Not sure if anyone has covered this (I'm sure they have, just couldn't find it).

Besides the AWD Magna being faster off the mark, is there any real benefits to it? I know it weighs more because of the extra mechanical parts, and I heard you're restricted in terms of the size of wheel you can put on it? (I heard max wheel size is 16" because it has a different body shape that cannot support a larger wheel/etc).

In theory I'm sure they'd be awesome, but compared to the FWD variant, it seems like the cons outweigh the pros.

Someone want to weigh in on this and prove me wrong or confirm these?

I have 17inch VRX rims on mine they seem to just clear the rear control arms, but its really tight, other then that they are abit of a slug but no wheel spin when you quickly accelerate out of side streets is pretty cool, other then that, everyday driving I doubt you would notice to much of a difference, in saying that though I personally prefer driving my awd verada instead of my dads 380, it just seems to feel firmer on the road

and they use more fuel too, so be prepared for that too

I had 18s on my old AWD so they're not a problem. With any larger sized wheels the front flash shields need to be moved back a little bit which is all I've ever only had issues with.

The 18 was more planted all round, especially in damp and wet situations, you could throw it in to corners and it gives you smiles.

I've kept my Manual TF as my wife loves it, manual, fwd, it can smash the AWD in acceleration and is on par in the corners. Throttle needs to be feathered more in the corners because of wheel spin and under steer of course.

The AWD imo falls down because of the added weight of the car. If you don't care about it being slower in optimal conditions that's fine however the slowness was the biggest thing for me, it doesn't have the response and acceleration that the 3.5 manual has. If Mitsubishi did a similar ralliart header/extractors type thing for the AWD sports at least, it would give it the extra 7-8kw it needs to get its pep back.

The fuel economy for the AWD is 12-12.5 when babied compared to my manual which gets 9.5-10 for the same driving.

You also get a fair bit more vibration through to the cabin due to the extra drive train.

Don't get me wrong, the AWD magna's are nice. But if you haven't driven a manual magna, you don't know how much of a different beast they can be.

I own both an awd and fwd and prefer the awd hands down as far as handling is concerned. The awd is down on power compared to the fwd, but at the lights the fwd just lights up the front wheels too easily where the awd just gets on with it with no wheel spin at all. I am looking to get some HM headers and a sports exhuast to regain some of the lost power.

AWD is a bit thirstier on fuel, but not much really, on a recent trip to brissie and back I averaged around 8.7 litres/100 k's which is not to bad. The AWD is also brilliant in the wet, excellent traction, much better than the FWD.

I own both an awd and fwd and prefer the awd hands down as far as handling is concerned. The awd is down on power compared to the fwd, but at the lights the fwd just lights up the front wheels too easily where the awd just gets on with it with no wheel spin at all. I am looking to get some HM headers and a sports exhuast to regain some of the lost power.

AWD is a bit thirstier on fuel, but not much really, on a recent trip to brissie and back I averaged around 8.7 litres/100 k's which is not to bad. The AWD is also brilliant in the wet, excellent traction, much better than the FWD.
I agree with this, but want to add that the AWD is a lot of fun!
Basically in the wet you can drive circles around other traffic while they scrabble for traction. I added HM headers and vrx exhaust so it's a bit quicker. No slip when planting the foot is confidence enspiring too. But yeah, more n&v

Depends what you're after. Theres better control in an AWD but it cost more in fuel.

But consider this: Out of my week, my cars are parked 96.3% of the time. And for the 3.7% of my time I spend driving, I'm seriously not going to be indulging in risky behaviour or going around showing I'm in any way better than others.

AWD benefits:
- straight line grip in wet, dirt or snow is 100% better. My AWD on the drag strip did 15.88 second 1/4 mile. It was exactly the same in pouring rain.
- It's SOOO stable. In the rain from a standstill, I stomped the accelerator flat on my AWD and accelerated to 90kph and had my hands alongside, but off the steering wheel. The car stayed between the lane markers the whole time and never veered the steering wheel in the slightest.
- cornering grip is 10-25% better. Maximum cornering is limited by the grip of tyres and tyres can be the same. Diffs can shuffle power/braking forces and that makes the AWD a little better dynamically, if not maximum cornering.
- If you want to go off road, it's more fun - the diffs will send more power to the rear than the front, allowing oversteer and great car control. I had my car on a grass rally course and was quite surprised how manoeuvrable and grippy it was. I was considering keeping it as a race/rally car before I finally sold it.
- bigger brakes as standard. Stock for stock, I think the AWD can pull up better than the FWD, but with equal upgrades (eg 380 brakes) the FWD can meet or exceed the AWD.

