200 series cruiser does a million k's

[bigrich]

thought some might find this of mild interest , just goes to show what good regular servicing can achieve

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/buyi ... ocialshare

[No1Mk3]

On Time service is King! My last 8 years of working were for a Veterinary Pathology Lab and ran my 2014 Mazda 2 (petrol) to 468,000 km in 7 years, the only mechanical fault was one CV joint, probably my fault for going off road avoiding a deer one night. Serviced on time every time I still have it for my runabout now I'm retired and on 491,000.

[bigrich]

On Time service is King! My last 8 years of working were for a Veterinary Pathology Lab and ran my 2014 Mazda 2 (petrol) to 468,000 km in 7 years, the only mechanical fault was one CV joint, probably my fault for going off road avoiding a deer one night. Serviced on time every time I still have it for my runabout now I'm retired and on 491,000.

that's a bloody good run mate . changing filters and dumping carbon filled oil really does stretch a engines life

[Die Judicii]

Take note,,,,,
The next time you see/hear from old mate that owns/ed that million klm cruiser will probably be in Toyotas next new advert,, and he'll be driving a new cruiser donated by Toyota, with the old one in the background.

[bigrich]

Take note,,,,,
The next time you see/hear from old mate that owns/ed that million klm cruiser will probably be in Toyotas next new advert,, and he'll be driving a new cruiser donated by Toyota, with the old one in the background.

if i were toyota , that's exactly what i'd do . they'd pay a lot more for advertising than the cost of a new cruiser . when the first non turbo 4.2 diesel nissan patrol's came out they were given a one million kilometre warranty if you had them factory serviced . knowing what i do about the 4.2 nissan diesel i believe they'd do it. the worst thing you can do for reliability is go playing with upping the turbo boost and some of the "go fast" mods people do to a engine . that's not to say there are improvements for efficiency and reliability. i've got a snorkel , aftermarket exhaust (not a straight through) and fitted a scoop on the bonnet of my 3 litre prado for more efficient intercooler air flow ,instead of a flow through system from in front of the radiator . i think i'll look into a carbon catch can that collects the carbon and soot out of the crank case vent system before the oil goes back into the engine . i had the EGR made inoperable when i first got it years ago . dumping carbon back into a engine is not good

[Wapiti]

If you had the EGR blocked Rich, you won't gain anything with a catch can. The oil mist from the breather won't get mixed with anything other than filtered air then, and will just burn off in combustion, and the inside of the intake will just stay slightly wet with a coat of oil.
There won't be any crap allowed to get in and keep coating carbon over itself with the oil from the breather.

All you'll achieve is adding another thing to do at the service and spend more money.
If you haven't blocked the EGR and want a catch can, that's the circumstance to do it but if you've waited 300,000km before you decide, you'll get a bad shock to see how blocked your intake is already. EGR gases mixed with breather mist is the dumbest, most evil cost cutting way of trying to lower emissions ever

[bigrich]

If you had the EGR blocked Rich, you won't gain anything with a catch can. The oil mist from the breather won't get mixed with anything other than filtered air then, and will just burn off in combustion, and the inside of the intake will just stay slightly wet with a coat of oil.
There won't be any crap allowed to get in and keep coating carbon over itself with the oil from the breather.

All you'll achieve is adding another thing to do at the service and spend more money.
If you haven't blocked the EGR and want a catch can, that's the circumstance to do it but if you've waited 300,000km before you decide, you'll get a bad shock to see how blocked your intake is already. EGR gases mixed with breather mist is the dumbest, most evil cost cutting way of trying to lower emissions ever

i've got 360,000 on my 3litre diesel so far , had the EGR made inoperable when i got it at 172,000 . diesel mechanic 6 months ago reckoned it wasn't too bad at all for the k's on it , i had a good look when i had the intercooler off to change the glow plugs last as well .i put that down to the EGR disconnect . with engines that get k's on them you start to get blow by past the rings , this is where a catch can is a good idea . it allows the misted oil from the crankcase to pass back through into the inlet whilst filtering out the harmful carbon particles in the "blow by" from entering the intake and contributing to blocking it . i recently had a "hydrogen" intake clean done on the inlet and it's made my little diesel run noticeably better . this type of clean is becoming popular as it doesn't require disassembly for cleaning and gets to the inside of the head and back of the vales removing carbon as well . when next i do my glow plugs i'll have a look to see how much has been carbon buildup has been removed . i can hear the turbo spooling up taking off from idle now .

