Comparing Engines 4.2Nissan - 6.5Chev

Yeah, I am guessing that a 6.5 will eat up the 4.2 from idle to 1500rpm but from the figures I have from a dyno up here is that the 4.2 eats the 6.5 from 1500 - 3600rpm. Considering most driving is in the 1500 - 3600 rpm bracket, I am wondering whether the extra oomph below the 1500rpm mark is worth the extra dollars to put the 6.5 in a Patrol????

I have always had an inkling that my Patrol would end up with the chev in it, but after seeing these dyno figures and driving mine the way it is, I am not so sure now.

Cheers as always. Trevor.

Hey Trevor,

Maybe I will be able to let you know the answer to the question/s you have raised in a few days' time.........we will see what transpires?????.......hahaha

Roachie? Roachie!!

Does this men what I think it means?

You are going to put the ultimate ACESSORY on your Patrol?

You ARE going to put a 6.5 Chev in it??

This can't be!

This will be interesting.

Bilbo

wait n see

Why not, roachies must be worn out now with round 150,000klms on it... old junker now..

Roachie,

See if they will do a deal for two LOL!!!!!

This hunk a junk of mine is running on the warm side again, but it has been 38c round Moree (where I am now) and I am towing again. I want one with a blower though.........dreeeeaamm dream dream dream.
Going to Brunswick???? or is there someone local.

Cheers Trevor.

Trev,

Just bolt a chip or a mandrel exhaust to it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;)

That'll make it run cooler eh?

PS - See my thread on soundproofing.

Bilbo

Bilbo,

I don't remember saying that but if I did I retract it cause I don't think anything will keep a hard working 4.2Turbo Patrol cool.

Can you post here the thread no. for the soundproofing, as I am on a pda so it's a bit harder to go looking for threads.

I am serious about my thoughts that a chev will end up in my Patrol, but it will have to be a turboed or supercharged version to keep my "need for speed" at peace with my hunger for torque.

As always thanks for your knowledge.
Trevor.

Just having a friendly dig, Trev mate.

;)

Take care,

Bilbo

Roachie

Why not wait until Toyota Brings out the LC with the V8 twin Turbo, and get rid of the Nissan. at least that way you will have "ultimate ACESSORY" LOL

Richard

I also agree with the "no substitute for cubes" theory but the figures on hand make it hard to justify the huge extra dollars to put a 6.5 in a Patrol to get all that extra grunt at revs that I barely use. When for a great deal less, I can get more torque and HP in a rev range that I do use.

As I said maybe I am missing something and need to get behind the wheel of one of these 6.5 chevnissan's for a week or so to really get the appreciation of what it's all about. (Got one to lend me LOL!!)

Regards, Trevor.

",,,,,,,,,to put a 6.5 in a Patrol to get all that extra grunt at revs that I barely use. When for a great deal less, I can get more torque and HP in a rev range that I do use."

But Trev, you use that rev range everyday, all the time. It's impossible to go from zero kmh to say, 90 kms without passing through "that rev range". That low down rev range is what gets you to the rev range that YOU USE.

What I find stressful about towing is in traffic,waiting for the engine to get up the rev band and get the rig moving at the same pace as every other bugger on the road,,,,,,,,,waiting, waiting, waiting.

With the Chev this doesn't happen. It just gets up there a whole lot faster.

Bilbo

Cashews aren't nuts.....

Nah. . . . . cashews are just silly

Bent.

Don't survive in captivity - at least not around my place..

"He concluded that if its really hot, there will be steam!" LMAO> That’s a good one.

Hi Shane,

Thanks for that. I am going well thanks for asking, hope you are as well.
I wonder if the 120kw in the 6.5 is at the flywheel or the rear wheels cause the 118kw of the worked 4.2 I was talking about is at the rear wheels (even mine is running 125kw at the rear wheels, just less torque). The chev's torque figures are also less than what I worked out this worked 4.2 is achieving at 1500rpm (460 odd Nm).

Just gets me thinking about all the hype of a chev 6.5. No disrespect to owners who have made the change or not dismissing the awesome reputation of this stinker of a donk, merely observations.

Cheers bloke, cya soon.
Trevor.

Thanks Matt,

Overheating issues only add fuel to the debate for saving your dollars by doing up the 4.2. Merely observations and discussions no flack being thrown at one party or another. Would be a boring world if we all thought the same.

Cheers, Trevor.

Trev,

,,,,,,,,,,,,Overheating issues only add fuel to the debate for saving your dollars by doing up the 4.2.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Ask Roachie what his TD42T does. Overheats, that's what. So if one was to go out & get the already overheated Nissan "worked on", then it's only gonna get more overheated. Roachie has spent a kings ramsom on his Patrol with no solution. The issue here is the water channles in the block castings are too small and no amount of chipping, turboing and add-ons is ever going to alter that. The cooling system was adequate for the engine when it does what is was designed to do - low road speed truck engine.

I'm not knocking the TD42 Trev, I'm just questioning your logic. The TD42 is a good, old fashioned diesel - the kind I like - but it's a former Japanese truck engine. Push rod valves and thus poor gas flow and limited valve porting configuration. Hence - poor "breathing" or as we former race mechanics like to say - Poor Volumetric Efficiency. Small water jacket and thus overheats a bit when pushed hard. It's a limited engine.

But I ran one for years and caned the daylights out of it and it never even looked like failing.

The Chev is similar to the TD42 in many ways. It has many similar shortcomings. BUT - it's a big but - it's a bigger engine and therefore under less stress whilst doing the same job,better.

The Chev will never be a ZD30. It will never be a Toyota turbo diesel. It's a truck engine - but it's a big one as opposed to a smaller one.

