2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR: Costs and Drinks Too Much

The Lancer GTS is also pretty loud at highway speeds.

similar to the sti in terms of cost.

Good post Karl - I agree with you 100%.

There's no excuse for 16 MPG and a $40k price tag for a car like this. The car has lost its way (bang for the buck).

I agree as well, looking at these numbers.

Maybe the Ralliart will bring the charm back to the "big performance, small car" category. That, or maybe even the new WRX or sub-WRX classes that Subaru has announced.

As it stands, the Evo costs *more* than a lightly optioned 135i, which is far and away my preference among the two for a small sporty car.

The STI's tank is 16.9 gallons if I remember correctly. I'm guessing its fuel economy is slightly better, too. But we should remember that fuel economy isn't (really) important to people who get cars such as these. :o)

Sure the mileage may not be stellar, but I'll bet you were smiling all the way to the station. The MR seems to be one trick machine built for drivers who like to drive, not for family runabouts.

Since this is the only car that Mitsu can actually sell, I think they jacked up the price so they can take in as much money as they can. Even the Evo 9 was almost $40k fully loaded though.

My brother's '07 Corvette gets better mileage than this riceboy special. He's getting just over 20mpg in equally mixed driving. And, he's a bit of a leadfoot.

I'm averaging 17.2mpg with 156 horsepower- and rarely run up the tach. 95% City driving with the A/C on will net terrible mileage.

The STI and EVO X MR are destined for the same fate that befell the Nissan 300ZX in the early 1990's. Cars that become overpriced for their target audience, (in this case 25 year old boy racers).

The STI and EVO are in big boy territory. That is the Japanese thinking they can compete with BMW. My past experiences with Subaru make the STI out of site and mind, but i still like the EVO. Still, I couldn't bring myself to buy one...

When people are in the market for a performance car, I'd sooner recommend the 350Z over these cars. If you need 4 doors, get a G35. A Corvette can be had for about $40k right now with the GM Employee Discount. Cayman's are being sold for under $40k as well if you know where to look.

Plus, the fact it is new and Mitsubishi doesn't hold well... but surprisingly my friend hasn't had any problems yet with his MR.

A lot of people are complaining about the low range in this car. I get about 200 per tank out of my GSR, but I have been right between 19 and 20 mpg. I tend to fill it when it gets to a 1/4 tank.

I think the 135i is more bang for the buck, or at least per gallon. If I didn't drive in the snow all the time, I would have put down the money for the bimmer.

Thats just crazy. My M coupe will do 0-60 in the low fives as well and I get almost 25 mpg in mixed driving. Granted it has half the seats but it has a larger trunk which kind of makes up for it.

Why is anyone surprised? This and the Subie are just economy cars tarted up.
These would be great $25K cars.

I'm averaging 20 mpg in my '07 G35 with 90% city driving, and I can easily go 350+ miles between fillups due to its large gas tank.

The Evo would be a great car for 30K. For 40K, there are much better choices.

When you need 4 doors and want permagrin performance for under $40k, this is about the only option. Sure the G35 is nice looking and has a nice sound but it doesn't come close to the driving experience of this car. It's the only car in the price range where you can get close to 2 seat performance.

Karl - Any chance that this is a function of that tranny?

One thing to remember: This Mitsubishi is AWD. That guarantees a mileage and cost penalty in return for having power at all wheels as needed.
Also, given Evo, STI and other like-minded cars are limited runs compared to the mainstream cars they're based on, wouldn't the cost of the turbos and extra AWD components have to be amortized over a smaller sales base?

For comparison, I average 17-18 MPG around town in my STI. I get 23 on the highway which makes road trips more reasonable. I only have 2000 miles on it and on the highway it is pretty good...I have read reviews that the stock tires make a heck of a noise...I haven't noticed it to be too bad...the kids can watch a dvd in the back seat with no problems. These numbers and observations are with a fairly aggressive driving style. I imagine I could better around town if it wasn't so much fun to put my foot to the floor every so often.

I'm really tired of people harping on the Evo using the $40k argument. News flash: It's not hard to get an EvoX for $30k that has everything you need.

Saying you wouldn't spend $40k on an Evo is an unnecessary statement. I wouldn't spend $30k on a Civic Si, but it's possible. Nobody bases their price comparisons on cars tarted up with unnecessary options. IMO, anyone that does go for the $40k Evo would have been better off spending their money elsewhere in the first place. But some of you are spinning that argument into "all Evos are overpriced, and it is therefor a bad car", which simply is not the case.

I'd like to see a 30K Civic Si. Does it have wings? :)

I have a theory on why the Evo is so thirsty (aside from the obvious one that it coaxes you into driving like an a-hole, which it does).

It's the catalytic converter.

Automakers have to ensure that after 100k miles, their emissions systems are working like near-new. This requires that the exhaust gas temperatures are not too high, else the catalyst can become melted/destroyed.

