| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Eastwood, Sydney, NSW, Au...
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Mon, 03 March 2003 03:24
|
 |
ok... apart from the obvious power hike for the 3S
how much heavier is the 3SGE vs 4AGE?
are there any reliability probs with the 3S?? ie, which is tougher and lasts longer if given the same treatment....
i have only heard good things about the 4AGE but on the other hand I have heard many people complain about their 3SGE and 3SFEs... re reliability
disadvantages... advantages... ??? please do tell
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Mon, 03 March 2003 03:35
|
|
The most obvious question is.... What's it going into?
I haven't heard anything about the reliability of the 3S, which can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Mon, 03 March 2003 04:54
|
|
|
the 3SG series of engines are toyotas flagship engine. I have heard nothing bad about these engines. My 3SGE takes it like a pro. It doesnt matter how you drive, it simply doesnt break. It might be different if you thrash it for every second you have it running, though. It just depends how you drive it.
|
|
|
Location:
Eskilstuna, Sweden
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Mon, 03 March 2003 05:10
|
|
I have heard some where that it is only about 12 kilos heavier, which is stuff all for an extra 400cc.
The 3s is so good that the Turbo version is used in the Supra in Japan for the N2 category instead of the 6 cylinder (has great weight advantages without giving up to much in kw)
Is more of an issue to put in RWD arrangment, but if you have the money and the time........... 
|
|
|
Location:
Eastwood, Sydney, NSW, Au...
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 00:48
|
|
cool....
now ya all got me drooling about a mr2 turbo or GT4
i was not concerned about what cars these engines go on, 'cause my cousin is tossing up between an 86-89 Celica or 86-88 Twinky..
yes, i have seen that the race Supras in japan use a highly tuned 3SGTE.. very very nice!!!
oh yeah, you reckon i should clean up/do up my twinky or should i bite the bullet and go for a '90 Celica GT4????
How do GT4s go against Rexs, Lancer GSRs etc
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 00:58
|
|
They kick the shit out of em
lol
When the celicas were in the WRC, nobody could beat em. But the only way to find out is to drive one yourself
|
|
|
Location:
Face down in a ditch
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 03:19
|
|
|
Yeah the GT4 should chew up the WRX (gutless piece of mass produced shit) and a GSR (bucket of dogs vomit). An Evo on the other hand would crucify the GT4 in every department.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 03:22
|
|
The 1990ish GT4 (which wasn't run in the WRC until 1991) didn't have to compete with WRXs, it's competed against Legacys (heavier) and more importantly the Lancia Delta Integrale 16v etc etc, it didn't dominate but competed on equal par. When they brought out the next Celica, they put an illegal turbo restrictor on so that they could get an extra 30hp on top of the opposition. They had a way bigger budget than subaru, mitsubishi etc etc at that time and also had the pick of the drivers being the top competing team once lancia had died off.
As for a road GT4 vs a WRX or maybe even an Evo? The road GT4 (not the group A specials and things like that with twin entry turbo) took about 8.5sec to get to 100km/h. Earliest WRX took about 7.2sec or something like that. They only put out about 150kW, but there is room for more obviously, the standard turbo is known to be a bit of a weak point of the engine. Early evos are about the same, later evos are quicker still but come with a price tag.
However, the 1990 Celica looks way better than either of them despite what people said at the time, and on top of that, are generally alot stronger drivetrain wise.
|
|
|
Location:
Tamworth
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 03:55
|
|
|
Ive got an old 3sg at home that i pulled out of my 162 and i couldn't kill it at all still cant the most i done was blow a head gasket other than that it is the most indestructible motor there is as far as I'm concerned and have known a lot of 4ag's to kick the bucket the best was 5 holes in the block , but the 3sg couldn't be better in my opinion
|
|
|
Location:
Mexico
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 04:52
|
|
| AE86 wrote on Tue, 04 March 2003 14:19 |
Yeah the GT4 should chew up the WRX (gutless piece of mass produced shit) and a GSR (bucket of dogs vomit). An Evo on the other hand would crucify the GT4 in every department.
|
are you calling the 93 to 95 lancer GSR names .... shame on you 
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 06:11
|
|
WRXs and GSRs? The early GT-Fours weren't that fast.
