In Chino's case, that would make sense. However, if any mechanic were to make changes to a vehicle's ECU, that mechanic should tell the customer something about what is being done. If nothing else, that should be an item listed on any receipt/repair bill. Maybe it is friendly for the mechanic to wink and say, "Hey, I tuned up your car. You'll notice a difference," but that is not terribly professional.

 

I called up my dealer, and they won't update any ecu unless by VIN number and mitsubishi says so. They looked up my VIN and Said no Updated was needed.

So maybe his car was underpowerd or something ? And they had to updated but the service guy wanted to kiss *** (sorry again) so he told him he tuned it up.

And cause he gain his power back. he tough the really did ge tuned!.

but thats just my theory!

 

I just called my dealer and asked about any engine performance firmware upgrades for the ecu and the guy in tech said "We have nothing available and nothing in the works." Oh well.

 

All of our cars are underpowered...so where's my firmware update??

 

Maybe it's a Fed-spec vs. PZEV-spec thing?

 

Every test i have seen the manual gets a full second faster than the CVT simply because you get a better launch and you can run the gears slightly higher. Plus manual is more fun which instantly makes you feel like your going faster.

 

The 5 speed is faster than the CVT. I have the CVT and I am happy with it. The 5 speed is geared lower, and it weighs slightly less than the cvt. Also, with the 5 speed you can launch your car at 3000-4000 rpms, there is no way you can do that with the cvt. Now from a rolling start the cvt might be faster.

 

Some times dealers reflash the ecu it isn't tunning, but just a factory update. I work for a GM dealer and I have to do it all the time.

 

Actually, the difference in the possible gear ratios isn't all that different:

CVT lowest gear ratio 2.35 X final drive ratio 6.12 = 14.38
MT lowest gear ratio 3.54 X final drive ratio 4.24 = 14.98

Although from there who knows what the computer does with the CVT. In theory, the automatic mode with the CVT should be able to give an advantage in gearing over the MT by adjusting continuously. In reality, this seems to not necessarily be the case. The paddle shifting actually negates this advantage.

I can get my stock, MT ES to 60 MPH in something between 8.0 and 8.5 seconds. That's all 190 lbs of me with no passenger. I hit 60 in 2nd gear just a tad before the rev limiter will kick in. This assumes that my speedometer reads accurately. This is about the same as the 1986 Porsche 944 that I used as my daily driver for ten years before buying the Lancer. The 944 had the advantage of weighing a couple hundred pounds less; the Lancer has the advantage of 25 years of technology advances (the 944 was introduced in '82).

In my opinion, the Lancer (at least my ES with the MT) is by no means a "slow" car. The first car I owned was a '69 Beetle, which I bought at 16 in 1984. Get out your calendar to measure a 0-60 time! My next car was an '83 Nissan Sentra. A decent car, but another dog as far as acceleration. After that was a 1988 Dodge Shadow--another 10+ second to 60 car. In '93 I bought a new Dodge Shadow ES with a 3.0 liter Mitsu V6. That was a fast car for me, but probably about the same 0-60 time as my current '08 Lancer.

Granted, 9+ seconds with the CVT does sound rather disappointing. I hope that is not typical. It is significantly slower than my car. However, it you are craving faster acceleration, then I have two suggestions:

1. Don't buy a car with an automatic transmission! (Unless it is a Porsche or a Ferrari!) If you want the most fun and the best performance, you need three pedals on the floor. If you drive in a lot of traffic, or have other reasons for getting some kind of automatic transmission, that's fine, but don't expect thrilling performance.

2. Don't buy a new car that costs less than $20K. I have a '99 Boxster in my garage for when I need ***** enhancement. When buying a new daily driver, I decided I would not spend more than $20K out the door. This meant accepting the fact that my new car would not be a drag racer. I paid $16,800 for the car and was out the door for an even $18,000.00. There simply wasn't another new car out there at that price that was significantly faster than the Lancer. If I wanted a noticeable improvement in 0-60 times, then I was going to have to spend thousands of dollars more.

So, the Lancer is what it is. It is a nice-looking, economical (I consistently get 28-30 MPG), inexpensive car. It has a great warranty, it has lots of safety features (important to me with a 9-year-old son), and it has plenty of room for my 6'4" body and the family unit. Am I going to take a Mustang GT in a drag race? Hell no! but I knew that from the beginning. If that's what you want, then prepare to spend a lot more money. Maybe that's not so bad if you're spending your dad's money. I'm spending my own!

I do have one complaint about the Lancer--the steering wheel doesn't telescope. But I knew that before I bought the car.

 

Seems like alot of people have given up on the GTS.
Maybe I should of got and old Si or Sti,

 

I haven't given up on the GTS but i am interested in the Evo's lineup. i bought the Lancer simply for trade-in reasons.
I for one, really enjoy the Lancer GTS. To me it is a great DD and every time I push this car, I get a lil surprise here and there.
I needed a car to replace my previous one.
I am in no rush to scoop up the X. But I am def interested in it an no other car.
All the other cars, are going up in prices dramatically.

 

Yea, seriously.

 

Given up how? It's just that people are being realistic. The car ain't fast, but it's a nice little car. A definite step up from the econobox Lancer of 02-06.

 

I'm thinking the fastest way to accelerate with the CVT is to wind out 1st gear and then push the shifter into CVT mode. It "feels" the fastest but I have yet to try this technique on the clock.

 

try it^^ let us know on the times.