2008 Mitsubishi Lancer EX GLX / GLS / MX / GT / GTA [ARCHIVED]

[AG4]

A vehicle doesn't have to be uber rigid to say that it's safe. It has to be a combination of stiff and give.

"A vehicle doesn't have to be uber rigid to say that it's safe." Its hard to just generalize it by saying the vehicle doesn't need to be very rigid to be safe, its more like certain sections of the vehicle must be very rigid while other sections shouldn't be rigid.
You said "It has to be a combination of stiff and give", the "Stiff" section which is the passenger cell should be very rigid, while the part that "gives" or folds to absorb the impact are the crumple zones.

By the way, as much as possible all doors should be able to function after a crash.

[drey]

*Automan,

Im curious, how many kilometers have you been driving the Lancer?

[AutoMAN]

*Automan,

Im curious, how many kilometers have you been driving the Lancer?

Pretty far. Imagine, from the Peninsula in Bangkok the drive all the way to Kasetsart University then to Dhurakijpundit University. Me, and sir Saber did that for 3 consecutive days. We had to fill out an insurance form para sa lancer namin baka daw masalpok ng motorsiklo lalo na when we went to Chatuchak market.

[drey]

Heads up! AI reviewed the Lancer.

http://www.autoindustriya.com/tested/id/87/

Handling is excellent, reminiscent of drive-defined BMWs. Cornering within tight confines were easy and composed, obviously an orchestra of the large rims, grippy Yokohama Advan rubber and Ralliart genetics, courtesy of full independence with MacPhersons and multi-links, 21 and 20 millimeter thick stabilizers, up front and out back, respectively. And that engine (with the tuned exhaust) produces a chill-inducing growl for any motorhead's ears.

[THMVC]

+2, with a sports car like the SI with much much lighter body than the new lancer. It is just a .5sec differential. Okay narin yun. With that speed i think kaya na ng power nya ang weight. Ang problema kung fuel efficient ba? ANy feedbacj from abroad?

Yup its quite an average with the fuel consumption. I have a Black GTS with CVT. I just noticed na pagka naka automatic ako sa city it consumes somewhere 22-24 MPG. Pag long drive sa outstreched ng Long Island NY it is 32-34 MPG. Pag ginamit ko na yung Mg pedals nag iimprove ng mga additional 2-3 MPG syempre that is with a conservative style of driving. Magkano na Gasolina dyan Pinas? Dito ang oer Galon is $3.09.

[AutoMAN]

Hate to burst our bubble about the "speed" of the lancer but this 08 lancer was owned by a Mazda 3.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbpH_sbE5sg&feature=related"]YouTube - lancer 08 vs mazda 3[/ame]

Syempre, after seeing the video maraming debates ang mangyayari(variables, scenarios and iba't ibang palusot) but results are clear. I choose not to read reviews that are posted on magazines or newspapers kasi one column says one thing and the other says differently. Importante ipakita thru video yung test drive. Ako, I'm not willing to debate since I've already been inside and driven the 08 lancer.

[3kster]

heh-heh-heh, the mazda 3 screams of "i'm modded". It might be even a manual tranny.

Paging mbt, carlo, niky, any chance na makahirit kayo sa mitsu phil para i test drive yung Lancer EX? I would love to hear your comments.

Automan, ano specs nung lancer na nadrive nyo? Was it same as the one that will be offered here? Nakaka inggit naman kayo, kahit papano, na drive nyo an yung bagong lancer.

[redorange]

That's highly illogical sir. I've encountered vehicles abroad that are as highly well-packaged in terms of safety feature but weigh less. The Mazda 3 is very heavy but it only has 2 airbags, also the same with the Focus. Mas magaan pa yung top line civic w/ 4 airbags. Of course pwede idahilan yung ABS, EBD, Brake Assist..etc.. but that already came standard with the previous gen cars but it still weighed less than the car now. Like yung Altis ngayon sa previous Altis... almost the same lahat pero lalo siyang bumigat at humina ang HP and NM ng 18L niya. It's a shame because Japanes cars used to be lighter than it's European predecessors and yet pack as many safety features none the less. Ngayon, it's turning out to be a heavyweight contest.

Is it really that illogical? Look at the size of the cars now that are considered compacts, the current Corolla is bigger than the first generation Camry. As a matter of fact let's look at the Corolla as an example since it's been around the longest. When it was introduced in 1966 it was 1,637lbs and the wagon was 1,731lbs had a 60hp engine at 1.1L and a 90" wheelbase. By 1983 it had a 1.6L 70hp engine, 94.5" wheelbase and weighed in at 2,080-2,178lbs. In 1987 it had grown to 95.7" wheelbase and 166.3" length, weighed 2,134-2,167lbs with the same 1.6L engine now at 72hp. By 1990 it got heavier to 2,390lbs-2,436lbs with the same wheelbase but longer at 170"-172" length with interior space at 84 cubic feet. The 1998 model weighed in 2,414lbs-2,453lbs with a 97" wheelbase, 174" length and 88cubic feet of interior space. 2003 the Corolla again got bigger to 102.4" wheelbase, 178.3" length, and 90.3 cubic feet of interior space but now weighing in at 2,600lbs. The 2009 Corolla is even heavier at 2,800lbs and wider by almost 3", length and wheelbase grew by a few tenths and interior space is now up to 92 cubic feet and trunk space is now up to 16.6 cubic feet, now compare that to the 1990 model with only 11 cubic feet.

You say it's illogical but study has shown that occupants of cars with over 100" wheelbase are more likely to survive a crash compared to a vehicle with less than 100" wheel base. Size is a factor in the safety of these cars and those steel beams at the doors need to be longer if the car is bigger. Now which car do you think will be safer, that 1,600lb car from 1966 or the 2,800lb 2009 model in a head on collision? All things being equal even without airbags that 2009 model will be safer simply because of it's size and having more steel in front of the passenger cage that can absorb the impact. The cars you are saying that have the same safety devices are also smaller than the newer generation, you can't make bigger cars without adding weight unless you wan't to pay $50,000 for a Corolla that's made of aluminium and carbon fiber.

[AutoMAN]

Is it really that illogical? Look at the size of the cars now that are considered compacts, the current Corolla is bigger than the first generation Camry. As a matter of fact let's look at the Corolla as an example since it's been around the longest. When it was introduced in 1966 it was 1,637lbs and the wagon was 1,731lbs had a 60hp engine at 1.1L and a 90" wheelbase. By 1983 it had a 1.6L 70hp engine, 94.5" wheelbase and weighed in at 2,080-2,178lbs. In 1987 it had grown to 95.7" wheelbase and 166.3" length, weighed 2,134-2,167lbs with the same 1.6L engine now at 72hp. By 1990 it got heavier to 2,390lbs-2,436lbs with the same wheelbase but longer at 170"-172" length with interior space at 84 cubic feet. The 1998 model weighed in 2,414lbs-2,453lbs with a 97" wheelbase, 174" length and 88cubic feet of interior space. 2003 the Corolla again got bigger to 102.4" wheelbase, 178.3" length, and 90.3 cubic feet of interior space but now weighing in at 2,600lbs. The 2009 Corolla is even heavier at 2,800lbs and wider by almost 3", length and wheelbase grew by a few tenths and interior space is now up to 92 cubic feet and trunk space is now up to 16.6 cubic feet, now compare that to the 1990 model with only 11 cubic feet.

You say it's illogical but study has shown that occupants of cars with over 100" wheelbase are more likely to survive a crash compared to a vehicle with less than 100" wheel base. Size is a factor in the safety of these cars and those steel beams at the doors need to be longer if the car is bigger. Now which car do you think will be safer, that 1,600lb car from 1966 or the 2,800lb 2009 model in a head on collision? All things being equal even without airbags that 2009 model will be safer simply because of it's size and having more steel in front of the passenger cage that can absorb the impact. The cars you are saying that have the same safety devices are also smaller than the newer generation, you can't make bigger cars without adding weight unless you wan't to pay $50,000 for a Corolla that's made of aluminium and carbon fiber.

Sigh, eto na naman tayo about weight category. Safety doesn't mean you have to be a heavyweight. Kasi kung ganun lang po ang takbo ng utak nyo and studies have proven that "heavier" vehicles will have a higher survivability then lahat dapat ng manufacturers gumawa nalang sana ng SUV diba?! I've read the NHSTA ratings of the cars and I've even said on my previous post that even the 2 suzuki cars outshone the 07 civic in overall safety despite the civic being a lot heavier. Safety is about OVERALL packaging and not just about saying "oh, I have a heavy curbweight vehicle so it's likely I'll survive more than the guy who has a lighter car of the same class?" If that's the case then why are there cars who are lighter and yet have a higher safety rating than the other cars? Eurpoean cars have always been heavier than their Japanese counterparts and yet the Japanese can keep be as equal to them in regards to safety.

Ika nga sabi ng isang poster dito, nagiging porkchop heavy na rin yung Japanese cars but still when you compare weights mas mabigat pa rin ang mga Euro cars.

Pls check out safercar.gov

*3kster

the Maz3 is stock except for the wheels. We had 2 trims avail for use in Bangkok. ES and yung top line nila, don't know if it's GT or GTS yung trim? It wouldn't be any different since all of them have the same engine. Pero I got some unconfirmed info from a friend in the US that when they did an engine dyno on the 08 lancer the hp output was just 147hp or 148hp?!

[redorange]

Sigh, eto na naman tayo about weight category. Safety doesn't mean you have to be a heavyweight. Kasi kung ganun lang po ang takbo ng utak nyo and studies have proven that "heavier" vehicles will have a higher survivability then lahat dapat ng manufacturers gumawa nalang sana ng SUV diba?! I've read the NHSTA ratings of the cars and I've even said on my previous post that even the 2 suzuki cars outshone the 07 civic in overall safety despite the civic being a lot heavier. Safety is about OVERALL packaging and not just about saying "oh, I have a heavy curbweight vehicle so it's likely I'll survive more than the guy who has a lighter car of the same class?" If that's the case then why are there cars who are lighter and yet have a higher safety rating than the other cars? Eurpoean cars have always been heavier than their Japanese counterparts and yet the Japanese can keep be as equal to them in regards to safety.

Ika nga sabi ng isang poster dito, nagiging porkchop heavy na rin yung Japanese cars but still when you compare weights mas mabigat pa rin ang mga Euro cars.

Pls check out safercar.gov

*3kster

the Maz3 is stock except for the wheels. We had 2 trims avail for use in Bangkok. ES and yung top line nila, don't know if it's GT or GTS yung trim? It wouldn't be any different since all of them have the same engine. Pero I got some unconfirmed info from a friend in the US that when they did an engine dyno on the 08 lancer the hp output was just 147hp or 148hp?!

First off you said you were not going to debate the matter yet you continue to post an argument. Second I never said weight equated to safety, read my post again, but I would rather be in my 4500lb SUV in a head on collision with a compact car. I did say that the cars are getting bigger in dimension and that will always mean more steel needed to make the cars thus making it heavier. You quote an NHTSA test comparing two Suzukis it to the heavier Civic. Do you have the specifics of that test are they even in the same size category? What model Suzuki? One thing with those test is certain safety features in vehicles can change the rating of a vehicle. Case in point my current truck the Xterra has great test results with side airbags but has lousy ones without it. Third, my original post stated that the weight of the average compact now is the same as a car that was regarded as heavy in 1989. Why is that? Could it be that in 1989 airbags weren't standard safety features along with steel beams in doors. Would a car from 1989 weighing in at 3000lbs be as safe a modern 3000lbs car? Of course not it doesn't have the same design in safety. The modern compact is heavier because it's bigger with more safety designed in the car not because it's heavier for the sake of being heavy. Apparently you did not understand my last post comparing models of the Corolla through the years as it got bigger and heavier so you missed my point entirely.