I'm thinking next service I won't even bother, i'll put a 6G75 in instead. But at the same time I still hate the fuel consumption of this engine. Most of it is because I put the foot down religiously but I could do the same on a smaller engine, with more usable acceleration (especially with a turbo) and far better fuel economy. So instead i'm thinking a 4cyl might be better, but I'm still new to cars and not sure what bits n pieces really matter and whether it would be block, block+gearbox, or also require a complete gut and swap of electrics which isn't viable

Are there any 2.0-2.5L 4 cylinder turbo engines that can swap into this car? I suppose you could fit anything you wanted with enough time, welding and money but realistically could it ever be worthwhile?
I'm happy with the body, the ride, the looks. I'm extremely happy with the amount of car you can get for the tiny price and how many parts are available. The only thing I don't like is that fuel consumption. Unfortuntely even driving like a grandma's grandma it's still quite high :(

The Evo motor would fit but spending so much money on a conversion to save a bit of money on fuel seems counter intuitive

To be honest, I don't think that's a good idea at all. The third gens are big cars and are well suited to the torquey 6G-- in my opinion. To get any sort of performance from a 4 banger you'll need to cane it hard, turbo or not, and your fuel economy will be worse than the six. Less cylinders does not equate to better fuel economy, driving style has far more to do with it. Case in point from the Top Gear blokes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxUsGiGp3w

Evo motor using 4g64 engine mounts from a TE-TF will be a straight drop in. Wiring is a piece of piss if it's something you can understand.

at the same time I still hate the fuel consumption of this engine.

Could it be you just don't like the money needed to keep the car mobile? The Magna's fuel consumption hasn't changed much since the car was new, but the $ to fill the tank sure has!

Three ways you can solve this:

(1) Buy a smaller, lighter car with a more efficient engine/electronics setup. It needs to be non turbo, slow and boring.
(2) Drive less.
(3) Combine many small trips into one longer one.

I'm thinking next service I won't even bother, i'll put a 6G75 in instead. But at the same time I still hate the fuel consumption of this engine. Most of it is because I put the foot down religiously but I could do the same on a smaller engine, with more usable acceleration (especially with a turbo) and far better fuel economy. So instead i'm thinking a 4cyl might be better, but I'm still new to cars and not sure what bits n pieces really matter and whether it would be block, block+gearbox, or also require a complete gut and swap of electrics which isn't viable

Are there any 2.0-2.5L 4 cylinder turbo engines that can swap into this car? I suppose you could fit anything you wanted with enough time, welding and money but realistically could it ever be worthwhile?
I'm happy with the body, the ride, the looks. I'm extremely happy with the amount of car you can get for the tiny price and how many parts are available. The only thing I don't like is that fuel consumption. Unfortuntely even driving like a grandma's grandma it's still quite high :(

Buy a TE-TF 4Cylinder manual, they go well and are very good on fuel, drive it carefully and I'm sure you will be happy with the fuel consumption

The third gens are big cars and are well suited to the torquey 6G-- in my opinion

I can understand the gearbox but not the car, I mean 2nd gear goes to ~160kph for gods sake, thats way higher than many sports cars
The car only weighs 1500kg, comparable to a suburu forester which runs a 2.5L 4cyl turbo. With a few mods they make WAY more power than the 6g74 and have significantly better fuel economy, for about the same weight.
A friend has one which puts out 300rwhp and uses almost half what I do around town

But one of those then?

You're comparing apples and oranges, surely a near new subaru will be better then a car which is approaching the 20 year old marker.

You said it yourself, you put your foot down religiously, you can't expect to put your foot down a lot and still get good fuel economy, however if your friend is saying he has a 300 rwhp subaru that's getting excellent fuel economy then in the end it's probably because he knows petrol prices are nuts and he's not flogging the bejeezus out of it

I can understand the gearbox but not the car, I mean 2nd gear goes to ~160kph for gods sake, thats way higher than many sports cars
The car only weighs 1500kg, comparable to a suburu forester which runs a 2.5L 4cyl turbo. With a few mods they make WAY more power than the 6g74 and have significantly better fuel economy, for about the same weight.
A friend has one which puts out 300rwhp and uses almost half what I do around town

The 4-sp auto box does have a very tall 2nd gear, dropping in the 5-sp might be an option worth researching. As khn47 says re comparing apples and oranges, the only valid economy comparison between your Mitsu and your mate's Subaru is if you were to drive them both in the identical style (ie. with religious right foot planting) and even then, the (presumably) newer Forester would be expected to be more efficient.

It's also worth considering the long-term position. While a 4 cylinder may be able to match or beat the power, and possibly even the torque, of a six cylinder engine, it must be working harder to do so, turbo or not. This means higher revs and wider throttles for longer periods, shortening your maintenance periods and, accounting for wear and tear, possibly costing more in the long run than you might save on fuel costs. In any case, regardless of the number of cylinders, a vehicle's performance and efficiency relies on a tuned, balanced engine/gearbox/vehicle-mass setup, a clever engine management system (in practice, the newer the better), and the driver having an understanding of torque and power and how driving style is critical in using both to achieve economy when required, and performance when desired.

