The Japanese brand's compact crossover is now offered with a 2.4-liter four-cylinder making 168 horsepower and 167 pound-feet of torque, and it's hooked up to a CVT. That works out to a jump of 20 hp and 22 lb-ft over the current 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the Outlander Sport. Fuel economy is rated at 23 miles per gallon city, 28 mpg highway and 25 mpg combined for the front-wheel drive version or 23/26/24 for all-wheel drive models.

The larger engine is only available on the ES and GT trim levels. Prices for the 2.4 ES start at at $21,295, plus an $850 destination charge on all models, and it also gets a black center bumper. The 2.4 GT rings up for $23,595 and adds things like a power driver's seat, black roof rails and LED turn signals in the mirrors. Additionally, customers can option the GT Premium Package for an upgraded stereo, moonroof and auto-dimming rearview mirror. There's also the GT Touring Package with leather seats and a seven-inch navigation system.

Source: MMNA, Autoblog
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/07/2...port-official/


So there you have it. Let the trade ins begin.

 

^
Thanks for the heads up!
This is a 'good' step in the right direction..

Definitely will schedule a test drive when the model comes in!

> I would still have preferred a 2.0L Turbo though, Especially since Mitsu decided to use the GT moniker.
Should have kept the 2.4L in ES, SE trim... Drop that silly LE lineup.

 

I thought the 2015's have been out since last year(?) so wasn't expecting a motor change until MMA rolls out the redesigned(?) 2016 model (just speculating). So wonder if they will delay the release of the new exterior design.....

 

This is considered a mid year upgrade, like some companies do the silly 2015.5 nonsense. Although, I also agree they don't delay the new body style as well. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what they end up doing for 2016

Still want to schedule a test drive once my dealer gets a few of these suckers in though, that was the one thing I said when I bought mine, wish it had a 2.4 haha

 

This kinda sucks for me as I just got my 2015 last month

Wish I had of known of a mid-year refresh.

 

Yeah..
Too bad there's no such thing as a Trade-back program. (At least give us a 4 weeks leeway.)

 

My dealer as a 30 day trade back :-)

Anywho, the 2.4 gets worse mpgs, which I understand and all but shoot, I don't get close to advertised on a 2.0 FWD, kind of worries me what the new 2.4s will actually get.

 

Indeed! That's generous.


Well, at least with the 2.4L - One issue of Not having enough umph is hopefully fixed!
(Which is a hell of a lot better when you consider our current situation.. of not getting enough Power AND efficiency.)

Just a note -
We had another member who recently stated they had poor MPGs also with their FWD, but it improved when they had their spark plugs replaced (at their dealer). Something you can look into.

 

I personally do not really understand the "hunger for more power" attitude of the North American cutomers. The speed limits have not changed in the past 15 or so years, the brakes did not improve significantly, we, humans have not gained the ability to react faster etc. The question is then, why do we need more powerful cars than we had 15 years ago? The cars certainly are safer now so we more likely to survive an accident at higher speed in the new cars than in the old ones. In Europe the ASX is also offered with a 1.6 L engine (2WD only) with 115 HP and people are perfectly capable moving around with that engine. The competitors are also offered with weaker engines there (e.g. Nissan Juke: 1.6 L NA (naturally aspirated), Honda CRV: 2.0L NA; Hyundai IX35 (Tucson here):1.6L NA; Kia Sportage 1.6 L NA etc.).
The benefit of the new 2.0 L (4J11, used in the full size Outlander and Outlander PHEV in Europe) and the 2.4 L ( 4J12) is better fuel economy without the necessity to go to direct injection (Mitsubishi burnt its finger with this technology in the 90s). This is achieved by going from DOHC (4B11, 4B12) to SOHC reducing internal friction. According to Mitsubishi the 2.0L, 4J11 engine is 12% more fuel efficient in the European full size Outlander than the old 4B11. One should expect a similar improvement on the 2.4L variant. I have not explored yet whether the 2.4 L engine in the OS/RVR will be the 4B12 or the 4J12.
As far as wishing for any turbo: turbocharged engine = lowered longevity, shorter warranty, higher fuel consumption. If the OS/RVR would have been available only with the Ralliart turbo engine I would not have bought it. The CVT can have its issues I admit but not as much as the SST transmission. No wonder, Mitsubishi offers half as long warranty on the EVO and Ralliart models as on the rest of the fleet. I know my opinion is far from representative of this forum but I value safety and reliability way above driving dynamics.

 

First of all, it is not an attitude/desire for "more power" in itself.
We did not buy a (small) family CUV out of the need/"hunger" for horsepower listed on the window sticker.
But, the weight of our vehicles (curb weight ~3,300lb) needs to be factored in (against available power**).
Unfortunately something that abstract is not really known/understood, until AFTER you've lived with this vehicle for a time.


You are Half correct about speed limits.
-- Depending on where you live... For me and my family in major metro area like Dallas, there are such things as Tollways where speed limits are 70MPH (that's within the City, NOT out on Interstates Hwys or out in the country dirt roads), so now the situation is > there are other drivers who cruise at 75-80MPH regularly on those Tollways.

I'm stating this fact Not to claim that I (nor my wife) want or need to drive at 70 or beyond the posted speeds.

