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

[Smurf]

If I had a car that ugly, I'd shave it's emblems and teach it to drive backwards.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

That might appeal to people who don't know how to shift gears but wouldn't feel safe in a scooter. Altough it doesn't look so safe at all

[hondaguy72]

I'm really surprised at the lambasting this car is getting here.

It looks very functional with what appears to be many positive attributes like fender contouring for low wheel drag, an under belly pan, and a very useable layout (4 door hatch). I'd bet EPA will rate this car at around 37/47 with most of us being able to eek out more. I'd think only a hybrid or diesel would be able to best this cars economy with at least 50% greater overall expense.

What happened to function over form?

[Smurf]

No one said we want them to be hideous.

I'd rather get 40 in a car I like looking at than 45 in a .... adjectives don't even describe how ugly that thing is!

[wmjinman]

I don't know, guys - CVT or not, 57 mpg is pretty good for a stock factory offering. And it's not even a hybrid, right?

[user removed]

The anti CVT attitude here seems somewhat disappointing to me, having averaged 68 MPG in my CVT Insight. Knowing that the vast majority of US drivers choose a self "shifting" transmission, CVTs have capabilities that even manuals lack, like the ability to accelerate while maintaining precisely the best load and RPM. Nissan seems to be doing pretty well with the new Altima with a highway rating same as my Fiesta at 38 MPG, and the new Sentra is supposed to have the highest combined rating of any comparable sized non hybrid car.

regards
Mech

[MetroMPG]

What happened to function over form?

Oh, I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers. It's boring to look at, but I'd certainly drive one if it gets great fuel economy.

The anti CVT attitude here seems somewhat disappointing

I'm not anti-CVT at all. For the average driver, the more CVT's the merrier!

But I am pro-manual.

In the hands of a motivated & skilled eco-driver, a manual will outperform a CVT (MPG-wise) in general and will be more engaging/entertaining while doing so.

I'd consider owning a CVT if:

1) It permitted switching between neutral and drive at any speed, without any problems (to make best use of coasting opportunities);

2) It permitted engine-off coasting in neutral;

3) Ideally, it also let me optionally choose when to "upshift" (ie. a "manual" mode) because CVT's are not necessarily optimized for economy. (EG. see: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...rly-21149.html )

And there are a bunch more advantages to manuals not specifically related to economy.

[mechman600]

I recently went with my brother in law from Surrey to Osoyoos and back in his 2011 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0L CVT. I was actually quite impressed how "eco-minded" the transmission is. From a stop, maintaining 1500 rpm actually had the car accelerating at a decent clip. Plus, top "gear" was super tall - like 2000 rpm @ 120 km/h. For a 2.0L in a car that size, that seemed ridiculous to me, but whenever more power was needed it quickly "ratioed up" as needed.

Admittedly, most time was spend between 120-140 km/h on super steep, long grades, so disclosing a fuel mileage figure would be moot, but I believe it was in the high 8s (L/100 km) when we were almost home.

But I do think a 6+ speed auto shifting manual is a better solution. I guess it comes down to price....but then why can Ford do it in the Fiesta?

[wmjinman]

Interesting. I would certainly prefer to have those options. Then it would be the best of both worlds. I wonder if it would be possible to modify one for neutral coast, etc.?

[user removed]

I'll start a new thread.

regards
Mech