Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders - Page 2





Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Harare
    Age
    42
    Posts
    126
    Thanked: 43

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    I think that you should drive the vehicle that you are more comfortable fixing yourself. If you can troubleshoot a petrol more eaasily then stick with that or vice versa.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to nhoro For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    65
    Posts
    34
    Thanked: 14

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    I agree that you must be comfortable with the technology you drive... that said very few laymen-tinkerers will be able to repair the fuel delivery system of a fuel injected petrol or diesel vehicle.
    If either of them suffer a serious problem you will be stranded.
    Generally the electronic management of fuelling and ignition systems of petrol engines and the direct injection system of diesel vehicles are more robust than before, they start and run smoothly when cold and mostly deliver better fuel consumption than before for longer than before. I like both types of vehicles for their different properties.
    In 2014 I managed to compared the fuel consumption of my Pajero Gen 4 with that of my brother in laws Prado 4l V6 over a period of two weeks;- Botswana, Hwange, Vic Falls, Caprivi, etc both vehicles were travelling at the same speed- 112 km/h (120 on the speedo) on tar and as slow as required off road, at the same time of day over the same road surface with exactly the same load- 2 people in each car, roof top tent, fuel and water on the roof, 90l fridge, water and food for the same duration of overnight stays.
    On average the petrol 4l V6 used in about 10% more fuel than the 3,2 DiD Diesel.
    My brother in law's philosophy is that if you can afford such a vehicle and if you like how it drives and make you feel- you should not be concerned about what it costs to get you from point A-B.
    They live in Namibie and they preferred the V6 for its explosive power the dunes.
    Now work out how much the diesel would cost you over a 100 000 km distance, add 10% to that for the petrol engines consumption over the same distance and multiply that number with the cost of petrol, which is again about 12% more than diesel-
    I have just done this calculation after our last trip May 2017 and 100 000 km with the diesel will require about R 116 000 of fuel and the petrol one R 147 000.

    During our last trip May 2017 the Pajero returned an average of 9.43km /l over 6200 km of which about 1200 was gravel and off road. 4 cars, each with 2 people, 3 with roof top tents and fuel on the roof the Pajero, a 4,5 EFI (petrol) 100 LCruiser my brother in laws new 200 L/Cruiser (diesel), a 4l petrol L/Cruiser bakkie and a rental Ford Ranger 3.2 diesel extended cab with a Alucab flip top - roof tent.
    Diesel was available everywhere, petrol was but not luckily the 4,5 EFI and the 4L Cruiser were both equipped with very large petrol tanks.
    Even though the philosophy is to top up as regularly as possible to avoid running out of fuel, the cost of the difference between the diesel and the petrol top up bill will make your eyes water, the EFI and its smaller engined sister used almost 40% more fuel in the deep sand tracks than the Pajero, which was the most fuel efficient vehicle in the group.
    In part I think this was because the Pajero was in 2H most of the time, in a few heavy off road conditions like in the very deep sand tracks of the Khaudom and a few short stints in Savuti's sand 4x4H was selected when it looked as if 2H would not get us through but as soon as I could I would switch back to 2H.
    I also think that the choice of tyres play a important role in fuel consumption, the coarser the tyre pattern the heavier it seems to be on fuel in loose sand, but then again having a "fuel" efficient A/T tyre will not help you if you are stuck in muddy conditions.
    My choice for overland would be a diesel for its fuel efficiency and the low down pulling power, over time the fuel bill saving will add up to be a considerable amount.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Dawid Rabie For This Useful Post:

