Outer Limits 4x4 Board

ok all knowing nissan drivers...here is a q...

the rated fuel economy for the 4.5 gu motor is about 20 or more litres per 100 kays.... this seems high to me... is the motor ablr to be tuned to provide better economy and power ( computer or chip upgrade??)

i ask because i am looking at a wagon forbie an the only thing i am not liking about the patrol is the fuel usage... to put in perspective i previously owned a comm v6 hilux that got about 15 litres and my dad has a jeep cherokee and gets about 14.. (both highway kays... more on sand and around town)

the cruiser seems better than the pootrol on fuel ( from actual people not just magazine qoutes) and better with overall finish but the pootrol has better standard equip levels... so much of a muchness....

it will only be the consumption that chooses for me in the end...

so....

what are my chances of bettering the economy considering i will prolly end up running 35's or similar

any thoughts at all?

No chance on making a 4.5 fuel efficiant.

my Gu was getting about 250-270 ks out of 80 lts of gas
and 300-320 for 87 ltrs of petrol and i also have a duel map Un-Chip!

Sorry its all bad news.

it is very hard to get econamy fron a 4.5 ltr engine in a 2400 + kg truck


Grant.

kevdog wrote:ok all knowing nissan drivers...here is a q...

the rated fuel economy for the 4.5 gu motor is about 20 or more litres per 100 kays.... this seems high to me... is the motor ablr to be tuned to provide better economy and power ( computer or chip upgrade??)

i ask because i am looking at a wagon forbie an the only thing i am not liking about the patrol is the fuel usage... to put in perspective i previously owned a comm v6 hilux that got about 15 litres and my dad has a jeep cherokee and gets about 14.. (both highway kays... more on sand and around town)

the cruiser seems better than the pootrol on fuel ( from actual people not just magazine qoutes) and better with overall finish but the pootrol has better standard equip levels... so much of a muchness....

it will only be the consumption that chooses for me in the end...

so....

what are my chances of bettering the economy considering i will prolly end up running 35's or similar

any thoughts at all?

20 litres per hundred klicks is pretty ambitious for a 4.5 GU or a 4.5 Tojo for that matter although the Tojo will have a better chance of achieving that than the GU. Most of the ones I know if use more than 22 and some over 30 litres per hundred

And if you are going to run 35's then you can forget about fuel economy as the increased drag and rolling resistance of the larger tyres will be working against your fuel economy dreams .... with 35's you will certainly be up there in the high 20's early 30's.

If fuel economy is your driver, maybe look at the turbo diesel variants. My factory turbo diesel 80 series returns around 13 litres per hundred kays. Even with the ridiculous premium asked for diesel these days, it's still cheaper than fueling a petrol motor (although some would argue the increased running costs of a diesel over time negates tha benefit anyway).

Anyways ... fuel economy and large 4WD's is sort of an oxy-moron ... you can't use the terms together in the same sentence

Cheers
Simo

Simo63 wrote:
Most of the ones I know if use more than 22 and some over 30 litres per hundred

BS - 20/100 would be about average. Average meaning not putting the boot in and normal driving.

Many say that the 4.8 is thirstier than the 4.5 because of extra size and extra kW (I disagree - the 4.8 is more technologically advanced) - but I still manage between 19-20/100 time after time.

But if you are really worried about fuel economy, then either the Nissan or Toyota in petrol form is not the best option for you. Consider a diesel, or a smaller 4wd.

The other thing to consider is how much driving you are actually going to be doing. I only do about 10-12K per annum, so fuel economy (or lack thereof) was not a factor in my purchase decision. If I was doing 30K+ per annum, then I would have thought a lot harded about which one to get.

iam not bother about fuel economy that much we wanted to buy and drive a big wagon so you have to put up with it ours is a 4.5 auto and the best we got out of is 625ks on 80 litres good or bad i dont mind its what i want to drive

my 2cents

gu4800 wrote:

Simo63 wrote:
Most of the ones I know if use more than 22 and some over 30 litres per hundred

BS - 20/100 would be about average. Average meaning not putting the boot in and normal driving.

Many say that the 4.8 is thirstier than the 4.5 because of extra size and extra kW (I disagree - the 4.8 is more technologically advanced) - but I still manage between 19-20/100 time after time.

