Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

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

  1. #1
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    6,015
    Thanks
    1,822
    Thanked 1,556 Times in 964 Posts

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



    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...

    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.

    ...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:

    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


    Attached Images Attached Images  

        __________________________________________

        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. #2
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Germantown, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    3,149
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 669 Times in 422 Posts
    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.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 49.0 mpg (US) ... 20.8 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 58.8 mpg (Imp)


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Location :
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    305
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
    i dont think there will be a turbo

  4. #4
    Senior Member Mikhail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    311
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 84 Times in 61 Posts
    For 3-cylinder 1.2 Engine turbo 100-110 HP is more than enough for its longest life.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    KL
    Country
    Malaysia
    Posts
    332
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 24 Times in 19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Daox View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Carmageddon m4v3r1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Hague
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 94 Times in 75 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CheezyWedges View Post
    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.

        __________________________________________

        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. The Following User Says Thank You to m4v3r1ck For This Useful Post:

    mitsumi (04-05-2016)

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Location :
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    305
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
    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.

  9. #8
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Germantown, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    3,149
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 669 Times in 422 Posts
    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.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 49.0 mpg (US) ... 20.8 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 58.8 mpg (Imp)


  10. #9
    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
    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.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Ares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Houston
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,599
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 98 Times in 71 Posts
    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.


    Last edited by Ares; 01-31-2014 at 03:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

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