Owner review 2013 Mirage LS CVT

[Flange]

Well at last I got to have a decent drive of the Mirage when we went to Napier during the weekend, a 600km round trip, so here are my initial impressions.

A couple of things to bear in mind when reading these impressions. First we have already replaced the stock rims and tyres with 14" alloys which as well as being wider (6" vs the 4.5" steels), have less offset (38mm vs 46mm standard) so the car now has a wider track than standard and more rubber on the road. Second, we had the bike rack and two bikes on the back so the car was carrying about 40kg of additional weight behind the rear wheels. Both I would expect to have an effect on handling.

Travel conditions were rat**** with the outward trip being dark and windy, while the homeward trip was dark and windy with torrential rain. If nothing else, the headlights got a good workout and they are pretty reasonable.

The car was pretty comfortable for my 184cm frame. There was plenty of head and leg room, even when cruising around Napier with an extra couple in the rear seats. The people in the rear weren't complaining. The manual air conditioning kept the windows clear under trying conditions and we were able to get a comfortable climate inside.

Power wise it is adequate. Coming into and out of Napier there are some pretty serious hills and given that the car is still "running-in" we took it pretty easy but were still able to run with the traffic. On the straights the car feels very relaxed indeed wombling along at our 100km/hr speed limit with plenty to spare for passing. In fact the car seems to have a sweet spot around this speed so no complaints there.

The CVT gearbox I'm still trying to get my head around. The Mirage replaces a 2006 Mitsi Colt Sport which was also CVT. I have read somewhere that the Mirage CVT assembly runs in conjunction with a two speed planetary gear set to give a wider range of ratios whereas I don't believe the Colt had this. Of the two I do prefer the Colt setup which was totally unobtrusive. The Mirage does fluff about a bit, a little like a conventional automatic hunting for the right ratio, and going down hill with light braking applied the CVT seems to "drop to a lower gear" as it were, second guessing what the driver is doing with the brake pedal. This results in too much deceleration so I release the brake pedal and the CVT then "changes up". Maybe it is just the gearbox settling in and the electronics learning as I believe they do. By and large though it isn't a bad gearbox.

Handling. Hmmm, here's the rub. There's plenty of grip once the car is set up in a corner, and the steering is pretty responsive, but the fun and games come as the steering is turned to enter a corner. The car almost seems to lurch as the steering is turned, then it settles down again and follows a good line through the corner if the road is smooth. If there are any significant bumps in the corner, the car bump steers significantly. I don't believe the car has bad suspension, but suspect that the problem is the shock absorbers have very little low speed damping in order to produce a very smooth ride, but at the cost of very little control of the initial roll of the car as it is turned into a corner.

It is always possible of course that the lurch is exacerbated by the greater grip afforded by the wider tyres fitted.

Jamiec commented that the Aussie market Mirage comes standard with an anti-roll bar and I suspect that one of these would sort things out and produce a nice handling car. I'm working on this, hoping that someone will post a photo of the anti-roll bar for me to palagarise.

Fuel economy was a long way short of the brochure but not bad considering that the car is new, the trip was done with the air conditioning running constantly, two adults plus baggage for the weekend and two bikes on the rack behind. We recorded 44.3mpg (6.4ltr/100km). No complaints there at all. For comparison, my 2010 Suzuki Alto, 70,000km on the clock, with similar loading including the bikes on a similar run returned somewhere around 52mpg on a similar run recently.

So overall the Mirage is not a bad wee car at all, and I do believe that with the addition of an anti-roll bar it will be a very endearing car.

Regards to all
Flange

[MetroMPG]

Thanks for the detailed review, Flange.

(Hope you don't mind I copied a pic of the car into your review from another thread.)

You confirmed a few points we've seen in other (commercial) reviews:

-- The rear seats are decently spacious, despite the car's small size

-- The handling... ultimate grip is OK, but that initial body roll takes getting used to.

I'm surprised the NZ spec car doesn't have the anti-roll bar fitted already.

[Flange]

OK, so there's a lesson for myself (again) - ensure eyes are properly engaged before opening mouth. With the help of a torch and a closer inspection I see that our Mirage does in fact have an anti-roll bar fitted.

So there's something to check out in due course, can it be adjusted ? Any thoughts from the team ?

Regards to all
Flange

[MetroMPG]

...our Mirage does in fact have an anti-roll bar fitted.

So there's something to check out in due course, can it be adjusted ?