But if you are really worried about fuel economy, then either the Nissan or Toyota in petrol form is not the best option for you. Consider a diesel, or a smaller 4wd.

The other thing to consider is how much driving you are actually going to be doing. I only do about 10-12K per annum, so fuel economy (or lack thereof) was not a factor in my purchase decision. If I was doing 30K+ per annum, then I would have thought a lot harded about which one to get.

I call BS on your BS call

I think you are in denial GU4800. The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy

Everyone I know with large petrol Nissans or Cruisers are always complaining about high fuel consumption up into the 30's per hundred although I can't comment on whether they were driving them for performance or economy (or anything in between). We had a GQ 4.2 petrol for our family 4wd and it was up in the high 20's per hundred .. so much that we sold it after 6 weeks cos it was a guzzling monster ... had V8 fuel economy and 4 cyl performance

We also recently sold our turbo diesel GQ LWB patrol too because it was also nudging 20 litres per 100 kms (I think the quality of diesel has changed so you are not getting the mileage you used to). And that's a mixture of driving around town and cruising on the hwy .. and no before you ask it wasn't being driven like a drag car.

Anyway, you just keep telling yourself that you are getting good fuel economy and maybe .. just maybe the resale price of your fuel guzzling pootrol won't plummet too much farther

Although I doubt it very much

cheers anyway peeps.... u are just backing up what i suspected all along....i want my hilux back....

thanx for the input an pretty soon i will be joining the army of fuel economy whingers by the sounds of it...

actually it looks like i already have...

Simo63 wrote:I call BS on your BS call

I think you are in denial GU4800. The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy

Everyone I know with large petrol Nissans or Cruisers are always complaining about high fuel consumption up into the 30's per hundred although I can't comment on whether they were driving them for performance or economy (or anything in between). We had a GQ 4.2 petrol for our family 4wd and it was up in the high 20's per hundred .. so much that we sold it after 6 weeks cos it was a guzzling monster ... had V8 fuel economy and 4 cyl performance

We also recently sold our turbo diesel GQ LWB patrol too because it was also nudging 20 litres per 100 kms (I think the quality of diesel has changed so you are not getting the mileage you used to). And that's a mixture of driving around town and cruising on the hwy .. and no before you ask it wasn't being driven like a drag car.

Anyway, you just keep telling yourself that you are getting good fuel economy and maybe .. just maybe the resale price of your fuel guzzling pootrol won't plummet too much farther

Although I doubt it very much

1) I'm in denial - I have owned the thing for 2+ years and done 30K in it. How could I be in denial - I have lived it!

2) I always get a chuckle out of people who say "a mate of mine, or I heard, or people are always saying" and then talk about it as if it is first hand experience. So you've owned an OLD TECH 4.2 petrol GQ - BIG DEAL! We are talking about the 4.5 and the 4.8!

Some questions for you my little armchair expert:-

a) have you owned a 4.5 or 4.8 for an extended period to actually gather any factual information?
b) is the 4.2 GQ you owned for a very long 6 weeks any comparison to the 4.5 or 4.8?

And given that you like to quote others, or a "mate of mine said" here is some other FIRST HAND experiences of the 4.8 from a Nissan Patrol forum:

My manual 4800 car still runs 16.5 lt/100km average over
70,000km now. Goes to 18's with muddies and 15's on long
highway trips at speed limit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have just purchased a 2002 4.8 auto on gas and my first tank of gas returned 24.34 ltr per 100 km driving half country and half city, so I hope I can improve on this as I would kill to get some of the figures you are quoting. I'll keep you posted on how I go with the next few tanks. ***** Further to my recent post, I have found that I'm getting 17.5 ltr/100km on petrol and I found that I had the wrong LPG unit on the vehicle and updated to an Impco which reduced the consumption from 24.5ltr/100km to around 17.5-18ltr/100km which is a vast improvement.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have just filled my new 4.8 manual for the first time.
I chickened out at 700Km and just as well as in took 119lt.
This is 17lt/100km which would give it a range of 750-800km.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, go buy yourself a 4.5 or 4.8, own it for 2 years and then come back and post some FACTUAL information! Or, stay in your armchair, ring your mates every so often for advice and stories and become the worlds best ARMCHAIR EXPERT.

In short - if YOU haven't lived, you can't comment with any certainty or authority on the matter!

