Mitsubishi Galant

sandman46 · August 2003

Having a similar mileage with my '03 Sentra with only 2250 miles on the odo. Was at the dealership today for a major a/c problem and asked about the crappy mileage. Was told that it should improve about 5k or so.

The Sandman :-)

alpha01 · August 2003

Points taken, though I still have reservations about the weight of the 3.8, heck more than one publication has cited that the Accord 4s are more nimble than the heavier V6s, and thats only a 3.0L (yes, I realize that engine displacement isnt precisely in correlation engine weight, but here I think my argument is valid).

Will the new Galant be using a 5 speed auto in either the 4 cyl or V6 versions?

As an aside, I've driven a Jetta 2.0 Auto, I felt like it couldnt get out of its own way, I'll have to try one again. I think the Lancer Ralliart looks really good, by the way, and you might want to consider that model, with its ~160hp engine. If it was out at the time I got my Sentra 2.5, ruling out the Lancer may not have occured.

my .02
Best
~alpha

anonymousposts · August 2003

The 3.8 is a truck engine. It still uses a cast-iron block and has not received rave reviews even in the Montero where it is better suited. My only point is, why couldn't Mitsubishi simply tune their 3.0L engine that is currently used in the Galant instead of resorting to the 3.8L? So if they aren't broke then we can safely assume they just didn't feel like the 3.0L engine could be turned to a level to make it cometitive with 215-245HP offerings from the competition. You don't have to have the most HP to sell the most cars because most mid-size sedans sold are 4 cylinders. The Camry was the top-selling car for years with only 136HP. They should've concentrated on the 2.4L and then slightly tweaked the existing 3.0L with some variable timing and a 5-speed automatic transmission or designed a new aluminum engine. I just don't see a Japanese car company using a cast-iron block and a large V6 in their mid-size sedan. That seems more American than Japanese.

alpha01 · August 2003

I didnt realize it had a cast-iron block. Thats a heavy block. If this car comes in under 3500 lbs, I'll be surprised. The Camry SE V6 with 3.3L is right around that mark, a bit portly by my estimation, but I'd imagine the Camry SE suspension can handle it; it seemed quite surefooted when I drove one, much more so than the other Camrys. EPA estimated figures are actually better than the lighter 3.0L version too, at 20/29, not bad.

anon- "So if they aren't broke then we can safely assume they just didn't feel like the 3.0L engine could be turned to a level to make it cometitive with 215-245HP offerings from the competition." This is a ridiculous statement. You dont have to be broke to recognize the benefits of producing engines/components at a point where economies of scale are greatest. It may have been just been financially wasteful to continue the production of the 3.0L when the 3.8L was available. You paint an either/or scenario with only two possibilities, and I just dont buy it.

~alpha

kostadinov · August 2003

ehei..that sounds great,unfortunately I am driving a second-hand car/used/ and it has almost 18000 miles on the clock!!!
Is it a real problem if by this much miles on the clock I still get less than 18 miles per gallon???Or .. it might be my driving habits ... I don't push it to hard .... I promise!!!
I don't know.....the petrol is very cheap here and I really don't mind....just I worry that it might be something wrong with the car although it looks perfect to me???
I've tried 93 octanes,87 octanes it is all the same,treated the fuel system with the most expensive product I could find in the shops .... and still the same ... less than 18 miles per gallon,that's it!!!

fushigi · August 2003

There is probably something wrong somewhere. Brake dragging, clogged air/fuel filter, trans slippage, something. My 99 LS with the 3L V6 (rated 20/27) averages 24-25MPG on Walmart gas in normal driving. Using 87 octane instead of 93 only drops it by about 1MPG or so.

anonymousposts · August 2003

I'm saying Mitsubishi is broke because Autonews and several other auto publications say they are broke. I am saying Mitsubishi is broke because they made alot of loans to people who aren't paying them. I am saying Mitsubishi is broke because during the first quarter of 2003 almost 50% of their total sales were to fleets. Mitsubishi using an unchanged truck engine in their car is just icing on their broke cake.

