So your sitting at MMNA headquaters in the boardroom...
#61
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by LancerMMC
GPT you cited that Lancers have had more sold units than Impreza. But Mitsu also throws in all sorts of rebates and incentives which kill resale value, while Subaru cars have outstanding resale. It might not seem that important, but try to trade in your RA and you'll see what I mean.
#64
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sherbrooke, Qc
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-
I think the new Civic looks like crap, even the SI (which is the least ugly on the lot)... so I sure as hell hope Mitsubishi can come up with a decent design for the new Lancer and kick all these losers collective a$ses!
They already have the best combustion engine technology out there... the value is there too. All that is missing is a great looking car... and tons of marketing and ads for Pete's sake!
-
I think the new Civic looks like crap, even the SI (which is the least ugly on the lot)... so I sure as hell hope Mitsubishi can come up with a decent design for the new Lancer and kick all these losers collective a$ses!
They already have the best combustion engine technology out there... the value is there too. All that is missing is a great looking car... and tons of marketing and ads for Pete's sake!
-
#65
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by LancerMMC
and on the spec sheet it's still better than the RA.
#66
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GPTourer
RWD is a pipe dream, I mean really - we are talking about a platform that has to support Mitsu's cheapest vehicle as well as their performance car. RWD cars don't do so hot at rallying either.
The only way to do a RWD car would be to develop a new platform. That would take, like, a billion dollars. Then it would probably only be for one car. A DOHC MIVEC head on a 3.8L V6 and then call it a 3800GT or whatever. Might as well twin turbo it for kicks, then charge 50 grand. Oh yeah, I can see that happening.
I also think bolt on factory supplied turbo kits are out of the question. Superchargers are easier and less labor to install, and less possible to goof up and don't mess with emmisions. No manufacturer has ever done a bolt on turbo to my knowledge in a common car.
The only way to do a RWD car would be to develop a new platform. That would take, like, a billion dollars. Then it would probably only be for one car. A DOHC MIVEC head on a 3.8L V6 and then call it a 3800GT or whatever. Might as well twin turbo it for kicks, then charge 50 grand. Oh yeah, I can see that happening.
I also think bolt on factory supplied turbo kits are out of the question. Superchargers are easier and less labor to install, and less possible to goof up and don't mess with emmisions. No manufacturer has ever done a bolt on turbo to my knowledge in a common car.
but then again, i'm no business major, just an engineer in training and that is my opinion.
But honestly, my old man is a systems engineer for Toyota. Their philosophy to being the greatest car manufacturer in the world has always been continual improvement. Of course, by that they mean improving the current product and not innovating so much that you lose a lot of money in R&D. Based on the success of Scion and it's KISS ways, I think mitsu should look at that as an example.
1. Keep the evo and not drop it like a rock like toyota did with the supra.
2. Make the lancer a more reliable, luxurious simple car.
3. Improve the lancer by making it a bit more powerful with better fuel economy, improve safety and the interior,
4. and cut back more unnecessary car models.
In addition, if I were in the market for a new car, what makes the scion TC so much more appealing to me than a lancer ralliart?
Answer for me is: All of what I mentioned above except for maybe power. Quality and the bang for the buck. Just sit in one.
Last edited by mr96gsx408; Dec 14, 2005 at 11:21 AM.
#67
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by mr96gsx408
The evo already has the bottom for a rear drive shaft, and it is pretty much using a lancer based frame. It's just remounting the engine longitudinally and making new motor mounts that will be tricky.
#69
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry... I didn't mean to start a Lancer vs Impreza debate. I like both cars as my sig says. I just think the Lancer, especially the Ralliart could use a lot of improvement and should try to compete with the WRX while the OZ competes with the 2.5i.
For me the Impreza is a better car, but that's of course a personal opinion. I was looking at either the RA or 2.5i and spec wise, value, and even a slightly less MSRP I went Subaru. You might think the '06 is ugly, which seems to be the only problem people have with it, but the Evo X Charger aint exactly winning a beauty pageant in my opinion.
For me the Impreza is a better car, but that's of course a personal opinion. I was looking at either the RA or 2.5i and spec wise, value, and even a slightly less MSRP I went Subaru. You might think the '06 is ugly, which seems to be the only problem people have with it, but the Evo X Charger aint exactly winning a beauty pageant in my opinion.