when i had my last HQ 308 holden hot rod , catch can was a good addition for performance and keeping the inside of the intake spotless and carbon out of the oil . my HQ was built 2-73 , so i had the catch can atmosphere vented . no ADR 27 or 27A on a vehicle of this age. wish i hadn't lost my pics when my last iphone crapped itself . she was a work of art . this is my main reason for my wanting a catch can on my toyota , the cleaner you can keep your oil , the better a engines longevity and performance. yeah it's a extra thing to keep a eye on , but i don't mind . i have mentioned i'm a little OCD at times ....

[Wapiti]

Catch-can won't keep the carbon out of the oil from blow-by mate. It just collects the oil mist coming out of the breather, causing most of it to turn back to liquid by hitting the screen moulded inside it, and fall into the bottom to be drained off.
Sort of the same way a "separator" works on each gas well. Methane gas comes out with water vapour and liquid, it rises through screens and this causes the water to be trapped and or condense and fall back down, and the methane rises through the top.
Sure, there will be a tiny bit of carbon in with it going into the intake manifiold with the oil, but the result of turning off the exhaust gas by blocking the EGR stops it polymerising in the manifold into thick sludge.
Layer upon layer, restricting the air flow over time.
Your engine is being force-fed carbon-filled oil by the oil pump straight into the oil rings and into all the bearing shells.

Your oil filter won't filter out the tiny microscopic carbon particles that keep building up in your oil, more and more as the oil gets older. The oil filters, from memory depending on brand and quality, can't filter out carbon smaller that between 10-25 micron carbon because it passes through the element weave. That stuff is force-fed into the friction areas in the engine and sprayed onto areas to take heat away.
Engine life requires that oil to be changed before it's so full of carbon and has had all the polymer additive fillaments added that keep the metal surfaces apart under pressure die, so that it slowly hones away the engine.

You can put a catch can on, free world, but if you stopped that abrasive corrosive exhaust gas full of carbon and actual grit itself from entering your intake, you have it sorted. If you do fit a catch can, keep an eye on it because if you let it fill and ignore it, it will block and you will have a problem.

The catch can will stop carbon from getting to the combustion chamber due to what's in the oil mist, but that would be 99.99999% of what's being force-fed into your oil rings from the liquid oil in the sump by the pump.

[Jorlcrin]

thought some might find this of mild interest , just goes to show what good regular servicing can achieve

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/buyi ... ocialshare

Personally, I'm VERY skeptical that you'd be able to repeat this with a current 300 series Landcruiser.

I had a 75 series 1HZ ute here that clocked up 750,000kms before an on-farm accident(rollover) put it off the road; suspect it would've easily clocked a million if that accident hadnt occurred.
My 79 series TD ute is currently somewhere around the 450k mark, and chugging along nicely, with the normal maintenance and repairs done to it.
Our 2008 3.0L TD Hilux clocked over about 500k before the heater internal plumbing failed and rooted the motor; replacement 2nd-hand motor, and it's back at work.
Plenty of other examples here of Toyota vehicles doing many, MANY kms.

But I have very little faith in the 4wd vehicles Toyota is producing new now; the company seems to be chasing the glitzy, techy end of town, and ignoring the durable reliability that earned them their solid reputation in the first place.
I dont have much faith in the expected longevity of the new 2025 Hilux ute we bought last year.
That Hilux will likely be the last new Toyota I'll be prepared to buy; might consider 2nd-hand from about 10 years ago, but no longer consider new.
Take the Landcruiser ute; I dont care how hard anyone polishes that lump of dried fecal matter; a 2.8TD working it's arse off, isnt going to have the life expectancy of the previous 4.5L V8 TD motor.
And dont get me started on the crap known as 'Toyota Connect', that is baked in to nearly every new Toyota...

I'm happy for the bloke he got a Million kms, but I'd wonder if thats ever going to happen with the new models.

[Wapiti]

Take the Landcruiser ute; I dont care how hard anyone polishes that lump of dried fecal matter; a 2.8TD working it's arse off, isnt going to have the life expectancy of the previous 4.5L V8 TD motor.
And don't get me started on the crap known as 'Toyota Connect', that is baked in to nearly every new Toyota...