P.S> I never said I got good fuel economy compared to other 4x4's - I said I can live with the 20/100 and that is good enough for me. And resale value - couldn't give a toss. I love the car, and it suits my needs.

Oh, some other facts from a 4wd mag test:


Highway - 4.8 @ 15.7
Offroad Low Range - 4.8 @ 32
Highway Hills - 4.8 @ 28

Average the straight highway and offroad low range:

4.8 @ 23

So Simo63, unless you are talking driving offroad ALL the time, in low range, you can expect mileage down around the 20/100. The highway hills refers to winding hills, up and down all day.

I have driven to Sydney in my 4.8 and averaged less than 20/100 over the entire trip - up and back. That is what I consider a good indication and that is what most people quote fuel consumption figures on. So unless you are, or your mates, are quoting based on heaps of offroad work, then your figures are just plain WRONG!

gu4800 wrote:Oh, some other facts from a 4wd mag test:


Highway - 4.8 @ 15.7
Offroad Low Range - 4.8 @ 32
Highway Hills - 4.8 @ 28

Average the straight highway and offroad low range:

4.8 @ 23

So Simo63, unless you are talking driving offroad ALL the time, in low range, you can expect mileage down around the 20/100. The highway hills refers to winding hills, up and down all day.

I have driven to Sydney in my 4.8 and averaged less than 20/100 over the entire trip - up and back. That is what I consider a good indication and that is what most people quote fuel consumption figures on. So unless you are, or your mates, are quoting based on heaps of offroad work, then your figures are just plain WRONG!

Bloody hell!
if i got anywhere near those figures i would not have just bought a desiel GU Wagon.
Uni-chip, Uni-filter, and extractors, 285/75s average economy 22-29ltr per 100klms (1998 4.5 Petrol ) owned the truck for 3 years !

GUEEY wrote:

gu4800 wrote:Oh, some other facts from a 4wd mag test:


Highway - 4.8 @ 15.7
Offroad Low Range - 4.8 @ 32
Highway Hills - 4.8 @ 28

Average the straight highway and offroad low range:

4.8 @ 23

So Simo63, unless you are talking driving offroad ALL the time, in low range, you can expect mileage down around the 20/100. The highway hills refers to winding hills, up and down all day.

I have driven to Sydney in my 4.8 and averaged less than 20/100 over the entire trip - up and back. That is what I consider a good indication and that is what most people quote fuel consumption figures on. So unless you are, or your mates, are quoting based on heaps of offroad work, then your figures are just plain WRONG!

Bloody hell!
if i got anywhere near those figures i would not have just bought a desiel GU Wagon.
Uni-chip, Uni-filter, and extractors, 285/75s average economy 22-29ltr per 100klms (1998 4.5 Petrol ) owned the truck for 3 years !

Shit GU4800 .... this bloke seems to disagree with you ... But I guess he is just a little armchair expert as well. Oh hang on ... he has owned it for how long???? 3 years ... longer than you ?? Oh my god oh master of the universe surely he can't be contradicting you can he?

Lighten up wil ya. Do I really have to own one to be able to relate to Kevdog what other people say who do own them??? Of course not so don't be so narrow minded.

Like I said you are in denial ... well either that or cant add up for shit

gu4800 wrote:

Simo63 wrote:I call BS on your BS call

I think you are in denial GU4800. The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy

Everyone I know with large petrol Nissans or Cruisers are always complaining about high fuel consumption up into the 30's per hundred although I can't comment on whether they were driving them for performance or economy (or anything in between). We had a GQ 4.2 petrol for our family 4wd and it was up in the high 20's per hundred .. so much that we sold it after 6 weeks cos it was a guzzling monster ... had V8 fuel economy and 4 cyl performance

We also recently sold our turbo diesel GQ LWB patrol too because it was also nudging 20 litres per 100 kms (I think the quality of diesel has changed so you are not getting the mileage you used to). And that's a mixture of driving around town and cruising on the hwy .. and no before you ask it wasn't being driven like a drag car.

Anyway, you just keep telling yourself that you are getting good fuel economy and maybe .. just maybe the resale price of your fuel guzzling pootrol won't plummet too much farther

Although I doubt it very much

1) I'm in denial - I have owned the thing for 2+ years and done 30K in it. How could I be in denial - I have lived it!

