Car Advice

Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Review & Road Test

MITSUBISHI LANCER

Pros: Styling, handling, CVT, bluetooth, stereo

Cons: Fuel economy, some cheap plastics

By Karl Peskett |
Add to shortlist

Price: $14,220 to $24,000

Our Rating:  

Style and substance in the one package

Model Tested:

  • 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback VRX; 2.4-litre, four cylinder, petrol; CVT; five door hatchback – $32,490

Options:

  • Mitsubishi Multi-Communication System $2200; Metallic Paint $450

CarAdvice Rating: rating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gifrating_half.GIF

It’s amazing what a set of wheels and tyres, plus a few bodykit additions can do to the look of a car. Take the Mitsubishi Lancer for example. This week’s tester was a cherry-red VRX Sportback and compared with the base model just a few additions can really change its styling.

The larger, wider wheels fill out the arches more effectively, and the side skirts, rear roof spoiler and front lip additions lend a sports feel without looking too riced up. Based on looks alone, the VRX has it all over the ES. However you get much more than just asthetics for your extra $8000.


Under the bonnet lies a larger, 2.4-litre four cylinder MIVEC engine, capable of producing 125kW and 226Nm, substantially more than the lower specced 2.0-litre with its 113kW and 198Nm outputs. You can really feel the difference, too, despite the Continuously Variable Transmission (and its usual sluggish behaviour) which sends the power to the front wheels.

Normally, I’m not a fan of CVTs, as their obsession with keeping revs as low as possible means they need a fair prod to realise you’d like some power underfoot. This one actually works quite well and responds with a reasonable degree of enthusiasm, giving you brisk acceleration if needed, or just a leisurely pace, depending on your right pedal’s position. Off the line it takes a moment to wind up, but for overtaking and passing manoeuvres it keeps the engine right in its sweet spot.

The result is a 0-100km/h time of just over nine seconds, which you expect with the ‘lacky band transmission, but once rolling it feels a lot quicker. There are paddle shifters, too, which do their best to imbue an air of race-inspired driving, but it’s a tenuous link, and let’s be honest – who is going to use them?

Fuel economy is nothing to write home about, given the ADR test figure was 8.9-litres/100km and we ended up with 10.3-litres/100km. It is a large four cylinder, after all. The engine itself can be a little thrashy at the top end, but low to middling revs are fairly quiet, being drowned out more than anything by road noise from the 18-inch tyres. On coarse-chip surfaces the constant thrumming can be a little wearing, so it’s a good thing that Mitsubishi has equipped the VRX with a thumping Rockford Fosgate stereo.

With a 10-inch subwoofer and a combined 710 watts, it’s bowel-shakingly powerful, as well as being fairly clear, too. For a standard stereo, you can’t complain with its performance. Optioned on our test car was Mitsubishi’s Multi Communications System (MMCS) which uses a touch-screen to control the sat-nav, stereo, telephone and other settings. Although the graphics are of a medium resolution, the system is very quick and easy to navigate.

Buttons on the lower half of the steering wheel also allow for quick phone answering as well as voice commands, such as pairing your phone, dialling numbers and accessing your phone book. The Bluetooth voice-activated system is also very quick, with spoken numbers able to be rattled off at a rate of knots and being understood and actioned just as quick.

Then there’s the excellent climate control, unique trim to the VRX, plenty of space and fantastic seats. It all adds up to a very decent interior. The only area which is a let down is the size of the Sportback boot. At first glance it looks a lot bigger than the on-paper figures suggest, but when you consider the angle of the rear glass, the 344-litres makes a bit more sense. And yes, there could be less joins on the dashboard, and some of the plastics are a bit cheap, but on the whole, with the amount of kit included, the VRX Lancer impresses. It also impresses with its drive.

The steering is superb, with quick response and plenty of feel. The handling is also very good with a neutral stance not only on turn it, but also mid corner. There’s the expected firm ride, courtesy of stiffer suspension than the lower specced models and a strut brace features under the bonnet; a pointer to its handling prowess.

Braking is effective, and since I last tested a VRX, it seems some work has been done on the ABS, which now holds off later and hauls up sooner. Add to that the stability control, the seven airbags and excellent crash-test results and you can see why ANCAP awarded the Lancer with five stars – it means you’re buying a very safe package.

It’s also a more engaging drive than its more expensive sibling the Lancer Ralliart. Part of it is the fact that you know it’s not a turbocharged all-wheel-drive WRX competitor, so the involvement, grip and handling balance comes as a pleasant surprise. The other part is the fact that it’s over ten thousand dollars cheaper, yet is also available in a manual version.

Mitsubishi’s Diamond Advantage warranty is also not to be sneezed at. Five years bumper to bumper and ten years on the drivetrain, all with five years of roadside assistance and the first four years of servicing capped. As far as value goes, you can’t argue with it.

Asking over 30 grand for a small car is always going to be a challenge. However it depends on what you want out of your car. If you want fuel economy, a comfortable ride and a light and breezy interior then may I suggest you look elsewhere. If it’s driving involvement, an excellent sound system, impeccable safety rating and good looks, then the Lancer VRX Sportback may be exactly what you’re after.

Ratings:

CarAdvice Overall Rating: rating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gifrating_half.GIF
How does it Drive: rating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gif
How does it Look: rating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gifrating_half.GIF
How does it Go: rating11.gifrating11.gifrating11.gif

*Pricing is a guide as recommended to us by the manufacturer.


 

Reader reviews of the MITSUBISHI LANCER

<

Write a review for the MITSUBISHI LANCER

Do you own this car? Share your opinion and add your own review below.

Add a New Review
>

The competition

  • CrustyTheClown

    Superb vehicle

    I recently ordered one!!

    Just a pov pack 2L ES though!

    Thanks for the review

    • dusty the drongo

      Is it fwd or rwd crusty

      • CrustyTheClown

        FWD, not interested in the AWD Sports jobs, well not for now anyway.

        ES is the base spec., but even the ES base has near evertyhing in it as std.

        Cheers

      • Andrew M

        Im sensing a little more is behind your comment than just a simple sounding question….
        ha ha ha

      • Andrew M

        And it seems Dustys comment went straight through to the keeper

        • dusty the drongo

          Yep hes forgotten what he wrote over on the mazda mps 3 blog , funny as .

