What type of 4x4 do we buy?

Submitted: Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00
ThreadID: 844 Views:2746 Replies:15 FollowUps:35
This Thread has been Archived
Two middle aged women want to buy a 4x4 to travel to the centre via "the tracks". We are looking at a Prado,Pajero or Patrol,about 2000 model and are seeking advice from all you experienced 4x4 owners re fuel consumption,suspension,availability of parts,comfort etc. Also, do we need a UHF radio as we do not intend to go too remote? Is a winch necessary? We will be towing a Bushman Camper trailer with Alco suspension. Looking forward to your words of wisdom.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: all speaker manufacturers - Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00
Ladies,

The age old question of which 4x4 to buy.....that should spark some debate here. Anyway IMHO most of these vehicles are good value although the Patrol maybe a touch heavy for you, it would probably be a toss up between a Prado or Pajero with myself leaning towards a Prado.

Toyota have a very good parts supply right around this country and therefore getting spares shouldn't be a problem. Fuel consumption is going to be hard to predict beacuse you are towing a trailer and coupled with additonal load in the 4WD you will probably need to ask which has the better torque figures (power).

A UHF radio would be a minimum and dependant on how remote you go maybe consider hiring another form of comms like sat phone or HF radio. Once again a vehicle mounted winch is nice to have but you have to consider the practically of using one, maybe hire or buy a hand winch for that ugly situation where you may get stuck although these are hard work and not suggested for two middle aged women.

I would also enquire as to your previous 4wd experience and whether you intend travelling tracks that are frequented by others so if you do get into trouble there may well be others to help.

I would suggest to enrol in atleast a basic 4x4 course and maybe even look to the government auctions to pick up vehicle already kitted out with all the gear you need like bullbar, winch, roof rack etc.

I will waffle on some more later in the day.

Stuart.
AnswerID: 2390

Reply By: Cashy - Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00
The question that came to me straight away was "what are the tracks". There are a number of ways to the center some a lot harder then others. A lot depends on where you are starting from.
But aside from that I would erecomend the Prado in Turdo desiel for the fuel efficiency and for the long range tanks as standard (159l). Depending on the load beig carrier and the tracks being used I would recommend a suspension upgrade with a 2" lift. But most important is to ensure that you are running All-terrain tyres and that the trailer tyres are the same size and on the same rims therefore you have extra spares even if you have to leave the trailer and come back for it later. A UHF is handy for talking to other travelers in the area. It is also worth consibering a EPIRB as a safty measure. But for longer distance and more remote areas I would go a HF or Satilite phone. But If you are on a well travelled track then you should n't need it. I would recomend joining a club and getting some 4WD training a well in advance and finding out how to use all the gear you are carrying. It is also possible that they may be running a trip to that area at the same time and there might be room.

Regards

Cashy
AnswerID: 2391

Reply By: paul - Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00
Hello ladies you can't go past a Auto turbo diesel Jackaroo for what you are going to do, it's not to big and not to small it will be ideal for towing your camper
AnswerID: 2393

Reply By: Bob - Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:00
Prado Pajero Jackeroo - you can't go wrong. Cashy made a good point about having the same wheels on the trailer as the vehicle, so that might dictate the vehicle you choose. Changing hubs/wheels on a trailer can be done but cheaper not to. I'd go for a standard vehicle. The tiny percentage increase in capability that modification may give you is hardly worth the cost. Similarly, a winch is a dead weight on the front of the vehicle you will never use. Unless your vehicle has been flogged already replacement parts are not an issue - with careful driving they just don't break. You will go through tyres, so take at least two spares for the vehicle and one for the trailer (all the same if possible). The most valuable thing you can take is a puncture plugging kit and compressor. If you don't go too far off the beaten track, petrol is fine. In some isolated places it isn't available. A couple of plastic jerry cans in the trailer are cheaper than a long range tank, and hold just as much fuel. Jackeroo is the best diesel, and the Pajero is the better petrol vehicle. Take'm for a drive and see.
AnswerID: 2398

Reply By: Bill - Saturday, Mar 16, 2002 at 01:00

Saturday, Mar 16, 2002 at 01:00
Just looked at the replies you have received ladies and feel I should emphasise the value of the fuel capacity of the Prado - 159l compared with 90l for the Pajero. I recently travelled 700km from Oodnadatta to Birdsville through the Simpson Desert in a Prado. Arrived at Birdsville with 40l still in the tanks - would have had to carry 4 or 5 jerries in a Pajero.
AnswerID: 2403