Although the Galant could be worse off .. the 6 year old Diamante is only getting a reskinning with no major mechanical or structural changes.

lngtonge18 · August 2003

Thats completely YOUR opinion. Mitsu itself is NOT broke. Mitsu finance ran into some problems with defaulted loans but they have already put in measures to fix the problem. If they were broke, Mitsu finance wouldn't be giving out car loans anymore and I wouldn't be making out my car payments to them. They would be bankrupt, just like any other bank that ran out of money. So, once again, get your facts straight!

I'm only going to say this one more time: there is nothing "trucky" about the 3.8 V6!! It is not a freakin truck engine. Get it through your thick skull. Or be prepared to call the 3.5 Honda V6 a truck engine as well. The line has been blurred too much between cars and trucks to make a blanket statement about an engine because it is located in both a car and a truck.

Finally, don't you WORK for a Mitsu dealer? Isn't it in your best interest to hope that Mitsu sales come around or you will be out of a job? It is unethical to slam the same company that writes out your check.

anonymousposts · August 2003

Where I work is irrelevant. Mitsu is far from the entity that direct deposits my paychecks. If I depended on Mitsu for my paychecks I wouldn't have a new house or 4 decent cars. Heck, I couldn't even feed my cat much less have just adopted another one.

As for Mitsu Credit not affecting Mitsu Motors, who do you think subsidizes all of those special financing offers? They are manufacturer subsidized so those programs are costing money. And Mitsu Motors can't let Mitsu Credit go bankrupt because then who would be their in-house finance arm? So Mitsu Motors has to keep Mitsu Credit afloat. And Mitsu Motors being broke is far from only my opinion. I've heard of several articles questioning Mitsubishi's financial stability right now.

The 3.5L Honda engine is a truck engine. They only use that particular version in their van and SUVs. And it's so good that GM bought several of them fron Honda.... to put in a truck. The TL gets a 3.2L and the Accord gets a 3.0L. I would be VERY interested to see if the bore and stroke are the same for the Endeavor, Montero, and Galant.

End of the story is that Mitsubishi is using a cast-iron block/aluminum head engine here in 2003. I can't recall the last Honda/Toyota/Nissan that used cast-iron engine in their cars. Aluminum is lighter and cooler running. In this day of EPA regulations and companies trying to get the most HP with the least gas usage cast-iron just doesn't make sense.

lngtonge18 · August 2003

Hmm...guess who doesn't know what they are talking about? The top of the line Acura RL uses the SAME 3.5 V6 that you have described as a truck engine. The only difference is in the output of the engine via VTEC and compression ratios. Oh my!!! A TRUCK engine resides in an Acura car??? So, don't you think you are being a bit unfair to Mitsu?

As for the iron block, yes, it's heavier, but it's also a lot stronger and longer lasting. Aluminum is very sensitive to temp extremes and can warp much easier. If I was going to keep a car a long time, I would prefer to have an iron block. Mitsu isn't the only company that still uses an iron block either. VW/Audi still uses it and they are by no means technology deficient.

pat · August 2003

Folks, this is a discussion of the Galant sedan. A debate about the state of Mitsubishi as a manufacturer belongs on our News & Views board.

Thank you for your cooperation.

maxamillion1 · August 2003

I just got the latest Automobile Magazine...and I have got to say that I like the Galant.

Rather it has a truck engine OR not!

I really like the styling of the model in this particular magazine.

I'd be interested in a ES I4 with every option! I just hate that the 5spd manual is not offered! Darn Mitsubishi!!!!

I have to agree with everybody else here...Honda has and is currently sharing engines with cars and SUVs.

If I am not mistaken, isn't the 3.5L used in the Odyssey and other cars based off the 3.0L found in the Accord? If I am wrong, forgive me....BUT!
Also, as previously mentioned, the CR-V and Accord share an engine.....a truck engine? Maybe, maybe not.

And if I am not mistaken, the V6 in the Acura TL is based off the 3.0L V6 as well....

Nissan does this as well. Just think about it.

The 300ZX and Maxima started out with the legendary 3.0L VQ engine....then the Pathfinder got the 3.5L version FIRST. I remember when the Pathfinder came out with that engine. The Manual models have 250 hp and the Automatics have 240 hp. The Automatic has more torque than the Manual.

After that, low and behold, the Maxima got that engine in early 2001 as a 2002 Model, producing 260 hp, but later it was reduced to 255.

So I guess Nissan is no different...especially considering that just about every V6 used in the current Nissan lineup-sans the Xterra, has the 3.5L VQ. So the 3.5 is a truck engine right?