    • Whitbomb07

      You really believe this would beat an i30 diesel Crusty?

      I really feel for you…….

      The more comments you make on here the more we see of what you really are.

      I’d love to take you somewhere like the Great Alpine Road over Mt Hotham and show you how much your 2L Lancer would fail compared to an i30 diesel.

      Regards

      Whitbomb07

    • Jinsei

      Crusty, you seem like a desperate Lancer ES 2.0 FWD owner, who is trying all you can to justfiy your decision to buy the lancer over i30 diesel.

      You could have bought a lot more car for a lot LESS if you gave i30 a second thought. I hope you wouldn’t regret that you hadn’t. LOL

      • CrustyTheClown

        More for less, you have NOT compared them have you?

        No need to justify, i did the math, Lancer every time and by a wode margain…

        ADVANTAGE LANCER:

        10 YEAR POWERTRAIN WARRANTY
        5 YEAR ROADSIDE ASSIST
        CAPPED SERVICE ~$150
        IND. REAR SUSPENSION
        7 AIRBAGS
        JAPANESE BUILT
        6 SPEED AUTO
        BETTER RESALE
        MORE kW/Nm
        205/16″ LARGER TYRES
        SMALLER TURNING CIRCLE
        LARGER REAR CARGO AREA
        LARGER FUEL TANK
        CRUISE CONTROL

        Just $500 more, but HEAPS more as per above

        Cheers

        • Whitbomb07

          Crusty your wrong…..

          Compared to your 2.0 CVT ES Sportback the i30 CRDi SLX for 1900 extra beats it in the following regard.

          1. Unlimited km warranty, all well and good have 10 years but if you use the kms up in less than 4 it’s kinda pointless.
          2. 57nm more torque (you know that stuff that gets you up hills etc etc)
          3. 3.6l/100km less combined, 5.7 less city, 2.5 less highway
          4. 72gm/km less CO2
          5. Alloy wheels
          6. Lower profile tyres
          7. more headroom
          8. 200kg extra towing
          9. Full climate control
          10. USB input + Ipod connectivity
          11. steering wheel audio controls
          12. 6 speakers

          Pretty good for only 1900 extra huh?

          Compared to the i30 sx CRDi (base model like yours) it still hold the following over yours for 1600 LESS.

          Same as bove for torque, fuel consumption and emissions, headroom, towing and stereo bar steering controls.

          The only big thing that’s lost going to the lower spec i30 is the full climate control.

          If we go back to the SLX version and compare it to this 2.4 VRX Sportback it holds the following.

          1. $6,100 less price
          2. unlimited km warranty
          3. 29nm more torque
          4. 4.2 l/100km better combined economy, 6.5 city, 3.0 highway.
          5. Same again headroom
          6. Same again towing (no change from 2.0)
          7. USB input + ipod connectivity

          So there we have it, want to keep trying to justify you foolish on a whim (as you yourself have stated) purchase?

          Now the rebuttal to your claims:

          1. Your claims about better resale are rubbish Robin Graves posted up the figures in the ix35 thread, i30 smashes it.
          2. i30 has cruise control on SLX, can’t remember if the SX does, so that point is invalid.
          3. Jap built really means nothing now.
          4. Your incorrect about more NM
          5. the SX are smaller tyres, but the SLX matches it
          6. 4lts more cargo is barely worth beating your chest about.
          7. I’ll have to get back to you on fuel tank, but I’ve fitted 57-58lts in regularly (so not pump error) and didn’t push the car to the servo, so the 53 listed for the i30 is incorrect.

          Regards

          Whitbomb07

          • scatman

            It is sad that you went to all that effort, go for a walk or something, clean your house.

          • Whitbomb07

            Truth hurts doesn’t it Scatman?

            He wants to take shots and Crusty along with anbody else who does should be prepared to cop em back, instead of coming up with a lame comeback like that.

            You all get what you give mate, none of you have the right to cry poor when your given a taste of your own medicine.

            Regards

            Whitbomb07

          • Andrew M

            Whitbomb,
            You love your hyundai, thats fine, but its a little biased and silly of you to come onto a lancer post and start talking up your vehicle.

            Many of the things you you list as positives is a bit of a chuckle.

            For starters you write of Crustys positive notes as useless, yet you talk up towing in a vehicle that should never have tow bars fitted to them.
            If you want to tow 1200kgs in a hyundai hatch back, you have rocks in your head. Techniclly speaking the Lancer can tow more in terms of unbraked capacity, And since the Lancer weighs more, I would back it to hold on the road a bit better under load.

            But yeah, 1200kgs on the back of a small car=rocks in your head.
            Perhaps Mitsubishi are being a little more realistic when capping their braked towing at 1000kgs.
            For my thinking, these sort of cars should be capped at 750kgs (standard box trailer limits)

            Oh and why brag about the co2 figure????
            Air pollution rating (deadly stuff) on the diesel i30 is rated at 5.0, and the lancer at 6.5 (higher the score the better)
            Overall the combined green stars on a petrol Lancer and diesel i30 both = 3.5

            Oh and if you want to nit pick little features, crusty left out half of the Lancers features.
            What about privacy glass and keyless entry for starters???
            This article didnt even make mention of some of the features the Lancer has

            Oh and on the reverse warranty argument, what if you dont use up your kilometers and the lower amount of years catch up with you on the Hyundai??
            6 of one, half dozen the other really isnt it…..

          • Whitbomb07

            Andrew M

            I find your statements confusing as on one hand you have had a go at Crusty for his comments in this thread, but at the same time you have also supported him.

            You have a go at me attacking select segments of my statements but not all of it, is there a reason why you have ignored the majority? Perhaps because it is true?

            Crusty has made it very clear how Anti-Hyundai he/she/it is and has profusely done so throughout all current Hyundai threads, yet you say how dare I point out the limitations of a car and it’s manufacturer in one of its threads? Get a grip, I’ve giving him what he is giving me and everybody else except politer and with alot more FACTs to back me up rather then foolish heresay claims that he has made.

