Fuel consumption-Nissan 3.0L TD Nissan and 4.2 TD

Submitted: Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:18
ThreadID: 7267 Views:2219 Replies:7 FollowUps:11
This Thread has been Archived
I'm looking at salary sacrificing and the ST Nissan's appear to be what I will end up with. GXL LC can't be gotten down under the Luxury Car threshhold. I'm undecided yet on the 4.2 or the 3.0 litres jobbies.

Just trying to work out the maintenance/running costs to get an annual budget together.

I'm particularly keen to find out real time fuel consuption rather than accept the dealer/manufacturer claims.

Any other costs that I might have left out would be appreciated as well. The car will be new and under new car warranty for all the time that I have it so I'm not concerned about items that will be covered by warranty...............just the other stuff.

If anyone else is prepared to disclose what they forecast as annual costs I would be real glad to hear what it was.

At this stage the only thing I can be sure about is the leasing fee each month!!!

Thanks for anyone who takes the time to help

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: joshinthecity - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:31

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:31
Hi Money,
I can't help with the 4.2 stats, but as a 3.0 owner, I can tell you about my car. A 5-speed ST. Just clicked 20,000klm in 4.5 mths.
Fuel economy is always around 10-12lt per 100klm. No matter what I do with it. That's a comfortable 1000klm for each fill. Surprisingly it doesn't effect the numbers much city to hwy. Those figures are just normal running around with nothing in tow, in Sydney.
Couldn't be happier with mine.

AnswerID: 31284

Follow Up By: Bob - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:43

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:43
Josh that's a 20% variation. Could you work out a figure for say one month? I'd be interested to compare with Prado TD. I have measured 10 highway and 12 around town - but I can see the effect between Town and Highway .... all town is 12 and all highway is 10 which gives a comfortable 1600 for each fill, much better than the Nissan - they must have a small tank?
FollowupID: 22239

Follow Up By: Moneypit - Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:45

Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003 at 23:45
Probably should have mentioned that I'd be keen to know the consumption [got it right this time] of the auto 3.0 as well as the manual. Ta.

FollowupID: 22240

Follow Up By: Hilly - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 01:51

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 01:51
Yeah Bob, the prado has 160 litres and the Patrol has a total of 127. A bit of a bleep er I know.
FollowupID: 22243

Reply By: Member - Bill- Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 07:18

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 07:18

Point to consider, 4.2 has 5K service intervals, 3.0 has 10K. Even if you change at 5K yourself the logbook will still look good. I've got an Auto 3.0, about 11 on the highway, 14 suburban and about 14 towing 2 Tonne.Regds

AnswerID: 31288

Follow Up By: JohnZA - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:27

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:27

i'm also in the market for a brand new patrol, either the 3.0TDi or the 4.2TDi and will be used to tow my 1.6tonne fibreglass boat. From what i've read on this forum, the 4.2TDi is the way to go for towing. The 3.0TDi manual is rated at 3.2tonnes and I see you tow 2 tonne on your vehicle, just wanted to know how your 3.0TDi is handling it? Is it justified for me to spend the extra $6-8K?


ps. other comments are also welcome as it will help me decide which one to go for.
FollowupID: 22255

Follow Up By: Member - Bill- Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:56

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:56

I can't comment on the 4.2 or the 3.0Di Manual, but I'm happy with the 3.0Di in Auto. The tow rating for the Auto is lower than the manual (I think off the top, about 2500) which I suspect is in defference to the Auto tranny fluid temperature at high speeds, although it does seem to have a big mother of a cooler on it.

As it happens I tow both a car/trailer about 2 Tonne all up and also a 5.4M fiberglass runabout which would be about 1.7Tonne. It does it easy.

As has been mentioned here before by others, and in my experience, the Auto behind the 3.0Di is a good match it always seems to have plenty of grunt on tap. It definitely lets the turbo spool up quicker off the line. I just get the feeling that the Auto is more sympathetic to other parts of the driveline in towing situations as the fluid coupling takes any lash or harshness out of it.

As a manual it may be a harder call as the different motor characteristics are more sharply in focus..hopefully some of the others can help there.