Follow Up By: Chris - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Thank you to all who replied to my question. Your advice is truly appreciated. Will particularly heed the advice regarding 4x4 driving courses and fuel capacity. Hope to see you on the road sometime.
0
FollowupID: 869

Follow Up By: Bob - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Bill, that's not very flash economy. The Pajero will make it from Mt Dare to Birdsville on less than its 90 L tank will hold ;-)

If you really needed the range in the Pajero without jerries you could pay the xtra to have an auxiliary tank fitted, just as you did with the airconditioning in the Prado
0
FollowupID: 873

Follow Up By: Bill - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Bob you must read carefully!!! I didn't travel from Mt Dare to Birdsville. Oodnadatta to Birdsville with detours is 700km - much further than Mt Dare to Birdsville. (We didn't go to Mt Dare as they were out of fuel because of closed roads) You have to allow for unforeseen circumstances such as this when you travel in the outback. I guess you calculated the distance from Mt Dare to Birdsville and thought a Pajero would do it on 90l. 700km would stretch it even on the highway - I was never able to go that far when I had one! However the path from we took crosses the Simpson Desert which has over 1000 sand dunes. Please don't try to do it without doing your homework and checking with experienced four wheel drivers. By the way a friend completed the trip you refer to in a Pajero which had been fitted with a 150l tank. He made it but still carried jerries in case. Take Care!!!!
0
FollowupID: 875

Follow Up By: Bill - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Bob you must read carefully!!! I didn't travel from Mt Dare to Birdsville. Oodnadatta to Birdsville with detours is 700km - much further than Mt Dare to Birdsville. (We didn't go to Mt Dare as they were out of fuel because of closed roads) You have to allow for unforeseen circumstances such as this when you travel in the outback. I guess you calculated the distance from Mt Dare to Birdsville and thought a Pajero would do it on 90l. 700km would stretch it even on the highway - I was never able to go that far when I had one! However the path from we took crosses the Simpson Desert which has over 1000 sand dunes. Please don't try to do it without doing your homework and checking with experienced four wheel drivers. By the way a friend completed the trip you refer to in a Pajero which had been fitted with a 150l tank. He made it but still carried jerries in case. Take Care!!!!
0
FollowupID: 876

Follow Up By: Bill - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Oh Bob - lash out and get airconditioning - it's well worth it, but don't get aftermarket air as was fitted to my Pajero. The Prado air is absolutely great. If you ever go outback I recommend it.
0
FollowupID: 877

Follow Up By: Bill - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Bob - me again and sorry to keep on about this but check out the treck notes on this site. The recommendation for Mt Dare to Birdsville in 6cyl petrol is 200litres. If you do it carry 6 Jerries. I carried one.
0
FollowupID: 880

Follow Up By: Bob - Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00

Sunday, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:00
Bill, I think Mt Dare to B'ville is about 550km from memory. Yes I took 200 L, and so did my friend in a 3.0 L Pajero. But we both used just under 90 L. I agree that it is better to err on the side of safety, but the recommendation of more than twice the requirement is a bit over the top. I wonder how many incidents have been caused by people carrying the weight of all that unnecessary fuel?( I did read carefully-your extra 150 km took an extra 30 L.)

I've had two Pajeros. Both did 100 k without a single problem. Most of their mileage was in the bush. Air was standard on both. I bought a new LX470 in July 1999 (first car to seriously let me down in the bush - fuel line fell apart) and a TD5 discovery last year. We now use the Lexus as a family car and bitumen cruiser (frankly I wouldn't trust it in the rough again) and the Disco as the bush vehicle. The Pajeros were better built than the Lexus or the Landy, despite ten years of evolution.
0
FollowupID: 883

Follow Up By: Bill - Monday, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:00
Bob I really have trouble following your logic. You've chosen a proven unreliable vehicle for the bush and a huge fuel guzzling four wheel drive for the highway!! Better go back to a Pajero I think don't you?
0
FollowupID: 889

Follow Up By: Bill - Monday, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:00
Bob - just checked - Mt Dare to Birdsville is 523km so the extra 28litres actually took me an extra 177km. Not bad eh? 15.8l/100 in desert conditions!! I still can't get over the fact that you had to carry 6 jerries!!!
0
FollowupID: 891

Follow Up By: Bob - Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00
Bill

According to Westprint its 549 km, and that's without any side excursions etc. No doubt the Prado is capable of shortcuts that other vehicles wouldn't dare attempt.

