Mitsubishi mistakes worse fuel economy for "economical" with new SUV engine
Mitsubishi has just announced a 2.4-litre, 4 cylinder petrol engine as a new option for its Australian ML Triton SUV range. Joining an existing 3.2-litre common rail diesel engine option which puts out 118 kW / 158 hp of power and 347 Nm / 256 ft-lbs of torque, the new 2.4-litre petrol can offer up only 94 kW / 126 hp of power and 194 Nm / 143 ft-lbs of torque.
And get this, the existing oil burner returns 9.1 L per 100 km / 25.8 mpg while the new petrol can only manage 10.9 L per 100 km / 21.6 mpg!
To make matters worse, not only does Mitsubishi refer to the new engine as "economical" and "lively", it also says it has "class-leading economy". Compared to what? Obviously not the diesel version.
But... it's cheap.
Analysis: Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely a place in this world for entry level vehicles at low prices, but talking about how fuel efficient a model is when it is so clearly outclassed by other options in the same range just doesn't make any sense to me. Don't try to tell me how fantastic 21.6 mpg is because these days, it just isn't.
Related:
[Source: Mitsubishi]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
diesel performance guy 5:14AM (2/19/2008)
I think its still possible to salvage the image of Mitsubishi by installing a good line of diesel performance to their new SUV engines.
Reply
rgseidl 2:28PM (4/02/2007)
Dane -
as a blogger on this website, you really ought to know better than to compare volumetric fuel economy for engines using different fuels. A gallon of diesel contains approx. 12% more energy than a gallon of gasoline.
Moreover, the two engines you are comparing here are too far apart in terms of horsepower and torque for a meaningful head-to-head comparison.
The point of this gasoline version is to offer the vehicle at a lower entry-level price point to those who like the idea of owning a truck but won't put enough miles on it to recoup the initial cost premium of a diesel engine. Others may prefer gasoline for different reasons.
Fwiw, if I needed one and had a choice, I would never buy a commercial vehicle with an anemic naturally aspirated gasoline engine. In addition to good fuel economy, you want a sturdy powerplant with a lot of low-end torque married to a tranny with long gears.
Reply
hicko 4:18PM (5/01/2009)
21.6 mpg from 16.5 uk gal tank = 356.5 mls per tank
10.6Lper100klms from 75lt uk tank = 796klm per tank
796klm = 494mls
Where did the other 137mls or 220kms go
10.6 L per 100klm is 26.6 mls per gal uk
9.1 L per 100klm is 31 mls per gal uk
Where did you get your figures from? 26mpg if not great it's not to bad.
If you use USgal figures there even better?
Reply