Home » Mitsubishi » Mitsubishi Lancer Review

Mitsubishi Lancer Review

By Justin Berkowitz
June 20, 2007 -

Research / Buy This Car

01_08lancergtsr.jpgIn “The Blue-Eyed Salaryman,” American author Niall Murtagh charts his fourteen-year career inside Mitsubishi Japan. When Murtagh gets transferred to Osaka, he concludes that the Tokyo part of the company focuses on large visionary research projects, while Osaka demands practical applications. And there you have it: the dichotomy that accounts for Mitsubishi’s progress in the automotive arena. You have visionary products like the Evo with very little practical purpose, and dull products like the Outlander with very little vision. So where does the new Lancer fit?  

Never mind the subtext, check out those lines! Designing a good-looking compact car ain’t easy nowadays. You’ve got to maximize interior space, accommodate an expanding complement of airbags and facilitate fuel efficiency (with aerodynamics that force sheetmetal shapes down the slippery slope towards suppository chic). Things can go horribly wrong; reference the Honda Civic sedan. Or the previous Lancer, which was as sexy as dental floss. This one the Mitsubishi design team nailed.

04_08lancergtsrpro.jpgThe Lancer’s proportions and details are spot on. The high beltline adds to the impression of size from the outside, yet allows occupants to feel surrounded and safe. The Lancer’s new front fascia copies Audi’s current pig snout and makes it work, flanking the orifice with a set of angry eyes headlights and bisecting the otherwise gaping maw with a suitably wide bumper. Mitsu ripped off the tail lamp design from the Alfa 156– a gorgeous machine that Americans never got the chance to ignore.

The new Lancer is not a stunning design per se– it’s more handsome than drop-dead gorgeous. But it is a stunning development for Mitsubishi. The Lancer is to Mitsubishi what the Altima was to Nissan five years ago: a radical reskin that instantly elevates a plain-Jane model from zero to hero. Unfortunately, the parallel continues inside. 

08_08lancergtsbl.jpgThanks to Mitsu’s PR paparazzi, the Lancer’s cabin looks decidedly avant-garde. The flacks focused on the steering wheel, perfect in both diameter and thickness (though littered with stereo buttons and Bluetooth phone controls). They highlighted the Lancer’s sport bike-inspired gauges. They flagged its slick stereo, neatly integrated into the dash with precise, Teutonic buttonology. 

Off camera, the new Lancer’s interior does the time-warp again. It’s a generic Japanese mishmash fabricated with some of the worst automotive plastics inflicted on U.S. consumers since A Flock of Seagulls first crapped on Top 40 radio, with bulbous switches that feel like they were attached with thumb tacks. The seats are nicely supportive, but why Mitsu decided to support the mouse fur industry by covering the Lancer's chairs and roof with rodent pelts is both an aesthetic and ethical conundrum.

Driving the base model Lancer is an eye-opening experience, especially when you realize that (1) the Evo X will obviously be celestial and (2) THIS is what they started with?

08_08lancergtsr.jpgThe Lancer is just an awful little car to pilot, for sportster and commuter alike. In the pursuit of a compliant ride, Mitsu has fitted the base car with a suspension made out of Twinkies. Potholes send the car bucking in a fit of confusion. And then there’s body roll. Lots and lots of body roll. Quick turns? Out of the question. (Fast corners make you their bitch.) Within minutes of assuming command, my need for speed did recede. I gave up trying to do anything more than get from Point A to Point B in the space of a single day.

Yes, I know: the Lancer’s an economy car. But it could be the only car sold in America that can make an entry level Toyota Corolla or Hyundai Elantra seem like a sports sedan. And the Lancer only achieves 21/29 mpg. How frugal is that? 

05_08lancergtsr.jpgThe Lancer’s all-new 2.0-liter engine is rated at 152 horses (at an unattainable 6000 rpm). I swear a quarter have bolted for greener pastures. A wide open throttle simply kicks the CVT's droning tone up a notch. This isn’t about being a boy-racer. It’s about needing a sign to apologize to drivers while attempting merges.

What really sucks the life out of the Lancer (and sucks in general): its continuously variable transmission. Unless you opt for the top-o-the-line GTS with fake shift points, the CVT is forever locked into penalty mode. It's no fun at all. 

The new Lancer is a research project gone horribly wrong. On paper, it’s a superb vehicle: 150 horsepower, loads of safety features (seven airbags, including the now popular driver's knee airbag), gadget options galore and racy good looks. But it’s all show and no go.

