By on April 4, 2016

2017 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV

Mitsubishi has a plan to gain market share in the U.S. that’s right out of the ’80s.

Dealers were told during last weekend’s National Automobile Dealers Association conference that Mitsubishi will introduce turbocharged engines to model line, according to Automotive News.

The forced-induction renaissance will begin with a 1.5-liter mill powering the automaker’s planned midsize crossover, expected in 2018, which will slot between an enlarged Outlander and the Outlander Sport.

That model is expected to draw on the styling of last year’s XR-PHEV II concept vehicle.

Executives told dealers that a turbocharged engine is being considered for the next-generation Outlander, and a 1.1-liter turbo might make it into the diminutive Mirage and Mirage G4 sedan. Those additions wouldn’t happen until 2019.

The possibility of a blown engine in the Mirage would no doubt be welcomed by existing owners, who currently have just 74 pounds-feet of torque on tap from the model’s 1.2-liter naturally aspirated engine.

Don Swearingen, executive vice president of Mitsubishi Motors North America, told dealers the engines are needed to keep up with fuel economy requirements, especially in the Outlander’s case.

“Everybody in the industry is going to be going even further in this direction,” he said.

Mitsubishi built its brand recognition around turbos in the 1980s and ’90s, cranking out blown models like it was going out of style.

The automaker’s dismal post-recession sales had the brand on a death watch in the U.S., but last year’s numbers — the best since 2008 — show a clear, albeit modest, upward sales trend. Mitsubishi is helping pull its U.S. operation back from the brink with a planned ad budget boost this year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

34 Comments on “Mitsubishi Plans to Boost Sales With Blown Engines...”


  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I thought blown engines were one of the things that (rightfully) earned them such a poor reliability reputation.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Ironically, Mitsubishi, one of the companies making a 2.0 turbo 4 before it was cool, now doesn’t have a 2.0 turbo 4…

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      “Remember the thing we used to do all the time, but don’t do any more? We’re doing that – be impressed!”

      Everyone else (except Mazda) has been adding turbo for the past 5-ish years anyway.

  • avatar

    get a better designer, Mitsu. the last-gen Galant was one of the fugliest cars made this century, every generation of the Outlander is awkwarder than the previous, the Mirage is ugly, too.

    and please, make a turbocharged sports car again. you once had the Eclipse and the 3000GT/GTO, now you have no offers on this subject.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    So will those engines require premium like the woeful 3.0 V6 does?

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    A 1.5L powering a ~4000lb vehicle? What could possibly go wrong there?

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Volvo nearly does it, right?

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        Yeah but I am waiting to see what the Volvo looks like quality wise in 3 years. IMO I dont think that it will work long term for a second or third owner of the cars. I am worried about Mazda CX9 as well. I love them and will be looking to get out of my 08 CX9 in two years. However I wont decide on them if the reliability is shotty

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Volvo power train and engine reliability is always a big question mark in my mind. You can’t say this though, or someone from Volvo Owners Mafia comes and says “Whoa ho there! You forgot the super reliable manual transmission 2.3T V40S available in Texas from January through July of 1999, you jerkass.”

          But yeah.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            V40 was a basically P.O.S. manual or not.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Of course it was! But I needed an example of a crap model from their history. I had to choose something between 1995-2015.

          • 0 avatar

            The S40 is that great bastion of Volvo s**t, evidenced by the fact you can buy one for like $900 on Craigslist. Grandsons of dead WWII vets get more for decent Cutlass Cieras.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The first generation was a shared Mitsubishi Carisma in order to give Nedcar something to build (Nedcar being a joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi. Nedcar was originally DAF in which Volvo took a controlling interest in 1975).

            “Volvo opted to name the range S40 (saloon), and V40 (estate).[7] These cars were manufactured at the Nedcar factory in the Netherlands (a pre-Ford joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi Motors) and based on a common platform with the Mitsubishi Carisma and the Proton Waja.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_S40

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            @CoreyDL

            you could choose XC70. It chewed transmissions like a dog chews a milk bone.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            When did they manage to fix that issue? I know it was the trans solenoid (IIRC) which would go bad, and require some big surgery for replacement.

            I want the XC70 to be a good, reliable car – because I really like them.

          • 0 avatar

            Owner of a 2001 xc70 here. 01 and02 have lots of transmission issue’s. 03 to 05 are better but still some issue. After that I don’t see many complaints on the forums. The early 2000 cars also had issues bwith there fly by wire throttle. Mine has been OK more reliable then my vw and Subaru but worse then the other beaters I have owned. Still cheaper then leasing a new versa so I’m good with it.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Thanks, I’d be uncomfortable trying to DD a Volvo older than about 8 years, I’d think. The initial generation always has various trim issues as well, unless it’s just mint and hasn’t been driven.

  • avatar
    Frownsworth

    “Everybody in the industry is going to be going even further in this direction,” he said.

    In other words, we’re hopelessly derivative and devoid of original ideas.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Writers sometimes don’t make any sense. And this is one of those times:

    “The possibility of a blown engine in the Mirage would no doubt be welcomed by existing owners, who currently have just 74 pounds-feet of torque on tap from the model’s 1.2-liter naturally aspirated engine.”

    How in this world will it help existing owners? Will they care at all? They already bought their cars and will probably not make this mistake again. Does this sentence makes sense to you? To me it sounds as Mitsu will add something to their purchased cars and they will welcome this.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    For some reason I have a strong aversion to any engine below 2 litres, with a turbo or without. I’ve seen Santa Fes tooling around with a 1.6T and a 2.0T and always pause. I always have to wonder if the engine sans turbo is even able to move the car.

    Is there a general percentage of power that the engine itself makes before the turbo gubbins are added? I have to imagine my engine is related to that in the stock Focus, with lower compression of course, and would make similar power numbers without the turbo 160/143. Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States