patrol engine

Submitted: Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 at 23:14
ThreadID: 23880 Views:2066 Replies:5 FollowUps:6
This Thread has been Archived
hi all,
i've been reading through all the comments on engine choice for a 2nd hand patrol,been getting a bit of a laugh and a lot of conflicting oppinions!
i have my eye on a 96 2.8turbo diesel. Is this model any good ? or should i look elsewhere? what sort of fuel consumption compared to 4.2? I know 3.0 are good on fuel but out of my price range for the moment.
another question is ......What petrol motor is suited to dual fuel? I would like a petrol but cannot afford to feed one

as i've had a few problems with my current vehicle being unreliabe so i would love to own a vehicle for a while without having to spend valuable beer drinking time laying underneeth it
thanks guys
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 at 23:27

Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 at 23:27
Probably not much difference in fuel economy between 2.8 and 4.2 if all other things are equal (ie: roof rack, b/bar etc). The 2.8 would be more economical, except that it's gotta work harder to push around 2.5t of 4by, whereas the 4.2 is just a lope-along type of motor.
My money would be on the 4.2 (as you'd expect cos I've owned 2 of them). IMHO you'd be better off buying an older 4.2 than a younger 2.8 if you are after reliability (provided the service history is good etc).
Dunno much about dual fuel these 1990 Maverick was okay on LPG I guess, but it was always a compromise.
Hope this helps a bit.
AnswerID: 115806

Follow Up By: craigg - Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 at 23:41

Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 at 23:41
yes thanks Roachie it does help a bit because i had heard that the gu patrols with the 2.8 were a bit gutless and chewed the fuel. But thinking about that i suppose they were being compared to the 3.0l. the bus i'm looking at appears to be a well looked after 2.8td 96 7 seater.
is the 96 model 2.8 the same engine as the 99-00 2.8 ?
FollowupID: 371390

Follow Up By: hl - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:26

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:26

The 2.8 in the GU is slightly different. It is intercooled, has an electronically controlled injection pump and other minor differences.
The output is 95kw, in the GQ it is 85kw.
It seemed to work quite well in the GQ patrol because of the lighter weight. Fuel consumption is similar between all of them. Expect 12-14l/100k depending on how you drive it.

FollowupID: 371416

Reply By: flappa - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:58

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:58
The 4.5 GU Petrols go well on LPG. The older 4.2 GQ's can have head issues.

I spoke to a couple of people when looking at Dual Fuel GU's and all said they were almost made for the job. Nothing needs to be done.

A Petrol GU isn't a bad choice these days. Normally Substantially cheaper to buy then a Diesel , and if running on LPG . . . cheap to run.
AnswerID: 115855

Reply By: craigg - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 16:02

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 16:02
ok thanks guys
you say 4.5 on gas is cheep to run,Do you have a rough idea on how cheep?
AnswerID: 115886

Follow Up By: flappa - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 16:06

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 16:06
LPG is less then half the price of Petrol , and you use approx 1/4 to 1/3 more.

eg , around town I get approx 20/100 on Petrol. You could expect to get approx 25 - 26/100 on gas.

The only real issue with LPG is the limited touring range. A 100 odd litre tank , provides about 350 k's of travel. Coupled with the small fuel tank , gives you max range of about 450-500 k's tops.

With my 130l of fuel , I get nearly 800k's , or 650-700k's towing my CT.
FollowupID: 371463

Reply By: Boo - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 17:17

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 17:17
Arvo Craigg,

We have a 93 GQ 4.2efi petrol with LPG. We get around the 23/100 on the open road regardless of whether we're running on gas or petrol (wouldnt be 5 - 10 kl difference between the gas and petrol with no performance difference). We have around 90 litres of usable gas and around the same in petrol which gives us a bit over the 750 - 780 klm's. We swear by the dual fuel and couldnt afford to run the beast without it. I havent had one myself but do agree with previous views that the smaller motor while being of a smaller size/capacity will have to work a lot harder to get any sort of performance from which will negate any hoped fuel saving than the bigger motor just ticking over. Would recomend the EFI in preference to the old carby setups as they are a lot better on the Petrol and with the Gas conversion.

Good luck with your search, keep us informed.
AnswerID: 115896

Follow Up By: craigg - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 20:33

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 20:33
23/100 Oooooo scary
FollowupID: 371490

Follow Up By: awill4x4 - Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 23:35

Wednesday, Jun 15, 2005 at 23:35
23/100 Oooooo scary

Sounds pretty bad, but I'll be filling up LPG in the morning, 100 litres at 36 cents/litre then 4 cents off with shopper docket so total 32 cents/litre and a total cost of $32 per tank and mine being an auto I'll get approx 400 kms for the tank for day to day driving . I can do 3 fills for less than 1 tank of diesel or petrol.
Regards Andrew.
FollowupID: 371523

Reply By: Member - Duncs - Thursday, Jun 16, 2005 at 13:02

Thursday, Jun 16, 2005 at 13:02

If fuel consumption is a major concern why not buy a GQ 4.2 TD. The car is lighter thatn the GU by a fair bit and therefore more economical I had a GQ with an aftermarket turbo and was getting 20 to 23 mpg. Sorry for the old measure but that is what I worked it out in back then. I think that runs out at about 14 to 16 l/100km roughly.

The GU is a bit more comfortable but has less useable storage area particularly if you are using the second row of seats but not the third. There are plenty of low mileage GQ's around that have done little or no off road work for resonable prices.

I drove a 97 2.8 GU for work for a couple of weeks and was less than impressed. To make the thing work I was in the gearbox a lot and had to keep a few revs on. That saw me pulling into plenty of fuel outlets in the time I was driving it. I was also left with the impression that I would not have wanted to tow anything with it particularly off road.

AnswerID: 116019

Follow Up By: craigg - Sunday, Jun 19, 2005 at 21:32

Sunday, Jun 19, 2005 at 21:32
well hello again, It seems buying a patrol is quite a complicated thing!
summing up i,ve learnt that
1 gq 42d good engine ,grunty down low, a bit slow on the overtaking, heavy on fuel
2 gq 28d good engine ,weak off the mark esp when towing, good performance on the highway, heavy on fuel
3 gq 45p good power but very expensive to run,sounds to be quite ecconomical on lpg but i'm not sure if i want the trouble with gas ie aftermarket addons,small tank range ,fillups etc( i've never had gas before and it just sounds a bit awkward)
4 gu 28d thirsty and a bit gutless
5 gu 42d sounds like a good unit but hard to find ,thirsty
6 gu 30d heaps of power throughout the rev range,good tow vehicle,very ecconomical to run but i've heard that a lot of the power is from electronics and there have been a few problems and are expensive to fix
7 the new 30d gu's are very nice ,nearly signed up on one
FollowupID: 371942

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (11)