Patrol 4.8 petrol Economy???

Submitted: Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:24
ThreadID: 5590 Views:2384 Replies:9 FollowUps:24
This Thread has been Archived
Just out of interest..

Anyone know what the consumption figures are for the new Petrol 4.8.

Friend just got one in a maunual, I think he is a bit concerned about having tow the fuel truck around as well!!!

Very nice to drive though.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:50

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:50
Andrew,
your friend should have some idea once he fills up.
Petrols seem to vary a lot depending on use and how you drive them.

Anything from 15l per100 up to 40l per 100 is probly possible.

I have a 4.5 auto LC and I get around 18/20l per 100 down to around 30l per 100
in sand absolutly caneing it.
AnswerID: 23198

Reply By: Michael - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:23

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:23
Hi Andrew, I just picked up my new Patrol4.2 td, i have driven a 4,8 and i reckon this diesel goes just a good, not even run in. My previous GU 4,2 td was a real slug when i first got it new, and took 30,000 ks to get it to its full potential. This one has really surprised my, it really is just like driving a petrol 4x4. The only difference is the intercooler they say, if thats all then it definately works, like chalk and cheese.
So if potential Patrol buyers can shell out for the extra 6 grand, its well worth it. After the savings in fuel have paid the 6 grand off, its all money in the bank. The rate the petrol 4x4's use fuel out in the bush, i dont think it would take very long to break even. I'm really happy with this Patrol, its street ahead of my 1999 Gu4.2td. Regards Michael
AnswerID: 23207

Follow Up By: GOB member vic - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:50

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:50
michael do you have anyfigures yet for fuel consumption as we pick ours up thois week (friday i hope)gone for 6 cylinders should notice the difference to 89 dual fuel

steve89 nissan looking foward to august and more travelling
0
FollowupID: 15408

Follow Up By: Member - Shawn - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 18:31

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 18:31
GOB, Had my 4.2TD since March. Constantly get about 13L / 100k, but haven't done any towing yet. You will love it when you pick it up
cheersKeep your powder dry
0
FollowupID: 15417

Follow Up By: sean - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 20:55

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 20:55
Michael

I was pleased to read your post because I have just ordered a 4.2TD sight unseen and not test driven. The car arrives next Tuesday. Driveability was/is my main concern but sounds like I have nothing to worry about.

I agree, in the long term or when remote, the extra 6 gees is easily forgot.

Sean
0
FollowupID: 15499

Follow Up By: Michael - Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 15:52

Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 15:52
HI Sean, if ytour new patrol goes like mine , you will not be dissapointed. Michael
0
FollowupID: 15682

Follow Up By: Michael - Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 16:10

Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 16:10
Hi Steve, I picked up my 4.2 on Friday, A full main tank on daily freeway driving got 740ks from the main tank, idiot light just coming on, about 85 litres. Thats doing about 90 kph as recommended for the first 1000ks regards Michael
0
FollowupID: 15683

Reply By: The Crow - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:33

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 15:33
They are pretty high towing and in low range compared to a diesel up to 50ltrs per 100ks in low range.
AnswerID: 23208

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:48

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:48
Ive heard of figures like that but I seriously doubt you could get the figures quite that low.
0
FollowupID: 15424

Follow Up By: The Crow - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:58

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:58
That figure is in one of the 4WD monthly mags I will find the month and quote it for you.
0
FollowupID: 15426

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:20

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:20
probly the same as the figure of 38l per 100 for a turbo diesel cruiser in a recent 4wd monthly tow test.

I have a 4.5 petrol cruiser and I can manage to drop it to 35l per 100 and thats in deep sand, sand hills, low range on the rev limiter.
I think to get 50 you would have to leave it idling all night.
0
FollowupID: 15431

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:14

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:14
Nobody is asking you to believe it, or what lots of people say in this thread.

But they have no reason to lie. Everyone gets different fuel econ figures, some of the figures quoted out there I dream of, but then again others with same motor dream of what I can get.

Too many variables to consider...

0
FollowupID: 15459

Follow Up By: Simon - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:11

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:11
$uckster, dont even bother answering me, weve been through this before and Ive already determined you are a foul mouthed egosistical self centered idiot.
0
FollowupID: 15472

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 17:08

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 17:08
Ummmm....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon put foot in mouth with this followup

Ive heard of figures like that but I seriously doubt you could get the figures quite that low.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon posted this followup

1 km per litre? as in 100 litres per 100km??
You would need an inch fuel line.
Sorry I dont beleive you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon then dribbled this followup

IF you were getting 1km per litre Id suggest some off road driving lessons. (and let some air out of your tyres)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon then bolloxed up this followup

mmm, they are good, until it costs $18000 to rebuild.
Let alone the recovery costs from beyond the black stump (ever heard of Nissan Assist? but your doing so well without help...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
FollowupID: 15478

Reply By: tristjo - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:25

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 20:25
Andrew,

It all depends on how you drive it. Some of the above posts mention figures in the 40's and 50's, but I don't really think that it'd use that much, unless you were redlining it, foot to the boards in 3 feet of talcum powder.

