Mirage turbo 1.1, 1.2L or 1.0L for the U.S.? Some recent chatter from Mitsu execs

http://mirageforum.com/forum/attachm...1&d=1381845562

A possible turbochcharged Mirage has been mentioned for the second time in the last 2 weeks. The most recent chatter is in a report from Automotive News regarding the Mirage sedan for the U.S. market.

The big concern regarding the power-hungry U.S. market is the additional weight of the sedan - it will make it slower than the 1.2L hatchback, possibly too slow. (It would be the first 3-cylinder sedan sold in the U.S.)

So...

Quote:

---

Mitsubishi is considering a downsized turbo version to get more power from the smaller engine.

---

Source (subscription may be required): http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...#ixzz2hnXPAlVH

This Automotive News piece also re-states an earlier factoid I'd read about the engine bay of the Mirage - that it isn't big enough for a 4-cylinder.

Quote:

---

...layout restrictions mean Mitsubishi can't swap it [the 3-cylinder] for a larger engine to compete with rivals in the 1.4- to 1.6-liter range.

---

The other recent turbocharging reference came from a Mitsubishi U.S. official at the Mirage's Quebec City / North America press drive introduction:

Quote:

---

Mitsubishi North America manager of product planning Bryan Arnett says he would like to see a slightly edgier Mirage -- perhaps with tighter suspension and a few extra horsepower courtesy of a turbocharger

---

Source: http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...IEWS/130939976

I think a 1.0L turbo with ~130hp (like Ford's 1.0L ecoboost) would make this a really fun car. Add a few suspension mods and you'll definitely be having some fun, and I bet you'd still get some really good mileage out of it.

i dont think there will be a turbo

For 3-cylinder 1.2 Engine turbo 100-110 HP is more than enough for its longest life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daox

I think a 1.0L turbo with ~130hp (like Ford's 1.0L ecoboost) would make this a really fun car. Add a few suspension mods and you'll definitely be having some fun, and I bet you'd still get some really good mileage out of it.

---

im not good in engine and mods. some people saying Turbo is not good for FC. is it for real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheezyWedges

im not good in engine and mods. some people saying Turbo is not good for FC. is it for real?

---

Easy to answer. Turbo compresses air so there will be massive air flow to the engine to burn, with more air to burn you need more fuel to burn it, hence the power boost. More fuel means more consumption, easy as that.

but with more air you need less fuel because it will burn cleaner?
so maybe you can also use it to have better feul eco.

There isn't a real straight forward way to answer this, but in general adding a turbocharger to an engine will decrease fuel economy. This is probably mostly due to people using the additional power they provide. However, turbocharged engines generally have lower compression ratios (which in general means its less efficient), and they also run rich when boosting which also lowers efficiency.

The fuel efficiency benefit of turbocharging mainly comes from downsizing the engine. So, for instance you take the Mirage's 1.2L and replace it with a 1.0L turbocharged engine. Now, theoretically you can have the fuel efficiency of the smaller 1.0L, but the power of the 1.2L engine. This is just a rough example.

My favorite example is the two Toyota Supras I owned at once. One was a turbo automatic, the other was a 5-speed NA. No matter how efficiently I drove my 5MT, I could never crack 25 MPG, even on tankful-to-tankful slogs down to Florida with the cruise set to 60. Car would always bring in 22-24.

Conversely, my Turbo, with more powertrain loss, would always bring in 26-28 MPG if I was mature enough to stay in the vacuum. Since it was an old-school turbo, staying -in- boost was usually harder than staying out of Both 3.0 liter engines, both pulling around 3,800 lbs. Both running on 87 octane. Could never figure it out.

Okay ladies (if there are any here) and gents, there has to be a reason why 2 or 3 major car companies or EVERYBODY and their momma's are putting turbo in their lineup.

One has already mentioned Ford, MT reported late last year that Chevy is also thinking about (or has already made) a turbo 1.0L 3 cyl powerplant.

