Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,663
    when my wife and I traded in our '01 Kia Sportage 4X4 in on a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS. It's funny because I was a staunch supporter of manual tranny's and defended their continued usage in light of the CVT's and paddle-shifters becoming prevalent in newer cars.

    We test drove a Lancer GTS with CVT and really liked it. It is a smooth manner of transmitting the power to the wheels and the acceleration is smooth and steady. There isn't the lurching that is present in standard automatics as the transmission searches for correct gearing.

    I noticed last night coming home from the store that deceleration is fast with this sooner had I let up on the accelerator I was quietly drifting to a stop outside our driveway.

    Fuel economy has been around 19mpg city and 31 mpg highway, certainly fair enough for us. We've been driving Kia's the past 8 years, which are heavy vehicles that don't really get maximum gas mileage but are good, steady vehicles that rarely presented us with any problems.

    Since the dealership had my color(Rally Red)and the Lancer GTS had the Sun and Sound package(Rockford Fosgate 650-watt 9-speaker stereo system with subwoofer in the trunk and sunroof)already installed I forgot all about needing a 5-speed manual tranny. My wife(who doesn't drive)offered that she would be comfortable driving this car and my son drives but not stick so the car would work for our family as a whole and I buried my 5-speed desires for this car. I may return some day to sticks but the way it's going they may be on their way out. I am one who hopes they stay around.

    The '08 Lancer GTS has aluminum paddle shifters so I can still play if I want. They work great and you can rev up the rpm's as much has you want and then just "flip" the paddle in the + direction and the small 4-door sedan responds appropriately. I like the idea and this car and it's transmission are a good fit for us. The Lancer GTS is built tight and there are no shakes, rattles or pops anywhere. I read that people have been unhappy with Mitsubishi's interiors for a while but this one is neat and clean and functionality is smartly appointed in the cabin. Mitsubishi is determined to come back and this new Lancer GTS is a great effort by them in that regard.

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    It requires 93? What about the areas where 93 isn't readily available?

    I always thought cars requiring "premium" took 91 octane, like our Odyssey did.

    I would assume it would just retard the timing some, like when you run a 91 car on 89 or 87. Most "premium" cars are 91, but Mazda calls out 93 for that bad boy.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    The '08 Lancer GTS has aluminum paddle shifters so I can still play if I want. They work great and you can rev up the rpm's as much has you want and then just "flip" the paddle in the + direction

    Yeah I can't get over my thought that its the goofiest cheesiest thing ever. The whole idea is there are no steps, so why would you add them in? I guess I just don't get it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    pretty sure that you will only find the 93 octane in larger metro areas where the EPA requires ethanol as a 'clean air' additive (down here in Houston, our premium is 93) - but don't fret, the ethanol both pumps the price a bit and costs a little in FE.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Actually, here in Birmingham you have to look hard to find a station WITHOUT 93 Octane, and we use virtually no ethanol.

    I guess we're an anomoly.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Same in Atlanta. 87, 89, 93.
  • bv050506bv050506 Posts: 97
    Which is exactly why I went on to make several more points not speed related as to why the Altima was superior to the Aura. The Aura won't last to 80K miles is my best guess.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Aura won't last to 80K miles is my best guess.

    To be constructive, would you mind telling us why?

    The 3.6L has been around for a few years now, with no major flaws that I've heard of.

    With posts like this mindlessly bashing the Aura, the host will likely be back soon.

    The post about the Altima was good, full of information. It just seems like you are determined to bash the Aura without telling us any "why" info. Would you share with us where your 80k mile logic comes in?
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    the only reason nissan has the best cvt out there is just because they invested more time an money into it than anyone else. same way toyota has the best hybrids on the market, they just worked harder on them. I think most every car company out there has used it on at least one model. Honda had a civic with one, ford used it some in the fiesta. the problme the cvt's had was (as you said) dealing with the greater HP and torque in larger engines. Nissan decided to put more R&D money into solving that than other companies did.

    And as for the future of 270 hp 4 banger, I think your right. In 15 years I doubt many cars will even have combustion engines in them. Once Lithium Ion batteries are perfected, the combustion engine in a car will only be for recharging the battery.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Once Lithium Ion batteries are perfected, the combustion engine in a car will only be for recharging the battery.