I would be estimating in the high teens around town, arond 16ltrs on the highway, and mid to high 20's offroad, as long as you drive it fairly lightly.

My daily driver is an old Nissan Bluebird, and if you take it easy, it'll return around 9ltrs/100klm, but when I give her a caning, she will drink around 20ltrs/100klm!!

Mate, In my beleif, to a certain extent, you can decide how much fuel it will chew, it all depends on what sort of mood you are in!!

Tristjo.
AnswerID: 23234

Reply By: desert - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:11

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:11
You don't think petrol consumption can go as high as 50 lts/100km???? Try this:
Madigan Line, Simpson desert, 1997 Nissan GQ 4.2 litre Petrol: 2kms per litre on a good day, 1km per litre on the hot, harder sections.
6.6 litre V8 Cruiser: 3kms per litre. Works those sums and you will see consumptions around that 50lits per 100kms. Mostly high range for the V8, and low range for the six. Huge consumptions from big petrol motors when asked to work and no, they were no revved, I kept the V8 under 1500rpms for the crossing, trying to save fuel.
AnswerID: 23236

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 23:23

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 23:23
1 km per litre? as in 100 litres per 100km??
You would need an inch fuel line.
Sorry I dont beleive you.
Maybe you need a new calculator?

what sort of motor is a 6.6litre? 3km perlitre is good if its a petrol.
(probly ok for a diesel)

0
FollowupID: 15441

Follow Up By: desert - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:22

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:22
The 6.6 litre V8 I had was an engine I rebuilt myself, a small block Chev V8 petrol of 400 CID (6.6 lt), which replaced an older 5.7 litre in my 75 series, prior to a change to diesel power.
Once you have gone across the Madigan line yourself, Simon, and have witnessed the terrain first hand, then I will be will be gracious enough to accept your apology on this forum.
0
FollowupID: 15475

Follow Up By: Simon - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:38

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:38
Well do your sums old mate, 3km perlitre is not 50l per 100.

Ill have to find a map cos I dont know where the madigan line is.

I have been from Birdsville to Poepels Corner and back on a day trip and even though the western side of the dunes had been dug up horrendusly it was an easy trip.
From memory my V6 mitsubishi used around 70 litres and a mate in a 4.5 LC used around 85. (about 270 km round trip and 10hrs driving from memory.)

Is the madigan line that much worse?

If you want soft sand try the beach south of Robe S.A in the winter time.

IF you were getting 1km per litre Id suggest some off road driving lessons.
(and let some air out of your tyres)
0
FollowupID: 15477

Follow Up By: desert - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 19:24

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 19:24
As I said, the Patrol was doing the 2kms/litre, my figures were around 3 kms/litre. The drive from Birdsville to Poeppells is a walk in the park compared to Madigans. You won't find it on a "road map" as it is not a gazetted route. I would rate it as one of the most difficult drives in OZ. Yes, tyre pressures were down to 18psi and No, I don't think I need to take any driving lessons, as I am already an instructor.
0
FollowupID: 15489

Follow Up By: sean - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 21:02

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 21:02
Desert,

where is Madigans and is it accessible (permits etc???).

You forgot to mention to Simon that even the French line Purni to Jacks Junction is way harder than the drive out to Poepells.

Sean
0
FollowupID: 15500

Follow Up By: Simon - Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 15:50

Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 15:50
Hang on a minute,
You said 1 litre per km.
There is a big diference between 1 and 2 litres per km.
and 3 kms per litre is GOOD.

I never said Poepels cnr was a hard drive, I just wondered how the terrain differed so much.
I will put it on my list of things to do.
Why is it so dificult? I like a challenge and supposed to be heading that way in september.

If the sand is that soft I would have thought most vehicles/tyres would be a lot better lower than 18 PSI.
0
FollowupID: 15542

Follow Up By: desert - Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:40

Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:40
As I said, Simon, the 4.2 litre Nissan was averageing 2km/litre and on the harder sections it was down to 1 km/litre. I was getting around 3km/litre. Read it again!
On a subsequent trip to the geographical centre of the simpson desert, the lone petrol Nissan returned 2.5km/litre whilst the diesels were around the 4.5 to 5 km/litre for the same leg.
I don't know what else I can say to try and educate you as to the experiences of others. You either want to accept knowledge, or toss it back in somebodys face?
0
FollowupID: 15622

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 21:05

Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 21:05
Desert old mate your not making sense.

You averaged 2km/l and used 1km/l on the harder sections but you were geting3km/l???

do you mean if you add 1km/l to 2km/l you get 3km/l??

How do you do your sums??

Do you have a litre meter on the 1500litre fuel trailer you were towing?

How the hell did you carry enough fuel??

