The image you are seeing comes from the Washington auto show. A facelifted Mitsubishi Galant has been making the rounds at several of the regional auto shows, and a dealer has even confirmed having a few in stock. But this freshened Galant is not on Mitsubishi's consumer website, press website or any of the press picture databases. A call to the Mitsubishi News Bureau has not been returned (they are probably not in the Berkowitz fan club after my review of the Lancer). As you can see from the horrendous blurry cameraphone picture, the rear end is in fact different and less ugly than before. Unfortunately, the car underneath is likely the same pedestrian and generic machine Americans have been ignoring for the past several years. Mitsubishi has had record sales in 2007, but they have yet to crack serious sales numbers in the Altima-Accord-Camry territory in which they used to be very competitive. So two lessons here. First, when you launch a car, launch the damn car properly. Second… well we'll have to wait until we can see the thing, won't we.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Isn’t that a Hyundai Sonata rear end, or someone else rear, maybe I’m not thinking of the right car, but that is a carbon copy of someone else’s design. I’ll give them credit for copying a clean decent looking rear though.
Hmmm, missed that at the DC show. But other than taking a pretty good look at the new Evo, I breezed through the Mitsu section pretty quickly.
I understand the 2009 Galant is only modestly facelifted, front and rear, so really very little has changed.
It’s interesting – Mitsubishi has only ever had one truly competitive Galant (the 1999-2003 model). The newer model, though well-developed, was hobbled from the beginning by the nasty stylings of Olivier Boulay and an interior of questionable build quality. The functionally beautiful 1994-1998 model was a very high-quality vehicle with great features for its day which suffered from bad mechanical build (mostly drivetrain troubles), and the lack of a V6 engine hurt new sales tremendously. The current Galant’s a fleet queen. I’m wondering if this will be based on the striking Concept-ZT sedan unveiled last year in Tokyo. Should be interesting. I’m in love with the styling of the concept, though I’m not sure how well it could be translated to the current car’s mechanicals and structure.
Sorry if it’s a bit gushy. I’m a very pleased, almost-fanatic two-time Mitsubishi owner (1996 Galant, 2002 Diamante) interested in seeing the company succeed after so much failure in the past 5 years.
Yeah…looks very Sonata-ish. YAWN!
I would say that the early 90’s Galant was pretty competitive for it’s time. The VR-4 in particular is one of my favorite Q-ships of that era.
Mitsubishi is a classic example of a company that SHOULD be a niche player, but instead constantly overstretches their reach in the marketplace.
The current Galant has one of the ugliest front ends I’ve ever seen (well, B9 Tribeca aside). I don’t like the somewhat similar front end styling of the Endeavor, either, but it’s not as bad.
I really used to like the Galant (as mentioned before – 1999-2003). Talk about a brand gone astray…
Are they doing okay outside the US?
About the 1994-98 generation Galant, there’s also this. Notice how the A-pillar ends up vertical like that of a ’55 Chevy!
Later generations did much better of course.
Mitsubishi is a classic example of a company that SHOULD be a niche player, but instead constantly overstretches their reach in the marketplace.
I’m worried Subaru is trying to follow their lead on that big mistake, chasing what they are not.
Economically, the worst car we ever had was a mitsubishi. Depreciated like a yellow banana.
They have often come up with good looking cars, but they never seem to be good cars. Their planes are trouble as well. I think I will continue to avoid them.
Does the refresh include a folding rear seatback? I couldn’t believe they ommitted it on the current Galant.
I’m also in the “rooting for a comeback” camp, because of a) the Evo and b) an ’01 Eclipse GT I owned. Dead reliable for ~65,000 miles, and got within $3K of what I paid for it at trade-in (the original owner ate the first-year depreciation).
Mitsubishi does a few niche products quite well, but hasn’t figured out how to market itself as a niche company.
210delray :
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 am
About the 1994-98 generation Galant, there’s also this. Notice how the A-pillar ends up vertical like that of a ‘55 Chevy!
Later generations did much better of course.
I’m not at all sure what you were attempting to illustrate with that. It crashed like the vast majority of mid-1990s cars – which is to say badly. By the way, it was designed in the late-1980s and launched outside the US in late 1991, so I’m unsure of what you were expecting.
No, it isn’t comparable with cars design a decade and a half later (the current Galant is on par with its midsize contenders – nearly perfect scores in the IIHS offset crash test). Why would it be?
If you want something really shocking, take a look at the 2003 Chevrolet Blazer 2-Door, the 2002 Chevrolet Astro, or the 2004/5 Pontiac Grand Am 2-door and their GMC/Oldsmobile equivalents.
I know convergence is the big buzzword, but what the heck are you doing going to an auto show without a half-decent digicam? I know you weren’t expecting to se much, but as a TTAC contributor you should always be prepared!
Looks like the ass of a Maxima. Bring back the 91 Galant VR-4 and the 2nd gen DSM turbo and all will be well Mitsu..