            You have a go at me about my statements about the towing claim? Well even at the 750/1000kg that you claim is satisfactory for the Lancer, I know which engine I’d rather have pulling it. To give you a hint it’s one that puts out more torque than a petrol in the Lancer VRX that is 50% larger capacity than the engine I’d use!

            Most of what you have said AT BEST balances things out between the i30 and the Lancer sportback. Good on you. But if I had said nothing Crusty’s foolish biased claims (or completely false) in support of the Lancer would be left unchecked. I’d prefer to help someone who knows little that comes here seeking advice on their next car purchase to know more than biased facts and outright lies that could lead to a regretful sale.

            He want’s to post up biased facts along with foolish heresay to support his vehicle and belittle competition? All well and great, I’m going to post facts as to why he is wrong. If you have a problem with me posting truths and correcting his mistakes and misconceptions well that’s your own silly problem.

            Regards

            Whitbomb07

          • gmac

            Time to get a hobby guy’s or go drive the car’s you are so passionate about!

          • Andrew M

            1. So you are saying I should either side with you or crusty and my opinions must either agree or disagree 100% of the time??

            2. So you want me to sit here all day and even pick at the littlest of things? Yes some things I agree with of yours, but they are the captain obvious things and points I find irrelevant. (hardly worth commenting on)

            3. Yeah fair enough if you want to play a bit of tit for tat, but as I said this is the Lancers home field. I normally dis others for doing the same in such a heavy manner on other posts I care to get involved in.

            4. Towing, well I said I wouldnt tow in excess of 750kgs in either car. What im saying is you are splitting a couple of hundred kilos in an area where these vehicles should never see. 750kgs is the max limit for a standard box trailer. If you reckon either of these vehicles can tow well in excess of that, you have either never towed anything close to that range before, or are plain crazy.
            You can try and impress with all the power and torque figures you want, but the vehicles balance counts for most of the vehicles ability.
            Why can a Falcon and Commodore out tow a simarly powered Aurion???
            Why can a Navara tow more than a simirlary torqued and powered Falcon???
            Vehicle balance……and FWD’s lose out to start with let alone a smaller chassied one

            5. OK, so list thes heavily biased and uncorrect facts that crusty has posted.

            6. Once again, show me the incorrect claims Crusty has made.

            Now hopefully that makes you happier that I have disected your WHOLE comment.

            I dont like to think I am biased towards either vehicle. After my evaluation of the market, I ended up buying the Mazda, but I will say the Lancer is what I felt was the best of the rest. (Oh, and it was a Hyundai that was traded on the Mazda, prob not that it counts for much)

          • CrustyTheClown

            Errrrr, why you comparing a DIEsel which is THOUSANDS more [i only buy base models] had DIEsels before, total waste of money, never again!!

            A base i30 is $20990 and a base Lancer ES is $21490, both driveaway price, so just $500 more for superior in every single way to the Lancer.

            If you want a race over the mountains, you bring ANY i30 you want not just DIEsel, or infact ANY hyundai you want, i will stick with the Lancer theme and bring a EVO.

            Should be interesting, now many minutes head start do you want?

            GAME OVER!

            hyundai have NOTHING like a EVO/WRX have they?, now you can see how many generations they are behind.

            They simply sell because they are [where] cheap, nothing more, and never class or world leading technology or engineering, just basic wheels like GreatWall, Geely, etc

            Cheers..

          • Whitbomb07

            Crusty

            When the #$%& did Evo’s come into this?

            But I must thank you very much Captain Obvious for comparing a i30 to an EVO.

            No @#$% a Evo would beat a i30, it’s specifically a sports car with a price tag double or more of the price of a base i30 as you have mentioned.

            My challenge to you was to pit a CRDi i30 against your/your missus (if it can be believed you have one) Lancer ES 2.0lt CVT piece of junk.

            You coming out with a ridiculous statement like ‘I’ll put a Evo up against your i30′ is absurd. Of course the Evo would win. Completely different cars in completely different leagues.

            Against your baseline lancer that you seem to love it wouldn’t stand a chance against the i30 CRDi in a windy hill climb.

            If you want an Evo I’d take a Lotus Elise SC, and show you how to really drive a car! Or maybe a Audi TT RS or R8/R8 V10………

            BTW good work on jumping on here every 24 hours to give me a thumbs down and you a thumbs up over the last week when I’ve been unavailable. Your such a great keyboard warrior aren’t you? Great way to throw off unsuspecting car buyers with absurdly biased rubbish.

            You never did respond to my post in the 2011 Elise post, clearly shows that you wouldn’t even know how to drive an EVO even if you were given one!

            Regards

            Whitbomb07

        • KEN

          1) Warranty – If their warranty covers their paint from chipping in chunks!!

          2) Better resale – you can live with the road noise and run it for 10 years to take full advantage of the warranty and depreciation!! And provided that they don’t release new model with added features AT THE SAME PRICE the day after you sign your contract for a new car

          3) Japanese Built don’t really mean japanese quality, not forgetting that they are the one who has the longest industry cover up in auto history for safety issues.

          4) Larger Fuel tank – provision for future when the engine start to stuff up and start drinking

          • Al Juraj

            You Hyundai dealers simply have the “If you can’t beat them, mock them.” attitude. At the end of the day, sushi will always be better than kimchi.

            I happen to own a 2.0 Platinum and I should say it’s a great car. It looks way better than a Civic. The CVT kicks the Corolla’s 4-speed, with decent rear seat space for its class unlike the Mazda3. It also goes and turns well, no longer behind the competition as opposed to its forebears. It’s not perfect, but easily the choice for best value without being boring.

  • Realcars

    es is a bargain at present.Nice set of wheels and manual and u have the same for less.

    • CrustyTheClown

      I know, its why i purchased it, [for her].

      NOTHING comes within cooeee of offering more for less, and Japper built to boot.

      Wont be here till early March as i wanted 2010 build.

      Hope she is happy!

  • Realcars

    what’s the economy like for an es manual?

    • CrustyTheClown

      Ask me in another month!

      Ours is CVT auto though.

      ~ 6.5% HWY
      ~ 9.0% CITY

      [Alleged]

      Not the most ecomomical, but competive, we do less than 10,000km PA so its really going to make much difference in the scheme of things.

