Outer Limits 4x4 Board

HI. Looking at trading in my puss-a-lux (big mistake buying that!) and getting a wagon. Trying to decide between an 80 series cruiser and a most likely a GQ.

Was wondering first of all, what sort of mileage can i expect out of a 4.2 efi, against a 4.2d, and a 4.2TD? I have noticed the 4.2TD's are pretty scarce.

Also what are some strengths, weaknesses, and common problems?

How reliable are they? Plently of grunt? And are they expensive to fix?

I'm looking at spending about $20k. I'm a builder so its gonna be towing my tool trailer during the week, and do some moderate 4 wheel driving on the weekends.

Anyway any input would be great.

Thanks heaps.

Schmidty

Hey mate....did just this on Saturday, and compared to my old 3.0 Lux, htis things got piles of grunt.

I shopped for a while, but you'll find something really tide in Melbourne for around 20k, with or without dual fuel....finding a manual may make things a bit harder. Compared to an 80, I reckon GQ's are much better value, and afer owning a couple of deisels, I'm not convinced on the economics of it all any more.

check it out....

http://www.OuterLimits4x4.com/PHP_Modul ... hp?t=26781

looks good. What does it go like? Undecided on wether or not to get a petty or diesel. does it chew the juice?

Consider the price difference and how many miles you need to recover it... The petrol costs more to run but gets a huge head start... and one little problem on the diesel and then the petrol wins out bigtime...

schmidty wrote:looks good. What does it go like? Undecided on wether or not to get a petty or diesel. does it chew the juice?

yeh...goes great! ....but haven't had it long enough to comment on the economy...at a guess I'd say giving it heaps, yeh it'll drink, on the highway it sits on about 2000rpm on 31's so shouldn't be to bad?

If you can find one on GAS you will win allround. The petrols seem to go for over 300000 and are cheap to rebuild. You have to start off with a good one but.

My GQ is absolutely bone stock. It is a 92 EFI LWB. I use around 20lt per 100kms on average. Sink the boot and it only gets worse But it has plenty of go for a stocker

I reckon a dual fueler would be a sweet option.

GQ never came with TD42T they are all aftermarket. GU did come with TD42T

Diesel usually get 13-15l/100klms petrols 20+l/100klms

I worked this out with a mate, mines deisel & his is petrol. Over a twelve year period ( that how old mine is) I would save over twelve thousand dollars on petrol. Thats enough to rebuld the engine, injectors three times & still have change. That was worked out on mine getting 12.5 lt/ hundred & his getting 16.5lt/hunred (he getd this now after it was dyno tuned).

Considering all that has gone wrong with mine in 12 years and 350000 is the rh axle seal, top seal on the pump and worn alternator mine is pretty good value as it looks like going for a few more years yet.

The deisel without a turbo is a bit of a slug driven hard compared to the petrol but a turbo will fix that but if you drive it like a deisel should be driven then htat will be no worries. I just sit back & enjoy the scenery & i am happy that it is still faster than my mates 80 sereis ( he is spewin as he paid 26000 fir his).

Your choice but I still think the deisel is better value if looked after correctly.

mkpatrol wrote:I worked this out with a mate, mines deisel & his is petrol. Over a twelve year period ( that how old mine is) I would save over twelve thousand dollars on petrol. Thats enough to rebuld the engine, injectors three times & still have change. That was worked out on mine getting 12.5 lt/ hundred & his getting 16.5lt/hunred (he getd this now after it was dyno tuned).

Considering all that has gone wrong with mine in 12 years and 350000 is the rh axle seal, top seal on the pump and worn alternator mine is pretty good value as it looks like going for a few more years yet.

The deisel without a turbo is a bit of a slug driven hard compared to the petrol but a turbo will fix that but if you drive it like a deisel should be driven then htat will be no worries. I just sit back & enjoy the scenery & i am happy that it is still faster than my mates 80 sereis ( he is spewin as he paid 26000 fir his).

Your choice but I still think the deisel is better value if looked after correctly.

Maybe, but personally I've never kept a car for anything even remotely close to twelve years, and did you factor in that a diesel is gonna cost several thousand more up front?

