I'm Looking for a new Magna and have the choice of two roughly comparable manual 3rd gen wagons - a 97 and a 99.

option 1
1999 model, 135000k, 3.5 manual XS Touring wagon - $8900

Otion 2
1997 model , 135000k, 3.0 manual Executive Wagon - $6500

I like the look of both these cars as they are low ks.

I have driven a 2.6 TR auto wagon for the last ten years.

My questions are:

The 3.0 uses less petrol than the 3.5 and with petrol prices what they are that is

atrtractive to me. Is there a lot of performance difference between the 3.0 and

the 3.5? I see that the 3.5 makes little bit more power and a lot more torque lower

down in the rev range as compared to the 3.0.


I drove a 3.5 automatic last year and was able to give it a bit of a caning and was

amazed at how it accelerated. Would it be that much better than the 3.0 manual?


After having driven the 2.6 for so long am I likely to think the 3.0 is slow as well, or

are the 3.0 engines good performers?

the 3L manuals are ok, ( the auto's suck black hairy balls )

but the 3.5L Manuals are even better. they've got a suprising amount of grunt

The 3's and 3.5's are similr in fuel consumption, 3.5's have more torque driving around town, stock for stock there pretty similar when getting up them TE, TF and TH that is

you will have a few extra goodies with the XS tourer...cruise ten stack cd etc...TH for mine

the 3.5L has alot more pull down in the lower revs which makes driving around town that little bit easier and more comfortable.
They are both pretty good motors and the 3L in manual form isn't too bad for what it is, but like said the 3.5 is just even better :).

So a 3.0 manual would be heaps better than my current 2.6 auto?

So a 3.0 manual would be heaps better than my current 2.6 auto?
Hahaha yeh, you will notice a HUGE difference between the 2.
My advice is to test drive both vehicles if you can and decide which one you like better.

I'd go the 3.5. If you are fairly conscious of your right foot, they are suprisingly fuel efficient.

If you think the 3.0L chew less fuel think again!! I have a 3.5L sedan and my brother had a 3L sedan. Both automatics. On average mine was chewing 1-2L/100km less!! Both cars running perfectly. We monitored fuel consumption for a few months and the 3.5L ALWAYS consumed less fuel.

3.5 averages for me with a lead foot in town around 13L/100
in suburbs average of 11-12L/100km
HWY driving isnt all that great but approx 9-10L/100km

The 3.0L apparently uses the same amount of fuel

One thing to note:
the 3.5 is VERY FUN TO DRIVE!!! :D

Go the manual 3.5L. You will love it. I still do after 18 months. I havent driven a 3L manual but many people say they are roughly the same on fuel. Your best bet would be to take them both for a quick test drive and decide which suits you better.

[QUOTE=HWY driving isnt all that great but approx 9-10L/100k:D[/QUOTE]

I went to Queensland from newcastle in my 3.5 tj2
and averaged 8L/100k thats with 2 adults and 2 kids and the boot chockers
I thought that was great economy

Just wondering what an XS Touring wagon is?

Hvae never heard of them.

I had a KS Touring wagon, but havent heard of one since then.

my 3.0 manual chews about 9.5L/100km, with aircon constantly on, and quite heavy acceleration a lot of the time. when i bought it it was using over 15L/100.. what a difference some oil and a grounding kit makes :)

My TF 3.0 tiptronic Sports uses 9L/100k highway and 12 around town in Canberra. My experience is that 3.5 has greater launch effect from standing start (all that extra torque)and more immediate wack on kickdown. But the 3.0 is smoother and revs more freely (small pistons, short stroke).

I had a worked TP wagon 2.6 auto and like the guys say, night and day between the 2.6 and the 3.0. Uses less fuel (abut 10% town and highway) but goes harder, is quieter, more reliable etc etc. After the 2.6 you can't lose with either the 3.0 or the 3.5 I think is what I am saying. And the gearbox is leagues better too (but no surprise there given the older boxes propensity to hand grenade).

If id pick between 3.0l manual 3.5l manual go for the 3.0l even though it dosent have that torque. U can rev the **** out of them lol and in my opinion go just as hard as a 3.5l down the quater.

The XS Touring Wagon was a special edition with cruise control, CD player, alloys, special stickers etc.

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm going to get a test drive of each this weekend and make a decision. Though I'm leaning towards the 3.0 as long as it's in good nick.

The poor old TR has had it - won't make it to 300,000 like I hoped. I jus don't want to spend any more money on it when low km third gens are so cheap.



Just wondering what an XS Touring wagon is?

Hvae never heard of them.

I had a KS Touring wagon, but havent heard of one since then.

The XS Touring Wagon was a special edition with cruise control, CD player, alloys, special stickers etc.

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm going to get a test drive of each this weekend and make a decision. Though I'm leaning towards the 3.0 as long as it's in good nick.

The poor old TR has had it - won't make it to 300,000 like I hoped. I jus don't want to spend any more money on it when low km third gens are so cheap.

I think it is actually XS TOURER not touring...they also came in sedan and have such named sticker on boot/tailgate

Let the numbers speak for themselves.

From CARSguide:

6G72 24 Valve V6 3.0L: 140kW @ 5500rpm, 255Nm @ 4500rpm
Fuel consumption: 10.0 City, 7.2 Highway. 68L Fuel tank capacity. (TE Executive Manual)

6G74 24 Valve V6 3.5L: 147kW @ 5000rpm, 300Nm @ 4000rpm
Fuel Consumption: 10.5 City, 7.2 Highway. 71L Fuel tank capacity (TH Executive Manual)

So as you can see, the 3.5L returns only extremely marginally higher fuel consumption figures around town, and the same on the highway compared to the 3.0. And yes, there are indeed marginally higher power and significantly higher torque figures for the 3.5.

Without considering the other features of the cars, comparing purely by engine, my choice would be the 3.5 any day.