I must have missed something in the literature about the Discovery, or someone failed to inform mine because it hasn't broken down yet like the Lexus. I suspect the Lexus shares the same shoddy workmanship as the Prado.

You seem to have a hang-up with jerry cans. What do you carry water in? It is the contents that makes the weight - not the container. A plastic jerry weighs about 500 gm (guesstimate) What does your auxiliary tank weigh? at the end of the trip I store the jerries in a shed _ you're stuck with a ridiculous tank which if full is a dead weight to lug around, and if only half full is pointless.

The Lexus uses more fuel than the Prado, but not much. On the Anne Beadell Hwy it returned 17.8 L/100km towing a trailer. By the way, it has an auxiliary tank as standard.

0
FollowupID: 900

Follow Up By: Bill - Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00
Bob you continue to confound me!!! You keep a vehicle in which you have lost confidence ... and it carries 24l less than the mighty Prado. To serious travellers that extra fuel without the hazard of jerries is invaluable ... but I must tell you that it is not obligatory to keep it full!!
Check the sales figures and then ask a few owners and dealers why Prado is chosen over Pajero (apart from the obvious better lines) and 95% of people questioned will tell you it's the extra fuel carrying capacity. Try comparing the number of Mitsubishis and Toyotas at your next 4wd destination!!! And how big is the Disco's tank? 80 litres isn't it?? LOLOLOL Great for England!!!
0
FollowupID: 903

Follow Up By: Bob - Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00
Bill
I make the point again - if you want an auxiliary tank in the Pajero you can pay the $700 and have it fitted. If you want air in the Prado you pay the extra $2000 and have it fitted. The fact that these items aren't standard doesn't mean you can't have them.
At the 4wd destinations I frequent there aren't any other vehicles- I presume the Prado fan club meets in the car parks of shopping centres.
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find out how much fuel the Discovery holds, but then I guess you chose the Prado without really finding out about the alternatives.
Bill, it strikes me that with your shrill defence of the Prado you may have an inferiority complex: couldn't afford the Cruiser so has to make do with the copy of the Pajero, now has chip on shoulder. Have the guts to try a few other vehicles Bill. You may be surprised to find that there are competent vehicles out there that don't wear a Toyota badge. Some of us are game enough to try something different.
0
FollowupID: 906

Follow Up By: Bill - Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00
Bob I was never disputing the price difference. My experience in motoring has been that aftermarket items are not as reliable as OE. If people choose to fit a larger tank to their Pajero I have no problem with that. I think it's a very good idea and since it's not available as OE, that's the best alternative available to them. I realise that the Pajero is substantially cheaper than the Prado but remember that you get what you pay for!! One only has to examine the two vehicles to see why and it is undoubtedly linked to the fact that a Pajero in remote areas is a fairly rare sight.
0
FollowupID: 911

Reply By: Mike - Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00
Chris, to get away from the boys squabling, go for the T/D Jackaroo. It has all the capability you will need and is very easy to drive. You will not tow the trailer across the desert anyway, so fuel capacity is not really an issue. If in doubt, carry a couple of jerry cans on the trailer, but the std tank will get you between fuel stops on the Oodnadatta, Birdsville and Strezlecki Tracks. Forget about winches, if 2 middle aged ladies can't get more help than they need out there, then this isn't Aussie. Take at least 2 snatch straps though as it really is etiquette to get you own strap dirty first. I hope you enjoy yourselves and hope we meet you out there. Happy trails, Mike.
AnswerID: 2433

Follow Up By: Chris - Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00
I hope Bob and Bill eventually agree to disagree-isn't that what this forum is for?
Thanks Mike,we will carry fuel for emergencies and buy another snatch strap-ours got dirty helping someone else!
0
FollowupID: 895

Follow Up By: Bill - Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:00
Bob started it Mike.
0
FollowupID: 897

Follow Up By: Trev - Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Mar 20, 2002 at 01:00
Bill & Bob. We did Birdsville to Oodnadatta last year. Did 829 km with a couple of diversions and used 128 litres of fuel averaging 15.44 litres/100 in the Explorer. We have two auxiliary tanks fitted as I don't like to carry fuel in the cabin. I'm prepared to put up with the extra weight as it only gets used for holidays.
Trev
0
FollowupID: 907

Follow Up By: Bob - Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00
Trev
How have you found the Explorer? The new release looks very attractive if not a bit pricey. I don't think Bill would approve of you auxiliary tanks if they didn't come standard :-) How much did they cost and who supplied them?
0
FollowupID: 908