FollowupID: 22259

Follow Up By: macka - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 11:24

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 11:24
John... I have a 3ltr patrol 16 months old 53000 on clock. We use it as my runabout 7 months of the year and hauling a caravan round the top end the other 5 (retired ).. Driving w/out van we get from 9.9-10 km per litre. depending on head winds etc. towing we get from 6 -7.5 km per litre. depending on hills, wind etc. the van is just on 2 tonne over the weighbridge and the car averages 3.2-3.3 tons.. we weigh every time we leave home, at the council weighbridge in Yeppoon.the worst consumption we ever had was towing the van from Cania Gorge to Bundaberg on dirt, over the ranges. that came out at 5 .2 km per litre. I'm an ex truckie. so I watch weights and fuel all the time...I'm in the process of fitting a 3 inch exhaust and a dynotune. so I'll let you know further.
as far as the 4.2 litre goes... we travel all over Australia with caravanners for 5 months of the year,as i said... and the concencus seems to be under 2.5 tons the 3 ltr.... over 2.5 tons the 4.2.ltr...get the turbo. and tune it. change the exhaust. it makes a lot of difference. these aftermarket chips cost a fortune 1450--2000 dollars. and u still need to do the exhaust....Dyno and turbo tweak, by a GOOD tech does the same job for a LOT less.
PS mine's a manual..only problem I've had Twice I've been caught on a STEEP hill off turbo...my own fault. not enuff revs...
FollowupID: 22262

Follow Up By: tristjo - Friday, Sep 19, 2003 at 02:58

Friday, Sep 19, 2003 at 02:58

I reckon service intervals are a load of crap. The L/R Disco has 20k intervals......Thats gotta be a joke......

If you own a diesel, or in fact any car, fresh, clean oil is essential for longjevity. In my mind, I wouldn't want to leave oil and filter in any car for more than 5k.

hell, I used to change the oil in my old Nissan Bluebird every 2k, and no matter how much I thrashed her, I couldnt kill her....... And the motor was in top nik when I sold her, wuth a bleep eload of kays on her.....

Clean oil and filters will make ur motor last longer. Full stop.
FollowupID: 22411

Reply By: GUPatrol - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:31

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:31
I have owned a 4.2TD GU since new for 4 years and 150000kms....
I now have several friends with either the 4.2TD and the 3.0L model.
I get a consistent 12.5L/100kms highway and city, best ever was 10L/100kms worst ever was 17L/100kms loaded and in sand.
On 4wd trips while on the highway, my friends with the 3.0L get about 11L/100kms and I get about 12.5L/100kms.
When we hit the dirt, hills and hard going, the 4.2 jumps to about 13.5L/100kms and the 3.0L jump to about 12.5L/100kms.
On a recent long trip up to North Qld, the 3.0L in the group used the same as both 4.2s in the group (heavy going) while a 2.8 towing a kimberley camper used much more than both....
On running costs you should also consider how long you are expecting to keep it.
4.2 (mine) not a single problem all these time....
3.0L several calls back to Nissan with fiddly problems (air flow sensors, computers etc).
The 4.2 costs more to service too, it has two oil filters, and 10.5L of oil while the 3.0L takes one oil filter and 8L of oil and service intervals are 10000kms.
I hope this first hand info helps.
My personal opinion:
When I am out there in the bush (remote areas), I want low down torque, no fiddley electronics, a throttle operated by cable which is not sensitive to the touch and simplicity, reliability and longevity.
If I had to make the decision again I would go for the 4.2 again....
AnswerID: 31299

Reply By: joc45 - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:04

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:04
Hi Moneypit,
I've had a GU 4.2TD for 3 1/2 yrs and 75,000km. It's best around town; I consistently get about 11-11.5 L/100km. Unladen in the country, at 110Km/h, it gives about 11.5-12L/100km, but when heavily laden inside, roof rack loaded, nothing towed, it increases to 13-15L/100km at the same speed. Only once have I seen it give 10L/100km, and that was around town. Not sure that it's optimal; Nissan had to recalibrate the injector pump at the 1000km service, which improved the economy lots, but I thought it would be a bit better than what it is.
Not as good as the old GQ, and a bit worse than the current turbo diesel LC; I travelled north in convoy with a friend in his- the LC was consistently better with similar loads and speeds by about 1L/100km.
Drove a 3.0L GU round for a week recently and once I got used to having to give it a bit of throttle to get it moving off the mark, I was impressed-it really performed - much better on the open road than the 4.2. The 4.2 is much better at low revs tho'. Didn't check the economy - someone else was paying the fuel bill.
rgds Gerry
AnswerID: 31308

