Mitsubishi has a plan to gain market share in the U.S. that’s right out of the ’80s.
Dealers were told during last weekend’s National Automobile Dealers Association conference that Mitsubishi will introduce turbocharged engines to model line, according to Automotive News.
The forced-induction renaissance will begin with a 1.5-liter mill powering the automaker’s planned midsize crossover, expected in 2018, which will slot between an enlarged Outlander and the Outlander Sport.
That model is expected to draw on the styling of last year’s XR-PHEV II concept vehicle.
Executives told dealers that a turbocharged engine is being considered for the next-generation Outlander, and a 1.1-liter turbo might make it into the diminutive Mirage and Mirage G4 sedan. Those additions wouldn’t happen until 2019.
The possibility of a blown engine in the Mirage would no doubt be welcomed by existing owners, who currently have just 74 pounds-feet of torque on tap from the model’s 1.2-liter naturally aspirated engine.
Don Swearingen, executive vice president of Mitsubishi Motors North America, told dealers the engines are needed to keep up with fuel economy requirements, especially in the Outlander’s case.
“Everybody in the industry is going to be going even further in this direction,” he said.
Mitsubishi built its brand recognition around turbos in the 1980s and ’90s, cranking out blown models like it was going out of style.
The automaker’s dismal post-recession sales had the brand on a death watch in the U.S., but last year’s numbers — the best since 2008 — show a clear, albeit modest, upward sales trend. Mitsubishi is helping pull its U.S. operation back from the brink with a planned ad budget boost this year.
I thought blown engines were one of the things that (rightfully) earned them such a poor reliability reputation.
That was true for almost any 1980s turbo. Besides reliability issues in the engines and turbochargers themselves, there were problems with drivability.
Ford (2.3T Mustang, Fairmont, T-Bird), Chrysler (2.2T in everything), GM (3.8T Grand National, etc), Mitsubishi, etc all suffered from early teething problems with turbocharged engines.
This is why buying a Chrysler in the 80s was a questionable proposition. Mitsubishi engines.
But in truth, it wasn’t the only reason, now was it?
Course not! Unless it’s RWD based and/or with a slant 6 or V8, it’s best to avoid them.
The 2.2 was home-grown.
The horrible 3.0 V6 was a Mitsubishi, but I don’t think it was ever turbocharged.
To clarify, “blown” didn’t imply forced induction – just Mits engines in general.
Ironically, Mitsubishi, one of the companies making a 2.0 turbo 4 before it was cool, now doesn’t have a 2.0 turbo 4…
“Remember the thing we used to do all the time, but don’t do any more? We’re doing that – be impressed!”
Everyone else (except Mazda) has been adding turbo for the past 5-ish years anyway.
get a better designer, Mitsu. the last-gen Galant was one of the fugliest cars made this century, every generation of the Outlander is awkwarder than the previous, the Mirage is ugly, too.
and please, make a turbocharged sports car again. you once had the Eclipse and the 3000GT/GTO, now you have no offers on this subject.
So will those engines require premium like the woeful 3.0 V6 does?
I do hope so. Because I can’t think of a brand where an owner would be less likely to put premium fuel in than Mitsubishi.
Very good point.
Not necessarily. Hyundai/Kia, Ford and a few other companies have turbo engines that run on regular.
Yes and nearly every non-exotic V6 runs on regular but Mitsu insists that you put premium in their 3.0 V6 if you want max power. Max power that is not all that impressive either.
224 horsepower was impressive…in 2000.
I know mine has two stated HP figures.
243hp/270tq on regular unleaded
252hp/270tq on 93 Octane (we only have 91, but I have a few stations with Premium E0 available)
A 1.5L powering a ~4000lb vehicle? What could possibly go wrong there?
Volvo nearly does it, right?
Yeah but I am waiting to see what the Volvo looks like quality wise in 3 years. IMO I dont think that it will work long term for a second or third owner of the cars. I am worried about Mazda CX9 as well. I love them and will be looking to get out of my 08 CX9 in two years. However I wont decide on them if the reliability is shotty
Volvo power train and engine reliability is always a big question mark in my mind. You can’t say this though, or someone from Volvo Owners Mafia comes and says “Whoa ho there! You forgot the super reliable manual transmission 2.3T V40S available in Texas from January through July of 1999, you jerkass.”
But yeah.
V40 was a basically P.O.S. manual or not.
Of course it was! But I needed an example of a crap model from their history. I had to choose something between 1995-2015.
The S40 is that great bastion of Volvo s**t, evidenced by the fact you can buy one for like $900 on Craigslist. Grandsons of dead WWII vets get more for decent Cutlass Cieras.
The first generation was a shared Mitsubishi Carisma in order to give Nedcar something to build (Nedcar being a joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi. Nedcar was originally DAF in which Volvo took a controlling interest in 1975).
“Volvo opted to name the range S40 (saloon), and V40 (estate).[7] These cars were manufactured at the Nedcar factory in the Netherlands (a pre-Ford joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi Motors) and based on a common platform with the Mitsubishi Carisma and the Proton Waja.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_S40
@CoreyDL
you could choose XC70. It chewed transmissions like a dog chews a milk bone.
When did they manage to fix that issue? I know it was the trans solenoid (IIRC) which would go bad, and require some big surgery for replacement.
I want the XC70 to be a good, reliable car – because I really like them.
Owner of a 2001 xc70 here. 01 and02 have lots of transmission issue’s. 03 to 05 are better but still some issue. After that I don’t see many complaints on the forums. The early 2000 cars also had issues bwith there fly by wire throttle. Mine has been OK more reliable then my vw and Subaru but worse then the other beaters I have owned. Still cheaper then leasing a new versa so I’m good with it.
Thanks, I’d be uncomfortable trying to DD a Volvo older than about 8 years, I’d think. The initial generation always has various trim issues as well, unless it’s just mint and hasn’t been driven.
“Everybody in the industry is going to be going even further in this direction,” he said.
In other words, we’re hopelessly derivative and devoid of original ideas.
And it’s poor grammar anyway, “going to be going.”
Writers sometimes don’t make any sense. And this is one of those times:
“The possibility of a blown engine in the Mirage would no doubt be welcomed by existing owners, who currently have just 74 pounds-feet of torque on tap from the model’s 1.2-liter naturally aspirated engine.”
How in this world will it help existing owners? Will they care at all? They already bought their cars and will probably not make this mistake again. Does this sentence makes sense to you? To me it sounds as Mitsu will add something to their purchased cars and they will welcome this.
Excellent point. Maybe it will be an over-the-air update, like Tesla does.
For some reason I have a strong aversion to any engine below 2 litres, with a turbo or without. I’ve seen Santa Fes tooling around with a 1.6T and a 2.0T and always pause. I always have to wonder if the engine sans turbo is even able to move the car.
Is there a general percentage of power that the engine itself makes before the turbo gubbins are added? I have to imagine my engine is related to that in the stock Focus, with lower compression of course, and would make similar power numbers without the turbo 160/143. Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?