Follow Up By: Bill - Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00
Bob please stop annoying me with your ramblings. Let's face facts .. we have both owned Pajeros and we now both own Toyotas. I feel I have made an excellent decision. You are not happy with your move. I think you should go back to a Pajero. I wonder if they've improved their fuel economy, gearbox, brakes, steering box, cooling system? These were just some of the reasons why I changed. Why did you move?
0
FollowupID: 909

Reply By: Bob - Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00

Thursday, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00
I will probably try something different again, there are new releases occurring all the time. Maybe the Porsche Cayenne. I like variety. It doesn't stop me remembering fondly cars that gave me 100's of thousands of kms of absolutely trouble free motoring all over Australia.

I am sorry you find my postings annoying Bill - but then bigots are often intolerant and easily annoyed.
AnswerID: 2468

Follow Up By: Bill - Friday, Mar 22, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 22, 2002 at 01:00
Now Bob was it $700 to upgrade the tank? How much do you think to upgrade the wheels and make them a decent width for off roading? Then maybe an engine upgrade to a modern quad cam, 4 valves per cylinder? mmmm it's adding up Bobby boy!!! But then again if you're in the Lexus and Porsche league I'm most surprised that the price of A/C is an issue. I suspect that you have never owned a Lexus and never will own a Porsche and most likely drive an early 90's Pajero - which was a very nice vehicle for its time - as was the FJ55 I once had, in its time!!! Just remember you made the first uncharitable comment so you must be prepared to take all I give you! I have plenty of ammunition!! LOLOLOL
0
FollowupID: 917

Reply By: Bob - Friday, Mar 22, 2002 at 01:00

Friday, Mar 22, 2002 at 01:00
Bill
I am finding it a bit hard to follow your line of reasoning. Perhaps in future when you get a bit rattled and upset and dash something off, read it back to yourself first a few times before you hit the "submit reply" button.
Bob
AnswerID: 2483

Follow Up By: Bill - Saturday, Mar 23, 2002 at 01:00

Saturday, Mar 23, 2002 at 01:00
Hmmm I've stumped you this time eh Bobby boy?? No answer!!! Oh and name calling is very childish!!! But I did raise some good points don't you think? ... maybe that's why you're stumped for an answer!!
0
FollowupID: 921

Follow Up By: Bob - Monday, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:00

Monday, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:00
Bill
It isn't obvious to me what you are trying to say. My last Pajero was purchased in Nov 95. It was a quad cam V6 (153 kW). The wheels were the same width as the other 4 wds of the day (7"). Unlike the Prado, air conditioning came as standard. The big drawback of this car was its need for premium fuel which meant adding octane booster when away from the big smoke. However it went like the clappers. Or were you referring to your Prado RV 4 cyl with cheese cutter tyres?

Rather than continuing to demonstrate your ignorance try a site like http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/index.asp which lists some basic specifications (like fuel capacity and engine type).

Bob
0
FollowupID: 933

Follow Up By: Bill - Wednesday, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:00

Wednesday, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:00
Bob you really are a disagreeable person. I was replying to the two MALs and you made unpleasant comments regarding my fuel consumption. Why oh why did I take your bait??? This forum is for people interested in sharing information and should not be used to annoy others.
Check the Mitsubishi site if you want to find details of the Pajero you used to own. The engine has never been a quad cam and the tyres are 235 compared to 265 on the Prado. The tyre size that you refer to on the RV is in fact the same as that on the Pajero GLX. I own a Grande by the way. I must agree with you on the fuel - my Pajero like yours needed high octane unleaded - on standard unleaded it pinged when working hard - a real pain and extra expense.
I have nothing further to say on the subject and will post no further replies so go and annoy someone else. But I have had a good laugh - at you.
0
FollowupID: 943

Reply By: Bob - Sunday, Apr 07, 2002 at 00:00

Sunday, Apr 07, 2002 at 00:00
Bill
How can I agree with you when you are wrong?
The Pajero was a quad cam and even had a '36 valve quad cam' sticker on the side.
When they reverted to SOHC power dropped to 140 kW and PULP was no longer needed.
I am wondering if you really ever owned one if you weren't aware of such basic detail.
AnswerID: 2670

Follow Up By: Frank - Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00
Bob I've watched you and Bill arguing for a while now. Bill said he wanted to end it and I must point out as he did that this forum is not for petty arguments. Oh and how did the Pajero have 36valves???? 6 valves per cylinder??? LOL
0
FollowupID: 1020

