I've read a few posts on the forums which state that it's a matter of when rather than if an auto 3rd gen with a 6G75 conversion will have transmission issues.

What about an AWD with a 6G75 conversion, will it be a ticking time bomb or are they more durable?

I've been driving my supercharged 75 without a cooler around for the past year and a half without any issues. I'm very generous with the pedal too.

I've had a 6G75 in my TW AWD for about 13 months now and done 20,000km. The odo was 157K when the 75 went in and my auto trans is perfectly happy. It's silky smooth when I baby it and responsive and solid when I'm a lead foot.

I've read a few posts on the forums which state that it's a matter of when rather than if an auto 3rd gen with a 6G75 conversion will have transmission issues.
Some people say the same thing about 3rd gen transmissions on unmodified Magnas - that it's a matter of when, not if. I disagree.

I wouldn't let it put you off a 6G75 conversion.

Thanks guys.
Does anyone know how fast a 6G75 AWD 3rd gen is?

15 flat down the quarter or better. Possible into the mid 14's.

The 6G75 is also much torquier down low which will help the heavy AWD get moving.

0-100kmh expect around mid 6 sec easily. Quarter mile 15 flat if you have a towbar and full tank of fuel. I reckon high 14's without all the "ballast" weight. But the 6G75 also makes the AWD much more driveable with the ~80Nm torque gain. Trust me, taking off fast in the wet and feeling that solid acceleration off the line never gets old! :D

There's no reason why the INVECSII 5 speed auto wouldn't easily handle the extra grunt, especially with the addition of an inline transmission cooler, external filter & upgraded wave-spring washer.
I've read somewhere that stock they are rated at something like 500+ NM of torque.
It's the same auto as used in the Jap spec Lancer Evo GTA.

There's no reason why the INVECSII 5 speed auto wouldn't easily handle the extra grunt, especially with the addition of an inline transmission cooler, external filter & upgraded wave-spring washer.
I've read somewhere that stock they are rated at something like 500+ NM of torque.
It's the same auto as used in the Jap spec Lancer Evo GTA.

The Evo 7 GT-A was derated compared to the manual Evo 7 (only 193Kw and 360Nm are the figures I've found). I've not seen figures for the Evo 9 Estate which used the same box but would be surprised if it wasn't also derated. I very much doubt the boxes are universally good for 500Nm though several people are no doubt pushing that figure (so far without failure), but I am aware of another that did come apart (planetary gear set failure).

There's no reason why the INVECSII 5 speed auto wouldn't easily handle the extra grunt, especially with the addition of an inline transmission cooler, external filter & upgraded wave-spring washer.
I've read somewhere that stock they are rated at something like 500+ NM of torque.
It's the same auto as used in the Jap spec Lancer Evo GTA.

There is no way in hell a stock auto will be rated to 500+Nm, a particular blue charged Verada ate the transmission and its probably pushing somewhere around 450Nm

Or if you're still worried about an auto trans, just manual convert it!

The issue is that with the cost of the car + 75 conversion + manual conversion might as well buy something like a Mazda 6 MPS or Liberty GT.

I read on Autospeed that the AWD is much less refined than the FWD in terms of going over bumps + driveline refinement. Can anyone tell me how much the difference really is, if any?

Awd makes some noises. I personally dont see the point of it but theres alot of people that lovevthem. Probably better to get a fwd with fuel prices the way they are.

I read on Autospeed that the AWD is much less refined than the FWD in terms of going over bumps + driveline refinement. Can anyone tell me how much the difference really is, if any?

If you want to benefit from the advantages AWD in a Magna supplies, I think any perceived differences of 'going over bumps + driveline refinement' are nothing to be concerned about for daily driving in the real world, under real conditions, for most drivers. My TJ2 Sports AWD handles well, eats bumps for breakfast, and is quiet enough and smooth to drive for a vehicle that is 1624kg.
After owning, driving and hiring various 3rd generation Magna's for 17 years, I am very happy with my AWD. I consider it a very competent, fun and safe vehicle to drive, no matter what the road or weather conditions are. Being generally under appreciated, they are quite cheap to buy for what they are.
Yes, an AWD Magna will use more fuel than a FWD. Mine uses approximately 2 lt/100km more than my previous 3.5. That's chump change for what I receive in return.