Turns out fuel is a great way to cool off exhaust gases. See where I'm going with this?

Mitsubishi runs the Evo RIDICULOUSLY rich at wide-open throttle. As in, something like 9:1 air/fuel ratio. This is horrendously rich, all to keep the catalyst alive.

If Mitsu switched to metallic-core catalysts (instead of ceramic core), they could run leaner and improve the fuel economy. But metal-core cats cost more money.

I get 22-23 on the highway. 15-17 in town depending on my right foot. I have an Evo GSR.

The way I drive, I don't get much better in most cars.

The complaint should net be the economy of the car but rather the size of the fuel tank. Would you complain as much if you could go 250 miles with the same economy?

I agree the size of the tank could be bigger.

This car has a VERY high smiles/gallon ratio. I'm willing to pay for that. Drive it first. You will forgive many of it's quirks. It is the job of the bloggers to find criticism and report it.

To underscore some of the other statements above...

The average transaction price of an Evo is about $33000. Calling this a $40000 car is like calling the 135i a $55000 car.

The average transaction price of a 135i is around $40000.

When comparing the two, you can compare the 33k Evo to the 40k 135i or you can compare the 40k Evo to the 55k 135i.

Calling them equivalently priced is ludicrous and tiresome.

The tank is too small and the mileage is poor. And it takes premium fuel. I find it hilarious that there has been so much hand wringing about the mileage of the Camaro and it's "poor timing" when the V6 car will get better mileage than the EVO and STi on regular fuel. Sure it wont be as fast but it will be fast enough and it will cost much less than either. Why in the world would you put a 14.5 gal tank on a car that gets 22mpg on the highway? The average crossover gets about that and has a tank close to 20gallons. My car doesnt have enough range and its tank is 16.3 gallons.

"m really tired of people harping on the Evo using the $40k argument. News flash: It's not hard to get an EvoX for $30k that has everything you need. "

Isnt the base price about $34k? Its too expensive at that price as well. Maybe that's why I have only seen one on the road so far.

Just my 2 cents on the price discussion:

I know exactly where to get a Lancer Evolution X MR + Technology Package (30GB Nav) for $36,496.00

That's 36k for an Evo X which most people are getting rapped at 41k+. Just learn to look for prices, and learn to fight for the best one.

Now regarding MPG; I own an 08 Lancer ES, which is supposed 2 be the ground where the EvoX was built. So I can pretty much argue as much (or more) as people here with no Lancer at all. My Lancer gives me 15, 16, 17, 18 MPG depending how I drive it; Since I'm always haulin arse, I get nowhere higher than 17 MPG. If I cruise matching legal speeds, I get 23-25 MPG, and driving from Miami 2 Orlando, Cruise mode on, I get up to 33 MPG!, yes you heard right, about 450 Miles full tank. No BS at all.

So I bet you guys at InsideLine are more than eager to drive this EvoX full throttle, hence the low MPG. I bet that driving this car on the highway the right way will take you into the 20MPG territory with no problem at all.

not only that, the car is an AWD for those comparing it with Beemer's 135i. And the evo has never before been a gas saver, so I don't see the point of this argument.

Oh btw, you want a race car, you pay the price! :D

Is all this making an argument for a Mazdaspeed3 with only front wheel drive?

Or a Mini JCW with much better gas mileage?

Meanwhile, in Great Britian, the EVO will soon have a variant making 400 HP.
For some, would that kick the Evo back into favor?

If the car is rated at 17/22 I dont see why people are arguing that it's IL's driving that is responsible for the poor mileage. The EPA tells us the car gets poor mileage right on the sticker. While it's true this car isnt a fuel miser the point is that it sucks up a lot of gas for such a small vehicle powered by a four cylinder and it needs a large tank since it gets mileage like a V8.

Great theory, Jay! :thumbsup:

kurtamaxxxguy, the Evo FQ400 (FQ = "freakin' quick") costs many £££.

Heck, I have a client with a 2007 CLS63 AMG and he averages 17.5 MPG, and goes through a set of rear tires every 10k miles!

Bump jkavanagh. Stock the evo runs extremely rich.

I have the 08 GSR, and I was getting 17-18 mpg when I bought it. When I took it in for an early oil change around 1000 miles, I asked for a factory ECM reflash that supposedly leans out the mix. After the reflash I was seeing 19-20 mpg.

Heh, and even still when you get on the go pedal, you can see a visible haze from the exhaust. Not really a green car by any means.

Have you IL guys thought about checking into the factory reflash? That would make an interesting blog post...

Check the engine bay, maybe you got the V-10 version.

Sounds to me like the problem is the tank is too small, not the mileage is too bad.

You guys can barely crack 20mpg in boring, 19/29 stickered family sedans. 16 mpg in a boiling AWD rocketship isn't unreasonable.

Driven by someone other than car reviewers in traffic somewhere other than LA that 16 mpg would go up quick.

+1 aspade.