mmarshall

Those 90s-vintages Eclipses, particularly the Turbos, were fun to drive, but notoriously poorly-built. I described some of the defects I found in them above.

Yeah, even with higher-profile tires than what we have today, over bumps, the Evo bucked and heaved like the suspension components were all welded on solid LOL. But the young kids that bought, drag-raced, and auto-crossed them didn't care....their backs and legs were strong. And the bust-your-***** suspension also gave the Evo a (slight) advantage over its arch-rival Subaru STI in handling.

UDel

My Eclipse was a 94. I did not think it was poorly built or any worse then competitors at the time, I found the interior design pretty nice and everything worked but the transmissions and engines were not designed well and had issues. I had to replace a transmission and engine in my car, luckily they were not too expensive, I admit I was a aggressive driver and did not take care of the car like I do now with cars. The 2nd Gen Eclipse had a noticeably cheaper interior, design was not very good but people loved the exterior styling of them when they came out and they were very popular. If they kept the Eclipse going with the same basic design and purpose like the 1st and 2nd Gen they would have been successful. Instead they dropped awd, softened the looks and handling, dropped the turbo's, and made it more of a cheap cruiser for the next generations.

mmarshall

Correct. I was refering to the 2Gen '95 redesign. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The '95 had, at least IMO, a big drop in build-quality.

FrankReynoldsCPA

My parents have a 98 Montero Sport that's still in pretty decent shape for its age and mileage(about 300,000).

If there's one vehicle I'd like them to bring back, it's the Montero Sport. The market needs BoF SUV's.

mmarshall

The Montero Sport was a nice package, but, from what I remember, it lacked something I'd consider important. Perhaps (?) because of its lower price, at least in the early-production models (not sure about later ones?), it lacked the electronic torque-on-demand, use-on-any-surface AWD system, with the center differential, that the larger Montero (Pajero) had. The Sport made do with a dated (even for the time) part-time 4WD system and manual transfer-case.....which was fine off-road, but greatly limited the use of the 4WD on paved surfaces.

jadu

iTrader: (42)

+1 gotta hand it to mitsubishi motors as well. their lineup is interesting. with the lancer discontinued, they will have 1 EV, 1 sedan and 3 SUV's (outlander, outlander sport, and the new eclipse CUV). that mitsubishi of the 90s is long gone

mmarshall

What I meant by that phrase, in the opening post, is that despite being in a very bad competitive position, the company is apparently going to stick it out as long a possible. Daihatsu, Suzuki, and Isuzu simply packed up and left, hanging all of their American-market employees out to dry. Mitsu, at least, is still officially in business, even if some employees at dealerships have lost their jobs when the dealerships closed.

Interestingly enough, their website for brand-new vehicles still lists the (2015) Evo...so, apparently, there was a batch of 2-3 year old models somewhere that were never sold.....or, if so, never had a clear title.

jadu

iTrader: (42)

totally understood ya mmarshall . The competition here is fierce.

As you may already have seen, they're still cranking out with the sales even with their small lineup. 86,500+ sold to date in October 2017.
Source: http://media.mitsubishicars.com/chan...ctober-sales-2

That number is mostly likely worldwide, thus, I'm curious to know how many were sold only in the US?

FrankReynoldsCPA

Part time 4WD is perfect for the vehicle's purpose as an off-roader. I think a full-time AWD system is better geared for CUV's that never leave the highway, but the intended purpose of BoF SUV's was to be taken off-road. We've done some good off-roading in the Montero Sport.

I have 2 main complaints with the vehicle.

A) Relatively gutless. It employs a 3.0 V6 engine making a grand total of 177 hp(eventually). Not a fun highway cruiser if you live in the intermountain west.

B) It has this awful seat adjustment handle on the side of the drivers seat that sometimes snags the family jewels as you climb up into it. Very unpleasant.

mmarshall

Yeah.....I agree on the off-road durability of a part-time system. Most people, though, just don't do that any more with SUVSs. Except for purpose-designed off-roaders like the Jeep Wrangler, the figures I've seen around 5% or so...maybe 50% for Wranglers.

Off-road and in in the boonies,, though, the genuine low-range transfer-case, with its super-low rock-crawl gearing, will greatly multiply whatever available torque you have. On the road, 177 HP should be fine for most regular level Interstate cruising at legal American speeds, though I can understand your complaint if you have to downshift and slow down over the high Rocky Mountain passes in the thin air, which saps a lot of power from a non-turbo engine. That's why turbos are popular for both mountain driving and, in small aircraft, for flying over mountain passes.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

I'm surprised at the dislike for the 2003-2015 Lancer Evolution here. Those are great cars. Sure, they aren't for everyone but they weren't supposed to be in the first place. Those were exactly the right car for not just teenage hopeful buyers but people who love turbo all wheel drive rally machines.

The only problem with its place in the lineup is that it was the ONLY notably interesting car in the lineup and of course it was built the right way for driving and rally enthusiasts and not to please people who didn't understand or care about what it was.

You saw an Evo in the showroom and it stood out from every other vehicle on offer which were and still are fairly middling and bland. The Evo has car enthusiast prestige but the rest of Mitsubishi's lineup doesn't even have the reputation that Subaru and Mazda have cultivated for theirs. Subaru sells far more normal cars than its STI's and WRX's but they still offer those models. Mazda sells far more normal cars than their Miata MX-5 or the extremely rare rotary vehicle but the Miata is still a mainstay and something-or-other is still in the R&D phase with their rotary engine.

Mitsubishi's big issue may indeed be that their dealer network in the U.S. is so small that they have chased the lowest common denominator in an effort to stay alive on these shores.

Despite this I think the current products speak for themselves. The Lancer wasn't bad at all but other than with the Evo (and the short lived Ralliart turbo weirdly with no manual gearbox option) the company didn't try very hard to make it appealing outside of its rally car roots. An even bigger case in point would be the long dead Galant. No trying at all there. Why would anyone buy a recent Galant over an Accord, Mazda6 or a Camry? Elsewhere in the world a wagon version was offered (Mitsubishi Legnum) and most notably there was an upscale Galant VR-4 with a V6 twin turbo and all wheel drive system. I do believe the majority of those were automatic but for some generations of the post-rally-car-early-90's Galant VR-4 even a manual was offered.

Now maybe Mitsubishi did need to focus on quality, materials and build quality but the point is that Mitsubishi did have better products and parts bin technologies that they could have offered but they just refused to bother in the USA. With that mindset dragging on for years is it any wonder that they're in the situation they've arrived at today, not just in the United States market but even in Japan?

I do hope good things come of the merger with Renault-Nissan. And not in the same way that Nissan went back into profitability but now sells mostly four wheeled CVT appliances with no really good features any longer and fairly ugly looks.

mmarshall

Well, that's why I said, in an earlier post, that the (generally) young kids that bought and drove Evos probably didn't care about the unrefinement, high noise level, and Bucking-Bronco ride/road manners. If it's speed and handling they wanted, the Evo gave it to them.

Can't really compare the MX-5 Miata, though, with the Evo or STI. The Miata is a relatively low powered 2-seat roadster....designed more for open-top fun and a crisp-shifting manual transmission on winding twisty roads than the kind of high-speed rally work for the Evos and STIs.

Yep. That's what eventually killed the other companies I mentioned....Daihatsu, Isuzu, and Suzuki. If you are going to be a mass-market automaker, you have to have enough retail shops to sell your products so that customers don't have to travel an unreasonable distance.

jadu

iTrader: (42)

looks like Mitsubishi had a good 2017 year: https://www.autoblog.com/2018/02/01/...er-crossovers/