Question to Gerrit Loubser,
Why are you anti common rail injection? Surely it is an improvement over direct injection?
Bigwill, common rail technology is great in terms of engine performance. The very high injection pressures and full electronic control of each injector mean fantastic power/economy and good engine refinement (relatively low engine noise and vibration levels) as well.
The down side is that these same high working pressures require very tight tolerances on the working parts, which mean that the system is less tolerant of any dirt/foreign matter in the fuel. I am not aware of an epidemic of issues with the Mitsu common rails, but Toyota D4-D owners have experienced some hassles with injectors that are probably dirt related.
It also means that some of the system components (e.g. injectors) are not serviceable, but must be replaced at great cost when worn (and wear they will, running at working conditions not that dissimilar to those in a water jet cutting system).
So I am not against common rail as such, but I think the older DiD motor yields almost all of the benefits of the later common rail version in a package that will stand up to African conditions better and which will be cheaper to run to high mileage.
The down side is that these same high working pressures require very tight tolerances on the working parts, which mean that the system is less tolerant of any dirt/foreign matter in the fuel. I am not aware of an epidemic of issues with the Mitsu common rails, but Toyota D4-D owners have experienced some hassles with injectors that are probably dirt related.
It also means that some of the system components (e.g. injectors) are not serviceable, but must be replaced at great cost when worn (and wear they will, running at working conditions not that dissimilar to those in a water jet cutting system).
So I am not against common rail as such, but I think the older DiD motor yields almost all of the benefits of the later common rail version in a package that will stand up to African conditions better and which will be cheaper to run to high mileage.
Gerrit Loubser 
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
Thanks then Gerrit. That then is music to the ears of a Gen 3 man like me.
Willie from Jo'burg
White Gen 3 SWB Pajero 3.2 DID
White Gen 3 SWB Pajero 3.2 DID
Had a close look today at the motor show in PE, not overly impressed, my thoughts are:
Very plasticky interior. Rear seat height too low for any child older than say 13yrs. The 7 seat configuration poses real problems for drawer system. Front seats look pretty unsubstantial.
I do like the motor and it has real approach and departure angle not sure what they are, but look good for a standard vehicle. Not sure it is pitched directly at the Fortuner, if so may be little pricey.
Have heard from a reliable source that additional models will be forthcoming. I would probably wait for the model range to be finalised before purchasing.
Shoo!! Almost joined the Mitsu fraternity. Still got me sights set on a PAJ
Very plasticky interior. Rear seat height too low for any child older than say 13yrs. The 7 seat configuration poses real problems for drawer system. Front seats look pretty unsubstantial.
I do like the motor and it has real approach and departure angle not sure what they are, but look good for a standard vehicle. Not sure it is pitched directly at the Fortuner, if so may be little pricey.
Have heard from a reliable source that additional models will be forthcoming. I would probably wait for the model range to be finalised before purchasing.
Shoo!! Almost joined the Mitsu fraternity. Still got me sights set on a PAJ
I take back my coment above.....
They should have stuck to the Australian name, Challenger.
Its NOT a Pajero, nor sporty in my opinion. Too me its a Triton converted to a station wagon and no more....
Sport in my opinion would be something that has seriaaas grunt and power. Dont call a diesel 4x4 a sport... OK, I only looked at the diesel model, I dont even know if they have a petrol
The rear suspension looks good. Its the "old" suspension from the IQ / Q make Susposed to be very good. The front is the same as a real Pajero.
The interior looks more plastic than that of the Fortuner. Cheap....
Engine is the std Pajero / Triton engine.
In a nutshell, I dont like it.
They should have stuck to the Australian name, Challenger.
Its NOT a Pajero, nor sporty in my opinion. Too me its a Triton converted to a station wagon and no more....
Sport in my opinion would be something that has seriaaas grunt and power. Dont call a diesel 4x4 a sport... OK, I only looked at the diesel model, I dont even know if they have a petrol
The rear suspension looks good. Its the "old" suspension from the IQ / Q make Susposed to be very good. The front is the same as a real Pajero.
The interior looks more plastic than that of the Fortuner. Cheap....
Engine is the std Pajero / Triton engine.
In a nutshell, I dont like it.
No petrol.....
also dont like the headlines found here:http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fAr ... fSetId=381
also dont like the headlines found here:http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fAr ... fSetId=381
I had a quick look at the Paj Sport this afternoon. I agree that it gave the impression of being plasticky.
Hopping from the Sport into a Gen 4 GLX, the difference was like night and day. The Paj is in a different class to the Sport.
I really like the Sport conceptually, but at R414k, the price is very steep for what it is.
There is what I assume to be a harmonic balancer just in front of the rear diff that looks a little vulnerable and the fuel tank also looks like it might collect some knocks. It has a reasonable bash plate under the latter, though.
Hopping from the Sport into a Gen 4 GLX, the difference was like night and day. The Paj is in a different class to the Sport.
I really like the Sport conceptually, but at R414k, the price is very steep for what it is.
There is what I assume to be a harmonic balancer just in front of the rear diff that looks a little vulnerable and the fuel tank also looks like it might collect some knocks. It has a reasonable bash plate under the latter, though.
Gerrit Loubser
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
2003 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 VX TD
2003 Mitsubishi Pajero 3.2 DiD LWB A/T Gone & missed
1999 Nissan Patrol 4.5E GRX M/T: Gone & missed
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 VX 4.5 EFI A/T: SOLD
In my opinion the new Pajero sport is more a Triton Sport and not a Pajero. A Pajero is a Pajero....not a glorified Triton! Am I right or Wrong?
Regards
Neels
Regards
Neels