2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport SE: 4B11 Tuning

better tuning could really help this vehicle out. direct injection could easily raise those numbers to 160/160, or even 180/180. that will help on both power complaint problems and fuel economy.

^its larger, but not by much. But the subies extra power from its extra half litre could explain the difference....my bro in law is small suv shopping and the pokey-ness of the mitsu was off putting to him. So whereas this engine strains, the subie is thirstier around town but just as effortless on the highway.

Mj: I thought the iron block 4b was the famous one, not this hyundai engineered thing

@eldaino2: Here are the actual specs on Mitsu Sport vs. Subaru Outback

Length: Outback 188.2"
Mitsu 169.1

Cargo:

Behind Outback 34.3 cu. ft.
1st Row Mitsu 21.7 cu. ft.

Behind Outback 71.3 cu. ft.
2nd Row Mitsu 48.8 cu. ft.

The Mitsubishi is not in the same size class as the Outback.

^oh I know that, I was reffering to the sx4....the mitsu is bigger than that vehicle, but not by much.

As you have proven, outback is clearly larger!

" Frankly, this is very much the kind of power-to-weight ratio we're going to see in the future in sedans, not just entry-level SUVS. So a 10.0-second run to 60 mph and a quarter-mile in 17.5 seconds at 80.1 mph is pretty much what you're going to get. If you want to go faster, you'll be making friends with the gas pump."

Ummm...that's just a crazy talke. We should expect an archaic 2.0 and no power in the future? Why? This isn't an efficient engine. VW's been producing turbo 4s that deliver over 30 MPG and 200 hp/200 ft-lbs for a decade. Ford, Mini, Nissan all have smaller engines with turbos that will delivery more HP/torque and better economy.

@eldaino2, yes the iron-block 4g63 is the famous one... but regardless, this one is becoming just as famous, as 600+ horses out of this thing are not a big deal and its proven to be as reliable as the old iron-block

Sorry, all my Mitsu shirts say "4g63" on them.

@breif,

second that ;-)

plus a bunch of Ralliart logos all over it... staying true to the Rally Heritage! :-)

@eldaino2: Sorry I misunderstood you. I guess I am such a Subaru fan that sometimes I have a knee jerk reaction. By the way, I set that little chart of mine up with all the numbers aligned in columns, but they sure didn't post that way. I'm glad I know that now.

@blueguydotcom: I was going to post something along the lines of your comment. It is ludicrous to think that auto manufacturers can't give us small, powerful, and fuel efficient engines. A few of them, as you say, have already emerged. The car makers will need to do it or die-- unless they can make enough money by selling gas guzzlers to the Chinese. Or are the Chinese clamping down on fuel guzzlers now?

I keep thinking that perhaps the technology well develop that will allow cars to be much lighter-- but with acceptable crash protection. What a win-win that would be.

blueguy, to me VW's engine is archaic. 200 HP from VW's 2L turbo 4 is pretty weak. Hyundai's turbo 2L I4 does 274 HP and Mitsu's turbo of this very engine block gets 291 HP (you can go higher aftermarket).

fushigi:

Its all in the tuning. The same block from VW will get way over 250 hp in the GTI-R. Furthermore you can take a stock GTI and get it tuned and easily achieve 270 hp. The current state of tune with the VW engine is a marketing thing. The VW can't have the same power as the Audi's that use essentially the same engine.

@fushigi - you missed the point. the blog seem to excuse the mitsu 2.0s poor power and horrible fuel economy, even praising it; mass produced 1.6 turbos from others and turbo 2.0s are far more powerful AND efficient. The na 2.0 is a relic and not indicative of engines to come: it's more a reminder of the kind of under-engineered, 1990s basic engines many companies still put into vehicles (all of Mazda's engines, Honda's current 4s, Toyota's 4s, VW's obscene base 4 in the Jetta, etc).

How can you say Honda's K-series engines are under engineered? The K-series absolutely crushes any other normally aspirated 4cyl ever made from an engineering standpoint. The cylinder head is magical and the VTEC system allows great top end power. I can understand if you want more power and espeically torque via forced induction, but the K-series (launched in 2002) is still the cream of the crop for a naturally aspirated 4cyl. In fact, I'd argue its the best production NA 4 ever made - and due to the changing market, may be the last great NA 4 we get to see from anyone.

Sorry to jump on you, but the K-series is pretty damn special.

4G63 and Ralliart. nothing comes close :D

@blueguydotcom - No, I got the point just fine. The Outlander Sport's "horrible" fuel economy is better than the Tucson, one of the OSport's main competitors. An AWD Tucson has Hyundai's 2.4 and is rated 21/28 despite having higher HP & Torque.

