2008 Mitsubishi Lancer ES/DE/GTS and Ralliart [MERGED]
Nov 20, 2006, 12:48 AM
#301
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: So Cal
Posts: 3,856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update - Engine Specs!!!
courtesy of autoblog.com
Well people, there you have it. Solid engine info on the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer! I will bring more info soon! Also, one thing is for sure, there is no 'SE' model, just 'DE, ES, GTS, Ralliart and X'.
So here's the deal. We know Mitsubishi just held a long-lead introduction for its new Mitsubishi Lancer. Journalists were invited to sample the new car (not us, unfortunately), excluding the Ralliart and EVO models, in exchance for a promise not to publish pictures until late December and driving impressions until late January. Now, inviting a bunch of gear heads to drive the second coming from Mitsubishi and letting them loose on public roads is just asking for precious info to be leaked. And so it has to us in the form of a tip. Here's the long and short of it...
* Wheelbase: 104 in.
* Track, f/r: 60 in./60 in.
* Length: 178 in.
* Width: 71 in.
* Height: 55 in.
* Curb Weight: 2,800 lbs.
* Engine: 140hp / 135ft-lbs. 2.0-liter I-4
* Transmission: 5-speed Manual or CVT
These are most likely specs for the ES or SE model and reveal the base engine to be a 2.0-liter version of the World Engine that Mitsubishi co-developed with DaimlerChrysler and Hyundai. Also of note is the lack of an automatic transmission as an option, with only a CVT being offered to those who don't row their own boat with the optional 5-speed. Take a look at the Lancer's width, too: 71 inches. That figure dwarfs the 2006 model at 66.8 inches and nearly all of its main competitors, including the Honda Civic (69 in.) and Mazda3 (69.1). We're going to stop the speculation here for fear Mitsubishi agents have breached our perimeter and are planning a raid on the Autoblog HQ at any moment.
* Wheelbase: 104 in.
* Track, f/r: 60 in./60 in.
* Length: 178 in.
* Width: 71 in.
* Height: 55 in.
* Curb Weight: 2,800 lbs.
* Engine: 140hp / 135ft-lbs. 2.0-liter I-4
* Transmission: 5-speed Manual or CVT
These are most likely specs for the ES or SE model and reveal the base engine to be a 2.0-liter version of the World Engine that Mitsubishi co-developed with DaimlerChrysler and Hyundai. Also of note is the lack of an automatic transmission as an option, with only a CVT being offered to those who don't row their own boat with the optional 5-speed. Take a look at the Lancer's width, too: 71 inches. That figure dwarfs the 2006 model at 66.8 inches and nearly all of its main competitors, including the Honda Civic (69 in.) and Mazda3 (69.1). We're going to stop the speculation here for fear Mitsubishi agents have breached our perimeter and are planning a raid on the Autoblog HQ at any moment.
Nov 20, 2006, 07:34 AM
#302
Evolved Member
That CVT better be rock solid, and I hope it has killer gas mileage. I bet Consumer Reports prelimanary assessment of the car before they ever get a chance to drive it will be "Its weak, heavy, rehashed styling from the old Galant and the CVT trans will probably break." 
I would have thought their wouldn't be so many trim levels this time though.
I would have thought their wouldn't be so many trim levels this time though.
Nov 20, 2006, 02:08 PM
#306
Evolved Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TB, FL
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTS model?
CVT tranny? Very few manufacturers attempt to market it in the US. Nissan is reintroducing it in the US market again . . . I forgot which company put one out in the mid to late 80's (Suby? or Audi? or some econobox micro-car).
CVT tranny? Very few manufacturers attempt to market it in the US. Nissan is reintroducing it in the US market again . . . I forgot which company put one out in the mid to late 80's (Suby? or Audi? or some econobox micro-car).
Nov 20, 2006, 02:14 PM
#307
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tuffguy
^ That's wrong. Base engine in the Caliber is a 1.8L that makes 148hp. The 2.4L makes 172hp.
Nov 20, 2006, 06:00 PM
#309
Originally Posted by bahamut
GTS model?
CVT tranny? Very few manufacturers attempt to market it in the US. Nissan is reintroducing it in the US market again . . . I forgot which company put one out in the mid to late 80's (Suby? or Audi? or some econobox micro-car).
CVT tranny? Very few manufacturers attempt to market it in the US. Nissan is reintroducing it in the US market again . . . I forgot which company put one out in the mid to late 80's (Suby? or Audi? or some econobox micro-car).
Nov 22, 2006, 08:04 AM
#310
Nov 22, 2006, 04:43 PM
#311
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by tuffguy
Not in the States, AFAIK.
Nov 30, 2006, 10:01 PM
#313
Evolved Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: A
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GPTourer
Yeah, I remember reading somwhere that Mitsu could not afford to offer all the engines at once right away. So for now, only the 2.0L equipped trim levels will be available. No 2.4L RA until later on.
If the weight number is accurate that is impressive. It looks like a bigger car but weighs almost 200lb less. I don't know anything about the new engines, are they finally all-aluminum?
Dec 1, 2006, 09:45 AM
#314
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central TX, Houston, and Huntville, TX
Posts: 2,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it looks more sophisticated to me. I also can't wait to see what RRM can do with the new engine. Hope to see these able to produce (and come with) more power than the current lancers.
Dec 1, 2006, 09:47 AM
#315
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by captain150
I don't know anything about the new engines, are they finally all-aluminum?
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...0-0-0-0-0.html
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...uring_Alliance
The only thing that troubles me is that Hyundai did the basic block design and it has siamesed cylinder bores with no coolant passes between them. Sounds like a cost cutting measure that's no big deal in the <150whp N/A vehicles that 95% of these engines will end up powering, but would be a problem if someone tries to turn up the wick on their turbocharged vehicle. But, I'm no engineer so maybe they have provisions for this.
Last edited by GPTourer; Dec 1, 2006 at 09:56 AM.