I highly doubt the auto trans is built only to withstand the stock engine and a relatively low increase will do damage. The g75 is not a massive jump in power or torque. It's like any other part, if you look after it, it will out last the car.

I had my auto rebuilt about a year before my 75 went in :)

I read on Autospeed that the AWD is much less refined than the FWD in terms of going over bumps + driveline refinement. Can anyone tell me how much the difference really is, if any?
I'd agree with less refined driveline, if u mean N&V, although I think it handles bumps well.

I found the FWD Verada to be very refined, smooth and quiet. The AWD is significantly noisier; with intrusive drone, vibration and far more shift shocks being felt. But that's only when comparing them side by side (I have both). By itself the AWD is good and makes up for it with the most amazing traction, truly awesome stickiness wet or dry.

Other things are increased fuel consumption, already mentioned, additional service costs (oils), understeer evident in certain situations and slightly less get up and go due to the additional weight, most notable when high speed overtaking.

But these drawbacks are fairly marginal, I was just spoilt by my beautiful KH for too many years.

IMO the AWD is no less refined than a FWD and those roadtest articles are being needlessly harsh, comparing my TW to my wifes TJ the TW is actually less noisey inside the cabin. I don't notice any form of extra noise or vibration from the driveline at all, including under hard acceleration, etc. Around town it is about 2L per 100km thirstier but freeway driving is much closer, it is also not quite as eager as the TJ (but not too much in it either).

I'm hoping that a set of HM headers will help on both accounts a little as the splitter plate at the Y join is also busted and rattles when cold. The extra traction and more secure/balanced handling is really great and makes up for those couple of negatives easily, with a 6G75 it would be awesome!!.

Down the track I'm considering either a 6G75 swap or off loading the AWD to my wife and picking up a Galant VR-4 as the AWD with some extra punch would be fantastic!!

I am very happy with my AWD. I consider it a very competent, fun and safe vehicle to drive, no matter what the road or weather conditions are. Being generally under appreciated, they are quite cheap to buy for what they are.
Yes, an AWD Magna will use more fuel than a FWD. Mine uses approximately 2 lt/100km more than my previous 3.5. That's chump change for what I receive in return.
Yeah that's why I bought mine recently. I love it. Great car and fantastically cheap for what you're getting.
Mine is annoyingly harsh though. I feel the Mitsubishi Corporate pain of the time in the AWD if the refinement of the FWD is anything to go by. I live in regional Vic and dirt roads amplify the harshness and show up 85% baked nature of the car. This is ultimately GOOD for us as prices are ridiculously low for a car like this. The good aspects of the AWD far outweigh the faults in the price range IMO. For the handling potential the stock wheels, tyres, springs and shocks are mismatched if you like to drive it (as if anyone who owns one doesn't know).

I highly doubt the auto trans is built only to withstand the stock engine and a relatively low increase will do damage. The g75 is not a massive jump in power or torque. It's like any other part, if you look after it, it will out last the car.

It's the same auto that's used in the Lancer EVO GTA (Jap spec) which had 200kw & 343nm of torque: http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_111470/article.html
So no problems handling the extra power of the 6G75

There is no way in hell a stock auto will be rated to 500+Nm, a particular blue charged Verada ate the transmission and its probably pushing somewhere around 450Nm

Dave, there are that many cars today running more than 500nm of torque stock with auto transmissions, WTF?
Having said that, Perhaps MADMAGNA would be able to shed some light on the torque rating of an INVECSII as I couldn't find any further info except that:
Lancer EVO GTA had 343Nm of torque: http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_111470/article.html
& 2002 Pajero DiD had 373Nm both using the same transmission: http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/articledetail.aspx?ArticleID=3317

I don't know the circumstances surrounding Blue charged verada spitting out its auto. ie; how many Km's had that transmission done, was it serviced & flushed with the proper SPII fluid & fitted with the updated wavespring washer prior to engine mods, and if not, did it have a wave spring washer failure? which would pretty much negate your arguement.

Dave, there are that many cars today running more than 500nm of torque stock with auto transmissions, WTF?

that is correct. there are also truck gearboxes that can handle a few thousand nm of torque. what do both of these have in common? they are not bolted into magnas.

