Diesel Vs. Propane Vs. Gas - HDJ81 Vs. Suburban

[crushers]

Yes I've been watching him closely for a while, unfortunately he doesn't seem very keen on giving information. .

do a search... the info is out there...

you want a more inexpensive unit then try James at JDMWholesale... he might be able to fill your needs.

 

[Dougal]

the old 350s cranked out 325 hp with high 20s fuel milage...
this is from personal experience, the newer V8 engines are STILL trying to achieve that milage.

I would like to see some evidence to backup your claims.

The LS1 in the Holden Monaro was the last of it's breed. That put out 350Hp in a stock vehicle which until two years ago met all the emssions criteria.
It returned almost 10 km/L when driven sedately on the open road. The aussie hot rodders were ecstatic with that fuel economy, best they had ever had.
http://www.users.on.net/~nweber/commodore/vz/vz-specs.html#ho260

The prevous 350's (we have them here, we have no emissions laws) drank an unholey amount of fuel and didn't produce that amount of power.

your posting was wrong, or are you to proud to admit your mistakes? never mind, over your last 250 post you have never admited wrong just ignored them when pointed out.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Denis, Roscoe and others have corrected me here.
You fail to correct me for many reasons. The main one being you can't read correctly, the second being a lack of technical knowledge, a third is a habit of making ridiculous assumptions.

 

[Dougal]

The LS1 in the Holden Monaro was the last of it's breed. That put out 350Hp in a stock vehicle which until two years ago met all the emssions criteria.

Turns out some of the VYII Holden's had a 300kw (400hp) LS1.

 

[45Kevin]

I bought a 1998 diesel 'burb in March. It has the 6.5 tubo in it. It seems to work fine and gets about 20mpg in the city. I have not done any real long trips with it yet but going to mountains a few times has netted low 20's. It is a noisy engine and i hope that Bio-d will run quiter.

I have been told that when towing it very important to keep the engine and tranny cooling system working properly. I did quite a bit of reading on the truck before I got it and read lots of bad stuff but anyone that i spoke with that owned one said they were happy with it.

I am sure you could find a lot a stuff about bad heads or BEB's in LC's but anyone that actually owns one loves them.

The burban is big. I can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in it with the seats folded down and the doors will close. It seats 5 large adults very comfortably. It will easily seat five and all their luggage, including skis.

The diesel 'burbs have 1 ton running gear, so the suspension is hard.

I am happy with the truck so far. It has 150k km on it.

 

[83bj60]

I feel so misunderstood. I originally purchased an HDJ81 because I always wanted a landcruiser and did not want a pile of rust. I have the financial means now to get what I want. I was also attracted to the fuel consumption numbers I saw which I now know are only achieved under ideal circumstances. The 4.2 1HDT still gets great economy considering the mass of an HDJ81, and it's quiet and durable. I'm actually not disappointed. The problem for me was that I believed I should be getting much better consumption figures. After doing more followup with the Aussies and Kiwis (not on this board) and achieving some tanks in the mid to higher 20 mpg imperial range, I am now satisfied there is nothing wrong with my truck. This might explain the "incessant" comment regarding fuel consumption. I am one of those people who wants to know why. I've never been satisfied with generic explanations which, when dug into deaper, result in the asker finding out the answerer really knows very little.

Martin, I understand your inquisitive mind and approve 100%. I would do the same in your position. But let me add this, hopefully it will spark an "Aha!" in you and others.

As you know, I have been getting fairly good figures. I also spelled my methodology in detail and gave as much info as possible about the trip I made and my driving style.

One thing I have noticed from those that have claimed fairly poor fuel economy is this: they often drive lifted trucks with huge tires, drive through apparently very steep hills at fairly high altitude or do mostly fairly short runs.

Sounds familiar? What I mean to say, compare beans with beans, not with peas. I used to own a BJ60, which I gave away to one of my best friends who was also its original owner. I really thought I needed to keep it because when I got my new truck, winter was coming and nothing had been done to it.

