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

[user removed]

While the manufacturers may use the "sporty" excuse for poor overall ratios on manuals. I find the practice disgusting myself. When I could choose the gearing in my 76 280Z, my first setup was a .75 overdrive and a 3.54 rear end. That works out to a 2.66 final drive. With 834 revs per mile, 2218 RPM at 60 MPH. In the Z it was good for about 28 MPG highway at 65 MPH.

Still too high for highway cruising. I found on the Z gearing that gave me 30-60-90-120-150 was just about perfect. One shift (1-2) got me to 60 MPH at 6k RPM shift points.

My VX was right at 2500 RPM at 75 MPH, if memory serves me. Make the car more aero and lower the revs at 75 MPH. Look at Basjoos' car for a good example of how to get great mileage while still maintaining high average speeds.

It's just too easy to make the last two gears much lower ratios (lower revs per mile) while keeping the first 3 at ratios that allow good perfromance. Their is no lower hanging fruit that manufacturers could employ to improve mileage than cutting less gear teeth in a couple of gears in the transmission. The fact that they do this with autos also shows the stupidity.

regards
Mech

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Daox

He isn't kidding. He has mentioned it several times lol.

Mitsu should provide a means of at least buying and installing a higher final drive even if aftermarket, I wonder if "other markets" might have compatible final drives for this xmsn?

Should bug them until you get an engineer to find out.

[MetroMPG]

Euro Mirages have a taller final drive, and a slightly shorter top gear. But the net effect is lower top gear RPM for them.

The best "OEM" combination for lowest top gear RPM would be our non-Euro 5th and the Euro final drive.

---

But instead of bugging them for a better gearing option, we should be complaining instead about the lack of engine option: Europe and Japan have a 1.0L engine in addition to the 1.2L. THAT's what we should really be going for.

One interesting thing about the Euro 1.0L... it gets exactly the same manual gearing as the 1.2.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Euro Mirages have a taller final drive, and a slightly shorter top gear. But the net effect is lower top gear RPM for them.

The best "OEM" combination for lowest top gear RPM would be our non-Euro 5th and the Euro final drive.

---

But instead of bugging them for a better gearing option, we should be complaining instead about the lack of engine option: Europe and Japan have a 1.0L engine in addition to the 1.2L. THAT's what we should really be going for.

One interesting thing about the Euro 1.0L... it gets exactly the same manual gearing as the 1.2.

hmm, I believe the gubberment requires them to re-crash test if they offer more than one engine, we should go after them too.

let me know where to sign, I'm in.

[UltArc]

I couldn't say this for fact, but the way the Mustang and Camaro get such great (for the circumstance) highway mileage is that sixth gear. Amazing it took so long for Ford to pop a 6th gear in, but a lot of vehicles now seem to be adding an extra gear for that reason. I couldn't see why else they would be taking a perfectly good 4 of 5 speed and upping it.

I mean the standard 'Vette sees an improvement in FE with the 7 speed standard than the 6 speed auto. Source: Compare Side-by-Side

I know there is more loss when one goes gear by gear, but c'mon, if one isn't skipping gears when it's appropriate, they probably don't care or understand FE. The 14 'Vette with 460 HP is quoted the same highway mileage as my Mustang with only 305. Come on son!

[HyperMileQC]

I can't wait for the first time I talk to a Mirage owner in the wild and say : "Hey! Another 3-cylinder!". This will be so funny .

[Miller88]

I test drove one yesterday. Was VERY surprised with it!

First - I really do NOT care for the exterior styling. Seems like they took the "two box" shape, tried to modernize it , tried to make it aerodynamic ... but it was all half ###ed. The looks on this thing are horrible.

Seconds - I do NOT trust Mitsubishi products. They had some pretty bad vehicles for a while (especially when they got mixed up with the most unreliable American car manufacturer, Chrysler). I also do not trust JATCO CVTs - they are awkward to say the least.

Just some observations:
- EPA mileage rating is way off. I was testing a bit on the highway and slow going roads (no city) and on the highway, at 55MPH, it was getting 56MPG. Going slow, around 40, with no stop lights it was 65MPG! Much better than that of the Spark at those speeds.