Toyotas' good Landcruisers died with the end of the 1HD-FTE.
Dunno about the very hardworking 2.8 compromise they grafted into the utes to get around emissions requirements, but heaps of the archaic 4.5 V8 insults have repeatedly blown on many blokes out here who run them hard, and don't mollycuddle or polish them for occasional trips or the school runs after jacking them up or chipping them to try and get closer to what a V8 is supposed to be.

I love my Landcruiser utes, they are the only thing left that won't leave oil, coolant or bits of plastic at every rocky track or creek crossing out here like any other IFS show-pony. That's if the dashes don't fall out of them and trap you in the cab by the feet.
I've lost count how many tines I've replaced a/c fan switches, vents, seals and warning light bulbs behind the dash. And the poxy insults for speakers they put into the utes until recently.

As much as the people who have anything else say that have never driven one, I'm going to get a Raptor next time. I'm sick of buying fake reliability and having to wait 10 months and endure 2 more price rises before they bring one in on order... deliberately to make a now compromise into a myth. For something that will not last, for more money.

[bigrich]

thought some might find this of mild interest , just goes to show what good regular servicing can achieve

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/buyi ... ocialshare

Personally, I'm VERY skeptical that you'd be able to repeat this with a current 300 series Landcruiser.

I had a 75 series 1HZ ute here that clocked up 750,000kms before an on-farm accident(rollover) put it off the road; suspect it would've easily clocked a million if that accident hadnt occurred.
My 79 series TD ute is currently somewhere around the 450k mark, and chugging along nicely, with the normal maintenance and repairs done to it.
Our 2008 3.0L TD Hilux clocked over about 500k before the heater internal plumbing failed and rooted the motor; replacement 2nd-hand motor, and it's back at work.
Plenty of other examples here of Toyota vehicles doing many, MANY kms.

But I have very little faith in the 4wd vehicles Toyota is producing new now; the company seems to be chasing the glitzy, techy end of town, and ignoring the durable reliability that earned them their solid reputation in the first place.
I dont have much faith in the expected longevity of the new 2025 Hilux ute we bought last year.
That Hilux will likely be the last new Toyota I'll be prepared to buy; might consider 2nd-hand from about 10 years ago, but no longer consider new.
Take the Landcruiser ute; I dont care how hard anyone polishes that lump of dried fecal matter; a 2.8TD working it's arse off, isnt going to have the life expectancy of the previous 4.5L V8 TD motor.
And dont get me started on the crap known as 'Toyota Connect', that is baked in to nearly every new Toyota...

I'm happy for the bloke he got a Million kms, but I'd wonder if thats ever going to happen with the new models.

i agree with you . i think toyota has dropped the ball and places too much focus on gimmicks rather than good, reliable engineering . talking to my diesel mechanic i use, he had a 200 series (i think) in his shop with a v8 motor that was stuffed. apparently the air box on some of the newer v8's doesn't seal properly and dust ingestion wears some out long before their due ,only had 240 thou k's on it . my 2006 prado is the last of the early 3 litre diesels with the reliable 4 speed auto . i did a lot of research before buying mine and it's proved extremely reliable for a long time . except recently i must've run over a old gypsy woman who gave me the evil eye replaced the water pump , harmonic balancer , thought it was all good . then the alternator went while driving to work. all in the last month. in the case of the alternator it had some rattles in it , i think corrugations destroyed it , only had 130,000 on it . the original toyota part lasted till 250k . i find my 3 litre toyota easy to work on , the v8's look like a PITA . i'll be keeping mine for a while yet . i'll keep a eye out for the heater core failure . cheers

[bigrich]

Catch-can won't keep the carbon out of the oil from blow-by mate. It just collects the oil mist coming out of the breather, causing most of it to turn back to liquid by hitting the screen moulded inside it, and fall into the bottom to be drained off.
Sort of the same way a "separator" works on each gas well. Methane gas comes out with water vapour and liquid, it rises through screens and this causes the water to be trapped and or condense and fall back down, and the methane rises through the top.
Sure, there will be a tiny bit of carbon in with it going into the intake manifiold with the oil, but the result of turning off the exhaust gas by blocking the EGR stops it polymerising in the manifold into thick sludge.
Layer upon layer, restricting the air flow over time.
Your engine is being force-fed carbon-filled oil by the oil pump straight into the oil rings and into all the bearing shells.