      • Andrew M

        Yep, it is certailny competitive on economy, but even a full 2L or so doesnt really make much difference in the scheme of things.

  • Andrew M

    Good review Karl,
    But In my opinion asking 30K for a small car isnt that hard when you get so much extra kit. You only touched on half of the extra goodies the VRX brings over the standard ES.

    I also dont think 10L is that bad for a car like this in real world.
    When looking at real world economy of many small cars you will also be quite shocked.

    Good Value and Good looker if you ask me……

    • Andrew M

      Oh yeah,
      Karl,
      Would have been nice if you commented on manual mode.

      Sure the CVT does feel sluggish, but would have been informative to readers if you commented on performance difference in manual mode.

      This new gen lancer has really come a long way from the last gen “gokart sprung” versions.
      The Lancer would now attract family buyers, not just the riced up clear tail light brigade

  • Baddass

    I agree about the dramatic difference a bodykit makes to the overall looks. But the Sportback’s big bum looks bad no matter the model.

  • Frenchie

    Karl you shoul explain alittle more about the Mitsubishi Multi-Communication System. Some people might think its just a sat-nav, which it is, but incorperates much more electrical functions of the car.

  • Shak

    I still think there are better value all round small cars out there. Things such as the Mazda 3 and Holden Cruze, offer a better kit level and drive.

    • Andrew M

      Since when was the word value and Mazda ever used in the same sentence before.

      Sure the Mazda is the better vehicle, but certainly doesnt match the value of the Lancer.

      Cruze does also offer a good kit level, but I would still say the Lancer is a better drive. I would also take the Lancer styling over the Cruze

      • mmmmm

        frequently actually.
        I’ve used the term GOOD value to describe every good quality Mazda I’ve owned.
        Cheaper isn’t better value.
        But I agree the Lancer is good value I’m not knocking

        • Shak

          Thats what i was trying to get at. I wasnt saying the Lancer is bad value, just that there are better all rounders out there. And Mazda’s are all very good value when you take driving dynamics into account.

        • Andrew M

          Yes I agree the Mazda is the better vehicle, I concluded that before I decided to buy one over all its other competitors.

          When I talk Value for money (or anyone for that matter), it usually refers to what equipment you get for what price. Quality doesnt come into that.

          I for one saw value in the quality etc, so in a way I agree the Mazda is good value for money in that regard, but kit for dollar its not near the Lancer

          • mmmmm

            the mazda 3 made it to 4th on my short list, the lancer 3rd, the i30 probably second. a good deal on a demo 6 won, and took me up a size and price category
            i got a better deal on a mazda6 than I could get on a hyundai or a lancer

          • Andrew M

            If the Mazda 3 only made it to 4th place on your short list, then you were shopping dollar consciously.

            Better deal on a Mazda 6 than a Lancer or Hyundai????
            Well that is an achievement as Mazda are usually quite tight in the sales office

    • CrustyTheClown

      Yeap, both have 7 airbags, road-side-assist and 10 year powertrain warranty….NOT!

      Tried both, the Cruze was very average, Mazda3 nice, but was $2k more and offered less, and more expensive to operate etc.VERY tight legroom in the back seat, worse than a Golf, so yes, very very tight

      • Whitbomb07

        That backseat shot seems to show that there isn’t much space either.

        The i30 has plenty of space in the backseat, it was one of many things I made sure I tested. I’m 6’1″ so I first set the drive seat so it was in a comfortable position for me, then jumped in behind it and had plenty of space.

        They should have moved the backseat of this further back, sacrifice a little boot space but it would have been worth it…………

        Not to mention the boot of the i30 is only 4lts less, it uses space alot more effectively than this. Not to mention has a much nicer a$$!

        Regards

        Whitbomb07

        • Andrew M

          So you never tried the Lancer then???

          You sure have a lot to say.

          • Whitbomb07

            Didn’t want the sedan and I can’t remember if the sportback had been released yet (Oct08?)

            I’ve never really heard much good about Mitsubishi (aka Bitsamissin), other than the EVO, when the Lancer was released with the CVT alot was said about it lasting at best 100,000km before major problems reared their ugly head. That’s enough to put me off.

            My parents once got given a Colt sedan (early 90′s model) and it was rubbish and my Dad had to spend alot of time fixing it.

            All that results in quite a few reasons why I would disregard it. Doesn’t mean I won’t try them when I go for my next car.

            I don’t have much more to say then what Crusty has to say about Hyundai ;-)

            If I am incorrect please tell me, what have I said that is untrue?

            Regards

            Whitbomb07

          • Al Juraj

            The Lancer sedan had no major issues fitting a 6’5 shotgun and another 6’4 bloke behind him. Your 6’1 frame shouldn’t be a problem wherever you sit.

            So if you haven’t heard good things from Mitsubishi, then how about playing music to our ears about your beloved Hyundai?

        • Jinsei

          I sat in both so i can be quite objective here.

          I sat in a friend’s Lancer Ralliart the other day. It was quite roomy for a small car, but just for a small car. Although the petrol turbo was truly sweet, it wasn’t ground breaking in interior.

          The i30′s cabin was far more spacious both in the front and back. The quality of materials used is at least a few notches above that of the Lancer Ralliart.

          Once you poke the door panels hard with fingers, you will find it out for yourself.

          • biggie

            agree with Jinsei… if Lancer could improve its interior…. i might consider

  • Hung Low

    Great Japanese built car that makes the I30 look expensive! Only gripe is the plain jane plasticky interiors on these and the Outlanders

    • Whitbomb07

      Ummmmmm not a single version of the i30 hatch is as expensive as this……..

      Regards

      Whitbomb07

      • Hung Low

        Your right, not in VRX spec but to be specific the base ES spec. If it came down to it the I30 diesel wins my vote if I had around $25k to spend!

      • Andrew M

        Nor should it be

  • toxic_horse

    Good on Mitsubishi for not putting useless, heavy and costly twin exhaust on this car.
    Twin exhausts should only be there if they come straight from both sides of a V not split at the rear muffler.

  • Jumbo

    I think the reviewer needed to spend a little more time explaining the differences between the VRX and the lesser specced models.