#70
Evolved Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that first question to ask is:
What trim levels should the 2007/08 Lancer have in its line-up?
IMHO the business case for the current ES, OZ, RA line-up is still valid.
Therefore, what would the next RA need to be competetive in the segment (next gen Sentra, Si, and Corolla XRS (?))?
Power should, and most likely will, come from the new 2.4l DOHC MIVEC found in the new Outlander. (I belive this due to the distinct possibility that the new 2.4l will eventually also power the next gen base Galant and Eclipse.)
Specs: 190hp/170 ft-lbs torque (makes 170hp/165 ft-lbs torque in the new Outlander)
The Outlander features monotube shocks and I belive these will transfer over to the Lancer, or at the very least, the RA. Either way, IMO the existing suspension set-up is decent enough... (better tires please!!!)
Though a 6-speed manual would be perfect, I think will stick with the 5-speed due to cost (as long as we don't get stuck with the 6-speed CVT, I'm happy)
The Outlander also features use of aluminum panels, again, I see application potential for this in the RA to improve handling.
My $0.02.
What trim levels should the 2007/08 Lancer have in its line-up?
IMHO the business case for the current ES, OZ, RA line-up is still valid.
Therefore, what would the next RA need to be competetive in the segment (next gen Sentra, Si, and Corolla XRS (?))?
Power should, and most likely will, come from the new 2.4l DOHC MIVEC found in the new Outlander. (I belive this due to the distinct possibility that the new 2.4l will eventually also power the next gen base Galant and Eclipse.)
Specs: 190hp/170 ft-lbs torque (makes 170hp/165 ft-lbs torque in the new Outlander)
The Outlander features monotube shocks and I belive these will transfer over to the Lancer, or at the very least, the RA. Either way, IMO the existing suspension set-up is decent enough... (better tires please!!!)
Though a 6-speed manual would be perfect, I think will stick with the 5-speed due to cost (as long as we don't get stuck with the 6-speed CVT, I'm happy)
The Outlander also features use of aluminum panels, again, I see application potential for this in the RA to improve handling.
My $0.02.
#71
Evolved Member
I don't think we will see the CVT. I read an interview with Osamu and he said there were know plans to bring it over.
The RA needs something more to keep it from being an also ran. The 6-spd and better tires are a must. It is going to have to rev higher or be F/I I think to become more competitive.
The RA needs something more to keep it from being an also ran. The 6-spd and better tires are a must. It is going to have to rev higher or be F/I I think to become more competitive.
#72
Evolved Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realistically, they wouldnt put a six speed in our cars. This is due simply they wouldnt want an RA to be better than an evo in any way other than price. Just thinking from a developer's perspective
#73
With the budget.. no way for a turbo to push out 220-240.
I say keep it fwd, maybe luckly some type of lsd, some option for sick wheels.
Keep it N/A, and pump it close to 200 hp. Or some simple supercharger or turbo to make around 200hp.
The key thing is to compete wit the new SI and WRX platforms, and also try to get related performance to the srt-4. Try to get the interior like the JDM ralliart.
I say keep it fwd, maybe luckly some type of lsd, some option for sick wheels.
Keep it N/A, and pump it close to 200 hp. Or some simple supercharger or turbo to make around 200hp.
The key thing is to compete wit the new SI and WRX platforms, and also try to get related performance to the srt-4. Try to get the interior like the JDM ralliart.
#74
Originally Posted by BLKRalliArt04
Realistically, they wouldnt put a six speed in our cars. This is due simply they wouldnt want an RA to be better than an evo in any way other than price. Just thinking from a developer's perspective
#75
Originally Posted by EvoJutsu
With the budget.. no way for a turbo to push out 220-240.
I say keep it fwd, maybe luckly some type of lsd, some option for sick wheels.
Keep it N/A, and pump it close to 200 hp. Or some simple supercharger or turbo to make around 200hp.
The key thing is to compete wit the new SI and WRX platforms, and also try to get related performance to the srt-4. Try to get the interior like the JDM ralliart.
I say keep it fwd, maybe luckly some type of lsd, some option for sick wheels.
Keep it N/A, and pump it close to 200 hp. Or some simple supercharger or turbo to make around 200hp.
The key thing is to compete wit the new SI and WRX platforms, and also try to get related performance to the srt-4. Try to get the interior like the JDM ralliart.