Bilbo

Thanks for the time and effort in your response. I have been interstate, hence the time delay in my response.

You say: "The Chev is thirstier, but getting better as it loosens up. It's nearly as good as my former turbo 'Cruiser. It will never be as good as my old Nissan TD42"

What made your TD42 so much better than the chev and Toyota, or did you mean fuel economy only?? My thoughts are the TD42T I have is thirstier than my 100series n/a 1HZ so your old Cruiser should have been great on fuel in my books.

I do understand the difference in engine characteristics between an old style diesel and these common rail "high tech" small cubed diesels of today. The point I was trying to understand is the value in doing a Chev conversion as compared to the modified 4.2 Nissan motor and what can be achieved from this motor for about 5 grand. If you still want more torque at low revs off road another 1500 bucks and you can get the crawler transfer gear. 1000rpm in 1st low (standard) is now about 1000rpm 3rd low in my new transfer box so I still have 2 more gears lower than this to utilise if so needed which easily puts me into my trucks sweet spot in terms of engine rpm. Do you know if Brunswick do a supercharged 6.5 Chev and how does this go with heating (or should I say cooling???) as this would make a lot more sense to me if you are going to do the conversion add a few more g's and get the best of both worlds....HP and MEGATORQUE.

Merely observations and curiosity as the 6.5 Chev has been on my shopping list for a long time until recently finding out what is really possible from the Nissan 4.2. Maybe after a week of the Chev my opinion would come back to the Chev's way of thinking??? but after driving mine the way it is now, it would take a lot.

Best regards,
Trevor.

Trev,

You asked - 'What made your TD42 so much better than the chev and Toyota, or did you mean fuel economy only??"

Yep - fuel economy only. The TD42 used to do about 24 MPG - whatever that is in kms/litre - unloaded around town. It dropped to about 20 MPG fully loaded, pulling a 700kg (?) camper trailer on long hauls.

It was "OK" to drive, fell back a bit on hills when towing, had a to drop a cog or two occasionally.

The Turbo 'Cruiser that I had was a different beast entirely to the your HZ engine. It was a flyer, a racehorse by comparison to the TD42 Ford Maverick ute. A beautiful fast, smooth, dream of a car - but soft as chit in the bush. It did 22 MPG unloaded, to & from work and 18MPG towing a 3 tonne van. And as you know - it got stolen.

Now, to see where I'm coming from and to save me typing it out again, go back and read what I paid for this whole Nissan rig. Then consider - this rig was formerly a 2.8 litre Nissan. Believe it or not, it is far more diifficult (read "more expensive") to put a TD42 motor into a 2.8 chassis than it is to put a 6.5 litre Chev in it. I didn't want another Landcruiser, in spite of the fact that I just loved the one that I "lost". But I did want something that had grunt and was a rough, tough bush tank. In that last respect, Nissans have proved themselves time and again with me. Anectdotal evidence, plus my own experience has indicated to me that the "Cruiser is a great vehicle but isn't quite up to the hammering that I know I can give a Nissan. The 'Cruisers are in danger of becoming a "soft roader", IMO. Plus it was just too 'nice' a vehicle to get the bodywork all bashed 'n scratched. The 2.8 Nissan paintwork on the other hand, was already a bit jaded.

(NB - the other major factor here was FEAR. I'd just had "my retirement dream car" stolen from my driveway. In the end, after the insurance payout, I lost about $12,000.00 (?) in accessories. I didn't want the bastards coming back and stealing another one that was siiting in my driveway!! By then, I knew how easy it was for a professional car thief to steal a "Cruiser" and how often it was happening!!)

So if one already owns a TD42 Nissan and wants more grunt, cheaply, then spend the dollars that you've indicated. I didn't own a TD42 Nissan at the time of the conversion. I owned a 1999 GU 2.8 Nissan with a 'blown' engine. I couldn't even drive it after I'd paid $9,000.00 for it. It had to be put on tilt-tray truck to get it Brunswick Diesels! Can you see the difference in your perspective and mine?

But having done this 'experiment" AND having had a love affair with TD42s since 1989, I'd still rather have the Chev V8. It's just, oh I dunno, "easier" to drive than all that chipping 'n revving 'n stuff. It just does it - uphill, from a standing start.

BTW - I've now seen about 10 sets of figures for the power and torque for N/A 6.5 litre Chevs. Consequently, I'm not sure which is what and why! All I know is that it works. After all is said and done, how many 4WDs only use 3 gears in a 5 speed box without stalling or complaining? How many 4Wds can be fully loaded with gear, fuel, people and a dog and pull a 2 tonne van from a standing start using 2nd gear without slipping the clutch. It works.

But it's still N O I S Y !!!!

Bilbo

PS - mine's got 3.9 diffs in it. I dread to think what one of these COULD pull if it had a 4.3 diff in it!!

But I alos dread to think what the fuel bill would be as well!

Bilbo

Yeah OK I can see the advantages for your application, starting with the dead 2.8.

I was more thinking for my situation, starting with the 4.2 and wondering why I should shell out the 20 large or more to go the chev option, when for considerably less I could get a similar (Not exactly) result with possibly more top end by upping the anty in my 4.2 mill.

With the chev under the bonnet I would not consider 4.3 diff ratios. If I wanted more pulling power offroad I would go for the transfer gears, either the 2.8 ratio (which I imagine would be heaps with this engine) or the big gun 3.7 if you really want to tear lugs off your tyres.

Thanks for keeping the discussion balanced for future readers.
Regards, Trevor.

I think we've done this one to death Trev. Waddya reckon?

Bilbo