Has the oxygen sensor ever been changed in your car Millenium7?

Has the oxygen sensor ever been changed in your car Millenium7?

Shouldn't you be asking what his fuel consumption is like, first? lol
I think he is blaming the high price of filling the tank on the car.

1996: $0.65 /L 60L = $40.
2014: $1.50 /L 60L = $90.

I wait for the bottom of the price cycle, then go fill up 3 cars. $150 or so. lol

It's not the price per litre, it's that there are faster and more economical engines out there. It seems wasteful to be burning all that fuel for not much benefit. It's not exactly quick to 100
Getting a new car is an option but not necessarily ideal, since there are no decent sporty cars that are anywhere near as straight and clean as a Verada with all the trimmings for the same price

My current fuel consumption is about 400km to a full tank. Driving the way I do, mostly city with some highway. Trips always at least 15 minutes at a time (up to 2-3 hours in the car a day)
Exclusively highway about 650

If your numbers are accurate, and I suspect they're not, and based on 71 litre tank capacity (not sure if that's accurate), you're getting 17.75L/100km city and almost 11L/100km highway. That's high and could indicate that something's wrong, ie. MPI component stuffed, brake dragging etc. On a recent Melbourne to Robinvale and back trip my 3.5 TJII wagon (lightly loaded - maybe 250kgs including driver, over 280k on the clock) managed an average of 7.14L/100km (range ~900km). I don't know my city-only usage but mixed is about 11.5 to 12 by the trip computer. There's a bunch of threads on here re economy, in your position I'd research and eliminate the main causes of excessive fuel use before considering a transplant, though as mentioned there are a number of possible options if your heart's set on a 4-pot.

I've been through the fuel economy thing before on this forum, the conclusion i've come to is people just flat out lie about their consumption and quote significantly less than it actually is, or drive much slower than they claim. Because there's no way i'm getting what some people claim to get. Best i've ever managed around town (still with some highway) was about 550km and that was MEGA granny just to see what it would be like in an absolute best case scenario
400km = ~63L not 71L so about 15L/100km

Brakes don't drag any unusual amount. I've readjusted the handbrake (correctly, at wheels and in car) so there's zero drag on them. Tyres are 36psi, O2 sensor changed very recently, no obvious fuel leaks or problems, can get it to at least 220kph so probably not catalytic converter or obvious restriction. Have run 3 tanks of injector cleaner, have used upper engine cleaner, cleaned MAF sensor, spark plugs done very recently. Still crap fuel economy, and interestingly enough I actually get slightly less out of a tank if I use BP Ultimate as opposed to 91 unleaded

Apologies, I assumed sedan for the tank capacity. 550km range would be about right for mixed city/highway (11.5L/100km) but that should be with 'normal' driving, not mega-granny. My numbers were based on a cruising speed of 100-110kph with probably 8 or 9 occasions of WOT on overtaking (so definitely not granny), 50L used over ~700km (Kerang to Robinvale to Ringwood). Seeing as your best result eliminated your driving style as the cause it still seems like something's not right, your fuel use still seems higher than it should be. It is interesting that you get less range from the higher octane fuel, technically it shouldn't make any difference since the 3rd gens don't have knock sensors but I seem to get about 5% more range from 98 compared to 91 (at a guess, I've not actually tested this). I dunno, I agree that other economy threads seem to include a wide variance in numbers but yours seems to be at the upper end of the scale.

Recently I drove my car 85% highway with AC on and it was raining and managed 754km from my tank.
I suspect with 100% highway, no AC and no rain would get me over 900km to a tank.
I assure you I am not lying about my consumption figures

There are 2 possibilities I can think of that might bump up the fuel consumption quite a bit
First being A/C. I 'always' have the climate control on. Usually about 20c
The second being humidity, it's usually about 70-85% humidity here day and night. Right now its 23c and 91% humidity

Km per tank is such an inaccurate way of measuring fuel consumption.
You need to fill the tank to the first click off, zero the trip meter, drive, then fill up again at the same pump. Do some maths.

If you have a trip computer, it's a no brainer. 7.2L/100 km out of my TJ sedan on a 300 km country drive. No WOT efforts needed or engaged in. No A/C on for first half, A/C on second half. Didn't seem to make any difference.

Km per tank is such an inaccurate way of measuring fuel consumption.
You need to fill the tank, zero the trip meter, drive, then fill up again. Do some maths.

.....The same thing lol
I don't siphon my tank, fill it up and drive

AC will definitely have an impact, I had my CC on eco mode for maybe 15% of the time, the rest of the time it was off. Not sure re humidity, possibly impacts air/fuel ratio? (out of my depth on that count).

15l/100km is pretty heavy consumption out of a FWD without towing being involved :( In my AWD I get around 14l/100km around Canberra and just under 10l/100km on highway trips (between 100-110kmh) even with heavy A/C use. Even on the Stuart Hwy (NT) at 130kmh I still averaged less than 11l/100km with a fair load on board.

