View Poll Results: Would you have chosen the 1.0L engine if it were an option?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Absolutely! Even better economy and enough power for me.

    35 61.40%
  • Hmm... I'd have to compare against the 1.2L.

    5 8.77%
  • Only if they turbocharge it!

    11 19.30%
  • Not a chance! 1.2L is as low as I will go.

    6 10.53%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Thread: Poll: 1.0L Mirage engine = 7.5% better fuel economy. Would you choose it?

  1. #1
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,513
    Thanks
    1,498
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 822 Posts

    Poll: 1.0L Mirage engine = 7.5% better fuel economy. Would you choose it?



    For those of you who got the 1.2, would you have bought or considered the 1.0 if it were available? You get a bit less power, but better fuel economy.

    The 1.0L 3A90 engine is ony available in the Mirage / Space Star in Japan and parts of Europe. The Euro/Asian ratings for the 2 engines are:

    1.2L 3A92 --- 57 kW (78 PS / 77 HP) @ 6000 rpm
    1.0L 3A90 --- 52 kW (71 PS / 70 HP) @ 6000 rpm

    So, roughly 9% less power. In North American spec, that would translate to roughly 67 HP instead of 74.

    I would pick the 1.0 in a heartbeat. (I currently drive a 1.0L 5MT ... not a Mirage ... with about 50 HP, in a car that's only slightly lighter than the 5MT Mirage.)

    Some auto reviewers even prefer driving the 1.0 over the 1.2 (but didn't say why): Mitsubishi go big on Space Star's small price (Ireland review - Independent.ie)


        __________________________________________

        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
    2,986
    Thanks
    1,079
    Thanked 593 Times in 379 Posts
    How much better mileage would you estimate the 1.0L would get vs the 1.2L?

        __________________________________________

        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
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,513
    Thanks
    1,498
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 822 Posts
    Looks like about 7.5% better economy going by the "combined" Euro rating (Netherlands: Euro-5b)...

    Totally worth it in my book.


    1.0 L
    5-speed manual
    Auto Stop & Go
    1.2 L
    5-speed manual
    Auto Stop & Go
    Urban 4.6 L/100 km
    21.7 km/L
    51.1 mpg (US)
    5.0 L/100 km
    20.0 km/L
    47 mpg (US)
    Extra Urban 3.6 L/100 km
    27.8 km/L
    65.3 mpg (US)
    3.9 L/100 km
    25.6 km/L
    60.3 mpg (US)
    Combined 4.0 L/100 km
    25 km/L
    58.8 mpg (US)
    4.3 L/100 km
    23.3 km/L
    54.7 mpg (US)

    2013/2014 Mirage mpg / fuel economy ratings by country (Space Star also)


        __________________________________________

        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. #4
    Administrator Daox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Germantown, WI
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    2,986
    Thanks
    1,079
    Thanked 593 Times in 379 Posts
    I would definitely go for it for 7.5% boost in fuel economy.

    I also think the 1.0L is a more highly engineered engine. It has a higher compression ratio and is likely a bit more refined, thus the 17% displacement drop, but only 9% hp drop.

        __________________________________________

        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)


  5. #5
    Senior Member Clessy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Raleigh
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    138
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
    The power difference is negligible at best. Its around 5 to 7 hp. You wouldnt even feel it. To be honest a nice exhaust and a intake would give it right back to you with a better sound too.

  6. #6
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    5,513
    Thanks
    1,498
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 822 Posts

    acceleration & top speed

    A bit more data to put the power differences of the 1.2L vs 1.0L engines in perspective...

    Engine/Trans 0-62 mph (0-100 kph) Top speed
    1.0L, 5MT manual (Mirage "1") 13.6 seconds 107 mph (172 km/h)
    1.2L, 5MT manual (Mirage "2" and "3") 11.7 seconds 112 mph (180 km/h)

    From: Mirage acceleration times: 0-62 mph / 0-100 km/h and top speed (1.0L & 1.2L engines)

    For anyone who said they'd rather have the 1.0... does that change your mind?

    Wouldn't change mine. My car's already quite a bit slower than 13.6 sec to 100 km/h! And the way I normally drive, I don't mind at all.

        __________________________________________

        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)


  7. #7
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    A bit more data to put the power differences of the 1.2L vs 1.0L engines in perspective...

    Engine/Trans 0-62 mph (0-100 kph) Top speed
    1.0L, 5MT manual (Mirage "1") 13.6 seconds 107 mph (172 km/h)
    1.2L, 5MT manual (Mirage "2" and "3") 11.7 seconds 112 mph (180 km/h)

    From: Mirage acceleration times: 0-62 mph / 0-100 km/h and top speed (1.0L & 1.2L engines)

    For anyone who said they'd rather have the 1.0... does that change your mind?

    Wouldn't change mine. My car's already quite a bit slower than 13.6 sec to 100 km/h! And the way I normally drive, I don't mind at all.
    For me, the 1.0 would be out of the question. My 3A92 already spends quite a but of time at ~6,000 rpm as I try to wring her for all she's worth, especially if I have 2-3 passengers onboard.

    Now, a 1.0T would be a different story...

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Manitoba
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    464
    Thanks
    154
    Thanked 72 Times in 51 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
    For anyone who said they'd rather have the 1.0... does that change your mind?
    Yes! I like to drive 180km/h most of the time. Having to slow down to 172km/h would make it feel like I was crawling - you know how it is, watching the pavement slowly pass underfoot thinking "I might as well just get out and walk!"

    Also, sometimes instead of brushing the snow off my car I just wind it up to around 178km/h to blow the snow off, and it seems that the 1.0L engine would not be capable of this, so it means more work for me, and my time is valuable.

    There is no replacement for displacement (except maybe electric drives . . . )

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage SE 1.2 manual: 45.0 mpg (US) ... 19.1 km/L ... 5.2 L/100 km ... 54.1 mpg (Imp)


  9. #9
    Senior Member zefke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Netherlands
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    151
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 21 Times in 10 Posts
    Over here in the Netherlands the 1.0 is fast enough to get you a speeding ticket everywhere within 15 seconds!!

    I also have a 1100cc motorcycle that can do the same in 3 seconds... So if I want it very fast I'll take the motorcycle!

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Spacestar Invite 1.0 manual: 49.0 mpg (US) ... 20.8 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 58.8 mpg (Imp)


  10. #10
    Carmageddon m4v3r1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Hague
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,347
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 92 Times in 73 Posts
    Fuel economy .... I'm very pleased with my 1.0L MT. I can even get better fuel economy if driving at even lower pace. This is door-to-door home-work over length of 60 KM.

    Name:  dashboard.jpg
Views: 1139
Size:  78.9 KB


        __________________________________________

        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)


Posting Permissions

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