City ecodriving comparison: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. Mirage 5-speed vs. 1998 Metro 5-speed

[niky]

The Versa is much, much bigger. And the suspension is better (we drove it on the same track). The Versa is really an odd duck. It has the legroom of a full-on "compact-midsized" car despite being built as a subcompact.

Damn... Mitsubishi actually went to the trouble of building two entirely different intakes? That's going to make intake modification very, very troublesome. A US-spec intake will need much more development, then. I can see this working, as it mimics the resonance characteristics of the stock box, which means it won't throw off MAF readings... much... but it will be a PITA to get the size of the adapter tube right.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by niky

The Versa is really an odd duck. It has the legroom of a full-on "compact-midsized" car despite being built as a subcompact.

It's just too narrow to fit 5 people as comfortably as a Sentra, altough its narrower profile might be a good thing when we consider its effects on the aerodynamics, but the legroom is good. So, how is the Mirage compared to the Lancer on that matter?

[MetroMPG]

I haven't sat in a Lancer, but the general concensus is the Mirage has decent rear seat room for its compact outside dimensions.

I sat "behind myself" comfortably, leg-room wise. I'm 5'10", though my head was just brushing the headliner.

The Versa is really an odd duck.

No kidding. And it sells boatloads in the States -- several months this year were over 10k units!

Mitsu sold 475 Mirages last month in the U.S. Not all dealers were stocked yet, they said. But they're only predicting moving 7k a year.

[niky]

The Mirage G4 legroom is favorably comparable to the Lancer... though the Lancer might have more legroom in the front seat. Narrow is as narrow does.

The only way the Mirage is going to outstrip the Versa in sales is with a lower price. The Versa is a more solid product with more space at an incredible price. Perhaps if Mitsubishi had manufacturing capacity in the Americas, it could happen.

Still... happy you guys finally get it. And happy that it's proving worthy of the ecconomy hype.

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

... Not all dealers were stocked yet, they said. But they're only predicting moving 7k a year.

They are definitely on their way to that goal (not for this year, obviously). It sounds like word of mouth/individual interest is decent. Personally, I have seen ZERO advertising for it.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by UltArc

Personally, I have seen ZERO advertising for it.

Advertising for such a tiny vehicle in America might be a hard task...

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Thanks for the test! Remember too the Mirage also comes with a bunch of safety features the Metro didn't which would attribute to most of the weight gain.

Hey - I saw you posted the ecodriving test results in the Autos.ca thread about their Mirage review. Thanks! I was just about to do that.

[DIMS]

http://jalopnik.com/lucky-*******-th...thing-/@orlove

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Advertising for such a tiny vehicle in America might be a hard task...

Mitsubishi almost never advertises in the US. I remember a few ads vaguely from the 90's featuring some guy painting their symbol on some tiles, other than that I can't remember the last Mitsubishi ad I've seen.

[2007 ion2]

Originally Posted by cbaber

It would be interesting to see the EPA tests and how they are done. Obviously the M/T is not being driven to it's full potential. I've always wondered why CVT transmissions never get better MPG than manuals. They were suppose to be the answer to auto vs manual problem for MPG, for Honda at least. Infinite gear ratios, always accelerating at the best RPM, low cruising speed, etc. I guess it all comes down to how the power is transferred to the tires, and the M/T just makes better use of it (and with much more control).

The CVT has more control, but it would be nice to see a new manual control scheme, maybe instead of a manual mode allowing selection of "gears", cutting the crap and letting us select an RPM, instead, and locking it in. I think, more specifically, the problem lies in the same area as other automatics. while they are more "locked in" more of the time, as the ratio change is handled by a sliding mechanism, as opposed to a traditional automatic having to change gears, even though they're probably lighter, since all you should need is two shafts and some belts to connect them, I think they're still handicapped by needing a pump, manifold, torque converter, and more rotating mass than a manual transmission, and more parasitic loss from the hydraulic systems used to automate shifting/idling. the real revolution in automatic transmission MPG will come when they make the rotating mass low enough and the hydraulic systems efficient enough.