The more torque you apply above stock levels, the life of the box becomes shorter.

now im not saying that the box couldnt handle 500nm of torque, but it probably wont.

that is correct. there are also truck gearboxes that can handle a few thousand nm of torque. what do both of these have in common? they are not bolted into magnas.

The more torque you apply above stock levels, the life of the box becomes shorter.

now im not saying that the box couldnt handle 500nm of torque, but it probably wont.

Pretty much sums everything up.

Really not sure how this thread has gone to this extent, then again not really surprised

Given that I have done over 30 of these conversions with most of them bolted up behind 5sp autos I can say that not withstanding prior damage, abuse or neglect, there has not yet been an issue

What you are all forgetting is that the trans bolted upto the 380 has essentially the same internals.

Now some will harp on about wave springs etc etc, this is not an issue caused by power.

If you want to put a 75 into a 5sp auto driven Magna you can be assured that if your trans fails it most likely would have also failed had you kept the 74. It is not like a 75 is putting out a huge amount of extra power, yes it does go a lot better but you are not bolting twin snails to it and then sitting in park and dumping it into drive at 6k.....

Would be also very interested to know where on this forum and whom stated that is not a mater of if but when a trans will go with a 6G75, is a very big assumption to make. We all know that assumption is the mother of all big mistakes....

I should let this die, but...
Anything mechanical is USUALLY designed with a safety factor - 2:1 is considered the bear minimum where I work. Now assuming (there's that word again) Mitsubishi was silly enough to only use 2:1 safety factor the box would be good for up to 700nm. This would then mean at 700nm and over you're starting to push your luck, BUT the box wont just explode at 700nm.

Mitsubishi would have used a higher safety factor because this protects their bottom line - simple. How much higher would their safety fact have been? Ask the guy in charge of the budget. He would have traded off things like initial manufacturing costs and servicing costs against predicted failure rates.

Now the crusher; safety factors are usually determined using "perfect world" calculations. They don't factor in things like a poor batch of clutches or drive shafts. Nor can they factor in poor conditions or treatment (the human factor). To balance these things out you just keep raising the safety factor until some bean counter comes running in with his calculator on fire and waving pie charts at you desperately trying protect the company's profits.

TLDR; My experience in mechanical design tells me* the box should handle up to 700nm before is starts to freak out. You could go over that BUT ONLY IF you live in the perfect sanitary would of mathematical calculations & science, use materials completely free of any imperfections and the transmission is stripped and cleaned every other week.

*"tells ME" = not me telling you this is fact.

Put 700 nm behind a 5 speed and drive it hard and I pretty much guaranty that it will not last long. A. 380 motor has little more torque that a rally art or Evo 7 ( if any more at all) so you will be pretty safe with a 6g75 and any off the shelf
"Power" mods you can afford ( such as extractors and such) put a turbo or s/c through it with big boost and your f'ed.

Put 700 nm behind a 5 speed and drive it hard and I pretty much guaranty that it will not last long. A. 380 motor has little more torque that a rally art or Evo 7 ( if any more at all) so you will be pretty safe with a 6g75 and any off the shelf
"Power" mods you can afford ( such as extractors and such) put a turbo or s/c through it with big boost and your f'ed.

I'd like to think that by the time you've spent enough money extracting 700nm out of a 6G75/4 you'd have at least looked at the transmission... you know, complete rebuild without any expense spares sort of thing. A whole lot of xray testing and hardening, super precise tolerances/machining/balancing.

I'd like to see that budget! A 700nm 6G75/4 AND an F5A51 transmission to take it?!? CHA-CHING!!

Forgetting lock up convertors for a moment, consider an auto trans as a non mechanical link between engine and gearbox - so a fluid coupling. The durability of auto transmissions is actually pretty good if considering a moderate power increase esp if heat is properly controlled. It is reasonable to suggest if a trans is worn, more power will accelerate the wear though.

I don't get the impression these transmissions are weak. I wouldn't hesitate in putting a 6g75 on my 150k transmission. A lot of people out there talk a lot rubbish you know.

Dave, there are that many cars today running more than 500nm of torque stock with auto transmissions, WTF?