Ford's punch line is "power of a (insert 2 more cylinders here) fuel economy of (insert two less cylinders here)". I.E.
for the F150: power of a v8, with a gas sipping v6.
for the Fusion and Escape: power of a 6cyl, with the fuel economy of a 4cyl

ALSO, there is a fine line between how much power one makes and fuel economy. My recently traded in mustang v6 can average more than 33MPG, and that's doing 70ish mph on freeways with elevation changes; I'd probably return a strong 35mpg if it were a flat freeway. How does it do it? Small rear end. My mustang had the 3.31 rear gears.

Drag racers put larger rear gearset to improve time. Do the opposite and you'll have a slower car, but might improve fuel economy.

MY POINT & CLIFFS:
1. A smaller displacement turbocharged engine might be more powerful AND might return better fuel economy that its bigger displacement NA engine.
2. Gearing can help with fuel economy - a more powerful engine with smaller gears might help fuel economy.

EDIT:
I just remembered that back in my Corolla days, corolla owners (yes, that's multiple) that have turbo'd their corollas have seen better MPG ratings when driven maturely. Can't quite remember if it's a whopping 2-3mpg or more, but I do remember them stating that MPGs got better.

EDIT2:
Someone has already turbocharged a mirage. I believe someone in the Philippines is currently developing a turbo kit for the 1.2. Only time will tell if adding a turbo can help MPG ratings. Hopefully, they can make multiple tunes: a race tune, and an eco tune.

I haven't seen any carefully documented fuel economy gains from just adding a turbo. Generally, the automaker's turbo/efficiency approach as you say is through downsizing the engine, and/or going with numerically lower gearing.

On the gearing: I actually swapped in a taller (numerically smaller) final drive ratio in my 1.0L Metro/Firefly. Fuel economy improved 5% at 80 km/h (~50 mph). Acceleration suffered, but I don't mind. Theoretically, I could have put a small turbo on it to re-gain the acceleration, and when staying out of boost also preserve the MPG gain.

Mitsu could offer a turbo 1.0 with taller gearing than the 1.2 which would outperform the 1.2 in both acceleration & fuel economy.

(Then the speed fanatics could swap their taller trans with the shorter 1.2L economy fanatics trans and everybody's happy. :D )

It's fun to speculate.

I'd be happy for a turbo model but at the same time i'd feel so robbed after buying a regular model and a year later a engine I much rather have. I'd also prefer to have a 6 speed manual for a turbo car. 120hp would be amazingly nice however I dont really wanna sacrifice mpg and I already have a evo 9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clessy

but at the same time i'd feel so robbed after buying a regular model and a year later a engine I much rather have.

---

I hear you. But that would be par for the course as far as product development & marketing goes. Think how many people who bought a Fiesta SFE (fuel economy version) in the last year or two who would have gotten the 1.0T instead if they could have! I can almost hear the "grrrrr's".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I hear you. But that would be par for the course as far as product development & marketing goes. Think how many people who bought a Fiesta SFE (fuel economy version) in the last year or two who would have gotten the 1.0T instead if they could have! I can almost hear the "grrrrr's".

---

My mother is one of those shes has a 2011 fiesta ses. Get around 38mpg on average. The problem with the new fiesta se with 1.0t is is options. It only comes on that lower trim the se and you cant have many features at all.

On hers she literally choose the highest stacked out option one on the lot. Heated leather, sync, interior coloring changing messs yadda yadda. She absolutely hate how the 1.0t doesnt offer heated leather seats.

Not to mention the Fiesta 1.0t only comes with a manual.

Ah i c ... I won't buy anymore fiestas ... aside from the amazingly good engine and superb handling and seating, that car suck. Low mpg, i can only manage 14L/KM out of it (on 1.25L engine it's hard to believe), hard to measure brakes (only a few mm distance from soft braking to hard braking). No in- and out handle to help lift yourself to get in and out of the car, closing door handle is way too far to the front.
I would love to check the Mazda 2 though ...

Don't forget the part where you feel like you're sitting in a damn spaceship and none of the radio or control buttons are where they should be - and one button for lock and unlock. So. Annoying.

Mitsu held a U.S. dealer meeting last week.

Talk turned to turbochargers in general for the entire line-up, including this nugget about the Mirage:

Quote:

---

Mitsubishi executives said the company is considering a turbocharged 1.1-liter engine for the next generation of the Mirage and Mirage G4 subcompact cars ... scheduled to hit the market around 2019.

---

Source: http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...charged-future

Via: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...blown-engines/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Mitsu held a U.S. dealer meeting last week.

Talk turned to turbochargers in general for the entire line-up, including this nugget about the Mirage:



Source: http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...charged-future

Via: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...blown-engines/

---

Interesting, the 3A91 has a little shorter stroke than the 3A92 so it might be the sweet spot for a turbo. Looking at the specs for the 3A91 it shows torque peak at 3500 rpm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I haven't seen any carefully documented fuel economy gains from just adding a turbo. Generally, the automaker's turbo/efficiency approach as you say is through downsizing the engine, and/or going with numerically lower gearing.

On the gearing: I actually swapped in a taller (numerically smaller) final drive ratio in my 1.0L Metro/Firefly. Fuel economy improved 5% at 80 km/h (~50 mph). Acceleration suffered, but I don't mind. Theoretically, I could have put a small turbo on it to re-gain the acceleration, and when staying out of boost also preserve the MPG gain.

Mitsu could offer a turbo 1.0 with taller gearing than the 1.2 which would outperform the 1.2 in both acceleration & fuel economy.

(Then the speed fanatics could swap their taller trans with the shorter 1.2L economy fanatics trans and everybody's happy. :D )

It's fun to speculate.

---

Bring back the Twin Stick!!

Ha! Yup. I actualy test drove one once! I was considering buying it. I even tried out both power/economy ranges.

Fun to drive it like an 8 speed. :D Shift shift shift shift shift shift shift shift shift shift shift...

I wonder if Mitsubishi could build a narrow angle V4? The Volkswagen Vr6 is a 15 degree V6 that is functionally the same as an inline six (single head, similar balance characteristics) but is short enough to put in the car sideways.

The V4 engines I've seen are very short, but since they were in motorcycles, they weren't as big as the Mirage engine. (VFR 800, Anyone?)

Another option is to simply make the three cylinder bigger. If Triumph can get away with a 2,300 cc three-pot, surely Mitsubishi can make a 1.6?

I just don't like turbos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinker1980

I wonder if Mitsubishi could build a narrow angle V4? The Volkswagen Vr6 is a 15 degree V6 that is functionally the same as an inline six (single head, similar balance characteristics) but is short enough to put in the car sideways.

The V4 engines I've seen are very short, but since they were in motorcycles, they weren't as big as the Mirage engine. (VFR 800, Anyone?)

Another option is to simply make the three cylinder bigger. If Triumph can get away with a 2,300 cc three-pot, surely Mitsubishi can make a 1.6?

I just don't like turbos.

---

I suppose they could but due to the 3 cylinders having a tendency to be unbalanced especially at lower rpm's I would imagine vibration could be an issue. The only difference between the 3A90 1.0, 3A91 1.1, 3A92 1.2 is the stroke. They all have the same bore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinker1980

I wonder if Mitsubishi could build a narrow angle V4? The Volkswagen Vr6 is a 15 degree V6 that is functionally the same as an inline six (single head, similar balance characteristics) but is short enough to put in the car sideways.

The V4 engines I've seen are very short, but since they were in motorcycles, they weren't as big as the Mirage engine. (VFR 800, Anyone?)

Another option is to simply make the three cylinder bigger. If Triumph can get away with a 2,300 cc three-pot, surely Mitsubishi can make a 1.6?

I just don't like turbos.

---

V4 would have much worse thermal efficiency, much higher friction drag and more expensive to build. New engine development would cost a fortune, GM spent billions developing new ones so did Ford.

The easiest solution would be turbo or fitting already certified 4B11 engine. If it doesn't fit 4A92 which has excellent FE and used on Lancers in other markets. Turbo would likely be the easiest solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inuvik

I suppose they could but due to the 3 cylinders having a tendency to be unbalanced especially at lower rpm's I would imagine vibration could be an issue. The only difference between the 3A90 1.0, 3A91 1.1, 3A92 1.2 is the stroke. They all have the same bore.

