*UPDATE*How's this Pajero look? You guys helped me decide :)

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:36 am

I'm going to have to take a good look at this one again. Check my latest post for details about the 1990 turbo-diesel!

Quote:

Thanks to all the input here, and a call to a local diesel shop turning me away from the 2.5 TDI, I'm going to be making an offer on this one over the weekend. How's it look to you Pajero regulars? I guess the truck-mirrors confirm that it's an early NG, and not a late NF? Original Japanese domestic vehicle. Any way I can confirm those KM have not been rolled?
http://www.silkroadautos.com/mitsubishi/p4drs-gas/pajero89m.htm
Thanks,
Duncan

Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Location: New Orleans, Louisiana USA

Turning down a diesel for a gas 3.0?

I wish I had a diesel pajero.

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:19 am

The diesel I was looking at has 180,000km on it, and the few diesel shops I spoke to said it would be due for a new turbo around 200,000. Plus, we're headed for having only Ultra-Low-Sulfur diesel here, and I understand it's not going to be good for these older traditional diesel engines in the long run. It's a tough call because the TDI is a year newer, a far nicer Exceed model, and has the cowboy-cool leather-tweed seats.. LOL.

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

looks nice, but id still be getting the diesel instead of the petrol

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:39 am

Really? That's 2 guys now... Talk me into the diesel! Smile

. Tell me why I should pick one over the other.

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

because the TDI is a year newer, a far nicer Exceed model, and has the cowboy-cool leather-tweed seats.. LOL.

and its a diesel, my 2.5 uses as little as 8.5l per 100k if i behave myself.
diesels have better low down torque.
it also depends on what your going to use the car for but.

Joined: 04 May 2006

Go for the deisle for the reasons Jtop said.

but be aware of the injector pump seals needing redoing.
Low sulphur deieil does that.

Go the deisel

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: New Zealand

j-top paj wrote:

diesels have better low down torque.

Drive them both then decide which one feels better. Providing the Diesel is on boost they pull quite well but no match for a petrol, especially low down below boost where a turbo diesel struggles. But you can quite comfortably drive around a torque hole.

Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Location: New Orleans, Louisiana USA

Well, we did not get the diesel in the US. It would be very rare and cool. I would like a SWB diesel for more miles per gallon and low end torque. I have no experinece with Mitsu diesels. Why would you need a new turbo at 125k miles, I think that is right. Why would that low sulfer not burn good in an old diesel? I guess that is another topic.

If you do get the 3.0, get a throttle body from a 3.5 DOHC Montero, sorry, Pajero. It bolts right up and you get more air. I like mine.

Other than that, pick the best truck for the money.

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:39 pm

A pic of the 1990 TDI Exceed: It's definitely a nicer-looking machine.

Yes, I saw the tread pattern on the driver's front ti[y]re. I've factored an alignment and 2 new tires into any offer I might make.

Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Location: Adelaide

The 2.5 tdi struggles to pull the LWB Paj. If you don't mind rowing up and down the gears, and waiting while it climbs highway hills, you may be OK.

Of course, I vaguely recall that Mitsubishi now produce a common rail version. Engine swap? Twisted Evil

Joined: 27 Jan 2004 Location: Working Holiday - UK

To guage if the miles are original, check the wear on the outside of the drivers seat and wear on the brake/accelerator/clutch pedals. Also see how tight/noise free it is on the road. If the car is quiet, tight, with minimal wear on the seat and pedals, I would assume its original miles.

Looks like a top little beast. Although they could have put a screw in that front number plate couldnt they???????

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:15 am

It's a pretty low-rent used car lot/importer that has the 1989 gasser. Not fly-by-night, but no class act either. That's a British Columbia plate, so someone at the dealership has had the vehicle insured locally for regular use. Not sure if that's good or bad. LOL.. Rejected personal vehicle? Or a favourite lot vehicle?

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

my paj has plenty of power down low before boost comes on. and thats running 33s.
boost starts to come on at about 1700rpm.

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

-Scott- wrote:

The 2.5 tdi struggles to pull the LWB Paj. If you don't mind rowing up and down the gears, and waiting while it climbs highway hills, you may be OK.

my paj weighs just under 2t, i think its 1940kg or near abouts, arent the gen 1s a fair bit lighter than the gen 2s?

Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Location: Adelaide

j-top paj wrote:

my paj has plenty of power down low before boost comes on. and thats running 33s.
boost starts to come on at about 1700rpm.

Short wheelbase soft top - you have quite a weight advantage. Wink

Edit - posted at the same time.

1940kg? Mines only about 1700, metal roof and all. Are you sure?

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

yep, its definately 1900 something, as soon as i find the papers il be able to tell for sure.
i got a bit of a shock when i read it as its a soft top so i asume there would be less metal in it.

Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Location: Adelaide

j-top paj wrote:

yep, its definately 1900 something, as soon as i find the papers il be able to tell for sure.
i got a bit of a shock when i read it as its a soft top so i asume there would be less metal in it.

I just had a look on Redbook. NG 2.5TD EXE 1730 kg, NH GL Hardtop (2.6) 1520kg (they don't list the J-Top...)

It's a ladder chassis, so I can't imagine they needed to add lots of bracing to compensate for the lack of roof. Confused

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

looking in the manual i got with it, it says kerb mass for the GL is 1870kg
the GLX (2.8/3.0) is 2040 and the GLS (3.5/2.8) is 2065

my specific model isnt in there, but im guessing its a GL or next model up (its jap spec base model i think, but its got some items that our base model doesnt have)
but it also hase all the goodies like big diff, big box etc... so i think the weight would be made up there.
also when i had the roof apart to fit the sensor for my alarm i was looking at the roof bar/roll bar and overall its about 10cm thick. theres quite a few layers of metal in there

Joined: 26 May 2005 Location: Sunshine Coast, QLD

yeh thats surprising hey, im pretty sure mines just under 1600kg odd, shorty hardtop....thats very heavy, 1900 odd... Shocked

dean

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: New Zealand

j-top paj wrote:

but it also hase all the goodies like big diff, big box etc... so i think the weight would be made up there.

Yours is a 2.5, therefore doesn't have the bigger diff.
5.29's - yes, bigger diff - no.
They (the bigger diffs) were not made with 5.29's. It may have bigger disc's thou and not get 15 inch rims on?

3.0 soft top = 1725 - 1890kg manual tranny depending on spec
2.8 soft top = 1665 - 1810kg manual tranny depending on spec

According to my handbook.

Joined: 12 Aug 2005 Location: Taranaki New Zealand

Hi, My two cents, after having owned a 2.5TD 89 LWB exceed (Gen 1), and currently own a 2.5TD 91 LWB(Gen 2) and a 3.0Petrol 92 LWB EXceed (Gen 2)

The 89 2.5TD (looks exactly like the white on in the pic of an earlier post, except no fender flares) diesel had one down fall, lack of power. If you needed a burst to haul out of a hole etc you need to spool the turbo up against the brakes for any sort of power. On the open road at 100ks, no power left to pass, not really acceptable.

The 91 2.5TD is a different animal, more useable power, and the engine is more responsive than the 89. The fuel economy is great, we use it as the daily driver for the wife, school runs etc.

The engine is the same basic block in both cases (4d56T) the later is more refined.
Low sulfur diesel (we have it here in NZ) causes issues in any pre 96 diesel.
Cost me 15 bucks and 2 hours labour to replace the two seals that leak (throttle shaft and top gasket) when you switch to the new diesel, I have had to do this to the 89, and the 91 has just started to leak and needs doing.

the 92 3.0 V6 petrol exceed is the machine of choice for offroading if its not a daily driver, power delivery is much better (more and more responsive) for off road driving, but would not like to foot the fuel bill if we used it every day .

The Gen 2 Diesel is not far behind the Gen 2 3.0v, but you will be disapointed with the diesel in a Gen 1.

Joined: 26 May 2005 Location: Sunshine Coast, QLD

matwelli wrote:

the 92 3.0 V6 petrol exceed is the machine of choice for offroading if its not a daily driver, power delivery is much better (more and more responsive) for off road driving, but would not like to foot the fuel bill if we used it every day .

The Gen 2 Diesel is not far behind the Gen 2 3.0v, but you will be disapointed with the diesel in a Gen 1.

iv got the 3.0 V6 aswell, gen 2 shortie, i know its not going to be exactly the same being a shorty but my fuel bill isnt that bad. i drive it daily to university and work, and then still have enough coin left over to top him up for a wkend wheel.

never driven or had experience with the td though....sricter servicing??? higher cost of services???...thats all i ever hear from diesel owners, and at the moment i cant see the major benefit here of running diesel as its about 20c dearer/L than petrol. i dont think the economy of a diesel is that much better...i dont know though

dean Wink

Joined: 03 Jan 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada

Here's something else to consider, given that you are in Canada:

In Canada we never ever got the 2.5tdi in any rig that was imported. Whereas the 3.0v6 was in plenty of Dodges, in various configurations (Mitsu never actually got officially imported into Canada till 2003).

Having said that, I had three Monteros with 3LV6, and I found, though they are pretty responsive considering they have the aerodynamics of a barn door, they aren't the most fuel efficient. This was enough for me to decide upon the 2.5 tdi for my imported rig. I've since found sources for maintenance stuff, but you have to be creative, and have contacts for some things. If you don't want this parts headache every time you need to do ANYTHING, stay away from the 4D56T. If you're willing to be creative with parts acquisition, and don't mind slightly higher maintenance costs, go with the torquey diesel, and get better fuel economy.

But to muddy the waters even more, I say go with a genII. You can now legally import a 91, which gives you more comfortable interior, Active-Trac Allwheeldrive, in addition to 4wd hi/lo, stronger front end, stronger trailing arms, etc etc.

Confused less or more now? Very Happy

Joined: 17 Dec 2005

You can get the 5.29 gears in the 2.5ITD J-top.
I think this is with the 18" rims and rear diff lock option.
see here...

(just clarifying previous quotes- sorry for the hijack)

I have the gen1 ITD 1990 auto BUT swb, and find the power good even with 33" tyres.
I think the factory intercooler must make a huge difference to how the engine performs.

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: New Zealand

4wd26 wrote:

You can get the 5.29 gears in the 2.5ITD J-top.

Yes sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant the 5.29's were not available with the bigger diff (9.5 inch) Embarassed

I edited it to make it make sense....

I knew what i meant even if no-one else did Cool

Joined: 12 Aug 2005 Location: Taranaki New Zealand

klrevo wrote:

matwelli wrote:

the 92 3.0 V6 petrol exceed is the machine of choice for offroading if its not a daily driver, power delivery is much better (more and more responsive) for off road driving, but would not like to foot the fuel bill if we used it every day .

The Gen 2 Diesel is not far behind the Gen 2 3.0v, but you will be disapointed with the diesel in a Gen 1.

iv got the 3.0 V6 aswell, gen 2 shortie, i know its not going to be exactly the same being a shorty but my fuel bill isnt that bad. i drive it daily to university and work, and then still have enough coin left over to top him up for a wkend wheel.

never driven or had experience with the td though....sricter servicing??? higher cost of services???...thats all i ever hear from diesel owners, and at the moment i cant see the major benefit here of running diesel as its about 20c dearer/L than petrol. i dont think the economy of a diesel is that much better...i dont know though

dean Wink

Sorry, over here in Kiwi land diesel is about 30 cents or so per litre cheaper than petrol. Yep servicing is a bit more, 7 liters of oil every 5000k, change the filter and oil every 10000K, so the only diference is an extra 9 liters of oil every 10000Ks as compared to the petrol

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

NJV6 wrote:

They (the bigger diffs) were not made with 5.29's. It may have bigger disc's thou and not get 15 inch rims on?

it definately has the big discs, theyre huge Shocked

im not 100% on the diff but the pumkin is almost as big as the h260 in my patrol. its about 1inch overall smaller.
i remember reading somewhere that it has the 9.5inch diff but cant remember where. is there anyway of finding out?

Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Location: New Zealand

Yea, you'll prob need 16 inch rims to fit the disc's is that right?

Count the bolts and what size around the rear diff head. Unfortunately 4.9 is as low as the big diff's go... Crying or Very sad

So for me to go any lower means smaller tyres or 3.15's..... Cool

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:05 pm

Phil, thanks for the GenII suggestion. maybe for the next one Laughing

. I should be able to score this one for about $6000, which is WAY less than I've ever seen any GenIIs going for out here on the Wet Coast (S intentionally left out :p). Plus, there's just something about the boxy Gen Is. I have a thing for vehicles with angles.. my 1983 New Yorker, Datsun 510s, Station Wagons of all kinds. LOL. Please don't radius my corners. I like them! Very Happy

I took it for a third drive (I'm nothing if not thorough) last night, and the owner said it had been tuned up and had a filter change since my last drive a week previous. Night and day difference! Turned me away for good from the V6 model I had driven earlier in the day. Similar torque, and the V6 seemed to also lack passing power at higher RPMs just like the TDI. Plus, the other vehicle is solidly middle-trimmed, vs the TDI which is LOADED! I like driving a comfy vehicle for a daily driver, and the Exceed should do the trick nicely. And it has full skidplates/cages on everything. armsup