That was just more or less the products from RMR that are added by each dealer after the fact. I was speaking of a more official factory produced version.

 

Actually was going to use the 4.5l V8 developed for the Proudia/Equus with Hyundai. Don't quite know why it didn't happen, probably for cost reasons. Rumors now are that will use a modified version of the 4.7l V8 from Jeep, at least for the U.S. market. I wonder though, shipping engines to Japan and then the car to the U.S... doesn't sound cost effective...

 

The 2.0 will not be put out to pasture. It will simply be one of 2 engine options 2.0 and 2.4. The 2004 is also getting a facelift.

The 2.4 will also be compatible with 2002 and 2003 Lancer with a transmission replacement and it will all be bolt in. The computer might need to be changed but that is expected.

Heres something to think about. If Mitsu didnt want the Eclipse to be slid to the back by sales why would they even bring the EVO to the US.

The Eclipse is too played out and the body style is now showing it. It is time to retire the Eclipse and get ready for a new model of Mitsubishi to step up to the plate and that is the Lancer series.

Dont get me wrong the eclipse is a good car. But it is now being bought by baby boomers. I'd like to see one of them old farts handle an EVO It would be the same thing as the old people buying corvettes,a waste of power. After all these people will never put the juice on that the Eclipse could deliver.

So it is time for the Generation X,Millenium revolution. Now that we all have jobs,Mitsu see's us as a good market for sports cars.
The Lancer was aimed at 22-32 yr olds yet there are old people driving them trying to be trendy. I hate trendies. That is why I got my Lancer in the first place. It wasnt trendy here in the states.

Im done with my rant now.
But I look forward to doing an engine swap next fall. With my current funds an EVO is almost within reach but the ins. puts it way up there.

 

Which is a good thing since everything in your post was either a repeat of what was already stated or totally ridiculous all together.

Mitsubishi is not going to phase out the best selling sports coupe in its class and a vehicle that brings them 75-90,000+ units (the 3G Eclipse) for a car that will only be 4500 units its first year (the Evo) Even when you add in the other 30,000 or so Lancer sales it still doesn't make fiscal since.

Your own weak logic suggests a bit of common sesnse, you say older people buy Eclipses and the Evo is aimed at younger buyers, so why would they, in your words "want the Eclipse to be slid back by sales" it doesn't make sense.

Best leave the market analysis to people who know better.
There is plenty of room in America for the mainstream Eclipse and the low volume rocket EVO with very minimal overlap.

 

Since you want to start youre thread off by slamming me May I suggest that you are the one with weak logic.

"Best leave the market analysis to people who know better"
Who would that be? You ? I dont think so.
It would not make fiscal "sense".

The Eclipse only has 210 hp where the Lancer EVO is 240-260. I do believe that some people in this world like hp.

And it is 5000 units that are going to be released. If you are going to try and ridicule me in a public forum at least spell the words right and get the right figures too.

 

No, I don't think so either. I meant the people at Mitsubishi who have decided to bring the car over anyway, despite the claims you make about who buy the cars and why. Baby boomers versus young people who can handle the horsepower as you say, and old farts that can't. I guess thats why insurance rates are higher for young people especially on high power cars - its because they are more likely to be in an accident because of, among other things, inexperience behind the wheels. Of course there are exceptions.

And the Diamante VR-X has 210, whats your point?

No its 4500. I'm not ridiculing you just your post, I invite you to read the entire thread before reporting "facts" that have already been discussed. And avoid making comparisons to cars that aren't even in the same class.

 

I didnt say they cant handle it,its just that they dont use it, and we younger people decide to use the hp available. Some may even drive wreckless and being so close to the start of the drinking age is why our ins. is high.

A lot of people are swayed by horsepower.


I didnt start that part, everyone else was comparing apples and oranges before I was. I was just trying to defend the orange that everyone in the automotive community loves to slam because theyre insignificant bitter little minds were expecting the EVO VII from the "rumours"and they were handed the OZ Rally.

Also, it did look like you were trying to impale me onto the spike of humility. there was so much "Im better than you are tone" flowing through the post I was higly offended. I guess the way of telling people information politely has gone by the way side once again. Instead of using the term "Weak Logic" you could of used the term "not a very strong point of view" Welcome to Corporate America

 

I may agree to this partially, but not completely. There are many ways to enjoy a car, and using a car excessively on the street may not always be wise. Young people are more likely to do this then older drivers, but it doesn't mean an EVO is being wasted by some one who chooses their exhibitions of speed wisely, or even never at all. I doubt many people will necessarily even like the EVO because of its stark nature, a Lancer LS will seem "plush" by comparson. It is truly an enthusiast car and will never have the amenities that can be found in a GTS Eclipse.