    A short list of differences include: Bodykit, Wheels, Fog lights, Spoiler, 2.4 litre motor, different interior trims, Rockford Fosgate sound system (Sat Nav system optional), Leather steering wheel, Bluetooth, Auto lights, Auto Wipers and Smart Key

  • fasthonda

    Geez,what an ugly car!

    • Al Juraj

      Hatch or sedan, definitely more handsome than the Civic god you’re hopelessly worshiping.

  • Dualisfan

    Nice car, test drove one before buying my Dualis 3 weeks ago.
    I’m a bit of a car maniac…test drove all of the others in this class. Had an i30 Diesel auto – hated the 4spd auto (regret not buying the manual), city fuel economy – mine was averaging 9l/100kms. The Car has great showroom appeal – however after a year or 2 you realise that the quality & long term feel of Hyundais are still behind most of the Jap/euro competition. Thats just my opinion!
    The Lancer 2.0 manual needs an extra gear – and the boot was not practical for me.
    Love the Mazda3 – however just couldnt live with the lack of space in the rear.
    The Dualis was a real surprise – 6 spd manual is sporty, has a solid euro feel (Renault platform helps), very refined & great value (under $25k d/away with extras, alloys, etc). Also a huge fan of the SUV ride height – do a lot of driving, its just somehow less tiring)
    Dont miss my i30 at all…

    • binladen

      the dualis back seats is not much bigger than the Mazda 3 at all. The mazda wagon will be a big winner if they make one.

  • sammo

    That interior looks so cheap, not something I’d expect from a 30k+ ‘sports’ hatch.
    I guess that’s what we’ve come to expect from Mitsubishi these days..

  • http://DAEWOO Dave

    Cvt transmissions are soo booring. It takes all the fun out of driving the car as it feels like it has no gears at all. Also for a small car its too pricey. Similarly, mitsubishi always puts in fancy stereos,high levels of equipment and massive price drops to encourage people to buy their cars that always fall short in two areas:engine and sterring. Also these new sportback\’s have terrible resale values. Overall there are far worst small cars you can buy however mitsubishi need to keep improving their cars to bring them up to the class average.

    • Al Juraj

      CVTs are not perfect but I’d take it over any underperforming 4-speed auto. Why whinge about feeling gearless anyway? The Lancer has manual mode and is indeed useful for extra kick on the highways and uphills. And in D, it’s silky smooth as you don’t feel any uncomfortable shift shock. This transmission is not for race cars, but it certainly does the job for the vehicles it’s intended for.

  • Jimmy

    I’m not a fan of the sportback styling. I reckon it will age quite quickly.

  • JEKYL & HYDE

    i agree with alot of others concerning the cvt(hate it on small cars).why not make it 145kw(hyundai can) with a decent 6sp auto with paddle switches.10 year powertrain warrenty’s are only is solid as its service history(and lets face it,alot of people shy away from factory servicing after say 3 years).this model sounds a lot like “managers demo” to me…

    • CrustyTheClown

      CVT tranny is bulletproof, alleged to have a 500,000km lifespan.

      4 year/60,000km factory warranty is capped @ $150 each, why take it anywhere else.

      I wont own this after around ~ 60,000km, will buy another Japanese vehicle by then, no idea what?

      CVT drives beautiful and smooth, no jolts, rapid pick up when flooring it, normal, superior economy and lower RPM at ALL speeds, normal auto tranny cannot touch it.

      My 4-speed auto in my 2008 Falcon is total junk v’s this…

      Cheers

      • Robin Graves

        The noise from those CVT’s is about monotonous and droning as your comments.

        • Al Juraj

          … but useful comments unlike yours seems to be.

      • Al Juraj

        That’s exactly right. The Corolla’s lack of a 5th gear is its ultimate downfall. We’re not on an era where 4-speed no longer cuts it. There’s simply a better way to design an automatic transmission now.

  • CrustyTheClown

    Forgot to mention, i did not test drive it either, wont learn anything in 10 min burn around the block,,,,,,,

    • Andrew M

      I disagree,
      A quick 10 minute test drive gets you in touch with the proportions of the vehicle.
      When I test drove I wanted my other half to have a turn as since it was going to be her car (if we bought it) I wanted to make sure she could see out of it and around it.

      Last thing you want is to drive away and be annoyed by terrible blind spots that a 10 min test would have revealed

  • WTF

    I think that the Lancer is almost there. The car looks good, engine performance looks good, but the interior needs updgrading. Mitsubishi should improve the quality of the interior to really differentiate themselves from their competitors.

    The cheap plastics is what put me off the VRX (2009 model).

    • MazMagic

      Your Right. It exterior looks good but the interior just looks so cheap for a top of the range model. It looks more like a Mazda3 Maxx not an SP25, which is much, much classier. Even the A/C dials on the Lancer look way out of place.

      If Mistu correct this, they definately wqill have really good car. Perhaps the interior build is why there are more of those :-) Mazda3s on the road (which I think looks very plastic….). 1st Gen 3s are much more sporty and classy.

  • AAA

    $32,490? What the. I am not paying more than $23,000 for a Lancer drive away unless it’s an Evo ~

    • Andrew M

      Dont worry,
      You wont be paying that much.
      Mitsubishi can sharpen the pencil a bit when you are in the chair.

      But still, for 32K, it has a fair bit of kit.
      Go and price a top shelf Mazda3, or even Corolla and you will find the price to be similar (list price that is)

  • GregN

    It looks like a nice, stylish and well packaged small/med car. However 9.2 seconds 0-100 seems a bit on the slow side. I wonder if the manual is much quicker? I would have thought it was closer to 8 seconds like Mazda3 SP25 and Golf 118.

    • CrustyTheClown

      Measuring the quality and suitability of a vehicle by its 0 – 100kmh time is totally and 100% stupid.

      It’s a family hatch, and a excellant one at that, if your after 0 – 100kmh times you can step up to a EVO Ralliart job.

      Measure a vehicle by its safety, engineering, value, quality, MPG, back up etc etc, 0 -100kmh should NOT even be in the equation, just a great thing for a 60kmh zone….NOT!

