We should know soon enough about the engine choice.
The updated 2004 Lancer is expected to be shown at Chicago and will also unveil the Lancer Sportwagon with the more powerful engine.

 

Where did you get the idea the 2.7L four is replacing the 3.0L V6?

The new 2.7L four is the replacement for the current 2.4 four in the upcoming new generation Galant and Eclipse and also in Outlander and in some Lancer models It does not replace ANY V6 engine in the Mitsubishi lineup. So far as I know the 2.7 is an all-new motor.

The 3.0 V6 in the current Galant/Eclipse is also going away, it's final application will (like the 2.4) be the 04' Eclipse - the last model year for the current body style. The 04' Galant and 05' Eclipse are getting the 3.5 V6 from the Diamante.

The price difference between a 4-banger and a V6 in a vehicle like the Outlander would be close to $2,000. The power difference between the current 3.0 V6 and the new 2.7L four will be maybe 25-30hp. That's why you won't see a V6 Outlander - pricewise it would be pushing into Endeavor territory and power-wise, what would be the point?

The Korean's (as I already pointed out) don't have the same issues a Japanese carmaker has. Korean labor is dirt cheap and exchange rates quite favorable right now compared to the Yen. That's why they can offer a V6 at a MUCH lower price. Notice ALL of their vehicles are less expensive for a given content than Japanese produced kit.

And yes, while I understand your skepticism (you've voiced it enough), so far I haven't been wrong yet.

 

Sorry if I don't act like I just fell off the turnip truck, and that I question rumors.

Sorry, but, this all sounds a bit farfetched. Especially sense I believe I heard it said that this 2.7L 4cyl will be a crossover product between the Koreans and the Japanese. As such, why doesn't Mitsu just break down and start using a V6 from the Koreans if they're so willing? I still don't buy it overall, and even if it is true, I think it's pretty friggin' stupid.

 

And before you ask, the reason I voice my skepticism is that too many members take EVERYONE'S word as gospel (Because when you're on the net, you're automatically who you are, and you can't lie), and somebody needs to be an independant thinker.

Mark, I could be completely wrong, and I'm not afraid of being wrong, but, I still say this sounds like a stupid move by Mitsubishi, and further getting away from the efficiency of high power per liter and going for bigger displacement instead of better technology.

 

The 4G64 is yesterday's news - at the end of its development cycle. The cars are getting bigger. Expectations are getting bigger and the current crop of engines are beginning to look decidedly dated against that backdrop. A new motor is absolutely necessary (we could use a new 6 as well) to stay competitive.

What doesn't make sense is trying to wring more life out of the current powerplants. That's the GM way of doing things, not the way a company that wants to move 500k units per year by 2005 needs to do things.

Besides, I'm tired of hearing "the GS Eclipse is underpowered" or "the Outlander is underpowered" or "the Galant is underpowered."

 

Underpowered against what? The 240 HP powerplants in the Altima and Accord and the 220 HP in the new 6? Yes...just a bit.

 

Ummm... we're talking 4-bangers here, where Mitsubishi is decidedly behind the competition with it's current 1980's vintage engines.

 

It could be said that in the U.S. is behind the competition.
However, technologically speaking, could easily produce variable valve timing systems for the existing blocks. They produced the GDI and MIVEC system that way.
It appears that budgets and cost control are the main reason for the very conventional approach at .
I really hope this ends soon. does need to bring more advanced engines to the U.S.
No offense Mark, but I share the view that investing in a 2.7l 4-banger is a little odd, unless is planning to use VVT later down the road (for better gas mileage, top end power, etc)

 

Precisely my point, evomk8. It seems that Mitsu isn't nearly close to "wringing" power out of existing engines. Common sense says that designing wholly new engine families, making new machining processes to make those new engines, etc, isn't the smartest way to go. It would be more prudent to either put existing engines into new cars, and then consider using existing technology to upgrade currently existing blocks. Plus, it's not exactly keeping with the trend of efficiency if all they do is up the displacement. That's not high-tech at all.

 

Ever heard the expression " you can't squeeze new wine into old bottles." There comes a point of diminishing returns where you have to just start fresh. Trying to get 21st century levels of refinement, power, mileage and longetivity out of 1980's designs is probably not worth the bother.

Even Ford and Chevy eventually gave up on their pushrod smallblock motors.

BTW

Who said all they are doing is making a larger displacement motor with no new technology in it?

 

Point well taken, especially regarding technology.
has excellent, proven technology available that would not really require a whole new engine block(GDI, MIVEC, MVV, etc.).
The 4G63 block, which is the basis for the 4G64, is over 25 years old, and look what has achieved with it.
Emissions can be dealt with on the combustion level and via external piping that does not need a new block. Longevity, see answer above.
Refinement is very subjective and means something different to everyone. If you're thinking of smootheness and response, again the 4G63 (4G64) is still among the best thanks to the balance shaft design that developed about 25 years ago.
Anyway. I will probably end up eating my words.
Mark, I trust that you are correct with the 2.7l I4...
I'm just perplexed by the whole idea

 

That's what they keep telling me. New generation engine for a new generation of vehicles.

I'm going to try and find out more soon. I've got Evo training sometime this month so I'll do my usual job of harassing for more details on new product. The trainer goes all over the country but he always remembers me by name

 

You say that Mitsu is behind the times. What's the times? Some form of variable timing. Something that has never been in the states with a diamond star on it. So, instead of bringing that over, they're just gonna give us ultra high displacements, with severely inefficient low power per liter numbers. I'd say that is low tech, and exactly what a major arguement for not going domestic for. I got into imports because I love handling, and I respect technology. If I want high displacement and low-tech, I'll get a Mustang.

 

Again I have to ask, why does a larger displacement = lower technology?

 

Thanks, I appreciate it.
I'm pretty sure show off the new engine at the Chicago show, but no later than New York with the new Galant launch.