Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Mitsubishi Lancer 2007 and earlier
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
It's nice to know that cars are indeed safer than even a few years ago. I've heard horror stories about the last generation airbags, so it's great to hear that y'all got out with only minor scratches.
Good luck with your new purchase...and let us know waht you ended up with.
The Sandman :-)
Secondly, Mitsubishi cars pre-99 were definitely not the safest cars around. However, since then, Mitsu has made huge improvements. There isn't a bad performing car in their lineup. The Lancer and Outlander were both rated best picks from IIHS (the Lancer being one of the first small cars to achieve this), the Galant Endeavor and even the ancient Montero Sport were rated good, and the Montero acceptable. You obviously need to conduct better research. Your statement that Mitsus probably aren't safe in the real world is laughable because none of the cars you mentioned have been tested for the inifinite # of possible accidents either. So how do you know they are any better? In fact, the Galant outperformed the new Volvo S40 in the side impact test with only front side airbags compared to Volvo's full head curtain design. Oh and the 97-2000 Mercedes E class was only rated acceptable in the offset impact and the driver's door opened during the impact, a very undesirable problem. The 04 Galant received 5 stars for both front occupants from the NHTSA whereas both the Mercedes C-class and the E-class received only 4 stars. The data would seem to read against the statements you are making. Looks to me like risking your family's life on a Mitsu isn't such a bad decision afterall.
Vivafleur- we are all gald that your growing family escaped unharmed.
On a sidenote, there is a lot of talk of Mitsubishi's reduced number of Fleet Sales. Is it true? My dad has a rental Lancer right now, and he said that in its class, he had a few Lancers to choose from at the Enterprise lot- and that was it. I've driven it. Its a 2004 ES auto.
Positives: Good torque, good fit and finish, smooth transmission, excellent visibility, roomy.
Negatives: rubbery steering feel, so-so driving position, coarse engine sound, cheap fabric upolstery, boring IP, no ABS, cheap looking wheel covers (though better than the horrid ones on the Galant ES).
Not a bad car, but not a standout. No real competitive advantages. Perfectly defines why Mitsu is in the position it is in now.
~alpha
I totally agree with you about the very smooth automatic, roomy interior, good fit and finish (I would venture to say excellent), and excellent visibility. I love how you seem to sit high in the car while the dash sits low and the glass area is nice and large. It provides a near panaramic view out, especially in my wagon. It's a shame some cars are going to that chopped look with smaller glass areas. I hope Mitsu doesn't ruin this with the next Lancer.
As for the previous threads about Mitsu's safety, MB, BMW, and Volvo has earned a good reputation for being pioneers in safety and is continually active in future safety devices. The crumble zone, I believe, was invented by MB while the 3-point seat belt was invented by Volvo. For all the other manufacturers to follow suit in offering safety devices like that is testament to how competitive the market is these days.
As I already said, Mercedes/BMW/Volvo have a long standing heritage of safety innovation dating back to the 1920s. Virtually every safety feature found in any car today was pioneered and introduced first by one of these three companies. So when it comes down to it, who should you trust for safety? Mitsubishi, a company slow to adopt new safety features, plagued by pisspoor IIHS test scores and a non-existent reputation for safety innovation? Or Merc/BMW/Volvo, the companies who brought us safety features like ABS, ESP, Front Airbags, Side Airbags, Head Airbags...etc?
"The Lancer and Outlander were both rated best picks from IIHS (the Lancer being one of the first small cars to achieve this), the Galant Endeavor and even the ancient Montero Sport were rated good, and the Montero acceptable"
Well first of all, it's good to see that Mitsu is finally engineering something that doesn't perform like a shoddy deathtrap in the offset IIHS test. But again, one designer crash test only gives us part of the picture. If it has taken Mitsu this long to finally recieve a good score in one IIHS test, how can you expect Mitsu cars to fare in non-tested scenarios, like rollovers? Secondly, I wouldn't consider an "acceptable" a good score... 3/5?
"Oh and the 97-2000 Mercedes E class was only rated acceptable in the offset impact and the driver's door opened during the impact, a very undesirable problem."
Yeah, and notice how Mercedes corrected to problem beginning with the 2000 model. Unlike Mitsu which continued to sell its deathtraps, (which performed MUCH worse than the E class) for many years.
"The 04 Galant received 5 stars for both front occupants from the NHTSA whereas both the Mercedes C-class and the E-class received only 4 stars. The data would seem to read against the statements you are making. Looks to me like risking your family's life on a Mitsu isn't such a bad decision afterall."
Well first of all, you can't compare the score of the Galant to the score of either the C or E, these cars are in a completely different weight categories. You can only compare cars within weight classes because the forces exerted on occupants is partially a function of the vehilces weight. POINT MOOT. And again, one designer crash test only tells part of the picture. Where are Mitsu's rear side airbags? Where are their rear side head airbags? Where are their rear seatbelt ETDs and load limiters? Not only do the C and E class have more safety features than comparable Mitsu models, but are also engineered to provide good protection in all types of crashes.