EVERY V6 in the Nissan lineup...from the Altima 3.5SE to the Infiniti FX35, and all V6s in between have that engine. Except for the Xterra, which I mentioned.

And guess what, nobody is complaining.

Audi and VW share engines.

It's called cost cutting...everybody does it.

The Domestics do it as well. The 3.1 was used throughout time, and the 3.8 (which is a pretty good engine from what I have heard) is used all throughout the GM line.

From the Impala SS to the Grand Prix to the Bonneville SSEi.

Everybody is doing this because it makes simple sense.

Have a nice day

lawman1967 · August 2003

My 2002 4 cyl Galant also gets dismal fuel economy, averaging 20MPG is mostly highway driving. For comparison, at work I drive a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria and strangely, get almost identical fuel economy in that car.

lawman1967 · August 2003

First on the issue of old or truck engines in cars. The Galant engine did start out as a truck engine, something Nissan also did with the 2.4 liter in the old 240SX and Altima. In my opinion, having come from a truck is not a bad thing, as trucks tend to be designed for good low-end torque and long-term reliability. Sure, in cars we care more about smoothness, horsepower and fuel efficiency, but it hasn't always been that way and truck engines have much to recommend them.

The Galant's engine was the first of the large 4 cylinder truck engines to be tamed by twin counterrotating balance shafts, and the result is incredible smoothness that rivals even the latest Accord and Camry four cylinders. It also, true to its truck heritage, has an outstanding durability record (that cast-iron block?) and good low-end torque despite its lack of modern trickery such as variable valve timing and dual overhead cams. What it lacks are horsepower (140 is enough, just not class-competitive) and fuel economy. Fuel economy is also affected by aerodynamics (which are excellent in the Galant, go figure) and gearing/transmission efficiency. Here is I think the Galant fails in addition to engine efficiency. At 75MPH the Galant engine is simply spinning faster than those of the Camry and Accord, and all else being equal (and in this case its not), higher RPM often leads to lower fuel economy. I know Mitsubishi lowered the gearing for the 2002 model year (low gearing, while bad for fuel economy, is great for acceleration) which makes the car accellerate better and just feel more powerful.

The other enemy of fuel efficiency is weight. I'm not sure how much heavier the Galant is than the competition, if at all, but one way Honda has always done so well is be reducing weight, and that is one advantage of aluminum engine blocks, others being thermal efficiency and a a matching reduction in the weight of other compenents to match the lighter engine.

Fuel economy is by far my biggest complaint on the Galant, as mine has truly been horrible (18 city, 21 highway), however I will admit I drive fast (cruise at about 80). I've also had MANY problems with my brakes (see my next post) and a very strange, intermittent noise from behind the dash or steering wheel that sounds like rustling paper. Despite the problems though, I still like the comfort, handling and overall performance of the car, not to mention the terrific styling.

lawman1967 · August 2003

My Galant has had many brake problems. At 13000 miles the left front caliper was replaced under warranty (stuck). At 20000 miles my rotors were replaced (left front was heat damaged by the previous stuck caliper). At 30000 my left front pad was glazed and the new rotor warped, and at 31000 my brakes didn't completely release on two occasions following panic stops, though did after pumping the brakes.

My suspicion is that either my car has some other defect that four dealers have been unable to identify (brake line or master cylinder perhaps?), or that it is just a lemon. Of course, my lemon law suit wasn't successful as each of my repair was for a different problem, albeit with the same system. the end result, however, is that I simply do not trust my brakes, and at 33000, my warranty is almost expired.

I am faced with two options, trade-in my car at a loss on something new, or spend about $1000 and completely replace my front braking system. Brembo makes a nice system for the Galant consisting of new drilled rotors (larger than stock) and special carbon fiber pads for the stock calipers. In addition, I would replace the brake lines with braided steel and have the calipers rebuilt, everything done by a brake specialty shop. Finally, as my tires are worn out, a new set of Pirelli P4000s in a slightly larger 205/60/15 size would replace the original Goodyears. Total cost for brakes and tires would be $1300, and then I would buy the extended warranty from my insurance company, as my past with this car has eroded my confidence.

