I have the stock 3.0 litre V6 TF Solara, my mate has a 1999 Solara with the 3.5,
He was rambling yesterday arvo on how much better the 3.5 is. Well in all honesty I could find no real performance boost in terms of takeoff but it did seem a bit stronger in 4th.
Well anyway he then says I should have bought the 3.5 model as it gets better fuel economy as well as more power (in his opnion).

I just have the question, if the 3.5 has more power and better economy then wtf do people buy the 3 litre? It was like $350 cheaper new.

I find the 3.0 is more than adequate anyway for running around town.

performance wise the 3.5L is superior to the 3L... i am sure most would agree

economy wise the 3L will probably have a slight edge... not by much though i reckon

You will sometimes find that all cars in both capacites vary in performance... I have spent bucket loads on my 3.0 Auto yet a near to stock 3.0 Manual killed my times at Calder drags... sometimes you just get these freak engines like Articuno's car... once again, stock 3.5 but I would put it up to some other better spec 3.5's.... just one of those oddball things sometimes.

In other words... hammer one 3.0 then hammer another, you may find in spite of the same capacity they still differ.

There's also the fact that the 3L engine peaked at 140kW and the first batch of 3.5L only managed 147kW - 150kW. There's not a whole lotta difference there.

Throttle response should be better in the 3.5L because it'll have more torque in the lower rev ranges.

I can't see that the 3.5L will have better fuel economy though?

There's also the fact that the 3L engine peaked at 140kW and the first batch of 3.5L only managed 147kW - 150kW. There's not a whole lotta difference there.

Throttle response should be better in the 3.5L because it'll have more torque in the lower rev ranges.


not only throttle response... but the fact that the 3.5L has so much more bottom end torque means it will initially outrun the 3L and continue to build on this lead

my step dad owns a 96 (first 3rd gen cant remember model) Magna and it actually has quite a bit of low down torque, like it would give my 3.5L a good run in a take off. but it is literally gutless when trying to overtake at 100kph. When you stamp on it it just doesnt want to do it at all.

maybe the fact its pushing 270K!!!

not only throttle response... but the fact that the 3.5L has so much more bottom end torque meant it will initially outrun the 3L and continue to build on this lead

You say that, but it's not really true. By the time both engines reach peak power at 5500rpm the torque difference at the fly wheel is only 10Nm or just over 3% of total torque.

Bottom end, absolutely.. 20% difference up to peak torque rpm.

I had a TE manual and now have an AWD 3.5 and even though the TE was much lighter the AWD still feels faster, especially low down. 3.5 has my vote, though the 3 revs very nicely.

There's also the fact that the 3L engine peaked at 140kW and the first batch of 3.5L only managed 147kW - 150kW. There's not a whole lotta difference there.

Throttle response should be better in the 3.5L because it'll have more torque in the lower rev ranges.

I can't see that the 3.5L will have better fuel economy though?

Power didn't vary by much, but torque was *way* up.

Didn't someone post in a thread a while back that if both 3 and 3.5s were driven sparingly, that the 3.5 has a slight edge on fuel economy?

According to redbook.com.au:

TH manual sedan 3.0: 9L/100Km city, 6.6L/100Km Highway.
TH manual sedan 3.5: 10.5L/100Km city, 7.2L/100Km highway.

So, the 3.5 uses more, but not a lot more. IMHO, if you're that worried about the fuel economy, forget the Magna and go buy a festiva or something. :badgrin:

TH 3.5 manual using 7.2lt on the Highway? Mine uses around 8.5lt.

TH 3.5 manual using 7.2lt on the Highway? Mine uses around 8.5lt.

Well you can take those figures with a grain of salt, but it serves as a way of comparing them. Mine would use in the low 8's, and mine's an auto.

According to redbook.com.au:

TH manual sedan 3.0: 9L/100Km city, 6.6L/100Km Highway.
TH manual sedan 3.5: 10.5L/100Km city, 7.2L/100Km highway.

So, the 3.5 uses more, but not a lot more. IMHO, if you're that worried about the fuel economy, forget the Magna and go buy a festiva or something. :badgrin:


I'm going to print that part of Redbook off and shove it my mates face:)

Unless you want to have the redbook accuracy debate lol :roll:

We have Both a TE manual and the 3.5litre TJ Auto Altera LS and my Executive is far more responsive then the Altera LS , Even from the lights the 6g72 in mine must be a " Freak Engine as it has a lot of top end as well as a lot down low..

My TE has 132.000k's on it and the Altera has only 70.000k's

The Altera also feels alot heavier too..
Cornering in Both , Handling in the Executive is a Tonne better...

So it really does come down to Individual cars...
I would say the 3.5 litre Manual would be the ideal combo...

I've owned both.

