Yesterday I saw a brand spanking new Lancer in my carpark. It looked superb.
I immediately checked out the mitsubishi website to find out more.
Now I drive a diesel car because I have to. I do alot of miles and there is no way I could afford to run a petrol car. I could not believe my luck when I found out that the Lancer is now available with a VW 2.0 TDi engine (I have the Skoda Octavia 2.0 TDi right now)
Price wise it compares favourably with a Skoda Octavia.
A quick check on the technical specs showed that the Lancer was over 100Kg lighter and as such was slightly quicker on the 0-60 time - Great so far.
Then I looked at the fuel economy .... and ..... great disappointment. 44mpg compared with the 51mpg on the heavier Skoda with the same engine.
Thats 7mpg difference, which is one hell of a difference over the 125,000 miles + That I will cover in my next car. At todays fuel prices thats an extra 390 gallons costing £2106, and we all know that will be higher with the speed that diesel fuel prices are increasing. So sadly that is telling me that I am probably going to be sticking to Octavia's (which are great cars .... but don't look like a 2008 Lancer)
So what is with the poor (in comparison with VW/Seat/Skoda/Audi) fuel economy? Does the Lancer have the aerodynamics of a pile of bricks with a satellite dish on top?
Luke
|
Would be interesting to see what the real-world figures are, because as you say something isn't right there.
US gallons for the Mitsu? Wouldn't be the first time!
|
Could be loads of things, gear ratios, final drive ratio, trye sizes, state of tune of the engine, aerodynamics etc etc.
You really get 51 mpg from your 2.0tdi? the PD one? 140 or 170ps? you must be driving it like a saint, very few people get this from a vw 2.0pd
|
|
On a longish run, the 2.0PD inside my Leon (140PS) has reported upto 54.1MPG on the trip computer. This is with just me driving, hardly anything else in the car and on a mixture of town, motorway and country roads. I have yet to do a proper brim-to-brim MPG test of the thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was getting high forties from it overall.
|
|
|
It's a 140PS. Yes, I get 50mpg+ easily with the octavia 2.0Tdi
If I am going direct to head office (which is a long straight drive on a 50mph dual carriageway) in light traffic I can get 74mpg (on the trip computer) which in reality is -3mpg max so 71mpg. According to the company fleet fuel card logs 47 - 55 mpg is normal depending on the driver, though the Audi A4 with the same engine gets about 42mpg, I suspect thats a combination of the extra car weight and that drivers aggressive driving)
Edited by LukeMH on 17/09/2008 at 12:23
|
I had the predecessor, a Carisma, 1.8 petrol. It got at least 40 mpg all the time - even though I drove in mostly short runs. It is hardly worth getting the diesel Lancer if that's the true mpg.
The Lancer is a very nice looking car though and I had practically no trouble with my Carisma over 6 years. Cheap when new, they are an even better bargain used too, even if HJ said they have ' the most poverty-struck dash this side of an Oxfam shop'.
|
|
The Carisma was a lean burn direct injection engine and was developed to be very economical. It was the first direct injection petrol engine in production, but it had a reputation for getting "sooted" up if was used in town and not taken out on an open road and given a clear out. I don't think this petrol engine has been carried forward, the new petrol 1.8 is of smaller capacity - 1798cc, has MIVEC valve control (Mitsu's version of VTEC) and appears to have reverted to indirect injection.
|
In six years the only faults with my Carisma were a failed throttle body - this'll be the bit that gets sooted up, I guess. You are recommended to use high octane petrol apparently, too, though I also did mainly short runs which won't have helped either. Mitsubishi went halves on repair even though the car was at least two years out of warranty. The throttle body is a Volvo part, I think.
The other fault was a broken spring - I think that was caused by the very many speed bumps I have to negotiate every day. Other than that it had a wiper and maybe a tyre. I think Mitsubishi's are very under-rated cars. I was certainly spoilt by the mpg it got - I have a 2002 Primera which does 32 mpg, although it's probably a lot heavier.
|
Just got all excited at the prices of Lancers on Autotrader - lots of 2005/6 estates with 20k for around £4,500. Then I checked the VED bands on Parkers site. The 2.0 Lancer will be a whopping £550 to tax in 2010, the 1.6 will be a more reasonable £250.
Still, I am finding the 1.6 tempting even if my OH says the estate looks like two different cars welded together.
|
Mitsubishis always have been underrated -- I think they're an excellent alternative to the Toyota or Nissan, much cheaper to buy second-hand and really well made. The only real problem with them is the expensive parts that would make a Daewoo dealer blush.
2.0 litre petrol cars post-2001 will cost a lot to insure. That said, if you are saving over £2000 against any competing car (and often a lot more), £250 per year is a minor concern really. You'll probably save that by not having to repair the thing so often.
|
|
Mitsubishi cars may be under-rated, but their dealers and UK importer have taken an awful lot of flak on this website over the CZC fiasco, and I for one wouldn't go near a Mitsi in the UK as a result of their poor conduct!
|
"Still, I am finding the 1.6 tempting even if my OH says the estate looks like two different cars welded together."
I bought a 22,000 Mile, 55 Lancer Equipe Estate almost a year ago for £5K and I've been very pleased with it. It gives 43mpg, has been faultless and I rather like the rear styling with the tall tail lights. I don't find the servicing expensive and you may well find one with the remainder of the 3 year pre-pay servicing plan. Although we didn't buy the car from the local dealer, I've found then very friendly and efficient. That said they are family run and located in a rural area which I think helps - any nonsense from them and word would get around and their reputation would be lost
|
|
The dealers may be rubbish (and I'd go along with it -- a friend of mine had a Galant, loved the car, hated the dealer) but at 3/4 years old this isn't such a problem. Our second car is a Daewoo and I don't even know where the nearest dealer is, much less dealt with them.
|
I found the local dealer okay when I had the Carisma. It was out in the sticks near Altrincham and a pain to get to, but they almost always had a courtesy car available. If I do have a complaint it's that you always ended up parking in the overflow area (ie a field). The car woud get very muddy and I never once got a free car wash in about five years.
Certainly, parts weren't cheap, but then it never really needed any. The last time I had the car serviced, I used a local garage and it wasn't that much cheaper in the end. 43 mpg? I'm now almost wishing I'd waited and traded in the Carisma for a Lancer. Instead, I bought an 02 Primera, which is okay but has some things which bug me. Can't really justify changing after less than a year. Maybe next spring.
|
It is very disconcerting to hear that the old petrol units could manage 40+mpg and the new car only manages 44mpg on diesel.
Still not got to the bottom of what the problem is. Is it the aerodynamics? Does it have really dodgy gear ratios? I'm sure they'll publish the gear ratios and coefficient drag ratios in the brochure so if someone who understands those figures could shed some light?
Thanks
Luke
|
|
|
|