You are right, but a lot of people want luxury and status to go with their power as well. The EVO might not be for them. If they like Mitsubishis then a Spyder GTS, or Diamante VR-X might just be the ticket, these cars are around 30K too.

And for that I truly apologize, I meant no disrespect. I just felt like it was a bit inconsiderate to post info already discussed. And though we can't agree on figures 4500/5000 whatever, it is by no means a reason to replace a highly successful staple of the Mitsu lineup (the Eclipse) with a low volume halo car. That is the apple to orange comparison that I was talking about.

 

OZ, I completely disagree with you. You are completely ignoring the price of the car itself. When you look at mitsu's lineup, the Eclipse is in between the Lancer and the Galant, on average. The Evo would be the highest priced CAR in the companies lineup, something that the Eclipse would have to skip up two model brackets to compete at all with the EVO. 5000 or 4500, it's still over 60 THOUSAND units more Eclipses than Evos. That is like thinking that the NSX will actually steal sales from someone considering an RSX. However, a hopped up Lancer with the 2.4L will undoubtedly take sales away from the RS Eclipse. Maybe not a whole lot, but, enough.

Secondly, if what you said about the 04 Lancer with the 2.4L having a swapability with the current Lancer... I think it would be more complicated bolt in process, unless you can easily bolt in an Outlander/Galant/Eclipse RS engine/transmission currently. I think that there would be more to it, including differential and probably axle assembly swapping as well, all of which would be, parts alone, qute costly for a 40 hp gain max.

 

Another good point. I forgot about that entirely.

May I ask, how exactly do you know this? Have you indeed tried swapping in an Eclipse or Outlander motor into a Lancer? Undoubtedly this will be somewhat of low volume car also, it could very well have a unibody or front subframe entirely different from the current Lancer, particularly if it is a DOHC 2.4 that isn't in any other car in the lineup. I really truly hope that you are right. But it might be too early to tell.

 

Agreed. I mean, it could work in that the Outlander uses the Lancer chassis and the Galant/RS engine/sportronic transmission. However, we really can't know that a swap would work until someone tries it, and I'm willing to bet that you'd have about a MILLION other small things to do. Simply put, probably not going to be economically feasible or worthwhile. I mean, the parts alone would probably be alot more than a turbo kit + other upgrades, not to mention labor, to give you MAYBE 170 crank HP versus 220+ wheel HP.

 

The best way to move forward on the theory of power/drivetrain compatability would be to look at the underbody/chassis/engine mount set up on the Outlander.
Since was able to cost effectively modify the chassis for the Outlander to accomodate the Galant/Eclipse power/drivetrain, and still build the Outlander on the same production line as the Lancer, it is obviously feasible.
The mid-performance Lancer with the souped up 4G64(be it simple DOHC or MIVEC), which will also be used on the 2004 Outlander, may thus not be that far-fetched.
Then again, I may be talking out of my a$$
Comments?

 

I am sorry if I reposted annoying information, I actually tried to keep it from being redundant . In retrospect it might of actually have done the opposite of what I wanted it to do.



Expensive swap? That is what I believe too...in the areas of 7-9k possibly, just a rough guess.

My Cousin D.J. works at Mitsubishi here in Central IL and he told me about it. Come to think of it he did mention something about the Outlander being based on the Lancer platform. The dealer would have to be the one to swap the motors around. As cool as it might sound I dont see how the 2.4 will fit in the engine bay anyway. He had no info to offer either on how it would fit.
Our best guess on that part would be that it is a tight fit to say the least. The swap would include everything in the front end Engine, trans, and lsd. Considering you could turbo the current power plant or do a na build up for around 5k, it sounds more feasible to me. I really dont have 15k to blow on a new motor that is 160hp stock.

 

I got the impression that if the Outlander does indeed get a power increase next year, it won't be through something so drastic as a DOHC or MIVEC setup, perhaps just higher compression and/or a less restrictive intake or exhaust manifold. By using the high power motor might push the cars price out of its intended range.

I'll look for more evidence but 2G DSM owners who want a 4G63 can't just swap one in. The RS/GS cars that have the Mopar 420A have a different unibody designed for that particular engine and all of them rolled off the same assembly line.

 

Good point regarding price. $$$
CEO Gagnon promised a 20hp increase for 2004. I wonder if compression increases and exhaust mods (car has to pass Fed LEV & Cali ULEV) would be enough to provide the power hike.
Judging from the recently launched COLT, which compares favorably in price with its competitors in the highly competetive (low profit margin) small car segment, applied the MIVEC heads without a price penalty.
It stands to reason that MIVEC, since it is a decade old technology, should no longer cost that much more for to produce. Especially if the volumes are expected to increase, using the 4G64 MIVEC for the 2004 Galant and 2005 Eclipse in addition to the Lancer and Outlander, the price could be offset.