I don't know the circumstances surrounding Blue charged verada spitting out its auto. ie; how many Km's had that transmission done, was it serviced & flushed with the proper SPII fluid & fitted with the updated wavespring washer prior to engine mods, and if not, did it have a wave spring washer failure? which would pretty much negate your arguement.

Sorry, are we talking specifically about INVECSII? I know i was! Certainly not talking about a completely different auto in another manufacturer - of course there are autos that can handle 500nm+, but the stock INVECSII, no way!!

And the blue verada chewed the planetarys...

And the blue verada prob had pre existing issues FFS. Is a common issue where the planetary nut comes loose. Has SFA to do with power or torque

Forgetting lock up convertors for a moment, consider an auto trans as a non mechanical link between engine and gearbox - so a fluid coupling. The durability of auto transmissions is actually pretty good if considering a moderate power increase esp if heat is properly controlled. It is reasonable to suggest if a trans is worn, more power will accelerate the wear though.

I don't get the impression these transmissions are weak. I wouldn't hesitate in putting a 6g75 on my 150k transmission. A lot of people out there talk a lot rubbish you know.

Exactly. I have put 75's behind auto boxes with over 300k on them and still going strong. Is not power but previous wear that causes the issue

I hate to think how many manual cars' clutches, syncro's or teeth fail for every one auto box that dies!
At the wheels, the 6G75 is about 40% more power and 25% more torque (at peak - in a 3rd gen tuned for 98), and it has a lot more bottom end torque than a 6G74. Still doesn't mean it'd fail given the trans is also designed to tow.

Exactly. I have put 75's behind auto boxes with over 300k on them and still going strong. Is not power but previous wear that causes the issue

We arent talking just about 6G75's though, but reliability with forced induction added on top. I simply questioned the ability of the stock auto trans to handle 500Nm reliably - that is all

We arent talking just about 6G75's though, but reliability with forced induction added on top. I simply questioned the ability of the stock auto trans to handle 500Nm reliably - that is all

Well the fwds certainly dont lol

BUT this thread was asking will this trans cope with a 6G75, not a SC, Cams, Turbo's or a V8. Just a humble old 6G75.

This is where threads go completely off topic and become useless to those trying to get simple answers. Person asks the colour of a tyre and all of a sudden there is a 4 page thread about the possibilities after a nuclear explosion etc etc.

As for the FWD's certainly dont, again I know of a couple of 5sp Auto's which have coped with forced induction fine, as stated above, it depends on the condition of the box PRIOR to this being done.

Madmagna, so assuming the 6G75 was fitted to a brand new car ( AWD and 5 speed FWD auto) the extra power/torque of the 6G75 would not cause any significant amount of extra wear, tear or damage over the 3.5?

I am confident that if you had a brand new off the showroom floor car with a 6G75 and drove that car like you would any car of same but with the 6G74 that the car would be as reliable as the 74 powered car. As I stated, the internals of the 380 trans are pretty much the same as the Magna 5sp Auto

At the wheels, the 6G75 is about 40% more power and 25% more torque (at peak - in a 3rd gen tuned for 98), and it has a lot more bottom end torque than a 6G74.
Since when? How does 159kw/318Nm (6G74) vs 175kw/343Nm (6G75) at the crankshaft - a mere 16kw/25Nm - or 10%/8% - difference in power an torque (std) - become 40% and 25% at the wheels, respectively, even with 98 octane?? Surely you're not seriously suggesting that a 98 octane tune on its own adds 30% more power and 17% more torque???

Seems to me you're either just trying to scare the OP off, or you have a truly exaggerated of the performance increase (or both) with a bunch of random factoids with no real facts at all. The same goes for:

the ~80Nm torque gain.

Since when? How does 159kw/318Nm (6G74) vs 175kw/343Nm (6G75) at the crankshaft - a mere 16kw/25Nm - or 10%/8% - difference in power an torque (std) - become 40% and 25% at the wheels, respectively, even with 98 octane?? Surely you're not seriously suggesting that a 98 octane tune on its own adds 30% more power and 17% more torque???