2) I always get a chuckle out of people who say "a mate of mine, or I heard, or people are always saying" and then talk about it as if it is first hand experience. So you've owned an OLD TECH 4.2 petrol GQ - BIG DEAL! We are talking about the 4.5 and the 4.8!

Some questions for you my little armchair expert:-

a) have you owned a 4.5 or 4.8 for an extended period to actually gather any factual information?
b) is the 4.2 GQ you owned for a very long 6 weeks any comparison to the 4.5 or 4.8?

And given that you like to quote others, or a "mate of mine said" here is some other FIRST HAND experiences of the 4.8 from a Nissan Patrol forum:

My manual 4800 car still runs 16.5 lt/100km average over
70,000km now. Goes to 18's with muddies and 15's on long
highway trips at speed limit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have just purchased a 2002 4.8 auto on gas and my first tank of gas returned 24.34 ltr per 100 km driving half country and half city, so I hope I can improve on this as I would kill to get some of the figures you are quoting. I'll keep you posted on how I go with the next few tanks. ***** Further to my recent post, I have found that I'm getting 17.5 ltr/100km on petrol and I found that I had the wrong LPG unit on the vehicle and updated to an Impco which reduced the consumption from 24.5ltr/100km to around 17.5-18ltr/100km which is a vast improvement.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have just filled my new 4.8 manual for the first time.
I chickened out at 700Km and just as well as in took 119lt.
This is 17lt/100km which would give it a range of 750-800km.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, go buy yourself a 4.5 or 4.8, own it for 2 years and then come back and post some FACTUAL information! Or, stay in your armchair, ring your mates every so often for advice and stories and become the worlds best ARMCHAIR EXPERT.

In short - if YOU haven't lived, you can't comment with any certainty or authority on the matter!

P.S> I never said I got good fuel economy compared to other 4x4's - I said I can live with the 20/100 and that is good enough for me. And resale value - couldn't give a toss. I love the car, and it suits my needs.

And why do you have to get so nasty .. .sitting there behind your computer screen all righteous sounding? The information I passed onto kevdog is correct .. straight from people who have and still do own the sort of vehicle he was enquiring about. I guess you could say they are living it too.

Just because my opinion and advice differs from your (oh and lets not forget Gueey) does that mean I am wrong ... or right for that matter. Like I tried to point out, vehicles of the same make and model can vary in performance and economy figures for no apparent reason however probably to do with state of tune.

Here's a fact for you .... you are ignorant of others opinions.

Simo63 wrote:And why do you have to get so nasty .. .sitting there behind your computer screen all righteous sounding?

I get nasty when someone says that I am in denial. A comment like that is just plain ridiculous - you don't know me and you don't own my car! Denial - I'm a thirty something male who has owned numerous cars over the years. WTF would I be in denial?

So really, that's why I got the shits. That and the fact that others have also backed my claims of 20/100 on the 4.8. I did say in my original post that I was commenting on the 4.8 - not the 4.5 - and that people have different opinions on the fuel consumption of 4.8 in relation to the 4.5 given that they are in fact differnt motors.

Also, GUEEY says he gets between 22-29/100 - WITH MODS, including larger tyres. I do recall someone saying "The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy ". Last time I checked - 22 is early 20's!

I do listen to the other people's opinions - but I won't have someone sit across a network and say I am in denial.

Just out of interest Simo, what are you driving now? (EDIT - I see you drive a TD 80 Series)

gu4800 wrote:

Simo63 wrote:And why do you have to get so nasty .. .sitting there behind your computer screen all righteous sounding?

I get nasty when someone says that I am in denial. A comment like that is just plain ridiculous - you don't know me and you don't own my car! Denial - I'm a thirty something male who has owned numerous cars over the years. WTF would I be in denial?

So really, that's why I got the shits. That and the fact that others have also backed my claims of 20/100 on the 4.8. I did say in my original post that I was commenting on the 4.8 - not the 4.5 - and that people have different opinions on the fuel consumption of 4.8 in relation to the 4.5 given that they are in fact differnt motors.

Also, GUEEY says he gets between 22-29/100 - WITH MODS, including larger tyres. I do recall someone saying "The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy ". Last time I checked - 22 is early 20's!