TF 3.0lt Manual and TL 3.5 Trippy

I feel the 3.5 feels more refined than the 3.0lt, fuel consumption is compearable, so I'd give the 3.5lt the edge as its an auto and produces simmler figures to the 3.0lt manual. Seems to be more down low in the 3.5lt, the 3.0lt felt more zippy, but I think that becuase it was matted to a 5 speed. I'd love to get my hands on a 3.5lt manaul to feel the diff between it and my old TF :)

my step dad owns a 96 (first 3rd gen cant remember model) Magna and it actually has quite a bit of low down torque, like it would give my 3.5L a good run in a take off. but it is literally gutless when trying to overtake at 100kph. When you stamp on it it just doesnt want to do it at all.


I will agree the 3.5 manual has far superior torque when on the highway at low revs, but drop the 3.0L down to 3rd gear and it hammers! myself and BLKMAG (in his stock TH 3.5 manual) had a bit of fun a while back with a rolling drag in 3rd gear. I JUST edged him, but it was very close. his car ran a best stock time of 15.32, my best is 15.15.

Since then he has a few mods and runs flat 15's and would no doubt beat me if we had a rolling 3rd gear drag again, but thats not the point! :P

I've driven my bro's stock 3.5 manuals TH and i honestly dont enjoy it as much as my 3.0. Maybe its just cos its stock, but it feels asthmatic compared to my revvy 3L. The low down torque is nice for sure, but for how long do your revs stay low when racing?? about 2 seconds max!
That said I'd swap my TE for a TJII Exec manual 3.5 in a second, even if its not as "nice" an engine, you just cant argue with the superior 1/4 mile times.

Power didn't vary by much, but torque was *way* up.

You know that power is a function of torque for any particular engine speed, so you can't increase torque without increasing power?

Any way, I have already posted a comparisson of the power and torque figures in this thread.

You know that power is a function of torque for any particular engine speed, so you can't increase torque without increasing power?

Any way, I have already posted a comparisson of the power and torque figures in this thread.

But you can have loads of torque without much power. Example, my mates dad's 6wd landcruiser is a 4 litre 4 cylinder with a whopping 74kW, but it has 600 or so Nm or torque

But you can have loads of torque without much power. Example, my mates dad's 6wd landcruiser is a 4 litre 4 cylinder with a whopping 74kW, but it has 600 or so Nm or torque
Yeah, but he's saying that if you increased torque at any point along it's curve, it's power will increase but I know you know that. It's all to do with it's deliverly of torque.

As much as I like my 3.0, if I had a choice I'd go a 3.5 as long as it's a manual. That 20% increase in torque isn't insignificant.

Yeah, but he's saying that if you increased torque at any point along it's curve, it's power will increase but I know you know that. It's all to do with it's deliverly of torque.

Thats right and power did rise in the 3.5 from 140 to 147kW :P



As much as I like my 3.0, if I had a choice I'd go a 3.5 as long as it's a manual. That 20% increase in torque isn't insignificant.

Same here, unless it was a DOHC MIVEC 3.0 lol

That 20% increase in torque isn't insignificant.

Absolutely. And KB is dead right too of course.

I guess I was just reacting to what I suppose is a pet peeve of mine. Peak power went up from 140kW to 147kW and someone says without clarification that power didn't change much but torque went up heaps! Well, not at that engine speed it didn't. As I said earlier there's only just over 3% difference in torque production at that particular point in the rev range between the 3.5L and 3L engines.

Lower down there's a big difference for sure. However if you're crusing along at 4000rpm and put the foot flat, I'd not be surprised if you didn't notice a massive difference between the 3L and the first batch of 3.5L engines.

Absolutely. And KB is dead right too of course.
No!!! Don't give him the satisfaction :D


I guess I was just reacting to what I suppose is a pet peeve of mine. Peak power went up from 140kW to 147kW and someone says without clarification that power didn't change much but torque went up heaps! Well, not at that engine speed it didn't. As I said earlier there's only just over 3% difference in torque production at that particular point in the rev range between the 3.5L and 3L engines.

Lower down there's a big difference for sure. However if you're crusing along at 4000rpm and put the foot flat, I'd not be surprised if you didn't notice a massive difference between the 3L and the first batch of 3.5L engines.
Yeah, agreed. There were several things that were different. Power, torque and the RPM at which it moved.


Same here, unless it was a DOHC MIVEC 3.0 lol
I know. I was soo keen to do this late last year but then Steve said he was doing it and I decided to save money for a house deposit. I've no decided to fiddle with the 3.0 with hardware that's also suitable for the 3.5 :badgrin:

Never drivin a 3.5, but it cant be that much better than the 3.0, i love my TE and just with a few little mods it feels awsome, and stands up to quite a bit thats on the roads today.

My dad used to have a TH 3.5 auto wagon as a work car and I drove that around a fair bit. I can definatlly say that the extra 45Nm of torque made a big differance in everyday driving even if it only had 7kW more.





I know. I was soo keen to do this late last year but then Steve said he was doing it and I decided to save money for a house deposit. I've no decided to fiddle with the 3.0 with hardware that's also suitable for the 3.5 :badgrin:

Good idea, you can transfer the mods down the track or at least find it easier to sell them as thay will suit both motors.

Nothing brought the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 to me like last weekend.

