Chat cam mk
After driving them both I decided that the lack of response under 1800 from the TD and the price premium made the V6 my pick.
Looking at the LCool site that gc provided the link to, the 2.7 is a vastly underestmated motor, it seems they would be well worth a look, probably way better than the non turbo diesel (in most instances) (just as a side note, I thought the V6 was quite ok, pulled from 800rpm in higher gears without to much trauma and seemed more powerful than my old Triton, I happened to take a mates new V6 Triton for a drive last week, and was amazed at the power and responsiveness of that little 3l motor (I didnt look too much at the new Tritons thinking the 3.4 toyota would eat the 3l Triton))Isn't it amazing how different people rank the speed and drivability of a new vehicle.
I am a diesel fan but for most people I reckon petrol engines are more powerful, cleaner, cheaper to buy and service (generally) and less fuss than diesels.Cheers gc[quote author=tritondriver link=board=5;threadid=2479;start=0#msg35775 date=1082280055] Wilesy wilsey wilsey, the 2.7 petrol is a four cylinder.(which I know nothing about) The V6 (3.4litre) is a pretty good donk from all accounts, and good for 12.5 litres per 100 on hwy (confirmed by several owners) Compareing the V6 to the NA diesel is no comparasin at all, altho the Turbo and the V6 are very close in performance, and personal preference and price is probaly all that seperates them.Because I was looking at the SR5, I wasn't even aware that there was a little 4 cylinder available.I have read many articles on which the V6 was returning figures of 17 litres per 100 kilometres, (In auto form, which is certainly anything but frugal) that's why I said what I did.