I do listen to the other people's opinions - but I won't have someone sit across a network and say I am in denial.

Just out of interest Simo, what are you driving now?

not wanting to buy into your Cyber-fight, but in fairness to gu4800 the figure of 29ltr per 100 are taken from an average week when my wife travels to the shops and back.
we live in the mountains outside of melboure were we have a 5 klm steep climb from the foothills suburbs to our home, the car is driven padel to the metal in 3rd gear all the way to home from the bottom off the hill.
That is when you can almost see the fuel gauge fall.
also my truck at the time weighed in at 3100KG with all its shite fitted.
an almost impossible format to expect econamy.
also a "Mate" has a 4.8 Wagon ,and his smashes my truck on fuel usage!
Just thought i would give the full picture!

gu4800 wrote:

Simo63 wrote:And why do you have to get so nasty .. .sitting there behind your computer screen all righteous sounding?

I get nasty when someone says that I am in denial. A comment like that is just plain ridiculous - you don't know me and you don't own my car! Denial - I'm a thirty something male who has owned numerous cars over the years. WTF would I be in denial?

So really, that's why I got the shits. That and the fact that others have also backed my claims of 20/100 on the 4.8. I did say in my original post that I was commenting on the 4.8 - not the 4.5 - and that people have different opinions on the fuel consumption of 4.8 in relation to the 4.5 given that they are in fact differnt motors.

Also, GUEEY says he gets between 22-29/100 - WITH MODS, including larger tyres. I do recall someone saying "The only way your 4.8 litre 180kw 2500kg land based aircraft carrier is going to get down into the 20's is when it's on the back of a tilt tray buddy ". Last time I checked - 22 is early 20's!

I do listen to the other people's opinions - but I won't have someone sit across a network and say I am in denial.

Just out of interest Simo, what are you driving now? (EDIT - I see you drive a TD 80 Series)

Right on I am driving a TD 80 (are you stalking me now??) ... by far and away the cheapest large fourby (worth owning) on fuel usage in my opinion ... I've tried most large forby's (except Discoveries) and listened to the storied from those that own the ones I haven't tried and figured out the TD80 was the car for me. I'd be interested in updating to a GU 3.0 but from what I have seen and heard about the motors, I think I will give them a miss at the moment.

I've also got a few old Rangies laying around, an MQ shorty that is about to be retired and a collection of older muscle cars and early 70 and 80 Jap bikes. And over the years, I have bought, sold and owned more cars that I (or my wife) cares to remember. I think I am up to number 30 something Rangies, had half a dozen GQ's about the same 80 series etc. Never had a GU yet but as I said maybe one day, also wrecked a few Discoveries. Chuck in a hundred or so unrememberable 2 wheel drives and you might just get a picture of someone who has wheeled and dealed, bought & sold, fixed, destroyed, raced, bashed and crashed more cars that I care to remember. Still doesn't make me an expert .... nor would it make you one. I still respect your comments and opinions however you don't seem to respect mine .. why is that?

Anyway, I don't wish to continue a cyber fight (thanks for that term GUEEY) as there are far more important things to worry about ... however I would request that you re-read my post where I made the "denial" comment and you might see that I was making comments with a tone of fun and cheekiness ... not as a shot at you ... as in a joke. Not my style to flame peole as I wouldn't like that myself.

This is the problem with emails etc, they only communicate about 10% of the message, the remaining 90 % is body language and tonal inflection ... both of which don't get communicatd over the internet. I promise my body language was not aggressive when I wrote my email Can we still be friends

I must be boring .. it's Saturday night and all I am doing for entertainment is drinking bundy and having a cyber tiff ... I just got back from the shed rebuilding the son's DS80 motor ... think I should go out and wash the Rangie or something.

Simo63 wrote: ... however I would request that you re-read my post where I made the "denial" comment and you might see that I was making comments with a tone of fun and cheekiness ... not as a shot at you ... as in a joke. Not my style to flame peole as I wouldn't like that myself.

Yes, we can all get carried away sometimes. And yes - emails/forum posts lack all forms of real expression.

I do respect your opinion and those of others. Just didn't want the original author to get scared off by what was probably a slight exageration on some of the fuel figures quoted.

But I guess we can all take something away from this - large 4x4's, especially petrol ones, are not exactly in line for "miser of the year" awards.

