Prado 90 series 2.7 petrol, any good?

Viajeros,

The 2.7 is a bit underpowerd. To tow a van at 110kph it would be working hard.

The v6 would be a better option. The motor being bigger with more torque will use less fuel when towing a van, it will also be better on the sand.

Wayne

G'day mate,

I was one of three vehicles in a convoy to Cape York last Sept/Oct. Mine is a 4.2 TD Patrol, and my mates were in a 3L Patrol and a 2.7 petrol Prado.

We all towed campers...mine a Ultimate, the 3L had a TrakShak and the Prado had a very heavy Cameron (I think??). I was sceptical that it would be able to keep up etc. I was quite surprised that the only times it had trouble was on long hills where the extra torque of the Nissans shone through. But that was only on a few occasions.

As far as reliability was concerned, the Prado (which was pretty-well bog-stock) only sufferred 2 busted rear shockers and had to get 2 flown in while we were at Bamaga.

I'd say if it suits your needs size-wize etc and you like petrol engines, no reason why you shouldn't go for it. Be aware it will probably have a lower resale value, but I would hope you are paying a LOT less for it than an equivalent V6 version.

Good luck.

It is going to be slow, especially dragging a camper.

Have a look at the power and torque figures and the total weight you are expecting it to move. I once owned a 3L petrol Patrol and whilst I loved it for what it was, it could hardly get out of its own way with any sort of a load. Needed to be revved and used a lot of fuel due to being asked to do more than it was capable of.

Cheers,

Jim.

Viajeros I have a hilux with the same 2.7L motor - although I am unsure about the weight/gearing differences between the hilux and prado I can tell you that the 2.7 (3RZFE) motor is strong and fairly tourqey but a bit thirsty when pushed. They are comfortable at 110kph with a medium load (the fuel bill may not be so comfortable though). Dont get me wrong though, I love my 'lux and it does what is asked of it, every time without fail - but horses for courses, if you do a whole lot of towing you may be in for a large fuel bill (but that could be said for most petrols).

Shaun

The 3.0 petrol GQ is not anywhere the same vehicle as the 2.7 prado. It's heavier to start with, as well as being "old technology", motor wise.

It is a well known fact that you couldn't drive out of sight on a dark night in a 3.0 petrol GQ patrol.

I don't have personal experience with the 2.7 prado, but an aquaintence of mine is a toyota trained mechanic and he speaks highly of them.

The 2.7 petrol has just been discontinued by Toyota in the current Prado due to poor sales. Must be a message in that I reckon.

Cheers
Muddy

Theres a number of these on the Prados email groups. Their owners speak quite highly of them. It is very underrated.

The plusses are that the motor is very reliable with pretty much no known problems. Its performance is also underrated, but 112Kw is not to be sneezed at, and they go well. Fuel consumption is better than the V6 and about the same as the turbo-diesel. And you can buy one dirt cheap.

But, they are only available in the RV, so it will have the smaller tyres, 90litre fuel tank (no sub), no cruise or electric windows,

If you upsize the tyres a lot, you'll lose power, so either run with 225/75R16 on the standard rims or run 245/75R16 on 7 inch rims. To go to 265/75 will make the vehicle gutless.

If you get one cheap enough (say less than $20k), I believe they are very good value for money.

Cheers
Phil

I have an RV6 but drove a hilux the other day with the 2.7L and was so impressed. Apparently it is just the 4.5L in the 100 series with two end cylinders cut off. I have been told it has more torque on start up than the RV6 which is why it seems to jump when you get off stop. That would be good for sand.

no idea about towing.

You'd wanna get it pretty cheap though for all the above reasons.

Though i previously had a 4 cylinder 2.4L nissan and i had woeful troubles in the sand so i swore i'd never take a 4 cylinder petrol to sand again. Seeing as it is where i do most of my 4WD'ing i got a great deal on the RV6 a few years ago. Whereas i would just sit in deep sand unable to turn the wheels in the nissan, in the RV6 its got enough torque and power to drive the beast sideways.

Just a thought.

One big issue not mentioned here is try and get a vehicle that has the same width between wheels as what you are towing otherwise I have been told that when you hit the sand your motor is effectively dragging two vehicles through the sand along different tracks and it is unlikely both will be in compacted sand tracks which can make for very difficult (and fuel wise expensive) motoring.

price would have to be significantly different as resale will also be effected for you.
history has showed the lower power option is not popular most recent I can think of was magns 4cyl against the v6 going back to HQ statesman - yes thats right the 202 was an option but have you ever seen one? a 4cyl prado could be as hard to sell as my parents excell coz they chose no power steering or 5 speed

Hi viajeros

I have a 2.7 Prado and tow a camper trailer.Great car.My camper wieghs about 700kgs and sits on easy 110 kph.In the NT last year we cruised on 140kph no trouble.My wife drives it to work everyday and it gets 11L/100KM.Towing the camper 15L/100km.It has 225/75/16 AT on it.Remember these motors are a twin cam unlike the hilux's single cam.They are not under powered.

See ya

Glenn

Overlander tow tested mid-size V6 auto wagons back in its May '97 issue. Explorer, Cherokee, Pathfinder, Prado, Pajero, Musso and thrown in for good measure, a 4cyl. manual Prado. All towed a 1500kg van.

From 60-80km/hr roll on acceleration the 4cyl Prado bettered all, attributed to being a manual & not waiting to kick down.

Standing start 0-80km/hr it bettered both Cherokee & Pathfinder.

Fuel economy was better than all of them over course of the test, but all were close. This surprised testers as it did need to be revved on hills etc. where it felt the pinch more than the bigger motors, so they assumed it would use more fuel but it didn't!

Would hold on to top gear on highway comfortably too, but required downshifting for hills sometimes down to third.

They did give the gong to Pajero for overall performance & stability but as you can see, a very under-rated vehicle. Educated answers are good and generally close to the money, but real-life experience and tests like these will give you real answers.

Cheers,

Mark.

...I mean educated guess...

Cheers,

Mark.