Your oil filter won't filter out the tiny microscopic carbon particles that keep building up in your oil, more and more as the oil gets older. The oil filters, from memory depending on brand and quality, can't filter out carbon smaller that between 10-25 micron carbon because it passes through the element weave. That stuff is force-fed into the friction areas in the engine and sprayed onto areas to take heat away.
Engine life requires that oil to be changed before it's so full of carbon and has had all the polymer additive fillaments added that keep the metal surfaces apart under pressure die, so that it slowly hones away the engine.

You can put a catch can on, free world, but if you stopped that abrasive corrosive exhaust gas full of carbon and actual grit itself from entering your intake, you have it sorted. If you do fit a catch can, keep an eye on it because if you let it fill and ignore it, it will block and you will have a problem.

The catch can will stop carbon from getting to the combustion chamber due to what's in the oil mist, but that would be 99.99999% of what's being force-fed into your oil rings from the liquid oil in the sump by the pump.

yeah , your quite right that a catch can isn't the be all and end all solution , but every little bit helps . pobably won't get around to fitting one for a little while , i've had to spend a bit on my trusty tojo recently , depleting the bank account . that and spending money on my various firearms projects
EGR block off and frequent oil changes/filters are the most effective way to preserve a engine , something i'm right onto

[Die Judicii]

Adding to what Jolcrin said above about when Toyota stopped making (reliable long lasting vehicles) I'd go one step even further back,,,
I reckon the rot set in as far back as when they started selling vehicles that were mainly aimed for off road,, but no longer had vinyl floor coverings.

[bigrich]

Adding to what Jolcrin said above about when Toyota stopped making (reliable long lasting vehicles) I'd go one step even further back,,,
I reckon the rot set in as far back as when they started selling vehicles that were mainly aimed for off road,, but no longer had vinyl floor coverings.

i agree . 80 series lancruisers and GQ patrols were probably the high point of true 4x4's . early 80's hiluxes are a great vehicle, but not for me . i don't fit , let alone be able to use the clutch in one . at 120 something kilo and 6 foot 5 with boots on their more than a squeeze for me
only problem with vynal flooring is if it gets water under it , it just sweats and rots out the floor pan . i played around with old 70's cars to have seen this . painted steel is better . FJ40's and series 2 landy's are a good go forever vehicle. but you can stuff shorty's, the bucking and rolling in the suspension doesn't make for a pleasant ride a mate of mine had a FJ40 shorty years ago, and it could just about climb and descend vertical obstacles . bit scary when your expecting the fourby to flip onto it's roof landy's have strange odd ball english thread sizes , usually about six different types on the one vehicle which is a PITA needing so many different tools.

[Cape_Yorkee]

Diesels, diesels, diesels.

Once one owns a 1GR-FE V6 - you won't look at a diesel ever again.

500K with just basic servicing is very common. I've seen a few with 600+ and they drive like brand new. And they chew just 1 or 2L extra per 100K compared to the 3L diesel counterpart (1kdftv)

[bigrich]

Diesels, diesels, diesels.

Once one owns a 1GR-FE V6 - you won't look at a diesel ever again.

500K with just basic servicing is very common. I've seen a few with 600+ and they drive like brand new. And they chew just 1 or 2L extra per 100K compared to the 3L diesel counterpart (1kdftv)

that's interesting info mate , i'll keep that in mind . besides fuel availability , one of the best reasons for diesels out bush , provided their air intake is sorted, you can briefly submerge them under water, whilst i've lost count of the number of petrol powered vehicles i've seen conked out trying to get through flood water over the years. that's a real advantage when out bush . not that i'm at all keen on driving through deep water , specially if it's flowing

[Jorlcrin]

Diesels, diesels, diesels.

Once one owns a 1GR-FE V6 - you won't look at a diesel ever again.

500K with just basic servicing is very common. I've seen a few with 600+ and they drive like brand new. And they chew just 1 or 2L extra per 100K compared to the 3L diesel counterpart (1kdftv)

Nice looking motor, (and looks to be from the Golden era for Toyota,) but I'll pass.

Living in the bush, my preference for diesel is threefold:-

1). It doesnt go off very quickly; even PULP goes off in a matter of months, just takes longer than standard ULP.
Diesel will still work in 5 years time, if stored properly.
Back when we had things like Super and Standard petrol, petrol kept for years if stored properly.
But ULP is pretty bad for going off, and while PULP is better, storage life isnt close to what diesel will do.

2). Availability; Every settlement will have some option of scrounging diesel to keep you going, but very few will keep spare ULP or PULP.
Have a look at how many small towns in rural areas are now only serviced by one of those pod diesel refuelling setups.
Same fuel that runs in my Landcruisers, runs in my Hiluxes, Backhoe, Grader, Truck, and Standby Generator.
Most of my heavier equipment is only available in diesel, so commonality is king.

3). Diesel is harder to ignite if it spills/leaks; Storing bulk quantities of diesel in a hot climate isnt as problematic as storing bulk quantities of ULP or PULP.
And there are a lot less storage options for bulk ULP/PULP available.
We store 2-3 months of diesel on hand(mainly for heavy equipment and generator), and I'm a LOT less worried about a 5,000 litre tank of diesel behind the workshop, than if it was ULP.
We do keep a couple of 200L (ex-AvGas) drums of PULP on hand for the bikes and pumps etc, but thats all we need.

These are MY preferences, and I appreciate they dont suit everyone.
But personally, I'd be hesitant to be doing any big trips into remote areas if it wasnt diesel powered.

[Wapiti]

Problem with the petrols is that when use on properties, and the same if you were on an outback trip, is they fuel consumption when not running optimally and spun up is way more fuel consumption than diesels.
The 1GR-FE V6 engine is great when the conditions are ideal, highways and uninterrupted gliding along, but when in low range or in the lower gears when used as a work farm ute, the fuel consumption is terrifying when compared to a diesel running alongside.
I know this from using one, and if it wasn't for on-farm fuel top-ups the thing would not be viable. As it was, the value of the combination is just not worth continuing.
That's the main reason diesels are popular in the bush.
It's not the cost of the fuel, it's that the diesel doesn't need to carry a tray of jerrycans with it.
Of course, when acceleration and commuting is the only consideration, the tables might turn but I'd rather longevity and energy conversion value of diesel.
Running between properties by highway as I do also, a petrol might stack up, but when in-between the week is running around with tools and welders, trailers and tools, petrol engines are not worth the terrible fuel consumption and the peaky power curves.

On engine life, there are always examples of some engine with some owner lasting well.
Some owners stick to maintenance schedules that change out the oils and filters before they degrade and allow premature engine wear, and some don't. The recommended oil changes in vehicles today is skewed to maintenance costs for fleets, not for when the owners use has caused the oil to break down and start to fail.
And of course, some drivers do not thrash an engine everytime they drive it and have mechanical sympathy.
Clean oil in an engine for both, and the diesels heavy engine construction (except the new pitiful lightweight throw-away Toyota engines) always sees better life.

[bladeracer]

I've never had a diesel as economical as a petrol engine. 2.2L diesel gave me the same 7kpl as the 253 I swapped it out for. Our Landcruiser 4.2L gives us maybe 6.5kpl on a very good highway run. We don't take the Cruiser to town, it stays on the farm unless we're trailering hay or cattle. We bring fuel home for it in jerry cans - the trip into town, and back, just to fill it up would burn six litres of diesel. Our petrol cars get us at least twice as far on a litre of 98. The Cruiser is only for pulling heavy trailers, negotiating difficult terrain, and moving heavy stuff between the blocks - it's basically a second tractor. Maintenance and repairs are also way more expensive than the same work on the cars.

We avoid driving in the paddocks unless we have to, we drive to the gate, then walk. We have to drive in when we need to move the pump and troughs to the next paddock, and when we go in to bring firewood back to the house. We use flat-bottom plastic tubs to drag hay and other stuff around the paddocks on foot.

Problem with the petrols is that when use on properties, and the same if you were on an outback trip, is they fuel consumption when not running optimally and spun up is way more fuel consumption than diesels.
The 1GR-FE V6 engine is great when the conditions are ideal, highways and uninterrupted gliding along, but when in low range or in the lower gears when used as a work farm ute, the fuel consumption is terrifying when compared to a diesel running alongside.
I know this from using one, and if it wasn't for on-farm fuel top-ups the thing would not be viable. As it was, the value of the combination is just not worth continuing.
That's the main reason diesels are popular in the bush.
It's not the cost of the fuel, it's that the diesel doesn't need to carry a tray of jerrycans with it.
Of course, when acceleration and commuting is the only consideration, the tables might turn but I'd rather longevity and energy conversion value of diesel.
Running between properties by highway as I do also, a petrol might stack up, but when in-between the week is running around with tools and welders, trailers and tools, petrol engines are not worth the terrible fuel consumption and the peaky power curves.

