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

[MetroMPG]

Re: the Kia discount, the weasel word is on "select" new Kias. They get to select. So, they won't be giving you $6k off a Rio. You might get $6k off an otherwise non-discounted $34k Optima hybrid though.

[Fat Charlie]

The "new car display area" is probably the showroom itself. Where the top end ones with all the accessories are.

Mitsubishi's site was showing a $500 factory rebate until 31 Oct in the "special offers" section when you build a Mirage.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Re: the Kia discount, the weasel word is on "select" new Kias. They get to select. So, they won't be giving you $6k off a Rio. You might get $6k off an otherwise non-discounted $34k Optima hybrid though.

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

The "new car display area" is probably the showroom itself. Where the top end ones with all the accessories are.

Mitsubishi's site was showing a $500 factory rebate until 31 Oct in the "special offers" section when you build a Mirage.

Heh. Yes, the image says "select," but they phrased it differently on the radio. Either way, I would definitely believe that it specifically referred to where they kept the most expensive offerings.

[MetroMPG]

Re. 'Select'... double check that image you posted.

[Miller88]

Originally Posted by Daox

Priced way too high? Its the 4th cheapest car you can buy in the US.

Versa = $11,990
Spark = $12,170
ForTwo = $12,490
Mirage = $12,995

And it has more standard equipment (A/C, power windows, locks, etc.)

It also thoroughly spanks them all in the mileage department.

But it's still priced way too high. It needed to be cheaper than Versa and Spark.

[MetroMPG]

First video review from the U.S...

Motorweek's Greg Carloss spends a day with a Mirage CVT in Quebec City, and reports that the car's 40 MPG combined EPA rating is realistic:

"I've been driving this around the city all day, and the readout has been consistent around 40."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx3E6u1EXYw

I also did a bit of math yesterday and guess what the "payback" period is for the ~$1000 CVT option vs. the 5-speed manual (based strictly on the EPA ratings). ~9 years!

[Miller88]

I don't think they offer the CVT for the better mileage ratings, but for the people that cannot drive manual transmission.

I suspect in the real world (especially in the hands of hypermilers) it will get much better gas mileage with the 5 speed.

[MetroMPG]

In sub/urban use, I think you're probably right.

But not on the open road: the CVT is geared to run the engine almost 1000 RPM lower than the manual at 65 MPH. And that sucks (for manual transmission lovers).

Mitsu should offer an "eco" 5-speed for economy enthusiasts.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I also did a bit of math yesterday and guess what the "payback" period is for the ~$1000 CVT option vs. the 5-speed manual (based strictly on the EPA ratings). ~9 years!

That is based on the amount that you drive or someone else?

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

In sub/urban use, I think you're probably right.

But not on the open road: the CVT is geared to run the engine almost 1000 RPM lower than the manual at 65 MPH. And that sucks (for manual transmission lovers).

Mitsu should offer an "eco" 5-speed for economy enthusiasts.

Why would they gear their car to use such high RPM on the highway? Everybody drives on the highway sooner or later and some drive highway speeds on city streets!

Is there some kind of CVT agenda?!

I consider myself old and grumpy, so I hate everything, but it bothers me how many people think that automatics are now more efficient than manuals.

Do any of you remember the "Turbo XT?" My first computer was one and a friend pointed out that there was not any special hardware whatsoever. It was not a turbo, you just turned off the slow mode!

CVTs are more efficient than normal automatics, but the only reason that they are more efficient than manuals is because those were made even less efficient!

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Xist

That is based on the amount that you drive or someone else?

HA! True. No, would take me about 35 years to pay off the CVT premium.

Actually, the figures for that calc are in the link: it's based on 15k miles/yr, fuel at $3.61 (if memory serves.)

Why would they gear their car to use such high RPM on the highway? [...] CVTs are more efficient than normal automatics, but the only reason that they are more efficient than manuals is because those were made even less efficient!

Give this man a prize.

For some reason, most automakers have decided that once the driver shifts into top gear, said driver is incapable of downshifting for passing or climbing. Therefore, give said driver excessive engine RPM.

Mitsu must be made to see the error of their ways. I should start a petition.