Ha!
think what you're seeing is called union labor? Could have been a Thursday-Friday batch...

Well, at least the engine and transmission are built mostly in Japan.

Welcome to the club.
Start a thread and post up some photos

 

I'm sorry I have to totally disagree. There is a need, I have driven the Autobahn in the pouring rain, I have driven the Nurburgring in the pouring rain. I have watched Formula 1 since I was born.
There is only one thing to say - Power !!!!!!

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:RAAAAAR.gif

The need to know that your poor decision can be overcome by the car that has enough power is what a driver needs. Merging, pulling out into traffic all need POWER!!!!!!
Je ne parle francias but god damn give me POWER!!!!!!!

 

^

 

what he said!

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion and I fully respect your viewpoint even if I disagree. If I may I would like to point out some general rules and guidelines concerning publication though:
1. If you are quoting someone's message, by definition of the word "quote" you should not alter it even if you do not agree with it. Currently it appears as if I have had posted "blah blah blah". This would never happen because If I have nothing meaningful to say I would not post. Your action has not only violated the rules of publication but it is also disrespectful. I am not holding a grudge against you.
2. Full capitalization and the number of exclamation marks you include to your message do not necessarily make your argument stronger, rather the opposite. It projects anger due to the lack of counter argument.

If you read my post you must realize that I did not refer to driving on a Formula 1 race track, my comments were strictly aimed to driving on a public road that is shared with fellow motorists, who would like to arrive home safely. I hope when you drive on public roads you are not mistaken them with Nürburgring.
No mistakes go unpunished. If you think your poor decisions could be corrected by your car (as your message states) then you make an even a bigger mistake. It is irrelevant whether you agree or not your stopping distance on the same road with the same car will be proportional to the square of your speed. With a concrete example: if one travels with 60 miles/hour his/her car can stop on a dry pavement in about 121 feet (an average among cars tested by Motor Week on YouTube). However, going with 80 miles/hour the same person with the same car will need 211 feet to come to a complete stop. The stopping distance has just nearly doubled by this 20 miles/hour increase of speed. Again, this is physics and the laws of physics do not care what anybody's feeling or opinion is. This above example also means that if someone is going 80 miles/hour and needs to slow down rapidly to 60 miles/hour because let's say someone is merging into the highway he/she will need the minimum of 90 feet (211 feet - 121 feet) to do so. This is not going to happen any faster in a car with higher power. So those, who wish more power to merge quicker should also consider being on the other side (namely to be able to slow down when someone else would merge while they themselves are going 80 miles/hour).

 

Pricing is now available for us Canadians......

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.ca/en/v...trims/le-2-4l/

 

According to the specs in the link above the engine will be the old DOHC (4B12) and not the new(er) 4J12. If this is true then it is a very disappointing move from Mitsubishi because it means that they really do not care about the North American market. The 4B12 engine will have worse fuel economy in the RVR/OS than the current 4B11, while with the 4J12 they could have maintained the same fuel consumption with the added benefit of 20 more HP and 20+ lbft of torque.
The third generation full size Outlander has already been offered here with the 4J12 engine thus, it is even more puzzling why the OS/RVR would be offered with the older, less fuel efficient 2.4L design.

 

Yes, sad to see such a short sighted "upgrade".

I'll bet you anything Mitsu just had an Overstock of these older 4B12s lying around and needed to unload them off on someone.

 

I never thought that at some point an SOHC engine will be more advanced than a DOHC one. I am old enough to have witnessed the opposite directional move. This is one more reason why we should never rely on our senses and feelings when it comes to science and technology: it is a number game only. The clock, the ruler, and the scale never lies.

 

Well that's not as amazing to witness than seeing their output... how certain "stock" production 4-cylinders can be as powerful as most V6s let alone V8s...
That's something totally mind blowing to even consider a decade ago.


Now we have electric motors that's Even MORE powerful than V10s at a fraction of the weight of a 4-cylinder engine block.
Double mind blown!

 

if anything they should have done a rally edition with the ralliart turbo and cvt... le' sigh

 

Gotta say I'm a little disappointed in the choice of the anemic 2.4 , I mean 168hp vs 148, I'm wouldn't bother with it, probably do An intake and exhaust on mine before "upgrading" to worse MPGs.
That's just me and I didn't buy an outlander sport for the power anyway, I needed a winter car with awd and you can't beat the amenities for the price so I'm happy with it.

 

Those Japanese marketing execs back at coporate are probably thinking -
Silly Americans... long as we give them a "bigger" motor (by just .4 of a liter) they will just take it as "being better".

 

US website has been updated now as well with some spec info.

http://www.mitsubishicars.com/outlan...pecifications#

MPG take a little bit of a hit with the new engine which was expected.

 

^
That's just so very sad.

Not only are we getting a Very slight bump in horsepower with the new motor.. But, we're taking a big hit on MPGs >
ours
2.4L MIVEC DOHC 16-valve Inline 4-cylinder (4B12), 168 HP @ 6000 rpm, 167 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm, redline 6,500 rpm : 23 City, 26 Highway, 24 Combined
[ actual Displacement 2,360 cc ]
(Data directly from Mitsu updated site. LINK)

vs.

theirs
2.5L SKYACTIV-G 4-cylinder engine with SKYACTIV-Drive 6-speed automatic trans (Sport AWD), 184 HP @ 5700 rpm, 185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm, redline 6,500 rpm : City 24 , 30 Highway (AWD)
[ actual Displacement 2488 cc ]
(Data directly from Mazda's site, LINK)

And, they are able to squeeze out more power at lower RPMs than ours, we are right at our redline limit.

I know it's a bigger class SUV.. However, I'm just comparing the engine's technical specs.

Even if you compare our Outlander to the CX-5, their specs are still better.
Which is odd when you take into consideration their engine came out about 2 years ago.
(And, just a side note, it ONLY took Mazda Less than one vehicle cycle to upgrade their engine option.)