Well all I can say is, after a few highway runs where I noticed I only used something like 10% more fuel than with the old tractor and after starting no problemo at -28C with no engine heater, I quickly changed my mind and let the Old Faithful go to its old owner.

We have to remember that this is a heavier vehicle than the BJ60 it replaced, it is automatic, has constantly running front dif and locked hubs, a much larger engine that is longer to heat up, has more parts so more internal losses and it only uses 10% more fuel under the same conditions the old four-banger was using? I find that more than reasonable and for someone driving between 25,000 and 30,000 km a year, it translates to about $300 more per year. Like the commercial says, it costs me just the price of a coffee cup a day more than my old truck and I get to enjoy a VASTLY superior ride. Considering I spend close to 500 hours on the road a year, it does vastly more to improve my enjoyment of life than the old 60 ever did. No comparison!

I have never said "DON'T buy a cheap 81." What I have said, to paraphrase, is "be extremely cautious buying a cheap 81." It may in fact be possible to get a decent truck for 15K. However, I do not just pull my observations out of thin air. I know several people who own 81's, and I have seen many of the ones that ATEB has serviced, as well as heard the bills owners with bargain units have had to pay, 2,3, 6 or more months after their "bargain." IF you know what you are getting, or you are comfortable with the risk, fine. Just BE PREPARED for expenses you did not anticipate with that kind of truck. You might get lucky. But probably there will be surprises at some point.

It also comes to what one considers a 'must repair' or 'must pour money into it'. I don't have a mint truck like the ones Wayne sell, although most people are astonished by its incredibly nice condition compared to even a well maintained 2 year old NA SUV. I still have not fixed all the things I want fixed on it (including the AC). But although I have pretty rough teenagers it has survived and after a good vacuuming still looks the way it did when I first got it.

IMO, it is possible and I would add, more than probable to get a good unit for around $16,000 if you do all the importing yourself, but of course there is a greater risk. Are you ready to assume it and more importantly, the paperwork bull$hit you have to go through? That is the question. No two ways about it.

The original poster is looking for a large vehicle and good fuel economy? There will always be tradeoffs. I was very tempted by the HiAce, I admit. That would have probably been the best thing for my family. But the Landcruiser in the end has always come down to being the perfect compromise between roominess, ruggedness, fuel economy and reliability for my family.

One couple I know with substantial means spent months researching, and they have a relative in Japan in the car business. The finally found their "bargain" unit, and thought I was pretty dumb with what I had done. The result was that after Ciaran got hold of the truck and they pumped over 10K into it, all for a unit with nearly 190K on the odometer, they eventually sold it as problem after problem came up. I think they had about 30K into it and sold it at a substantial loss, and it still had issues and looked pretty shabby.

Yes, but for trucks like these, how many good and inexpensive units are driven daily by people with no complaints?

As for "pouring" money into the truck, that is probably true, though I have gone first class with everything I've done. I did not have to put a $3500 stereo into it, or Tough Dog shocks, and so on. I just like messing with it. Next up is a snorkel. I can't resist. It's on order.

I bought a few years ago a Volvo 760 from a friend who had literally poured $22,000 over 4 years. Good thing I paid no more than $500 for it, but I poured a thousand in parts into it and it still failed me after just 6 months. Biggest buying mistake in my life. Pouring money into a vehicle will not necessarily make it good. But I understand some people are obsessive about how nice their vehicle must be and spend most of their weekends working on their rigs (I'm not saying you are, just that it is not a necessity to make it perfect. Perfect is soo fleeting anyway...)

So, yes, you can get a very nice Cruiser from Japan for $15,000 or so. To get something not even remotely as nice and featured from the Canadian market you would have to spend at least 50%, what am I saying, probably 100% more, if you could find it more and it would not even get close in terms of performance, capabilities and comfort. Unless you are willing to sacrifice fuel economy and go with a gasser, and then again, how many have the features the HDJ81 offers stock! really, it's a no-brainer!

As for people who still mistakenly believe these are "luxury" vehicles, meaning they can only be afforded by the rich, let me vehemently say I disagree totally (sorry, Wayne, never liked your company name, to me it's totally the opposite of what a Landcruiser really is) ). The spirit of the Landcruiser is truly one of common sense and modesty. It's not for no reason it's used in all third world countries. The Luxury concept is one borne of pure North American marketing greed, nothing else. I drive a Landcruiser because I just can't afford what poor quality really costs. It is NOT a luxury vehicle, it is a QUALITY one. Big Difference! Luxury is for pimps, gangsters and politicians.

I'm not sure what the "for guys like Martin" comment means. People who want a reliable nice looking vehicle? People who want to go into the purchase being aware of the potential costs? "These people" have dissauded a few? Well, that's a good thing, because no matter what, these trucks are not cheap to fix if there are significant problems. Once they are up to snuff, they're a typical Toyota, but I don't want people to be misled. That's my sole purpose to posting my experiences.

Bravo, and thank you for your invaluable contributions. If it weren't for you and other genuine posters here many of us would still be fumbling. Thank you very much, it is truly appreciated.

I really like the idea of a Nissan Patrol or Safari, and it would seem the local dealers support them moreso than the HDJ81, though I have not been able to verify this for certain.

x2 on the Patrol. My importer raves about his. $4000 cheaper, he says, and 'just as capable' (although his doesn't have front and rear lockers and no turbo)

 

[crushers]

IIt returned almost 10 km/L when driven sedately on the open road. The prevous 350's (we have them here, we have no emissions laws) drank an unholey amount of fuel and didn't produce that amount of power.
.

Roverboy, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
drive the old V8s (pre-71) in the same way and you will see the same milage...
you poor blokes probably got the post 71 gas guzzling gutless V8 boat anchors...
<have you actually driven a pre-71 V8 sedately?? not that you will answer this question anymore than you have the last "personal experience" questions that have been asked>

 

[M John Galt]

The spirit of the Landcruiser is truly one of common sense and modesty. It's not for no reason it's used in all third world countries. The Luxury concept is one borne of pure North American marketing greed, nothing else. I drive a Landcruiser because I just can't afford what poor quality really costs. It is NOT a luxury vehicle, it is a QUALITY one. Big Difference! Luxury is for pimps, gangsters and politicians.

I agree, a JDM BJ,HJ-60 is way better than any of the 80 series. The 80 series was designed to compete with the GMCYukon, ChevTahoe, LincolnNavigator, CaddyEsplanade... It's heavy and less fuel efficient, and looks just like any other SUV out there. Is that really what you want? If so, go for it...

 

[83bj60]

I agree, a JDM BJ,HJ-60 is way better than any of the 80 series. The 80 series was designed to compete with the GMCYukon, ChevTahoe, LincolnNavigator, CaddyEsplanade... It's heavy and less fuel efficient, and looks just like any other SUV out there. Is that really what you want? If so, go for it...

Well, I do agree that my HDJ81VX is more luxurious than the standard 60 series that was available in Canada in terms or frivolity (if having suede leather heated seats and electric windows is luxurious). But the 60s were already 'luxury' compared to the 40 or 50 series, so I don't agree with your assessment the 80 series were necessarily designed to compete with the NA luxury SUVs you mention. It's simple progress. Besides, not all 80 series are 'luxury' models. The OZ market is full of base models with no luxury options and mechanically, and 80 serries has nothing to envy from any 60 series.

That being said, Toyota has never been known for stressing luxury to the detriment of reliability. The complete opposite to the typical NA all electric luxury mobile or the Volvo 760 I had, for that matter: after 18 years the electricals were constantly failing.

OTOH, take a Toyota wiring harness connector apart after 20 years in Eastern Canada. Unless it's the rear light wiring harness (who hasn't had to replace the tail light connectors?), there is a good chance the connectors are all still shiny brass.

 

[crushers]

Well, I do agree that my HDJ81VX is more luxurious than the standard 60 series that was available in Canada in terms or frivolity (if having suede leather heated seats and electric windows is luxurious). But the 60s were already 'luxury' compared to the 40 or 50 series, so I don't agree with your assessment the 80 series were necessarily designed to compete with the NA luxury SUVs you mention. It's simple progress. Besides, not all 80 series are 'luxury' models. .

so you do agree the 80 series is "luxury"... that is good. mind you this contadicts your earlier statement

.[/QUOTE]
"As for people who still mistakenly believe these are "luxury" vehicles,
.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dougal]

Roverboy, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
drive the old V8s (pre-71) in the same way and you will see the same milage...
you poor blokes probably got the post 71 gas guzzling gutless V8 boat anchors...
<have you actually driven a pre-71 V8 sedately?? not that you will answer this question anymore than you have the last "personal experience" questions that have been asked>

Pre 71 is only relevant to the US. Unfortunately the only people I know with corvettes of that vintage own the big block versions. Got any ludicrous claims for their fuel economy? They seeem to be your specialty.

There is no evidence anywhere of a carby 350 getting near the fuel economy of the last LS1's and you have yet to provide any. Much of the emissions control was to stop them spewing out unburn't fuel (less cam overlap etc). There's an indication of their fuel thirst.

Maybe you haven't considered that the past isn't as good as you think it was.

 

[LCdreamin]

Fabulous replies! I love how somehow my posts always spiral into these twisted deep educational conversations! Honestly, not only do I enjoy them, but I usually seem to learn something from them.

So at this point, I think I should buy a pre '71 gas V8 right??? lol

keep it goin boys....

 

[crushers]

Pre 71 is only relevant to the US. Unfortunately the only people I know with corvettes of that vintage own the big block versions. Got any ludicrous claims for their fuel economy? They seeem to be your specialty.

There is no evidence anywhere of a carby 350 getting near the fuel economy of the last LS1's and you have yet to provide any. Much of the emissions control was to stop them spewing out unburn't fuel (less cam overlap etc). There's an indication of their fuel thirst.

Maybe you haven't considered that the past isn't as good as you think it was.

Roverboy, Roverboy,
you see that is where you and i differ greatly, you are a bookworm/computor geek and i live life.
i have EXPERIENCE with what i talk about, you read about it. i actually owned and drove quite a few of the old beasts, you never have.
i was a Mopar man in my youth and if you drive the old engines sedately and they did return unreal fuel milage but punch it once and there goes a tank of fuel economy. red block 318, the 340, the 383 (the 383 4B wa better on fuel than the 2B until you opened the secondaries up) all return amazing fuel milage if you drove it for that reason.

someday you should really step outside, it is a big beautiful world out there that you might actually learn something from. sad to say, unless someone writes it down you don't beleive it.

here is a suggestion, why don't you call up some of the old farmers in Canada and chew the fat with the guys that actually owned and drove these cars for a daily driver instead of some heavy foot in a corvete...

 

[crushers]

Fabulous replies! I love how somehow my posts always spiral into these twisted deep educational conversations! Honestly, not only do I enjoy them, but I usually seem to learn something from them.

So at this point, I think I should buy a pre '71 gas V8 right??? lol

keep it goin boys....

for me, even when posts go tangent there can info gleaned plus they can be a fun read. i didn't mean for your thread to go sideways.

an old sub with a 6.5 would be cool or if you are not a heavy foot then even the old gasser can return acceptable milage... since you are not towing anything you could consider a car rear diff for more highway acceptable driving. i am not sure what the chevs had for highway gears but i am sure a set of 3.** will be nice or even the high 2.** would even be better. that way at the double nickle you are just idling down the road...

 

[LCdreamin]

for me, even when posts go tangent there can info gleaned plus they can be a fun read. i didn't mean for your thread to go sideways.

I totally agree

an old sub with a 6.5 would be cool or if you are not a heavy foot then even the old gasser can return acceptable milage... since you are not towing anything you could consider a car rear diff for more highway acceptable driving. i am not sure what the chevs had for highway gears but i am sure a set of 3.** will be nice or even the high 2.** would even be better. that way at the double nickle you are just idling down the road...

Good idea, I never really thought about that. I mean its only going to be used for sand and mud trails heading to a beach, the odd steep hill maybe. Lets say I run into a pretty steep hill.....all I'm looking for is to make it over....eventually. Would a high 2.** really screw me over? I'm sure a low 3.** would be able to get me over anything not too insane?

But as I type this I wonder....since I'm fairly new to 4x4ing, if I change the rear gears, wouldn't I have to change something on the front to match? I think suburbans are part time 4x4 too right? A low and a high that auto locks the center diff?

 

[Dougal]

Roverboy, Roverboy,
you see that is where you and i differ greatly, you are a bookworm/computor geek and i live life.
i have EXPERIENCE with what i talk about, you read about it. i actually owned and drove quite a few of the old beasts, you never have.
i was a Mopar man in my youth and if you drive the old engines sedately and they did return unreal fuel milage but punch it once and there goes a tank of fuel economy. red block 318, the 340, the 383 (the 383 4B wa better on fuel than the 2B until you opened the secondaries up) all return amazing fuel milage if you drove it for that reason.

someday you should really step outside, it is a big beautiful world out there that you might actually learn something from. sad to say, unless someone writes it down you don't beleive it.

here is a suggestion, why don't you call up some of the old farmers in Canada and chew the fat with the guys that actually owned and drove these cars for a daily driver instead of some heavy foot in a corvete...

I notice you've changed the engines under discussion from chev (350, LS1) to dodge.
Is that your way of saying you're wrong about the chev engines?

How about you continue talking yourself up while I go and finish modifying my inline fuel pump?

 

[crushers]

Roverboy,
once again you ignore the "personal experience" part of the question.

the farmers that used the pre71 350 as a DD loved the engine's fuel economy espec once they replace the truck with a new post-71 chev s***box. then you heard all about how our government screwed up the fuel economy and power...you never miss it till it is gone...

curious, Roverboy, where you even born back then??

 

[83bj60]

so you do agree the 80 series is "luxury"... that is good. mind you this contadicts your earlier statement

"As for people who still mistakenly believe these are "luxury" vehicles,"

Well... You got me there, buddy! BUT I still believe (and I'm quite sure it is in fact the general consensus in the world) that Landcruisers are not primarily 'Luxury', which to me represents 'Bling' and other superfluous features (such as cupholders etc) to the detriment of QUALITY, like we've been so accustomed to from North American (and the British, remember their awful wiring problems) manufacturers.

Toyotas OTOH have never been engineered with that in mind, but marketers in North America insist these are primarily luxury vehicles, presumably to justify their greed.

To me it sends a wrong message. In my mind when I think of 'Luxury' I think of Waste, Superficiality, Frivolity... Picture the Orgies of the Roman Decadence (did I just hear someone say "replace the term 'Roman' with 'American'"? ). My prudent, conservative upbringing just cringes at the term...

 

[crushers]

Well... You got me there, buddy!

LOL!!
well to me "Luxury" meant high quality units...

[/QUOTE]
Picture the Orgies of the Roman Decadence (did I just hear someone say "replace the term 'Roman' with 'American'"? ). .. [/QUOTE]

my, my, I am sure some American posters will take a bit of offense to this statement...

 

[Dougal]

Roverboy,
once again you ignore the "personal experience" part of the question.

the farmers that used the pre71 350 as a DD loved the engine's fuel economy espec once they replace the truck with a new post-71 chev ****box. then you heard all about how our government screwed up the fuel economy and power...you never miss it till it is gone...

curious, Roverboy, where you even born back then??

Again you've forgotten your original argument.
We were comparing pre-71 engines to modern engines. You claimed the pre 71's had better power and economy.
My point is that modern engines provide more power and better fuel economy.
You have not been able to provide anything but "this farmer 35 years ago said".

Stating that the the post emissions 70's chev engines were crap is blatently obvious and completely irrelevant. Everyone knows they were crap and noone has claimed otherwise.

 

[crushers]

and again, Roverboy, you refuse to post your personal experiences...
if it is on the web it must be true and must be believed more than real life experiences...and if it is backed by a proffesional it must not be disputed by lowly members of mud...