Of course, a new Mazda comes with 4/48 bumper to bumper warranty coverage and that new car smell. I wouldn't buy another Galant at this point, even with $4000 in customer and dealer rebates.

Advice? Opinions? Ideas?

lngtonge18 · August 2003

I would say your brake release problems point to a bad master cylinder or rubber brake hose, with the master cylinder being the most likely culprit. I had an 87 VW Fox whose front brakes would progressively clamp down harder and not release as they heated up. After driving across town, the brakes would get so hot from not releasing that the rotors would glow bright red and steam would pour off of them. The brake shop said the calipers were stuck and replaced them and the rubber brake hoses, only to tell me the next day they can't get the master cylinder to bleed. Turns out the master cylinder had some sort of internal leak that wouldn't allow the fluid to travel back to the reservoir after releasing the brakes. Since the cylinder worked properly half the time, it was a hard problem to diagnose. Your problem sounds very similar, only it hasn't gotten so bad yet. My suggestion would be to upgrade the rubber hoses to stainless steel and replace the master cylinder before spending all that money on buying larger brakes and rebuilding calipers that are probably perfectly fine. If the master cylinder turns out to be the problem and the shop can verify it, I'm sure you could get Mitsu to reimburse you for the repair.

p.s. I have a friend who is the shop foreman at my Mitsu dealer. He mentioned having problems with a stuck front caliper on a Diamante once. Turned out the master cylinder was bad. So I might not be too far off on my suggestion. Good luck!

lawman1967 · August 2003

Sounds like it may be the same problem, I'll check it out.

mdossan · September 2003

Since I've owned this car for several years and my father has owned 2, I would like to make a strong recommendation to anyone who has or is thinking of buying a Mitsubishi Galant.

This car will cost you more than a Mercedes C-class or BMW 3 series in maintenance. My transmission needed to be replaced 3 times during the first 100,000 miles of the car's life, in addition to lots of other substantial mechanical problems that cost $800+ each. Mitsubishi conveniently found ways to back out of their warranty on several major repairs.

If you're looking for a comfortable, reliable, relatively economical car, avoid this car like the plague - try the Chevy Impala instead - it's as solid as a rock, reliable and very inexpensive to operate.

fushigi · September 2003

What years were your Mitsus? Perhaps they are from before the 99 model year (when the lineup received a complete re-do).

Based on my experience I couldn't disagree more. My 99 LS V6 with 78K miles has been rock solid reliable. I have done the scheduled maintenance and replaced the tires & battery. The only abnormal maintenance was to replace a loose trim piece.

I was a little wary about buying a Mitsu at the time so I purchased an extended warranty. I've yet to have to use it.

marcin · September 2003

This is your recommendations? This is one ugly American box on wheels! Poor attempt to catch up with competition. Impala? YUK!

(ok, maybe if you are a cop and have the police package installed. then it looks great :-)

ryster · September 2003

The Chevy Impala is a great automobile. Quiet, reliable, inexpensive to maintain, and efficient (30mpg on the highway). The Sport package gives the car a very upscale look. The new SS models makes a great car even better.

More and more people are riding the Impala wave...sales are up 42% over the same time last year.

The new '04 Galant looks to be a huge improvement over the previous model. I am anxious for my local dealers to get some to look at. Any news on pricing?

alpha01 · September 2003

Sales are up 42% and what is the increase in incentives?

~alpha

maxamillion1 · September 2003

Don't forget about the fleet sales as well. The local police in my area has been using the Impala as a police cruiser.

lawman1967 · September 2003

My Galant ate brakes every 7,000 miles, and after many thoughts about unloading my Galant (at a considerable loss) I've finally just ditched the stock braking system. The calipers were rebuilt, the master cylinder replaced, slotted rotors, carbon fiber pads and finally braided steel brake lines.

Its been over 300 miles since the upgrade, and the brakes haven't stuck yet (used to stick at least once every 50 to 100 miles), and of course, it stops on much less than a dime.

Now to take Mitsubishi to small claims to try and recoup my expenses, as despite the intermittent nature of the problem, they should have just replaced parts until they got the right one as the car is under warranty and its been this way since new (2 years and 35,000 miles ago).

One thing is certain, whether I I win at small claims court or not, Mitsubishi still loses, a customer that is. This Galant (2002 ES) was my third Mitsubishi car, and I was very happy with the first two and love the way this one drives. Too bad I'll never buy another.

Kirstie_H · September 2003

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat -- Our topic tonight is "Warranties: Are they worth it?"

http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host

marcin · September 2003

How much did you spend on the new brake system? I'm at 96k with original rotors that need to be replaced asap. I have upgraded to carbon pads at about 30k. Did at least 3 break jobs on the car since new. The only bad thing about the car are the breaks, they just suck, totally. Rotors can warp in 1000 miles easily. Now at 96k, they are thin and the local shop will not resurface them. So before spending $ on new rotors and have the same problem all over again I would rather pay little more (I hope) and get it fix correctly.

dunworth · September 2003

I have seen pictures of the new 2004 Galant and in IMHO I think the outgoing 2003 model is better looking. The interior appears to be a bit funkier as well - not as evenly executed as the Camry/Accord. I will reserve judgement until I see it up close.

For those of you complaining about Galant fuel economy - are you talking 4 cyl or 6 cyl?

The rental I had for a week was a four and I got 38-38 mpg (imperial)/32 (US) on the highway in Canada. I loved this car. Only 1-2 mpg lower than equivalent cars from Toyota and Honda. It is better looking than the Camry and more engaging to drive. The interior did not look as nice but it felt and drove like a quality product.

In Canada, Mitsubishi is selling under its own name since around 2001 but have been selling cars through Chrysler for many years. Mistus were always considered the only decent second-hand picks from that Chrysler and have a good reputaiton for durability and economy of ownership.

lawman1967 · September 2003

My brake upgrade cost $840, including new slotted rotors, carbon fiber pads, braided steel lines (the biggest improvement), off-car inspection of master cylinder and calipers, and finally, labor. I've put 1100 miles on the car since getting it done and so far so good, no shake, excellent power, feel and control, and no squeeks.

My 4 cylinder Galant has always gotten poor fuel economy. THis weekend I drove 900 miles in a round trip from Los Angeles to San Jose, and unllike mu usual 85mph, I set my cruise control at 75 and turned off the AC (I drove in the dark hours of the morning). The car returned 28 mpg, which is the rated highway MPG, and could probably have done a bit better at 65, but of course, I can't drive at 65 without dying of boredom.

I had performed a similar test last year and only get 24mpg AND DID DRIVE 65 THAT TIME, so my guess is that brake friction was the cause of both my poor MPG and my rapid brake wear. Since upgrading the brakes the also just feels a bit lighter and more responsive to changes in throttle, further suggesting friction was my problem.

theflow · September 2003

Test drove the LS 4 cyl. The ride is amazingly smooth and comfortable. The power is only adequate, but I'm not expecting anything from a 4 cyl. Dealer is offering invoice and $4000 rebate. Any thoughts? Also, is there any known problems for this model? Dealer doesn't have a V6 model for me to test drive. Does it worth the extra $2000 for the LS V6? Which one (4 or 6)has fewer known problems?? Is this vehicle expensive to maintain??

kostadinov · September 2003

I keep getting less than 18 mpg in he town,and I wonder how I know if I have any break problems. Please give some ideas how to identify that this is the reason for my bad fuel economy!

phill5 · September 2003

And I have a few questions. My first, a friend of mine read that one could special order a Galant with Xenon headlights (I drove a car with them and loved it) but the dealer told me that was not possible, and I don't know who to believe, the dealer (who has a horrible rep.) or the article my friend read. Also, my car gets terrible MPG's, is this normal? I have a 4cyl ES. Any comments appreciated!

anonymousposts · September 2003

You can get aftermarket lights for any car but the Galant does not have factory or dealer installed Xenon lights.

lngtonge18 · September 2003

Like anonymous posted above, xenon headlights are not available on the Galant. Give your car some time to break in. 2 weeks is not enough time to gauge your mileage. My Lancer initially got as low as 22 mpg, but after 5k or so it was consistently getting 27 mpg in city driving.

phill5 · September 2003

Thankyou for the info! I am sure I will have more questions soon!

