Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Mitsubishi Galant



  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    I think they suite a family of 3 or 4 more than their competitors do thats probably why. Also, Honda and Toyota have better reputations than Mazda or Mitsu do in terms of quality/reliability. Nissan is right up there with Honda and Toyota too.
  • Shame on Mitsubishi for gracing such a beautiful name when you pronunce it, but the 2004 Galant is no distinction at all to what you think a name is all about. The build quality is still the same as it's predessor, which won no awards in any car magazine, reviews, or websites that rates automobiles consumers would buy. The car only has a larger attractive size to admire but the 4 cyclinder engine lacks the power that Honda Accord/Toyota Camry/Nissan Altima does for it's drivers. The interior is similar to the Chrysler/Dodge cheap plastic feel. Mitsubishi can forget about any profits for the Galant because today's consumers are not falling for just a car anymore that cannot be as outstanding like the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. The only thing substancial about the Galant is the incredibly powerful 3.8 V6 engine. Mitsubishi please go back to the drawing board and crank out something like a Honda. Make car shoppers believe you have arrived.
  • "2004 Mitsubishi still behind the times ny_dude29"

    You are absolutely correct. The Camry and Accord are proven to more reliable and have a much better resale too. That awful design on Galant too.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    For the most part, I agree about the hubcaps, but to me the only hubcaps that look good on the Camry are the SEI4 models.

    The LE's hubs are ugly IMO. The XLE ones are too, but they look better.

    To me, the LE's hubs are too small because the car is so tall.

    As far as the Accord. I think those are ugly too, the EX rims look SO MUCH better.

    And aren't the LX and LXV6 hubs the same, except for size? They look just a like to me, except for the size. 15s for LX, 16s for LXV6.

    I feel different about the Altima though, the hubcaps for the S look good, and the 16s alloy wheels for the S and SL look REALLY nice, but I think the 17s for the SE are too plain.

    I LOVE the styling of the ALtima....but not the interior.

    I actually don't mind the hubs on the Galant, but the rims from the Diamond pkg. are ugly in person. They look better in pictues.

    The GTS rims are nice though.
  • Well I just ordered my GTS and i want to be in somewhat of an exclusive club. Over 400,000 accords and over 400,000 camrys are sold each year and i'm tired of seeing them. they have never appealed to me. I do think that the accord is simply the best family/midsize sedan you can buy. BUT the galant GTS is for a different type of buyer who wants an overly aggressive styled car and also a sport sedan. The galant comes thru big time on both.
  • bbf65bbf65 Posts: 29
    congrats on your new galant.
    i had the pleasure of owning 2 previous generation galants and enjoyed those vehicles.
    and like you, i didn't want to have the same car as millions of others out there.

    saw a gray GTS the day before and it looked good.
  • To my dear fellow Galant Owners..........I'm really glad for making the right decision on buying your new GTS Galant'04 model!!!! You're both absolutely right, the Accords & Camrys are all the same, and if you want to have "identity" to yourself, Galant is the name to beat'll feel the difference of owning a new Galant, the V6 engine 3.8 Liters 240hp tops them all in the recent car test & reviews, the 240 watts audio system-tops them all!!!! Congrats for you made the right decision!!! I own a 2003 Galant ES and maybe I need to upgrade to '04 LS or GTS Galant too. Enjoy the ride and feel the difference!!!! WAKE UP & DRIVE as Mitsu says,,,sorry for the Accords & Camrys, their style is no longer attractive & appealing to me!
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    230 hp, not 240. Lets not let enthusiasm change the facts. Black is a very good color for this car, IMO, I hope to see a black GTS soon. Dont like the taillights.