Seems to me you're either just trying to scare the OP off, or you have a truly exaggerated of the performance increase (or both) with a bunch of random factoids with no real facts at all. The same goes for:

You should research before you post. A 6g75 in a magna has alot more then 175kw, it only has 175 in a stock 380. Its more like 200 in a magna.

A 6g75 in a magna has alot more then 175kw, it only has 175 in a stock 380. Its more like 200 in a magna.
How about producing some evidence...

Even 200kw is a whole lot less than the alleged 40% increase (ie 223kw)!

How about producing some evidence...

Even 200kw is a whole lot less than the alleged 40% increase (ie 223kw)!

My evidence is every dyno graph of a 6g75. In a 3rd gen manual every dyno I have seen as been 150-160fwkw. You dont get that much power from a 175kw engine. How can you put an engine and take away all its exhaust restriction and have it make the same power? Ofcoarse its going to make more.

How about producing some evidence...

Even 200kw is a whole lot less than the alleged 40% increase (ie 223kw)!
It's pretty common knowledge. Search the forums yourself if you want evidence. There are multiple 6G75 equipped Magnas with around 160fwkw.

Even Foozrcool's 380 with extractors, exhaust, CAI and a tune made 173kw at the wheels if I recall correctly. The 380's restrictive exhaust really hampers the motors.

An AWD magna with a 3.5 - stock - will put down about 100KW at the wheels. My dyno run with a 3.8 resulted in 136.6KW at the wheels, before the 98 tune! That was with HM headers and a full stock cat-back with the quiet muffler. I've seen 3.8 AWD dyno results over 140KW at the wheels with a VRX muffler or something higher flowing. Zero's had over 150AWKW i believe and even RPW's AWD magna had 150AWKW (~200HP).

That is very clearly a 40% increase in horsepower. The torque increase is massive at the low RPM (something like 50% or more). Peak torque according to mine and others' dyno results is something like 80-100NM increase at the wheels.

I don't make the rules, I'm just providing facts. Also, given the huge drive losses in an AWD, if anything those number are an understatement (could be even more at the fly than expected).

So, you're not comparing a stock 380 to stock Magna AWD swap. 'nuff said. There is no way taking a 380 engine and putting it into an otherwise stock AWD Magna, with its restrictive exhaust, is going to produce a 40% power increase. I think you've proved that by the extra mods you needed to do...

We're talking power gains over the old 3.5L - totally different beast to the 3.8. Headers alone barely count as a mod

I think the thread is 6G75 + AWD = A BIG YES. Don't get hung up on the numbers guy's. Once you you drive one, you know it makes sense!

Cheers Dave.

At what power level would the AWD car start being faster than a FWD?
I assume a FWD 6G75 is still faster than an AWD 6G75?

FWD vs AWD with the same 6G75 - the AWD is quicker off the line, til maybe 80kmh due to traction and gearing, but down the 1/4 mile the FWD would be quicker (by about 1 second). However, in real life situations if the roads are greasy wet or you're on dirt roads, the AWD is much quicker at accelerating, especially to legal speed limits.

Personally I prefer to have the 6G75 power not wasted - going to all four corners. We spend most of our time on the road, sometimes with less than ideal conditions. The AWD grip and handling makes the 6G75 power VERY accessible in all conditions.

FWD vs AWD with the same 6G75 - the AWD is quicker off the line, til maybe 80kmh due to traction and gearing, but down the 1/4 mile the FWD would be quicker (by about 1 second). However, in real life situations if the roads are greasy wet or you're on dirt roads, the AWD is much quicker at accelerating, especially to legal speed limits.

Personally I prefer to have the 6G75 power not wasted - going to all four corners. We spend most of our time on the road, sometimes with less than ideal conditions. The AWD grip and handling makes the 6G75 power VERY accessible in all conditions.

Tyres dictate grip... not drivetrain

Ok,
I am closing this down, has gone on long enough

I will say one thing in closing, Tyres alone DO NOT dictate grip, I have never heard such a funny comment in my entire life. Give me a wet road and I would take the AWD over the FWD any day (both cars having same suspension, trans and engine set up) While tyres do have a big role to play in grip when you have 4 driving instead of 2 driving not only is the car more stable but off the line more grip not that I can fathom how this has now gone into a FWD to AWD debate?