4.8 Patrol vs 4.7 Landcruiser.

Submitted: Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:06
ThreadID: 55427 Views:20085 Replies:7 FollowUps:6
This Thread has been Archived
Hello everyone,
I am thinking of purchasing either of the above vehicles to replace my 4.5 80 series which i've sold.
I know neither is particularly frugal...do not want a time bomb 3ltr Patrol (can't live with a car i'm waiting to blow up) and can't afford a td 100 as second hand they go for lots of dollars.
My needs are mainly towing a caravan and some 4wding but not extreme.
I'm leaning towards the Patrol due to not reading about any problems with them.
Love to recieve replies involving fuel consumption....overall thoughts on both cars.
The year model im considering is 2004 or slightly newer.
Thankyou for any replies.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18
I have a 2002 4.8 auto and have no reason to complain other than fuel consumption. It is a great tow vehicle and has served me well towing a 1.5 tonne off road trailer to all parts of the Kimberley, the Cape twice, Simpson and Fraser. The fuel consumption at its worst has been down to 3.2K/ltr on soft sand and 6K/ltr at its best. The kimberley trip (approx 15,000K) included lots of variety and I averaged about 4.2 from memory.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 292079

Follow Up By: pathfinder - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:03

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:03
3.2K/ltr on soft sand and 6K/ltr at its best

mmm...yes...better purchase a few 'carbon credits' to offset those numbers! ;)
FollowupID: 557444

Follow Up By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 14:27

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 14:27
Hahahahaha, I planted a few extra trees so I considered them purchased. I agree that filling up is not for the feint hearted if one considers 185 litre capacity and a 10 year outlook of $3/ltr.

Kind regards
FollowupID: 557453

Reply By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:10

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:10
Hi Alan

The main reason I choose my 4800 Patrol was for its technical competance and the petrol V8 Cruiser is not far behind and its certainly a car I'd reccomend.
Its some 10% less thirsty than the patrol.
Its a little bigger, slower, heavier , more complex and not quite as stable as the Patrol but only by marginal amounts.

Either will probably be of lower total cost to you than a diesel cruiser of same vintage.

The Patrol in particular is a low maintenance item , even the plugs are only changed once each 100,000 and it has less sensors.

I think these cars are overlooked a bit these days as the buying public seems to focuss on the term "Turbo-deisal" at the cost of a whole host of user-unfriendly issues that some of them have, like low torque off idle , NVH issues etc.

The only real issue for these cars is of course fuel use and its fair
to put a figure on this.
In my case it amounts to $1000 -$1500 a year and for this you get
a lot of value and a lower entry cost.

In summary - I think you'll will find either to be exceptional vehicles
and a good deal on either could make your decision.

Note - after about mid 2005 both good a little less powerful due to emissions controls.
Robin Miller

My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 292083

Follow Up By: Footloose - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:30

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 13:30
Robin, you didn't mention that the diesel will go much further on a tank of fuel, something of great importance in the real world :)))
FollowupID: 557448

Reply By: Jim from Best Off Road - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 14:15

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 14:15
I can't comment on the Yota.

However I have borrowed my parents 4.8 Auto Patrol, on LPG and it is a ripping tow vehicle.

And it is more economical to run than any Turbo Diesel.


AnswerID: 292094

Reply By: TimmyG2 - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 17:00

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 17:00
Can't comment on the Patrol, but I own a 2006 V8 4.7 GXL Landcruiser. Very nice car, great to drive and tow with. I average 20L/100km when towing (5kms per Litre), 13.8L/100kms when country driving without towing (7.2kms per Litre), and 17.5L/100kms when City driving (5.7kms per Litre).
AnswerID: 292115

Reply By: westozal - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 17:34

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 17:34
Hi again,
Thanks for replies so far, seems the V8 Cruiser is more economical than my 4.5 6 cyl was (which to be honest wouldnt be hard).
Robin my thinking runs parrellel with yours re justifying Petrol vs Diesal debate.
Keep the thoughts comming .
Thankyou Alan.

Just as a point of interest to illistrate this case my mate brought a 2004 auto td gxl 82kms immac Cruiser about two weeks ago to tow his van.Price 56k.
On the autotrader site 2004 4.8 st patrol auto etc 32 kms Price 40k(b4 negotiating). Drive a long way for the difference.
I do realise the TD will be worth more at the end of the day though.
AnswerID: 292124

Follow Up By: Rob from Cairns Offroad Training & Tours - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 23:31

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 23:31
I have just put my 03 turbo diesel 5 speed auto in the trader section if you are interested $45000 ono may trade 4wd or ute
0402 329 372 The major benefit of the diesel is range 1000klms from 145 lts easy. Cheers Rob Berrill
FollowupID: 557600

Reply By: normglenda - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 19:01

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 19:01
I have a 2004 V8 land cruiser , fantastic car. I have towed 2.5 tonne van around Aus. About 21/22 lits. per 100 km. Sitting on about 100 KMS PH. great off road as well.

I have just put my car on LPG. Goes fantastic, at this stage am getting about 21 lts per 100 KMs on lpg. Yet to tow the van with LPG but without the van on is going great.
AnswerID: 292147

Follow Up By: Go-N-Grey (WA) - Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 23:29

Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008 at 23:29
I have a 2006 V8 LC also, and the figures you mention above are pretty well spot on, except that I get about 15l/100km around town. Because they are so smooth and quiet it is easy to accelerate faster than necessary in the city.

I drove my brother's non turbo 80 series (diesel) the other day towing a 3 tonne trailer full of cattle feed cubes (not much heavier than my caravan, bit a hell of a lot smaller wind profile,) and I was staggered how gutless it was.

Back to second gear on some hills, and a speed bump had us back in fourth. He still uses about 19l/100km when towing this, and it can hardly make 80km/hour.

I know the turbo version is much better, but for my part the effortless power of the V8 petrol makes for much more relaxed towing even if it comes at a price.

I still have a Turbo 2.5 litre diesel Pajero and have towed a 17' van all over Oz with it, but once again always felt it was working very hard at higher speeds (80+), and waiting for the bomb to go off!!
FollowupID: 557598

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Wednesday, Mar 12, 2008 at 14:38

Wednesday, Mar 12, 2008 at 14:38
from the patrol4x4 forum
www.patrol4x4.com forum

"I have a copy in front of me as I write of 4wd Monthly edition 60 (Dec 03) "Best 4wds of 2003" (in which the 4.8L Patrol won) that claims the Patrol used 82, thats right, 82 L/per 100 km on sand at Stockton Beach (NSW).

They also claim the Landcruiser used 77.5 L/per 100km and that the 4.2 L diesel Patrol used 64.6L/per 100km."

AnswerID: 292329

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Wednesday, Mar 12, 2008 at 17:05

Wednesday, Mar 12, 2008 at 17:05
Links are wonderfull but if you read the article you would recall the patrol showing 100l per 100k on the trip computer.
Its not hard to get massive fuel economy figures just chuck them in l4 and give it to her.
I would hate to see how much fuel the standard 1hz are eating in low 3rd full noise 40kph up the decline but it would be alot
FollowupID: 557709

Sponsored Links