- Interior is rather large. I had no problem fitting in the front seat of it. MUCH larger inside that Ford's Fiesta ... I can actually fit in the back seat of this comfortable. It's not Versa large, but seems to be a bit bigger than the Spark inside.

- Rear storage area is larger than that of a Spark (or at least seems to be). Plus, there is a spare tire! I have had to use them a few times, so that's a big deal for me.

- Did not get blown around in traffic.

- Not as slow as I thought it would be. Like the Spark, the Mirage is geared extremely low so it will pick up decently. It is also easy to take off from a stop light; no gas needed.

- Even with electronic climate control, the interior is pretty conservative. Conservative interior is good.


Things I did not care for:
- 3 Cylinder engine makes a lot of racket and vibration when taking off from a stoplight ... they do not like to lug below idle speed, apparently. My concern is - how will this engine be at 50,000 miles when the external balancing wears out and it has bad motor mounts? The 3 cyl will shake the car apart.

- Engine "whines" - for some reason it sounds like it has a super charger.

- The shifter is bad, but not as bad as the Spark! I could actually find the gears in this easily, unlike the Spark. The Spark reminded me of the trucks I grew up driving (18 wheelers), with worn out shift forks and gates that would leave the shifter wobbling around and guessing for gear. However, I could feel the shifter cables stretching! That's scary!

- Oddball tire size. There are not many on the market. I can find new tires for $50 for my Focus - those same ones were $75 or $100 for the Mirage. There are also no good snow tire sizes. Anyone would have to seemingly go up to 15 or down to 13s.


Other neat things:
- Looks like there is no belly pan or underbody aerodynamics
- Grille block could easily be added (1.3L getting > 50MPG probably will not make much heat)
- Pretty common bolt pattern so aftermarket wheels should be easy to come by.

Most people will buy on styling. This just doesn't have it. Also, they will REALLY need to advertise the gas mileage of it, because at nearly $14K ... there are better options (not for mileage) only another $1000 away.

It *is* priced a few thousand more than a Versa - but this has power windows, power locks. To get a Versa with power windows and locks is a bit more than this starts.

Not a bad little car. I will admit, I was really impressed with it!

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Miller88

tried to make it aerodynamic ...

I don't like the car's styling either. But they did succeed in making it aero: Cd 0.28 is what we get in North America. That's best in class.

Also, there is partial underbody aero paneling. See:

Aerodynamics of the new Mirage (.27-.31 drag coefficient varies with options)

Seconds - I do NOT trust Mitsubishi products.

10 year/100k powertrain warranty, which obviously includes the CVT. They can't afford to be doing warranty work on a $12k car. This particular CVT has been in production since 2009 (used by a number of manufacturers), so it's probably safe to say they've worked the bugs out. And 74 lb-ft of torque isn't going to stress it.

- EPA mileage rating is way off.

Lots of reviewers have found the same thing -- the car is meeting/beating its ratings when driven "normally", even with some aggressive driving thrown in (as reviewers tend to do). For some reason, Mitsu was a little conservative with this car's MPG ratings. On top of that, the onboard MPG display not overly optimistic (some owners are reporting it's actually slightly pessimistic).

I was able to beat the EPA rating in city driving with minimal effort with both the CVT and manual transmission:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...age-27384.html

how will this engine be at 50,000 miles when the external balancing wears out

External balancing?

- Grille block could easily be added (1.3L getting > 50MPG probably will not make much heat)

It's actually 1.2L.

And agreed - more blocking is doable. (It's been done on this Florida Mirage already: http://mirageforum.com/forum/showthr...-(Garage-entry)

[Miller88]

I believe it's the same CVT that Nissan uses in the Versa. They hold up relatively well in the light and low powered Versa - putting it in an even lighter and lower powered vehicle can only help with long term reliability.

There is some balancing built into the fly wheel (which won't wear out), but I am worried about crankshaft longevity issues when the harmonic balancer wears out.

I think I like it more than the spark. For around the same price you do get more features (not important to me), but much better gas mileage! The interior just seems "warmer" too. Not sure how to explain that, but it's "warmer"

[euromodder]

0.28 is indeed pretty good for a car that short.
My up! is 0.32
(That's as bad as Hägar the V50 before it, but he was 1m longer.)


I wouldn't run any engine below its idle speed ... a 3 cyl is a bit unbalanced anyway.