as the title states is there much difference between the TS 2.6L auto and the TE-TF 2.4L auto?

we have just purchased a 94 TS 2.6 auto 193xxx kms and it has the the worst fuel economy in the world!
everything on this car is spot on mechanical and service wise including injectors ect... yet we are only getting around 300-350kms per tank!! OMFG...and i do drive it like a grandpar in this car!! LOL..
even my TJ 5spd man gets 500-550kms per tank and it only holds 7 litres more.

so my question is is it worth selling and buying a TE-TF for the sake of fuel economy and performance not to menchin looks??

AFAIK, they refined the head on the 4G54 and made the 4G64 but I believe that the 2.4L engine is a lot more refined and smoother and more economical than the old 2.6. I have driven a TE 2.4 and I didn't mind it at all. So I would believe that it is going to be more economical than a TS.

Yeah the Astron II aint the most fuel efficient motor ever made. I get way better fuel economy now with my 3.5L V6 in the Rada than I did with the 2.6L Astron in my TP. On about 12L/100km now, I was on 15-16L/100km with my old car. Shocking!! But if you wanna stick to 4cyls, almost anything is better than an Astron (as much as I love them!!!)

thanks for the quick responses!!

the TS is more for the wife as i drive the manual TJ (so much better)LOL but the wife wants a 4cyl auto runaround as a second car!
im thinking we might just upgrade to the TF atleast its a bit bigger more refined and better all round car by the sounds of things!

i also get around 10-12 L per 100ks in the TJ. i can live with that!!LOL...

thanks for the quick responses!!

the TS is more for the wife as i drive the manual TJ (so much better)LOL but the wife wants a 4cyl auto runaround as a second car!
im thinking we might just upgrade to the TF atleast its a bit bigger more refined and better all round car by the sounds of things!

Have you considered something other than a Magna for her maybe if you are after 4 cylinders? You can get a late model Getz fairly cheap these days. My girlfriend has one, costs her $30 per week MAX for up to 400kms. 8L/100km city driving=awesome! Pretty reliable little bus, she's had it for a year now, and not a single problem with it yet! Cos I must say as much as I love the Magnas, there are a lot of better 4cyl options out there. But then seeing as you have kids etc, the size of the Magna is definitely useful I would suppose? I only just realised that after I typed all that up :)

You need to remember that the 2.6 L engine started as a 1850 cc engine way back in the 1970-80's. It has been enlarged a number of times and made EFI. It was originally made to be a robust engine with little regard to internal friction. I had a 2.6 carb auto in a Sigma sedan and I was lucky to get 22 mpg. Compared to this my EFI 2.6 TS manual does a lot better. Metallurgy has improved considerably and the focus of engine design has moved from longetivity to lower friction. Compare a piston from a 2.6 to a 2L Lancer and you will see difference, much reduced friction surface. Really, a tired 2.6 auto Magna will give you the worst fuel economy of any EFI Mitsu engine. My TS manual will give me 350-400 Km from full to warning light on around town, but it improves the longer the trips are. Short trips to the shops etc really chew the fuel.

PS When the TS was new petrol price was (IIRC) about 70c/L. About $35 for a tank. When people complain about fuel consumption today they often really mean that they resent needing to put $70 of petrol in a car on a regular basis to keep it running.

PS A 2004 Lancer manual gets 10L/100 Km around town, and 6.6L/100 Km on a trip. The 2L Lancer engine makes more Kw than the 2.6 Magna engine, just as a comparison between old and new technology.

You need to remember that the 2.6 L engine started as a 1850 cc engine way back in the 1970-80's. It has been enlarged a number of times and made EFI. It was originally made to be a robust engine with little regard to internal friction. I had a 2.6 carb auto in a Sigma sedan and I was lucky to get 22 mpg. Compared to this my EFI 2.6 TS manual does a lot better. Metallurgy has improved considerably and the focus of engine design has moved from longetivity to lower friction. Compare a piston from a 2.6 to a 2L Lancer and you will see difference, much reduced friction surface. Really, a tired 2.6 auto Magna will give you the worst fuel economy of any EFI Mitsu engine. My TS manual will give me 350-400 Km from full to warning light on around town, but it improves the longer the trips are. Short trips to the shops etc really chew the fuel.

PS When the TS was new petrol price was (IIRC) about 70c/L. About $35 for a tank. When people complain about fuel consumption today they often really mean that they resent needing to put $70 of petrol in a car on a regular basis to keep it running.

PS A 2004 Lancer manual gets 10L/100 Km around town, and 6.6L/100 Km on a trip. The 2L Lancer engine makes more Kw than the 2.6 Magna engine, just as a comparison between old and new technology.

thanks for all the usefull info!!! will talk to the missis about the lancer idea hopefully they are large enough!!! 2 adults and 2 kids in car seats! The Hyundai Gets are a really good car to drive and service!! my mum drives one there pretty cool in a way!! LOL....

Fuel econ may be better but if you want your family driving in a foil wrapped cardboard box, which I am sure you do not, then that is your answer.

The magna is heavy as well, need to remember that as well as what max has stated above, having said that, you should still be getting a little better out of the TS than what you are getting.

If you want smaller car, stick with the more solid brands such as mits, perhaps as much as I hate to say it, Toyota and or Mazda. Hianddri are cheap but also weak

I'd pick up a TE/TF 3L Auto, Would she really know if it had 4 or 6cyl's?

just get a 2l badge from somewhere for it!!!

Hmmm, the 2.4s are way ahead of the 2.6s in regards to fuel economy. They both have the same sort of power and torque I believe, the 2.4 is slightly ahead on power from what I can remember. However you shouldn't be getting fuel economy like that. My old 2.6 got me 550-650kms from a tank depending on how I drove it, granted it was a wagon so it had a larger fuel tank.

Even your TJ is pretty high on fuel for a manual.. :O
I get 600kms out of my 3.5 consisantly, and used to get up to 700kms out of my 3.0 in manual form.

Depending on what size car she wants, I guess go for a 2.4 TE or whatever. If she doesn't need something that big maybe look in to getting a small excel or lancer :)

we have just purchased a 94 TS 2.6 auto 193xxx kms and it has the the worst fuel economy in the world!
everything on this car is spot on mechanical and service wise including injectors ect... yet we are only getting around 300-350kms per tank!! OMFG...and i do drive it like a grandpar in this car!! LOL..
even my TJ 5spd man gets 500-550kms per tank and it only holds 7 litres more.


If the TS has an oxygen sensor (I have no idea, never having owned a 2nd gen) and it hasn't been changed in the last 100000km, it might be worth trying a new one - poor fuel economy being one symptom of an O2 sensor being past its use by date.

Andy.

the 2.4L auto in the TE/TF were very good on fuel for the weight it had to haul, and if handling was on the agenda, it was also the best due to less weight over the front wheels.. if i could find one in good condition, i'd be more than happy to have it as my daily. I had one in the past :)

;1262860']I'd pick up a TE/TF 3L Auto, Would she really know if it had 4 or 6cyl's?

yeah she would at rego time!! LOL...

=Even your TJ is pretty high on fuel for a manual.. :O
I get 600kms out of my 3.5 consisantly, and used to get up to 700kms out of my 3.0 in manual form.

yeah but im pretty led footed (in my car only) and were we live is very very hilly! always changing gears, just ask lucifer!! LOL..