    And then I will have to modify my car by changing the number of winds on the motor or the armature or the type and size of magnets used...sounds like an R/C car from back in the day.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Actually, if your interested in where that technology is heading, do a google search on the chevy volt. Its quite an amazing car. totaly electric powered with a lithium ion battery and combustion engine to recharge the battery (essentialy coverting gasoline to electical energy like a generator) for trips over 50 miles. Its a sedan that seats 4, has about 140 hp, and under the best conditions will never use gas, and under the worst get 150 mpg.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Its quite an amazing car

    It would be even more amazing if it actually worked. Even GM admitted the battery technology required for the Volt doesn't exist.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Is the Volt a midsize sedan? ;)

    Sounds more like a compact at best, since it claims only to seat 4.

    The purported second Tesla vehicle (WhiteStar) is to be a mid-size sedan, but it would be very premature to discuss it here.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    the battery technology is expected to be availble in a year or two. And even though GM has said the batteries are no t ready yet, they were very carfull to say that it wasn't just a concept car. they fully expect to begin production arround 2009 and even named someone to head prduction. something Gm doesn't do untill they've decided the car will be produced. And that not just GM. Nissan just recently entered a joint venture with NEC to develop their own Lithium Ion batteries for a similar plug in car with an estimated date of 2010-2011, and toyota is talking about 2009 date for one also. I'm not sure where honda stands, but I'd be willing to bet they're working on one tool
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Its a midsize. when they say seats four, they mean four adults.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    here is a pretty good article about it, for those interested.

    link title
  • This discussion has turned into a future car
    or Hybrid
    discussion. Sounds very similar to topics I have read.
    You might want to continue it where you can find more, different, and educated opinions.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it here it is just you might get better participation from one of the other forums.
  • "I guess we'll see how the market accepts them, it does kinda redefine the driving experience - would imagine that some folks won't like it."

    It's the VERY reason I bought mine--traded in an '04 VW NB TDI 5 Spd. Had always preferred a manual, but loved the smoothness in conjunction with the performance of the 3.5 V-6. We've gone from two-, three-, four-, five- and even six-speed automatics--STOP! How does one ever get into high gear in everyday stop-and-go driving? Also, the CVT reminds me of the old Buick Dynaflow transmissions of 1948-1963, except without the slip--and especially the ones from 1955-1963 with the switch-pitch variable torque converter. That same device was applied to the 1965-1967 Turbo-Hydramatics in Buicks, Oldses and Cadillacs. When I press the Altima's accelerator past a certain point, it has the jump associated with the Variable Pitch Turbo-Hydramatics.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the smoothness factors you mention are some of the reasons that folks will like it. The sensation of driving the thing is, however, almost like driving backwards, depending on how hard and fast you step on the accelerator the engine will set to a speed, and then, the car seems to 'catch up' as the gears slide seamlessy under you. No more of the rev up to shift point, rev up to shift point etc. etc. - it is different.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    I still can't get the MazdaSpeed6 out of my head. That was the most fun I've had in a long time. Its biggest drawback is the 93 octane fuel requirement; I'm sure they could make it run on 91, but it wouldn't be as fun.

    I also took the MazdaSpeed6 for a ride a couple weeks ago and compared to my v-6 Mazda6, it's quite a bit faster and more balanced b/c of AWD. I had a chance to drive the car along a curvy route that I often take w/ my 6, and the MS6 had much less understeer and accelerated out of corners much better. Seems that the MS6's torque comes in much quicker and it has quite a bit more pull. Also, I think the MS6 comes with stickier rubber, so grip was much better. What a blast! I was actually wondering if I was scaring the salesguy on my test drive... :P

    I think most of the gas around here is 91, so if that's a step down in power for the MS6, it's still quite good.

    I was very tempted to do a deal, but then since I bought my car a little more than a year ago, I didn't think it would be very responsible. And when it came down to it, I still love how my car handles when I want to push it a bit. Plus the stopping power in a normal Mazda6 is amazing... I think I remember hearing 60-0 in 120 feet. With the typical inattentive driver out there, this has come in handy a couple times already :) But I was very impressed with the mazdaspeed. Even in the dry, like my testdrive was in, the AWD managed power much better than just a front wheel drive car. Granted, my 6 only has 215 HP, but even that can get a bit too much for a fwd car at times. Add in the many days of wet weather we get in the NW, AWD would be that much more valueable.
Sign In or Register to comment.