Mitsubishi's 4M40 or 4D56?

**pajerokid** · November 5th, 2007 08:32 AM

Moving to proper category.

**pajerokid** · November 5th, 2007 08:36 AM

4M40 for me. True the engine makes a more mechanical sewing machine sound but at the end of the day, it also makes ~26 more horses. I really cant compare the fuel consumption of both since hindi apples to apples comparison yung experience ko on both (had an MT 4D56 and of course my current AT 4M40), but if we did, the 4M40 with AT is 1 km/L thirstier than the 4D56 with MT.

**altec** · November 5th, 2007 08:46 AM

when i still had my pajero 4d56 TDIC, it would go around 450km per full tank. When I sent it to the casa for some repairs, talked with the driver of a 4m40 pajero. Sabi niya, they also had the 4d56 version before, and more or less similar yung fuel consumption sa akin. Their 4m40 however, gets up to 100km more per full tank, which makes it around 550km. I forgot however to check if their 4m40 pajero was M/T or A/T.

**josephbrien** · November 5th, 2007 12:40 PM

uhm whats the regular consumption of 4M40 and 4D56 in terms of Kilometer per Liter.. coz mine i think my 4d56t only gets from 6-7kms per liter...

**20vanda01** · November 5th, 2007 01:19 PM

I think the fuel consumption of 4D56 and 4M40 doesn't really matter, one way or the other 4M40 may be thirstier, but that depends on how you drive against the 4D56. What matters is the HP you get when you needed it.

OT: May be its just me... just learned over the weekend that Mitsubishi is already selling Strada that has 4M41 engine.

**rion** · November 5th, 2007 09:25 PM

I drive a number of subic a/t 4d56 and 4m40 once in a while. mas matakaw yung 4m40.

it because of different driving habbits that makes 4m40 and 4d56 seem consuming most likely the same. but then I drive both in conservative mode. the difference is noticable.

ah so wala palang local m/t na 4m40.. that figures wala talaga akong makita...

more than a year ago, I asked here if a/t to m/t convertion 4d56 pajero is worth it. all peep says it's not, because it does not justify the cost of convertion in the little difference of a/t vs m/t fuel consumption. but it was worth it... our m/t converted pajero did made a worth difference in the consumption...

**lui** · November 5th, 2007 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by rion

I drive a number of subic a/t 4d56 and 4m40 once in a while. mas matakaw yung 4m40.

it because of different driving habbits that makes 4m40 and 4d56 seem consuming most likely the same. but then I drive both in conservative mode. the difference is noticable.

ah so wala palang local m/t na 4m40.. that figures wala talaga akong makita...

years ago, I asked here if a/t to m/t convertion 4d56 pajero is worth it. all peep says it's not, because it does not justify the cost of convertion in the little difference of a/t vs m/t fuel consumption. but it was worth it... our m/t converted pajero did made a big difference in the consumption...

meron po local na 4m40 manual. 4x4 pa po. sa barkada ko nga nanakaw ung ganun nila eh

**rion** · November 6th, 2007 12:39 PM

myroon naman pala eh...

a jdm 4m40, is chain, but the noise level is not that big difference. I'm not really sure but looks like 4m40 jdms has already some kind of ABS...

**pajerokid** · November 6th, 2007 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by altec

when i still had my pajero 4d56 TDIC, it would go around 450km per full tank. When I sent it to the casa for some repairs, talked with the driver of a 4m40 pajero. Sabi niya, they also had the 4d56 version before, and more or less similar yung fuel consumption sa akin. Their 4m40 however, gets up to 100km more per full tank, which makes it around 550km. I forgot however to check if their 4m40 pajero was M/T or A/T.

Hmm.. i get around 530kms to a full tank with my 4m40AT purely city driven.