Hi yall, i'm going to be looking at a magna to replace my tp pretty soon and will probably be buying it.
It's a 1998 Magna Executive TF 4cyl 5sp Man with 96,000kms.
Is there anything that i should note when looking at this car taking into account the year and its mileage. Someone told me they're supposed to have the timing belt done at 100,000kms.

Enlighten ME!

Hi yall, i'm going to be looking at a magna to replace my tp pretty soon and will probably be buying it.
It's a 1998 Magna Executive TF 4cyl 5sp Man with 96,000kms.
Is there anything that i should note when looking at this car taking into account the year and its mileage. Someone told me they're supposed to have the timing belt done at 100,000kms.

Enlighten ME!

Hey, from what i hear around the place, 100,000km is around the time to get the timing belt changed, rear plugs might need doing aswell, just check how the timing belt going. i heard they can be expensive to get done.

Hi yall, i'm going to be looking at a magna to replace my tp pretty soon and will probably be buying it.
It's a 1998 Magna Executive TF 4cyl 5sp Man with 96,000kms.
Is there anything that i should note when looking at this car taking into account the year and its mileage. Someone told me they're supposed to have the timing belt done at 100,000kms.

Enlighten ME!
Any reason you're going a 4 cylinder? The TF is a pretty heavy car and i wouldn't think fuel consumption would be all that different between the 2.4 and 3.0.
But yeh timing belt get's done at around 100, then your standard stuff like oil/oil leaks, rattles etc.

Hey, from what i hear around the place, 100,000km is around the time to get the timing belt changed, rear plugs might need doing aswell, just check how the timing belt going. i heard they can be expensive to get done.

there are no rear banks.. it's just four in a row (4cyl remember)
but yeah, timing belt is the main thing, the rest can be taken care off by yourself with the usual servicing intervals...
just check for any leaks ie oil, coolant etc

I decided a 4 cyl because i didn't really think i NEED anything more than that cos im not towing anything.
A 6 cylinder would be nicer taking off at the lights, but i figured i'd just be burning more fuel and there'd be one more carbon emitter on the road.
I'm only interested in this car because there aren't as many magnas with manual transmission and i've been driving an auto for 3 years and have always had problems with that (plus never liked autos).. But that was the '90 magna.

does the weight of the TF really put strain on the 4cyl or is the 6cyl more popular for the hoon factor?

EDIT: I just called a mitsi dealer and apparrently there's no such thing as a 2.4L magna.. ???
then he said to stay away from those models with a 4cyl as they were runout models

I think the TE was the only one with a 2.4L. But generally the 3.0L V6 is more economical then the 2.4. Some report the 3.5 to be even more economical due to the significant gain inn torque down low.

I'd go for the 3.0 if your looking at a TE/TF.

EDIT: I just called a mitsi dealer and apparrently there's no such thing as a 2.4L magna.. ???
then he said to stay away from those models with a 4cyl as they were runout models

Tell that to AMC Member IH8HSV ;)
There is really nothing wrong wwith the 4 cyl 3rd gens. The mitsu dealer would only say something like that as it might be a little hard scoring parts for that particular model.

The only 4cyl Model magna that i've heard to stay away from is the 2nd gen, which is why i opted for a 3.0L V6

there are no rear banks.. it's just four in a row (4cyl remember)
but yeah, timing belt is the main thing, the rest can be taken care off by yourself with the usual servicing intervals...
just check for any leaks ie oil, coolant etc


HAHA yeah, how stupid am i? i just saw TF, and automaticly thought V6, i didnt know 98 TF's came in 4's.

EDIT: I just called a mitsi dealer and apparrently there's no such thing as a 2.4L magna.. ???
then he said to stay away from those models with a 4cyl as they were runout models
there is such i thing!i have a 97 TF 2.4 5 speed manual magna there is nuthin wrong with these cars,they are great!and parts arnt hard to get a hold of,they can be easily ordered in through mitsubishi ,TF's are the last 4 cylinder magnas ever made,so its sometin cool you can tell your friends lol
when my car was stock it was bout 60 bucks full tank which is pritty good,lasted me a fortnight:)
pm if you would like any more help:D

cheers,
Hamish (tony)

yeah dad has a 98 tf wagon... 2.4 4cyc... in my opinion with occasionally driving his (i have the 3.0) go the 3.0lt.

The 3.0 is sooooooo much smoother and power delivery is better imho...

I drive an auto TF 3.0 and think its gutless so id hate to see how slow the 2.4lt is. Although if its manual it might help a little.

Go with a 3.0 in my opinion. The TF's are heavy cars and its possible that you might burn just as much fuel trying to get the thing moving on a 2.4 than at a full cruise in a 3.0.

One other thing, When you pick it up check that the stone guard is attatched properly.
It sounds stupid i know but alot of TF's had the Stone guard break loose on the drivers side... Even mine had it. I think it was a design flaw.
The reason i say it is because I know 3 people including myself who have hooked the loose guard over a curb and ripped a chunk out of the front bar.
Its a careless mistake and easy to avoid but going from a TP to a TF... the tf is alot bigger and the dimentions are alot different when parking etc.

Just thought id mention it.

definately go with the four banger i have a TE 5 speed and its an awesome and fun car to drive plus good fuel economy! go for it buddy!

The original road tests had the average fuel consumption for the 2.4 at 10.6L/100km, the same average for the 3.0 V6 was 11L/100km. For a small 0.4L diffference in fuel consumption when new, your getting an allot more powerfull, smoother and less stressed engine with the 3.0.

go the 6...even if u dont need the extra power its always nice to have it tucked away in the extra 2 cyls........makes overtaking and hill-up-getting easier

I think you're better off with a 3L personally, because you may not need the power all the time, but it is nice to have it there just in case. Also a 6 banger won't have to work as hard a the 4 pot, so it may last a little longer. And seeing as the fuel consumption tests show stuff all difference, go the 6.

i would go the 3ltr as well. the amount of power you have to try and suck out of the 2.4 to get the car to go would suck just as much fuel as using the 3ltr normally. i had a kingswood with a 6 cylinder and my mate had a V8 and he got way better fuel economy to mine everytime not to mention the fact that he had heaps more grunt when he needed it. seriously....you would regret buying the 2.4 after the 1st few fuel bills and the lack of power compared to the 3ltr

Whilst I have a V6 and would say this would be the preference, all the mag reviews at the time said that the manual 2.4 TF was a real sweet drive. Went reasonably quickly, handled a little better than V6 (being lighter in the nose and less mass forward of the ft axle line). Wheels mag in partic said that it was actually their favourite 4 cyl mid size car. But definitiely don't get an auto. I drove one outa curiosity before I bought my V6 and was staggered at just how slow it was. The TP auto with extractors that I had would absolutely have thrashed it :badgrin:

Well i decided against it and got a 3.5 TF auto Exec for $5500
Its a good one too, smooth braking cornering.. and it doesnt rattle at the lights.

It could only be better to drive if it were brand new.

Thanks everyone for your advice, it helped me decide.

nice work m8, u made the right choicelol

top choice there mate.... jst out of curisoty... how many kms on it?

184,000.

That's why it was so cheap. They ran up most of it driving around australia - which is good milage i thought