Hey Guys,
i know this is prolly the most stupid question most of you have heard, but i have recently been looking at the 2nd Gens and i know a fair bit about them, but the question i wanted to know is:
Do 3rd Gens come in 4 Cycl??? i am looking at 1997-98 and i would prefer a $ccl over a 6cycl.
Thanx for your help yet again.
Tank

yes there are 3rd gen 4 cyls, but pretty rare

Not rare at all. There's loads of them around. My best friend has a nice '97 4 cyl, in fact. They were a 2.4L straight 4, not V4.

wow thanx for the quick reply, yeah. Im in a really bad situation coz im getting on 18 and my dad has promised me $5000 when i turn 18 to put towards anymoeny i have for my first car, but the only thing is that he wants me to have a V4 coz he reckons that if i get a V6 it will coz too much to run for petrol so there is no point in me getting one. I dont think its coz of the power they have with a P Plater so i need to find a V4 wagon. Thanks again
Tank

they really arnt that much differant fuel ecc wise, and the V6 is a much better engine

Ok, i hpe there not out of reach coz i really want one. oh yeah, do the 3d gens have power windows or are power windows only in the verada's???
Tank

Ok, i hpe there not out of reach coz i really want one. oh yeah, do the 3d gens have power windows or are power windows only in the verada's???
Tank
Again, Magna 4 cylinder models are a straight 4, not a V4. Power windows come in models other than the Verada, but it depends which 3rd Gen you're talking about - "3rd gen" covers from the TE in 1996 to the TW in 2005. If you want a 4cyl, you'll have to look for earlier ones, because they dropped them early on in the 3rd gen series. TE, possibly TF. In those models, The Advance would probably have power windows, and the Altera (if there was a TE Altera, not sure about that.) redbook.com.au is a good guide of what models have what equipment levels.

first up they arnt V4's they are i4's are 4's as they arnt setup in a V configuration, as for petrol consumption there is a difference between v6 and 4 cylinder models but also insurance should be cheaper aswel as well as other things

a 4cyl wagon mght be harder to find, u r looking at 96-98 (TE-TF) model magna if u like the 3rd gens, would be easier to find a 4cyl 2nd gen wagon (91-96 model)

as for power windows? altera's would have them, advances i think too, exec's dont, but i doubt u would find a TE-TF wagon with a 4cyl engine and power windows

Ask urself this tho, are u willing to spend the little bit more for a V6? they are nice engines and good on fuel compared to other local made V6's. perhaps look at other model car like a Camry wagon, even couild find Lancer wagons too

yeah but like i said, i can only have a 4 cylinder, and i dont weant another make or model, i wanna stick with the magna's even if they are a bit harder to find, and the power windows dont worry me, i was just wondering.
Thanx for your help guys
hopefully i should be able to pick one up.
Tank

Yeah, V4's are rare as hens teeth :bowrofl:

hey dude, yeah as people said its actually a straight 4 or S4 for short. This is because the cylinders line up in a straight line. V6's are called V6 because the cylinders are on an angle to each other in a V configuration. Hope that makes sense. There is the odd V4 around, volkswagen make one, but it is very rare.

Anyway i duno about 3rd gens but i know with second gens the V6's are actually more fuel efficient then a 4cyl.. strange i know but true. The 3.0L V6 magna engine is incredibly good on fuel, the 3.5's use a little more but maybe you can convince your old man that a 3.0L V6 3rd gen is the ticket.

also, its cost not coz.. sorry that just annoys me

big mac does it have to be a wagon???

hey dude, yeah as people said its actually a straight 4 or S4 for short. This is because the cylinders line up in a straight line. V6's are called V6 because the cylinders are on an angle to each other in a V configuration. Hope that makes sense. There is the odd V4 around, volkswagen make one, but it is very rare.

Anyway i duno about 3rd gens but i know with second gens the V6's are actually more fuel efficient then a 4cyl.. strange i know but true. The 3.0L V6 magna engine is incredibly good on fuel, the 3.5's use a little more but maybe you can convince your old man that a 3.0L V6 3rd gen is the ticket.

also, its cost not coz.. sorry that just annoys me

My 3.0 litre MIVEC uses more than the 3.5 litre it replaced :bowrofl:

big mac does it have to be a wagon???

haha, gee i wonder why you are asking that question brady lol

well i want a wagon so i can haull all my sh*t around. I live in victoria and i am allways traveling down to my Surf Life Saving Club down on phillip island so i will need to take all my gear and my surf board so i need a wagon.
Its hard to believe that the 4cyl use more petrol then the 6cyl's. Ill tell me oldie about this and see wat he thinks. He is the hardest bugger to please but considering he is giving me $5000 i think i should let him have a say in it.

get some roof racks.... :D

the magnas av big boots :)

haha, gee i wonder why you are asking that question brady lol


:shock: y do u say that for :P hah

It will come down to how you drive it as well. Being a P plater you'll be finding the floor with your accelerator peddle often as well I bet. I think everyone flogs their first car to a degree.

