Eclipse Cross Forum banner

81 - 89 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Slippercream!!!!! Get a Manual Gearbox Fitted!!!:D:D. Mind you they do not do a 4x4 with the manual gearbox, but there must be away around that.

Mind you looking to the near future, the need for any kind of gearbox will disappear, and you will just sit there with just 2 pedals and stop one and a go one for your electric car.
Life will be dull, unless that is, someone can come up with a CO2 clear fuel for the internal combustion engine, that will manage to save this form of motion we all enjoy..
However let us all hope that someone somewhere may just have their brains in steep, trying to come up with the answer to solve that issue.
The main problem being is, that they have little time left in which to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slippercream

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
My take is this:

If Mitsubishi is serious about getting additional sales from those who like a sporty/performance oriented driving experience then offer the EC with an optional 4B11T found in the now defunct Lancer RalliArt. Give us a hot rally version and call it EC Evolution with max 4B11T tune. For NA lovers out there, I get it, you may not want a turbo due to reliability concerns. How about a 4B12 option? How about ditching those Jatco CVT's in favor of Aisin torque converter automatics? Include stuff like rear AC vents and front hood/bonnet struts. Further, the suspension setup should have included some aluminum components like the control arms to reduce weight. Some tweaks needed to be implemented because NVH levels is way too high in this vehicle. It feels like a 90's Nissan with upgraded wheels. The updated 2022 version missed the mark quite substantially imo which leaves me disappointed. At this time, I don't intend to keep our EC for more than 3-4 years. If Mitsubishi does not improve, there is a high probability that I'll be heading to Mazda or Subaru for a CX-5 2.5T or Outback 2.4T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
@Telferstr - Hey man, sorry, I just saw this response of yours now. Willisjamaica revealed something rather ... well... revealing when he described his Cross. It had a 4B11. That tells me that there are compatibilities, mechanically, wrt drivetrain between the last Lancers, Outlander Sports, and the Cross. Either way, it can be done to mate a non-CVT transmission with that of a Cross.

The challenge therein lies in the electronics. Remember that the TCU and ECU functions are innately connected. I'm sure a piggyback or standalone spliced into the factory ECU, in-line, will resolve any of these interoperability issues. But the key here is money and risk.

If it were me, I'd take a DCT-470 from a Ralliart Lancer or Evo MR and swap it in. Engine-wise, well no one has proven nor disproven the modularity of the engine - whether this hunk o' junk and plastic actually has something worth redeeming. Otherwise, yes I'd ditch it in favor of a 4B11T - mainly due to head design. The 4B12 just won't flow as well. I know people have done frankenstein swaps mating 4B12 blocks with 4B11T heads - but TBH, it's just way too many parameters to have to troubleshoot. Just crate in a fully built, decked and pinned long block - and be done with it.

Personally, the one thing mechanically that endears me to the Cross is the AYC rear. Otherwise, I really liked the 4B12 in the Outlander Sport and wish we hadn't traded that one in. Even the CVT worked fine with the '12, IMO. It wasn't as droll as the Cross'.

But --- I've got more exciting, promising projects to pursue than the Cross. It's a true shame. At best -- and it's a maybe -- we'll rice it out and make it look "too cool for school". It is the wife's DD after all. I'm just waiting for next year until we get a true performance SUV. :)

You guys out in the UK and the Crown Countries --- you got it lucky. We in the US only get to import this beast next year :D
If you know Mitsubishis, and with my hints - you'll know exactly what I'm talking about ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telferstr

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
The only dislike I've found is the lack of seat memory...rather stupid to omit such a basic and convenient feature on the Exceed model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
3.5 month and 2875 miles ownership update:

