Alright, I'll just lay it all out. No sugar coating.

I'm on the market for a car. It needs four doors and some juice under the hood. My Tiburon is great, but insurance for the thing sucks and I've already been pulled over 10+ times and recieved 5 tickets. It's a cop magnet.

I have been looking towards the RA for some time and finally decided to take it for a test drive. I haven't smiled that hard in a while. It's quick, it's four door for insurance, and the price is great.

There is only one thing holding me back... Fifth gear.

There is no need for that high of a ratio in your last gear. Sure, Honda and Toyota do this, BUT they do not have pistons with 100 mm strokes. In my experience, Long Stroke + High Revs = Good Power and Longevity Issues.

Most of my driving in Atlanta is around 80-85 mph if traffic is doing the same. Turning over 4000 rpms at that speed in fifth gear is nuts. It is not that hard to downshift if you need to pass. Mitsu could have easily lowered that ratio.

Just consider the fuel economy that would be available if there was an overdrive gear. My thinking is that Mitsu didn't want the MIVEC 2.4 to out gas mileage the LS and OZ. But who the heck knows.

Mitsubishi has not done so well in the past couple years. I think it's sad when a Japanese car company is ranked below Hyundai for relability in 2002 and 2003 (thanks Chrysler). The RA doesn't come with moly piston rings or harmonic balancers. No counter weights, no double titanium valve springs, no sodium filled exhaust valves, ect.. I have been unable to find any information to lead me to belive that this car will stand the test of time. I drive 60K+ miles a year and I need a car that will run on the original engine until my last payment.

I don't want to hear about maintance. I know how to keep a car. Plenty of checkups and plenty of Amsoil. I still don't think my heavy maintainence schedule will stop compression loss due to engine wear. Engine wear always occurs, but usually not at this rate.

Does anyone have anything to add?

 

yes if you want all that good stuff, get an EVO

 

i dont exactly know what youre saying...but mitsubishi has done great the past few years, i think. the 02 and 03 (and 04) lancers are great cars.

 

I'm saying I like the car but Mitsu geared the MIVEC engine in a way that it was not designed for. Atleast from the technical articles I've read. The car makes plenty of torque down low because of the MIVEC, there is no need to rev that high in fifth gear.

My question is in reguards to reliability. This is the maiden year for the MIVEC engine and it has already been set up for potential turmoil. Has anyone heard something different?

 

i am sure that mistui has tested out the engine and also i'm sure that the millions of dollars they put in R&D in the MiVEc engine will be put to good use. Why does it matter if it revs high in fifth gear. The evo revs high in fifth gear too, when i'm doing 80 i'm close to 4000 rpm.

 

OK, first this isnt the first year of MIVEC. It is the first year of MIVEC in the U.S. MIVEC has been around for YEARS!! OK, reliability, the regualr Lancer rated better than the Civic in reliability and I would hope that wouldnt change for the RA. I wish the gearing was a little different in 5th also just so I would average better than 20-24 MPG. I do only drive city and mountain roads though. Hope that helps a little.

 

Yep. This is the first time this engine and MIVEC have been mated together, but in their separate forms have truly withstood the test of time. The RA engine, in its base form appeared in the Eclipse and Galant.

I would also point the warranty out to ya, but since you drive 60000 miles/yr, it really doesn't help you out.

 

Hi MitsuRalliArt, the following link should help:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...003/15E_08.pdf

built the first MIVEC engine back in 1992.
There was the 6A12 MIVEC 2.0l V6 DOHC 24-valve (Bore x stroke: 91.1mm x 76mm). There was also a 3.0l V6 DOHC 24-valve MIVEC(Bore x stroke: 78.4mm x 69mm) and a 3.5l V6 DOHC 24-valve MIVEC(Bore x stroke: 93mm x 85.8mm).

Please note that the 4G69 is somewhat different from the 4G64. hence the jump from G64 to G69. Modifications have been made to the block to lower the deck height and the center of gravity.