Reply By: Stevo - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 14:51

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 14:51
I can shed some light on your question. I own a 4.2 turbo GU (manual) and my brother has the 3.0ltr GU (auto). Both great vehicles !! Lots of off roading together in a variety of terrain. Most noticable is the torque band - waste of time going much higher than 2500rpm in the 4.2, heaps of low down torque, turbo lag is almost non existent. the 3lt is a much freer reving motor and will VERY quickly spin out to 4500rpm, very noticable turbo lag but once it cuts in at about 2000rpm it flies. In terms of fuel consumption, with the exception of heavy sand driving eg Carpenters Rocks to Robe the 4.2 uses less fuel (obviously the auto trans comes into play here).
Even on bitumen the 4.2 uses less fuel.
At the risk of being shot down by 3ltr owners I'd have to say the hi-tech motor would be far more highly stressed than the prehistoric 4.2 and this brings engine longevity into the question.
Oil change intervals- 10000k for 3.0, 5000 for the 4.2. Similar volumes (3.0ltr had a recall and increased the sump capacity), identical fuel filters, identical air filters but 4.2 has two spin on filters @ cost of around $70 !! (nissan) or $26 non genuine, single oil filter replacement cartridge for 3.0ltr, in summary,4.2 more expensive to service but only time will tell.
If you are not going to do much towing, an extra $7000 for the 4.2 needs a lot of justifying but being familiar with the two, I feel I made the right decision for my purposes.
AnswerID: 31326

Follow Up By: Member -BJ (Sydney) - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 17:08

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 17:08
Stevo air filters are different the 4.2 is larger & sump capacity the same they just put in a new dip stick with different full mark to bring it up to 8 ltrs. I dave the 3.0 tdi auto & get 11.5 / 100 hway & 12.5-13/ 100 city .

worst iv'e had 20/100 towing camper with a gale blowing in our facesRegards Bob
Where to next
FollowupID: 22286

Follow Up By: Member -BJ (Sydney) - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 17:09

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 17:09
Stevo air filters are different the 4.2 is larger & sump capacity the same they just put in a new dip stick with different full mark to bring it up to 8 ltrs. I drive the 3.0 tdi auto & get 11.5 / 100 hway & 12.5-13/ 100 city .

worst iv'e had 20/100 towing camper with a gale blowing in our facesRegards Bob
Where to next
FollowupID: 22287

Follow Up By: donc - Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 21:56

Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003 at 21:56

where about do you live . i've got a GQ 4.2 diesel, and assuming the oil filters are the same I'm only paying about $16 for both filters when they get replaced. They're aftermarket made by a company called FSA and I purchase then through Servo Supplies in Queensland as i live up in Brissy. They seem to be filtering the oil just as well as the Ryco's that were being used on it before the last couple of 10,000km services (yes, it does get its 5,000k oil changes as well).

Hope this may help you cut your maintanence costs down a bit.

Regards, Don C.
FollowupID: 22311

Reply By: Member - Cocka - Thursday, Sep 18, 2003 at 00:57

Thursday, Sep 18, 2003 at 00:57
My brains going in circles trying to absorb all these consumption figures hope your logging them into a spreadsheet moneybags. Both vehicles are great so decide if you want to do any real time towing if so go the 4.2. If not the 3.0L is great that's what I have in auto and I do local towing with a 2 tonn boat behind. I service every 5000 - check with your local distributor and ask the service department about each service charge - they usually have a fixed price + extras.
If you want some excellent fuel figures use this sites records - go to Trip Planning in the menu then Fuel Consumption. Check the different sized engines and compare.
Good luckCarpe Diem
AnswerID: 31382

Reply By: Moneypit - Saturday, Sep 20, 2003 at 02:39

Saturday, Sep 20, 2003 at 02:39
Thanks very much to anyone who has taken the time to answer. I got what I was expecting I think which is a pretty good consensus about the two versions.

In researching other threads on the vehicle I'm very surprised by the number of people who have moved into automatics instead of manuals in the 3.0l TD. In fact surprised enough to have placed driving an auto version in my 'to do' list before I make a decision. Never thought I'd hear myself say that!!!

I will no doubt be in again soon with more questions but I'm building up a pretty good argument to put to the 'Minister for Finance' about the good things about owning a new car.

The information to date is very much appreciated.
AnswerID: 31550

Follow Up By: GoingUnder? - Saturday, Sep 20, 2003 at 19:32

Saturday, Sep 20, 2003 at 19:32
Hi there:
With my manual 3.0td gu I am getting a constant 10.7 litres/100km at 80,000 ks. All is city. The ONLY time i got offroad it droped to 9.6 for the trip. Servicing at 80000 ks was $970 which was standard price plus one new fan belt and an optional "de-carbonising. Service every 10000 usually cost c $670, but every 40.000 it costs more. I would like to know if the optional "de-carbonising"" recommended every 20,000 km is a good idea ora WASTE OF MONEY? iit does not seem to improve the fuel economy or thge noise. Other than the expense of servicing I am happy with it but I have heard all sorts of rumours of engines blowing up c 80.000 ks. Check out all the rumours
FollowupID: 22507

Sponsored Links