It was only when they got up to the Grp A ST185s and the ST205s that they got fast.
|
|
|
Location:
Face down in a ditch
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 07:03
|
|
| Nark wrote on Tue, 04 March 2003 17:11 |
The early GT-Fours weren't that fast.
|
Sorry about that Nark....I kind of ignore the ST165 when it comes to GT4's. Nice to take the girlie and the baby for a picnic on a Sunday, but that's about it
Widowmaker - I am offended by the GSR as it appeared in Australia. Prohibitively expensive at the time, with none of the styling of the Evo III, and significantly less performance. The mere fact it is factory turbo, and even in Australia in the first place does score it brownie points in my book. Just a shame that the Evo engines and half cuts are so expensive.
|
|
|
Location:
Mexico
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 07:35
|
|
but you have to relise without the GSR no one would have an Evolution lancer , i think for the amount it is a good car even today the price for them is quite high because they are in demand. as with all evolution lancers they are not designed in any one way but they are an alround package and a great one at that, ive nearly bought a few gsr's but they all sell before i can get to them.
but ofcourse we all have different tastes and i respect your dislike for them
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 11:52
|
|
3sge's are very nice motors - ive seen quite a few 150 - 200 thousand examples that still purr along like new ..
never heard any gripes about them either - only that the clutch and cam belt are a prick to change .
As for GT4 Vs evo and rex . the Rex has the power - is lighter - and has very good brakes - the evo - spot on par bit with more power and a bigger $$
a Stock 1990 Gt4 has no hope against current rexes - as they weigh alot more - and hvae less power - BUT - the3sgte is a bloody good engine - hard as nails - and can be modified to easily eclipse anything the other two can muster with the right tuning -
Changes like boost controllers - fuel pressure regulator removal , and Intercooler being mounted front wise will improve the engines power limits - obviously as these seem to be the downfall due to things like heatsoak etc getting in the way of clean powered boost .
handling on the GT4 suffers cause of the weight - and a silly rear end setup - too small a sway bar and way too much rear diff play - this can all be dialed out to make the thing handle like a rollerskate
Brakes - as far as ive seen - in testing a few Gt4s ( including a Grp A ) are VERY strong - moreso on the GRp A than the strock obviosly - but very nice stoppers
In a nutshell - with a few extra thousand tacked on to the average 11 thousand price tag - you can make a car thats as good as any WRX in handling and performance - that looks shitloads nicer - and insures cheaper , and still have money in the hand to put in a nice stereo and wheels - for the price of an Evo or a WRX ..
go the Gt4 - an underrated Toyota performance car
|
|
|
Location:
Mexico
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 11:58
|
|
| Classique71 wrote on Tue, 04 March 2003 22:52 |
As for GT4 Vs evo and rex . the Rex has the power - is lighter - and has very good brakes - the evo - spot on par bit with more power and a bigger $$
|
The lancer evolution is slightly quicker then the same yearmodel wrx it has 4 pot massive brembo brakes not to mention its active stability system for which the wrx cannot match. The plus the fact that for every lancer evolution you see you would see about 30 wrx's
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 12:33
|
|
30 rexes to an evo -
Thats why im Buying a Gt4 - same applies 
not many Gt4's out there
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 04 March 2003 21:32
|
|
For a FWD Corolla the 4AGE is the better option due to ease of fitment. 3SGE is a lot more work and requires a stronger gearbox.
For RWD your target power makes the decision for you. Cost for conversion to RWD favour the 4AGE. Once you start talking 4AGZE vs 3SGTE thing start to even up. 4AGZE not modified still has an advantage but once the SC12 gets swapped for a T25 and T50's start exploding conversion costs even up. By this stage the cost of a W58 for either motor is about the same and the turbo and manifold balance out the extra purchase and fitment costs of the 3SGTE. By this point $ for $ the 3SGTE will pull away with a much higher potential power output. This is as you would expect from a newer motor with more capacity.
Callum
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Sun, 09 March 2003 20:54
|
|
LiL_MiC where's your say?.. you've driven both 4age and 3sge AE86's 
From what I have seen, na vs na the 3sge has more power, more torque and in the same car will be quicker - with ease.
For "fun" you put your foot down in the 4age and you're at the redline before you can blink, it actually shocked one 3sge owner that I know, lol.
|
|
|
Location:
Launceston, Tasmania
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Sun, 09 March 2003 23:38
|
|
I own a stock ae92 with a 4AGE, a mate of mine owns a stock st162 with a 3SGE. both 89 models. i think the 3sge is 103kw in the st162's & the 4AGE 100kw. There isn't much difference but i get ahead when he is changing gears cause the 4AGE keeps reving, hence changing gears later.