Dislikes:
1. The 1.5T feels like a 1.8L or 2.0L naturally aspirated engine. The claimed HP and torque figures seems like a lie to me.
2. The Jatco CVT can be a bit "hoppy" or "jerky" at times. This transmission is not paired well with the 1.5T. No chemistry here whatsoever. Whatever little HP and torque the engine has, the transmission's job is to simply kill that joy.
3. Handling and general NVH levels are unrefined. For a crossover that shares a platform with the EVO X and boasts having both front and rear independent suspensions, its disappointing that Mitsu got the tuning all wrong.
4. Trunk/boot/cargo space. The angled tailgate inhibits cargo, especially taller items and if you require to do some stacking.
5. It's features and amenities content listing is dismal compared to what you get in some of its competitors.
6. The outer fake projector light in the headlamp cluster is just pathetic. It gives people a false impression that the headlamp assembly has dual functional projectors.
7. Fuel economy is disappointing. With a generous mix of both city and highway driving, the EC's range on a full tank is 375miles. I am using 95RON premium fuel btw.
8. I cannot turn off the auto closing wing mirrors.
9. The factory supplied speakers is absolutely pathetic and cannot handle the full power of the OEM head unit.
10. The FCM and Alert system is poorly calibrated. It's better switched off than on.

What do I like?
1. Somewhat okay ground clearance
2. HUD is very effective
3. Engaging a lower gear via paddle-shifters is very convenient
4. Blind spot and rear cross traffic alert systems work really good
5. Has descent head room
6. Despite its very harsh ride, I haven't noticed any squeaks or rattles yet
7. Having both port and direct fuel injection was a genius idea
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
1. The 1.5T feels like a 1.8L or 2.0L naturally aspirated engine. The claimed HP and torque figures seems like a lie to me.

These aren't sports cars, and their performance is perfectly adequate considering the type of car it is and what it's designed for.

2. The Jatco CVT can be a bit "hoppy" or "jerky" at times. This transmission is not paired well with the 1.5T. No chemistry here whatsoever. Whatever little HP and torque the engine has, the transmission's job is to simply kill that joy.

As per point 1, these aren't sports cars, and the CVT does a much better job of things than its rivals. Yes sometimes it may take a moment to get things hustling along, but that's a combination of the CVT and a turbo engine. Remember, it's a 1.5lt turbo moving a car that's in excess of 1600kg's. ;)

3. Handling and general NVH levels are unrefined. For a crossover that shares a platform with the EVO X and boasts having both front and rear independent suspensions, its disappointing that Mitsu got the tuning all wrong.

This may be something specific to your market, but Mitsubishi tuned their suspension and handling to our local market (Australia) for the facelift version which is yet to hit other markets currently. Our market is the testing ground for a lot of new models which go global. I'm certain that changes would be made to suit your local market also for this model.

As it stands for us, it's perfectly tuned to suit our mix of rubbish grade roads which vary wildly in surface condition/maintenance levels, and think they've pretty much nailed it.

4. Trunk/boot/cargo space. The angled tailgate inhibits cargo, especially taller items and if you require to do some stacking.

This is something which I totally agree with, and would have loved less rake on the back window to improve styling, in order to squeeze more useable space into the package. The updated version is still 60lt larger in size which does make a difference.

5. It's features and amenities content listing is dismal compared to what you get in some of its competitors.

I suspect this may be market specific, but in our case with the Exceed model ($41,500AUD drive away), it absolutely obliterates any and all competition regarding this matter...we would have to spend another $10-12kAUD extra to have all of the same features on any rival. Throw in a 10yr warranty and 10yrs capped-price servicing, it's a no-brainer purchase, and a significant reason for us buying one.

6. The outer fake projector light in the headlamp cluster is just pathetic. It gives people a false impression that the headlamp assembly has dual functional projectors.

Once again this may be a market specific thing, and also a model variant issue. It's certainly something which helps keep costs down by not having to redesign different bumpers, etc, and the logistics for parts is improved, so I see this as a win. It also makes the car look fancier than it would if you took that away...making it look a bit "basic bitch spec", which nobody wants.