FWD benefits:
- A little bit quicker for only driving 2 wheels instead of 4.
- Manual gearbox option = a fair bit quicker again.
- the same engine being quicker is the same thing as being more economical. My AWD was bad on fuel, but I didn't mind & loved it (the car, not the fuel cost)


re: wheels - I had 18x7 or 7.5 rims and no mods needed to fit. The gaps did look close.

legally, I don't think there's any difference between wheel options for FWD Vs AWD except the FWD can have staggered wheel widths if you really wanted to.


For me, the biggest con with the AWD Magna was I wanted to go faster. Stock power is ~ 100-110kW, a 380 engine upgrade might cost $2k to $4k and get you up around 130kW at the wheels.
I decided to go with a Subaru Forester Turbo and have 160kW at the wheels, and 200kW will cost me less than the 380 engine upgrade.
I can tell you that the Foresters AWD isn't as good as the Magna. I think the Subaru would have to be an STI model to match what Mitsubishi did with the Magna's handling, which was basically an EVO VI in a fat sheep's clothing.

Thanks for all the helpful insight guys! Really appreciate it :)

I've never driven an AWD, i've only driven FWD magnas however I'd still preffer the AWD. For what I use my Verada for it wouldn't make much of a difference, but I don't like FWD that much. I feel as if you invest money into an AWD magna you're not going to have the harsh reality of knowing that your handling will never be great, due to FWD.

I miss my GTVI AWD. Driven FWD TJs and 380 and just not as good handling as my GTVi AWD. Fuel wise, depends on how you drive. Mine uses just over 12l/100 in start stop traffic and 11l/100 in normal traffic and 9l/100 on freeways.

For the street AWD is good but FWD is way more fun. AWD was invented for people who couldnt handle FWD or RWD. 2 wheel drive is a drivers car, if you had more than 400kw you might need AWD. :)

For the street AWD is good but FWD is way more fun. AWD was invented for people who couldnt handle FWD or RWD. 2 wheel drive is a drivers car, if you had more than 400kw you might need AWD. :)
Lol, yeah, well I admit its hard to do a burn-out in the AWD. No matter how hard I've tried I cant get those wheels to slip much at all! Drifting? nah.

Lol, yeah, well I admit its hard to do a burn-out in the AWD. No matter how hard I've tried I cant get those wheels to slip much at all! Drifting? nah.

There was a YouTube video of a TJ AWD doing circle work on a soccer field. So just need to find some slippery surface and have fun in a controlled manner. I did a similar thing on mud.

what's so bad about the handling on a fwd compared to an awd? I own a fwd manual and have driven an awd Magna and they handle very similar.. The main difference comes down to grip but that's only under acceleration and with practice on throttle control is much more fun and rewarding driving a fwd at the limit.. I actually found the awd felt slower in the corners because of the extra weight.. First time I had driven the awd fast though so that may have something to do with it too

On dirt though, awd all the way

Like I said, in any conditions other that perfect the AWD is hands down better. But in perfect conditions just try catching a FWD manual.

I've noticed much improved steering control in my KL AWD over my KH in cornering, especially in the wet.
That in turn improves handling despite the added understeer.
But there are big differences between the cars, my KL has a more rigid body and has sway bar and better steering feel, and additional mass near the lower centre.
I think anything that improves control enhances handling.

I've got HM headers on my TW AWD and the TJ FWD still feels more responsive and quicker outright, however the AWD feels much better balanced in the wet and general handling though. The AWD also tends to use about 2L/100km more fuel around town than the FWD (both auto). I also tend to find the AWD quieter and more refined in the cabin and don't notice any extra harshness from the AWD driveline, which goes against everything I've read about the later models being more cheaply made and the increased NVH in the AWD lol.

The L and W series were made stronger with stronger firewall, A pillar etc etc. This gave it extra weight and also helped with NVH. The J series AWDs had NVH issues. The strengthened body in the L and W resulted in 4 star crash rating instead of the 2.5 star crash rating of the J series.

Despite improvements, the TL was rated @ 3 stars:




ANCAP: Magna stays on three stars

12 November 2003

AUSTRALIA is still to build a five-star crash test rated car, according to the latest results released by ANCAP, the Australian New Car Assessment Program.