If you are going later model or modifying the engine the 3SGE is definately the better option.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Mon, 10 March 2003 00:12
|
|
To add my $0.02 about the actual 3S-GE v 4A-GE debate (and to try not to mention any motorsport). The early 4A-GE in the Twin Cam 'Rolla produced about 86 kW at 6500ish and 131 nM of torque at 6000rpm or something similar to those figures, the later 1990 Corolla SX had the small port no TVIS 4AGE which came up with about 100kW and 141nM....the later 20 valve motors produced some neat figures but I don't know them. The earliest 3S-GE in the '86 Sleeka SX had 102 kW at 5500(?)rpm (this means you have 172nM of torque at 5500 if you do the sums) and 172nM at 4500 rpm. The reason I think for it having such dull amounts of power from 5500 to the 7000rpm redline is because the intake on that engine is woeful, too small a throttle area, TVIS was part Yamaha-designed crap, and also the multi-valve technology is infantile in design.
The 4A-GEs are great little engines cause you can rev the nuts off of them (if you haven't driven one, go drive one, or maybe drive a CRX if you can to get the idea), the later the model the better. The 3S-GE is a good engine, extremely tough, but it doesn't have the "revability" of the 4A-GE although it has really good pull down low compared to the 4A-GEs.
Later 3S-GEs like in the 1990 MR2 had much better figures, something like 112kW and 180-190nM of torque. And I presume that if you can get your hands on a 3rd gen 3S-GE from the Celica GT (ST202) from japan you'd have a bloody good engine, with good power and good/cheap options for turbo charging etc etc.
Anyway, I personally think it's a matter of horses for courses, I love the 3S-GE in my Celica SX, although it's fairly gutless and could use another 50 or so hp, but I also like the little revvy 1600cc engines like 2TGs, 4A-GEs and even B16A or B16Bs (if you like hondas, I only like their VTEC engines) etc etc. I prefer the 2 litre engine because it can produce really good power when modified, is extremely tough, and it's fun being able to blow off Commodores with a little bit of modiification to an engine half the capacity.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Tue, 11 March 2003 03:17
|
|
|
Well If you put the 3SGE gen III or gen IV from an ST202 Celica (or SS3) into your AE82 Twin Cam, then you'd have a serious weapon on your hands, you might add around 30-40kg max...remember you have to swap the gearbox and driveshafts in too =] And you'd have a serious weapon, but if you were going to this much trouble you might as well just fit a 3SGTE...and still weigh less than an AE92 with a 4AGZE, and I can certainly vouch for this path..so can others.... the 3S is the better engine.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Sat, 07 February 2004 09:51
|
|
When the Caltex CXT Race Team Seca driven by Colin Bond and Terry Bosnjak competed in bathurst in 1993 it was as a 1998cc L4 Class B (a 3sge).
Same as the one driven by John Smith and Neal Bates that year.
Maybe they did it for a reason? 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Sun, 08 February 2004 02:17
|
|
I'll say it's 'relatively' gutless. I mean, it's not hopeless..it has potential. Once you've driven something like a WRX, decent honda engines etc you realise just how gutless the first gen 3S-GE is. 2nd and 3rd are better, but you need to do a bit o' work to ye olde first gen before you can say it has 'guts'.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: 3SGE vs 4AGE
|
Sun, 08 February 2004 02:51
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Sun, 08 February 2004 13:17 |
I'll say it's 'relatively' gutless. I mean, it's not hopeless..it has potential. Once you've driven something like a WRX, decent honda engines etc you realise just how gutless the first gen 3S-GE is. 2nd and 3rd are better, but you need to do a bit o' work to ye olde first gen before you can say it has 'guts'.
|
Well i suppose it comes down to what your after from a car too..
If u want decent performance all around the rev range etc.. not something TOO quick etc... When u think about what the 3sge is and for the money, then yeah u'll remember thats its a Lot of car for the money, its definitely not gonna be able to keep up with WRX etc. and Honda engines, coz thats definitely not why ppl would buy one, but yeah they are good cars...
First gen yeah need a bit of work to have GUTS, but how they are stock are definitely a good thing!!!!
[Updated on: Sun, 08 February 2004 12:03]
|
|
|