It's all a matter of personal choice; I really think you can slice up the savings different ways to get one outcome or the other.

Diesel exhaust is a bona fide cancer-causer, just by the way.

Jason

I am the second owner, my father was the first so I know the history. As I said your choice, I like deisels because they are no fuss in the bush, don't gussle the fuel when towing & are generally better for what I use it for.

Dont get me wrong I love petrol engines as I have a CBR1000 & I get my kicks from that but for the application & the value for money we have got from this vehicle & cant go past it.

also another thing to consider -

The availability of certain types of fuel in places you intend to go.

EG doin the simpson or kimberleys.. not all fuel stations will have GAS..

So it'll burn a big hole in your pocket when you're runinng petrol as you'll have to go easy on the throttle and there are situations where you'll have to mash the pedal and it'll drink heaps!!!

Goin diesel gurantees you fuel in most stops out in the bush

chimpboy wrote:Diesel exhaust is a bona fide cancer-causer, just by the way.

Carbon Monoxide causes your pee pee to grow as well...

How often when your driving to you sit behind the exhaust snorting it?

Also diesel is subsidised overseas, its cheaper than petrol, and theres 100's of small dieselcars on the roads cant be all bad?

bogged wrote:

chimpboy wrote:Diesel exhaust is a bona fide cancer-causer, just by the way.

Carbon Monoxide causes your pee pee to grow as well...

How often when your driving to you sit behind the exhaust snorting it?

Also diesel is subsidised overseas, its cheaper than petrol, and theres 100's of small dieselcars on the roads cant be all bad?

I like this argument.
Yes diesel is bad, but ULP is worse.

p.s every thing can kill it just depends on how much the body can take.

Carbon Monoxide causes your pee pee to grow as well...

How often when your driving to you sit behind the exhaust snorting it?

As an asthmatic and a motorcycle rider you guys really should actually get behind your disgusting dirty smoky stinking heaps of crap on the road and see how much pollution you really are putting out.

Why diesel in it's current form is still subsidised is beyond me.

You use the european example... but have you checked out the fact that they'r using far better refined and far cleaner fuel than we are, so their engines can be designed to be much cleaner and much more economical than ours can be.

Australia, like third world countries, gets all the old diesel engines that can't be sold in the rest of the world due to pollution restrictions.

Beastmavster wrote:As an asthmatic and a motorcycle rider you guys really should actually get behind your disgusting dirty smoky stinking heaps of crap on the road and see how much pollution you really are putting out.

Rode bikes for 20 yrs, whats your point?

Beastmavster wrote:Why diesel in it's current form is still subsidised is beyond me.

Because its less dangerous. we said that.

You use the european example... but have you checked out the fact that they'r using far better refined and far cleaner fuel than we are, so their engines can be designed to be much cleaner and much more economical than ours can be.

Actually we meet euro standards now.

Australia, like third world countries, gets all the old diesel engines that can't be sold in the rest of the world due to pollution restrictions.

check ya facts.

The import Safari's from Japan come factory turbo'ed after 96 I believe.
I don't know that you get them over there.Also after 96 they are 12 volt with dual batteries instead of 24 volt.The factory turbo is smaller than an
aftermarket one so it is a definate improvement but not a huge strain on the engine.
When doing these comparasens remember the TB 42 have a cylinder head problem and have a shorter life span then the TD42.
Also I believe the factory turbo engine is a different engine to the NA one.
J Top

bogged wrote:Rode bikes for 20 yrs, whats your point?

Ooo... you have maybe a couple of years on me there.... you don't see that diesel fumes are somewhat unappetising for people not sheltered inside their cars?

Why diesel in it's current form is still subsidised is beyond me.

Because its less dangerous. we said that.

Less dangerous? Because turps said so and he drives a diesel?

You use the european example... but have you checked out the fact that they'r using far better refined and far cleaner fuel than we are, so their engines can be designed to be much cleaner and much more economical than ours can be.

Actually we meet euro standards now.

Actually we don't. Check the legislated sulphur content levels (ppm) in diesel fuels for starters......

