patrol engine

Craigg,
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 days....my 1990 Maverick was okay on LPG I guess, but it was always a compromise.
Hope this helps a bit.
Cheers
Roachie

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.

ok thanks guys
you say 4.5 on gas is cheep to run,Do you have a rough idea on how cheep?

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.
Boo

Craig,

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.

Duncs