When the AWD Magna was released in early 2003, motoring writers were quick to praise its extra traction and better handling, but there was also a lot of whinging about the extra fuel consumed by the AWD drivetrain.

I own a TJ AWD and my daughter has an auto TJ exec. We recently drove both cars from our home in southern Sydney up to Kew, 375 km all up. Since we drove in convoy, both cars experienced identical traffic and weather conditions, same speed, etc. The overall fuel economy of the AWD was 9.8 L/100km and the exec got 8.7 L/100km. This finally confirmed my impression that the AWD consumed about a litre per 100km more than the equivalent 2WD Magna.

I think the economy of the exec is great for a large 3.5L auto sedan. To me, the economy of the AWD is still very acceptable, and the extra 1.1 L/100km is worth paying for the benefits of AWD. To put it in perspective, the extra cost over a year's motoring (15000 km) would be approx $200, or slightly more than the equivalent of two tank fills.

I can verify that there's about 10%-15% extra consumption of an AWD 3.5, as compared to a FWD 3.5

Having owned a KJ 3.5 Verada and a TL AWD 3.5, I often got 9.4L/100km in the FWD, whereas in the AWD it was more likely to be around 10.6L/100km

I can verify that there's about 10%-15% extra consumption of an AWD 3.5, as compared to a FWD 3.5

Having owned a KJ 3.5 Verada and a TL AWD 3.5, I often got 9.4L/100km in the FWD, whereas in the AWD it was more likely to be around 10.6L/100km

Your 10.6 L/100km was exactly the average I got from Perth to Sydney after I bought the AWD. That trip was over 4000 km, with not much city driving! I guess it's freed up a bit more since then - it had only 18500 km on the clock when I bought it.

The numbers reported are in line with the extra weight of the AWD. The extra drivetrain loss probably plays a minor role too.

Don't forget you can get manual trannys in fwd's, which is another setup down in fuel economy - I was getting 6.5-7L/100km on the M5 when the car was NA and driving frugally.

I'm yet to be convinced the AWD handles better than the fwd though. Sure better power-down traction, but that extra weight doesn't help with turn-in and mid-corner 'chuckability'. Depends on what your priorities are though, there's always gonna be a compromise - although IMO for most applications fwd + LSD gives as close as possible to the 'best of both' - VASTLY better better traction than with an open diff, but less weight for nicer early/mid corner response.

Although based on my preferences/needs, I might be a bit biased :)

The numbers reported are in line with the extra weight of the AWD. The extra drivetrain loss probably plays a minor role too.

Don't forget you can get manual trannys in fwd's, which is another setup down in fuel economy - I was getting 6.5-7L/100km on the M5 when the car was NA and driving frugally.

I'm yet to be convinced the AWD handles better than the fwd though. Sure better power-down traction, but that extra weight doesn't help with turn-in and mid-corner 'chuckability'. Depends on what your priorities are though, there's always gonna be a compromise - although IMO for most applications fwd + LSD gives as close as possible to the 'best of both' - VASTLY better better traction than with an open diff, but less weight for nicer early/mid corner response.

Although based on my preferences/needs, I might be a bit biased :)

Those figures for the M5 are brilliant for a large car like the Magna. Obviously, manual transmission will give better fuel economy than the autos I've compared, but I believe all 3rd gens benefit from the very slippery shape - drag coefficient is only 0.28, compared to a typical average of 0.35 for modern sedans. The main price we pay for this benefit is restricted rear headroom.

Yes, we all have different preferences with respect to handling, etc, and no car has yet been built that would suit everyone. For myself, I happen to be sold on AWD, which is going to be interesting when my current car finally wears out - what the hell do I replace it with?

Yeah i agree, after owning many Veradas over the years, it would be hard to go back to a FWD after having an AWD. Probably couldnt do it and would have to settle for another AWD in another brand or back to rear drivers.
Best thing about the AWD is that you can drive it as hard in the wet as you can the dry. Front drivers are just hopeless.

I agree with the consumption figures, I've driven up to port macquarie from inner sydney a few times, as well as just about everywhere in NSW from the Snowies to Dalmorton, and for standard country touring, around 9.6-10l/100km was the norm (more if climbing, and a fair bit more on the dirt, lots more towing the boat). Until I got my sparks changed at 105K km. My touring consumption has dropped into the high 8's for flat country touring, and its an across the board improvement, even in sydney traffic. Its the best I've even had (I bought it 2 years old at 37K km)

over the course of the last 6months, i have been keeping records of EVERY drop of fuel that goes in my tank and how many kms i travel - Trip computer Vs Pump qty and the varience between TC average and actual average etc
have a funky little chart in excell with a graph - its VERY exciting (i need a life!)
im recording 10.89L/100km in the prev 6 months.
monthly averages have been getting lower and lower as well - esp since i got the 100k km service done (done 25000km early mind you coz i wanted it done)

iv had mine drop as low as 8.9once, but then i put my foot down to overtake, and it crept up to about 9.6l/100km (according to trip computer)

i drive with the ac on all the time too, and im not... the most.. sedate of drivers, i enjoy the power when its safe to do so (dont speed though, thats just asking for trouble)

all in all - they arnt really THAT much more expensive to run in comparo to the FWD versions, and i can live with that.

i would never be able to go back to a FWD car - if i had to choose one end only to be the driving end, i would fo a RWD car.
AWD is fun - i feel safer in it, and love the look you can get on other peoples faces (fulli sik VL Turbo commos) when you sail through a roundabout with grace and poise, and they cant keep up with ya! fun times - fun times :)

i push 400kms to a tank of fuel in part i think cause of the stop-start perth city traffic :doubt:

Did a trip to Thirroul and back with 4 mates in the car today, about 96km each way with some serious hills, averaged 9.2L/100km including a bit of city driving.