With Mitsubishi’s American operations just climbing out of sea of red ink, it’s too bad the company forgot to benchmark the competitions' driving dynamics. The forthcoming take-no-prisoners Evo version will no doubt sort that out, but after sampling the base Lancer, I highly doubt Mitsubishi’s ability to rescue its American ambitions from the dustbin of history.


Mitsubishi Lancer Review Car Review Rating

64 Responses to “ Mitsubishi Lancer Review ”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order

  • Dayveo :


    Unaccceptable mpg for a compact car.

    To me, Mitusbishi seems to be borrowing their styling cues over and over from the 1st Gen BMW 6-series, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

  • Sajeev Mehta :


    Sounds like the dynamics are as far off-class as the Galant’s suspension bits (compared to the Accord). That’s a shame, the car certainly looks like it could cream a Civic.

    Can you get a conventional transmission? Ditch the CVT, get an OZ/Ralliart package and this would be a nice ride.

  • guyincognito :


    It looks like a Mazda 6 with an Audi shnoz to me.

  • Jeff in Canada :


    So sad to read that the driving experience doesn’t live up to it fantastic styling. Although, I should add, that in my opinion, only the Top of the line Lancer GTS (pictured) looks fantastic, the base model loses that sporty ‘edge’. Really is a shame, this is the nicest looking compact since the Mazda 3 GT, except the driving dynamics of the 3 live up to it’s appearance.
    And I second Dayveo’s comment, 21 mpg out of a 2.0L engine? Without a turbo, thats pathetic mpg for an engine so small!

  • Nemphre :


    I didn’t like this car either. The engine is indeed quite lame. The styling looks decent in pictures but in person I didn’t care for it; I’ll have some of that Mazda 3 sheet metal, thanks. I didn’t think the handling was that bad, but it certainly isn’t as good as the Mazda. The one thing this car has right is the Fosgate sound system.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Mitsubishi’s time here is coming to an end. What are they selling?

  • BlueBrat :


    I actually liked the previous model’s design. It was fairly unique to what exists on the road today. This design is more covertly bland. IMO.

  • jaje :


    Isn’t the premise of CVT transmissions put into compact cars supposed to improve performance and economy? I know the Caliber is also slow and doesn’t get good mileage. Seems that auto mfgrs who have very little engineering prowess adopt technologies that are still beyond their capabilities.

  • Redbarchetta :


    That must be the problem with my Cadillac, damn twinky suspensions.

  • ebix :


    I diagree with many of the conclusions made in this review. Here are the facts (taken from caranddriver.com):

    Lancer: 0-60mph: 7.8s
    5-60mph: 8.3s
    1/4mile: 16.3s@87mph

    Hyundai Elantra:
    0-60: 7.9s
    5-60: 8.6s
    1/4 mile: 16.3@86mph

    Corolla:
    0-60mph: 7.9s
    5-60mph: 8.7s
    1/4 mile: 16.5@85mph

    Based on the math I took, the Lancer is equal or quicker than both of the cars you mention in performance measures.
    It also happens to be just about equal to the Civic in the same measures, much better than the Sentra, and not too far behind a 2.3L Mazda3.
    Clearly, the performance is average or better for this class.

    In terms of handling, lets look at some more numbers:

    Skidpad:
    Lancer: .84g
    Sentra: .79g
    Civic: .81g
    Elantra: .78g
    Corolla: .76g
    Mazda 3s: .85g

    The Lancer loos like it's near top-of-class to me.

    I’m not a fanboy, and know the Lancer may not be best-in-class in every category…but honestly, it is nowhere near as bad of a vehicle compared to others in the class as you’d seemingly like it to be.

  • jrlombard :


    Cover the very front and very rear of the car’s side profile shot. Anyone else see Acura TSX in the remaining middle? That’s not necessarily a bad thing…

    It seems that Mitsubishi has carved out a niche for themselves as the Asian Ford. They have the ability to churn out standard setting cars (ref: Evo), but not the drive or motivation. They NEEDED this to be the next big thing.

    Oh well, we’ll talk about “that company that used to make this really fast car called the Evo” in a few years– very much in past tense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All Reverse Order



Leave a Reply Back to Top


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Vehicle 1  
Vehicle 2  
 
Pricing engine provided by TrueDelta.

New Content Feeds

Bookmark This Post

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

© 2004 - 2007 The Truth About Cars | Terms & Conditions | POWERED