Saturday, in the 3.0 litre MIVEC, put out 194.8 HP on the dyno. At around 7,000 rpm

Sunday, had to tow dual-axle furniture trailer around Perth. 3.0 litre struggled much more than the 3.5litre it replaced. It was not happy and had to be revved much more than the last times I towed a furniture trailer around.

So, in my experience, TH 6G74 3.5 had excellent towing, low-down torque and good power further up the band. 6G72 DOHC MIVEC requires more revs to output superior power but is not as driveable up to about 3,000 rpm (a guess as my tacho is not working!).

But you can have loads of torque without much power

im gunna nitpick :P

you can have loads of DOWNLOW torque and not much power, because at peak power, torque has dropped considerably! And peak torque is at low revs = low power :)

Its impossible to have a car with loads of torque accross the rev range and have not much power.

3.5L might have heaps of torque but it isnt as revvy up top. I was dissapointed with the drop off once the revs went up. Could just be our car, but once it hits 110-120 just feels like it doesnt want to rev at all. Still an awesome car.

3.5L might have heaps of torque but it isnt as revvy up top. I was dissapointed with the drop off once the revs went up. Could just be our car, but once it hits 110-120 just feels like it doesnt want to rev at all. Still an awesome car.

It won't want to rev very fast at 110+ becuase by then you are probablly in 3rd gear, you will need allot of extra power to get theird to rev out as fast as 2nd gear :D .

When people refer to power up top they are usally refering to the upper RPM, not speed :P

On the torque topic my dad has a GL1800 Goldwing,
They tip the scales at 365kg dry, the 6cylinder engine puts out 118bhp but it also pumps out 170 Nm of torque. Now this bike when I've ridden it has nailed Kwaka ZX10R's at light drags, those things weigh 169kg and put out 175bhp yet the Leadwing easily nails them. The Kwaka would win in a 1/4 mile drag but... torque does play a huge part.

It won't want to rev very fast at 110+ becuase by then you are probablly in 3rd gear, you will need allot of extra power to get theird to rev out as fast as 2nd gear .

When people refer to power up top they are usally refering to the upper RPM, not speed

me bad sorry i meant it as in when i rev it out from say 50-60km/h and it doesnt feel as smooth after it reaches certain revs, :headbange but your right . Having said that i still find that it isnt revvy at higher rpm, , :doubt:

Dad has owned many different cars from TF 3.0 litres to TH 3.5 litre models and onwards. I found just being a passenger that the 3.0 litres would rev a little easier but especially on kickdown from 100km/h on a freeway the 3.5 would leave the 3.0 for dead. Both engines are pretty close off the line but once they are moving the 3.0 is the slower car. I dont know how mods would effect the 3.0 Vs 3.5 battle but with my near to stock 3.5 with just exhaust and K&N panel some 3.0 litres have proven to be quick with some mods

especially on kickdown from 100km/h

kickdown? huh, do you kick the gearstick down with your foot? :P

Im arguing 3.0 manual vs 3.5 manuals. Auto models, well i dont particularly care, but i will say the difference between 3.0L autos and 3.5L autos is bigger than the difference between 3.0L manuals and 3.5L manuals.

kickdown? huh, do you kick the gearstick down with your foot? :P

Im arguing 3.0 manual vs 3.5 manuals. Auto models, well i dont particularly care, but i will say the difference between 3.0L autos and 3.5L autos is bigger than the difference between 3.0L manuals and 3.5L manuals.

How is that actually possible?

I will agree the 3.5 manual has far superior torque when on the highway at low revs, but drop the 3.0L down to 3rd gear and it hammers! myself and BLKMAG (in his stock TH 3.5 manual) had a bit of fun a while back with a rolling drag in 3rd gear. I JUST edged him, but it was very close. his car ran a best stock time of 15.32, my best is 15.15.

Since then he has a few mods and runs flat 15's and would no doubt beat me if we had a rolling 3rd gear drag again, but thats not the point! :P

I've driven my bro's stock 3.5 manuals TH and i honestly dont enjoy it as much as my 3.0. Maybe its just cos its stock, but it feels asthmatic compared to my revvy 3L. The low down torque is nice for sure, but for how long do your revs stay low when racing?? about 2 seconds max!
That said I'd swap my TE for a TJII Exec manual 3.5 in a second, even if its not as "nice" an engine, you just cant argue with the superior 1/4 mile times.

"stock", compared to your highly modified vehical
Is there a major weight difference?

depends on whether u have a manual or an auto...the extra bottom end torque of the 3.5L is ideal for pushing through the "slush" in an auto, dealing with it's taller gears and moving a heavy car...
however the ability to rev out cleanly and smoothly and produce a long and strong top end makes (if u like engines that can rev out) the 3.0L ideal for a manual....
My old (written off)) car was a 3.5L TH manual sports with a Lukey, Pacemaker, CAI and other minor mods...was a great car but ran out of top end power way to early...performance was best when kept in the mid-range only...took a test drive of a ralliart back in 2003 and this motor was much more "revable" than my old TH..although it could still do with way more top end power...a good bottom end is great for drivability but I would swap that for awesome top end power anyday(within reason)...and no im not gonna get an s2000...