I don't believe so. Some aftermarket bars are adjustable, by providing multiple connection points (holes) where the bar connects to the suspension. By changing the effective length of the "lever" from the bar's fixed mounting point (on the chassis/frame) out to its free (suspension) end, you change its stiffness.

Perhaps the Mirage's stock bar is modifiable though?

EG. see:

[kalifornia]

OK, so there's a lesson for myself (again) - ensure eyes are properly engaged before opening mouth. With the help of a torch and a closer inspection I see that our Mirage does in fact have an anti-roll bar fitted.

So there's something to check out in due course, can it be adjusted ? Any thoughts from the team ?

Regards to all
Flange

some polyurethane bushings would reduce alittle of that intial lurch (dive)? but it would be more uncomfortable and may make that bump steer problem worse. But you might want to wait for a fatter bar to hit the market

[CLARK]

Hi Flange
Welcome to the forum - good to have another Kiwi on board. MetroMPG is a great host and runs this forum very diligently along with a couple of others. I certainly appreciate their efforts. I see you have spotted the front anti-roll on your Mirage now - it is on the NZ spec sheet. Like you I suspect the rear suspension needs some mods to settle it down - maybe better shocks and a rear anti-roll bar. At this stage I'm living with it and driving accordingly - check out my driving impressions. Although I now reside north of Kaitaia I regularly return to Waimana to my farm and catch up with family and friends. I would like to maybe meet you sometime to compare our experiences with our Mirages. So far I've traveled about 4500km and averaged over 50mpg.
Regards
CLARK

[Flange]

Hey there Clark

Thanks for your welcoming sentiments. I surely do share your sentiments re MetroMPG and his helpers, this forum does have a very nice feel to it and is shaping up to be a treasure trove of knowledge.

I will PM you shortly on some of the more personal stuff.

Regards
Flange

[jamiec]

Thanks for the wright up Flange.

Would you mind doing a comparison between the Mirage and your Alto as I have been thinking how they compare and as you have both I think that would be interesting?

[Flange]

Would you mind doing a comparison between the Mirage and your Alto as I have been thinking how they compare and as you have both I think that would be interesting?

COMPARISON BETWEEN 2013 MITSUBISHI MIRAGE AND 2010 SUZUKI ALTO

Throughout this comparison bear in mind that the Mirage has covered about a thousand km from new whereas the Alto has more than 70,000km on the clock. Bear in mind too that the Mirage is a CVT auto whereas the Alto is a 5 speed manual.

Price:
Mirage $19,000
Alto $16,000

That's a big different in price, but then the Mirage is a little larger and better equipped. Without going into tedious detail, the Alto is considered fairly basic with manually operated external mirrors, a non-dippable internal mirror, power windows in the front only and an MP3 CD stereo with a 3.5mm jack input for auxiliary devices such as an MP3 player or phone to input music. The Mirage by contrast has electronically operated external mirrors, a dippable internal mirror and all four windows are power operated with automatic windows up front. It also has bluetooth on the steering wheel which can hook into a phone and an MP3 CD stereo with a USB input which means that you can plug in a memory key full of MP3s and play them direct.

In the real world, what do these differences really mean ? The Alto's manually operated external mirrors are actually not a big deal at all, in fact they are totally intuitive to use and can be safely adjusted while the car is moving whereas the Mirage's require significant eyes-down time to adjust so I would suggest that the Alto's low-tech system is better.

The Alto's non-dippable internal mirror is really a petty bit of meanness on Suzuki's part. I mean, this is the 21st century isn't it ? A dippable mirror is a safety feature which no car should be without and the Mirage certainly scores over the Alto by having one.

Not being able to control the rear windows from the driver's seat can be a mild annoyance in the Alto, whilst of course this can be done in the Mirage. Automatic up and down is neither here nor there to me.

The Mirage's USB input is nice, I would like one of those on the Alto but given that both cars can play MP3s from CD, and given that the Alto can play MP3s from my phone, there isn't really much in it.

Having audio controls on the steering wheel is nice, but then in cars the size of these, the stereo is pretty close to hand anyway. As an aside, I used to own a Toyota MR2 Turbo and that came with the absolutely most pointless accessory one could imagine - a wireless remote control for the stereo.

Turning now to size, parked side by side the two are not that much different in size, but the Mirage is definitely larger in all directions. In the front seats the Mirage has a little more space between driver and passenger, but both have plenty of leg and head room for my 184cm frame. In the rear seat the Alto has adequate room for me to sit with the driver's seat in my usual position, and adequate head room but the Mirage certainly has quite a bit more of both, and is equipped (seat belts, head restraint) for three people whereas the Alto is only equipped for two. The Alto does not have enough width for three adults to sit in the back, but to be fair, three adults would find the Mirage a pretty tight fit width-wise too.