A friend of mine had a 2.6L 1995 Magna. It drank fuel like no tomorrow unless out on the freeway. I own a 3.5L and providing you don't only do short trips around then it's not bad on fuel (500km's per 3/4 of a tank. I never let my fuel get below a 1/4). When my fiance has the magna though it drinks fuel with the short stop, go trips.

A 3L would probably be a good choice but being a 6 when you boot it, it'll drink just as much as a 3.5. In the end you will get used to how your fuel guage responds with how you drive the vehicle. Flog it and not service it and you'll find no matter what you buy it shall drink lots of fuel.

Get some information to back your arguement up when you approach your dad about getting the car. Get him online to read what we've said or look up some specs on fuel economy before purchasing one you find and like.

My personal choice were you my son would be a 3L V6. But you're not, so good luck.

wow thanx for the quick reply, yeah. Im in a really bad situation coz im getting on 18 and my dad has promised me $5000 when i turn 18 to put towards anymoeny i have for my first car, but the only thing is that he wants me to have a V4 coz he reckons that if i get a V6 it will coz too much to run for petrol so there is no point in me getting one. I dont think its coz of the power they have with a P Plater so i need to find a V4 wagon. Thanks again
Tank

to be honest, and from wat my brother says, the 3.5v6 engine in the 3rd gens are more fuel efficiant than the 2.6 4cyl in the 2nd... not too sure about the 2.4 4cyl in the 3rd gen tho, but the 2.4 has more power than the 2.6

btw there arent many V4 engines around, only straight/inline 4's or boxer 4's

Well statistically, fuel economy in magna engines go like this

Worst to Best : -
2.6 Litre 4g54 4 Cyl 8 Valve = 98kW

3.0 Litre 6g72 V6 12 Valve = 120kW

3.5 Litre 6g74 V6 24 Valve = 154kW (fuel economy on this only marginally worse than 3.0 Litre 6g72 V6 24 Valve)

3.0 Litre 6g72 V6 24 Valve = 140kW

That list starts off with the worst fuel economy and ends with the best, out of the mitsubishi engines.

Stuff like MIVEC and DOHC versions of those motors obviously would have different petrol consumption characterisitics.

For you, I would get either of the engines with 24 Vavles, cant go wrong. Just careful with the 3.5 Litres, they got alot of power and heaps more torque over a 3 litre. You reach ur speed pretty darn quickly lol.

yeah, ok everybody i now know that there arent many V4's. forget i said it and ignore it in the forum name, lol i get it. yeah.
~Power isnt really an issue for me but i think the main reason dad says that he wants me getting a 4cyl car is coz he prolly doesnt want me having much power so i dont kill myself or anybody else out there. Ive asked him about it but he assures me its coz of the fuel consumption, i dont believe him.
The model i was looking at are the TF's. I havnt heard much about these in the forums, are they much different to the other models, are they less reliable or anything because they are the first model of the 3rd Gens??
Tank

For you, I would get either of the engines with 24 Vavles, cant go wrong. Just careful with the 3.5 Litres, they got alot of power and heaps more torque over a 3 litre. You reach ur speed pretty darn quickly lol.

lol my brother found that out wen he got the car, also its manual, so much wheel spin action

lol my brother found that out wen he got the car, also its manual, so much wheel spin action

What does he have? a TF? or a 2nd Gen??

yeah, ok everybody i now know that there arent many V4's. forget i said it and ignore it in the forum name, lol i get it. yeah.
~Power isnt really an issue for me but i think the main reason dad says that he wants me getting a 4cyl car is coz he prolly doesnt want me having much power so i dont kill myself or anybody else out there. Ive asked him about it but he assures me its coz of the fuel consumption, i dont believe him.
The model i was looking at are the TF's. I havnt heard much about these in the forums, are they much different to the other models, are they less reliable or anything because they are the first model of the 3rd Gens??
Tank

the TF isnt the 1st of the 3rd gens, the TE is... anyways there are a few ppl here that have the TF model magna, and theres nothing wrong with them. they pretty much look exactly like the TE model.. and with the fuel comsumption tell ur dad that the 4cyl drinks more than the v6 engine. i think it was the TF that they released the 3.5l v6 engine.. :confused:

EDIT:

What does he have? a TF? or a 2nd Gen??

hes actually got a 3.5l v6 manual TH series magna, and he originally had my 2.6l 4cyl auto TS magna

Tell your dad, also, that the 4 cylinder engines the Older magnas have are way too old school. They have been used in cars since the late 1970's and have the same fuel economy as a small V8.