Why not check which diesel engines we don't get here and the reasons that the suppliers will not distribute them to australia.

Australia, like third world countries, gets all the old diesel engines that can't be sold in the rest of the world due to pollution restrictions.

check ya facts.

Check yours.....

Refer BP australia website:
As a result of the growing concern about the health effects of diesel emissions, BP started manufacturing Low Sulphur Diesel in 2000. At that time this product was up to 10 times cleaner than the diesel legislated in the national Australian standard.

BP Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel offers reduced soot emissions without sacrificing engine performance.

On 1 January 2003 the Federal Government introduced legislation to limit sulphur in diesel to 500 ppm - legislation that is in line with BP's commitment to cleaner fuels.

The next step in BP's cleaner fuels journey has seen the introduction of an Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel. As a cleaner diesel fuel with a sulphur content restricted to 50 parts per million maximum, BP ULSD will further assist Australia to keep pace with the tighter regulatory environments of the USA and Europe.


Note... we are still way behind them... and have been for years.

European study into the need to reduce governement regulated sulphur level in diesel to below 50 ppm for public health reasons....

2000....


http://www.aeat-env.com/Sulphur_Review/%20Downloads/sr-EUROPIA1.pdf

Beastmavster wrote:Less dangerous? Because turps said so and he drives a diesel?

less dangerous cause most of europe uses it cause its less dangerous.

Actually we don't. Check the legislated sulphur content levels (ppm) in diesel fuels for starters......

Why not check which diesel engines we don't get here and the reasons that the suppliers will not distribute them to australia.

Numerous dont, whats that supposed to mean ? Diesel CARS have never sold well in aussie - the merc, bmw, holden gemini etc.. No point bringing them into a market where they wont sell is there?

Check yours.....

I have numerous times.

Beastmavster wrote:The next step in BP's cleaner fuels journey has seen the introduction of an Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel.

they did that ages ago.

As a cleaner diesel fuel with a sulphur content restricted to 50 parts per million maximum, BP ULSD will further assist Australia to keep pace with the tighter regulatory environments of the USA and Europe.

So it says we meet the tighter regulatory environments of the USA and Europe.

Note... we are still way behind them... and have been for years.

If you read elsewhere they mention that their diesel is BETTER than the recommdation of 50PPM..

I can reel off another 900 odd links showing stuff like the 50ppm limit for diesel to start in the UK in 2005, or how Japan, Sweeden etc are all below this level now.

In fact yeah, on the whole they are well below the 50 ppm... yet we are still pushing out 500ppm garbage.


Here's another good one.... an international standard was introduced of 350ppm from the world energy conference 2000... (that we dont meet 4 years after that date having only introduced a 500 ppm low sulphur diesel in 2003). In 2001 Reinhard Becker of Mobil Australia made a presentation on the need to reduce diesel sulphur ppm in europe to below 50 ppm and a low sulphur diesel of 10ppm to be introduced by 2005.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/other_papers/NZConf/04.asp

if you dont like the smoke from my diesel then f*%ck off from me behind me! MOST (not all) bike riders are more of a danger to themselves than my diesel smoke! you see them cutting in and out of traffic with no regard for themselves or anyone else.

so ill give a crap about them when they revise their riding habits!

embryo wrote:if you dont like the smoke from my diesel then f*%ck off from me behind me! MOST (not all) bike riders are more of a danger to themselves than my diesel smoke! you see them cutting in and out of traffic with no regard for themselves or anyone else.

so ill give a crap about them when they revise their riding habits!

Geez.... that's nice and intelligent of you.....

Ohhh.. that's right... you're from frankston. What was I thinking??

embryo wrote:if you dont like the smoke from my diesel then f*%ck off from me behind me! MOST (not all) bike riders are more of a danger to themselves than my diesel smoke! you see them cutting in and out of traffic with no regard for themselves or anyone else.

so ill give a crap about them when they revise their riding habits!

Be careful what you are sayin as a lot of poeple on this forum ride bikes as well.

If your deisel or petrol blows too much smoke then you should get it fixed.
If you cant afford it then get something cheaper.