Interior trim is similar in both with plenty of the "hard plastics" that the journos comment on. As someone else on this forum commented, this actually isn't a bad thing long term. I like both, preferring neither over the other.

So, value for money the Alto beats the Mirage by my way of thinking.



Motor:
Mirage - 3 cyl, 75mm bore x 90mm stroke, 1198cc MIVEC (variable valve timing), 58Kw, 102Nm.
Alto - 3 cyl, 73mm bore x 79.4mm stroke, 996cc 50Kw, 90Nm.

Even though the Mirage has a 20% more displacement and variable valve timing the Alto feels a bit more willing. Remember though we are comparing a well run in manual with a tight new automatic. On the road there wouldn't be a big difference in straight line performance.

I find the gruff three cylinder sound and feel of both engines very appealing.

Transmission:
Mirage - CVT.
Alto - 5 speed manual.

I really like CVTs and if one had been available for the Alto I probably would have bought a CVT rather than a manual. But alas no, the Alto's automatic gearbox is a four speed which didn't actually feel very good, and which incurred a significant performance hit on the poor wee engine. Happily the five speed manual is very nice to use. Gear ratios are quite high requiring first gear to reliably move off the line, and fifth needing only about 2,200 rpm at 100 km/hr. Initially the clutch was pretty unpleasant to use but is quite nice now.

The Mirage's CVT I'm not yet sure about. Our Mirage replaced a 2006 Colt and the CVT in that was a delight, with the control lever mounted off the steering column providing very intuitive control. By comparison the floor mounted CVT control lever in the Mirage with it's convoluted gate is a P.I.T.A. to use, particularly as there is no illumination on the quadrant to show what gear position the unit is in. True, there is an indicator on the dashboard but that's not terribly clear to the eye, requiring a proper look rather than a cursory glance. Maybe we will get used to that.

In operation the Mirage's CVT seems to fluff about, behaving a bit like some modern conventional six or seven speed automatics by appearing to hunt around a little. My biggest beef is that when going downhill under light braking the CVT seems to "shift down" a bit causing too much slow down, so I release the brake and the CVT "shifts up" resulting in not enough slow down. Is this gearbox just a bit too clever, or is it still in the process of learning our driving style ?

Interestingly enough both the Colt and Mirage specs talk about a JATCO INVECS III CVT but they do feel quite different. I recall reading about the Mirage being fitted with a two speed planetary gearset in addition to the CVT and I have observed what feels like such as setup operating in the Mirage, but not the Colt. Maybe that's the difference, but whatever, the Mirage deserves a bit of time to settle in before declaring it's transmission "better" or "worse" than others. The automatic offered for the Alto is also a JATCO unit but fully conventional rather than a stepped CVT. It feels like crap and saps the car's already modest performance.

Overall the Mirage's gearbox is good, certainly better than the automatic unit fitted to Altos, but I currently prefer my Alto's five speed manual.

Suspension:
Mirage - McPherson strut front, torsion beam rear.
Alto - McPherson strut front, torsion beam rear.

The design of both suspensions is 21st century standard but the tuning is quite different. The Mirage appears to be tuned for comfort whereas the Alto is quite firm. Conveniently, both cars are now fitted with the exact same brand and size of tyre (14" 185 x 14" Green Max) except that the Mirage tyres are 60 profile whereas the Alto is 55.

The Mirage rides much better than the Alto.

The Alto handles much better than the Mirage.


Wheelbase:
Mirage - 2450mm.
Alto - 2360mm.

Not much difference here due to both being "wheels in the corner" designs. The slightly longer wheelbase of the Mirage probably contributes to it's superior ride. The Alto displays a bit of fore and aft pitching on some surfaces but I haven't noticed this on the Mirage.

Track:
Mirage - Front 1430mm, Rear 1415mm.
Alto - Front 1405mm, Rear 1400mm.

Not much difference here again.

Weight:
Mirage - 890Kg.
Alto - 855Kg.

The weights depends very much on which brochure one reads but again there isn't a big difference. Both appear to be nice strong, rigid bodies.

Fuel:
Mirage - 35ltr tank, 91 RON.
Alto - 35ltr tank, 95 RON

The Mirage clearly scores here in that it accepts 91 whereas Suzuki demand 95 for the Alto. With today's petrol prices the pain at the pump is less apparent when filling small tanks such as these, and of course due to the inherent economy of these cars we still get to go a long way on a tankful.