If you want to own one - which a lot of us do - then there are sacrifices. And this make come as a surprise to you (sarcasm here) - I didn't look at a diesel as I don't know much about them! (read "I know nothing about them")

gu4800 wrote:

Simo63 wrote: ... however I would request that you re-read my post where I made the "denial" comment and you might see that I was making comments with a tone of fun and cheekiness ... not as a shot at you ... as in a joke. Not my style to flame peole as I wouldn't like that myself.

Yes, we can all get carried away sometimes. And yes - emails/forum posts lack all forms of real expression.

I do respect your opinion and those of others. Just didn't want the original author to get scared off by what was probably a slight exageration on some of the fuel figures quoted.

But I guess we can all take something away from this - large 4x4's, especially petrol ones, are not exactly in line for "miser of the year" awards.

If you want to own one - which a lot of us do - then there are sacrifices. And this make come as a surprise to you (sarcasm here) - I didn't look at a diesel as I don't know much about them! (read "I know nothing about them")

All good GU4800

Diesels are good and once we purchased a factory TD80 series, we never really went back to a petrol motor. We do a fair bit of camping with the 4WD club we are members of and the TD pulls the van with ease although your 4.8 would probably do it easily as well as they are quite powerful I hear (185kw?). The difference is the fuel economy and the torque of the direct injection TD motor but by the time you pay a premium for the TD motor and with the dearer fuel I am not sure of the real economic benefit .. in fact diesels are probably a bit of a false economy at the moment unless you get an ultra late model motor. Out TD auto 80 returns just over 13 litres per hundred and a previous manual TD80 we had returned 11.5 per hundred on average. The direct injection makes a big difference as our TD GQ was up around 18 per hundred at one stage before I had the pump worked on which brought it down closer to 15 per hundred but it never had the power of the direct injection TD 80's. That's what attracts me to the TD 3 litre GU is the direct injection but until they stop the motors going pop (which it does sound like they might have remedied) we will stick with our old 80 (until I sell it that is).

I was reading in today paper about the new 1.9 TD VW golf that returns 5 litres per 100 kms which is astounding and just over the Toyota Prius hybrid (at 4.4 litres per hundred) so the new generation of diesels are certainly cheap on fuel (but not on repair costs I hear but that is another story).

For a big fourby, an efi petrol on gas might be a cheaper option at the moment since the price of diesel passed petrol a year or so ago (why was that?).

Mate's brother converted his 4.5 GU a few months back and he was very happy with it and expected to recoup the cost of the conversion within 2 years ... that was until he hit a cow 2 weeks ago and wrote it off.

Cheers
Simo

Simo63 wrote:
I was reading in today paper about the new 1.9 TD VW golf that returns 5 litres per 100 kms which is astounding and just over the Toyota Prius hybrid (at 4.4 litres per hundred) so the new generation of diesels are certainly cheap on fuel (but not on repair costs I hear but that is another story).

The Golf is a small car. A Petrol Golf wouldnt be that much worse, so dont see any reason to quote that as a cheap option, or great support for the diesel crowd.

On Highway use we got about 7l/100km out of our Petrol Audi A4 (which is basically the same tech as a Golf just bigger).

Used to get about 5/100 out of our Hyundai Excel. Much cheaper again.

The day I bought my SWB Mav (4.2 petrol manual, 29" cheese cutters) I got 14.5 litres/100km on a long highway drive - Sydney to Brisbane.

LWB wagon, a bit worse; gas, a bit worse; big fat tyres, a reasonable amount worse; but the LWB wagon on gas with big tyres is still getting better than 20l/100km in town driving as a rule

I would expect the 4.5 to be no better, since it's basically the same motor, but the 4.8 to be better since it is a significantly more advanced motor technologically.

But, I've owned two 4.2s and no 4.5 or 4.8, so I dunno. But I must say I can't see any reason why 20l/100km would be difficult to achieve at all, unless the injected 4.5 or 4.8 is massively worse in some way than the carburetted 4.2, and I don't believe this is the case.