The latest candidate tested was the TL Mitsubishi Magna, on sale last July, which was unable to improve its ANCAP crash test score beyond the old TJ model’s three stars.

That’s despite being the only locally manufactured car available standard with side airbags, as well as having front and side impact protection improvements courtesy of a series of body and panel strengthening measures for this model. The Magna was tested in October, after missing a round of large car testing earlier this year because it was on the cusp of replacement.

That round of testing saw the latest generation VY Holden Commodore, BA Ford Falcon and the 380N Toyota Camry make the jump from three to four stars.

Previously, no Australian large car had been able to score better than three stars. A five-star score is the best that can be achieved under ANCAP.

The TL is not alone on three stars, joined there by the Toyota Avalon, although that car has just been updated to Series III guise.

[.....]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/D338B4563CC52ABDCA256DDB008369FB

Here is NRMA's list.
http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/used-car-safety-ratings-large-cars.htm#

The following report with some significant details published by the NRMA also gives the TL a 3 star ANCAP rating.

http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/reviews/ancap/large-cars/mitsubishi-magna-20032005-es-sedan.htm

The following report with some significant details published by the NRMA also gives the TL a 3 star ANCAP rating.

http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/reviews/ancap/large-cars/mitsubishi-magna-20032005-es-sedan.htm
leadfoot6, if you read my link than you would have found out that they were based on real life accidents compiled from Australia and NZ, not fixed tests. In real life serious crashes, the L and W series faired much better than ANCAP tests.

ANCAP does not reflect real life accidents and is why the US wants to change testing. E.g., a 2005 Toyota Corolla scored 4 star ANCAP rating but only got 3 stars based on real life accidents such as rear passengers dying from rear end collisions.

A lot of manufacturers including BMW, Mercedes etc have been making cars to pass Euro NCAP, ANCAP and US NCAP tests. The US want things changed as people have died from 1/4 offset accidents in 5 star rated BMWs etc in the US. This type of real life accidents have never been tested.

leadfoot6, if you read my link than you would have found out that they were based on real life accidents compiled from Australia and NZ, not fixed tests. In real life serious crashes, the L and W series faired much better than ANCAP tests.

ANCAP does not reflect real life accidents and is why the US wants to change testing. E.g., a 2005 Toyota Corolla scored 4 star ANCAP rating but only got 3 stars based on real life accidents such as rear passengers dying from rear end collisions.


A lot of manufacturers including BMW, Mercedes etc have been making cars to pass Euro NCAP, ANCAP and US NCAP tests. The US want things changed as people have died from 1/4 offset accidents in 5 star rated BMWs etc in the US. This type of real life accidents have never been tested.

If you wish to suggest that a TL/TW is significantly safer overall than a TJ whilst being almost the same car with only the addition of side SRS and some detailed but minor sheet metal additions, then be my guest.

You might like to note that the rating schedule you linked to in post #21 (that gives the TL 4 stars) gives the TJ 2 stars.


Magna TE/TF/TH/TJ/Verada KE/KF/KH/KJ/Diamante 96-03 (2 stars)

(you might like to point me to where it gets 2.5 stars)

That is the same rating as given to 2nd. gen. Magna's going all the way back to the 1991 model TR, which, as you know has no SRS at all or any other later safety features.


Magna TR/TS/Verada KR/KS/V3000/Diamante 91-96 (2 stars)

Do you really believe that a TR is comparable to a TJ with respect to safety?

Certainly the TL/TW is an improvement over the TJ safety wise(one of the reasons I purchased one in preference to a TJ), but not by as much as is suggested in the NRMA UCSR.

Yes, based on real life accidents, not concocted lab tests. See photos of the crumble of the roof line above the drivers door and the A-pilar on the J series and then look at ones on the L and W series. The L and W series did use thicker panels, but also higher strength steel, additional side intrusion bars in the front doors and a steel panel behind the rear seats. All these helps. BTW, from memory, R and S series also had side intrusion bars in the doors, at least my KS Verada did. It had two in the front doors and one in the rear doors.

It would be useful for the purpose of this discussion if you could address the point that I made that the NRMA USCR gives the TJ the same safety rating as the TR - which is 12 years older!

They were compiled from details analysis of crashes from OZ and NZ, not lab test results. I repeat, for this reason, the US wants to toughen and add new tests like 1/4 front offset instead of just 1/2 front offset. People are dying from supposedly 5 star test lab rated cars.

