Outer Limits 4x4 Board

will hopefully be looking at the gu in the next few months....if the boss can be convinced and he will be

anyone have handy fuel consumption figures for both... the car will be used as a reps car traveling regularly to emerald and st george for example i would prefer the 4.2 but if figures suggest a kw more and much less fuel then id be questioning.....? and torque figures

also is the gr the next gu? or any plans to anyones knowlege of a new patrol ? one worth waiting for?

im 6'7' and after sitting in an early ute i was reanoble happy with but a late model wagon i sat in was very tight... tight as a fishes compared with the older gu?

the truck will just get a 3'-4 probly and 33's at's for road and probly 35-36 for offroad and do 70 000-80 000 km a year

any thoughts with backup statements would be appreciated

resale after 2.5 years should also be factored in with diesel costs and the occasional tow of moto trailer and work gear upto a 1t

i also will factor in the whisle

thanks guys and yes i had a quick search

onroad most of the time?

an auto 3.0td

offroad most of the time? then a 4.2 manual

i think the GR is the european name for a GU, but i could be wrong.

mickyd555 wrote:i think the GR is the european name for a GU, but i could be wrong.

sure is

Gr is European name for GQ and Gu.

Alex

roly wrote:onroad most of the time?

an auto 3.0td

offroad most of the time? then a 4.2 manual

will be on road 95% due to kms for work but want a good offroader aswell

What sort of offroading will you be doing?

If you do a lot of stop start driving, perhaps an auto 3.0 may be the better solution.

Hmmm. I assume folding rear seats will also be a requirement.

phippsey wrote:Hmmm. I assume folding rear seats will also be a requirement.

i know you certainly wouldnt need them

the occasional beach trip and general mucking about at cruiser for example...

Auto 3.0 will be way better on the road - stop/start and highway.
Off road - in most cases especially on the beach the auto will compensate for having less bottom end torque than the 4.2- the 3.0 auto will do fine.

For what you've described I think the 3.0 is a winner. Boss will be happy as 3.0 costs a lot less than TD42T, auto will close the gap up a bit.

The 3ltrs are heaps gutless down low but a chip brings a new lease of life to them. I would go the 4.2 as the resale value is way more than the 3ltr and the comfort of having power to overtake tow and play. The 2.8ltr 6 is more economical than the 3ltr anyway.

LudaCris

the RD28 would be a better idea.

The RD30 is a lemon motor for the Nissan Patrol. They are known to blow up quite a few time

We have had a few members in our club with the 3.0LTD and both of them have gotten rid of them, one of them blew at 20,000K's and the other guy just wasn't gunna keep it after all the stories we have been told of others.

If you can gte one, get a 2.8LTD, Gutless uphill but a great economical diesel or go for the old burner 4.2TD. They are a tried and true motor, after all, who uses 16 year technology anywhere else that works? Only Nissan

alll above factored in fuel consusmption of the 4.2 turbo vs 3.00 turbo ?

what about my adjustable panards springs etc etc to transfer to the new from the gq.... they fit?

GU 3.0 Auto Just went Melb-Syd with family on board and steel bars both ends, winch etc, on speed limits -- 11.15 lt/100 km.
Melb Perth with roof rack as well, fully loaded. about 13.5 lt/100km.
Off road the auto is fantastic, with front locker - awesome.

The 3.0 auto is your best option for long distance driving as they spin at about 400 rpm less than the manual 4.2 and 3.0 therefore also more economical. If you are doing 80,000 km p.a reagrdles of whether you buy a 4.2 or a 3.0 the resale will be shite. Buy the 3.0 auto and save the $4k to spend on accessories. The 3.0 auto is way better on fuel than the 4.2TD which will be important to your boss.

apparently theres a stack of ex telstra GUs up at Fowlers today some with only 11,000klms

be interesting to see what they go for. Glad Im not there, or I'd be in trouble with the bank

boss has given the ok for whatever I want .... and with all the bad stories of the 3 and with the flogging i give them im thinking for the sake of a few litres per hundred the 4.2 may be a better reliable option? option.... to pay those few xtra litres and save paying for expensive parts when warranty runns out?......

probly keep it to 160- 180 km's........................................


if we are talking 12 litres/100 in the 3 what would the 4.2 turbo av? is it as bad as it sounds....

The 4.2 does about 15l/100km on average. Never had much better than that.

patrolmad wrote:The 4.2 does about 15l/100km on average. Never had much better than that.

yea poll on the patrol forums had between 13 crusin and 19 floggin for diesel.

So can the panhards be swapped between GQ's and GU's?

Are the mounts on 4.2 and 3.0 TD GU diffs/ chassis the same as GQ's?

Cheers