Sorry to disappoint: no eco leaves on this G4!
I just grabbed a random dashboard picture for that image.
Sorry to disappoint: no eco leaves on this G4!
I just grabbed a random dashboard picture for that image.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 62.4 mpg (US) ... 26.5 km/L ... 3.8 L/100 km ... 74.9 mpg (Imp)
Okay Lucy.
So close... Maybe next time.
Last edited by Eggman; 10-05-2016 at 08:34 PM.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
Mitsubishi says a folding rear seat in the sedan is on their "wish list" (along with a factory arm rest option here).
It should be, because it's a big oversight. Multiple reviews of the car have mentioned the lack of it. I think Mirage is the ONLY sub-compact sedan that doesn't offer a folding rear seat, at least on upper trims. Versa does, Accent does, Rio does.
Below, this is why the rear seat currently doesn't fold down: braces!
If you remove the rear seat (pretty easy - 3 bolts), you could pass certain long, narrow items past those braces:
Like this Mirage, I once had a 1989 Honda Accord sedan that did not have a folding rear seat. (But unlike the Mirage, you could get a folding seatback on the highest trim Accord.)
The Accord had similar cross bracing behind the seat, welded in place. The solution? I got my hacksaw out and removed it. Presto - unobstructed passthrough!
Fortunately, no hacksaw is required to do a similar modification to the G4. You will only need your 12 mm socket wrench:
The fact that those braces are bolted on -- not welded -- tells me the folding rear seat option was planned from the beginning. No surprise, really. The surprise is why it didn't happen.
At least sedan owners have a pretty easy option for expanded cargo carrying. No hacksaw required.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 62.4 mpg (US) ... 26.5 km/L ... 3.8 L/100 km ... 74.9 mpg (Imp)
fanfare (10-24-2016)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 52.2 mpg (US) ... 22.2 km/L ... 4.5 L/100 km ... 62.6 mpg (Imp)
Have you taken a quick look at the rear axle to see if the alignment can be adjusted?
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 37.6 mpg (US) ... 16.0 km/L ... 6.3 L/100 km ... 45.2 mpg (Imp)
Eggman (10-06-2016)
TBH, the braces being bolted in like an afterthought makes me think they add just a tad of rigidity the car needed for something...
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 44.4 mpg (US) ... 18.9 km/L ... 5.3 L/100 km ... 53.3 mpg (Imp)
Eggman (10-06-2016)
Could be, but doubtful. Sedans have fully welded frames below the rear window, making a solid structure. This is another reason why it's almost never beneficial for rear strut bars on sedans, since they're already connected by the rear structure. The bolted in members are going to be support for the seat back of anything.
Interesting to know though, I would rig up some type of tilt from parts from a salvage car if I had the sedan.
(blank signature)
Daox (10-06-2016)
I agree with zx2uner. I've tested the rear rigidity on a sedan and it was solid as a rock. Rear strut bar would be of absolutely no benefit. Now, on a hatch, that might be another story. Testing is the only way to know for sure.
Custom Mirage products: Cruise control kit, Glove box light, MAF sensor housing, Rear sway bar, Upper grill block
Current project: DIY Nitrous oxide setup for ~$100
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 47.2 mpg (US) ... 20.1 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.7 mpg (Imp)
Alex1a1f (10-06-2016)
I'm not surprised. I think the braces are for structural rigidity.
I disagree, and here's why. If the seatback needed support, it could be done more simply and with less cost with a single piece spanning from side to side. The triangulation of the existing design leads me to believe it was done for structural rigidity.
The fact that the braces are bolted in leads me to think it was an afterthought. That is, once the car was in production and all robotic welds programmed, it *might* have been cheaper to fabricate a bolt-in solution. ??? Just guessing here. There may be little automation involved in the production of these cars - I don't know.
One question MetroMPG - what do the brace fasteners fix to - nuts welded in place? What do those welds look like?
Manufacturing complexity might give more clues?
Interesting - food for thought. Thanks for the detailed pictures.
Edit: the bracing for rigidity might not necessarily be for handling as for occupant crash protection.
Last edited by Eggman; 10-06-2016 at 08:03 PM. Reason: Added phrase on crash protection.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
I was thinking the same thing as Eggman. Maybe crash testing necessitated it. Do other markets get a folding rear seatback?
Eggman (10-06-2016)