Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

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

  1. #11
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,881
    Thanks
    1,748
    Thanked 1,494 Times in 926 Posts
    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. )

    It's fun to speculate.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage base ES 1.2 manual: 54.0 mpg (US) ... 23.0 km/L ... 4.4 L/100 km ... 64.9 mpg (Imp)


  2. #12
    Senior Member Clessy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Raleigh
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
    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.

  3. #13
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,881
    Thanks
    1,748
    Thanked 1,494 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Clessy View Post
    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".

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage base ES 1.2 manual: 54.0 mpg (US) ... 23.0 km/L ... 4.4 L/100 km ... 64.9 mpg (Imp)


  4. #14
    Senior Member Clessy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Raleigh
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,881
    Thanks
    1,748
    Thanked 1,494 Times in 926 Posts
    Not to mention the Fiesta 1.0t only comes with a manual.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage base ES 1.2 manual: 54.0 mpg (US) ... 23.0 km/L ... 4.4 L/100 km ... 64.9 mpg (Imp)


  6. #16
    Carmageddon m4v3r1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Hague
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 94 Times in 75 Posts
    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 ...

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Mirage 1.0 manual: 47.5 mpg (US) ... 20.2 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 57.0 mpg (Imp)


  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Jamesburg, NJ
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    116
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
    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.

  8. #18
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,881
    Thanks
    1,748
    Thanked 1,494 Times in 926 Posts

    latest chatter: 1.1L Mirage turbo for 2019

    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:

    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/

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage base ES 1.2 manual: 54.0 mpg (US) ... 23.0 km/L ... 4.4 L/100 km ... 64.9 mpg (Imp)


  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:

    91cavgt (04-07-2016),Daox (04-04-2016),inuvik (04-04-2016)

  10. #19
    Moderator inuvik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coos Bay, OR
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,700
    Thanks
    1,299
    Thanked 559 Times in 415 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    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.
    Last edited by inuvik; 04-04-2016 at 07:32 PM. Reason: Additional info

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 40.7 mpg (US) ... 17.3 km/L ... 5.8 L/100 km ... 48.9 mpg (Imp)


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to inuvik For This Useful Post:

    MetroMPG (04-13-2016)

  12. #20
    Moderator inuvik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coos Bay, OR
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,700
    Thanks
    1,299
    Thanked 559 Times in 415 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    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. )

    It's fun to speculate.
    Bring back the Twin Stick!!


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 40.7 mpg (US) ... 17.3 km/L ... 5.8 L/100 km ... 48.9 mpg (Imp)


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to inuvik For This Useful Post:

    MetroMPG (04-04-2016),poorman1 (09-03-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •