|
|
|
Looking at Pajeros on the bay and in the trader, both seem to be around similar age and specs.
Is there much difference between the performance and fuel consumption of the two, reliability of the two or the compatability with veggie oil?
Cheers guys, I know you won't let me down. Would love a decent diesel Landcruiser but budget isn't likely to stretch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mate's got a 2.8 litre turbo diesel and it goes well. I couldn't say what the 2.5 is like because I've never driven one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, my brother has had both and now has the 3.2. He loved them all but used them as a builders van as well as family car and doesn't mess with the oily bits, he just paid the dealer or local diesel specialists to keep them up to fettle, so couldn't advise on reliability.
As he never ran chippy oil in his, and has only owned diesel 4x4s for the last 15 years he can't remember how the performance of each compared to a normal car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.8 is a lot quicker than 2.5!!! thus 2.5 will be a bit more reliable!!!!pays your money takes your choice!!!!
|
|
|
|
will
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 2.5 swb had it nearly 5 years now and i would not part with it. On a long run i can get about 30 mpg.I also used to run on bio fuel and it was better again but the guy i got it of does not sell the fuel now. Never ran a 2.8 so i can not say what there like.
|
|
|
|
conrad
Posted a lot
Here to fix your cabin.......
Posts: 1,678
|
|
|
how the performance of each compared to a normal car. To do that is foolish, they're not a "normal car" not a car at all, if you try to drive one in the same way as you'd drive a car you won't get away with it, same as if you try to tow the sort of stuff they can tow or drive over the sort of terrain they can cover off road, but with a car, you won't get away with that. Yes it will have worse MPG than an average car "handle" worse and be harder to drive but if it's what you want then you've just got to adapt to it and forget . The 2.5 is usually less hassle but for a lwb, powerwise the 2.8 is a better bet. Early 30s mpg on a steady run is the best you're going to get, you have to remember how big and heavy they are, how much power the transmission takes up just to get it moving and that they're as aerodynamic as a brick. Around town, if you're seriously worried about mpg just don't get one (pajero/shoguns arent particularly bad or anything, it's just that 4x4s in general are not ideal at all for stop start city driving)
|
|
|
|
bigrod
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,654
|
|
|
I considered this when I was looking to buy mine.
What did I buy?
A LWB 3.0 petrol.
The reason was that the MPG figures were comparable with the diesels and it was to be used on motorways quite a bit of the time.
I'm happy with my decision, (except that it's been in the garage for some time having some 'things' fixed and has cost a pretty penny on maintenance so far.)
|
|
If I have to explain, you won't understand. Maximum signature image height = 80 pixels
|
|
|
|
|
don't DO NOT NEVER get the 2.8
ive been told by more than one very trusted source that if they lose the head gasket, you cant skim the heads because of some weird coating somewhere.
2.5. awesome. my mate had a petrol v6 and it went like hella fook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 2.8s have ceramic valve guides, although there is a firm making metal replacements now I believe from what the google gnomes tell me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrod
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,654
|
|
|
my mate had a petrol v6 and it went like hella fook They're not that quick really but they don't hang about.
|
|
If I have to explain, you won't understand. Maximum signature image height = 80 pixels
|
|
davej
Part of things
Posts: 314
|
|
|
|
|
+ 2007 Octavia Vrs estate, 1971 Beetle project, 2004 Shogun Sport
|
|
V-Force
Part of things
I like Hondas.
Posts: 846
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: May 5, 2011 17:22:45 GMT by V-Force
1999 Impreza WRX typeR STI Version 5 Limited 1999 Civic VTi-S Aerodeck 2005 Bora TDI daily
Several other 90s Hondas (shhh they're sleeping)
|
|
orangecords
Part of things
yawner extraordinaire
Posts: 892
|
|
|
i had a 2.5-it was slower than jeff brazier but fun
|
|
I then wanted to start cleaning the interior as it stinks of wood (the material not the smell of a boner) best quote ever!
|
|
|
|
|
I had a couple of 2.8s and test drove a few 2.5s. TBH I wouldn't recommend any of them.
Both the diesels and the v6 should get about 28mpg. The 2.5 can let go with the hg, the pumps, and the belts. The 2.8 is chain driven so no belts but the fuel pump and hg can go and are very expensive to sort out.
The 2.8 head CAN be skimmed but has hardened valve seats so costs an absolute fortune, circa £320 + vat.
They also rust very badly - not really supposed to be that bad but I watched our checked over, already plated one dissolve in one year flat, covering just 2000 miles and having every single engine part rebuilt.
I would only consider a v6, and only a cheap one so that you can weigh it in when it rusts through.
|
|
|
|
jinky
Part of things
Posts: 91
|
|
|
Never mind the diesel, get the 3.5V6 petrol SWB like mine its nuts. 15 mpg round town if I'm lucky but mental wheel spinning sliding fun , especially in snow and roundabouts!!
|
|
94 Pajero 3500V6 85 LT31 camper 83 Nova 1.2L 3dr 67 Herald 1360 98 VFR800 F1 74 Mobylette
|
|
V-Force
Part of things
I like Hondas.
Posts: 846
|
|
|
They don't rust if they have been undersealed. Its not that often that Pajeros rot, due to them living in Japan for most of their lives where they don't salt the roads. Ours was a 1994 model, imported in 2003 and had no rust protection whatsoever yet was still solid as a rock underneath and bodywise when we sold it in February. Shoguns rot like mad though, I don't think they had any additional rust protection over JDM Pajeros but have driven on salty roads a lot longer.
|
|
1999 Impreza WRX typeR STI Version 5 Limited 1999 Civic VTi-S Aerodeck 2005 Bora TDI daily
Several other 90s Hondas (shhh they're sleeping)
|
|
rob0r
East of England
Posts: 2,743
Club RR Member Number: 104
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: May 6, 2011 12:08:06 GMT by rob0r
E30 320i 3.5 - E23 730 - E3 3.0si - E21 316 M42 - E32 750i ETC
|
|
|
|