Nissan Patrol – owner reviews

7 Aug 2014 | Author: | Comments Off on Nissan Patrol – owner reviews

Nissan Patrol 2005

General impressions:

I was not thinking of just a Toyota, I was thinking of Toyota Land Cruiser 105 with a naturally inspired 1HZ diesel engine… BUT it happened that a second Nissan appeared in my family – Nissan Patrol GR.

This car is with a turbo diesel 3.0l. Manual transmission, velour interior, no leather, no hatches, no power seat adjustment, in short – a relatively simple furnishing.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

Quite recently we also bought a Nissan Almera, but I’ll compare with Toyota Lite Ace NOAH, which lived and earnestly served us full two years, then it was damaged in a car accident and immediately given into good hands. in short sold. not the right word, as if I’d sold a wounded friend 🙁

After changing Toyota Lite Ace NOAH for Patrol I understood at once that it was a big vessel, and I stopped wanting to be the real racer in it. First, the size is impressive, second – the engine is not yet run in by me enough, besides no special frolic is felt in it. But you always feel the power of this engine.

This two-ton vehicle starts in the first gear and you can immediately engage second gear, though you can move directly on the second gear – it will surely run. You can change transmission less often. The engine’s pull is more than enough, it begins acceleration from 30km/h at forth gear, just do not push the trigger and it goes on.

ZD30 engine is a bit noisy compared with Toyota 3#1057;-#1058;, it roars loudly like a real tractor, frankly speaking the car goes correspondingly, like a tractor.

If you wish, you can speed up, on a highway in the 5th gear it easily picks up 100km/h at 2000-2200RPM.

You don’t feel the speed, the weight and the size of Nissan Patrol play their parts, passengers are simply baby-rocked while riding, like in a comfy bus.

Suspension

For the city the Patrol suspension is awesome. When crossing tram-lines, passing various melt-out pits I go now without noticing them. Where NOAH earlier slowed down and crawled, the Patrol simply steps over not noticing. In full load, with six adult passengers and a kid, the vehicle goes with no exertion, the suspension does not feel the load, in contrast to NOAH, for which it was hard.

NOAH’s suspension sometimes worked to stoppers. It’s more difficult to park the car because of the size, and it’s not simpler to roam backyards, BUT it pays. The car has disk brakes in the front and the rear, and at first they had looked not so strong as those of NOAH, BUT later I could make sure, that was not correct, when I have to brake down sharply, the car stops practically stone-still, the clever ABS controls each wheel.

When riding in the backward gear, the car runs perfectly, the stop-way is simply excellent, particularly when the front hubs are disengaged.

Salon

Visibility, compared with NOAH, is worse. A big hood sticks out like a crocodile’s mug, full 1.6 m. The windscreen is 1.5 times less in height.

The Patrol’s salon conveniences cannot be even compared with NOAH, a bus is a bus, that’s ALL. An even floor, height, length, conveniences for passengers are better in the bus of course. The jeep is not bad too, BUT. his is totally a different car.

There is a minivan #1052;#1052;#1057; Delica based on #1052;#1052;#1057; Pajero, but there’s no Nissan minivan or bus based on a serious jeep like Patrol, Pathfinder or Terrano.

A bus with a JEEP suspension – THIS IS THE THING! Nissan – Elgrand is out of count, it’s something different.

Care

Inside and outside wash-up lasts longer, even with a Koercher plant. Patrol proves to be a large barn, more than a minivan by 30%, and there is more mud correspondingly.

Fuel consumption

First time I fuelled the car to the full, up to the cap, the diesel oil flows very long and there is no end to the process. In a week and a half I got in for refueling wit a run of 534km and took 79 liters. A major run was inside the city and only on the rear wheel drive, so it showed 79l/534km = 14.8l/100km.

Within rated data. 14.3l/100km with MT and 13.9l/100km with AT, by the way, why the AT consumes less, is it cleverer or what?

In future, an extra filter will be installed; similar to what I had installed on the minivan with 3#1057;-#1058; engine, but this will be a double filter with replaceable elements, like that of Caterpillar.

These are the first impressions so far, after a couple of weeks; we shall see what comes next.

It’s too early yet to speak about various things made of metal, glass and rubber, everything is alive and operating.

What I like in this car:

Other articles of the category "Toyota":

Twitter-news
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

dima911@gmail.com

Born in the USSR

423360519

About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.


Car Catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about cars