Mitsubishi R&T: First Drive: Mitsubishi Lancer

[PanterroR]

An economical runabout with a chassis fit for a king: the upcoming Evo X.

The ninth-generation Lancer arrives in late March, based on a new platform shared with the Dodge Caliber. As such, it's taller than the Lancer it replaces, and you can see in the body's attractive character lines why the European-market Alfa Romeo 156 was cited as an influence on the car's styling. More significant, the new chassis is much stronger in both bending and torsion, and it makes for a slightly shorter Lancer with a 1.4-in.-longer wheelbase and a track that has grown by more than 2 in. front and rear.

Read the whole article @: RoadandTrack.com

 

[cawimmer430]

I might be one of the few people who like this car.

Mitsubishi has been hit hard in the US and I feel that this is the type of car they need to make a difference. Previous Lancers always looked pretty tame and "cute". Even in EVO mode, I always thought they didn't look aggressive enough.

Well, this design seems to have everything to make it look BADASS. The review wasn't bad either. Please take away sales from Toyota etc.

Thanks Tycoon.

 

[PanterroR]

Well, i'm one of those few too...

You welcome, wimmer!

 

[Mr. M]

I have the impression from the article and general sentiment that CVTs aren't good. I wonder why this is so - I had a ride in my friend's multitronic A6 last night, and it was a blast. Seven gears with seamless auto gearshifts and paddle-shifters when you need them. Improves fuel economy and at the same time is smoother than a conventional auto. Probably the only thing I can complain about is some lag time for the wire thread to engage, but is that the only flaw of the CVT? Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[cawimmer430]

I have the impression from the article and general sentiment that CVTs aren't good.

Can anyone enlighten me?

My only experience with CVT's are with Mercedes-Benz cars (called Autotronic in MB's).

On weaker models, I think the CVT saps too much power. I got to drive a B-Class B170 with a CVT and the car was horribly slow. Lame acceleration and generally felt eagerless - a far cry from the manual transmission B170, which feels pretty eager and accelereates decently.

Now, the B200 Turbo I drove also had a CVT transmission and it worked fine. The car didn't feel slow because it had 193-horsepower and 280 Nm of torque, so there's not too much power the CVT can sap.

The really cool thing was doing kickdowns on the CVT B200 Turbo. The RPM would jump 3,000 RPM and stay there while the speedometer showed the car accelerating!


I've also driven an A-Class A180 CDI Autotronic as well as a B-Class B200 CDI Autotronic. Because of the extra torque, it wasn't as bad on the petrol models with the Autotronic. Still, I always got the feeling that the CVT sapped power.

Anyway, I think, from personal experience, that CVT's are more efficient on more powerful cars. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got from driving them.