Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: Join our community! |
| Mitsubish Mirage; Not as well built as a Metro | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 14 2015, 09:46 PM (5,516 Views) | |
| cwatkin | Jan 12 2016, 09:34 PM Post #106 |
![]()
|
I see there is a stock tune and a couple modifications. I have a few questions. 1. How does the power to weight ratio compare to a Metro? 2. How do these modifications impact the warranty? 3. How do they impact reliability? 4. How do they impact mileage? Better or worse? 5. Are they relatively easy to undo if you want to just want stock to take it in for service, etc.? 6. Are there any simple tuning methods such as advancing the timing on the Metro where all you do is turn the distributor 2-3 degrees? I assume not with everything being so electronic in the newer cars. I don't even thinks distributors really even exist these days on any new cars. Conor Edited by cwatkin, Jan 12 2016, 09:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daox | Jan 12 2016, 09:54 PM Post #107 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have no idea on most of your questions. I don't own a Mirage (yet, I plan to though). This was just a dyno chart I found. Power to weight ratio is higher in the Mirage as it has 74 hp and weighs in at 1996 lbs (higher ES trim with 5 speed). So that gives us 26.9 lbs per horsepower. To compare, my 99 1.0L 3 door weighs in at 1859 lbs with 55 horsepower. That gives me 33.8 lbs per horsepower. You are correct that you can't just turn the distributor to advance the timing. Its all computer controlled and requires electronics to change timing. The EPA ratings for the 5 speed Mirage and 5 speed 1.0L Metro are identical at 34 city 42 highway. Edited by Daox, Jan 12 2016, 10:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| cwatkin | Jan 13 2016, 01:01 PM Post #108 |
![]()
|
Interesting. I see you have a 1999. I believe the power rating is the same for the 1994 and older cars but the weight is even lower. This would be more noticeable for me since I have these style Metros. Either way, it looks like there are tuning options to pep them up a tad. I don't know what trade-offs are made such as reduced mileage or voiding the warranty but I would want to do that if it didn't have a huge downside. Conor |
![]() |
|
| Daox | Jan 13 2016, 01:32 PM Post #109 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I plan on nabbing a used one once I find a good deal. New they do have a great 10 year 100k warranty. I care little about that to be honest. The prices are dropping pretty darn fast. I almost went up to Minneapolis (5hr drive for me) to nab a $7200 2014 ES (higher trim) a week or so ago with 50k miles on it. Alas, I just didn't feel like going that far. |
![]() |
|
| Freeman | Jan 13 2016, 01:54 PM Post #110 |
|
The Family Man
![]()
|
50k miles is a lot, IMO. The difference might be worth it since you are talking a ES and not the DE. But I would prefer the DE myself and I think the couple thousand spent would amount to more than the 50k miles of wear. That would be 5 years of driving for me. Edited by Freeman, Jan 13 2016, 01:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daox | Jan 13 2016, 02:39 PM Post #111 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
50k is a lot. Actually, 50k is 10 years of driving for me, haha. My point is, the price is dropping quickly on these and IMO its worth it to wait a little bit for more used options. |
![]() |
|
| Hanuman | Jan 13 2016, 03:01 PM Post #112 |
|
"The Almighty Grounds Cleaner"
![]()
|
Both graphs start at 2500 rpm. I'm asking about how much low end torque that engine produces. 2500 rpm is the start of the mid power band. Also, the hp is not very much. That 3 cylinder is the size of a metro 4 cylinder at 1.3 liters. A 98+ 4 cylinder metro has I believe 79 hp, and weighs less than the mirage. The early double over head cam 4 cylinder was almost 100 hp. |
![]() |
|
| Daox | Jan 13 2016, 03:15 PM Post #113 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well there you go then. It'll be a little less power than a 98+ 1.3L Metro, but with a little better fuel economy. I wish I had better dyno charts, but the only other one I have starts at 3k. |
![]() |
|
| cwatkin | Jan 14 2016, 12:16 AM Post #114 |
![]()
|
How does the power to weight ratio compare for a 1.0? That is what I am used to driving. Also, is the gearing similar or not? Conor |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Jan 14 2016, 05:16 AM Post #115 |
![]()
|
Unless you are planning to hoon it, knowing the torque curve would probably be more useful. As has been mentioned, the variable valve timing keeps the power output and torque curve relatively linear. Power-to-weight should, at the very least, be similar to a Metro. When I first bought my Mirage, it really felt neither slower nor faster than the Metro it replaced...all else being equal. It's actually a pretty peppy motor. When I 'get on it', it actually pulls pretty hard. High compression, MPFI, variable valve timing, dual overhead cams, etc. The fact that it has three cylinders is about all it shares with the ol' G10. The gear ratios are well-chosen. If you are used to a Metro, you should be plenty satisfied. Unless you are talking about the 1.0 Mirage with the 3A90? They get those in Europe.
