I purchased my GTS two months ago. I opted for the 5 speed manual transmission, the Sun and Sound and Navigation and Tech packages. After 6,000 miles I am more than pleased with this vehicle. Initially purchased at 67 miles, my fuel economy was about 31 city and 28 highway. Now that the engine is broke in, I now see 30 city and 35 highway. Pretty damn good for the power this car has. The handling is tight and responsive – better than previous Lancers and most any other $20,000 vehicle I’ve ever driven. Has anyone mentioned that it came in .2 seconds behind an STI at GymkhanaUSA this year? Yeah, it out handled the Evo IX. Horsepower ratings are incredibly off. This “152 hp” engine plants 143 of that to the wheels? No. That crankshaft 152 hp is closer to 167. Not to mention that the 5 speed can hit the 6500 RPM redline. I understand that the CVT can’t, but that’s not my worry. I didn’t buy the CVT. The incredibly broad torque band also helps to keep the car at peak power throughout the throttle.

I love the interior, with the exception of the seat fabrics. I’ll agree with this review on that part. They work better as lint strips, picking up every piece of debris that it comes in contact with. The dash and control systems are ergonomically sound and very pleasing to both the eye and touch. Automatic climate control? Not going to find it on a competing vehicle. Bluetooth? RFID keyless key system? Or how about the 30 Gb HDD Navigation system that not only outperforms nav systems in vehicles twice the price but is also a built-in 6 Gb iPod? These are things that you just don’t find in a twenty thousand dollar compact sedan. Don’t get me wrong – I could sit here and nitpick, but even in all my nitpicking the pros of this vehicle definitely outweigh the cons. It could stand to lose some weight or have a little more power, and with the 18″ wheels, road noise is a good bit higher than I’m used to. But these are the only things about the vehicle that I’m not 100% pleased with.

Oh, and as a final note – everyone’s comparing the new Lancer’s aesthetics to other vehicles on the market. That’s because Mitsu used the other vehicles to base the design on. If you look closely at a number of parts, you’ll see BMW, Audi, Alfa Romeo, Acura and even a little SAAB. I don’t mind this myself. The car looks just as awesome as it is fun to drive.

Yeah, that’d be me. And, while I obviously have something at stake here, let me just say that I tested four different cars and chose the Lancer because I liked what it offered for the price. And I’m still glad I did.

When deciding on a car to buy to replace my aging and ailing Mazda Millenia, I knew I wanted something more fuel efficient than the Millenia, but that also offered reasonable interior space and a comfortable, relatively quiet ride. To that end I tested the Honda Civic, the Toyota Camry and the Lancer (and tested a Prius, too, though I hadn’t intended on doing so, originally). I loved the Honda, but it was just too small for a family (wife and two kids). The base Camry was nice and all, and had a very stylish interior. But the interior looks significantly cheaper up close, and the base model Camry offers very little in the way of amenities for about $20k.

The Lancer, meanwhile, gave me a 650watt, 9 speaker stereo, a sunroof, keyless entry, alarm, and HD based Navigation for just under 21k. The car is quiet at cruising speed (though the engine is noisy on hard acceleration), returns 34 mpg all day long on the highway (based on my experience following the readout on the onboard computer) and gets you better than 22 mpg in town (today I saw 24 mpg on my commute). The stereo sounds lovely and the HD Nav has 6 gigs set aside for your own music. I’ve dropped 60 albums into this thing so far, and let me tell you it’s really nice to have them all at your fingertips. I can definitely see leaving my iPod in my pocket most of the time when I’m in the Lancer.

As far as I’m concerned, if I’m going to be in a car for long periods of time, the audio system is the single most important interior feature, and the Lancer with Snu & Sound + Nav definitely delivers. I’ve got no complaints about the rest of the interior. It’s not as space-aged as the Civic, nor as trendy as the Camry (not enough fake aluminum, I guess) but it’s reasonably simple, effective and pleasant.