On engine life, there are always examples of some engine with some owner lasting well.
Some owners stick to maintenance schedules that change out the oils and filters before they degrade and allow premature engine wear, and some don't. The recommended oil changes in vehicles today is skewed to maintenance costs for fleets, not for when the owners use has caused the oil to break down and start to fail.
And of course, some drivers do not thrash an engine everytime they drive it and have mechanical sympathy.
Clean oil in an engine for both, and the diesels heavy engine construction (except the new pitiful lightweight throw-away Toyota engines) always sees better life.

[Cape_Yorkee]

Maintenance and repairs are also way more expensive than the same work on the cars.

Problem with the petrols is that when use on properties, and the same if you were on an outback trip, is they fuel consumption when not running optimally and spun up is way more fuel consumption than diesels.
The 1GR-FE V6 engine is great when the conditions are ideal, highways and uninterrupted gliding along, but when in low range or in the lower gears when used as a work farm ute, the fuel consumption is terrifying when compared to a diesel running alongside.
I know this from using one, and if it wasn't for on-farm fuel top-ups the thing would not be viable. As it was, the value of the combination is just not worth continuing.
That's the main reason diesels are popular in the bush.
It's not the cost of the fuel, it's that the diesel doesn't need to carry a tray of jerrycans with it.
Of course, when acceleration and commuting is the only consideration, the tables might turn but I'd rather longevity and energy conversion value of diesel.
Running between properties by highway as I do also, a petrol might stack up, but when in-between the week is running around with tools and welders, trailers and tools, petrol engines are not worth the terrible fuel consumption and the peaky power curves.

On engine life, there are always examples of some engine with some owner lasting well.
Some owners stick to maintenance schedules that change out the oils and filters before they degrade and allow premature engine wear, and some don't. The recommended oil changes in vehicles today is skewed to maintenance costs for fleets, not for when the owners use has caused the oil to break down and start to fail.
And of course, some drivers do not thrash an engine everytime they drive it and have mechanical sympathy.
Clean oil in an engine for both, and the diesels heavy engine construction (except the new pitiful lightweight throw-away Toyota engines) always sees better life.

Yep... proper maintenance on diesels adds huge $$$ to running costs. Petrol engines require little maintenance. If looked after well, trouble free motoring is entirely possible. No injector pump failure, no blown turbo, etc.

Yes diesels in the bush have always had a cult following but rural people are starting to see the positives of Petrol vehicles. And we all know we don't buy a Toyota for fuel consumption - we buy one for reliability.

[9.3x64]

One thing I really dislike is carry extra petrol, diesel is different. But carrying petrol has to be treated with a lot of respect, and if you are in an accident you are way better off with diesel in a Jerry can than petrol.
I had a schoolmate lose his father while he was mowing the lawn years ago. His own fault for filling a hot mower, but the point is petrol is unforgiving. Diesel is much safer.

[bladeracer]

One thing I really dislike is carry extra petrol, diesel is different. But carrying petrol has to be treated with a lot of respect, and if you are in an accident you are way better off with diesel in a Jerry can than petrol.
I had a schoolmate lose his father while he was mowing the lawn years ago. His own fault for filling a hot mower, but the point is petrol is unforgiving. Diesel is much safer.

Can't disagree with that. In the early nineties there was a teacher severely burned when he filled up a running compressor inside the back of a van.

[bigrich]

[quote="bladeracer"]I've never had a diesel as economical as a petrol engine. 2.2L diesel gave me the same 7kpl as the 253 I swapped it out for. Our Landcruiser 4.2L gives us maybe 6.5kpl on a very good highway run. We don't take the Cruiser to town, it stays on the farm unless we're trailering hay or cattle. We bring fuel home for it in jerry cans - the trip into town, and back, just to fill it up would burn six litres of diesel. Our petrol cars get us at least twice as far on a litre of 98. The Cruiser is only for pulling heavy trailers, negotiating difficult terrain, and moving heavy stuff between the blocks - it's basically a second tractor. Maintenance and repairs are also way more expensive than the same work on the cars.