I will accept knowledge if you can explain to me what you are actualy talking about.

Why is the rest of the Simpson harder going than the track to poepels cnr??

on the subsequent trip the figures I can understand, especialy if you are talking about an old carby petrol.

0
FollowupID: 15943

Follow Up By: desert - Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 22:02

Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 22:02
Pretty easy to calculate a travel distance of 80kms and using the entire contents of the 80 litre tank to do it! Just reflecting through my travel log and noted that one particular day we decamped at 8.30am, had about an hour for lunch and stopped for the day at 3.30 (as it was too hot) and had done 40kms for the day. Didn't get out of 2nd gear all day. Now add that to the fact that using the aircon was out of the question, (overheating), and the fact that once you crossed over the east face of the dune, it was impossible to go back, so if my mate got into trouble behind me, I could not assist. Suspensions going from extreme droop to full compression within the length of the wheel base, all day, everyday for a week, eventually cracking the springs towers off the GQ, and I cannot tell you how rough that trek is. In that terrain, we were down to 1km per litre. On the easier sections, down corridors etc, 3kms per litre.All based on distance travelled, fuel used from the tank. Don't know what else I can tell you????
0
FollowupID: 15954

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 22:47

Sunday, Jun 29, 2003 at 22:47
ok ok I beleive you.

I just dont think that many people will ever expirience that kind of fuel consumption out of their 4x4s.

I just know that my 2H powered 60 series was only slightly better on fuel than my 3l Mitsubishi and had heaps less power for driving towing sand ect.
0
FollowupID: 15958

Reply By: The Crow - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:23

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 21:23
Refer to Australian 4WD monthly June 2003 page 23 for fuel economy of petrol 4x4's I would not own one if it was given to me, cannot beat a turbo diesel for my money. My current one is a GU3 wagon 3ltr its great.
AnswerID: 23240

Follow Up By: Simon - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 23:28

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 23:28
mmm, they are good, until it costs $18000 to rebuild.
Let alone the recovery costs from beyond the black stump.

0
FollowupID: 15442

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 22:32

Sunday, Jun 22, 2003 at 22:32
according to one 4x4 mag 54ltrs per 100klms was achieved as worst figures reached.

if you can afford that you are a richer man than I have ever heard of.

AnswerID: 23249

Reply By: Member - John - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:50

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:50
Hi Andrew,

I have a 4.8 auto with 32000 on the speedo. I started to keep fuel figures just after I purchased the beast just out of curiosity. I expected fuel consumprtion to be high but the 4.8 petrol auto was what I wanted and I accepted the fact that it would be thirsty. Unfortunately many people purchase a big heavy petrol 4wd with their eyes closed and are then surprised when it has a high fuel consumption. They then start flaming petrol 4wds just because the 4wd is a fuel guzzler, something they should have thought of before the purchase.

Anyhow, I have kept the fuel figures and with a 80/20 road to track ratio I am getting and average (over 32000 km) of 19.98 l/100km. On trips with lots of bitumen and cruise control can vary from 16 - 17 l/100km. On bush tracks up to about 22 l/100km.
Heavy slogging - I do not have enough info to give any figures.

In Oct/Nov 2002 I did 9000 km trip over 3 weeks to Darwin with about 60/40 bitumen to outback roads and got 19.52 l/100KM. Heavily laden with roof rack.

Ain't cheap on fuel but I knew this when I bought it and accepted that fact.

Now if you want to know about some of the problems, mainly small, but with a large degree of uninterest from Nissan and Ferntree Gully Nissan then that's another story. And if you want to take it off road then get rid of those woeful Bridgestone Dueler ATs if they are still fitting them. Extraordinarily crappy!!

Happy 4 wheeling

Woodsy
AnswerID: 23258

Follow Up By: desert - Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:36

Monday, Jun 23, 2003 at 16:36
A well balanced reply, John and I agree with your comments re, fuel usage for petrol 4x4's. You would be one of the first petrol owners that I have heard, openly admit to the high fuel costs and limiting range that that brings with it. Unfortunately, and don't take this the wrong way, the very fact that a petrol 4x4 has to carry fuel far in excess of a comparable diesel vehicle, for a remote desert expedition, still prohibits them from participating in many treks because of this fact. Which also, does not take into account the volitility of such a large amount of highly flammible fuel in confined vehicle structures. But at least you are aware of this. But, it does preclude many people from doing the really remote, long, arduous inland treks. The old saying, horses for courses.
Cheers.
0
FollowupID: 15476

Reply By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 18:08

Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 18:08
Patrol 4.8 petrol economy - an oxymoron??
AnswerID: 23386

Follow Up By: tristjo - Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 22:40

Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003 at 22:40
Gary,

Yeah, mate, it's a bit like "Toyota reliability"!!!!

(now i'll wait for the flood of replies!!)

Tristjo.
0
FollowupID: 15584

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)