The Mitsubishi Evo Coming Back... As An Electric Crossover Concept

[reni]

Sadly this is automotive reality now. Not only coupes but even sedans don't sell anymore, and Mitsubishi has actually been doing increasingly well with crossover sales. As much as I would like to see a new Evo 9 type car, Mitsu knows as well as anyone it wouldn't make money

[vh_supra26]

[Tcoat]

Evo in name only.

[funwheeldrive]

Charles Darwin is rolling in his grave right now.

[Sideways]

I bet they will enter rally raids like Dakar and Silk Way, with this in very near future to compete with Peugeot and Mini factory teams and that is why they wanted to keep Evo name alive!!

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think the disparity is less than you think. Traditional SUVs that have a bed that sits on a frame like a truck are far less common than their crossover siblings, so many SUVs aren't the behemoths of the past. Many of these crossovers are pretty small, no more than a Golf with raised suspension. In fact small suv/crossovers like the Honda HRV, Audi Q3 and BMW X1, to name a few, are one of the fastest growing segments, and SUVs/crossovers outsold sedans this year.

The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport gets 30mph hwy and is 3150lbs. The Subaru Forester is 3450lbs and gets 32mpg hwy. Compared to the Subaru Legacy, it is 3550lbs and get 34mpg. The Legacy is surprisingly heavier, yet still better but probably from aerodynamics. So should they tax large sedans too or should they just stick to worrying about gas mileage only?

Im cool with them going electric. Electric is the future. But they don't need to do it, no more than the Outlander or Forester need to do it. Now, if they want performance without a hit to gas mileage the electric or hybrid will maybe be necessary.

Every little bit counts. Extra weight and extra wind resistance are inherent penalties to CUV designs. All things being equal, they're always at a disadvantage.

And what does taxing large sedans have to do with anything? Not sure how much you know about the federal government and their fuel regulations? For cars automakers must have a FLEET AVERAGE that is below a certain number. So it doesn't really matter much (for example) if Subaru sold 5,000 BRZ Turbo's that (hypothetically) got 18 mpg if they also sold 150,000 Imprezas that got 33 mpg. Trucks (and CUVs and SUVs and lifted station wagons) are all excluded from that calculated average

As to taxing a large sedan...any CAR sold in the US that has its fuel mpg below a certain number (which escapes me) is subject to the Gas Guzzler tax. Doesn't matter if it's a large sedan or a Dodge Viper or a Shelby GT500. GG tax is a one time penalty paid when the car is purchased new. That tax has been around for over 20 years.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Every little bit counts. Extra weight and extra wind resistance are inherent penalties to CUV designs. All things being equal, they're always at a disadvantage.

And what does taxing large sedans have to do with anything? Not sure how much you know about the federal government and their fuel regulations? For cars automakers must have a FLEET AVERAGE that is below a certain number. So it doesn't really matter much (for example) if Subaru sold 5,000 BRZ Turbo's that (hypothetically) got 18 mpg if they also sold 150,000 Imprezas that got 33 mpg. Trucks (and CUVs and SUVs and lifted station wagons) are all excluded from that calculated average

As to taxing a large sedan...any CAR sold in the US that has its fuel mpg below a certain number (which escapes me) is subject to the Gas Guzzler tax. Doesn't matter if it's a large sedan or a Dodge Viper or a Shelby GT500. GG tax is a one time penalty paid when the car is purchased new. That tax has been around for over 20 years.

Yes I am aware of fuel regulations. Yes, there are inherent penalties to raising the height of a vehicle in weight and wind resistance, but I was pointing out that there may be a larger difference between classes of vehicles than crossovers and suv's of the same size.

For instance, the Subaru Impreza 5-door and Crosstrek are virtually identical in almost every metric except for a few things. The Crosstrek has a larger fuel tank, a taller ride height and has a hundred extra pounds. The two vehicles are virtually identical in fuel economy around town (difference of 1 mpg) and the Crosstrek takes a hit on the highway because of air resistance (difference of 4 mpg).

Compare the same Subaru Impreza to the Legacy. The 2.5L engine in the Legacy and the fact that it weighs 430lbs heavier means that it is worse around town by 3mpg and worse on the highway by 3mpg.