 

The EVO has a stroke that is 12 mm shorter than the RA. This is 24 mm less per revolution that the EVO piston travels in comparison to the RA. For example, lets pretend an EVO and a RA are both traveling side by side at 80 mph. After 1 minute, the RA pistons will have traveled 144 more meters than the EVO. That's over 472 feet. The EVO may run at these speeds, but the car is built much better. Stronger internals for 19 psi would be a clue.

Because of the longer stroke and high revs, there is more wear on the combustion chamber and piston rings.

Distance
----------- = Speed
Time

Because of the longer stroke and high revs, the pistons have to move faster. There is more distance to travel per revolution. Pistons change direction after every half stroke. Increased speed increases the inertia of each piston. This increased inertia (momentum) puts more stress on the rods when the piston direction changes.

Because of the longer stroke and high revs, there is increased levels of friction that amount to more heat.

I DO NOT doubt the 4G69 MIVEC engine. America has made stroked engines for years. I think the 4G69 is a wonderful peice of Japanese handywork. The thing I DO doubt is the way in which it is geared in contrast to the long stroke. A 5th gear with a smaller ratio would not be a problem. The MIVEC engine produces ample amounts of torque as low as 1800 rpms. I really think Mitsubishi is off their nut with the current gearing setup.

Long stroke engines are fine. Long stroke engines that rev to hell are not.

Tell me what's wrong here:

Acura RSX
K20A3 iVTEC
160 HP
86 mm stroke
2700 rpms at 60 mph in top gear

Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart
4G69 MIVEC
162 HP
100 mm stroke
2900 rpms at 60 mph in top gear


The residual values should speak for themselves, but I think Mitsubishi should follow in the footsteps of Honda if they plan to rev high in top gear.

Again, I want the car, but has anyone heard anything to counter my arguement.

 

does this issue apply to automatic RA's?

 

MitsuRalliArt, I agree with you completely about the gearing. I love everything about the car, gearing included, except that 5th gear is _way_ too big for being the smallest gear. I love the gearing when I'm off the highway, but I do a lot of highway driving too.

I have to disagree with your statement that the Ralliart's motor should've had a smaller stroke - we have 20 lb/ft more torque than the RSX, and I wouldn't want it any other way. The Ralliart just needs a 6th gear, not a smaller engine. But man, does it need that 6th gear...

I'm sure this sounds like a dumb question to most of you, but is it at all practical to add a 6th gear? I'm guessing no, since I've never heard of anyone even consider doing it, but it's worth asking...

Failing that, is it at all practical to replace 5th with something a little smaller, like MitsuRalliArt mentioned?

 

adding another gear would mean a lot of work....and very expensive...if you want a 6th gear that much I'd suggest trying to find a six speed tranny that will fit, or can be adapted to fit onto the engine

 

Yeah, very expensive to do any of that. I do believe that mitsu thought about that, at least a little. If I recall, when turbotech tore down his motor, he found big rods and thermal coated pistons in the block. That might have been because of the points that are being pointed out right now. Do we think that the 5th gear is done this way so that the car will maintain power all the way through the power band even in 5th gear. I know that my 2000 Eclipse with the 4G64, didnt have enough power to pull to redline in 5th gear unless I was going downhill. My RA will pull all the way to fuel cut in 5th gear. I know there is a power difference, but do we think that might have played a little into the design.

 

Take note that designed this engine to produce similar power in vehicles much heavier than the RA. The 3300lbs Galant and the even heavier Grandis mini-van (not sold in U.S.) both sport this engine, as does the 4WD Outlander.
As such, I would be surprised if did not take precationary measures to deal with the increased wear.

 

okie i'm not going into the technical aspects of this, but heres some pointers.
VTEC= powerband starts high, it kicks in at above 6k rpm
Mivec= torque powerband is lower (mivec kicks in earlier)

VTECH = most are DOHC designed to rev high
MIVEC = SOHC not designed to rev high.

I think they designed the MIVEC for the lower grunt. hench the longer stroke.

my 2 cents.