Astron II Engine = Dinosaur

lol, thats good info, ill let him know about this. but i think im gonna leave out the old school part. LMAO i dont think he would appreciate that term as much as us guys would. :bowrofl:
after all, he is a bit of a dinosour himself.........
Jokin dad, if ya read this, i still luv ya, lol
Tank

the optimum ratio of displacement/cylinder is about 0.5L/cylinder. Anything bigger and is non-optimal. The 2.4L 4 cylinder engine WILL drink more petrol and put out less power than the 3L V6. This can be also extended to the 3.5L which drinks considerably more than a 3L and only has 7kW more power, hardly worth the engine redesign effort...the torque is obviously increased but lets face it, we are not designing a truck engine here!

All the successful engines are hovering around that golden ratio of 0.5L/cylinder. The M3 is a 3.2L 6 which is close, the SR20 is a 2L 4 which is spot on, the Honda S2000 is also a 2L 4 and what an engine that is!!!

Going smaller than the golden ratio also works, but then you have to add more cylinders to compensate like the 2L MIVEC V6. Those engine can rev like crazy BUT that would mean that the fuel economy would be bad coz if they spend a lot of time at high RPM the fuel just flies through...

The main problem with big bore engines is that the components inside them, such as the pistons, become too heavy and they can't rev too much, which reduces their usable rev range and they become pretty much trucks. Those engines are called torque mongers and the whole V8 concept relies on that.

A small sedan would run fine with a 2L straight 4, a large sedan would run fine with a 3L V6, a larger sedan would run fine with a 4L V8, and finally a lamborghini would run wickedly with a 6L V12.

So please don't post any more of this 4 cylinder in a large car bull**** coz it just aint gonna fly..

the optimum ratio of displacement/cylinder is about 0.5L/cylinder. Anything bigger and is non-optimal. The 2.4L 4 cylinder engine WILL drink more petrol and put out less power than the 3L V6. This can be also extended to the 3.5L which drinks considerably more than a 3L and only has 7kW more power, hardly worth the engine redesign effort...the torque is obviously increased but lets face it, we are not designing a truck engine here!

All the successful engines are hovering around that golden ratio of 0.5L/cylinder. The M3 is a 3.2L 6 which is close, the SR20 is a 2L 4 which is spot on, the Honda S2000 is also a 2L 4 and what an engine that is!!!

Going smaller than the golden ratio also works, but then you have to add more cylinders to compensate like the 2L MIVEC V6. Those engine can rev like crazy BUT that would mean that the fuel economy would be bad coz if they spend a lot of time at high RPM the fuel just flies through...

The main problem with big bore engines is that the components inside them, such as the pistons, become too heavy and they can't rev too much, which reduces their usable rev range and they become pretty much trucks. Those engines are called torque mongers and the whole V8 concept relies on that.

A small sedan would run fine with a 2L straight 4, a large sedan would run fine with a 3L V6, a larger sedan would run fine with a 4L V8, and finally a lamborghini would run wickedly with a 6L V12.

So please don't post any more of this 4 cylinder in a large car bull**** coz it just aint gonna fly..


thats good info, except that the 3.5 doesnt drink considerably more fuel then the 3.0.. in fact it drinks stuff all more. And yeah it only makes 7 more KW's but it has alot more torque, and the torque is available much lower in the rev range, giving the engine a much more "useable" rev range.

Yeah, V4's are rare as hens teeth :bowrofl:

Rare, but they existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taunus_V4_engine ;

thats good info, except that the 3.5 doesnt drink considerably more fuel then the 3.0.. in fact it drinks stuff all more. And yeah it only makes 7 more KW's but it has alot more torque, and the torque is available much lower in the rev range, giving the engine a much more "useable" rev range.

According to redbook...

A TJ exec 3.0 l manual uses 9l/100km city http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/Detail.asp?key=MITS02BG

A TJ Exec 3.5 manual uses 10l/100km city....
http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/Detail.asp?key=MITS02BK

That is over 10% more.

According to redbook...

A TJ exec 3.0 l manual uses 9l/100km city http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/Detail.asp?key=MITS02BG

A TJ Exec 3.5 manual uses 10l/100km city....
http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesearch/Detail.asp?key=MITS02BK

That is over 10% more.