|
![]() |
|
| myredvert | Jan 14 2016, 09:52 AM Post #116 |
|
myredvert
![]()
|
RPMs below 2500 aren't necessary for that answer. as measured for that particular example, the chart shows peak torque basically already being reached by 2500 rpm (earlier than the Metro variants). The Chevy Metros with a 1.3 mfi are only at roughly 95% or so of peak @2500 rpm and the 1.0s at roughly 90% of peak @2500 rpm. So the slope of the torque curve below 2500 can only be as good as or better than the Metro, and considering the advanced technology of the engine and transmission, probably more linear than the Metro as it approaches peak. The fact that the torque curve is flatter to a much higher rpm is added performance, and peak hp being reached at a higher rpm means much more hp is produced at the wheels at higher speeds. And the roughly 10% lower Cd allows it to have roughly the same CdA as a Metro even with the slightly higher frontal area. Comparing "spec" values is not normally an objective comparison, considering that very relatively speaking, very few Metro engines are actually rebuilt to or currently in anything even close to spec condition. As a result the majority of Metros can't produce as close to standard/spec horsepower as any new or even new-ish Mirage. Just imagine what the weight:hp ratio of a Metro really is with an engine making compression closer to the minimum spec than standard, or often even less than minimum. For people with families (and regardless of where you live), the relative comfort and safety of everyone else who rides in and/or drives the vehicle (like the wife and children) often becomes a much higher priority than a few extra mpg.
|
![]() |
|
| mt999999 | Jan 14 2016, 02:56 PM Post #117 |
|
Self-Declared "Genious"
![]()
|
In the 2.5 years that I have owned my HHR with A/C, I have used it a total of a half a dozen times, maybe. Not even in the summer after taking my new born daughter and girlfriend home from the hospital... Some have said that it is more efficient to use the A/C rather than opening the windows at highway speeds; I'll have to look into that one. In a small car like a Metro, I'd have to imagine that A/C would really slow it down. Just speculating here, but I don't think the end result would be much better in a Mirage.
|
![]() |
|
| MarkZ28 | Jan 14 2016, 04:08 PM Post #118 |
![]()
|
They did the test of the ac and open windows thing on Mythbusters, it was busted. mAy have even used more fuel with the ac on. There is no Mitsubishi dealers near me, all have shutdown. They had nothing that great to offer before then, they killed the EVO in the US a few years ago. Had an early 00's Lancer. Ran ok, wasn't very high quality, slow, boring. Civic is a much better car. Even a Hyundai/Kia is better, lol. I'm surprised they are still selling much in the US, never see ads for any of their vehicles on tv, on the radio, nothing in magazines, and never even on the Internet. They are a forgotten brand. I hope they have improved their vehicles a lot or they will be gone for good. I'd rather have my 98 Metro anyway, cheaper to buy parts for, much easier to work on, it's not trying to be more than it's advertised for, simple, cheap, fuel efficient car. No frills, basic transportation. Plus only have to have liability insurance, no payments, cheap tags. |
![]() |
|
| Daox | Jan 14 2016, 05:12 PM Post #119 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Aha, found a more full dyno chart. I believe this one is out of some Mitsu PDF. |
![]() |
|
| geometromaniac | Jan 14 2016, 10:16 PM Post #120 |
![]()
|
Well my friend who has the Mirage seems to like it. I drove it again and I just don't. I still think my Metro is a better built car. My Metro is made in Japan his Mirage is made in Thailand. That Mirage just feels CHEAP to me I don't like it. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic » |


Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

Some have said that it is more efficient to use the A/C rather than opening the windows at highway speeds; I'll have to look into that one. In a small car like a Metro, I'd have to imagine that A/C would really slow it down. Just speculating here, but I don't think the end result would be much better in a Mirage.
7:28 PM Jul 10