Speaking of fuel economy, we must again bear in mind that the Mirage is still new and tight whereas at 70,000km the Alto is now well run in. Also bear in mind that I have had the opportunity to evaluate the Alto's economy over a lot of kms, but not so the Mirage.

At the brochure they are both rated at about 4.6 - 4.9 litres per 100 km depending on specs but I do suspect that the Alto uses less fuel in the real world. So far I have done one only test of the Mirage's fuel consumption in which we used 27.05 ltrs to travel 422.4 km for a fuel consumption figure of 6.404 ltrs per 100 km, 44.37 miles per imperial gallon. This was done over an open road trip through a mixture of flats and hills with two people onboard and two bicycles on the rear. The very worst that I have ever recorded with the Alto was 49.42 mpg early in it's life, and normally it returns mid 50s.

I am confident that the Mirage's MPG will improve over time, and given the Mirage's appetite for less expensive 91 RON petrol, overall fuel costs will probably be similar.

Safety:
Mirage - ANCAP 5 star by 6 (?) airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, electronic brake distribution, electronic stability control.
Alto - ANCAP 4 star by 6 airbags, antilock brakes, electronic brake distribution.

The Alto gets one less ANCAP star than the Mirage, anecdotally because it is not equipped with electronic stability control (ESC) whereas the Mirage is. I personally would avoid ESC like the plague (and in fact antilock brakes too) due to the fact that I developed my driving skills before these aids became common. I have had the situation where a sheep appeared in the middle of the road on a fast wet corner, so I start pumping the brakes, the antilock did the same, and the car didn't slow down much. So until I un-learn that instinctive driving technique, antilock is a liability rather than a benefit to me. I would certainly not suggest that antilock (or ESC) is a liability for drivers who have always driven cars with these features, to the contrary they are both very desirable features.

The Alto has rather more substantial front pillars which produce significant blind spots at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. The Mirage's pillars are rather slimmer and less obstructive.

So, the Mirage is a safer car, except that the Alto's better handling and slightly smaller size might make it easier to avoid being hit in the first place..

Comfort:
Mirage - manual air conditioning, electric power steering.
Alto - manual air conditioning, electric power steering.

Not much difference in these specs, and for my frame the seats are fairly equal. The biggest difference is in the amount of rear seat legroom where the Mirage clearly wins out.

Reliability:

Far too soon to comment on the Mirage, but I haven't seen any problems surfacing on the forums yet. The Alto has been a bit of a mixed bag. They have a generic weakness in the engine mounts - one of mine has already been replaced and a second needs fixing. They don't fail, rather they rattle on uphill bumps. I have also had one front wheel bearing fail, and the driver's external door handle has broken. Not major items, but compare this with our old Colt which did 200,000km at the cost of a radio antenna, our fault of course. If the Mirage is as reliable as the Colt we will be stoked.


So in summary, which is the better car ? The answer to that depends totally on what you want to do with the car. My Alto was bought as a work hack - I'm a computer tech and cover large distances while carrying not much gear. Over three years the Alto has proven to be admirably suited to this task while at the same time showing itself to do a good job of transporting two people (and occasionally more) the length and breadth of this land, usually with a couple of bicycles on the rear. After ditching the OEM tyres and fitting something wider the Alto's handling is very good. I like the ride but Jocelyn thinks that it rides like a dray.

The Mirage is Jocelyn's transport and bought as a car more suited to carrying additional passengers and more bikes and it certainly does both of these better than the Alto. The handling is not as good as the Alto. Jocelyn likes the ride of the Mirage, but for my taste it is a little too soft.

The Alto can be a tricky car to drive due mainly to the modest torque available and the high gearing. Particularly where hills are encountered the driver needs to plan ahead, keep up momentum and do what is required to stay in the correct ratio. It's easy to find oneself part way up a steep hill, having to drop back to second gear due to failure to keep up momentum. Happily, second is good for around 100 km/hr. Get it all right though and the Alto can feel quite rewarding, and distances can be covered surprisingly quickly.

By comparison, whilst it requires a bit of concentration to bustle along quickly, if driven at it's natural pace the Mirage is as easy to drive as a car can be, due largely to the CVT.

If I had to choose between the two, I would choose the Alto but wouldn't be upset if I went down to the garage and found that the Alto had morphed into a Mirage. If Jocelyn had to choose she would definitely take the Mirage.

[Flange]

Hey there Jamiec

Will do, but I will think it through for a wee while so as to make it as well reasoned as possible.
Cheers
Flange