  • Glad to see that marketing and advertising work so well.
  • Being a former Galant owner myself (89) I can appreciate wanting to own a vehicle that not everybody has (400k Accords/Camrys sold). However, there a reason they sell that many; this is because of high quality, reliability and dependability. When the VW Passat was redesigned in 2002 it won midsize car of its class (beating out Accord and Camry). One main reason was the appearance of high quality materials used on the interior of the car. It gave the car a very posh, expensive looking interior. Soon the Accord/Camry have tried to up the ante by moving in this direction. I believe Mistubishi cars are reliable but they lack that high quality material look on items located within the interior cabin. This comes straight from three different car magazines. I tend to agree. This is why some people may hesitate on the purchase of a new Galant. Suburu did that on a few of their previous models and had to learn the hard way (Lack of sales). Now they have added newer designs, higher quality materials and have two new 2005 cars, Legacy, coming out that will defintely take sales away from Accord/Camry. I terms of Misubishi's 230 HP as someone mentioned, this is more then enough for this car in this size (for me especially) BUT HARDLY anything to brag about. The new Nissan Altima 3.5 engine is 245 HP; the G35 in 2005 will have 300 HP and AWD; the Acura TL has 270; Camry 240 and soon 280 for 2005. The new 2005 VW Passat will be 285 (based on the VW site). It seems like they have a product with great potential then end up just a pinch short in certain aspects to the majority of buyers. More customers are demanding greater "standard" or upgraded features in their cars; especially for the prices they are paying (cars aren't cheap obviously). Each car company is working hard to out do each other. We now see Acura's TL now offering XM satelite radio; DVD surround sound. I think sometimes it appears Mitsubishi gets a nice product but is just a step short of what the market is offering now. Who does their research on future customer "demands" and decision making? This car will be nice but put in the better quality interior material, add a bit more juice under the hood to satisfy those horse power hungry people and they'll draw many more buyers away from Camry/Accord buyers. This was how VW Passat managed to take some customers away from those companies.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    For 2004:
    3.0L V6 210hp and 220 foot lbs.
    3.3L V6 225hp and 240 foot lbs.

    gkearns- where did you learn/what source do you have that Camry power will go up for 2005? Perhaps did you mean a different car?

  • "alpha01": At the recent Detroit Auto show Toyota had a Camry which was jazzed up with the front facial and side kit; along with a sign that noted a bump in HP. This car was noted as a "concept" Just like the new '04 Acura TL already has a "concept" car with all the sport dressing too. The person at their display said it may be late '05 or early '06 with these modifications. Infiniti is doing this to their G35 AWD in 2005. (My wife has a 2003). The dealer noted 300 HP for the 2005 G35; the Acura TL already has their hot rod on display at the Detroit's 2004 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). Here is a weblink with hundreds of pictures from the show. I gave this link previously for what future cars will entail. These guys rock: In summary, the Galant will again be a step behind. Get rid of the cheap plastics and ugly front head lights.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The Galant V6 may not have the highest hp in the class, but it is definitely more then competitive. What you have failed to notice, however, is the class leading torque figures. Here, the 3.8 V6 excels.

    Galant: 250
    Altima: 246
    Camry: 240
    Malibu: 220
    Accord: 212
    Passat: 206
    Mazda6: 192
    Sebring: 190

    Looking at the above numbers really makes the Galant stand out. It not only provides good hp but excellent torque as well. This leads to strong around town performance, which is what people like to feel. Nothing about the Galant's current engine makes it a step behind. What is holding it back are the lack of certain features, hefty weight, and some cheap interior plastics.

    The Acura TL and G35 are in a totally different class and shouldn't be compared to the Galant. They may make more hp but they are also more expensive and don't compete in the family sedan category.
  • "by lngtonge18": The point you make about torque is well taken. Though, I think there is one minor point you may have overlooked. The Mitsubishi uses a 3.8 liter engine to achieve those numbers. This is an important point in any car. I'm originally from Detroit; have a brother who is an engineer at Ford Motor Company. One thing he has always noted was the importance of torque. This is dramatically changed based on several factors; one of them being engine size and displacement. A 3.8 liter engine should have more torque then 2.3 liter. Yes the Galant has more torque but uses a larger engine displacement to achieve this. What is the compression ratio since this is a larger displacement engine. A good example (in a different class) is the Nissan 3.5 VQ series engines which all have various HP and torque ratings based on which car it is used in (Altima, Pathfinder, Maxima, G35) but based on that 3.5 liter displacement. Some companies are able to do "more" with "less". Acura's TL uses a 3.2 liter engine with 270 HP rated compared to the Infinit G35 is about 265 using the 3.5 liter. My point if these companies wanted to increase their engine size to 3.8 (which Nissan will be offering a 4.0 in their 2005 Pathfinder) I'm sure their HP would go up. This is defintely evident by Acura's new RL 2005 that will (finally) be redesigned. Honda opted NOT to go with a V8 like the Lexus or Infiniti because they were able to crank out 310-320 HP from the 3.5 liter V6 that will be used in this new car. Now that's really nice. In summary, Galant will still be a step behind because of too much plastic (interior) and people will continue to expect more; also all companies keep raising the bar of standard equipment. Thus, Galant a nice car but not a class leader.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    There is always a compromise in engine tuning. Mitsubishi has always been more interested in torque figures then hp, whereas Honda likes hp and hasn't cared much about torque. The Acura TL you mention is a prime example of Honda's philosophy. Yes, the 3.2 VTEC makes a lot of hp out of its smaller size, but that comes at the expense of torque, which is only an average 238 lb ft.