rtolentino2 · September 2003

Hi, I'm presently driving a 2002-03 Galant ES Model, 4 Cylinder and I do have problems on my right front brakes - when it gets hot, it has a squeeking noise which bothers me a lot specially when you're driving in a city (LA)wherein there's several stoplights! I only bought this recently -3mths. ago (Used) and has a 28,000 mileage only, had my 30K mileage check w/c cost me only $135 from a reliable auto shop owned by a US-Korean mechanic/technician instead of bringing my car to gas station service or to a car dealer ($300 up).
I was only told by my dealer that when the brakes (ceramic) gets hot, it squeeks, does it mean I have to suffer and get used to it instead of solving the problem since it's covered by warranty??? Pls. give some advice.
Thanks.

lawman1967 · September 2003

Unless the pads are worn (which would cause noise), squeeling will at least be looked at under warranty.

lawman1967 · September 2003

this remains a very nice car (2002 LS 4cyl). I have been unhappy enough at the service practices that I won't buy another, but I still enjoy driving the car and can't imagine an Accord or Camry being any nicer on my monthly 1000 mile round trip weekend from LA to San Jose and back.

The car is still extremely quiet with 35000 miles on the clock, the engine is so smooth that even at 80mph I don't feel any vibration or hear any engine noise. Finally, unlike what someone else on this board suggested, I never feel it to be short on power, even loaded up, climbing a hill at 75mph. This 4cyl, while not particularly fuel efficient, is very flexible, with excellent torque all the way from idle to redline, and the transmission is equally smooth and well-behaved.

If only the fuel economy were better, this would be about the perfect long distance car for small families.

rtolentino2 · October 2003

Thanks for your advice!!! I'm 101% agree on what you've said regarding the ES 4 cyl engine, it's cool & fast, depending on the driver, 0-60 will take about 7-8 secs.what more if it's a V6? But the MPG is quite terrible specially city driving.

Anyway, I need to ask again your advice reg. my Mitsu. I bought this 3 mths. ago (used) at 25K mileage at $13K plus tax.etc.thru car financing , color is Ultra Red, looks fresh to me even the engine compartment looks great, runs fast, driving at 110 mph at FW-605 (nightime only), interior is perfect but the rear leg room is too small for a six footer, maybe it was designed only for Asians.

I was thinking if I'll just trade it for a new 2003 Mitsu. ES V6 OR for a new 2004 LS Mits. V6 - 3.8 / 240 hp. so I can avoid brake problems of my used 2002 Mits.what do you think?? Am driving for the past 30 yrs. now and I really love driving Mits. wayback in the 70's. Hey, Lawman 1967 - Andrew, is your birthdate 1967?? You mentioned that you love travelling to Asian countries, have you been in Manila, Phils.?? I'm a filipino and I used to own 76-Galant and Lancers (all models) and they really beat those Honda & Toyotas back there!! It's really unfortunate that here in the US, Mits. has a poor rating specially for '95-2001 Models-Galant, maybe bec. it's not 100% made in Japan and I hope the 2004 models will again beat their competitors (beside from the Lancer EVO's - perfect engine). It would be better if they have a manual 5-speed transmission aside from automatic.

Again, thanks for your advice and I would really appreciate your concerns reg. Mits. cars. More power!!!

lawman1967 · October 2003

Never been to Manila. I've been to Beijing, China, much of Japan (a long time ago) and travel to Korea very frequently.

Honestly, I cannot recommend trading a 2002 Galant because the resale value is REALLY bad. My car has 35,000 miles on it, and before spending $1,000 on replacing the entire braking system (don't worry, I'm suing Mitsu in small claims), looked into trading it in on another car. Well, since the new 2003s have $4000 in rebates, resale value of my immaculate 2002 is only $7500, which is pathetic.

I really enjoy driving the car, but with resale like that, combined with the company's unwillingness to replace components on my braking system until finding the problem, I will never buy another Mitsubishi.

alpha01 · October 2003

It seems the 04 Galant will not offer dual row side curtain airbags. Is this correct? If so, this is a MAJOR oversight, especially with the IIHS's new dyanmic side impact testing.

~alpha

maxamillion1 · October 2003

According to the 2004 Mitsubishi Galant brochure I got at the Charlotte International Autoshow today, the galant offers front seat mounted side airbags. I don't see curtains.

lngtonge18 · October 2003

Mitsubishi has made some major mistakes in their 04 Galant. Car and Driver tested the four cylinder ES model in their latest issue and didn't have many nice things to say about it.