Reply By: Ted - Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00
Bob What made you think a Pajero was made with 36valves? I really think you've got it wrong! They are a 12 valve motor.
AnswerID: 2729

Follow Up By: Bob - Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00
You're absolutely right, and that'll teach me to reply late at night after several reds. The sticker on the side actually says '24 valve DOHC'. With two banks of cyls that makes it a quad cam none the less.
0
FollowupID: 1038

Follow Up By: Ted - Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 10, 2002 at 00:00
That was on the old models Bob. The current models are 2 valves per cylinder - a long way behind most modern engines
0
FollowupID: 1045

Follow Up By: Arthur - Friday, Apr 12, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Apr 12, 2002 at 00:00
No Bob to be a quad cam you need four cams over each cylinder. Pajero are cheating if they said quad cam when in fact it was twin cam!! It's really quite simple!
0
FollowupID: 1066

Reply By: Bob - Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00

Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00
I realise and stated on an ealier post that the Pajero changed from 4 cams to two, and dropped from 153kW to 140kW, and dropped the requirement for PULP. Someone else claimed that the Pajero never had a quad cam like the Prado, and I countered by saying that that my 1996 Pajero was a quad cam. Two cams per bank of cylinders is a quad cam. If it isn't hten the Prado isn't a quad cam, the Lexus V8 isn't a quad cam etc. I think Mitsubishi dropped the quad cam motor to keep the overall cost of the vehicle down, while still maintaining reasonable performance.
AnswerID: 2806

Follow Up By: Bob - Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00

Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00
Ted
I was interested in your comment that the current Pajero's 12 valve motor was a long way behind most modern engines. Even with 'inferior' technology it still manages to out power the Prado by 8 kW (140 v. 132 kW) and has the same torque (303Nm). By all accounts the drivetrain and transmission are superior to anything else on the road.
0
FollowupID: 1081

Follow Up By: Ted - Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00

Saturday, Apr 13, 2002 at 00:00
Bob .... check the fuel consumption figures - the new Pajeros are real gas guzzlers compared to 24 valve engines - as you say they've done it to keep the price down - but what you save at the showroom you soon lose at the petrol station. Sure they get buyers who buy on price - a friend of mine bought a Pajero recently for that very reason. We have done a number of trips together and over the same terrain at the same speed for the same distance he consistently uses 3l/100km more than me. That's on average $3 per 100km extra that it costs him. If it wasn't for the huge depreciation that his vehicle has suffered he'd be selling it now he tells me, but as he said to me just the other day, "Who wants to buy a one year old Pajero?" He can't find a serious 4wder who's interested in his vehicle even though he's got all the good stuff added on to make it suitable for off road/outback travel - long range tank etc. He's in a bind - the vehicle isn't attractive to the "mums" taking kids to school and shopping as most are used for and the serious 4wders also aren't interested! Poor bloke! And you know the pity is that it's quite a nice vehicle despite the lines which are generally thought of as being ugly.
0
FollowupID: 1084

Reply By: Bob - Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00
I checked the figures in Overlander. 13.7 for the Prado, 14.7 in the Pajero. Different, but not that much. Over 100,000 km about $900 difference in fuel costs. In fact the difference is proportional to max power output which I guess says that you don't get the extra power out of thin air, and if you have got it you tend to use it.
AnswerID: 2865

Follow Up By: Ted - Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00
Bob I'm not talking about published figures - I'm telling you REAL figures which my mate and I calculated!!
0
FollowupID: 1109

Follow Up By: Ted - Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Apr 16, 2002 at 00:00
Oh Bob please don't get me started on figures .. you don't know what you're in for!! Do you really think that the Overlander figures were calculated under different conditions with the opportunity for one vehicle to use more power than the other??
A properly conducted test would ensure that both vehicles covered the same distances at the same speed under the same conditions and I'm sure that this was done. Therefore no extra power would have been used .... but just a moment - of course - the Pajero is more than 100kgs heavier so it has to work harder. Now on the figures you quoted and assuming that max power was used at all times (which as I have already explained to you would not have been the case) then a 6%power increase was achieved with a 7.29%increase in fuel consumption mmm something about fuel efficiency there which I'll leave you to ponder on Bob. I'll give you a clue ... it's probably to do with 24valves versus 12 valves.
My figures however indicate 25% greater fuel consumption under the SAME conditions - same speed same roads same winds same loads except for of course the extra kerb weight of the Pajero. My mate was not a happy man!! But like yourself and other Pajero owners he sticks by his vehicle and continues to feel it's better than mine - we enjoy a bit of light hearted banter about it but in his heart of hearts I think he knows that I and all other Toyota owners are really "Kings Off The Road"
0
FollowupID: 1110