      :-)

      • Al Juraj

        Wheels magazine tested the 2.0 Sportback to hit 100 in 9.4 seconds, so believe the 2.4 could do better than 9.2 on fair weather. The manual GTS (American equivalent to the VR-X) got 60 mph in 7.2 seconds (tested by Car & Driver), so 100 kph should only be .3 or .4 more.

  • pirakavezok

    Seems like a nice car and indeed true that asking for $30k for this car is a challenge. Personally, the sport back is somehow not well sorted out. Just my opinion.

  • johnp

    I still can’t decide between the base model lancer es and the mazda 3 neo sedans, has driven both and i think mazda3 drives better and the lancer has more road noise, but lancer es is $1500 cheaper, has 16 inch tyres, cruise control, steering audio, 7 airbags and none of these are standard on mazda 3 neo (about $1000+ extra if i want them), not to mention the warranty, capped servicing, roadside assistance on lancer, can’t believe mazda doesn’t still offer free roadside assistance, only 3 yr warranty, and $295 per service, but i’ve asked a few people some had lancers before and they told me to avoid lancer, ive given myself one more week to decide, i’m thinking of asking people in the carparks who drive lancer and mazda and ask for their feedback

    • CrustyTheClown

      Went throgh all that just recently, the 3 was to much coin and did not offer enough, i would say it was my 2nd choice.

      Frankly i dont know how they can sell a premium Japanese Lancer for such a discounted price, gota LOVE competition!

      Drive them both and you decide, the Lancer has 10 year powertrain warranty too, looks better [no silly smile-face] and more bang-per-buck, the 3 was very tight legroom in the back seat.

      Good luck with what you choose, both are good, Lancer offers more, thats quiet clear

      • biggie

        nnaaahhhh…. go with 3… beats the crap lancer hands down…

        3′s interior is so much better than Lancer which looks so cheap…

        u get what u pay…

        • Andrew M

          Yeah I totally agree, the 3 is certainly the better car, but the value of the lancer is the winner.

          The Mazda drives much better than Lancer. The Mazdas 5sp Auto box is a dead set cracker, and performs much better than what you would expect a small cars auto to.

          But as I said earlier, the Lancer is certainly the best of the rest.
          Its quite obvious why Mazda ask a little more than their competitors, the only question is do you want to pay extra???

          Crusty, the Mazda doesnt need to offer massive warranties as they already have pretty damn good consumer confidence, its as simple as that. Mitsu and Hyundai offer the best warranties in the industry, and they are the brands where consumer confidence is not the strongest

          I agree that the lancer offers more in terms of kit etc, but the 3 offers far more in terms of resale, ride and quality.

          The extra few K spent on the Mazda will easily come back to you at resale time.

          But out of the i30 and Lancer, for mine, its Lancer hands down

          • Al Juraj

            Honestly, the Mazda3 sedan was also on my list as it’s a fun, reliable car, but once you creep your way to the rear seats, it’s just disappointing, and a smallish door doesn’t help either. This makes it more like a 2+3 than a decent 5-seater. In fairness, it’s better behind the wheel than the Lancer, with reach adjustment not available in the latter, plus more supportive seats in the Mazda. The trunk opening in the 3 is quite peculiar as well, with mediocre space, certainly not one for Ikea.

            In the end, I went for the Lancer. I usually sit 4 so space is really important. It does look much better as well, and tests showed the 2.0 CVT is slightly quicker and more economical than the 5-speed auto Mazda. If you’re usually driving by yourself and no more than a loved one beside you, then by all means take the 3. It’s better driver orientation and near-Euro involvement won’t disappoint you, but if you have a small family and are not considering fuel-guzzling behemoths, then the Lancer is certainly worth a second look.

    • Trith

      I am with Crusty, go for the Lancer, much better package

    • KEN

      Johnp, if you are looking at the ES activ, which i believe is very good value. But there are other issues with this car that only an owner can tell.

      1) If you car getting 2009 MY10 model – check for available stock and mth/year of manufacturing, got mine (a RX 2009 MY10 CVT sportback) 2 days ago, It was manufactured on 1 Sept 2009. Did not check the stock and end up being a sucker.

      2) If you can live with paint chipping in chunks with slightest knock. it peel off and i mean it peel in chunks!! that is something their warranty don’t cover.

      3) Road noise, it’s an subjective issue. If you are getting this as a family car, spare a though for your family sitting in the rear of the car.

      • BradleySmith

        1/
        That was totally your fault, trap for young players, your done $3k by buying a 09′ built instead of 2010.

        2/
        Looked at many on the road and parked, used and demo models, NO issue with paint in any shape or form.

        3/
        Low noise, all i can hear is the tyres, but i have to really listen hard, passengers always state how quiet and smooth it is.

        Go drive a i29, then you will RUN back to your Lancer, outstanding quality and package for the price

  • Al Juraj

    What probably caused the rather harsh ride in your test car is the low-profile 18-inch rubber. They’re a tad too big and cost a lot to replace. My Lancer has 16-inch alloys and I would say the ride isn’t Camry soft but not unforgivingly hard either. It’s a great balance between composure and smoothness. The damping is well sorted, with independent suspension all-round.

  • quiet1

    Can CA do up a comparison between a lancer VRX and a mazda SP 25?….This would be a good one to read !!!

  • Andrew S

    Hi guys,

    Reading through most of the garbage posts from others and the ‘my’ Hyundai – Nissan – Toyota… Umm.. Who cares??? I’ve test drove all of these cars and Tested the Corolla Wagon Auto extensively over a week to Sydney and back. I think most of the cars these days are quiet similar to a degree and this is an issue to buyers, you need to look at the vehicle with different eyes, and most people don’t have these. I spent two hours yesterday looking at the new Lancer Activ Sports Back – Manual… I looked through the outside, concentrating on fit and finish of panels, the engine bay and the under body with panel fit and sealing. I can safely say that the Lancer is not as finished off as the Corolla, the Lancer would be a 7 out of 10 stars; The Corolla an easy 8 or 9 out of 10… Most others such as the i30 can’t be worked on by the home mechanic without the use of midget hands, anyone seen the engine bay of a i30??? Oh my god is it cramped!!!