---

if the 1.2 engine was bored to an 80mm bore, it would be a 1.4 liter engine. 5mm over would be a bit much, but it's doable - Chevy smallblock engines range from 265 to 400 cubic inches, and they all use the same block. (But different cranks)

I don't think the vibes would be that big a deal either. The engine would vibrate at idle, of course. Mine does. But I can't feel it in the car. Inline 4 cylinder engines have vibration issues as well.

Cyclopathic - Don't dismiss the narrow angle V4 so quickly - as far as balance and thermal efficiency go, it's the same as an inline 4. One cylinder head. The angle between the cylinders would be only 15 degrees - by comparison, a Harley-davidson engine is 45 degrees. The reason for this is to make the overall engine length shorter, while keeping the same number of cylinders and the same general characteristics of the inline engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinker1980

Cyclopathic - Don't dismiss the narrow angle V4 so quickly - as far as balance and thermal efficiency go, it's the same as an inline 4. One cylinder head. The angle between the cylinders would be only 15 degrees - by comparison, a Harley-davidson engine is 45 degrees. The reason for this is to make the overall engine length shorter, while keeping the same number of cylinders and the same general characteristics of the inline engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine

---

I am familiar with the VR history, and I know that they managed to get it working with 2 camshafts only. Still more valve control hardware. In case of say Aprilia RSV4 or Honda V4 (VF800/1200 or ST1100/1300/Pan Euro) they suck MPG-wise when compared to inlines due to higher thermal losses (2 banks of cylinders) and mechanical losses.

With respect to thermal efficiency, I3 is inherently more efficient that I4 (ideal single cylinder displacement ~500cc), and I4 is inherently more efficient than V4. If you look at mechanical losses I3 has less than I4 and I4 has less than V4.

I suppose you could make similar argument on I1/I2 thumper and P-twin engines, but they have issue with balance and require balance shafts with big losses. I3 is easier, because it is a half of I6. I6 is balanced alone all 3 axis, I3 is alone 2: vertical and lateral and can be easily balanced alone longitudinal with flywheel/pulley cutouts.

BTW there is a reason why VW ditched VR engines in favor or turbo, read this:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-slo...lkswagen-vr-6/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinker1980

if the 1.2 engine was bored to an 80mm bore, it would be a 1.4 liter engine. 5mm over would be a bit much, but it's doable - Chevy smallblock engines range from 265 to 400 cubic inches, and they all use the same block. (But different cranks)

---

3A engine has 83mm bore pitch, 80mm bore is not doable.

Another pub on possible turbo future:
http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...charged-future

They are taking about new SUV slotted btw Outlander and Outlander Sport with 1.5L turbo at 2018, and turbo 1.1 on Mirage at redesign.

Quote:

---

At a make meeting on Sunday, Mitsubishi executives told American dealers that a series of turbocharged engines is on the way to the United States, led by a 1.5-liter engine that is scheduled to make its debut in a new midsize crossover in 2018.

---

Quote:

---

Mitsubishi executives said the company is considering a turbocharged 1.1-liter engine for the next generation of the Mirage and Mirage G4 subcompact cars, plus a larger turbocharged engine for the next generation of the Outlander three-row crossover. Those three revisions are scheduled to hit the market around 2019

---

I supposed we'll see in 2.5 years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclopathic

I supposed we'll see in 2.5 years or so.

---

I wonder how the fuel economy scandal will affect the company and plans like this.

Automotive News updated their Future Product Pipeline Mirage page on 08-31-2017, repeating their forecast that "A re-engineered Mirage should bow in 2019 and pick up a new 1.1-liter turbocharged three-cylinder engine."

Interesting!

It would have been good if they'd indicated the source of that info -- obviously they can't reveal identity, but did the info come from a dealer, corporate (which country), etc.?

Meh I'll keep the simplicity of a NA engine.