ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Probably not.

ExcessLancer

Or use the GTSs 5 speed.. if it has one..lol

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

i think that would be pretty pricey. different chassis different engine. I dont even think the SST to 5MT swap would be easy and cheap, in the X also.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Here's what confuses me, the Evo and Ralliart share the same essential engine thus mounting the transmission to the motor isn't an issue. If the Ralliart is based off of the Evo chassis and is designed to use the Evo 9 drivetrain, it makes no sense that a 5-speed couldn't be used rather easily. The TC-SST transmission from the evo attaches so why not the 5-speed?

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

ralliart based on the Lancer chassis just like the Evo.
The Evo runs wider wheel base etc. as a ralliart or the Lancer. Fact the Lancer and the RA is running on the same wheel base.
The 9 wheel base and the distance is different then the RA. Since that is a CT9A chassis . So there is already enough differences. The IX drive train they refer, or they "using" is the 3 differential and the AWD system. But the dimensions are different.

Even the CT9A chassis if you want to swap the MR manual to the regular 5 speed, you needed some extra lines etc. Although both /5and 6 speed/ tranny have a same housing and dimensions.
But the CZ4A has now two totally different tranny, the SST and the 5MT. those tranny's have different housing.

Now the CT9A had a same dimensions as i mentioned . That is why the 6 speed is weaker since they had to put an extra gear in it. It was a skinnier gears in the 6 speed.

In the CZ4A probably will need more then just swap lines and tranny's.
Back then when they had the starion , they come out with the automatic version in the same year. Many people where thinking to do a swap. But wasn't that easy at all. Even the body had a different mounting points for the automatic tranny then the MT had.

So from that experience and known the Mitsubishi history, i would say it will be more then just a simple swap.

But we will see ,if some one want to do it. I wouldn't surprise at all if even the RA and the MR swap wouldn't be a direct swap.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

All true but I find it odd that the Ralliart and MR share one transmission yet you can't put the 5-speed in. Mitsubishi really makes things difficult for people.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

they always did.
i agree the engine is a same, but i'm worry about the drive train and the chassis mounting points and there for the necessary lines. /they might be short or something./ Not to mention the engine ECU maybe will recognize , there is no more other "ecu" for the tranny . And how it will react for that? So who knows?

otter

iTrader: (14)

The Evo is not a loss leader, nor is it even a car Mitsubishi depends on in the US market. Also, just like the Evo, the Ralliart isn't going to stay at MSRP for very long.

So what if it cannibalizes Evo sales? The Evo isn't a fast seller, and if Mitsubishi can offer a car that equals the driving pleasure of the Evo, without the fancy race traction control stuff that most people don't care about, then great, they gain sales.

As for the Colt, MMNA is working on trying to get it over here, but it'll take time to modify the car to meet US law. I had the pleasure of looking over a Colt czT the other week at Motown MOD. It's a very nice car, and many of the people there made a point to let the Mitsu people know that they wanted to see that car in the US. It's like a not-ugly Honda Fit with a turbo and only two doors.

Finally, regarding electric cars, Mitsu is not missing the trend. Electric cars are ****ing expensive and don't yet meet consumer needs. The MIEV concepts are nice and functional, but still aren't practical or cheap enough to sell. Not much point in Mitsu coming out with a hybrid, either, they're not going to be able to compete with what's out there.

eddie

iTrader: (1)

I don't think it's strong enough to support the power levels in the Ralliart. The Evo X tranny uses larger, hardened gears. Hence the added cost.

Bimmubishi

iTrader: (3)

Otter, you're missing the point. The Evo Defines Loss leader. Compare the price to a similar powered sports car of German descent and then add active differentials and AYC and then ask how Mitsubishi can produce the car for 30k. There's 60k of parts and technology there.


Furthermore, the actual Prius sales numbers defy your statement.

They sold 119,000 prius in 2008 in the US only! That's more than all of Mitsubishi's US sales for all models combined! (81,000) . If that's not meeting a need than I don't know what is.


I agree with Eddie and I think he has made some very interesting points that I failed to initially consider. Huge investment has to be spread over several models to either hedge their bets on success or to temporarily spread their loss.

Alex

Bimmubishi

iTrader: (3)

somewhat unrelated to the original topic but pertainent to our conversation on where Mitsubishi could be going. The Hybrid market is still in it's infancy which means that Mitsubishi could get in at the ground floor. (relatively)

dboz

iTrader: (1)

Hybrids are going to be a bust. Where is all the lithium coming from? We will move from oil dependency to lithium dependency. I have to think there is way more oil than lithium. They have undependable recharge life cycles (all batteries hold less charge over time). High replacement costs. Also, how much extra energy is spent in mining for the raw materials of the batteries themselves. They are heavy, and we have not even gotten to the disposal issue. Also, wait for a few people to get fried in a collision due to electrocution. They may be good for commuter cars, but in reality they will be horrible with larger loads like families.

Just a side note on oil in the US. We use about 2.2 billion barrels per year. If half of this is true we have twice the oil of the entire middle east. Possible 50-80 year supply on the bottom end, 250 year supply on the upper end. Of course if you believe in man made global warming you won't want to read this.

A research paper by USGS geochemist Leigh Price in 1999 estimated the total amount of oil contained in the Bakken shale ranged from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels, with a mean of 413 billion barrels.[7] While others before him had begun to realize that the oil generated by the Bakken shales had remained within the Bakken, it was Price, who had spent much of his career studying the Bakken, who particularly stressed this point. If he was right, the large amounts of oil remaining in this formation would make it a prime oil exploration target. Unfortunately, Price passed away in 2000 before his research could be peer-reviewed and published. Nevertheless, the drilling and production successes in much of the Bakken beginning with the Elm Coulee Oil Field discovery in 2000 have proven correct his claim that the oil generated by the Bakken shale was still there. New estimates of the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken were presented by Meissner and Banks (2000) and by Flannery and Kraus (2006). The first of these papers tested a newly developed computer model with existing Bakken data to estimate generated oil of 32 BBbls. The second paper used a more sophisticated computer program with extensive data input supplied by the ND Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Division. Early numbers generated from this information placed the value at 200 BBbls later revised to 300 BBbls when the paper was presented in 2006."[8]. In April 2008, a report issued by the state of North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimated that the North Dakota portion of the Bakken contained 167 billion barrels of oil[9].

Bimmubishi

iTrader: (3)

This is a huge digression. The point isn't the sustainability of the Hybrid it's about what will sell and what won't. The hybrid is selling. The others are not.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

i hope , everybody will soon reilize we dont need to stuck with the oil as a fuel for our cars.

I'm up for Hydrogen or Ethanol.
More Hydrogen thought.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Doesn't biofuel cost fuel to make (ie. it's not a self-sustainable resource)?