A methodology that equates the overall safety of a '91 TR with an '03 TJ(despite 12 years of improvements in crashworthiness R&D) is obviously flawed.

Such a methodology defies common sense, and draws into question not only comparisons between Magna's, but also every vehicle that it attempts to rate.

Just for example(and there are many other examples of gross stupidity in the following link), the UCSR gives a 2 star rating to a 1995 Mitsubishi Starwagon - the same rating as given to Magna sedans all the way through from '91 to '03.

http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/1995/Mitsubishi/Starwagon/

No airbags, no electronic safety aids whatsoever and built down to a price.

Did I mention the propensity to roll over?( as would any vehicle of such a configuration - not picking on the Starwagon in particular)

Most importantly and most obviously, to those people with a functioning brain at least, is the fact that the driver and passenger(s) (lap belt only in the middle remember) are right up close and personal with whatever object they hit.

Result?.... Strawberry Jam..... but still 2 stars though. :nuts:

Anyway, I'm done.

You can have the last word.

Granted, submitting those cars to ANCAP will yield 0 stars. They may not even test them. Testing is very selective. They don't do pole side impact test on cars they don't have curtain air bags, even though those cars may have excellent protection against pole impact.
From analysis of real life accidents, UCSR deemed those cars to have the rating they were given. Period.

No matter how much lab testing there is, it cannot predict real life accidents. ANCAP testing is like the fuel consumption ratings based on lab tests and no where near reflect real life use. I have seen wrecks of quarter frontal impact of J series and W series and the W series faired a lot better.

5 star BMWs in quarter frontal accidents have resulted in deaths as the driver's door sheers or breaks off, the wheel enters the cabin etc.

Finally, points are awarded to cars with ASC, break reminder etc. Remember the Camry at one stage did not get 5 stars all because it did not have the 2 hour break reminder. In an accident, a four star rated car without ASC can be as safe as a 5 star rated car (it got 5 stars just because it has ASC).

Btw, I am a scientist and engineer. I do not take the test results as granted. I analyse the criteria in which they gave the results and make my own conclusions.

I reiterate lab tests are flawed currently. Take the current Land Rover Evoque, it scored 5 stars in Euro NCAP but why only 4 stars in ANCAP? Why the new BMW 2 series only has 4 stars ANCAP but 5 star Euro NCAP. Likewise the new Mini.

The actual crash result rankings are more interesting to me than the old ANCAP tests.
I'm not surprised that the crashworthiness results are better for the TL/W than previous models given the improvements such as side airbags and intrusion protection.

Its an eye opener though, that they're only really average. The 380 does better. Clearly improvements in the design of more recent vehicles are making a significant difference too.

One measure that I dont see is analysis around the frequency of accidents for manufacturer/year/model, i.e.: how often is a vehicle model involved in an accident - which may say something about its capability to avoid them in the first instance. Granted this would be very difficult to determine.

SUV's fare very well for crashworthiness and even medium sized SUV's do well in terms of aggressivety.

I believe the measurements for safety ratings vary from time to time, so on the question of how does a 91 Magna and an 02/3 TJ get the same 2 star rating? They aren't the same rating. The older car put into the 2003 tests or requirements probably would not get the same rating.

I recall some years back that if a car didn't have curtain airbags and EBD/ESC or something that it didn't qualify for 5 stars, only 4 max.

Kwawd, sadly, the W series just missed out on the RISE technology which is what the 380 has and all newer Mitsubishis.
Oggy, I already mentioned that. I repeat that the UCSR is not based on lab tests but from real life accidents. Yes, the older cars would fail lab tests miserably but, in an accident, they faired just as well as the newer (Pre 2006) cars, if and when they do get involved in an accident. As mentioned, my KS Verada had more safety, especially from side impact than the E to J series (of which the later only gained passenger airbag and traction control).

In summary, the L and W series missed out on lots of points because it did not have ASC and curtain airbags, the latter of which prevented it from participating in pole crashes. This does not mean it is not as safe a car to be in than a 5 star rated car in an accident. ASC will not prevent you from having a front-on while overtaking or someone else overtaking and hitting you. It also does not prevent you from being T-boned when you cross without looking. It also dose not prevent you from being rear ended. I can tell you that I would rather have my family of 4 in my old 3 star test rated KW Verada than a 5 star test rated Toyota Corolla, especially in a rear end collision. Lots of rear passengers have died from such accidents in 5 star rated Toyota Corollas.