Ok so I live int he US and see a few 6A engines on craigslist and ebay. I have always wanted and FTO and have read up on them alot. I am aware the 6a12 is in the car and the 6a13 is in the galant, just sadly not in the states.

I was looking to aquire one of these engines but most of the forums I have read say stick with a 4g. I understand these are reliable and proven engines but do they really surpas that of the 6A's?

Please somone let me know what you think and why. I'm hopping to generate a discussion on this topic.

Thank you for your time and consideration


~Omerta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_6A1_engine

Essentially, its a six cylinder with the same displacement as the 420A. Considerably shorter stroke (69.0 mm compared to 420A's 83.0 mm). The bore is smaller (78.4 comp. to 87.5), which is understandable as there is 2 more cylinders. The Compression ratio is confusing, showing one at 9.5:1 AND a 20.0:1!
And you are pushing 110 kW (147 HP). That's all for the 6A12 SOHC. The DOHC version isn't too much of a leap in any numbers really. With the later models reaching 132 kW (176 HP), and the MIVEC pushing the most at 147 kW (196HP). And, according to that entry, the twin turbo model only produces 177 kW (237 HP).

The 6A13 looks to be more promising, as we see a larger jump in displacement as well as a larger bore and stroke. Displacement is at 2498 cc (2.5 L) and an almost square compression chamber (81.0 mm Bore x 80.8 mm Stroke). SOHC versions are still quite squat with only 121 kW (162 HP), while the DOHC versions get 206 kW (276 HP) in a manual transmission and 194 kW (260 HP) when mated to an automatic transmission. It also seems that the DOHC version only came with a twin turbo setup.

Though the Horsepower rating seems low, these engines seem to excel in torque ratings. The 6A12 DOHC Twin Turbo reaches foot pounds, and the 6A13 has a high of 268 foot pounds on it's DOHC Twin Turbo setup.

I just crunched some numbers and summarized the wikipedia thing, to make it a little easier to understand, but it looks like the turbo setups were small and rather than increase horsepower, they increased torque. I am not sure if that's possible to raise torque without increasing horsepower, because that would mean that about half way through then power band, the turbo maxes out. Don't hold me to the last half of this paragraph, but the other stuff is taken from the wikipedia page. The numbers on the wikipage though are in kW, so I converted them to HP, so it would give you a better idea of how it stacks up to other engines.

NOTE: When I first started writing this, my math was wrong, so the HP numbers were quite small. Before I posted it, went over my math again, and noticed I made a mistake, so I fixed all the numbers, so the wording is a little jumbled, but the numbers are right.

The reason the FTO is such a great car is because it weighs next to nothing.

Ok thanks for your reply's but anyone have anything on a "better" engine. Everyone says the 4G6 is the best mitsu engine, and dont ever swap it out. I partcially wanna put a 6A in something to be different, but also to see what it can do. I understand almost no one in the states knows them to fix them, but I have read so much praise on them from "euro" and "japaneese" forums...

When it comes down to it is there a better engine or a safer one?

Also any clue what a 6A can handle on stock internals?

The 6A1 engine series engine has several displacments , for the person that compared it to the 420A in displacment specs. The 6A1 series of engines are very very simlilar to the 6G7 series , the differance is that the 6A1 series was designated for LBD (left hand engine bay designation) while the 6G7 series was destined for specific RBD-right hand engine bay designation at the time of the time these 2 series were being used widely mainstream in 1991 and up.

The 6A1 engine series was also Mitsubishi's answer to Mazda's K series of V6 engines , light in weights and small displacments , to which direct rivals were the KF-ZE (2.0) V6 engines Mazda AZ-3 (MX-3) against the Mitsubishi FTO with the 6A12 (2.0)V6


The 6A1 and 6G7 series both use the same SOCH 24vheads , despite the 6G7 right bay mounted and the 6A1 left mounted . Its the same to say that the 1993-1998 Pajero 3.5 SR ,3.5 VZ-R uses the same DOCH MIVEC heads as the GTO's
3.0 6G72.

If yu are wanting to V6 the 6G7 series engines is more than capable of fitting. 6G73
engines were used in that series Galant NA as well as the NA 6A12 , in the last 2.5 year of production there were SUPER VR-4 (94-95.5) models in specific countries like Thailand , Malaysia (in Proton rebadged Galant models )and Japan that used the 6G73 with DOCH heads and a twin turbo but was classified as "Low Boost" used the same AWD system as designated for the 6A1 series and the series was badges as "SUPER VR-4" This was same time Mitsubishi also used that same model Galant chassis to underpin the 1995-2000 Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger , using the same 6G73 2.5 V6 on the left side engine bay , but with a weak chrysler transmission , because the compatible transmission offered by mitsubishi would be to costly for chrysler , mainlly as using the full Galant chassis and suspension framing un- modified (that is why the Sebring and Avenger have a longer wheel span and body length than the Eclipse and Talon)

Around this time the 6G7 series engines were crossing over to LBD as well , making the 6A1 series primarily for turbo use and the 6G7 series for LBD non turbo applications.

Weight wise the 6A1 series is lighter , but 6G7 series (SOCH 24v and DOCH 24v) are alot stronger bottom end wise.

As far as the displacement goes, it does have near the same, according to wikipedia, as the 420A. (1996 cc for 420A, 1998 cc for the 6A12). As far as the other stuff I wrote, it was when my math was wrong, so the HP numbers were off.

But to answer your question, if you have the 6A1x block, then by all means swap away, and document it. As far as safety goes, I have no clue. I would assume all engines were safe upon proper maintenance.

Yeah they are close but no one was comparing a 420A , besides the 6A1 is a V6 and the 420A a 4cyl , but non one was referring to that 4 cyl either , he was talking about the 4G6 series in comparison to the 6A1 series