Ditto the Rogue, whose 2.5L has higher HP & Torque but only manages 22/26 with AWD.

Michael's post is spot-on: pick your poison. Either live with reduced acceleration times or reduced fuel economy. Power has a price.

Sure, turbos will perform better. But they do have a fuel economy penalty and right now automakers are doing what they can to up their CAFE numbers. When they figure out how to turbo or (insert magic here) an engine to up the power without harming economy they'll do it. The turbo Sonata is pretty close.

DI, while not a new concept, is pretty new from a mass-market perspective. We can assume the automakers have figured out how to control the problems that prevented DI from taking off a long time ago, but time and lots of cars on the road is needed to see if their engineering prowess has paid off.

@powell_jr - If you want to incorporate aftermarket tuning into the discussion, HKS has a turbo kit that bumps the Mitsu 4 banger to 580 HP. I'd link to it but I've noticed posts with links have a habit of disappearing.

Where do you get turbos have a fuel economy penalty? Why do people keep repeating this as though it's fact. It's simply not true. A 1.6 turbo with 180 HP will still get you 30 MPGs. A 2.0T (either audi or Hyundai) will easily eclipse 30.

Maybe 15 years ago a turbo meant you'd get socked in the drawers on fuel but today...no.

Compare the published mpg results of IL long term vehicles to compare the gti engine to other small 4 cylinders. if i drive normally i get 28mpg per tank but right now only 25. the outlander sport needs a tiny turbo.

Well this engine has 3 years already on the market, and already came very high tech.
Missing of course, for an upgrade standpoint: direct injection and turbocharging.
But time will remedy that.

People honestly need to stop comparing archaic engines to the current crop. You can spout HP, HP/Liter, torque curve, MPG, and ANYTHING ya'll think is relevant to your interests all you want but keep in mind that these engines are constantly being raped by emission controls, things that people NEVER seem to remember. Sure, your little D series motor can hit 50 MPGs and oh-so-reliable that it'll kick the crap out of the current L series but I'd love to see the crap that that motor spits out in an emission test.

I'm no eco-weenie and I'm inclined towards fun cars of all sorts and you'll never catch me in anything that's not a 3 pedal (and the obligatory excuses go here to explain why I'd meander off that track) but it's funny, isn't it. I've rarely, if ever, seen people ever boast about their ULEV but once HP comes into play, everyone suddenly becomes an engine expert. The real experts are the engine designers and tuners, and I don't mean your best friend's friend's mechanic buddy, I'm talking about either the factory's engineers or perhaps an esteemed aftermarket performance company.

@blueguydotcom - "Where do you get turbos have a fuel economy penalty? "

Here's a fact for you: In the Sonata, Hyundai's DI 2.4 gets better MPG than the 2.0T so yes, there is a fuel economy penalty. Not, it's not big but it is there.

Fushigi: eh not so fast. Here is another comparison to consider. Take hondas vaunted k series, the z3 spec one in the current si sedan: car weighs about 2900lbs, and with the six speed manual, you get a 21/29 mpg rating.

Now take the more 'archaic' (to some) 2.0t in the gti, which weighs about 3100lbs in four door trim, and with a six speed manual achieves 22/31. And has more usable torque. Turbo does not always equal worse fuel economy, even when comparing cars as similar as this.

Church123: I agree the k20 and k series in general are some buttery smooth and powerful 4cylinders....but cream of the crop in what sense? Most hp per litre via natural aspiration? I love winding up an si motor, but as I described above, vws turbo gets superior mileage, even though its a heavier iron block sitting in a heavier chassis. And it backs up that hp with wonderful smooth torque, and is in a fairly docile state of tune in the gti.

I would try and vouch for the k20 mpg wise because the current accords k24 meets or exceeds the mpg garnered by newer d.I. engines like in the sonata; but that was a transmission fix, not so much engine tune. Hell the k20 found in the old ep hatch and current jdm civic can't even crest 30mpg per the epa....there are a slew of 2.0's that will with similar power and or more tq. (Wasn't the vtec on those only on the intake, and meant to maximize fuel economy over power?)

But I will give you this, as an enthusiast I appreciate any k series' smoothness and willingness to run to redline and the lovely vtec switchover....but its preference, not vast superiority of these engines, that makes me say that

Oh and fushigi: you brought up aftermarket tuning first, and as such, bear in mind that the additional power that can be had in the 2.0t from vw, are via simple ecu reflashes....and they don't cost anywhere near as much as an hks turbo that needs to be bought, installed (even more dough) and in some instances tuned.