And your point is? I never said that every BMW was the safest car in every test. But as a general rule, BMWs perform among the best. For example, every BMW tested by the IIHS has recieved its highest rating. In fact, the BMW X5 was rated "the safest SUV ever tested" by the IIHS.
So you found one test, in which a BMW recieved a 3 out of 5. Maybe I should point out the countless Mitsus that have performed poorly in crash tests? In the end, the 3 series has many more safety features than even the flagship Mitsu, and is probably safer overall.
And its really comical that you find impressive M-Bs response to the E-class offset issue. It took them 3 years to design a fix?! And actually, the C-class is in the same weight category as the Galant, so results for that test are comparable.
In anycase, the point remains that the cars are far from death traps.
~alpha
You said, "Well first of all, you can't compare the score of the Galant to the score of either the C or E, these cars are in a completely different weight categories." Fact: The Mercedes E320 weighs 3691 pounds and the C230 weighs 3250. The Galant V6 weighs 3649 and the four cylinder weighs 3351. Well, if thats not the same weight class, I don't know what is. Are we shocked that those supposed "solid" Mercedes weigh as little as a generic Japanese sedan? Fact: The Galant outperformed both the E-class and the C-class in the NHTSA test and they are completely comparable. So, how do you explain a company that is slow to respond being able to outperform one with decades of safety knowledge? Is that the Jeopardy theme song I hear in the distance? Your postulation that Mercedes are safer in more crash situations is just that, your opinion and feeling. There is nothing to back that up. Your welcome to your own opinions but don't state it as fact.
You said, "Not only do the C and E class have more safety features than comparable Mitsu models". Now that is a MOOT POINT. The most expensive Mitsubishi sedan is $26k. That sedan is also priced as low as $18k. The C-class ranges in price from 29-40k and the E-class starts at 48k. For that huge difference in price, I would hope Mercedes has more safety features. None of the cars in the Galant's price range offer rear seatbelt devices like you mention so you can't use that to show how Mitsubishi is behind. The only area they are behind in is the rear head airbag, which they will hopefully offer in the next year or two, but the fact remains the rear seat occupant faired just as well injury-wise in the side impact as those cars that had head airbags. In fact, the C-class had "marginal" chest protection for the front seat in the side impact whereas the Galant provided "acceptable" protection. Which would you rather have? I don't know about you, but marginal doesn't sound too good.
By the way, maybe this will surprise you, but GM and Ford led the way with airbag tests way back in 1973. They even installed them in some of their full size sedans, long before Mercedes/BMW/Volvo were ever thinking of them. They just weren't feasible in that era so they were abandoned. Yes, Mercedes was first to mass market them, but only on their most expensive models. Chrysler, on the other hand, led the way with making them standard on lowly economy cars. So you cannot make the blanket statement that those 3 companies are god when it comes to safety.
Finally, your whole reason in posting here doesn't make sense. Mitsubishis aren't death traps by any means and I have proven that but they aren't in the same class as Mercedes and thus have no business even being mentioned in the same sentence. If Mitsubishi was as expensive as Mercedes and lacked these features, you would have a point. Since they aren't, you don't have a point. Not everyone can afford expensive luxury sedans. It simply looks like you have an agenda of slamming Mitsubishi for whatever reason.
~alpha
I have a Lancer OZ 2002 with a 5-speed manual transmission and it only has about 39K miles (and pre-50,000 mile warranty). I bought it new and have been very nice to it. My check engine light, however, has had problems. Also, my clutch seems to slip a little every now and then. Has anyone had this experience OR know how to resolve the check engine light without having to take my car in?
I love my car but I fear that if I'm having problems this soon (and I really can't afford repairs), I don't really want to buy another Mitsubishi. I've been burned by all my new cars! I have bad car luck!
-Andrew L
I'll have to go to AutoZone to check the light situation--the dealership wants $90 just to run the diagnostics.
Thanks a lot for your help--I'll check out AutoZone soon!
I just got (4 weeks ago) a new Lancer ES 2005 , so far I like it, it's not the fastest car but it is fuel efficient and at what the gas prices are at now it's what I was looking for.
This week end I took it for a spin question to see how it handles at high speed (130 to 140 Km/H) I was very pleased, no shaking at all.
After the ride I noticed when on idle the RPM will go from 1000 to 800 or 500 and back to 1000, I stepped out of the car to check the engine noise and noticed when ever the change takes place I ear a click, this morning coming to work I took the time to check if the idle thing was still happening or if it was due to the high speed spin I took, so while at a red light I checked, and yes it did the same 100 to 800 click back to 1000, is this normal?
Also, my dealer was telling me an ES and an OZ are pretty much the same car except the OZ is dressed up (body kit etc) , is that true?.
Thanks
The ES and OZ are essentially the same car. The OZ adds the body kit, 15" alloy wheels, rear antisway bar, white faced gauges, and standard keyless entry and fold down rear seats. The OZ will handle a bit better thanks to the larger tires and the rear antisway bar.
