A friend told me that Sigma's went quite a lot harder than 2.6 Magna's due to a better/larger carbie design, and that they are interchangable between the two.

Just wondering if there is any trust to this?

Dunno, but I do know that EFI Astrons "go harder" than carbed ones - by 10kw, in fact (as standard - blue-topped injectors from the TR/TS series apparently "go harder" again) ;-)

If you're married to the idea of the carby, perhaps the Falcon, etc, Weber is a better proposition. I say this knowing little-nothing of the Sigma's one/s, though...

Cheers,
Mattt.

blue top injectors do sweet **** all, do some real mods to experance this

also the 2.6 carby is exactly the same to the magna one, there was slight change to the magna one in 87 (and between leaded - unleaded remembering some sigs where unleaded too) but as for sizes there all the same

is more true that for a decent result, you may as well spend the money on the weber, all round a more productive upgrade, plus allows for more mods with less work later on.

skip the sigma, which may give you a diff result, but ultimately, not one that is worth the fuss.
or you can go EFI, but thats the work of SA74N

yes, agreed with both mad lante's and astron boy's posts...

i'm changing over my carby for a 32/36 or 34/34. allows for mean cams, and the like too without hassles unlike EFI.

btw, if your looking at modding the car with the stock carb, it is quite capable of taking alot of mc-crud.
i still have the stock carb, as the one i will be getting is not going to be listed, but all the mods i have done this far for the future mod work quite well with the stock carb, not lean, not rich, still decent fuel economy, and tho it does restrain, it has progressed from stock.

The reason I asked was because I have driven a 2.6 Sigma and it went surprisingly well
And my 2.6 Magna doesn't go anywhere near as hard as that did

The magna is just a run around car, but I take it from ACT to the coast (mountain driving etc) and it does struggle a bit there. I just want something which is more "comfortable" to drive

A friend checked out the car and there were some vacuum hoses connected wrong. he swapped hem around and the car goes much better but I think it can go better still

Any tips/recommendations?

It still has a bit of black smoke at full or close to full throttle so I'd say still running rich

The magna's engine may just also be more worn...

Is the sigma and auto or a manual, and what is the magna?

the sigma is also a lighter car, the autobox if it is an auto, was a mechanical one, so, the magna will feel smoother, whilst at the same time be dogged down a lil more.

I have both a sigma and a magna, and alot of others, however, the sigma is a lil more agile.

rwd for starters always copes better on hills imo.
magnas being front everything means it has to drag the weight around.

and generally you will find, for some bizarre reason, the magnas will always be more worn down more so than the sigmas. generally family cars are more worn than small cars.

that's my insight.

The Magna has 296,000km but the engine seems to be in great condition
Seems like some external issue on it
Would adjusting dwell and timing help?

Also, I don't think RWD Vs. FWD makes a difference... if anything RWD loses more power to get to the wheels

Both cars are manual

Also, I don't think RWD Vs. FWD makes a difference... if anything RWD loses more power to get to the wheels
everything has to go to the wheels eventually...

minus the cars completely, essentially two similar designed engines in complete working order will always be only a few hp or kws off each other, its once it goes into the car in whatever form it is that makes the most difference.

Had a drag between me and a friend with a 1.3 KE70 Corolla just for the hell of it

Cars were even, but I could launch harder
Rolla has 220K km and mine has 296K km

The car, after fixing up some hoses to the carbie, goes much better with no smoke at all from the exhaust but still I think it lacks power

2.6 litres is a huge engine!!

I know it's a stupid comparison but my 2L MIVEC f'ing screams hard and it's only 2L

The 2.6L engine is very in-efficient...

2.6 litres is a huge engine!!

I know it's a stupid comparison but my 2L MIVEC f'ing screams hard and it's only 2L

It's true that the magna with a 2.6L was not the greatest race car... given they were never designed to be, they do run, and run well, when maintained.
The same can be said with the 2nd gen, the 2.6L TRs lacked alot, they were heavier and all, the 3.0L more than makes up for the loss, but there you go, its not the astron

2.6L is a huge engine, yes, however
I have a v8 with only 145hp, yet for its day, it was top stuff.

same with the magnas, for there day they were not the fastest, but they were known for there mass amount of torque
and face it, thats what its all about, sitting at the lights, then launching.


btw, yes your comparison of a mivec is unfair... you do understand mivecs dont you?

Yes I of course understand MIVEC... I transplanted it into my lancer and about to build one with 2.5L and forged everything :bowrofl:

My Magna isn;t that great on torque. I think there is still something wrong with it...

I will start another thread :)

you can go EFI, but thats the work of SA74N
EFI is well worth it if you have time, money and patience. http://magna.trynsave.net/index.php?title=Carby_to_EFI_Conversion

blue top injectors do sweet **** all, do some real mods to experance this

Exactly right, blue injectors actually flow less than the standard ones.



also the 2.6 carby is exactly the same to the magna one, there was slight change to the magna one in 87 (and between leaded - unleaded remembering some sigs where unleaded too) but as for sizes there all the same
All cars from 86 on must run on unleaded, in my experience it seems the unleaded carby magnas are nothing but hassles yet the leaded ones seem ok.

This might give you an idea of the performance of the 2.6carb Magna when new.

Performance:

Top Speed:

Telstar 2.0 5 speed.

162 kmh

Camira 1.8 efi 5 speed.

176 kmh

Commodore 3.3 carb 5 speed.

175 kmh

Bluebird 2.0 carb 5 speed.

158 kmh (4th as 5th was 157kmh)

Corona 2.4 efi 5 speed.

169 kmh

Magna 2.6 carb 5 speed.

174 kmh (4th as 5th was 163kmh)

400 Metres

Telstar: 18.27

Camira: 17.68

Commodore: 17.81

Bluebird: 18.86

Corona: 17.48

Magna: 17.35


0-100kmh


Telstar: 12.78

Camira: 11.13

Commodore: 12.09

Bluebird: 13.98

Corona: 10.87

Magna: 10.73

All cars from 86 on must run on unleaded, in my experience it seems the unleaded carby magnas are nothing but hassles yet the leaded ones seem ok.

mmm yeah, it thinks its cos the post 86 carbies had all that other crap hanging off it.

My leaded carby hasn't had too many troubles... just stpuid things like chokes not working, etc but all fixed now.

it's still not worth bothering with the magna carby fullstop. mikuni cant make carbies for peanuts.

my weber will be going on very soon. on the other hand, does anyone want a reconditioned mikuni carby? lol

i'm serious, i'm throwing it away if no one wants it... $100-200 wasted otherwise.

it's still not worth bothering with the magna carby fullstop. mikuni cant make carbies for peanuts.

I second that, even Mazdas with carbs were ****!

my weber will be going on very soon. on the other hand, does anyone want a reconditioned mikuni carby? lol

i'm serious, i'm throwing it away if no one wants it... $100-200 wasted otherwise.
Still got it Bill? I'll take it!