Notices

2011 vs 2015: OS/RVR - 2015 Much faster....

 
Old Sep 29, 2015, 02:38 PM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2011 vs 2015: OS/RVR - 2015 Much faster....

So we purchased our 2011 RVR when they first came out.

Due to a screw up at the dealership they gave us a 2015 loaner for a few days.
It is a 2.0L and not a 2.4L I would have liked to try the 2.4L but they couldn't get me one and it was almost closing time.

It had 16" wheels, no pano roof, and a few less options than our '11 GT, but it did have AWC.

I immediately noticed how much faster it felt. The 2015 was also much quieter, no more buzzi'ness while accelerating. I'm sure it would get better gas mileage also. but not enough time to test that out.

So what changed? I looked under the hood, it is still the same 2.0L 4B11 (I think i remember the engine code correctly). Both CVT, both AWC.

There is no way a few options can make that much of a difference. My wife even noticed it and says it feels so different.

Our 2011 was never updated to newer software even after my complaints I even shows them the service bulletins, but they refused to do anything unless they keep it for a few days and reproduce the symptoms.


Has anyone else with a 2011 test drove a newer model and felt the same?
tdott is offline  
Old Sep 29, 2015, 03:28 PM
  #2  
Evolved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 1,032
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
I have not done the test drive comparison, but I think my 2011 RVR has great pep. Just wish it was a 5 speed manual.
CottageLifer is offline  
Old Sep 29, 2015, 04:20 PM
  #3  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
After another drive, it feels like the CVT on the 2015 was much better calibrated or something, part/moderate throttle had much better acceleration and like I said before, the engine was much quieter.

I popped the hood and try to spot any differences such as more insulation or different intake setup, but they both appear to be the same engine bay wise.

I wish our 2011 felt as peppy as the loaner we got.
tdott is offline  
Old Sep 29, 2015, 05:19 PM
  #4  
Evolving Member
 
Nast_Nas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Meridian, Mississippi
Posts: 414
Received 35 Likes on 35 Posts
In 13 they updated the programming and also in 15
Nast_Nas is offline  
Old Sep 29, 2015, 10:00 PM
  #5  
Newbie
 
BMX RACR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Gastonia NC/Rock Hill SC
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My Mom has a 13 and I have a 15 with the 2.0..mine is much quicker than hers and the CVT is totally different.
BMX RACR is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 04:58 AM
  #6  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Hiboost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 3,222
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
There very well could be a difference but without putting actual numbers to it you really can't solely depend on the butt dyno as they say.

There were definitely some CVT programming changes, not sure if flash updates alone would bring them closer in performance to each other again or if there were other subtle changes that altered the performance.
Hiboost is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 05:26 AM
  #7  
Evolved Member
 
TEXAS TRAVISTY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 936
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
i would like to know if there were any CVT program updates that would make it perform better, that would be awesome if they got leaked on line and were able to be uploaded. I don't think I need the engine side of the update do to the tune making the O.S. perform superbly.
TEXAS TRAVISTY is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 06:19 AM
  #8  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hiboost View Post
There very well could be a difference but without putting actual numbers to it you really can't solely depend on the butt dyno as they say.
While I agree with you, the difference is still noticeable.

Hopefully one day someone figures it out, from the part numbers of the Jatco cvt and engine code there does not appear to be any hardware differences amongst the years, even if there was an someone figured it out there might be a way to upgrade older models.

Aside from the CVT behaving differently, it was also noticeablely quieter, I didn't see any additional insulation under the hood, so I wonder what they did to achieve that.
tdott is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 07:25 AM
  #9  
Evolved Member
 
AWCAWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 591
Received 30 Likes on 29 Posts
Independent testers measured under standardized conditions 0-60 mph times for the 11 and the 15 models and a 0.3 s difference was reported to favor the 15 model year.
Motorweek tested the 2011 model and measured 9.5 s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz2glDfsbqg
Edmunds tested the 2015 model and found 9.2 s for 0-60mph:
http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/ou...cat=affiliates
Both test appeared to be conducted in winter (Edmunds' report appeared in January and Motorweek refers to a cold pavement).
I seriously doubt that the difference is significant as we cannot predict the error of those measurements. 0.3 s difference cannot be felt by humans.
Mitsubishi programmed the CVTs nearly every year according to news reports featuring the new models but it did not translate into faster 0-60 times.
People sense speed by also borrowing information from hearing. If the speed is more appealing (in case of CVTs the drowning, or a better sound insulation: a car does not appear to stuggle as much) we tend to think it is faster. That is the primary reason that many people condemn cars with CVTs as slower than conventional automatic. There is no proof for this. Edmunds measured 0-60 times for the following CUVs: Kia Sportage (9.2 s), Honda CR-V ( 6 speed AT, 9.7 s), Mazda CX-5 (2.0 L engine; 9.3 s).
Motorweek also did some measurements earlier: Mazda CX-5 (9.6 s), Subaru XV (9.8 s)
These differences are marginal. Try cranking the volume of the radio up and just rely on your vision, eliminate the sound effect.
What has improved over time is the sound insulation has got definitely better and a surprising fact. The Nexen tires appear to provide better traction than the early Good Year ones on dry pavement.
Breaking distances on the 2011 and 2015 models are, 125 ft and 119 ft, respectively (Motorweek and Edmunds data).
We need 0-60 and 60-0 times to avoid accidents and this cannot be avoided by the sensed speed or sensed stopping distance. For the same reason these days airplanes are rather flown by instrument data and not by sensed position and speed.
I understand that this comment may be counterintuitive to some of you but we need proof to justify statements as "faster" or "slower"with facts. Otherwise, as fmr. President, Clinton said last night on a CNN interview: "Branding can be fact free".
AWCAWD is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 08:07 AM
  #10  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You also have to keep in mind that flat out at WOT isn't the only scenario and isn't representative of real world driving.

My point is part throttle acceleration is noticeably improved. When people say that, I know the first thing is to be sceptical, but all I can say is that I trust my senses more than your average person, but everyone is going to say that right?

I donno what else to say other than this is a daily and that my second car is a '13 BMW M3 which I track, I've owned several M3s in the past too. I can feel when my car is set to -2 camber in front vs -2.5 when on it's track setting. I do all my own work, I've done engines, transmissions swaps from auto to manual and everything in between. I just know BMWs better than Mitsu's.

Does that help convince you a little that I know what am talking about? and not just some soccer Mom with delusional tenancies?
tdott is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 08:34 AM
  #11  
Evolved Member
 
AWCAWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 591
Received 30 Likes on 29 Posts
Originally Posted by tdott View Post
You also have to keep in mind that flat out at WOT isn't the only scenario and isn't representative of real world driving.

My point is part throttle acceleration is noticeably improved. When people say that, I know the first thing is to be sceptical, but all I can say is that I trust my senses more than your average person, but everyone is going to say that right?



Does that help convince you a little that I know what am talking about? and not just some soccer Mom with delusional tenancies?
That is a good point and I could not agree more. Also, there must be some data on 0-20, 0-30, and so on measurements to see this supported by facts.
AWCAWD is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 11:10 AM
  #12  
Evolved Member
 
mRVRsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Out towards the countryside of Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 2,739
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
@tdott,


I thought you were some kind of digital ghost. You originally posted the OS Gallery thread and then we've never saw anything else from you... til now.






********


Originally Posted by tdott View Post
...

I donno what else to say other than this is a daily and that my second car is a '13 BMW M3 which I track, I've owned several M3s in the past too. I can feel when my car is set to -2 camber in front vs -2.5 when on it's track setting. I do all my own work, I've done engines, transmissions swaps from auto to manual and everything in between. I just know BMWs better than Mitsu's.

...
Most impressive.
mRVRsport is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 11:22 AM
  #13  
Evolved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 1,032
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by AWCAWD View Post
That is a good point and I could not agree more. Also, there must be some data on 0-20, 0-30, and so on measurements to see this supported by facts.
There's an App for that. (I Think)
CottageLifer is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 12:13 PM
  #14  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mRVRsport View Post
@tdott,
I thought you were some kind of digital ghost. You originally posted the OS Gallery thread and then we've never saw anything else from you... til now.
lol, I checked in from time to time but there really isn't much action in the Mitsu world. I'm more active in the BMW scene.

Edit: Quick update on our 2011 RVR, it past 100k km recently. Did complete brakes and new Michelin Defender tires, hopefully it goes for another 100k troublefree. Unless I get bored and get something else

Last edited by tdott; Sep 30, 2015 at 12:41 PM.
tdott is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2015, 02:55 PM
  #15  
Evolved Member
 
mRVRsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Out towards the countryside of Dallas, TX (USA)
Posts: 2,739
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by tdott View Post
lol, I checked in from time to time but there really isn't much action in the Mitsu world. I'm more active in the BMW scene.

Edit: Quick update on our 2011 RVR, it past 100k km recently. Did complete brakes and new Michelin Defender tires, hopefully it goes for another 100k troublefree. Unless I get bored and get something else


Is that right..?
Don't suppose you're active on E46fanatics, are you??




********


For a daily mule?
Funny, my wife and I just recently talked about possibly upgrading (in size). Can't quite decide if I want to stay with mitsu or go back to a bimmer (or something else.)
mRVRsport is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2011 vs 2015: OS/RVR - 2015 Much faster....


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.