    RWR

  5. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanked: 606

    Thumbs up Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    I cannot fault your observations on the cheaper fuel bills and lots of money saved in the long run.
    Malcolm van Coller - retired but remained living in Johannesburg (love it here, can find everything you want and need here in Jhb)
    2011 Nissan Pathfinder 2,5 CDi LE Manual (Standard Traction Control plus Front Diff Locker)
    2008 Nissan Patrol 3.0 TDi GL (Packing system, 60lt water tank, std rear locker, LOKKA on front, two 105ah aux batteries on NL system, larger Cirrus intercooler, complete 76mm exhaust system)
    2003 Bushwakka Shorti (extra luggage space for customers on when on safari (with 160 H/Moon Star Gazer RTT and 100lt water tanks)
    Ex 1999 Nissan Terrano 2.7 TDi (Limited Slip Diffs Front and Rear) with Jurgens RTT for Guiding trips
    Ex 2011 Conqueror Supra II for personal camping
    Ex 1995 GQ Patrol GLX 3 speed Auto (disaster that box was!) - Lexus V8 transplant
    Ex 1984 Nissan Safari (Poelies Vehn) 2.8 Stationwagon with 5 speed conversion, rusted like it was paid to rust!
    Ex 1995 Sani 3.0 V6 Exec
    Ex 1994 Venture 2200 with lock diff (Company vehicle) that whet my appetite for overlanding.
    Many 4x4s in National Service (Landies, Jeeps, Willys, Bedfords, Unimogs and Buffels)

  6. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    65
    Posts
    34
    Thanked: 14

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    I agree that you must be comfortable with the technology you drive... that said very few laymen-tinkerers will be able to repair the fuel delivery system of a fuel injected petrol or diesel vehicle.
    If either of them suffer a serious problem you will be stranded.
    Generally the electronic management of fuelling and ignition systems of petrol engines and the direct injection system of diesel vehicles are more robust than before, they start and run smoothly when cold and mostly deliver better fuel consumption than before for longer than before. I like both types of vehicles for their different properties.
    In 2014 I managed to compared the fuel consumption of my Pajero Gen 4 with that of my brother in laws Prado 4l V6 over a period of two weeks;- Botswana, Hwange, Vic Falls, Caprivi, etc both vehicles were travelling at the same speed- 112 km/h (120 on the speedo) on tar and as slow as required off road, at the same time of day over the same road surface with exactly the same load- 2 people in each car, roof top tent, fuel and water on the roof, 90l fridge, water and food for the same duration of overnight stays.
    On average the petrol 4l V6 used in about 10% more fuel than the 3,2 DiD Diesel.
    My brother in law's philosophy is that if you can afford such a vehicle and if you like how it drives and make you feel- you should not be concerned about what it costs to get you from point A-B.
    They live in Namibie and they preferred the V6 for its explosive power the dunes.
    Now work out how much the diesel would cost you over a 100 000 km distance, add 10% to that for the petrol engines consumption over the same distance and multiply that number with the cost of petrol, which is again about 12% more than diesel-
    I have just done this calculation after our last trip May 2017 and 100 000 km with the diesel will require about R 116 000 of fuel and the petrol one R 147 000.

    During our last trip May 2017 the Pajero returned an average of 9.43km /l over 6200 km of which about 1200 was gravel and off road. 4 cars, each with 2 people, 3 with roof top tents and fuel on the roof the Pajero, a 4,5 EFI (petrol) 100 LCruiser my brother in laws new 200 L/Cruiser (diesel), a 4l petrol L/Cruiser bakkie and a rental Ford Ranger 3.2 diesel extended cab with a Alucab flip top - roof tent.
    Diesel was available everywhere, petrol was not but luckily the 4,5 EFI and the 4L Cruiser were both equipped with very large petrol tanks. Carrying so much extra fuel is in itself a penalty in weight that you have to haul around.
    Even though the philosophy is to top up as regularly as possible to avoid running out of fuel, the cost of the difference between the diesel and the petrol top up bill will make your eyes water, the EFI and its smaller engined sister used almost 40% more fuel in the deep sand tracks than the Pajero, which was the most fuel efficient vehicle in the group.
    In part I think this was because the Pajero was in 2H most of the time, in a few heavy off road conditions like in the very deep sand tracks of the Khaudom and a few short stints in Savuti's sand 4x4H was selected when it looked as if 2H would not get us through but as soon as I could I would switch back to 2H.
    I also think that the choice of tyres play a important role in fuel consumption, the coarser the tyre pattern the heavier it seems to be on fuel in loose sand, but then again having a "fuel" efficient A/T tyre will not help you if you are stuck in muddy conditions.
    My choice for overland would be a diesel for its fuel efficiency and the low down pulling power, over time the fuel bill saving will add up to be a considerable amount.