You’ll notice I’ve said nothing of the handling or acceleration. That’s because I didn’t buy this car for handling or acceleration. I’ve got a heavily modified MR2 turbo that I take to Summit Point for that purpose. I bought the Lancer because I wanted a nice looking family sedan (and the lancer is very fetching) that I would deliver a comfortable, and enjoyable commute. The Lancer fits the bill, and the 5 year 60k mile bumper to bumper warranty puts me at ease (as does knowing that the upcoming Evolution is going to use basically this same engine to make 300 hp or so… can you say “over-engineered?”).

I purposefully bought the ES model Lancer because I didn’t want anything with sporting pretensions. The side-skirts and boy-racer wing of the GTS were turn offs, especially since I knew that in a few months Mitsubishi is going to be releasing an insane Evolution that’s going to eat BMW M3s for breakfast every day.

So all in all, I’m pleased with my new car. And as long as Mitsubishi doesn’t go out of business (and they’re doing waaaay better than Ford or GM… actually seeing double-digit growth thanks to the new models) I think I’ll continue to be pleased with my decision.

and to who had the vue with the shift light, i had a light like that in my 01 sl1. i found that the light doesn’t come on until redline if you’re flooring it.

Sort of the opposite of the BMW 3 series – an expensive car with a surprisingly low HP base engine and even floormats are optional – yet it’s a great driver ‘in the flesh’

You guys think that a BMW is fast. Another misconception for a popular car.

No one said BMW is fast. But at Car and Driver, a BMW 330 doesn’t even need to move (it broke down during test) to beat a super fast Lexus IS350 in C&D scoring.

Point taken. I don’t subscribe to C&D; so, I just occasionally browse the website. Looks like I only remembered the good reviews, or maybe the cars I’ve read about just weren’t bad enough to get a horrible review. I just checked out their comments on the Dodge Avenger, bad, bad, and worse.

Lumbergh21, read the “$15,000 Compacts Compared” in C&D (May 2006). Of the 7 cars tested, the descriptions suggest that only the Fit and Versa are worth buying. As with all their comparisons, they have to justify the placing order so you get good details on why the ones on the bottom landed there. I’m sure the writers at C&D are influenced by external forces to some degree, but where else can I find good North American car reviews from people that dislike automatic transmissions and are willing to point out a few faults in each vehicle? TTAC and C&D provide the only reviews I bother reading anymore.

P.S. I also like the looks of the Civic sedan!

edit: It looks like the post I was responding to got axed.

On the C&D issue-and this applies to Motor Trend and I’m sure the other car rags out there-it’s obvious to me that every new car that they write about in a particular issue is great. Even while noting deficiencies, they end up at what a great car it is. They do have grades of greatness, but I can’t remember the last time I read about how horrible a car was in Motor Trend or C&D. And, while I think that C&D provides slightly better technical data than MT, there reviews seem to be even more gushing.

In the car business, it’s more important AND more difficult to tell the truth about a given vehicle because of all the economic ties that bind.”

Steven… this is not true only in the car business. It’s everywhere. Mainstream media finds it more and more difficult fulfill its role in a democracy with each passing day because almost all of the major media outlets have been gobbled up by Big Business. Whenever you can’t figure out why something is the case on virtually any subject… just follow the money. It’s always all about the money.

Cars like the Saturn Ion, Ford Taurus, Chevy Cavalier, and Dodge Nitro ARE embarassments to their manufacturers. The quality of the materials are deplorable, the drivertrains are mostly second rate, and the styling runs the gamut from bland pudding to outright wonky.

The same can be said for the Toyota Echo, Mitsubishi Galant, Nissan Sentra (prior gen), Subaru Baja, Suzuki Aerio, and Honda Ridgeline. There are several designs and powertrains that simply represent bad values in the marketplace. You can argue all you want about the subjectivity of it all. But the truth is sometimes a lot better than damning a bad vehicle with faint praise.

Case in point… if a manufacturer reads that their car’s styling is ‘OK’ or ‘unique’, I may stick with the design for a longer priod of time instead of developing a better one. The current Ford Focus is a pretty good example of a car that was damned with faint praise upon it’s initial redesign and is now desperately in need of radical changes.