We avoid driving in the paddocks unless we have to, we drive to the gate, then walk. We have to drive in when we need to move the pump and troughs to the next paddock, and when we go in to bring firewood back to the house. We use flat-bottom plastic tubs to drag hay and other stuff around the paddocks on foot.(quote)


you raise some interesting points blade . i've had a lot to do with holden 253's in the past , some that were seriously hot rodded that punched well above their weight . but i won't digress to my hot rodding days , except to say power to weight ratio can be quite surprising regarding fuel economy. the holden 253 is actually a very efficient design , and myself and others found a well tuned 253 in any holden sedan/ute/wagon was far better on fuel cause it lugged along , very under stressed , compared to a 202 or 186 trying to pull the same weight .

petrol vs diesel , i've known fellas with petrol 80 series cruisers that remark how thirsty they are when worked hard compared to the pulling power of a TD42 nissan diesel in a early patrol . not knowing what petrol cars your comparing your cruiser to is a bit hard to respond to , but most folks i've known with older 4x4's , especially worked hard out bush or on the sand , take notice of how thirsty petrol engines are to diesels . maybe your cruiser has tuning issues that make it thirsty. fair point though that diesels cost more to service .

general comment , my own vehicle , that i'm very happy with , is a 2006 3litre diesel prado , with the early 4 speed auto . it's not fast , it doesn't do high speed overtaking , i use the torque and plan ahead like driving a truck . it gets me 10L per 100K on average . being a GXL model it has the optional sub tank that gives me a fuel capacity of 180 litres , so it's got a long range on one tank . i've put it to the test done quite a few longer distance trips , one for instance was out to bollon west of st george from logan SEQ , including driving around the property it was a 1600k trip , so i know what my fuel economy is like , and it's handy to do that on one fill up when leaving home
when i go on hunting trips i drive out anywhere from 3-6hrs from home , it idles up and down steep ridge/granite/trap rock country with no effort , due to the low end torque of the diesel , and i drive it home again . i've been out where fuel supply can be intermittent , but i know i could probably buy diesel off someone on a property in a emergency . so when it comes to diesel vs petrol , use what suits your particular set of needs . i'm happy with my old diesel, wouldn't trade it for a new 4x4 with all the high tech gimmicks that can go wrong

[Cape_Yorkee]

80 Series petrol Landcruisers... now we're talking!
Mega thirsty on fuel, but gees the 1fz is just as bulletproof as the 1hz. You wouldn't see me owning one but they are fetching crazy prices as we speak. You couldn't find someone 10yrs ago that would be keen on a 80 Petrol - now there are quite a few (certainly not tourers, but out and out 4wders). At best, you might get 17 or 18L per 100 going easy on the throttle with one.

Filled up in Cairns today - $2.45L for diesel, $2.04 for petrol. Like you rich I also have a 120 Prado (2009 diesel) with the factory 180L tank (actually 1 x 92 and 1 x 88L tank plumbed together) - filling up the last few months hasnt been enjoyable. The wife has an 08 120 V6 Prado and again I can't say enough good things about it. With current fuel prices (and let's face it they will not get any better) the V6 is way in front. Some petrols do guzzle fuel admitadly but a good deal of this lies in the heaviness of the right foot too!

[bigrich]

80 Series petrol Landcruisers... now we're talking!
Mega thirsty on fuel, but gees the 1fz is just as bulletproof as the 1hz. You wouldn't see me owning one but they are fetching crazy prices as we speak. You couldn't find someone 10yrs ago that would be keen on a 80 Petrol - now there are quite a few (certainly not tourers, but out and out 4wders). At best, you might get 17 or 18L per 100 going easy on the throttle with one.

Filled up in Cairns today - $2.45L for diesel, $2.04 for petrol. Like you rich I also have a 120 Prado (2009 diesel) with the factory 180L tank (actually 1 x 92 and 1 x 88L tank plumbed together) - filling up the last few months hasnt been enjoyable. The wife has an 08 120 V6 Prado and again I can't say enough good things about it. With current fuel prices (and let's face it they will not get any better) the V6 is way in front. Some petrols do guzzle fuel admitadly but a good deal of this lies in the heaviness of the right foot too!