Before we went shopping, my wife and I decided there were certain basic criteria: Stick shift, good mileage, ABS brakes, and 4-doors. Reasonable price, i.e. 15 or 16 grand or less. We like small cars and did not want a car bigger than, say a Lancer rougly give or take. I noticed the dealer had a Sportback, which really appealed to me. No stick, automatic only. Had ABS though, but we both hate driving autos, so regrettably ruled that out. If it would have been a stick, I would have written a check. No problem, I will get a Lancer sedan 5 speed. Drove it, liked it a lot. One problem, no ABS option without getting a Ralliart. I did not want to spend Ralliart money, and the car sits too low and has too stiff of a suspension for our roads around here, not to mention being out of the price target.
For what it's worth, if there had been an option for ABS stand alone on a Lancer sedan, I would have signed up. I can't believe in this day and age, even on a base car, there is not an option to pay more for this no-brainer safety feature. Mitsu, you lost a sale for this sole reason. Left the dealer disappointed.
Ordered a Scion xA the other day. 4-door, good mpg, Toyota quality, ABS standard, side airbags optional, stick shift, no hassle, and very affordable at $14k or less actually.
Hopefully someone at Mitsu reads these forums as there is no contact email link on their website to tell this story. I'll give you another try when I'm in the market again.
This consumer wanted a somewhat fun, economical car with emphasis on safety features. I am in a business where we want to know why we lose business if we do lose it, as it helps us get better. So, here it is. Take care, Lancer owners, I think you have cool cars! Wish I could have had one!
They also replaced the alternator and P/S belt for $122.94, because they said they were worn. Would this have been necessary and is it a reasonable price?
They also replaced the left and right sway bar links for $160.26, because they said one was broke. Is this possible, is it necessary to replace both if one is broke and is it a reasonable price?
The total bill came to $1057.80.
Any feedback would be very much appreciated.
I'm seriously considering swapping my 2000 Galant ES work car for a Lancer 5spd stick. I know with some judicious shifting I could squeeze 32 -34 mpg out of the ES and probably 28 -30 mpg out of the Ralliart. I want the Ralliart because my wife has the 4 cyl MIVEC in her Outlander and it runs great so far (18000 miles) plus I know several owners of 04 Galants with 100,000 + miles and they claim lower maintainance costs on the MIVEC engine then the 2.0 in the ES. The Ralliart runs better,rides better...but costs a few grand more and with a 97 mile rt to work that extra 4 mpg can add up.
Does anyone here by any chance know the engine specs on Europe/Russia Lancers?
I have owned an 02 OZ and currently own an 04 Ralliart. Both were automatics and have been reliable cars. My auto 2.0 could easily achieve 31 mpg at 80mph with the AC on and even got 33mpg one time. So, 33-34mpg should be easy to achieve with the 5-speed. My 2.4 auto, on the other hand, gets pretty crappy mileage. The best I have seen on the highway was 25 mpg, but I rarely drive on the highway so it may have improved some as the engine broke in. I average 22 mpg but it has dipped as low as 19. Most 2.4 5-speed owners have been reporting mileage averaging right about 25 mpg, with highway mileage at 27-29. If mileage is important to you, I would get the 2.0. If you want power, the 2.4 is a much more satisfying engine. I doubt there is much of a difference maintenance wise between the two engines since they both still require 60k timing belt changes.
Alex
thanx j
Dealer is right I think about the OZ, Ralliart got a bigger engine.
My dealer has a "menu board" set up with the different services and prices. I know for the Outlander, the 30K was close to $500.
That included auto tranny fluid change, oil change, new spark plugs, tire balance and rotation, cleaning and adjusting of the rear brakes, changing of the AWD differential fluid (which wouldn't need to be done on your Lancer), fuel system cleaning, new air filter, they said they have these "pads" they put on the battery terminals to prevent corrosion?, and some other things that slip my mind. It appeared to be a lot of stuff, but the question is how much is really neccessary?
With that said, with any make/model there are some good ones and some bad ones out there - whether it be Honda, Toyota, or Mitsubishi. This is especailly true with a used car, and how it was maintained by the previous owner. I would advise (with any used car) that it be looked over by a trusted mechanic before purchase. However, I would not stay away from it simply because it is a Mitsubishi - I have found them to be pretty good cars.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Sorry if this is the wrong section, but I'm finding it difficult to get any infomation on the Mitsubishi Lancer Estates. I want to give my car an oil change and basic service, but as Haynes dont do a manual for this model, I'm a bit stuck when it comes to what oil weight to use, spark plug types tec. Does anyone else own one of these? anyone got a manual or service details?
Thanks!
I do agree with most other that the lancer seems very zippy for city driving ( thanks to the 130 f.lb of low torque) but is kind of weak at the upper range rpm for highway speed above 60 mile/hr. However when it reachs 70 or above (which requires a little more pressure on the gas pedal) it will cruise smoothly with no sign of strange on the engine.
So for a car with comes loaded for under 10k I think that was a good buy. The lancer feels very much like a typical japanese compact car just as toyota or honda for smoothness, economy (i got between 30-34 miles/gal), easy to drive and reliable. The car looks very nice and sporty.
So I feel very happy with my purchase so far.