Reply By: Bob - Wednesday, Apr 17, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 17, 2002 at 00:00
Ted
Ask anyone who they would believe: your figures with a 25% difference, or overlander's 1 L/100km difference? I would be interested to know your friend's consumption. Maybe he had a remediable problem. From memory I never used more than 15 L/100 km with the 153 KW motor, so the overlander figure looks about right. By the way, I no longer have a Pajero. I now have a V8 4WD and a Turbo Diesel 4WD. Unlike others on this list I am happy to change marques from time to time without feeling the need to be committed for life to one in particular.
Bob
AnswerID: 2897

Follow Up By: Ted - Wednesday, Apr 17, 2002 at 00:00

Wednesday, Apr 17, 2002 at 00:00
Let me guess - it would have to be a V8 disco and a turbo patrol LOL. His were 14.9l/100 mine were 11.9l/100, although my best ever at a steady 100kph was 11.3l/100. Bob it is of absolutely no concern to me who believes my figures. I conducted the testing, I know exactly what I did and that is all there is to it. You are obviously not at all mathematically inclined Bob when you compare a % difference with a l/100km difference. Have you ever heard of the expression "compare apples with apples" Your comparison should have been 25% compared with 7.29% OR 1l/100km compared with 3l/100km. I seem to have to keep correcting you Bob.
0
FollowupID: 1125

Reply By: Bob - Thursday, Apr 18, 2002 at 00:00

Thursday, Apr 18, 2002 at 00:00
Ted Your guesses were way off the mark. My maths is a little rusty but Prado Power/Paj power is 132/140 by 100 =94%. Prado fuel cons/Paj fuel cons is 13.7/14.7 by 100=93%. 93 and 94 % look pretty bloody close to me. I'd say that power is proportional to fuel consumption. I still don't believe your figures, are you sure you didn't cock up your sums there too?
AnswerID: 2925

Follow Up By: Ted - Friday, Apr 19, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Apr 19, 2002 at 00:00
Bob, Look back at your previous postings. You have now done precisely what I TOLD YOU to do - you've compared apples with apples - well done - your loosening up those rusty mathematical joints. But the major flaw in your logic is - the vehicles would not have been using maximum power. In fact my experience is that max power is rarely used. They would have been using comparable power if they were tested in comparable conditions. If the conditions were not comparable then the figures are invalid.
Thus for sdame power used the Pajero uses more fuel - and the explanation is simple - a less efficient engine - because of 2 valves per cynlinder.
0
FollowupID: 1150

Follow Up By: Ted - Friday, Apr 19, 2002 at 00:00

Friday, Apr 19, 2002 at 00:00
make that cylinder and same
0
FollowupID: 1154

Reply By: The MALS - Monday, Apr 22, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Apr 22, 2002 at 00:00
Gentlemen, Thank you so much for all this invaluable info. I love fruit so was impressed with the comparisons of apples - Delicious are my favourites!
We have purchased a vehicle taking into account all your advice. We have a 2000 RV6 Prado -would have liked a t/d but rare as hen's teeth second hand. It only had 27,800 km on it so we felt as though it was almost new. This,as well as BB,TB,wide tyres,tinted windows convinced us. we have added a dual battery system and a new power socket in the back for the fridge. Tried it all out last weekend -GREAT. Towed the camper well and very comfortable. Roll on June when we head west for a month! Hope to see you on the road.
AnswerID: 2994

Follow Up By: Bill - Monday, Apr 22, 2002 at 00:00

Monday, Apr 22, 2002 at 00:00
Excellent choice ladies! May you have many happy kilometres of safe comfortable driving. Bob won't be happy that you didn't choose a Pajero, but I think you're definitely on a winner - the most economical and reliable mid sized 4wd available!!
Good luck and I hope you haven't been too put off by old Bob and me. If the truth were known we're probably like boys in the playground trying to get the attention of two pretty girls LOL
0
FollowupID: 1177

Follow Up By: Bill - Tuesday, Apr 23, 2002 at 00:00

Tuesday, Apr 23, 2002 at 00:00
Actually I have just scrolled back through this fairly large volume and I think Bob has argued with a number of people! He also argues with Goran and even sometimes gets nasty with him! At least he was always civil to me ....
0
FollowupID: 1188

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)