Darin's test drive review notes: 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage G4 sedan 1.2L CVT
 

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1475699822
(Update: above pic is the actual car I'm driving.)

I'm picking up a 2017 Mirage G4 sedan this afternoon for a couple of weeks, courtesy of Mitsubishi Canada.

Overview:

The Mirage sedan is a stretched wheelbase version of the Mirage hatchback, with slightly different front end styling. It shares the hatchback's mechanicals, including the slightly more powerful (78 hp for 2017) 1.2 L, 3-cylinder engine, larger brakes, and revised suspension.

Fuel economy:

EPA (MPG US)

CVT automatic: 35 CITY / 42 HWY / 37 COMBINED
5-speed manual: 33 CITY / 40 HWY / 35 COMBINED

NRCAN (L/100 km)

CVT automatic: 6.9 CITY / 5.7 HWY / 6.4 COMBINED
5-speed manual: 7.2 CITY / 5.9 HWY / 6.6 COMBINED

It's the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid sedan available right now. Also the least powerful! Also the lightest. Also the 2nd least expensive sedan (base Versa sedan MSRP is lower). In Canada, it wins for least expensive sedan because the Micra replaced the Versa.

It's new for North America this year, though it's been available elsewhere for a couple of years.

This press fleet Mirage will probably have the CVT attached, but I won't know for sure until I see it. Of course I strongly prefer a manual in my own cars, both for efficiency and fun, but I am curious to spend more time with the transmission that the vast majority of buyers pick.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1476381392

My disclaimer

I don't pretend to be a car reviewer/journalist. So take everything I may write in this thread with a grain of salt. (Actually, we should all do the same with the so-called "professional" auto reviewers too!) So far, reviews of the car in the U.S. have been "ok": eg. the car has improved over the 2014 hatchback launch with upgrades to engine power, NVH (mounts), suspension tuning, brakes. It still will not set a typical enthusiast's heart aflutter.

Some of the things I plan to do with it:

• speed vs. MPG test (make a chart)
• compare it to a bunch of other cars' results on my non-scientific ecodriving test route
• some Mirage CVT owners say the car gets better MPG with cruise control engaged (it drops RPM further?). I want to investigate that.
• find out how accurate the onboard MPG gauge is vs. at-the-pump calculations

And I'll post some pics plus general driving impressions. But my focus will be on fuel economy, of course.

Ironically, one of the notable features of the 2017 Mirage line is Android/Apple car play connectivity. I can't report on that... don't have a smart phone. :p

So... whaddya want to know about it?

Darin, I'd take your review over any found in Rodent Track, Car & Wannabe Race Car Driver, Truck Widgets, and so on. Because they are all about lap times and... who knows what. Advertising sales.

Yeah. Well, I agree that many "professional" reviews of the Mirage utterly fail to look at the car in its intended context.

And lap times, yes! One Canadian blogger actually took the Mirage sedan on a race track recently. Just for the LOL's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPFbVAoLYGw

Next week: we see how well a Mirage handles the offroad trails at Moab!

But you could also argue I have a vested interest in saying only good things about it (considering the Mirage Forum).

Plus, don't forget my personal context and how it could influence my opinion: ANY new car qualifies as a ridiculously massive upgrade over my daily driver Firefly. (Aside from fuel economy.) Heck, any 15 year-old or newer car qualifies! :D

OK, I will disregard your review.

Kidding!

You'll be objective I know.

What % of the grill is functional as opposed to just for styling. Any interesting aero bit and pieces.

I would definitely like to hear how it handles. I know you said the 2014 suspension was way too soft for your liking. It'll be interesting to hear how their updates have affected the handling.

Well, the professional auto reviewers compare everything to a Corvette. Maybe a 3 Series sedan if they're trying to look grown up. You're comparing it to a Firefly. Maybe the Premier's limo if you're trying to act snooty.

I'm a DD kind of guy too. Fun, yes, but also cargo space. How many X (fun, silly and maybe practical) things can fit in it? PaleMelanesian's report that his Fit could do three car seats in the back and a hay bale in the trunk put the Fit on my short list.

BTW, with one bale in the trunk the Fit can hold three more in the backseat area, with two booster seats and a week's grocery run in the passenger seat. A few weeks ago it had two propane cans, some luggage, a set of cornhole boards and three pool tire floaties (yes, inflated). Tag, Darin: fill that car!

Are you going to have the rear alignment checked?

Lots of good questions! I'll do my best.

Got the car: it's the top spec trim with CVT... no surprise.

Here's a bad cell phone pic:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1474940953

More to come.

alignment
 

Yeah, some hatchback owners have reported rear wheel alignment issues. And the problem is they're non-adjustable, so the only fix is to replace the entire axle.

The problem is: getting warranty satisfaction comes down to your individual dealer willing to work with you. Most people have had good service, others have got nothing but frustration trying to get it resolved.

This G4 seems fine: I did a quick 'n' dirty test, laying a 5-foot long straight edge against the rear wheels, projecting forward alongside the rocker panel on each side. The gap between the rocker & straight edge was the same, side to side. So either it's off equally on both sides, or it's OK.

I suspect by now Mitsu has corrected the manufacturing process that produced the bad axles.