Jason

It all depends on the individuel drivers and there right foot reflexes. Our petrol auto patrol rarely goes over 2000 rpm's.

ludaCris

Beastmavster wrote:

Simo63 wrote:
I was reading in today paper about the new 1.9 TD VW golf that returns 5 litres per 100 kms which is astounding and just over the Toyota Prius hybrid (at 4.4 litres per hundred) so the new generation of diesels are certainly cheap on fuel (but not on repair costs I hear but that is another story).

The Golf is a small car. A Petrol Golf wouldnt be that much worse, so dont see any reason to quote that as a cheap option, or great support for the diesel crowd.

On Highway use we got about 7l/100km out of our Petrol Audi A4 (which is basically the same tech as a Golf just bigger).

Used to get about 5/100 out of our Hyundai Excel. Much cheaper again.

Okay if you say so. I was just commenting to GU4800 on how new diesel technology has progressed ... I don't want to buy into the whole what's better that what arguement Specifically I was commenting on direct injection versus old tech pre combustion diesels and how they have advanced. In years gone by, old diesels were painfully slow and gutless boat anchors but today's modern diesel are fast and fuel efficient .. just like a 3.0 litre TD GU versus it's old school 4.2 Pre combustion (and let's not get into an arguement over those either).

But as a matter of interest if a petrol golf was say 7 litres per hundred then that would make it 40% worse .... 1 or 2 litres doesn't sound much and it isn't as I'm sure they are both economical but 40% does.

GUEEY wrote:No chance on making a 4.5 fuel efficiant.

my Gu was getting about 250-270 ks out of 80 lts of gas
and 300-320 for 87 ltrs of petrol and i also have a duel map Un-Chip!

Sorry its all bad news.

it is very hard to get econamy fron a 4.5 ltr engine in a 2400 + kg truck


Grant.

Your Gas milage seems good, Id be happy with that

Gas 29.6lt per 100km = $13.62
Diesel 15lt per 100km = $20.85
Petrol 22lt per 100km = $28.60

If I upgrade I was thinking of a 4.2 diesel GU but I still have a 4.5 Dual fuel in the back of my mind for running cost and cheap cost to buy the car.

EricB wrote:

GUEEY wrote:No chance on making a 4.5 fuel efficiant.

my Gu was getting about 250-270 ks out of 80 lts of gas
and 300-320 for 87 ltrs of petrol and i also have a duel map Un-Chip!

Sorry its all bad news.

it is very hard to get econamy fron a 4.5 ltr engine in a 2400 + kg truck


Grant.

Your Gas milage seems good, Id be happy with that

Gas 29.6lt per 100km = $13.62
Diesel 15lt per 100km = $20.85
Petrol 22lt per 100km = $28.60

If I upgrade I was thinking of a 4.2 diesel GU but I still have a 4.5 Dual fuel in the back of my mind for running cost and cheap cost to buy the car.

the advantage in the deisel over the 4.5 is the distance i can travel in the bush for the same amount of fuel.also i am not being ripped of on the price of gas once i get out of melbourne.
My first trip i did in my new GU was at easter were i bought fuel at a midweek low and did the whole trip over easter (800klms) and refilled in melbourne at the low price again.
with my gas GU i would buy gas in melbourne and then be ripped off on every fill up out of melbourne.
making the econamy of the deisel slightly better cost per litre.
when i travel on trips.

Thats a good point plus with the diesel you can play around with the turbo for some more grunt

[quote="Simo63year" awards.

... that was until he hit a cow 2 weeks ago and wrote it off.

Cheers
Simo[/quote]

He wrote the cow off



PS Hi Simo

RN

we drove menai last sunday and than travelled back to canberra on one tank of gas around 320-340km running 35" claws standard 3.9 gearing and auto unichipped with extractors , pretty cheap weekend realy , but yes it sucks that you do need to fuel up regularly unlike the diesels

jai

Seems to be a varied range of results here.
I use mine to tow my work trailer and its no lightweight load it carrys. In this guise I range from 23 to 25 litres but when I am just cruisin weekends etc I have had it down as low as 16. Average is around the 20 mark consistantly.
Once again its horses for courses. I knew the consumption before I purchased the vehicle and am in no way disapointed. The 4.8 is a glorious engine and coupled to the 5 speed tiptronic box is an absolute pleasure to drive. Its quite nifty to be able to bury your right boot and still get way strong surge from a 3 tonner. Even the trailer doesnt have much of an affect on the willingness of this engine to boogey.