    The drive of the Lancer that encompassed some spirited drive for such a ‘green’ engine, which resulted in some holding on by the dealer that came with… The ‘cheese cutter’ tires and the ride height of the vehicle was the main issue with the vehicles body lumbering, the body itself is VERY stiff and responsive. Although slotting some Bendix GCT pads and H&R lowered springs (-30mm) and some decent light weight 215/40 R16′s would make the car handle a hell of a lot better! Also some modifications such as Whiteline 20mm sway bars and Tower braces would stiffen the body to such a degree that no Corolla nor Hyundai could ever begin to imagine… Further future upgrades will be a easy find, as the Lancer bloodline runs thick and parts are very common on the internet, so as with prior years, everyone can modify their vehicle to their level of uniqueness and be comfortable with their vehicle.

    The vehicle a Lancer Active Hatch, selling for $21,000 is such a good deal that other vehicles and their guise’s can’t really sit and compete with this vehicle, Corolla Levin SX $27,000 – Levin ZR $29,000 and the dealer wouldn’t let me test drive the vehicle due to his laziness. Further research showed that the Corolla’s were all the same, regardless to the level of kit – same engines (kW), brakes (size & brake pressure / performance) and chassis (2010 Corolla is based on a 2003 chassis – no 5 star ANCAP rating) – only the front and rear bars and some interior parts changed, so the extra $8,000 was for what? A body kit and steering wheel… “Ultimate Fail”.

    As most people have touched on, Mitsubishi isn’t as up to date with their interior plastics and the overall quality throughout the vehicle, I would assume that the high points are the overall package of the vehicle, sacrificing the few for the many is the statement that I live by and there is no way or chance that anyone is EVER going to find a perfect package vehicle on the market in such a value driven market…

    I give the vehicle a pretty high overall rating, and I think that I’ll get rid of my Suzuki and get a new Lancer Sports Hatch and return to the Mitsubishi family stable… Should have never changed in the first place… What a mistake!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1801449118 Garry Koppen

    G’day
    We are buying a new car soon and look like being too late for a ACTiV.
    However it looks like the new SX model could be the next best thing and it would be a MY11.
    If anyone is buying one or has already done so could you please let us know what price you get it for.
    A CVT Sedan in metallic would be what we are most likely to buy

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1801449118 Garry Koppen

    G’day
    We are buying a new car soon and look like being too late for a ACTiV.
    However it looks like the new SX model could be the next best thing and it would be a MY11.
    If anyone is buying one or has already done so could you please let us know what price you get it for.
    A CVT Sedan in metallic would be what we are most likely to buy

    Garry

    • Al Juraj

      I got a Platinum edition CVT in May 2009 for 28K. It’s basically a VR with some chrome, MMCS system with GPS, DVD player and Bluetooth for mobile. Except for a few quality niggles and the lack of steering reach adjustment, it’s a great car. It’s handsome, spacious and handles well. The CVT takes some getting used to though. It isn’t very responsive off the lights when left in D, so it’s better to use the manual override for these things.

      The SX would be the best buy for the moment. You get alloys, among other standard features (I just hate steelies). I prefer the sedan’s design, but the sportback can carry a little bit more in the boot.

      I’d rate the Lancer 8/10.

  • Garry

    Garry bought a SR cvt sedan on Thursday on its way from Japan should have it in 10-14 days??.very impressive car was not on my list was looking at i30/3/cruze.Just happened to stop and have a look at the lancer glad i did the smooth ride,tank like build(the build quality is amazing)the NO ROAD noise.the so so smooth cvt auto,seat comfort the room,suprising power from the engine i could go on heaps more test drove a VR demo had things i did not want auto vipers,auto head lights climate control(normal AC is ok for me)after the test drive no car small medium comes even close to it.The price for the SR with window tinting,floor mats,weather shields,bonnet and headlights protecters,front fog lights(to give the VR look)came down to $23500 on the road.So glad i stopped it to have a look cant wait for the car to get here.

  • SSM

    i like the sportsback. test drove it and it was a nicer ride than corolla ascent or fiesta. there are so many hatchbacks around $22,000 out there its so hard to decide!!!

  • Brissy

    Garry, you speak more like a dealer !!
    Mind you ROAD noise and crappy paint work and chips a whole lot more than any other car are the 2 shortcomings of the new CJ.

  • Martin Hubbard

    If you are reading this and wondering if you should buy a Lancer and not interested in a load of crap posts over what Hyundai i30 does or doesnt have let me simplify it.
    My partner and I bought a ES Lancer last June for $21490 drive away with free alloys and floor mats and metallic paint. The only extra we paid for was tinted windows.
    We live in North Queensland and drove the lancer to Melbourne in July last year. This is a great car. The manual transmission is great. The fuel economy is fantastic especially on the highway. Put the cruise control on and it will sit on 100/110 and sip between 6.9 and 7.5 per 100. The seats are great and your back wont get sore after being in them for hours on end. We have put 20 000k’s on it now and its been trouble free motoring. I have read allot about road noise but its no where near as bad as its made out to be and since we bought ours there have been upgrades to address the sound issue. Why didnt we buy an i30? Well the cost was outrageous. Hyundai wanted $80 for an ipod cord ( the one for the lancer is $30 a dicksmith), $90 for a dash mat and more for delivery then the lancer and we were considering the wagon and we could not get an SLX in manual so the grand total was just over $27 grand. The other reason we went for the lancer is we also own a 2001 Lancer that is bullet proof. It has over 150 000k on the clock and has never let us down and after years of crappy north QLD roads the only rattle ts the license plate frame. Yes Hyundai have come a long way but at the end of the day I couldn’t justify close to 30k for a car that looks dreadfully dull compared to the lancer. The other reason was I had heard the engine in the Hyundai is dull. That lancer loves to move. For a standard car it really responds when asked. Value for money you cant go past the lancer.
    Love That car

    • Robbo

      Just to add to what @Martin Hubbard noted:
      I too wanted to back up my MY10 VR-X Sedan purchase. 25000kms and part of that are super-rough roads with wooden bridges and rough Brisbane city roads (potholes) – not a single rattle in it. Cheap plastics? Well I’ve driven an i30 plenty of times (from work) and VE Commodores, they are much cheaper in fit and finish with flimsy glove boxes and plenty of rattles. My Lancer might have plenty of plastic, but it’s easy to clean and it a thick strong plastic so I enjoy what it’s aimed to do – stay firm in the car. Mine has the leather pack, seats are massively comfortable for long trips. Rockford Fosgate is excellent for a standard stereo, rain sensor works properly, even better than a Merc’s that I’ve used regularly. Headlight sensor works smartly, not on when not needed and visa versa. Everything still feels solid. Service costs are excellent and big 15000km invervals. Tyre wear is great on 18″ wheels. Road noise? Yes on coarse roads, but other cars are no different. Fuel economy brilliant, 6.2 is the lowest I’ve had just me at 100kph average, normally high 6′s which is still great on highway, city only 8′s (remember it’s a the 2.5 engine).
      So like Martin says, if you’re considering one and want to ignore the trash talk about what car is better (even though the author’s don’t own them and just have their input), take it from myself and Martin that the vehicle is brilliant and great value for the price you pay, and the warranty is fantastic too.
      I will add if you live in Brisbane, I bought mine from Wynnum and they actually treated you like a customer, not scum, something that’s rare with dealership’s I think and the great service continues with the service department.
      Hope this helps your decision.

  • Richard

    Boys and girls I will try to be as impartial as possible and for that I need to bring some of my background and experience, if I may. Thanks.
    I have never purchased a car with my money in my life.Have been sales rep/sales manager for 24 years and always had 6 cylinders cars and most importantly rear wheel driven.
    So in November 2009 lost my job and changed careers (well there were no more choices…….) so I bought a car.
    I purchased a Lancer VRX CJ 09 from a Uni student that had it in a garage with 11,565 Kms in the clock and he was returning to his country and sold it to me for $23,000.
    I am not a mechanical engineer but electronic and love to look for the 5th leg of the cat on things.

    1) Hyundai technology has got a bit of Mitsubishi transfers but not many general public know. They get the old things.
    2)Toyota (a company I hate with enormous passion) spends the majority of its money in commercials and silly people jumps up and pay expensive third quality plastics they use in the inside of their cars ( do not come to me with Lexus………if you have money then buy a BMW series 5 upwards or Aston Martin DB9, period !).
    3)Interior plastics and looks, yes, there are cars like the newest series of Holden SV6 or Calais or Fairmont Ghias but the price range is different so the 300 horses or more so this is not apples with apples). Corollas or Camrys are far worse and if you cannot see this go to OPSM.
    4)Mitsubishi had a long bad reputation with the disasterous Magna and its incredible 2.6Litre engine that many of you may remember……….)

    So with the Lancer (I believe that the CJ from 2008 onwards was done with heaps of inputs from German designers)the story is different.
    The car is well built and the 2.4 L engine is perhaps better that the 2 from the power to weight ratio.
    It does not feel like other front wheel drive cars and I can notice that from were I am coming from.
    Yes, I have driven Camrys and Corollas, the Camrys are something that should not exist in the face of this planet!.
    The rain sensor is as good or better than the Calais V series I used to have as company car.
    I do not agree with road noise but that may be me.

    Value for money (well I did have a lucky strike)I would not hesitate one microsecond to buy or recommend one.
    Lasting of the engine ( I am used to steel and I have a Tickford Farimont Ghia 1998 with only 99,000K on the clock)being alloy………..well use full synthetic oil and that is it. Oil is cheap compared to other problems.

    Well done Mitsubishi. No need to put money in commercials for people to jump up but put the money in the product and support it and you will see how people will come to you as I did !

  • Al

    1997 Mitsubishi Lancer: 990 Kg, 6.4L/100 Kms
    2011 Mitsubishi Lancer: 1345 Kg, 8L/100 Kms …….

    Petrol costs twice as much than 15 years ago……..
    Wages are not twice as high…………………….

    What are these directors of car manufacturers thinking??? Certainly not much at all!!!
    Stop with these HEAVY THIRSTY cars, and get back to COMMON SENSE!
    Get back to building SIMPLE, LIGHT cars without all that electrical crap!

    I DO NOT OWN AN OIL WELL, NOR DO I OWN MY OWN REPAIR SHOP FOR ALL THOSE EXPENSIVE ELECTRICAL REPAIRS!

    • Yonny

      Actually, the CJ Lancer 2.0 litre motor is rated at 7.6L/100Kms.

      I understand your basic point, but let me ask you this: would you rather crash in a 1997 Lancer or a 2011 Lancer? All that safety (in the modern car) has come at a price – cars are much, much heavier than they used to be. However, they are also much more powerful, more economical (in terms of fuel used for power generated), more comfortable and have a range of standard equipment that you just didn’t get for free in 1997 – power windows, power steering, remote central locking, air conditioning, all that stuff.

      In terms of what you get for your money cars are cheaper now than they were in 1997. Oh, and average wages have almost doubled between 1997 and now, while the cost of cars as a percentage of that wage has dropped – in some cases dropped quite dramatically.

      • Al

        That’s exactly what I don’t want. I want manual windows, and no central locking. Manuals don’t break, and even IF they do, it’s cheap to fix.
        All the electrics are expensive to pay for in the first place, and then expensive to fix later. I don’t like huge bills for faulty electric windows, central locking, power mirrors etc..

        Are less people dying on the roads than 20 years ago? I don’t think so. People are just driving faster and use more silly gadgets that distract them, while driving. I don’t even listen to music, when I drive, never have. I don’t need it. I got my hands on the steering wheel and on the gearstick while my mind is on the road, where it should be.

        Why would it be safer if two 1.5 tonne vehicles crash into each other, than two 1 tonne vehicles?

        What’s the point of making the car more fuel efficient, when you add more weight afterwards? None. Todays cars use no less(and in many cases more) fuel than 20 years ago. Even a beetle of the sixties was using no more fuel, and it brought families from A to B.

        With heavier cars you also go through more tyres, more breaks, more suspension….more everything….MORE MONEY!

        And bring back decent bumper bars. They were invented by people with common sense, because it’s only human and it just happens that you may slightly hit a post or something once in a while. Without the bumper bars of todays cars we have huge expensive damage for every little hit.