some good points mate , i recall nissan 4.2 petrol patrols being turboed for massive horsepower , due to the fact the bottom ends are the same . diesel runs high compression so the bottom ends are very strong. when they built the petrol 4.2 they just put a different head on top set up for a petrol engine . not sure what toyota did , but the petrols in the 80 series do make good power , but are very thirsty . i deliberately went with the last of the older series 3litre in my prado cause of their reputation for reliability, parts availability (they are a hilux wagon really ) , and ease of working on them . the 4 speed auto's also are reliable and long lasting . other thing i find about my prado is being a shorter wheelbase than a dual cab , and having a coil spring rear end that articulates well , it performs offroad very well . your quite correct about fuel consumption/matinence and driving style and habits . the factory longe range fuel tanks are a definite advantage at times

[bladeracer]

I bought the 253 engine in bits from a guy that was rebuilding it but ran out of time to finish it. I had to pick the heads up from the machine shop (getting faced) but other than that I built it totally stock. I had two 302 Falcons prior to that and they all gave me around that same fuel economy.

When we decided we wanted a 4x4 for the farm I insisted on an early nineties Cruiser because I was driving them in the Kimberley and was impressed with their ability to just idle through some tough terrain. It still impresses me some of the slippery slops it'll drag itself up without complaining.

Our '94 also has a long-range tank under the back, but we're never going to drive it that far so it's pointless lugging all that fuel around, we've never used it. It might have some sort of tuning issues but it gets good maintenance, we just spent $2600 last month on all new brakes and some other bits that needed doing. Put a new head on it two years ago ($5500), and new radiator last year ($1000). The fuel economy is not unexpected so I don't think it's a matter of tuning it. I don't think I've ever met anybody spruiking the amazing fuel economy of their old Cruiser

When I do the long trips I carry 60L of fuel in the car, just insurance that'll get me 1200kms or so if there's no fuel around, so I should be able to get home from anywhere I might go. If I do manage to go to Perth next month it's 3500km each way. Adelaide in October is 1000km each way. Mildura the weekend after Adelaide is 750km each way. We were discussing yesterday whether I might have to do a Cleaver run this year for ammo for the club members. Chisholm Trail at Millmerran is in six weeks, but I think it'll be very difficult to fit that trip in (4000km round trip).

Same, I have no interest in recent vehicles, the electrical system has been the biggest weakness since the invention of the internal combustion engine, so nowadays every part of the car is connected to the battery - ridiculous But I also will not take on debt for a vehicle. I'll only buy a vehicle I can afford to own.

you raise some interesting points blade . i've had a lot to do with holden 253's in the past , some that were seriously hot rodded that punched well above their weight . but i won't digress to my hot rodding days , except to say power to weight ratio can be quite surprising regarding fuel economy. the holden 253 is actually a very efficient design , and myself and others found a well tuned 253 in any holden sedan/ute/wagon was far better on fuel cause it lugged along , very under stressed , compared to a 202 or 186 trying to pull the same weight .

petrol vs diesel , i've known fellas with petrol 80 series cruisers that remark how thirsty they are when worked hard compared to the pulling power of a TD42 nissan diesel in a early patrol . not knowing what petrol cars your comparing your cruiser to is a bit hard to respond to , but most folks i've known with older 4x4's , especially worked hard out bush or on the sand , take notice of how thirsty petrol engines are to diesels . maybe your cruiser has tuning issues that make it thirsty. fair point though that diesels cost more to service .

general comment , my own vehicle , that i'm very happy with , is a 2006 3litre diesel prado , with the early 4 speed auto . it's not fast , it doesn't do high speed overtaking , i use the torque and plan ahead like driving a truck . it gets me 10L per 100K on average . being a GXL model it has the optional sub tank that gives me a fuel capacity of 180 litres , so it's got a long range on one tank . i've put it to the test done quite a few longer distance trips , one for instance was out to bollon west of st george from logan SEQ , including driving around the property it was a 1600k trip , so i know what my fuel economy is like , and it's handy to do that on one fill up when leaving home
when i go on hunting trips i drive out anywhere from 3-6hrs from home , it idles up and down steep ridge/granite/trap rock country with no effort , due to the low end torque of the diesel , and i drive it home again . i've been out where fuel supply can be intermittent , but i know i could probably buy diesel off someone on a property in a emergency . so when it comes to diesel vs petrol , use what suits your particular set of needs . i'm happy with my old diesel, wouldn't trade it for a new 4x4 with all the high tech gimmicks that can go wrong