Galant,which is best

[BillHardy]

I,m thinking of getting the estate as a runaround and wondered which is the best to go for. I did have the V6 and realy liked it and just wondered how the 2.0 faired against it

[Kryton]

ENGINE:
V6 is better. Minimal mpg difference, especially if you go for a manual & got more poke & creature comforts. I see no benefit in buying a 2.0 unless insurance could be a problem but I think there is only 1 group difference in that IIRC

GEARBOX:
Matter of opinion. Auto will cost more to run but I prefer

SPEC:
I would go for an Elegance which will have climate, black leather & body kit or a late v6-24 so it gains electric heated leather & cruise control

[Rambaud]

The V6 is a nice engine - smooth and quite pokey.

My fuel consumption is surprisingly good for a heavy car, auto and aircon = over 30.00 mpg.

[MarkSanne]

I recently bought a V6 Sedan N/A (manual) and it feels pretty good, that said: I drove a Galant V6 estate (with autobox) a week before I bought the sedan but boy that felt slowwwww. Could (probably) be an individual problem, but as I'm aiming for great looks, nice but mediocre performance and a very smooth ride with good MPG I think I hit the jackpot I drove it on cruise for a good 100km and I couldn't see the fuelgauge move at all! This willl be interesting on really long trips on cruise!

Then again: compared to the Legnum VR4-autobox anything immediatly has 'great' MPG...

[Scanny]

my GLS did southampton to stirling on 3/4 of a tank. once! but that was cruising overnight at 60MPH and i didnt really see much difference in fuel consumption between that and the V6 but it all depends on how you drive it. the driver is the best or worst fuel saver in any car. i would go for a full facelift model though. they do look better and they are a nicer car to be in. i would go for another FL V6 without question. that engine note always blew me away, even compared to the VR4. in fact, when i am finished with tinkering the VR4 will be mostly my V6 from the drivers seat. the whole interior will be swapped over along with the bumpers and possibly side skirts

[Rambaud]

If fuel consumption is important, then a GDI engine is the best. I could get over 40.00 mpg. But this was only only on long journeys; around town it was nearer 25 mpg.

Also, the GDI is prone to coke up. I had a good one, but I would not risk another - especially when the V6 is so good.

[menno3x8g]

I had a 2.0, en now have sixes. Both are ok. The 2.0 soakes about 10% cheaper. But the V6 is smoother. Not so much difference in power. PFL or FL depends on your taste. But what about rust?? Take a young one.

[BillHardy]

Many thanks for all your input everyone,there is a couple of FL 2.0 not far away an 02 and a 51 for £650 1 is in Falkirk, but if there's not much diff in fuel then i'll search out a V6 as i have already had i and did like it very much

[awkgah]

Having both in manual on my driveway i can confidently say not alot of difference in the delivery of power. V6 definately have a better sound but higher insurance and thats about it. No as such mpg difference. 2.0 will surprise you over 3000 revs as it jumps from 70 to 100 within few blinks.
personally i would go for a low mileage pre Y plate because of cheap tax and avoid auto. even if its prefacelift go for it as facelift conversion is not hard with so many in breakers yard nowadays.

[BillHardy]

Thanks Wagas,will be looking at a 2ltr at the weekend

[swinks]

Been said above, not much mpg difference, v6 manual better performance over 2 ltr, etc.

Just one thing being forgotten - service costs.
Must say, 2.0 is way cheaper to keep it going. It's old school 4G63 engine, forgiving cheap oil used, only 4 spark plugs to change and timing belt is easy to do with lot's of room to access.