Least mentioned midsize sedan........ (engine, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally I would stay away from any Mitsubishi. I can't imagine them surviving too much longer in the US market. That means less service and parts and a horrible resale value.
As someone else on this forum said in a different thread Mitsubishi will soon be the new Isuzu.
Was there ever a good Galant? A nurse at work drives a 90s model Galant that has those narrow headlights. Two neighbors drive the current generation Galant sedan. Chrysler's Sebring and Avenger share many parts and engines with the Galant. You'd think they'd take a page from Subaru and offer their sedan with a turbo 4 engine like the Legacy. Imagine a Galant with an Evo motor and all wheel drive like the Evo.
Oh yes. The Galant VR4 was a fantastic car... find one today.. AWD, AWS turbo 4. The predecessor to the Lancer turbo
You sure? I heard the 2.0L in the Genesis coupe was a Lancer motor, and that both Mitsu and Chrysler partnered with Hyundai for the engineering design of their larger engines.
The block is based on the same basic design, but that's about where the similarities end.
Saw that it was produced in extremely limited numbers. The mass produced Galant up level model was weak compared to it's competition, even it's American competition.
funny,when I saw the title of this thread the Galant was the exact car I thought of...
+1. They could take a similar approach to what Subaru has taken with the Legacy and position it as a snorty Lexus IS fighter, but they seem to be content with mediocrity and disinterest. It's been a persistent problem with Mitsubishi Motors for the past decade.
nothing got screwed up over the years. If the largest car of today is only 3/4 sized as compared to the largest car of 50 years ago, should the mid sized today be 3/4 the size of the mid sized of 50 years ago? Its just the general size of cars have shrunk across the board over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimme3steps
Easy answer.
Cars have evolved.
You haven't.
The funny thing is that even Ford called the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis a mid size car up until a couple years ago. The Crown Vic was considered for years the replacement of the Gran Torino/LTD II lines. In 2006, Ford still in advertising called the Crown Vic /Grand Marquis the safest mid sized cars.
Cars have not evolved, just the mindset of what a car is size wise has been deluted.
So I stand by my statements about the size of cars today being called larger than they really are. Todays accord, camery, galants, all are compacts, not mid size.
Personally I would stay away from any Mitsubishi. I can't imagine them surviving too much longer in the US market. That means less service and parts and a horrible resale value.
As someone else on this forum said in a different thread Mitsubishi will soon be the new Isuzu.
I go to dealerships of all makes in my job everyday. I generally will be in 12-15 dealerships a day. The Mitsubishi dealers are getting worried they will be a part of history, and not here tomorrow if quality doesn't get alot better very soon. This topic has come up more and more of late. When a brand of dealers has a larger service staff for warrenty work than other dealers, that tells you something when they sell less vehicles than the competition.
Doesn't the EPA use the interior passenger volume to decide if a vehicle is subcompact, compact, midsize, or large? If this is true, then the size of the extior is meaningless in regard to it's classification. Though my mom and dad drove a Chrysler Cordoba, it's interior passenger space was actually much smaller when compared to it's exterior size. I have just about as much rear leg room or more in my 2003 Malibu than in that Cordoba. The late 70s and early 80s GM models like the Monte Carlo were also large in exterior size but small in interior size.
Personally I would stay away from any Mitsubishi. I can't imagine them surviving too much longer in the US market. That means less service and parts and a horrible resale value.
As someone else on this forum said in a different thread Mitsubishi will soon be the new Isuzu.
I have been think the same thing for a number of years now, but they just seem to keep sticking around.
I go to dealerships of all makes in my job everyday. I generally will be in 12-15 dealerships a day. The Mitsubishi dealers are getting worried they will be a part of history, and not here tomorrow if quality doesn't get alot better very soon. This topic has come up more and more of late. When a brand of dealers has a larger service staff for warrenty work than other dealers, that tells you something when they sell less vehicles than the competition.
We have a local dealer many have come to love to hate thanks to the owner. He's a big, tall, bully who was recently arrested for assault. One of his salesmen quit to go work for another dealership and promptly called all his customers to inform them of where he went. The owner drove to the other dealership and attacked the former employee. He really is a jerk. However, that jerk has been having to swallow his pride and was practically in tears begging customers to come back. Reason why? His dealership is Mitsubishi and Toyota. BAM!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