Maybe your opinion that turbos suck fuel is because you seem to only be familiar with mitsus turbos, which are appaling from a mpg standpoint. There are plenty of guys running around with 300+hp gtis with hardly any fuel economy penalties. Which means 30mpg on the highway...something turboed mitsubishis only dream of doing.

Frankly it's quite pointless to compare engines in cars that are not part of the same segment and do not have AWD (or 4WD) to this one (compare apples to apples).
The fuel economy biased CVT and the weight (and power-loss) from the AWD system obviously slow the car down. What I am trying to say here, is that engine tuning (in this case more low and mid-range torque and fuel economy vs top-end power and speed) is only one part of the overall performance of any given vehicle. One also has to include transmission type and gear ratios, drive-train, weight, aerodynamics, and even tire type (i.e low-resistance tires vs sticky performance tires).
Thus, while I agree that this may not be a class-leading engine, it's by no means as poor as some would like to make it out to be. That being said, Mitsubishi was the pioneer in mass-produced GDI engines some 15 years ago, why can't they build one now...?
Regarding the DI engine in the Juke, lets not forget that the Nissan is even smaller and lighter than the little Outlander. The VW AG DI engines all carry premium fuel recommendations and add cost to the operation of the vehicle. Feed it regular and you take power and fuel economy penalties. I am NOT bashing these engine (or companies) I am merely pointing out potential negatives.
Finally, the SPORT is a moniker not a vehicle attribute and is widely used among automakers. Get over it.

@eladaino2: Turbos do not have to be fuel hogs, especially when they are DI. Mitsubishi proved that out in 2000 with a 1.8l GDI engine.

While I agree that the Lancer RalliArt and Lancer Evolution have poor fuel economy, your post is a bit misleading. Your opinion is based on two models that are both bigger and much heavier (thanks to AWD and a DCT) than any GTi.

Finally, your empirical observations fall a bit short of the scientific methods required to ascertain exact fuel economy figures. Therefore your claim of 300hp and 30mpg is as easily proven as it can be disproved.

@eldiano2: Please compare turbo & non-turbo engine offering from the same manufacturer available in the same car. Otherwise, regardless of similarities in vehicle size, weight, etc. there are simply too many other possible variances that could explain fuel economy differences.

Go look up the Colt Turbo if you want a Mitsu that does over 30 highway.

And it's my understanding that turbocharger in the 34MPG highway Sonata 2.0T is made by Mitsu.

@psychogun: +1. (BTW is your name from Space Adventure Cobra?)

Psychogun: true, but this is a blog, and its not so important to me that I'm going to offer up the scientific methodology to achieve those numbers. I'm merely sharing what is widespread real world experience in the vw tuning community. Your mileage will vary.

And as far as your opening comment goes.....uh I was arguing that turbos DON'T have to be gas hogs, so there is no need to convince me. (Lol a colt? Good one fushigi)

True the evo and ralliart are heavier, but the gti can be saddled with a dsg, same as the dct, and awd too. In the audi a3 I still think it reaches 28mpg, still better than a ralliart. and saddled with awd. Looks like the colt is mitsus only saving grace.

I'm not saying I dislike their turbo engines, but the ones they sell in their own vehicles are not exactly easy on the pocket mpg wise.

Fushigi: figured you'd say that, especially since everything I posted (the turbo being more powerful, in a heavier car, with a manual) insinuated a sure win for the naturally aspirated competitor and solidifing your variable filled argument.

But it didn't, so ill play along. I know the numbers on the european cycle, but I can't be bothered to post them, but vws 2.0 fsi n/a engine (150+ hp) gets virtually the same mpg in the same car.

eldaino2: I was agreeing with you regarding turbos, sorry if that was not clear. Further, I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else on this blog, that my comments (and opinions) carry greater validity than others' posts (that would be pointless and decidedly arrogant).
My purpose is more to encourage some degree of factual correctness, promote objective thinking, and share pertinent information.
Again, I do not doubt that the GTi can and does achieve better gas mileage than the two Lancers. However, it's simply not an appropriate comparison due to the weight differences that exist (even the Audi A3 Quattro DSG, which costs some $2,500 more but gives you the lower weight of the aluminum space frame, weighs well over 200lbs less than the RalliArt), power differences, and the numerous other factors that affect fuel economy. As you state YMWV.

Does anyone know of someone who makes turbos, twinturbos or superchargers for this car since I am willing to buy it and upgrade its performance.