However vehicles such as the Ford Five Hundred, Saturn Ion, Subaru Tribeca, and Toyota Corolla (the one that’s now being delayed) were lambasted for their inadequacies fairly early on. As an aside, the one thing I can thank Car & Driver for is telling the truth about how bad the Saturn Ion was during it’s initial release. That’s one good point I can give to the C&D folks. But their slippery slope of objectivity has been going down gradually since the mid-1990’s.

In the car business, it’s more important AND more difficult to tell the truth about a given vehicle because of all the economic ties that bind. I consider TTAC to be largely the equivalent of Top Gear, but without all the snob ridden pretension of that monolith.

All I can say is keep reading. Whether you’re pro or con (or unsurprisingly apathetic to the Lancer like yours truly), it’s good to have you here.

You guys think that a BMW is fast. Another misconception for a popular car.

Not true! The Honda would come in a close second to BMW.

Car and Driver run "special advertising sections" that use their editorial style to "review" vehicles.

Car and Driver was paid by Ford to perform "consumer research."

Car and Driver accepts press cars and junkets without specific acknowledgment.

Car and Driver accepts vehicles from manufacturers for a long-term fleet.

Car and Driver has a documented history of modifying reviews to mollify advertisers.

You may not agree with our writers' opinions on a particular vehicle, but TTAC has higher ethical standards than Car and Driver. Period.

I read C&D occasionally, and I liked the TV show when I could get it (is it still on?). Still, they rarely say what I think really needs to be said about the cars and the companies that make them. We all know how well these cars are made after five years, and that is the only REAL way to judge quality. I have never seen them stick it to a manufacturer in a review about how their older models just didn’t make it.

Imagine when the new Bungobrothers Special gets reviewed and they point out that even though the new car is mostly new, the last three new models all faired poorly in long term quality and resale value. Has that EVER happened? Even to the worst offenders? It can’t just be optimism on their part.

Maybe it’s the cover to cover ad’s that make me suspicious? I dunno, I enjoy it, but I fall short of “trusting” it. Sad state of journalism and all.

Now I know I won’t get anywhere near it!

Not necessarily true. I believe that a Mazda3i (the base model) handles as well as the Mazda3s. The differences between these two are the available options and the engine; the Mazda3s comes with the larger 2.3L, I4.

I have not driven a new Lancer, but the description in the review sounds like the new one is on a par with the ‘03 model year Lancer that I test drove a few years ago, thoroughly unimpressive with a cheap feel to it. Have they really made so little advancement?

As far as the CVT goes, if a car’s fuel economy is not improved by a CVT it’s probably because it wasn’t tuned to maximize fuel economy. There are other considerations. I had a Saturn Vue with a manual transmission (what a mistake that was) when they first came out. The car was equipped with a shift light that indicated when the computer thought I should shift up to maximize fuel economy. If I had followed the computer’s suggestions, I would have been in 5th gear at 30 mph, which really isn’t practical. When deciding what rpm is “best”, the engineers must take into consideration the power output of the engine, the stress on the internal components (to high or to low rpm), and the sound of the engine in addition to fuel economy.

I won’t argue with the conclusions of this review for the base Lancer. Clearly, from the evidence provided by other journals, the GTS is an improvement when it comes to driving dynamics.

I’m sure the Evo will be great – but a bit over the top for me. I’d be interested in a version of the GTS with the new 172hp four-banger or, even better, a Ralliart version (or equivalent) with 200-220hp. But I hope the Ralliart will look more like the GTS than the Evo.

Landcrusher, why don’t you trust C&D? It’s my favorite magazine, so I had to ask! In their short preview test, they drove the GTS model (with a 5-speed) and had no specific complaints. The comparison tests usually reveal a lot more though.

From the pictures I’ve seen, I do like this exterior better than the previous one. But I haven’t driven any Lancers so I can’t say much more.