not that substantial a difference.

You should find a 99 GU 2.8TD intercooler for around $30k.

Hope this is of some use.

jim
AnswerID: 91637

Reply By: Vinnie - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 22:48

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 22:48
Just got back from Batemans bay (bloody great place too) towing a heavy laden

box trailer using my bro in-laws GQ 2.8 TD, it goes great on the road and would

have to say without doubt better than my 4.2 TD Maverick(at panel shop). The

turbo makes it rev harder but the power is right there where the Mav would have

a think about it and take a tea break before getting up and going.

On the low down and off road the Mav would have the 2.8 for breakfast and then some, can't beat it here on low down tourque.

Sand driving the 3.0 TD would be a better option but the 4.2 would definately be ahead of the 2.8

Happy hunting.

Vinnie
AnswerID: 91687

Reply By: Uppy - Member - Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 23:40

Thursday, Jan 06, 2005 at 23:40
Hi Poe ,I had a 4.2 in NZ great wagon but cost more to keep on the road compared with my petrol here. Also had more problems with it ,I had it for 5 years and only did 155,000 km in it,Power wise compared with the petrol ,they do not compare,as for fuel range a long range tank is a lot cheaper than a turbo with intercooler
regards uppy
AnswerID: 91699

Reply By: Poe - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:15

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:15
Thanks for all those replies! Most valuable.

I imagine a 4.2l petrol on lpg would be pretty good. Does the lpg tank replace the 3rd row of seats or not? I'm not in a position to see for myself at present.

Does anyone have l/km figures for 4.2l on lpg handy?

Cheers,
Poe :)
AnswerID: 91711

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:03

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:03
don't go Lpg !!!!

Price never changes when petrol goes up and down. Economy goes through the floor and you have to recoup investment.

http://www.utes.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=90
0
FollowupID: 350494

Follow Up By: Member - Karl - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:47

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:47
The only issue with LPG is it's availablity in the country. If that is not a concern then get the LPG fitted at the time of purchase and combine it into your finances then. I believe that in some states there are rebates etc for the fitting of LPG. I had a fully worked XC Falcon 4.2 L V8 Panel van many years ago (when I was younger - proberly about Johnno1 age) and it went a treat and I had no problems.

Get it installed by a qualified / professional fitter and have them tune it and you should be okay.
0
FollowupID: 350567

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 13:12

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 13:12
Is proberly a word ?

The only issue is availability hey ?

Do me a favour and work this out.

130 litres in petrol will get you 700 kilometres in a LC100 V8
130 litres in LPG will get you 300 kilometres ( ring ARB / TJM for this figure ).

LPG price is .50 c here right now
Petrol is .84c here right now.

Conversion cost is approx $2000 average .

Now do the sums.

At this price 130 litres will cost $109.2 in petrol
$ 75.00 lpg

To cover the same distance as petrol you will need two tanks at $75 .

This is clearly economis suicide !!.

All figures are supplied by Arb Brisbane .

0
FollowupID: 350573

Follow Up By: Mikell - Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:26

Friday, Jan 07, 2005 at 20:26
Johnno you have absolutely no idea. What a waste
0
FollowupID: 350641

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:19

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:19
such an intelligent reply.

Please give me your informed figures then.
0
FollowupID: 350694

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:20

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:20
that LPg figure should be $65.0. typo but it is still very ugly for Lpg owner.
0
FollowupID: 350695

Reply By: Darylive - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:25

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:25
What a crock of s#it. I have a 4.2 petrol and have pulled many loosers in toys of the beach. Yes it likes a drink (who doesn't) so I run it on gas. My neighbour has just bought a new 3ltr petrol took it around the bloke and it is toey, but for up the beach there is no substitue for cubic inches! having said that, I have had an old deisal hilux and went everywhere in that to, but the big NISSAN 4.2 is comfortable and many times I have passed bogged vehicles because of the pure toque of the 4.2 petrol (on gas)

daryl ;{
AnswerID: 91887

Follow Up By: Johnno1 - Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06

Saturday, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:06
for the beach you want low down torque. Cubic inches are irrellevant if the torque is low down. The 3.0 litre t/d is much better in sand than your truck.
0
FollowupID: 350735

Follow Up By: Uppy - Member - Sunday, Jan 09, 2005 at 21:10

Sunday, Jan 09, 2005 at 21:10
daryl I agree with you .dont worry about what little Johnno has to say its just the voices in his head talking, he hasnt informed me what he drives ,if he is old enough to drive
regards uppy
0
FollowupID: 350900

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)