2016 Lancer is coming

[JustinR]

I quite like the front end facelift.

Just like Tomo suggested, i would love to see it with the RA/EVO hood, and blacked out front.

[Mooman]

One thing I noticed on the link was a pricing guide that had an absence of Sportsback prices. Couldn't find any other info but is this the end of the SB?

[Lancer1993]

Good point, maybe they will drop it, guess its wishful thinking they would make a proper wagon with a squared off rear like on the CH?

[Lancer1993]

A local report on the MY16 Lancer, still no release date for AU.

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/2015/sm ... date-54263

[ken_angelo]

hi and welcome..

For some reason i don't like the 2016 lancer =(

[sarusa]

Like the shape of the side vents with daytime lights and fog lights (ASX front end could be an in between alternative) but the rest Yuk! Could have done something to alter the rear.

[squala]

So it took them 8 years to come up with a new bumper design? Regardless, this facelift is obviously out of desperation. I remember nearly 2 decades ago when Volvo tried to modernise the front end of the curveless 850 and renaming it S70, but it just didn't go with the rest of the car that was still awfully boxy.

Further bad news is the cancellation of the Ralliart, a seriously underappreciated car. They should have at least attempted to put in the Evo's turbo and sell it cheaper. Even if it doesn't have its big sister's go-kart handling, at least the extra pace could have kept the lineup significant especially with the imminent arrival of the Mazda3 MPS and Civic Type R.

There may be a bright side, however, if the CVT is entirely new and works as well as the one in the current Corolla. We rented a couple of these and compared to the CJ's unit, the laggy feel is virtually not there anymore. It's still a bit rough while accelerating, but not unacceptably so.

[belle_tb_ES]

A facelift was due this month

[Lancer1993]

I agree some 8 years for a new bumper, about the only good thing about the CJ was/is it's nose, stands out from most other small cars.

Yes why no change to the rear, there are loads of after market lights they could have used or bought the rights to. And put on a better bumper making twin exhaust standard.

Ralliart/EVO are gone and I didn't see any mention of the sports back, now I prefer the sedan but I can see the 'hatch' being more useful.

[Lancer1993]

Nice video but a bit sad.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAPzXhDupmI[/youtube]

[SAM-24A]

Final Edition ...... AMEN

I want one of those "Final Edition" badges .....

[burfadel]

So it took them 8 years to come up with a new bumper design? Regardless, this facelift is obviously out of desperation. I remember nearly 2 decades ago when Volvo tried to modernise the front end of the curveless 850 and renaming it S70, but it just didnt go with the rest of the car that was still awfully boxy. Further bad news is the cancellation of the Ralliart, a seriously underappreciated car. They should have at least attempted to put in the Evos turbo and sell it cheaper. Even if it doesnt have its big sisters go-kart handling, at least the extra pace could have kept the lineup significant especially with the imminent arrival of the Mazda3 MPS and Civic Type R. There may be a bright side, however, if the CVT is entirely new and works as well as the one in the current Corolla. We rented a couple of these and compared to the CJs unit, the laggy feel is virtually not there anymore. Its still a bit rough while accelerating, but not unacceptably so.

Like I went in to detail in another thread, the lack of updates to the Lancer is a chicken and the egg scenario. They aren't updating it because of poor sales, but they are getting poor sales (against the Corolla and Mazda 3) due to it not being updated. It's a shared platform too, so any changes to the ASX and Outlander can also be applied to the Lancer, mechanical and other non-panel part wise.

The best thing that Mitsubishi could have done in 2012 is drop the 4B12 since it has been completely neglected since 2007/2008, and put in the 4J12. The reason for the 4B12's neglect is because of the 4J12, which they could have made a 4J11 version of. The 4J12 is essentially the successor to the 4B12 anyway, and I believe it's mostly a major head upgrade rather than a completely new engine.

So, in markets requiring a 2.0 L they should have made a 4J11, and Australia and other markets without such restrictions the 4J12. At the same time they should have shifted to using the CVT8, colour dash display, add en extra fake gear or two onto the CVT (it is after all, fake gears, additional fake gears would cost basically nothing). Great for sales attractiveness.

Furthermore they could updated the rear end (doesn't need to be major), LED stop and tail lights, maybe LED daytime running lights for bling (and safety), lighter panels through use of composite or aluminium, and better sound proofing. They would have been on a real winner, and when you think about the changes I suggested, they aren't drastic. Even the engine and gearbox changes, we already know the platform supports them! Development for the Lancer of these engines would be very simple simply because the engineering was already done for the Outlander. Even the Outlander uses a tweaked 4B11 that uses less fuel than the current Lancer.

Mitsubishi's problem is that they seem to be treating the ASX, Outlander, and Lancer as completely different vehicles, whereas if they treated them as the same platform they could share a lot more components. Absolutely no reason why the Outlander should have a better 2.4 L, or a more efficient 2.0 L (despite the increased weight), among all the other things.

I really do believe they aren't sharing resources across the models as well as they should, especially since they were talking about requiring a whole new platform for a whole new Lancer. Why? If Outlander and ASX are going to stay with the GS platform (or an updated version of it) why does the Lancer need to change? They simply want an excuse not to make it. The Lancer though is an 'iconic' Mitsubishi brand, it's something they should actually be fighting to hold on to. It wouldn't actually require much work either, due to the cross platform sharing! Mind you, sharing that they've obviously lapsed on.

Back to the poor excuse for an update, the 2016 Lancer with the new CVT is supposedly more fuel efficient than the manual version.

[Haza92]

I'm so excited!!!!

[burfadel]

That's weird. Supposedly the 2016 Lancer was going to have an updated CVT that uses less fuel, however the spec still states the same fuel figures as previous years, around 7.2/7.3 L combined. It looks like it is the same for the US and NZ markets as well.

On the New Zealand site:
The Lancer’s 2.0L MIVEC Aluminum – block engine is an advanced design that’s both lightweight and powerful. It incorporates variable valve lift and timing on both exhaust and intake valves, delivering 115kW’s of power and drivability to meet your needs whatever the circumstances. Coupled to electronic power steering Lancer can achieve 7.3L/100km.

I thought the 4B11 didn't have variable lift? Maybe that's why the New Zealand model is more powerful?

Furthermore, no more 2.4 L for Australia in 2016. I think if they put in the 4J12 (like the Outlander has) they would have been on a real winner. The 4J12 I believe is essentially the evolution of the 4B12, which is one possible explanation why the 4B12 didn't get the improvements in 2012 MY13 like the 4B11 did; the 4J12 was already out then but only in Japan.