Galant VR4 info required
Galant VR4 info required
Author
Discussion

Suggs

Original Poster:

393 posts

294 months

Monday 2nd September 2002
quotequote all
I am looking for a car with lots of load space and lots of grunt. The Mitsubishi Galant Legnum VR4 seems to fit the bill, an estate with 280hp and 4 wheel drive.
Anyone know anything about these cars? Things to look out for when buying second hand?
Any info will be gratefully received.

ap_smith

1,999 posts

284 months

Monday 2nd September 2002
quotequote all
Fast as the wind, essentially an EVO VII with a different skin.

Look at the servicing intervals though, every 4,500 miles I think.

woodster

122 posts

281 months

Tuesday 3rd September 2002
quotequote all
My dad has the VR4 saloon, and opted for the manual gearbox (which makes it reasonably rare and a bit quicker than the tiptronic versions).
The performance figures are pretty impressive (0-60 around 5.5 I think), but as the power delivery is very smooth it doesn't actually 'feel' that quick.

A funny story about it: My dad had his debadged and the Ralliart bits taken off (because he had a couple of theft attempts on his old Scooby). He was approached by a bloke one day who asked him if it was a VR4 (because it's still got the body kit and spoiler). He'd replied that it was a standard 1.8 and that he'd regretted putting the body kit on it because with the added weight it struggled to get up steep hills now.

If you want any more info on the VR4, just ask.

Cheers,
Mark.

Esprit

6,373 posts

301 months

Tuesday 3rd September 2002
quotequote all
The legnums aren't that quick, they are for a wagon, but wouldnt stand up to a RS4, or even an S4 Audi. They're a V6 Twinturbo (NOT evo engine) and have bugger all torque as they stroke so short. They're heavy too, weighing in at atound 1650kg i think too so you'lll pay at the pump too

smifffy

1,999 posts

284 months

Tuesday 3rd September 2002
quotequote all
Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the wrong Galant, or maybe I'm just completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, before CarZee jumps in with both feet

I had thought that the BHP was the same as the Evo, but as we all know, BHP does not translate to torque, and hence acceleration.

Pretty sure the service interval is punishing though.

Suggs

Original Poster:

393 posts

294 months

Tuesday 3rd September 2002
quotequote all
Yikes, that service interval is a bit short

Bugger all torque is bad 280bhp is good .

Its beginning to look as if these motors are a little too high maintenance. Thanks for the info chaps

Now what else can I get? A T5R perhaps?

pwig

11,990 posts

288 months

Wednesday 4th September 2002
quotequote all
Im trying to convince my dad to get one of these, you can buy the saloon version for about 8k upwards now!

woodster

122 posts

281 months

Wednesday 4th September 2002
quotequote all
Bugger all torque? It's got masses of torque.

The service interval is definately 4,500 miles (cos I asked last night).
Fuel consumption is awful (a full tank will get you 200 miles - didn't ask how big the tank was).
There isn't anything on the car which comes from the Evo, which is a bit of a shame really because the suspension would benefit from being a bit firmer.
The V6 engine does mean you have to drive it a bit differently to get the most out of the engine, which mainly means you get the most out of the engine by changing up at Revs unheard of for my CTR (around 5k).

In direct comparison my old man claims it to be a better car than his old WRX. Which really can't make it a bad car.