2014 Mitsubishi Mirage 3-cyl coming to U.S. & Canada this year - 40 MPG (US) combined

[MetroMPG]

I don't find it surprising at all.

Most of the negativity is about the styling. Normally, I don't bother commenting on styling since it's entirely subjective, so what's the point? But ugh! This car already looks old, like a Hyundai from last decade.

If it weren't for the engineering specs, I wouldn't look twice at it. The styling makes it a "buy with your head, not with your heart" car, unfortunately.

Having said all that, I'd still buy one.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by niky

The Mirage is one of the first really small cars that gets aerodynamics right, and it's the only 60 mpg capable supermini that can still hold over 40 mpg at over 60 mph, as in the data we posted a while back (other small cars like the Spark and the Suzuki Alto/Celerio drop a lot of economy at high speeds).

This reminds me of comments made by GM reps when the Spark was launched, who were trying to explainin the car's disappointing highway rating. Paraphrasing, one of their responses was: "it's hard to do good aerodynamics on a small 4-door hatchback."

I didn't buy that explanation then, and Mitsubishi demonstrates it was dumb now.

[Daox]

I wonder what Mitsu didn't do to our US version that brings the cd up to .28 vs the UK's .27?

[Miller88]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The comments on places like ABG are surprisingly negative and disparaging and knee-jerk-sour-grapes...

Many are predicting the failure of Mitsubishi. It would be nice if the Mirage (and the i MiEV for that matter) had a bit more sleek and modern curb appeal; but hey, it is what it is.

That would probably be my main fear if I bought one of these ... Mitsu could stop selling cars in the US or alltogether. That means not a lot of them in junkyards, not a lot of parts once they get older

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Daox

I wonder what Mitsu didn't do to our US version that brings the cd up to .28 vs the UK's .27?

Just a guess: but I think the 1.0L car may be the only one with the 0.27 drag coefficient. We've already seen that Mitsu has varied the size of the lower grille opening depending on engine & transmission; the 1.0L 5-speed would require the smallest opening. Also, the 1.0 comes with smooth plastic wheel covers, no open spoke alloys.

More discussion of the Mirage aerodynamics here.

[niky]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

This reminds me of comments made by GM reps when the Spark was launched, who were trying to explainin the car's disappointing highway rating. Paraphrasing, one of their responses was: "it's hard to do good aerodynamics on a tiny 4-door hatchback."

I didn't buy that explanation then, and Mitsubishi proves otherwise now.

Probably from a stylistic point of view. Somehow, both Kia and Chevrolet think tiny cars need huge, slab-surfaced grilles and squared off ends. Mitsubishi uses just as little metal, but extended the front and rear ends out a little bit, for better aero. Just a few inches, but it makes a world of difference.

[pete c]

Chopping off the end of a small econobox is something I never have figured out.

Why do it?

It only save a few pounds and ever fewer dollars in sheet metal. It kills trunk space, aerodynamics and possibly rear seat occupants when hit from behind.

Could it have something to do with short overall lengths making it more parkable in tight spots? That might sell in a few big cities and is definitely a big thing with the Smart car, but for many, it is a non-issue.

[Miller88]

Cars in this segment. (Spark, iq) aren't necessarily designedfor economy ... the Spark is spinning its engine pretty fast as highway speed and they don't have great aerodynamics in hatch form.

So fat, they are cars designed for cities. Small is the name of the game. Hatchbacks are shorter and sportier. And because they are so small, light and have a little engine, they just so happen to get good mileage.

Originally Posted by pete c

Chopping off the end of a small econobox is something I never have figured out.

Why do it?

It only save a few pounds and ever fewer dollars in sheet metal. It kills trunk space, aerodynamics and possibly rear seat occupants when hit from behind.

Could it have something to do with short overall lengths making it more parkable in tight spots? That might sell in a few big cities and is definitely a big thing with the Smart car, but for many, it is a non-issue.

[niky]

Certain countries base taxes on footprint or length arbitrarily. Which explains Kei cars, city cars and India's ugly shorty sedans.

I'd rather they base it on curb weight, but then, that's probably too logical to get passed into law.

[MetroMPG]

I had no idea about the Indian compact sedan (CS) segment. Bizarre.