Yeah my AWD uses about 1 to 1.5 l per 100km more than my FWD's.
Well worth the extra fuel im my opinion.

I agree with the consumption figures, I've driven up to port macquarie from inner sydney a few times, as well as just about everywhere in NSW from the Snowies to Dalmorton, and for standard country touring, around 9.6-10l/100km was the norm (more if climbing, and a fair bit more on the dirt, lots more towing the boat). Until I got my sparks changed at 105K km. My touring consumption has dropped into the high 8's for flat country touring, and its an across the board improvement, even in sydney traffic. Its the best I've even had (I bought it 2 years old at 37K km)

Mine has done just over 32K km, and it seems to be a bit more economical now compared with when I bought it last year at 18.5K. It's interesting that your plug change yielded such good results. Were they standard plugs?

I also agree with FamilyWagon's comments - with stock standard cars, the 2WD 3.5 L Magna can be a handful in the wet, particularly with no traction control. The AWD simply doesn't need traction control!

Mine has done just over 32K km, and it seems to be a bit more economical now compared with when I bought it last year at 18.5K. It's interesting that your plug change yielded such good results. Were they standard plugs?


Just the rear platinum plugs were changed. They were obviously well buggered, and had been a long time. I was the second owner, 1st was Europcar :shock:

Just the rear platinum plugs were changed. They were obviously well buggered, and had been a long time. I was the second owner, 1st was Europcar :shock:

Thanks for the info, tjawd. I'll keep this in mind as one of the possibilities if my fuel economy takes a dive.

In my TJ i currently have an average of 9.2ltr/100km, where as in my dads '05 AWD its around the 12ltr/100km.

Im not sure what my dads driving style is but thats over a few thousand km's with alot of freeway driving to work.

I was the second owner, 1st was Europcar :shock:

so your car was probably being thrased most of its life before you got to it hey ....

In my TJ i currently have an average of 9.2ltr/100km, where as in my dads '05 AWD its around the 12ltr/100km.

Im not sure what my dads driving style is but thats over a few thousand km's with alot of freeway driving to work.

Your dad's car is the TW model, somewhat heavier than the TJ, even if both of your cars were AWDs. So his car is taking a double hit with respect to fuel economy when competing with the 2WD TJ. I assume, too, that both of you are driving similar routes, same traffic, etc otherwise no comparison is valid.

A run up to QLD from sydney netted me an average of 6.9l/100km. FWD with mucho weight in the back

Your dad's car is the TW model, somewhat heavier than the TJ, even if both of your cars were AWDs. So his car is taking a double hit with respect to fuel economy when competing with the 2WD TJ. I assume, too, that both of you are driving similar routes, same traffic, etc otherwise no comparison is valid.


well on that basis it would work out worse for the TW, since he runs practically 90% freeway to work, where as im probably doing 40% freeway.

well on that basis it would work out worse for the TW, since he runs practically 90% freeway to work, where as im probably doing 40% freeway.

I wouldn't argue for one second that your dad's TW AWD will ever equal your TJ 2WD in fuel economy. I was simply pointing out that the TW is considerably heavier, particularly the AWD, and so will suffer for it at the bowser. In fact, the TW AWD is at least 160 kg heavier than your TJ - to even things up, you would have to take two extra passengers! Even then, the AWD drivetrain will still soak up power / fuel.

It would be interesting to see how your cars compared after doing an identical run.

its funny how u say the auto's chew more fuel than the manuals..

on the freeway my TJ 4sp auto gets way better economy than my ralliart did na.. as the 5sp manual rev's higher at 100-110....


Although I may be vastly biased....

I would take LSD FWD over awd anyday... in our cars anyway, an evo is a different story, but the awd just didn't excite me... sorry.

the 5sp manual rev's higher at 100-110....

Yeah I noticed that going from my auto KH to the manual TL. At 110kph its about 2800rpm in the TL vs. just over 2000rpm in the KH (can't remember exactly)

I would take LSD FWD over awd anyday... in our cars anyway, an evo is a different story, but the awd just didn't excite me... sorry.

No need to be sorry about your own preferences - we all have them. It's a good thing that not all AMC members want an AWD, because there probably aren't enough of them for all of us. It seems to me that drivers "get" AWD or they don't, but it's not a right or wrong issue.

my issue is awd auto vs fwd manual. if you could get manual awd (like i thought you could 5min ago) i would buy one.
im thinking fwd manual with lsd.

only if my mining job goes ahead that is.