If you can drive your car to that fuel consumption in real city traffic I’ll give you 10 bucks. In real city traffic where your consumption will be more like 12 L/100km there wont be much difference between the 2 cars, far less than 10%.

If you can drive your car to that fuel consumption in real city traffic I’ll give you 10 bucks. In real city traffic where your consumption will be more like 12 L/100km there wont be much difference between the 2 cars, far less than 10%.

So true, statistics on fuel economy dont mean anything. Waaaay to rough. Only way to know for sure is to drive one and see (or ask someone who has).

Like i know my 2.6 which is very well maintained does 18litre/100k's when i do really small trips in the mornings to Uni and back (whether i drive hard or not this pretty much the same). But when I do a proper drive (not like 2.4kilometers from driveway to parking spot :P) does around 14 so yeah. Always depends on how and where u drive.

thats good info, except that the 3.5 doesnt drink considerably more fuel then the 3.0.. in fact it drinks stuff all more. And yeah it only makes 7 more KW's but it has alot more torque, and the torque is available much lower in the rev range, giving the engine a much more "useable" rev range.
I drive a 3.5 Xi, my dad drives a 3L exec. I usually get about 12.5L/100kms fuel economy while he gets 10.5L/100kms.I can't justify the fuel economy difference between our cars, considering the performance difference, which is negligible...

The 3L has quicker acceleration since it has smaller pistons (and it is lighter), and is quite happy to go all the way up to rev limiter, while the 3.5 is sluggish when it comes to acceleration and struggles at the top end. I would have much preferred my Xi to be equipped with a 3L engine rather than a 3.5.

The 3.5 does have more torque all round, and the acceleration (although slower) feels very smooth all the way to ~5000rpm.The 3L has less power at low rpm, but when it gets fired up it dumps you in the seat and takes you all the way to rev limiter with no dramas. That is not a very fuel efficient thing to do, but as a daily driver it still uses way less petrol than the 3.5L and if required can whoop the 3.5 at speeds which are not excessive.

At excessive speeds the 3.5L will win hands down, but thats not really achievable on the streets anyway. Now mitsubishi are bringing out the 3.8L V6, which I reckon will be a ****ing disaster, but hey, when DID mitsubshi australia know what they're doing?

I drive a 3.5 Xi, my dad drives a 3L exec. I usually get about 12.5L/100kms fuel economy while he gets 10.5L/100kms.I can't justify the fuel economy difference between our cars, considering the performance difference, which is negligible...

The 3L has quicker acceleration since it has smaller pistons (and it is lighter), and is quite happy to go all the way up to rev limiter, while the 3.5 is sluggish when it comes to acceleration and struggles at the top end. I would have much preferred my Xi to be equipped with a 3L engine rather than a 3.5.

The 3.5 does have more torque all round, and the acceleration (although slower) feels very smooth all the way to ~5000rpm.The 3L has less power at low rpm, but when it gets fired up it dumps you in the seat and takes you all the way to rev limiter with no dramas. That is not a very fuel efficient thing to do, but as a daily driver it still uses way less petrol than the 3.5L and if required can whoop the 3.5 at speeds which are not excessive.

At excessive speeds the 3.5L will win hands down, but thats not really achievable on the streets anyway. Now mitsubishi are bringing out the 3.8L V6, which I reckon will be a ****ing disaster, but hey, when DID mitsubshi australia know what they're doing?

i dont think it will be a "****ing disaster" at all... it will produce far more power and torque then any existing model so really whats the problem?? Your assuming obviously its going to use heaps of fuel but thats a silly assumption.. especially since the new motor conforms to polution standards better then any other mitsubishi V6 before it.. an engine that produces low pollution is generally also fuel efficient, also considering the "old dinosaur: 3.8ltr ecotec V6 in commodores where actually incredibly fuel efficient when drivin nicely... cant assume what the fuel consumption is on a car just cos of its capacity.. ever heard of advancements in technology?

Yes you and your old are getting different fuel figures but do you do the exact same driving as each other? i doubt it, you cant compare fuel figures from two different cars unless the two different cars do the exact same thing. Also if you are getting those figures in your 3.5 then i suggest you either have a lead foot or do ALOT of city driving... Also if your 3.5 struggles in the top end then theres something wrong with it, mine hammers all the way to the rev limiter no dramas at all.

As for the official fuel figures, as said dont read too much into them... in the real world its a very different story.

Rare, but they existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taunus_V4_engine ;
Yeah, I know but I was referring to Magna's :D