    Mitsubishi on the other hand tunes their engines for strong low end torque, which sacrifices higher rpm power (a compromise that comes from a long stroke motor and how the cam is tuned). It's not that they aren't capable of designing a similar size engine with the same hp as the TL; they just have different objectives which leads to different size engines with different tuning. My former 02 Lancer had a 2.0 engine specifically designed to maximize low end torque, which by design, limited its hp to an average 120 and its redline to 6k. This helped the engine perform well around town with an automatic. They could have given it DOHC and variable valve timing and designed it for more top end power, but that went against their objective of strong low end torque, so they didn't do it. My current 03 Diamante 3.5 almost matches the torque output of the TL at 231 lb ft but the hp is only 205 (this good low end torque was achieved without DOHC or variable valve timing). Mitsu could have upped the hp some by just retuning the engine but they elected to give the engine a strong feel down low rather then impress with hp numbers. And it pays off. The 3.5 feels darn strong around town and I have yet to feel the need to exceed 4k rpms.

    In short, which car grabs your attention is based on which aspect of engine tuning attracts you most. Obviously, Nissan, Honda, and Acura will wow you with their hp figures and in the case of H/A, their high revving nature. Mitsu will impress those who like strong engine performance without the need to rev the engine to death. I prefer the latter and am glad Mitsu designs the engines the way they do.
  • by lngtonge18: Lets help Mitsu a little on the design work. I had a Galant (89) and really liked it. I like the design of that new Lancer. They could have been a little more creative on the front end of this car (headlights. Mitsu has always been able to squeeze great low end torque from the cars. Some people (not old enough to remember) that Mitsubishi was the company to create the "zero" plane from WWII. The battle fronts are now in the showroom. Many analyst predict some of the smaller car companies may not be around in 10 years. So how are they "luring" or trying to attract these potential new buyers. Give them more standard options & features, more hp/torque and provide a few car washes during service (BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, etc). I think its a nice car, they merely need to meet what the others are offering and raise the ante. They can do this.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    One short coming of the 3.8L engine which you are ignoring is the MPG, which is none too impressive, given that the Camry 3.3L produces but 10 foot pounds less and gets 29 MPG on the highway. Also, the Honda engine which you cite- the 3.2L in the TL- has 90% of its peak 238 foot pounds avaliable from 2200 RPM up until the peak figure RPM, which is plenty for around town driving, which, as you state, is what people feel.

    Another interesting fact about Mitusbishi: People here percieve its quality to be substantially higher than it actually is, according to an article in the USA Today. check, in the Money section, for details.

  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    The fuel economy is by no means horrible or non competitive. Of course the smaller 3.3 and 3.0 V6s will get better mileage, but we are talking 2mpg, not 5. However, the 3.8 matches or beats Nissan's 3.5 and beats the Mitsu 3.5 in rated mileage. Heck, it even almost matches the previous Galant's 3.0 (19/27 compared to 20/27)! I think its a pretty good feat to increase the engine size and still offer better mileage, especially when the new Galant weighs more then the Diamante, Altima, and former Galant.
  • First up I'm glad to see we have people who understand the importance of tourque. In the MT comparison test, the GTS "topped the handling charts, posting the groups' best numbers on the skid pad and in the slalom." and it was the heaviest car tested (2nd in braking from 60-0) The GTS was meant to be a serious SPORT sedan, and that it is. Questions concerning interior build materials weather cheap or not is totally irrevelant to me. The interior does not LOOK cheap but SPORTY. And to take two more quotes from Motor Trend " Mitsubishi's new midsizer steps into the class with one feature its competitors lack: ATTITUDE." AND " Family-sedan shoppers looking for some edge in the sport and style departments will definitely want to consider this compelling new mitsubishi." I originally ordered a black GTS, but they found a silver one so i will be picking it up this weekend. 400k accords and camrys are sold every year and rightfully so, but the galant is for someone who wants to go off the beaten path as they say. All the critics are treating the Galant like it's a 1990 hyundai. This will be my first Mitsu. and I've never looked at a Mitsu in the past. So the this car definitely caught my eye when i saw it. accords, camrys, mazda 6, 3.5SE, malibus, L300s did nothing to make me say "WOW LOOK AT THAT CAR. I'VE GOT TO GET ONE OF THOSE?" The Galant GTS did make me feel that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.