Spudzy_v2

Howdy,

Fresh to this Forum and looking for some general tips and insight into these beasts Known as Lancer's.

Im drawn to the RA due to the usual Look and Price point, and before getting around to getting into the driver seat of one I'd like to know that my investment is a sound one.

Im fairly mechanically adept, and want a general shakedown on how dependable these vehicles are before i go and sink $15,000 into one.

My current driving needs is that of a commuter who needs a bit of excitement and flash in his daily drive along with the ability to tear some AWD in snowy conditions and the occasional gravel road. My decision for this was the gas mileage for a car is a much more feasible option than a v6 Tacoma on my daily 100 km roundtrip- And if I want to really ride dirt ive got my Dual Sport Motorcycle.

THE MAJOR ISSUE:
one word

TURBO'S

Im a little freaked out by the notion of em since both a Friend and my Girlfriends Subaru's suffered Catastrophic engine failure due to complications with turbo's so Im hoping you folks can rest my worries

-Looking forward to hearing back from you guys

Veronica

iTrader: (2)

Second word - "Manifold"


The turbo manifold can crack.
The engine and turbo are fine and should not be a reason to not get the car.


Be concerned about the tranny and the center diff pump.

RalliFast

iTrader: (1)

The diff pump isn't as much of an issue(save yourself the trouble and relocate it) as the tranny, i have a love/hate with the transmission myself, and I'm not sure how much better the gas mileage would be than your Tacoma.

hixlancer

iTrader: (1)

the dependability varies from car to car it seems. I have an 09 RA with just about 100k on it with the turbo and many other parts upgraded since 20k miles and it runs like a dream. I have never had any issues with it in the almost 9 years I have had it. I take care of it though and change the fluids and inspect it really well almost every month for leaks/issues. Mine has been a trooper.

SharkyPR

iTrader: (1)

True. Dont get the ralliart if you expect better fuel economy. The ralliart uses premium fuel and averages low 20 MPGs on each fill up. They differ by 3-4 MPGs. Not that much of a difference money wise.

RalliFast

iTrader: (1)

I guess an easy way to look at it is the RA has over double the flow rate injectors compared to your Tacoma and that's if you have the 4.0L... I think a lot of people look at it as a 4 cylinder should get better gas mileage than a larger engine with more cylinders and the RA can maybe... If you stay out of turbo range, which you won't/can't 😜

It's not necessarily about physical size, it's about how much air goes in and hence how much more fuel is required.

Spudzy_v2

@RalliFast

Ive looked up the Fuel mileage and the 2012's estimate about 8 L/100km - i assume that they put the car through the paces to get an average? I will admit there will be days where ill drive with a heavier foot, but I would still hope it would be getting much better Mileage than a v6 Truck So it actually sucks fuel? haha
Im not looking to get smart car efficiency, just to justify spending $90 a week on gas or $50

-=Mr B=-

If they managed a 0.8 "average" on a RA, i'm going to suggest that they did it in laboratory conditions. Flat road, taped chassi, cruse-control on, and speed steady between 70 and 90km/h.
I get , on average, 14-15L/100km, calculated on what the trip counter says, between refueling. Weekly refuels required.

If fuel consumption is a dealbreaker for you... Then don't get a Lancer Ralliart 2009+.
I don't know exactly what you should get, but this thing is thirsty, and there is pretty much no way around it.

Edit
It should be noted that i'm in Sweden, and pretty much all fuel has "some" ethanol content here. I think they say anywhere from 5-15% depending on the season.
This probably reflects on the fuel consumption.
Also, my RA is "preloved", and as far as i've been able to figure out has been tuned, i have yet to get the tools to download the firmware, and see the maps, to be able to tell to what extent, but this should increase max consumption, and decrease it in some other spots, so the average might be anything.
Regardless, my opinion, don't expect a stock RA to be drivable at anything less then 1.2L/10km, and at that style of driving, get a different car, the RA isn't fun anymore.
/Edit

RalliFast

iTrader: (1)

Yeah the mileage of 8.8L/100km is... Possible... But I can only touch it going barely over the limit on the highway, I mostly do city and get 12 to 18 L/100km depending on my foot. Basically if you shift at around 2500rpm or so and don't go too far over you might get decent mileage but it has the potential to seriously drink fuel, yes more than your truck.

Are you a spirited driver? Between the close gear ratios, AWD, larger stock injectors, turbo and weight (your Tacoma is at most only 1000lbs more than an RA) this car was not built with gas mileage in mind.

-=Mr B=-

The closest i get to that, is driving 100% legally on my rather long roadtrips. 1000km on cruise-control, legal speeds varying between 70-90 on about a fourth of the drive, the rest is 100-120, km/h being the unit. And when i say i get close to that figure, i really mean, i get 10L/100km.

2500-3000rpm, never downshift, don't overtake, and don't stop for anything, stop signs, and red lights included. I just don't see the savings as significant, enough to warrant buying this car, and driving it like that.

One would hope so, or this just isn't the right ride. The RA doesn't want a heavy right foot, neither does it need it. Id straight up demands it. *****-footing about as a kitten makes it a rather boring, loud, and uncomfortable vehicle, that still isn't "cheap" to drive. Kick it in the *****, step on it's tail, and floor it, and it's a completely different vehicle.
Still not cheap to drive, but at least now your having fun.

You want better fuel economy, get the Lancer Sportback with a 2.4L naturally aspirated engine. Only 168HP but a good bit of torque to make it a bit entertaining to drive, can be had with flappy paddle shifters, but not the SST, and is FWD. Since it's FWD only, it has a fair bit more kit in the car then the standard RA does, is still a lot lighter, and can actually do 8L/100km, if you put a bit of effort in to it, but can still be fun if you put your foot down. Not AS fun as a RA, but... fun.

Really. Don't get a RA, and expect to be able to drive it "cheaply".
Well, unless you ethanol/flexifuel convert, and start making your own moonshine to fill it with.
I guess the same could be achieved with methanol, but i don't know what it would take to get a car to run on it. And, to some extent it is harder to make in volume.