7. Fuel economy is disappointing. With a generous mix of both city and highway driving, the EC's range on a full tank is 375miles. I am using 95RON premium fuel btw.

Agreed that fuel economy could be better, but the engine does run on 91RON, which helps keep the costs down. Our previous Subaru needed a minimum of 95 but we always filled it with 98...so that difference here in Aus is nearly 50c/lt difference, which more than cancels out any thirst vs $'s. Suddenly it's quite cheap to fuel up and would rather the 7.3lt/100klm than the 12lt/100klm of the Subaru

8. I cannot turn off the auto closing wing mirrors.

If you enquired about the cost of a replacement mirror, plus painting, fitting and recoding, you'd probably change your mind about this one. Absolute benefit!

9. The factory supplied speakers is absolutely pathetic and cannot handle the full power of the OEM head unit.

The lower spec stereo's simply don't cut the mustard in terms of expectations...and is the #1 reason why I don't have one as a company car (driving an upper spec Outlander for this sole reason). Sadly we never got the Rockford Fosgate units here in the Eclipse Cross (even the new model), and only feature in the ASX (gawd that thing hammers!!). The new 8" infotainment unit with 8 speakers with 510w amp in the Exceed model isn't "fully sik" but when tuned in it is actually a really cranking stereo (yes we're both 39yo but love to crank tunes hard!).

10. The FCM and Alert system is poorly calibrated. It's better switched off than on.

Pre-facelift models might be like that, but the facelift models have really accurate systems which can be calibrated to your own choices and actually work. No more early warnings of ridiculous things like I tend to see on the Outlander which is soon to be replaced.




Well that's my thoughts addressing these gripes (some seem a bit silly, some seem quite valid btw). ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
You'll be trading it in then:LOL:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
@ Lunatic, thanks I'll check the menu settings.

@ Telferstr, we took out 36 months financing on it. 32 months again till we say bye bye.

@ mbikeboy,

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it! See my feedback below:

1. I am fully aware that the EC is not a sports car and agree that it is adequate for its intended purpose. But how do we define adequate? In my country, we have a Toyota Rush 1.5 and a Subaru XV Crosstrek 1.6. The former has about 103hp and the latter has 113hp. It can climb some of the steepest roads available to the motoring public. They both are adequate for its intended purposes.

You do not need to add a turbocharger and change the head on a 4A91 motor to make it any more "adequate" (as in the case of how the 4B40 came about). A naturally aspirated 4A91 or 4A92 would do the job. Instead, they went with the small displacement paired with a turbo narrative all in the name of giving us a better more linear torque curve which is available at a lower rpm and to supposedly give us better fuel economy.

Well two things are apparent from the aforementioned. Firstly, the motor has the same peak output as the 4B11 and with more torque than a 4B12. It's fuel economy is no better than many NA competitors in its segment and the performance is well below the 1.5T found in the Honda CRV, Chevy Equinox and Ford Escape/Kuga).

Our other two vehicles (2017 CRV 1.5T CVT 188hp/240Nm and 2018 Tucson 1.6T 7DCT 175hp/265Nm) will out accelerate the EC with a gap so wide, you might think it was fixed from the start. Mind you, both the CRV and Tucson are heavier. Now you might say, this is unfair especially with the Tucson with additional displacement plus dual-clutch. Whilst this may be a plausible excuse, who has more turbocharging experience out of Honda, Hyundai and Mitsubishi?

There are 1.5T's out there putting out more HP and torque than this 4B40 mill but Mitsu took a conservative approach. I get their strategy. They wanted reliability with a small turbo and with 8 injectors. This is contradictory though, cause, if they really wanted reliability, they could have just kept the 4B11 as the sole option. Another one of our cars in our garage is a South Korean made mid-size car with a NA 4-cylinder motor and a 6AT transmission. That car is heavier than the EC and has less torque. We did some highway pulls and the EC was walked on everytime. Ultimately, what I am alluding to here is, for a Mitsu derived turbo engine, the performance from it is very disappointing.