Compare the Subaru Impreza to the Impreza WRX. The 2.0L turbo engine in the WRX, the fact that it no longer has a CVT and the extra 200lbs over the Impreza (100 over the Crosstrek) means the fuel economy around town drops by 6mpg compared to the Impreza and 10mpg on the highway (the Crosstrek is 6mpg better on the highway).

In short, when compared to the Impreza, it appears the larger, heavier, roomier sedan (Legacy) or the more powerful and sporty sedan (WRX) have worse absolute and/or combined mpg ratings than the slightly taller and slightly heavier crossover (Crosstrek). Thus, it could be said that large sedans or sport oriented sedans are worse than raised sedans. If this argument holds water, and following your logic about fuel regulations, then manufacturers will need to discontinue offering large sedans (which give some extra leg space) and sport sedans (which give extra performance) before they stop offering raised sedans (crossovers). I doubt this will happen.

Also, this is all a useless argument because this particular SUV concept is either fully electric or considerably electric, meaning the gains from the electric powertrain will offset any penalty from raising the vehicle to a crossover size and height. Also, fewer and fewer families can afford to have a second or third vehicle that is a hauling truck or a sports car. Crossovers are the practical future and sport crossovers may offer the complete package, being able to replace a sedan, truck and sports car with one vehicle. This is the reality we live in and likely the future too.

[zigzagz94]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Evo in name only.

Well technically they did have an SUV with the Evolution name tagged to it before and the Pajero Evolution was awesome. This new all electric one probably not so much.

https://jalopnik.com/meet-the-mitsub...omo-1704009601

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by zigzagz94

Well technically they did have an SUV with the Evolution name tagged to it before and the Pajero Evolution was awesome. This new all electric one probably not so much.

https://jalopnik.com/meet-the-mitsub...omo-1704009601

Sort of what I meant. To be an Evolution it needs to the performance version of something that already exists. It was the whole purpose of the name. This isn't the evolution of anything.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by zigzagz94

Well technically they did have an SUV with the Evolution name tagged to it before and the Pajero Evolution was awesome.

[zigzagz94]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Sort of what I meant. To be an Evolution it needs to the performance version of something that already exists. It was the whole purpose of the name. This isn't the evolution of anything.

I see your point and totally agree.

I was just pointing out that a lot of people (not you specifically) were butt hurt at the idea of an EVO SUV but at least there was some precedence for it unlike the total abomination that is the Eclipse Cross. Now that's just taking a once beloved nameplate and defecating all over it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Sort of what I meant. To be an Evolution it needs to the performance version of something that already exists. It was the whole purpose of the name. This isn't the evolution of anything.

Why do you say that? Couldn't they do a version of the Outlander? They already have the Outlander Sport. I get that the concept looks nothing like the current Outlander Sport, but it is just a concept after all, right?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Why do you say that? Couldn't they do a version of the Outlander? They already have the Outlander Sport. I get that the concept looks nothing like the current Outlander Sport, but it is just a concept after all, right?

Most certainly they could change the Outkander into that and call it an Be one hell of a leap if they didn't transition to it though and we woukd be rigth back to it being in name only.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Most certainly they could change the Outkander into that and call it an Be one hell of a leap if they didn't transition to it though and we woukd be rigth back to it being in name only.

Well, we may already have transitional forms set up. Here is the Outlander next to the Outlander Sport, which is smaller, sportier looking, with more aggressive fenders, headlights, grill and nose, so I could imagine an Outlander Evo:




But we also have the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross coming soon, and the Eclipse name has been a name synonymous with sport, so I could see a Eclipse Cross Evo too. They could replace the Outlander Sport with the Eclipse Cross in order to have two distinct sizes/classes of SUVs:



Then there is the Concept XR-PHEV, which looks aggressive like the Concept e-Evo, but toned down, and it has a small displacement turbo motor along with an electric drivetrain:



Or the eX Concept, which is fully electric, and described as a high performing, sporty SUV, with again, similar design language to the Evo concept:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/en/...15/conceptcar/