> My point of wishing for a bit more umph is to get onto the on-ramps of those said Tollways >> Due ONLY to the fact they are very short, and with our lame engines it does not provide enough acceleration to move our vehicle up to speed quick enough to SAFELY merge into traffic that's traveling at 70+ MPH.

No matter how much you step on the gas you can not accelerate quickly enough in the given distance of the on-ramp to not have these drivers come racing up behind you, either honking their horns or nearing missing crashing into you.
And, it is not a sight you want to see (Especially what we have already experienced ONCE) - a larger SUV, F150/F250 trucks, or Semi coming towards you that you want to be lacking in power at "those moments". There are lots of SUVs/trucks here in Texas.

So, when you claim speed limits have not changed in the past 15 years (it may be absolutely true in your area) and I have not doubts IF everybody will drive at or below 55MPH then there is NO need for more power.





** Fact is -
I used to drive a little Mazda with an 1.8L (naturally aspirated) /118HP FWD 5-speed, moving a 2,280lb vehicle (with ME in it) and the car scooted onto the highways just fine. And, I didn't have any desire for more horsepower.

 

I agree with mRVRsport, it's not wanting to rip around the HWY's etc. it' all about the available power for a heavy vehicle.

I'm coming from a V6 so I did anticipate a loss in this regard, it has also taken some time to get used too.

When starting from scratch or merging onto a HWY you do have to gauge your speed properly. This is something that sorta sucks with the RVR. More power coming in a refresh should help in this regard.

Again, my initial issue was I just got a 2015 with the 2.0L and I wasn't told of any sort of refresh. Not a huge deal, I'm still enjoying the little SUV

 

I understand and know what you are talking about. I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 6 years and driven in the major SW US cities frequently before moving to Montreal. I always had a car that was considered by the local standards underpowered. Very rarely felt unsafe on the road because of that and felt much safer on the road in the US than in Canada. The speeding issue you mentioned, however, is related to culture (or the lack thereof). The fine example is the German Autobahn, where there is no speed limit in some places. Regardless, many driver chooses respectable speeds. If someone wants to drive at 130+ mph only the far left lane is available for them and as you go towards the right lane the traveling speed drops gradually. So, in Dallas nobody should drive on the right lane at 80 mph, where people try to merge. Ah, of course people do not understand this so the only solution is regulation, e.g. trough taxation. Outside North America people have to pay taxes if they run cars with unnecessarily high power (higher consumption= higher CO2 emission = carbon tax or luxury tax). Fewer customers would buy these excessively powerful cars and this would lead to safer roads, not to mention the moral gain in protecting the environment. If the manufacturers could not sell that many cars with powerful engines they would not bother to offer them (they would not need to develop engines specifically for this market= cheaper production=lower car prices). The only reason they make them because there is a need from the society and I believe it is fuelled by auto journalists.
Freedom (here, buying any car you wish) can only be extended as long as it does not endanger the safety of the society and the future of it. I think (and the quote from you above confirms this) we have reached this point. Respect for other participants in the traffic became extinct.

 

hmmm, seriously planning on picking up an ES 2wd OS this weekend (just have not made a final decision on either CVT or the 5sp manual - that mainly due to what I've summarized (from the diff forums and articles I've read) as a "would have been perfect had it had more power..." general consensus and thinking the 5sp would somewhat make up for that.

the car will be for the wifey who drives on the fwy to get to work 40 miles round trip, as much as she'd rather not - she is willing to get the 5sp manual if the cvt feels "turtlish". When I google 0-60 I get so many differing results anywhere from 8.7secs (which really would not be bad) to 13 secs (now that would be bad). So now this discussion is putting me on the fence on whether we should go for the 2.0 or not, although where in the world would you find a comparable vehicle for $16K (tad under $18K out the door)

 

Corrected.

Answer: in the CUV class there's not many that can match the features/value.



*********
If my wife and I had the option for the 2.4L back then, it would have been a no-brainer for us to go with the upgraded motor!


Now not knowing when exactly the 2.4L will arrive in dealerships, makes it a tough call.
Can you wife wait a bit longer?


I bet you anything she be happier not having to manual shift in rush-hour traffic.

**********************************

Suggestion Change -

I didn't pay much attention to the increase in MSRP for the base model... SO, If you are still looking for a Sub-$19K CUV, perhaps it's best to bite the bullet and go with the current 2.0L because with the starting suggested price of the 2.4s and it being so new, it'll probably very difficult for you to negotiate it down much.

I'm sure the "older" model will have plenty of incentives even on a fully loaded SE or LE trims.
Good luck and whatever you get, just make sure the wife is happy



8.7secs IF you're going down a decline** with wind at your backs.


13secs WHEN you're going Up an incline on-ramp***. Good luck.



** probably an off-ramp (or going down a mountain, jk-ing).

*** that's way too short to begin with.

 

mRVR, LMAO!!!! (but seriously got me worried there for a while, turns out for the wife's use she says it enough power)

Anyway we pulled the trigger this past week on a Mercury Gray ES FWD w/CVT (still need to get a hang of that fake gear shifting feature), $18,800 OTD.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ou...l#post11399026

The car had a manufacture date of October 2014 - hope that was a good batch (quality control in the assembly process seems to be an issue, on several OS' that we checked out you could see uneven gaps in the hood, trunk lid, bumper and fender areas - damn how could they have missed those???? I would normally not occur to me to look for those gaps but they were so obvious).