That 4B40, from a fuel economy and a performance perspective is downright pathetic. I understand that there are three marketed engine outputs for the 4B40. They are 148HP, 152HP and 161HP thereabouts. Our version is the 148 but all share the same torque. There is no way anyone of us can really feel the difference in performance that 13 additional horses can give you. That's like saying, you purchased a K&N box filter and you felt a better pull. Its all mind over matter. My elevation is barely 200ft so it's not like I'm in Boulder, Colorado or something where thinner air affects performance.

2. See point above. Our CRV 1.5T is a CVT mill and it doesn't behave like the Jatco supplied unit in the EC. We also have 2 CVT Subaru's that doesn't behave this way either. However, I see some behavioral similarities with our Xtrail 2.5 (T31) and Xtrail Hybrid 2.0 (T32).

3. This "market specific" thing is a huge pile of baloney propagated by manufacturer's all too often imho. Sorry but, I am willing to bet, if you tear down an Aussie EC starting from the suspension first, you would see the same parts/components such as links and bushings etc with those found in the Caribbean market. The only thing I can see would be different is the spring rates and length of the coil/strut assembly. Being from a 4th world country, I am also willing to bet, roads in the Caribbean are worse than Australia. I expect maximum ground clearance from our units which iirc is at 8.5 inches. I know other markets has the clearance at 8 inches. So I will accept a difference there. Nevertheless, the same concept applies for other automakers. Toyota and Audi shipped their Corollas and A4's to Trini (some units in the past), with a higher clearance to cater for our ridiculous roads without sacrificing ride quality. Why can Mitsu do the same? The shock dampening is way off. We once had a 2006 Nissan Wingroad Y12 wagon years ago that rode exactly like this EC and mind you, it had 16" rims on it. We sold that rubbish within 3 years. I can't blame the tyres (tires to the American's lol) because the CRV came with Toyo's on 235 width. I even replaced the air on each tyre with 100% nitrogen but to no avail. We have a 2005 Rav4 that rides better than this EC. No kidding here, its true!

5. I really wanted to see rear AC vents but I guess you're right. I take back what I mentioned. In retrospect, I think its on-par with the segment's offerings.

6. As far as my research goes, this is not market specific at all. All EC's have the outer projector as a dummy. In 2019, the IIHS awarded the EC with a "Top Safety Pick" rating. Impressive I might add for a vehicle riding on a platform that came out since 2006. The "Top Safety Pick Plus" rating was reserved because the EC lost points for its headlamps poor beam pattern. With the bi-LED projectors, the beam pattern could have been spread more evenly if the light emitting projector was placed on the outside area of the headlamp cluster. This in my opinion was foolish engineering to place the functional projector on the inside which is literally next to the grill. The proximity between both functional projectors is too close, especially since the front of the EC has a pointed sort of look. I may be blaming the EC too harshly here but common' Mitsu, you went through all this engineering to create a headlamp cluster with a dummy projector in it? Perhaps I may be over-reacting but in terms of design, this wasn't the best move.

8. Agreed but there are times when I don't mind having the mirrors stay in its open position. Not every single time I want the wing mirrors auto closed. Mitsu went as far as giving us this option but without an "auto off" function? (Lunatic I haven't forgotten your suggestion). It's like comparing it with auto start/stop technology. We get the theoretical benefits of same but not every single time, the driver and or vehicle owner would want the feature to be on at all times. It would be nice to have an "off" button. Another example is including ESP/DSC on a RWD based sports car with a 6MT transmission and a regular hand brake lever but the driver cannot fully disable traction/stability control. Really?

9. I use to have a Chevrolet Cruze and the tonal range from those factory supplied speakers were absolutely awesome. I intend to fix this with a nice audio vaccine prepared by either Pioneer, Sony or Kenwood very soon.
 
81 - 89 of 89 Posts
Top