Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: No 1.0L engine in the Netherlands anymore.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    224
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 106 Times in 67 Posts

    No 1.0L engine in the Netherlands anymore.

    This article (sorry, Dutch), tells that the 1.0L engine will no longer be an option in the Netherlands.

    To meet the new emission standards the 1.2L engine is adapted to deliver 71hp and 102Nm. That was 80hp and 106Nm. For comparison, my 1.0L engine is supposed to deliver 71hp and 88Nm.
    The article also has an economy claim, 4,9/5,0 l/100 km, while the 2018 1.0 was claimed to get 4.6l/100km. I don't know if the new car is actually worse, or the measurement method changed.
    My 2013 1.0 was spec'd at 4,0 l/100km, which it actually achieves, when the conditions aren't bad.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Space Star Cleartec Intense 1.0 manual: 55.1 mpg (US) ... 23.4 km/L ... 4.3 L/100 km ... 66.2 mpg (Imp)


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Space Wolf For This Useful Post:

    ahausheer (10-17-2020),dspace9 (10-17-2020),MetroMPG (10-21-2020)

  3. #2
    Senior Member dspace9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    2,043
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 419 Times in 358 Posts
    Yea eh I will have a look at the article about engine upgrades, thanks Space Wolf. I think a lot issus about power in my 1.2 Mirage need to be addressed on the 1st gear, because I don't feel I have the pickup I used to in my Mirage. 2014 manual. And my dutch is not very good at all, my dad speaks dutch fluently since he is from there.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 214 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 41.8 mpg (US) ... 17.8 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.2 mpg (Imp)


  4. #3
    Senior Member dspace9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    2,043
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 419 Times in 358 Posts
    Edits there in my post, sorry. That means that all the 1.2 L's are going to be the same engine in Mirage's worldwide, and 101 Lbs ft. of torque?

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 214 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 41.8 mpg (US) ... 17.8 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.2 mpg (Imp)


  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    224
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 106 Times in 67 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dspace9 View Post
    Edits there in my post, sorry. That means that all the 1.2 L's are going to be the same engine in Mirage's worldwide, and 101 Lbs ft. of torque?
    I don't know. According to the article the engine is changed to meet the new European emission standards, which gets stricter every few years. Don't know if they use the same engine/tuning in countries with lower standards.
    The torque is 101 Newton meter, which is 74.5 foot pound.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Space Star Cleartec Intense 1.0 manual: 55.1 mpg (US) ... 23.4 km/L ... 4.3 L/100 km ... 66.2 mpg (Imp)


  6. #5
    Senior Member ahausheer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Mission Viejo
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    188
    Thanked 131 Times in 82 Posts
    Do you guys have an exhaust gas recirculation valve over there on either the 1.0 or 1.2? Curious to see what Mitsubishi changes for you guys.

  7. #6
    Senior Member dspace9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    2,043
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 419 Times in 358 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Wolf View Post
    I don't know. According to the article the engine is changed to meet the new European emission standards, which gets stricter every few years. Don't know if they use the same engine/tuning in countries with lower standards.
    The torque is 101 Newton meter, which is 74.5 foot pound.
    That does not sound like a higher torque number than under the hood of my 2014 Mirage with the 1.2.
    Anyways good news that Mitsubishi is doing engine upgrades to the Mirage. New owners will be happy, and good to see Mitsubishi is still afloat.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 214 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 41.8 mpg (US) ... 17.8 km/L ... 5.6 L/100 km ... 50.2 mpg (Imp)


  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Country is Europe, state is Germany
    Country
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 617 Times in 346 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ahausheer View Post
    Do you guys have an exhaust gas recirculation valve over there on either the 1.0 or 1.2? Curious to see what Mitsubishi changes for you guys.
    Applies to 2014 cars in Europe:
    The 1.0 with AS&G has EGR, the one without AS&G does not.
    The AS&G cars have different but identical sized conrod bearings.
    The 1.2L has EGR.

    The fuel consumption measurement method has changed, consumption usually higher when measured by the new (NEFZ) method

    The 1.0 and 1.2 are virtually the same engines, but different stroke, cams(?), compression, software.
    Last edited by foama; 10-17-2020 at 12:55 PM.

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

    MetroMPG (10-21-2020)

  10. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Country
    Netherlands
    Posts
    224
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 106 Times in 67 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by foama View Post
    Applies to 2014 cars in Europe:
    The fuel consumption measurement method has changed, consumption usually higher when measured by the new (NEFZ) method
    Right. But there are only two methods, I suppose, NEFZ and 'the old one'.
    My 2013 1.0L should get 4.0L/100km, and it's top speed was 172km/h.
    The 2018 1.0L was 4,6L/100km, and it's top speed was still 172km/h.

    So I guess the 2018 was measured using the NEFZ method, and the 2013 using the previous method. And I think the top speed is roughly hp@top speed / aerodynamic drag.

    This new 2021(?) 1.2L car gets 4,9/5,0L/100 km, and a top speed of 160km/h.

    This should also be NEFZ, in which case the economy is worse, and so is the top speed. Both could be explained by more drag by the new nose. If the latter is true this is a bad decision of Mitsubishi. I don't case about the top speed, as I never drive that fast. I don't actually care about the looks. I don't see it when I'm inside. But I do care about the economy. I feel it each time I have to fill it up.

    But of course there are other possibilities. The top speed might be capped to meet some rules somewhere. Or the new engine management causes the engine to deliver less hp@top speed. And the worse economy could just be a side effect of the lower emission implementation.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2013 Space Star Cleartec Intense 1.0 manual: 55.1 mpg (US) ... 23.4 km/L ... 4.3 L/100 km ... 66.2 mpg (Imp)


  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Country is Europe, state is Germany
    Country
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 617 Times in 346 Posts
    The NEFZ could account for the higher rated consumption. No idea why the 2021(?) has that much slower top speed. Aerodynamics worse? I would like to see the torque/KW chart of that engine!

    Mine is 1.0 built mid 2014. I drive a lot of highway and regularly get much better than the initial L/100km claim of 2014.

  12. #10
    Moderator Eggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    8,655
    Thanks
    3,724
    Thanked 2,238 Times in 1,702 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Wolf View Post
    This should also be NEFZ, in which case the economy is worse, and so is the top speed. Both could be explained by more drag by the new nose. If the latter is true this is a bad decision of Mitsubishi.
    Quote Originally Posted by foama View Post
    The NEFZ could account for the higher rated consumption. No idea why the 2021(?) has that much slower top speed. Aerodynamics worse?
    Aerodynamics were improved with the 2017 redesign. This thread has the details:

    Official 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage changes, specifications, details, pricing


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.8 mpg (US) ... 21.2 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.8 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
  •