First off, the Galant is one heavy car! The ES model fitted with a sunroof, ABS, and side airbags tipped the scales at almost 3500 pounds! That's heavier than the Toyota Avalon by a few pounds and 300 pounds more than the Camry. The hefty weight pretty much offsets any gains made by the much improved four cylinder. I'm disappointed Mitsu would allow this car to become so overweight and bloated. It's nice the car is roomier but not if it had to come at the expense of so much weight.

The second big mistake is there is no fold down rear seat, only a pass through. Although this allowed Mitsu to design a super stiff structure, this is a compromise that should not have been made on a family sedan.

Lastly, Mitsu has apparently done a lot of cost cutting in the interior. This is an area where cost cutting will show the most. Didn't Mitsu learn anything from Mazda's decontented 626??

I'm quite disappointed in Mitsu's effort on this car. It looks like it came out half baked and is trying to be too much like the Accord and Camry.

anonymousposts · October 2003

Did you see those braking distances in the C&D article? 198 feet with ABS?

lngtonge18 · October 2003

Yea, the braking performance was a bit below average but not horrible. I've seen Hondas take that long with ABS. It's better than my Lancer, that's for sure.

anonymousposts · October 2003

The only Hondas I see that come anywhere near 198ft are their SUV's and a Civic LX with disc/drum and no ABS. You would expect better from a car with ABS and 4-wheel disc brakes. The lines on the chart on page 70 tell the story. Against it's competitors it's at least 12-15ft longer.

alpha01 · October 2003

The last Accord 4-door V6 that Car and Driver tested required a HUGE 209 feet to stop from 70, so you may want to check your facts. (Reference page 124 of this month's Car and Driver, the Camry Long Term review).

Most people don't understand that braking has A LOT to do with tire adhesion levels, and tires become generally more grippy as they wear in. Witness, again, the long term Camry test, in which the Camry SE V6 required a marginal 190ft. from 70 when new, and an EXCELLENT 173ft from 70MPH after 40,000 miles. Tire choice itself lends significantly to braking distances as well, with better quality, more performance oriented all-seasons typically offering better capability.

~alpha

lngtonge18 · October 2003

Actually, the Accord sedan V6 has much worse braking figures. Check out the Chevy Malibu article on page 85 (decided to ignore that one eh?). The Accord V6 took 209 ft to stop from 70 mph. The Malibu took 203ft, the Chrysler Sebring 198, and the Camry V6 took 191 ft. Seeing as how all these cars are more comparable in weight to the Galant, they would be better matched in a comparison. When you look at those braking figures, the Galant isn't half bad and is actually quite competitive. Hmm....what happened to your Honda's class leading performance? Guess you just haven't read half the articles about them or just chose to tell yourself they were anomalies

anonymousposts · October 2003

Strange that they show the braking for the EX 4 cylinder to be around 184 feet, the EX V6 coupe to be 181 feet, and the LX V6 to be 209 feet. So one of those test results was an anomaly. Considering that there are 2/3 tests showing the Accord to be around 180-ish it seems that something happened when they tested the LX V6. All three have 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS.

And I'm not the one who even mentioned Honda in here. I said that 209 feet seemed long for a 4 cylinder sedan with ABS/4-wheel disc. And my results came from looking at a summary of all of the road tests also known as their Road Test Digest.

maxamillion1 · October 2003

I can't wait for the new Galant to come out. I saw it at the Charlotte Autoshow, and I really like the style and the interior. Shocked me actually. Mitsubishi is coming along well I believe. Just hope everything works out with this new Galant because it is definately more roomy than the old model.

alpha01 · October 2003

"So one of those test results was an anomaly. Considering that there are 2/3 tests showing the Accord to be around 180-ish it seems that something happened when they tested the LX V6. All three have 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS."

You can't conclude its an anamoly based on the information you have. The 4 cylinder Accord weighs significantly less than the V6, which would likely mean shorter stopping distances given the same brake size/ABS control/tires. The Accord coupe wears grippier 17inch tires. Its very likely that the Accord EX V6/LX V6 sedan models--which wear the same size rubber and have the same brake setup--- do indeed require 209ft. from 60.

In anycase, the 198ft. Galant stop isnt great, but its not terrible.

The car overall, however, looks to pale in comparison with other vehicles in this class.

~alpha

Mitsubishi Galant

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles