Talk:Mitsubishi Lancer

Series III Seventh Gen. Coupe (Australia)

I just bought a June 2001 Lancer Coupe and contrary to the details here, it certainly has a 1.8L engine (model 4G93). According to the papers this is the original factory engine that came with the car so I've updated the details on this page assuming that they were wrong. The only other possibility is that the car is in fact a Series IV meaning that the page needs to be updated to show that Series IV came out in 2001 and not 2002. Does anyone know how I can find out what series my Lancer is so I can resolve this with 100% certainty? --220.233.20.172 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Me

Re: v6

The Mitsubishi Lancer never came out with a V6 variant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.122.218 (talk • contribs) 15:20, April 21, 2005

Yes, the Lancer did come out with a v6 variant, but only in selected markets. I would be surprised to see a v6 Lancer that wasn't directly imported from Japan.

1994 Lancer MX V6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.127.217 (talk • contribs) 01:18, April 30, 2006

Yes there are incorrect referance , most 1992-2000 Mitsubishi Lancer GSR , had a 6A10 (1.6)or 6A11 (1.8) V6 option. And not a 4G93 turbo. The 4G93T was a variant on the Evolution GSR models in 1991-1992 Kongkit (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness in Europe

This article mentions how the Lancer wasn't sold in some parts of Europe around the late 90's until the new model was released, due to similarities with the Dutch-built -

Ralliart

IIRC, when the Mirage was replaced by the Lancer in 2002, in the US, there was a ralliart edition available. The article says that was introduced in 2004. My lancer is a 2003 and I know there was a ralliart edition then.

Re: Ralliart

To the poster above, the Ralliart trim package for the Lancer was not available until 2004. It's possible you're confusing it with the OZ-Rally package, which has been available since one year after the car's release. The OZ-Rally package is an appearance only package, including ground effects, 15" OZ-Rally branded wheels, and the same spoiler on the RA. The drivetrain and suspension are the same however.

Why cleanup?

Anyone know why this is tagged for cleanup? Bok269 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Donno, but it looks like its been done (PAuLw1985 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

Driving Experience

Lancers became quite different cars over time. From being 'A four-wheeled bomb' it evolved into a gentle 'Family-car'

I owned a first-generation Lancer from 1975 till 1981. The car was incredible fun to drive - but nearly killed me on several occasions. It had quite a reputation too !

True: In the hands of an expert it performed magnificently and won many international rally's. But driven by an ordinary driver (Like me) who liked the experience of it's power it was straightout dangerous.

Actually the Japanese had meant the car to have both looks and feel of British sports-cars of the late '60's (Like the M.G. B or Triumph Spitfire) Only: It performed even better but had worse road-sticking capabillities! With an extremely agile engine (Double-bodied carburettor) of over 85 BHP and the car 'grossing' at only 830 Kg it had impressive acceleration and respectable top-speed. But it didn't need wings to take it in the air!

It was unbelievably 'Light to drive' too, responding vigorously to the slightest touch of pedals or wheel. (Though steering was purely mechanical, not assisted). But a small bump in the road or somewhat careless 'touching' of the brakes could send it carreering into any direction.

NOW: Should I ad something along these lines in the main article or is this beyond the scope of an encyclopedia?

PLEASE COMMENT 81.246.147.165 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

lancer glxi

how long does this engine runs, anybody know's?i have 1.6l lancer 1994...and i dont have big problems yet... could anyone tell me more about this engine : 1.6l fuel, ECI-Multi , 1994.. any experience?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.236.66 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I (And members of my family) had many Mitsubishi-cars going through our hands; Some 'Clocked' over 300.000 Km. Never had engine problems (Except once: see hereafter) You just can't bust those things.

When I was in the military (Drafted) in '82 I used to drive my Celest 1600 from Epinal France (Where I was in service) to Grimbergen (Near Brusseld, Belgium)Airfield (Where my Heart was), a distance of 450 km PEDAL TO THE MAT ALL THE WAY (Yes, I was wild then); Twice a week. All that happened was that the last 50 Km. or so the red oil-pressure warning light came on; A friend, mechanic, told me that this was normal after a few hours of top-speed (180 Km/h) driving; So I never cared about that. Had to discard the car many years later (With 300.000 KM on the clock)when, due to excessive rust, it didn't pass the M.O.T. any more. My father though once had to discard a 'Galant' 1600 when the 'Bourrages' (French word)leaked engine-oil. Since the car had served him from '82 till '97 he didn't deem it worthy of repair any more. I do not know the English word for 'bourrage' but it's a kind of (leather) gasket that's placed where the cranckshaft leaves the engine.

Conclusion: Don't worry about Mitsubishi engines: They just never wear out! 81.246.128.31 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Hi guys, I've fixed the generations to put it into line with the information contained on the Lancer history site from Mitsubishi. Most reviews/sources I read refer to the current generation Lancer (2000-07) as the eighth, so I believe that this is correct and in line with the Lancer history site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geekygeek07 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Second Generation

The Mitsubishi Lancer SL is the box-type car well known in the Philippines since the 1980's. There are some models in the Philippines such as the 1800 engine GSR using the same box-type body model SL with 4 wheel disc brakes. The Lancer model SL is a rear wheel drive with 4 speed manual transmission.

User:Awatanabe

Any chance this is the same model as the Lancer EX? Without more info, I'm inclined to believe we're thinking about the same model. --Neil Santos 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourth generation

I have a 1983 Lancer with a 1.4 engine (at least, that's what it says on the paperwork). Also, the picture in the fourth generation infobox doesn't look like my car; mine looks like a four-door second generation Mirage.

Also, on this page http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2388434 the owner says his 1983 Lancer is an FR, not an FF as stated in the infobox. I'm getting confused. :P

I'll see what I can dig up and correct the mistakes, if any. (Neil 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Got it. Mine's an EX. :P Neil 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Electric

I've found references to an electric version in Japan called the Libero EV [1] [2]. As yet i don't know much about it, but if someone digs deeper they might figure out howto integrate it into this wiki article. - Roidroid 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, was able to dig enough to find out where to slip it in. - Roidroid 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Generation Picture

The picture under the title is not a Second Generation Lancer, its a Celeste which has a mention earlier in the article under the first Generation title. I would change but have no idea how to 203.152.121.2 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ninth Generation

I've just tidied up some of the spelling and grammar in this section - more could be done, but I'm not a real car expert, and don't want to make a big mess.

I actually came on to see if there were pictures of the newly released 'Australian' Lancer, because I can't get onto the official site (funny, that ;) ). I'm about 90% sure it was officially released today (11 Oct 07) at the Australian International Motor Show in Sydney. Can someone verify this? CrackedChelle 07:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think the 9th generation needs to be fixed up completely being more descriptive rather than a selling point. Especially with the quoted prices, that's typically not used in articles. Instead it should show what the common ground for all models are and then state the differences country to country. Possibly with all the release dates into one section on it's own if it's even necessary. Hydroshock 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lancer ex in the Philippines

Article states that Lancer EX in the Philippines had 1.8l engine and 1.6l turbo engine. Mitsubishi didn't release the 1.8liter and 1.6l turbo engine in the Philippines. The top spec engine was the 1.6l Saturn engine with silent shafts in the GSR and GT both with 5 speed transmission. The GSR had 4 wheel disc brakes and GT had additional Front airdam and Rear spoiler.

The lower spec SL was equipped with a 1.4l 4g33 engine with no silent shafts and was equipped with a 4 speed transmission and had disk brakes for the front and drum for the rear.

I have several pictures of old brochures if proof is needed.

This may be digressing but, we acquired a Lancer EX turbo front and rear suspension and differential and they are markedly different (larger) from the standard Philippine spec Lancer EX GT suspension (different suspension arms, differential roll bars etc.)

The rear disc brakes on the GSR and GT were unventilated vs the ventilated rear disc brakes for the Japan spec lancer ex turbo.

Lancer Generations

This article is wrong about naming the Lancer's generation. From the 1st to the 6th is correct but at the 7th is wrong, the 7th here is the 8th edition. So it goes for the 8th generation here, in terms of edition, it should be considered as the Lancer 10th Generation, because there was a Evo IX car but the road family sedan I haven't seen anywhere or published.

So the correct order for the images should be (starting from the 7th generation):

- Missing the true 7th generation - Lancer 8th generation (in here as the 7th) - Lancer 9th generation (only know about the Evo IX) - Lancer 10th generation (in here as the 8th, because the previoulsy antecipated names for the Evo version of this car was Evo X and known in his official website when it was still a prototype, as the Prototype X. The numbering will be dropped down and the Evo edition will be called only Mitsubishi Lancer Evo)

About the irish lad doubt, your correct, Lancer was sold in Europe since from the 3rd or 4th generation at least (It's the older generations I've seen in my country, Portugal) and was sold at the same time as the Mitsubishi Carisma. Carisma never was a replacement model for Lancer, although the Lancers here have the small engine option, the GLX version, I suppose it is a 1.3 4-cylinder engine.

Carisma and Lancer are two separate models. Carisma I think it's more a family sedan and Lancer is more business man sedan at that time, now it does the both as a family car sedan and station wagon and business man car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.98.138 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

generations

You say that you kept your sources in line with the official history, yet that page stops at year 2000 and the copyright date is for 2001. You're at least missing one generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.246.108 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancer in the Philippines

It states in your article that the 5th generation Lancer GLXi that was sold in the Philippines had a 1.6L Cyclone ECI-MULTI "DOHC" engine. I did my research and that particular engine (internal code "4g92") only has "SOHC" so i'm a bit confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.165.83 (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over Edmunds.com review of Ralliart

I've had a look at both reviews cited, and I have to say that both reviews seem to lay the blame for the model's performance on the tyres. The first review (as added by JCDenton) says "the first thing you must do is put your narrow, heavy 18-by-7-inch GTS wheels and 215/45R18 Yokohama Advan A10 summer tires on eBay so you can offset the cost of buying a new set of rolling stock all around." The second review (cited by Mitzinriyadh) says "Handling Comments: the car's limits are determined by low-grip tires." and "Braking Comments: Unimpressive stopping distances (likely due to unimpressive tires)."

The version by JCDenton strongly implies that the fault of the handling is somehow due to the AWD configuration. I suspect this is the reason Mitzinriyadh (and anon IP 58.182.75.24) have been reverting or adding material, and I tend to agree with their perspective. I'm going to go with Mitzinriyadh's version, which cites both reviews. Hopefully this'll be the end of the edit war. If it isn't... well, I note that both participants in today's back-and-forth can be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Hopefully it won't come to that. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to carefully read Edmund's review of the Lancer GTS [3] and of the Lancer Ralliart [4]. The Lancer GTS had 215/45R18 all-season tires. The Lancer Ralliart had 215/45R18 summer tires. If anything, the Ralliart had better tires than the GTS, so that cannot explain the discrepancy. Yes, the Lancer Evo X has better tires than either, but the article compares the GTS and the Ralliart, so that doesn't matter. I mentioned AWD and FWD because it's shocking that a FWD car handles better than a similar AWD car. Clearly Mitsubishi screwed up somewhere.

I won't make any further reverts, but I'll request a third opinion. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think further opinions would be useful (although I personally felt that I was the third opinion, or even the fourth). Posting {{Third opinion}} here, or posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles might be your best bet for a quick response. --DeLarge (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the reviews yet? You haven't shown from where you get your claim that the Ralliart has worse tires than the GTS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the reviews before I made any edits to the article; I quoted both cited pages in my first post above. The only claim I made was that our paragraph implied the Ralliart's AWD drivetrain was the cause of its performance in the test, while the review was pointing the finger at the tyres. We were therefore not representing the cited source accurately. I'm sure you'd object (as would I) to something like "the turbocharged Ralliart model underperforms the naturally-aspirated GTS", because that'd imply the engine's induction had something to do with it. Why it's the tyres is not something the review analyses, and it'd be original research for me or anyone else to fill in the blanks.

I'd be amenable to editing the last sentence to read "According to Edmunds.com the Ralliart model underperformed the GTS in certain tests.^[10][11]" (bold text for compromise wording added retrospectively). That way we're no longer indulging in any OR about the cause of the test results; we're merely reproducing them. --DeLarge (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The review says that the Ralliart has worse tires than the Evo, not worse tires than the GTS. It is original research to claim that the GTS has better tires that the Ralliart. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying the GTS has "better tires than the Ralliart". The problem was that our article implicitly attributed problem specifically to the drivetrain, something not supported by the review. Now, I've suggested the compromise wording above (which I've now put in bold text), which cuts out all speculation, I've also solicited opinions at WP:CARS.[5] --DeLarge (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not implicitly or explicitly attribute the problem to the drivetrain. User:Mitzinriyadh did argue that the GTS had better tires than the Ralliart. I suggest this compromise: According to Edmunds.com the Ralliart model underperformed the GTS in certain tests, including on the skid pad, on the slalom, and in braking distance. However, the Ralliart outperformed the GTS in other tests, including 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

More detailed than I'd care for, but it addresses the issue so I'll add it. --DeLarge (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: I just saw that there's an open request for a 3O here. Has it been resolved, or do you still need one? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Mileage

Hi,

I bought a 2005 lancer recently and my concern is with mileage, is there anything can be done to get decent milage since I travel about 40-50Km a day and I find it difficult to manage with almost 5 liters of fuel/day, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.0.1 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Related

How are the Dodge Caliber, Jeep Compass, Mitsubishi Outlander and the Jeep Patriot related to this car? Those vehicles are crossover SUVs, this is a family car. --neolandes (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

These vehicles all use the same platform Mitsubishi GS platform and to some extent the same Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance engines. In Europe they all use the same VW sourced Diesel Engine. Pilskadden (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

==What is the latest Lancer called in Hong Kong? If "Lancer EX" then it's worth a mention, while "Lancer 2.0" sounds more like just the name of the engine.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Mitsubishi Lancer 1600 GSR

I have proposed merging the contents from Mitsubishi Lancer 1600 GSR onto this page. Or maybe there should just be a stub left here on the main Lancer page for the 1st generation Lancer, with a new more expansive page for the Mitsubishi Lancer/Celeste A70/A140? Any opinions?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, please. Also, I believe the Lancer Fiore information should be moved to Mitsubishi Mirage. It has been shoved in this article quite awkwardly to the point where we now have nine generations when there are really only eight. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged 1600 GSR. I also disambiguated the LA/LB/LC Lancer history, moving the Liftback/Hatchback stuff into the Celeste section. The Lancer Fiore is an awkward fit precisely because it was an awkward car... should it be considered generation 2B? Most of the stuff there would definitely fit best on the Mirage page.

Question: Is the first gen stuff enough for its own page? It seems rather long to me.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The first generation section is too long now with the GSR information; make a separate Mitsubishi Lancer (A70) article for it. I would move the Lancer Fiore information to the Mirage article and create a subsection for the Fiore under the "Lancer EX" section of the Lancer page. This would contain a brief paragraph or two and a hatnote redirecting readers to the Mirage article.

You made a mistake with the Australian model series (LA sedan did not continue when the Celeste versions were introduced. I am not 100 percent sure if the Australian models were called "Valiant Lancer" for the entire run or just part of it (1981 Mitsubishi versions excluded the "Valiant" name). Also, many sources for the Chrysler versions exclude the "Valiant" part as well (reinforced by the lack of "Valiant" badging on the vehicles themselves).

• LA: 2- and 4-door sedan (1974–1977).
• LB: 3-door liftback and 4-door sedan (1977–1979).
• LC: 3-door liftback (1979–1981). Rebranded "Mitsubishi Lancer" in 1981. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Valiant" part should be minimized or removed. I am aware of the LB sedan and tried to clarify that but apparently I left in a fragment of an old edit. I would even divide the Aussie Lancer lineup as follows to make things even clearer:

• LA Sedan: Lancer (1974-1977) 2- and 4-door sedan.
• LB Sedan: Lancer (1977-1979) 4-door sedan.
• LB Hatch: Celeste (1977–1979) 3-door liftback.
• LC Hatch: Celeste (1979–1981) (3-door liftback).

As for all the headers, I used a limited table of contents, so the crazy TOC is only visible when editing the First Generation article separately.

By the way, wikipedia needs a picture of a Mazda Persona. Keep your eyes peeled! Best,  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: would a better title be Mitsubishi Lancer (A70)? The Celeste is still a Lancer ("Lancer Celeste") so why is it necessary to include "Celeste" in the title? Articles tend to use the original/most common name and make use of the "aka" infobox field for the versions sold under different names. See: Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative_names. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess that I saw the Celeste as enough of a separate car to be at least deserving of mention in the title - in spite of sharing chassis codes it wasn't really considered the "same" car as the sedan anywhere outside of Oz. I also didn't want those who were looking for the Celeste to get redirected to a seemingly Lancer-only page and then get confused. I had been considering making a separate Mitsubishi Lancer Celeste page, maybe that would have been the best? I think I just left them combined because that's the way they were. Anyhow, since this page will mainly come up as a link from the main Lancer page or other redirects I hope the name isn't all that important.

<after some thought> If we were following naming order, then there should probably be a separate Mitsubishi Lancer Celeste page with a subsection for Plymouth Arrow - as it is, because of a certain amount of Americentrism, we have a huge article on a badge-engineering job (Plymouth Arrow) and only a subsection on another page for the actual car it was based on... kinda weird. I fully support such a move (which would leave us with a Mitsubishi Lancer A70 page, I think sans parenthesis is best?) and a Mitsubishi Lancer Celeste page which would include the Plymouth Arrow bits. But I'm not looking forward to battling the Plymouth fans.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the Plymouth Arrow information to the A70 article (for now). How different is the Celeste from the sedan? Is it just a different body style and slightly revised front-end styling, or does it go further? The fact that both cars share the same model code suggests the former, but I can't really make a valid comment as I do not understand how Mitsubishi modes codes are assigned.

Parentheses in titles is the de facto standard, first started with articles disambiguated by generation (i.e. Ford Taurus (first generation), not "First generation Ford Taurus" or "Ford Taurus first generation"). As the car was called "Mitsubishi Lancer" and not "Mitsubishi Lancer A70", the "A70" part could cause confusion when readers interpret this as part of the actual name. "A70" is merely added to disambiguate this article from other Lancer pages. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with the parentheses, I was just thinking out loud. As for the Celeste, the entire body and most of the interior was different, and it carried a more or less different name in nearly all markets. It also followed a different path of development, with different dates, upgrades, engines. For an equivalent example see the Mitsubishi Galant GTO and first generation Colt Galant - they, too, share a chassis number (A50-series), underpinnings, and part of a name: and are considered worthy of separate articles. In all other texts available to me (Car Graphic, Auto Katalog, l'Automobile) the Lancer and Celeste are also treated as separate creatures. I feel that there are enough differences (and, importantly, enough material) to make these into two separate articles. Another analogous situation: Opel Ascona B and Opel Manta B (both were even labelled Vauxhall Cavaliers in the UK for a while). Good work adding the Plymouth Arrow business, I haven't checked if you removed all the duplicate material yet but there should be a lot of pruning to be done.

And then it will be time to make a Mitsubishi Lancer EX page... Best best,  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, Mitsubishi Lancer (A70) and Mitsubishi Lancer Celeste (is this what it was called in Japan?).

With regards to the EX, I see a problem emerging: once sub-articles are created for each generation, the naming will be very schizophrenic. First generation models will be A70, EX (no parentheses) will denote generation two, with CY or CZ denoting the current release. Toyotas tend to follow a much "neater" standard, i.e. XV10, XV20, XV30, XV40 for the last four generations of Camry sold in international markets. So, unless a uniform format exists, maybe it would be better to title the articles "Mitsubishi Lancer (first generation)", et cetera. Just a thought anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While Mitsubishi does not make it easy, I think that in this case being correct will be nice. I think that these subpages will mainly be accessed through the main article in any case (making the title less important), and as long as the proper links are provided in the articles I think things will be fine. And also, counting generations isn't always so clear cut (viz the Lancer Fiore, aka "fourth generation")... Yep, those page names are nice.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Below is the "Australian Mitsubishi disambiguation chart" as requested at Talk:Mitsubishi Colt.

• 
  Lancer Fiore (Mirage): A150
  
  Australia: RA (1981–1982), RB (1982–1984), RC (1984–1986), RD (1986–1988), RE (1988–1990)
• 
  Second generation: A170
  
  Australia: N/A
• 
  Third generation: C10
  
  Australia: N/A (received Lancer Fiore as "Colt" instead)
• 
  Fourth generation: C50 (C60/70/80)
  
  Australia: CA (1988–1990), CB (1990–1992), CC (1992–1996; hatchback only, carried over to next generation)
• 
  Fifth generation: CA/CB/CC/CD/CE
  
  Australia: CC (1992–1996), CE (1996–2003; wagon only, carried over to next generation)
• 
  Sixth generation: CJ/CK/CL/CM/CP
  
  Australia: CE (1996–2002)
• 
  Seventh generation: CS/CT
  
  Australia: CG (2002–2003), CH (2003–2007, wagons until 2008)
• 
  Eighth generation: CY/CZ
  
  Australia: CJ (2007–present)

If we are to maintain the model code format, to achieve some level of consistency, I propose the following:

• First generation: "Mitsubishi Lancer (A70)"
• Second generation: "Mitsubishi Lancer (A170)" (rather than "Mitsubishi Lancer EX"). Lancer Fiore (A150) information to be merged into Mitsubishi Mirage.
• Third generation: "Mitsubishi Lancer (C10)"

By the time you get to the fifth generation (CA/CB/CC/CD/CE) series (and all future models), it becomes much more complicated. Do we title the article: "Mitsubishi Lancer (CA/CB/CC/CD/CE)" or simplify it to "Mitsubishi Lancer (CA)"? Hence it becomes easier to go by generation.

As is shown in the above disambiguation chart, "CA" can refer to two models: the fourth generation "C50 (C60/70/80)" in Australia and also the fifth generation "CA/CB/CC/CD/CE" in other markets. Sixth generation cars were called "CE" in Australia, but in Japan "CE" refers to a variant of the fifth generation. Likewise for the current eighth generation CY/CZ series, called "CJ" in Australia ("CJ" also refers to one variant of the Japanese sixth generation model).

While I understand (and appreciate) your concern to maintain accuracy, but at what expense? Is there any point in having an article structure that is only understood by you and me? The overlap that exists regarding model codes in Japan and Australia will mean an awkward and excessive use of hatnotes making for an unmanageable mess. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent chart! With the inclusion of the first gen Lancer and Celestes, I think this should really be used somewhere for everyone's benefit, instead of languishing at the bottom of this very long discussion.

And yes, (while it irks me to give you Aussies special treatment) I reckon that from the fourth generation on any separate articles would be best named by their generations. And I agree on treating the A150 Lancer Fiore as a minor sidetrack, dealt with on the Mitsubishi Mirage page. The third/C10 was actually marketed as Lancer Fiore in Japan, but I'm happy to ignore that since it was just plain "Lancer" in all export markets that I know of. I am very happy that the Australian Mitsubishi importers chose to use letter codes already in use for other cars... couldn't they have at least stuck to the L series? I guess the occasional hatnote will still be necessary here and there.

My only question is: Why Lancer (A170) rather than Lancer EX? I'm fine either way, just want to know your reasoning.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirage merge?

Why on earth have the 1988-2000 cars been put in the Mirage section? I know they're related, but so is the Ford Escort and Orion, for example! This is stupid and should be undone in my opinion. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more than related—its a rebadge. It is silly to have two articles mentioning the same car. In Japan (home market) and North America the Mirage name was the main model. In Europe and other regions, Mitsubishi utilised the "Lancer" name for what was called Mirage back in Japan. In Japan, the first and second generation Mirage sedans were badged "Lancer Fiore" (in addition to the Mirage sedan) due to the presence of the 1979 to 1987 model under the name "Lancer". After this, only the five-door liftback (1987 to 1991) was unique to the Lancer badge in Japan—the sedans also sold under this name were retailed as both Mirage and Lancer. I just cannot see the point of having repeating articles considering the immense level of blurring that has occurred with the Mirage, Colt, and Lancer over this period. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but now the Mirage article looks incredibly bloated and far too big. It was much better as it was before, as the Mirage sedan was almost always badged as a Lancer. And I reiterate my point - the Ford Escort and Orion articles, for example, are separated, so why shouldn't this be? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mirage is less bloated than the Lancer page was; it is within acceptable article size parameters. Both articles are much neater now than prior to the merge as I spent considerable time fixing up many of the issues. It is not efficient to have separate articles because different names were used on different cars in a convoluted naming situation. This isn't just a case where coupes were only badged under one name—but one where the Mirage coupe (Japanese name) was both Mirage and Lancer for export. So we had two articles about the same coupe. The same applies for most other variants of the Mirage/Lancer line—three-door hatchbacks were almost always Mirage but on for at least one occasions the name Lancer was used as well. The Lancer sedan was badged Mirage in the USA and as both Mirage and Lancer in Japan.

The Ford example is not a precedent; I could ask the same question: the Mirage and Lancer articles, for example, are combined, so why shouldn't the Ford Escort and Orion be? I wouldn't exactly call those Ford pages the darling of Wikipedia's automotive coverage so their suitability as some sort of paradigm should not be perpetuated. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to merge the Orion and Escort (and Belmont and Astra...) but don't particularly feel like having the argument. As a Mitsubishi fan, and as someone who always thinks of these cars as Colt/Lancer first (grew up in Europe), it was a bit hard for me to accept the merger at first but I am totally behind it now - it also allows me to make this a much better source of information, editing was rather daunting before with info spread over so many articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't using the Orion/Escort as a precedent; merely a comparison. If the Mirage/Lancer must be merged in this way, then there are a lot of other articles that need to be merged as well (Escort/Orion, Belmont/Astra, maybe even Renault 3/4, for example). Just wondering - did you consult anyone before you made this change? Lukeno94 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe those pages (although I'm not familiar with the Renaults, so I won't comment) should also be merged. However, things can only get done step-by-step. The Lancer page was tagged for a couple of weeks linking to a discussion taking place at Talk:Mitsubishi Colt. Only Mr.choppers responded there. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Lancer in compact class

The fifth generation Lancer is the first Lancer and the only Mirage-based Lancer to compete in the compact car segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.0.66.24 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Second Generation - Japan

Hi, was the Mitsubishi Lancer launched in Japan in 1978 (see link) or 1979 (as according to the article)? ---North wiki (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitsubishi Lancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929032929/http://www.allnewlancer.ca/EN/LancerPreLaunch.pdf to http://www.allnewlancer.ca/EN/LancerPreLaunch.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.ve/Productos/Actuales/Lancer/Lancer-GLX-1-6-M-T-%28GNV%29.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autonet.com.tw/cgi-bin/view.cgi?%2Fnews%2F2007%2F8%2Fa7081266.ti%20a2%20a3%20a4%20a5%20b1%20%2Fnews%2F2007%2F8%2Fa7081266%20b3%20d6%20c1%20c2%20c3%20e1%20e2%20e3%20e5%20f1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitsubishi Lancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614094326/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/fact0109.pdf to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/fact0109.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012164947/http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_55681/title_CH-Lancer-Prices-Released/newsarticle.html to http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_55681/title_CH-Lancer-Prices-Released/newsarticle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)