Other than the oxygen sensor, one thing that comes to mind as possibly leading to excessive fuel consumption is apparently low coolant temperature - if the sensor (which I understand is not the same sensor as used by the cluster) is reporting very low temps to the ECU, it would be keeping the engine in "warm-up" mode. From what I've been able to determine, the ECU doesn't enter closed loop mode (using the oxygen sensor) until the sensor reports at least 36°C. I don't know whether a CEL would be triggered unless the sensor showed as either open or short circuit.

Access to a logging rig (Evoscan or MUT-III) would make this easy to check.

Where abouts is the sensor and could I check if its sending a signal with a multimeter as it warms up?

Where abouts is the sensor and could I check if its sending a signal with a multimeter as it warms up?
Not sure exactly where the sensor is (both the PDF W/S manual and the Ellery manual I have seem irritatingly vague on this topic :censored:) but probably close to the thermostat housing. The Ellery manual suggests that at full operating temperature there should be less than 1V between the sensor output and ground; the PDF manual indicates that the ECU is supposed to throw a code 21 if the sensor output stays above 1.6V for more than 5 minutes once the engine is running, or is less than 0.1V.

Km per tank is such an inaccurate way of measuring fuel consumption.
You need to fill the tank to the first click off, zero the trip meter, drive, then fill up again at the same pump. Do some maths.

If you have a trip computer, it's a no brainer. 7.2L/100 km out of my TJ sedan on a 300 km country drive. No WOT efforts needed or engaged in. No A/C on for first half, A/C on second half. Didn't seem to make any difference.

I have found over the years that driving with airconditioning ON with windows up and Airconditioning OFF with windows down gives very similar Fuel economy!

I have found over the years that driving with airconditioning ON with windows up and Airconditioning OFF with windows down gives very similar Fuel economy!

I found the same thing as well. It applies more at high speed when there is more drag with windows down.

I don't think going to a 4cyl is the solution, as it is still going to be a reasonably sized and weighty car.

Your current consumption is high, have you tried setting your cc to 23 degrees instead of 20, as I reckon this should have a fair effect.


The next step I would say should be manual conversion, then the 6g75 motor preferable to others.
A manual fwd magna with a 6g75 is a fantastic combination.


As a last point though, consider how much $any mods are going to cost to perform, and then how much fuel you need to save before they pay for themselves.
Like buying a Prius over another similar sized car to save on fuel, you will never recoup the extra outlay.

I don't think going to a 4cyl is the solution, as it is still going to be a reasonably sized and weighty car.

Your current consumption is high, have you tried setting your cc to 23 degrees instead of 20, as I reckon this should have a fair effect.


The next step I would say should be manual conversion, then the 6g75 motor preferable to others.
A manual fwd magna with a 6g75 is a fantastic combination.


As a last point though, consider how much $any mods are going to cost to perform, and then how much fuel you need to save before they pay for themselves.
Like buying a Prius over another similar sized car to save on fuel, you will never recoup the extra outlay.

AC on 23 is too warm, as in still sweaty. It might need a gas top up as it does struggle a bit on the really hot humid days
Manuals belong exclusively on motorbikes and weekend fun cars

The thing is the car cost me $4500 (cars are priced much higher where I live) and the body is pristine. It's not possible to find a 'small' car in anywhere near as good condition. So yes I could buy 'a' small car for ~$5000 it'll be in reasonable but not fantastic condition, the ride will suck compared to the verada, it'll rattle and vibrate more, suspension won't be as plush, it'll likely have a few niggles like broken buttons or squeaks, definitely have a few scratches or faded paint spots, won't be as comfortable to drive, won't have climate control, may not have cruise control etc
Thats why i'm considering an engine conversion, because the body on this one is pristine and its nice to be in

You can also convert to LPG maybe?
Anyway I said it before but how can you justify spending thousands on an engine conversion to save a few dollars a week on petrol?

I made the same decision as you, a smaller car wit the same level of equipment (or at the least even power windows) would cost about double of my Verada, and even at $150 more petrol per month it will take years before I break even and in those years I have been driving a quiet, comfortable, smooth and powerful car rather than some noisy econobox

Where abouts is the sensor and could I check if its sending a signal with a multimeter as it warms up?

There are two sensors near the thermostat housing, one informs the ECU of engine temp and the other runs the temp gauge on the dash.
The workshop manual may be able to tell which is which, and how to check them.
Ripping 2 out of a Magna at the wreckers should take all of 5 minutes.

Anyway I said it before but how can you justify spending thousands on an engine conversion to save a few dollars a week on petrol?

Because I can simultaneously gain a crapload more performance and go from 9.0 seconds to ~6.0 seconds with a twin turbo 2L setup
Then I have an extremely comfortable, quiet, smooth, enjoyable car to drive with the nice trimmings. And the performance to have a lot of fun with it, then it's the ultimate car for me and doesn't need to be replaced until it falls apart
The 6g74 engine is good.... after 80kph in 2nd gear when it can begin the lay power down

I'd imagine a supercharged 6g74/6g75 to use enormous amounts of fuel, and still cost more than a turbo engine swap to install

A 4 cylinder in a 3rd gen with enough power to make it go from 0-100km/h in 6 seconds won't be smooth nor quiet (IMHO).

Your issue would be the 4 speed auto, having driven both the 5 speed is very considerably faster

Wrong area