Mitsubishi Reveals 2008 Lancer

[Leppy]

148 for the 2.0, 156 for the 2.3. That's straight from the Mazda website.

It's also not always about horsepower, it's about HP delivery, powerband, power to weight, and transmission efficiency...

The Mazda's handling and torque bands make up for the lack of peak power.

 

[mikeyb]

148 for the 2.0, 156 for the 2.3. That's straight from the Mazda website.

It's also not always about horsepower, it's about HP delivery, powerband, power to weight, and transmission efficiency...

The Mazda's handling and torque bands make up for the lack of peak power.

Leppy, you are right about that!!

 

[sanblaster]

148 for the 2.0, 156 for the 2.3. That's straight from the Mazda website.

It's also not always about horsepower, it's about HP delivery, powerband, power to weight, and transmission efficiency...

The Mazda's handling and torque bands make up for the lack of peak power.

Oh, yeah, my bad the 2.3 = 156ish the 2 = 148. Yeah my next car is going to be a white 3 but it would definitely be nice if it was closer to 185 or so. Buy I guess anything is better then the 1.5 I have currently although it has treated me nicely. And yes, the engineering makes up for the lack of speed I believe in most mazdas. That is why I love them so much.

 

[mikeyb]

Front reminds me a lot of the S40.

 

[BradC]

"manual" CVTs work by having a set of ratios set for a "gear". It is still a CVT, but when you select 1st, it has a preset ratio. Then 2nd would be a different ratio, etc, etc. Doesnt make much sense in a CVT, but more doo-dads = more $$$

 

[Drake13]

Oh, yeah, my bad the 2.3 = 156ish the 2 = 148. Yeah my next car is going to be a white 3 but it would definitely be nice if it was closer to 185 or so. Buy I guess anything is better then the 1.5 I have currently although it has treated me nicely. And yes, the engineering makes up for the lack of speed I believe in most mazdas. That is why I love them so much.

Which 2.0 are you referring to? The FS 2.0 has 130hp 135 torque ( not whp ). I had no idea the Mazda 3 came in a 2.0, i thought they were all 2.3's.

 

[Foolish]

Several companies have this as a "feature" on their CVT's because people can't get used to cars that never shift! It's just a mind game, and it's really pretty stupid since much of the efficiency of a CVT comes from the "Constantly Variable" part of the concept. I suspect having it set to use certain ratios makes it little more than an overly complicated automatic, so I don't really see the point.

Adding paddle shifters to it is just stupid!

And for those of crying about too little horsepower: It's an economy car. If you want fast, don't buy an economy car, buy a fast car, and quityerbitchin'.

"manual" CVTs work by having a set of ratios set for a "gear". It is still a CVT, but when you select 1st, it has a preset ratio. Then 2nd would be a different ratio, etc, etc. Doesnt make much sense in a CVT, but more doo-dads = more $$$

 

[Leppy]

"manual" CVTs work by having a set of ratios set for a "gear". It is still a CVT, but when you select 1st, it has a preset ratio. Then 2nd would be a different ratio, etc, etc. Doesnt make much sense in a CVT, but more doo-dads = more $$$

yeah, which = more stuff to break. And if it's in an Evo, it's more expensive stuff to break.

Another thing... Would a manual CVT have a manual clutch? I don't think it would because it's an Auto, so would it be clutchless 6-speed sequential paddle-shifted with only 2 pedals?

 

[mikeyb]

Here is a good article on how a CVT Transmission works

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt.htm

 

[mikeyb]

I hated the CVT in my ex's Murano. It felt like it was always hunting for gears.

 

[sanblaster]

Which 2.0 are you referring to? The FS 2.0 has 130hp 135 torque ( not whp ). I had no idea the Mazda 3 came in a 2.0, i thought they were all 2.3's.

2.0 = rated 148

2.3 = rated 160

 

[mikeyb]

yeah, which = more stuff to break. And if it's in an Evo, it's more expensive stuff to break.

Another thing... Would a manual CVT have a manual clutch? I don't think it would because it's an Auto, so would it be clutchless 6-speed sequential paddle-shifted with only 2 pedals?

I seriously doubt that Mitsu will put a CVT in the EVO X.

 

[mikeyb]

2.0 = rated 148

2.3 = rated 160

And:

2.3T = rated 263

 

[Blitzd]

2007 Mazda 3 s 2.3 is rated at 156hp/150tq

 

[B1GHAM]

"manual" CVTs work by having a set of ratios set for a "gear". It is still a CVT, but when you select 1st, it has a preset ratio. Then 2nd would be a different ratio, etc, etc. Doesnt make much sense in a CVT, but more doo-dads = more $$$

thank you for the explaination... Didnt think it would ever get answered

yeah that makes ABSOLUTELY no sense... if I wanted a CVT, I wouldnt want to have to shift it.... defeats the purpose.

I knew how a CVT works, just didnt know they were adding pre-selected ratios to justify a gear now. (although I could see a use for this in offroading/snow for lower torque needs)

 

[altspace]

I'll hold further commentary until I see a price point, interior shots, and actually touch/drive the car. Pictures are ok for a first look.

 

[Leppy]

I seriously doubt that Mitsu will put a CVT in the EVO X.

I doubt it, But the mill's say it'll be a clutchess automatic 6-speed with paddle-shifters.

 

[Phoenix5]

Not bad!Certainly an improvement over the older Lancers.I like how mean it looks now.Yea, like someone said,you can see some of the Mazda 6 in the shape.Wonder how the interior looks like?Hopefully they improved it(especially on the Evo).

 

[dbzeag]

152 seems too underpowered to me.

This model is supposed to compete with the Mazda3 standard sedan. 152hp is more than enough.

And I agree CVT = continuously variable transmission. Not 6 speed. But there are car companies that have 6 settings in the CVT pullies to simulate shifting so they can use a paddle. I think that completely defeats the purpose, but I guess it appeals to those that think they are Schumacher.

I think this new design is quite hot. Remember, this competes with Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Corolla, Mazda3, Dodge Caliber, Chevy Cobalt. In that sense I think they did a great job.

I can't wait to see what the EVO brings to the table when the stock model looks so sharp. Remember how hot the EVO was over the pedestrian base model that generation?

 

[dbzeag]

Doesnt make much sense in a CVT, but more doo-dads = more to break

fixd