Here's my take on it all...
Chuck Norris uses
significantly less fuel than any petrol-engined Patrol I know of (see my Fuelly signature), and Chuck does not often get to see the open road. If I can get this type of consumption with a heavily modified vehicle (i.e. roofrack, suspension lift, bull-bar, big MT tyres, etc.) in town and 4x4, it can definitely be improved upon by a standard vehicle. No contest here: diesel = 1, petrol = 0.
Yes, I do pay a lot more to service the vehicle because it requires 10 liters of fresh oil every 5000 kms (ouch!), but at least I never need to buy spark plugs (duh!). Petrol wins this round, so we have a draw between diesel & petrol with one point each.
I know here have been lots of clever people who've made lots of clever calculations to work out which of the two engine options are best in the long run, mostly arguing about the lower fuel cost offset by the more frequent services. I have read countless discussions on countless forums regarding this topic, but I have never really been swayed to either side. As far as I'm concerned they probably end up being equal in the long run, so I still won't fiddle with the previous scores. Any other opinions?
Speaking of the long run: diesel engines are built much stronger than petrol engines, partly to cope with the higher combustion pressures. As a result of this the motors also last significantly longer if looked after properly. Consensus on the Oz Patrol forum is that diesel Patrols should run at least 700 000 kms, and there are a number of reports of them exceeding a million kms. Most of their diesels are turbo'd and boosting way more (up to 1.4 bar) than we regard as safe in ZA (half of that only), the key being to set up the fueling on a diesel properly so that you don't exceed safe EGT temperatures. Diesel = 2, petrol = 1, not true?
BTW: Don't get me wrong, I love petrol engines too! I'll be flying around Swartkops race track in my other Nissan tomorrow. Now *that's* what petrol engines are brilliant for!