  7. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    65
    Posts
    34
    Thanked: 14

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    MV I am impressed by the diesel consumption of your Pathfinder, how many kilo's has it done.

    Last year I read up about Mitsubishi's fuel figure related scandal- they produced misleading fuel figures for the 600cc engines they built for Nissan and for a small car they themselves produced.
    It was quickly mentioned in the same sentence as VW's creative of software but in reality it was nothing as clever as it.
    Mitsubishi's scandal was essentially as a result of laziness and incompetence at one of their subsidiaries that were tasked with the job to do the fuel consumption tests, nobody questioned the results they came up with.
    They apparently did not test the actual engine on the road, they used a previous computer model, adjusted the values for the different frontal Cd and tyre rolling resistance and blended it actual road tests of a similar vehicle in which they used higher than normal tyre pressures and a higher speed 120km/h instead of 100 which is a Japanese law and this gave them better coasting distances as a result a 1,5-2% improvement in fuel consumption.

    Intrigued by this I decided to test the concept that coasting instead of braking to reduce speed will make a difference to the fuel consumption.
    To test it over a longer distance we decided that to get any real figures everyone had to drive like that when it was their turn at the wheel. The acceleration up to cruise speed required that less time is spend picking up speed but that if an obstacle appeared that is moving slower than us we would coast instead of brake up to it until we can overtake it safely.
    We went from Cpt to Mussina back to Louis Trichard- in at the top of the Kruger and out at Phalaborwa and back home. 3 people up and 4 people back with luggage, no roofrack.
    The consumption figures improved dramatically, on the open road at 120km/h (on the GPS) the consumption was 10l/100 (10km/l) for most of the way but from Colesburg to Cape town it became 10.4l/100- while in the Kruger it dropped to 9.3 and even as low as 8.3l/100km which is just over 12km/l

    It improved our fuel consumption by a lot depending on the road conditions, it makes sense that you are getting more distance for the energy you invested instead of rapidly losing it as heat while braking.
    Since then this is how we roll- even on dirt roads.

  8. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Age
    65
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanked: 606

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    The Pathfinder has done 160,000 km

    When driving on the open road I tried to set the cruise control to just below 120kph. I have fitted slightly bigger tyres (165/65 x 17 vs original 155/65 x 17) and my speedo is now quite accurate (speedo = 120 vs GPS = 119).

    If I set the speed to 115 to 118, speed varies between 121 downhills and maybe 114 on uphills. That is where i seem to get the best consumption. I watch the consumption readout although it is slightly optimistic and have once seen 7.9 Lt per 100 over about a 20 km stretch. Normally it reads anything from 8.4 to about 10 Lt per 100.

    In town with my normal impatient and spirited driving it varies from 12.2 to maybe 13.2 Lt per 100. I don't spare the horses. I am convinced that with a proper Diesel tune-up I can go even better.

    But, as with all things being equal, I take the odo reading to base my calculations on. The speedo may be accurate, but it does not mean the odo is accurate too..... It just may be under reading and give me false hopes.
    Last edited by mvcoller; 2017/06/08 at 11:44 PM.
    Malcolm van Coller - retired but remained living in Johannesburg (love it here, can find everything you want and need here in Jhb)
    2011 Nissan Pathfinder 2,5 CDi LE Manual (Standard Traction Control plus Front Diff Locker)
    2008 Nissan Patrol 3.0 TDi GL (Packing system, 60lt water tank, std rear locker, LOKKA on front, two 105ah aux batteries on NL system, larger Cirrus intercooler, complete 76mm exhaust system)
    2003 Bushwakka Shorti (extra luggage space for customers on when on safari (with 160 H/Moon Star Gazer RTT and 100lt water tanks)
    Ex 1999 Nissan Terrano 2.7 TDi (Limited Slip Diffs Front and Rear) with Jurgens RTT for Guiding trips
    Ex 2011 Conqueror Supra II for personal camping
    Ex 1995 GQ Patrol GLX 3 speed Auto (disaster that box was!) - Lexus V8 transplant
    Ex 1984 Nissan Safari (Poelies Vehn) 2.8 Stationwagon with 5 speed conversion, rusted like it was paid to rust!
    Ex 1995 Sani 3.0 V6 Exec
    Ex 1994 Venture 2200 with lock diff (Company vehicle) that whet my appetite for overlanding.
    Many 4x4s in National Service (Landies, Jeeps, Willys, Bedfords, Unimogs and Buffels)

  9. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Helderkruin
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,769
    Thanked: 360

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    Ja ek het van my eerste 4x4 net Petrol gery van 1999 af en gese nooit Diesel nie.
    En n paar lande gery met petrol 4x4s en so paar jaar terug my eerste Diesel gekoop en moet se hy is die ligste op bradstof van almal en die Grootste van almal .
    Die F250 sit hulle almal oore aan met bradstof gebruik .
    Ek gaan gereeld weg met hom en nou Oktober gaan ek Namibia toe met hom dan sal ek sien hoe maak hy daar op diesel tussen die dik sand

  10. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bosveldsig, Nylstroom/Modimolle
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,821
    Thanked: 177

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    I had a good mix of diesel engines and one petrol.

    Old 2.4D Toyota normally aspirated, some old tech GM normally aspirated and turbo, old tech 2.5 Ranger and now 3.2 Ranger
    Petrol was the 2.4 12V Nissan Hardboddy, HEAVY on fuel and under powered at low revs specially in the sand.

    Every sent spent on my vehicles are recorded.

    In general the diesel always came out tops in cost per km (included fuel consumption, tires, spares, service and so on).
    Once out of warranty I do all my own services - getting a bit lazy now, the big services goes to a decent chap.

    It depends on your driving style and what you find comfortable.
    I have mates who would not touch a diesel, others won't be seen in a petrol.
    Drive both and decide what works for you.

    Just remember that the old tech stuff work better in the land somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
    If new tech breaks down you are foxed that is a FACT and here I will include an auto box.
    (even in the Kgalagadi a mate of mine has the experience and worst is the guys did not even know where it was).
    Danie & Marinda - die wiele is rond, dus moet hulle hardloop - afgetree nou leef ons net.
    2017 BL - Kewer B1115 RUS WA GP - bos en kamp tyd
    2016 Ford Fiesta Ecoboost - daaglikse ryding
    2013 Ford Ranger 3.2 DC XLT 4x4 - nuwe rondloop ry ding, nou sleep ons! (2017)
    2011 Echo 4, die RUSWA-ZN - (verkoop 44 000 km)
    2010 Ford Ranger 2.5 DT DC XLT 4x4 - rondloop ry ding met "bietjie ekstra" krag (Verkoop 177 000 km)
    2005 Chev Aveo - Afgeskryf (2016 130 000)
    2005 Opel Corsa 17DTi - Geruil (warm enjin 180 000)
    2003 Opel Corsa 17DTi - Geruil (warm enjin 150 00)
    2000 Nissan Hardbody - Geruil (pyne by die duisended 52 000 km)
    1998 Opel Kadett - Dogter se wiele geword in 2003 (baie warm enjin 116 000 km)
    1990 Datsun 1800 short wheelbase - Pa se ou plaas bakkie, na die Nissan die pad gevat het met sy probleme in 2003 (117 00km)
    1990 Hilux 2.4D - en hy kon loop, pomp en top gewerk aan.
    1984 Opel Commondore - het gehardloop
    1983 Safary 3 karavaan - verkoop en begin tent in 2000 (51 000 km)
    1980 Ford Granada 3.0 - warm enjin afgeskryf
    1969 VW 1600 TL - geen einde nie, warm enjin en geruil
    1968 VW 1600 L - geen einde en baie warm enjin, verkoop in 1998 (328 000 myl/525 000 km)

    .

  11. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Cape town
    Posts
    8
    Thanked: 0

    Default Re: Pros & Cons - Diesel vs Petrol for Overlanders

    Thank you so much guys for the input!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •