UK to get Mitsubishi i city car

[Pebb]

Source: AutoCar

Never mind the new Evo – from 1 July this year, the UK gets a far funkier Mitsubishi, in the shape of the i city car.

Previously only on sale in Japan, the i will be available in the UK in just one trim level, at £8999.

For your money you get a 0.6-litre turbocharged three-cylinder engine, mounted under the boot floor, and driving the rear wheels through a standard four-speed auto 'box.

But that's where the similarities with the Smart Fortwo end – the i has four doors and four seats. Despite all this, and decent interior space, it's a whopping 8cm smaller than the Ford Ka.

 

[franz]

You guys are lucky ... i is a very good car in Japan

 

[Speedster502]

What you mean this? Sorry but in my opinion no mitsubishi is cool or funky.

It might well sell well in the city centres but in the proper countryside those will just be another small car thats about as appealing as a pile of cow manure. It also is more expensive than its rivals which are the Toyotas Aygo, Citreon C1, Pegueot 107 and Smart Fortwo (But the smart is more expensive).
I would buy the Aygo far more funky.

 

[YSSMAN]

There was talk for some time about Mitsubishi brining the 'i' to America, as their HQ in California had one on hand for some product response testing with the public and the press, but nothing was ever made official.

...Not being able to see the car in person certainly hampers an opinion of nearly every one of the models in question, but I have to say that the 'i' is an appealing idea as an alternative to other cars based on fuel efficiency alone. Based on the competition listed there, would the VW Fox not be included? It is one of the coolest cars that we don't get here in America, particularly from VW, and being a former Fox owner ('93 Wolfsburg! Whoo!), I would like to see that come here (Mitsubishi 'i' included).

...The interesting question is, if the 'i' does well in the UK, how long until it comes to America? But then again, they were also talking about dragging the Colt over here as well...

If they bring it to America, I want this one:

HELLO KITTY! HELLO KITTY! WEEEEEEEE!

 

[1X83Z]

Keep it away from me. 0.6 liters? Jesus.

 

[Famine]

Keep it away from me. 0.6 liters? Jesus.

With the same horsepower as a 1987 Camaro 5.0 V8.

 

[inferno]

With the same horsepower as a 1987 Camaro 5.0 V8.

um.. this thing has 215 hp?

 

[Famine]

Well, it IS a turbo...

 

[1X83Z]

With the same horsepower as a 1987 Camaro 5.0 V8.

That engine had several ratings that year, depending on the transmission and version - how much power does this thing make?

 

[JCE]

With the same horsepower as a 1987 Camaro 5.0 V8.

I hope that's sarcasm.

According to: http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/first_drive.php?sid=26&page=1

64bhp for this city car.

BHP for the 1987 5.0L V8 Camaro RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Small-Block_engine#LB9

The REASON for these old V8 engines being so low on horsepower is clear and obvious--hell Clarkson even admitted it more than once--is the emissions choking the life out of the engine. I know this because I OWN a 5.0L V8 Camaro.

 

[Famine]

I hope that's sarcasm.

Of course it was! Though it should be readily apparent that judging a car's small engine size is as dumb as judging its large engine size...

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's going to go the way of the forfour for sure.

If people want a small city car they'll get a Suzuki Wagon R, you don't have to pay a stupid 'fashion' premium on those.

 

[1X83Z]

Of course it was! Though it should be readily apparent that judging a car's small engine size is as dumb as judging its large engine size...

I agree typically, although 5.0 liters is not an incredibly large engine, so your analogy was completely off-base. 0.6 liters would be the smallest engine in the US market; the largest engine in the US market is the 8.3-liter V-10 in the Viper, and the power of that one can be judged based on its size.

 

[Famine]

I agree typically, although 5.0 liters is not an incredibly large engine, so your analogy was completely off-base. 0.6 liters would be the smallest engine in the US market

In a car, perhaps (though the i actually has a 0.7 litre engine - 659cc - which puts it ahead of the MCC Smart which, prior to the ForTwo rebranding, had a 598cc engine. Coming to a US State near you in 2008).

The analogy holds true nonetheless. 5.0 litres covers a multitude of sins - from barely more than a hundred horsepower to not far short of 400, without even touching forced induction. Similarly 0.6 litres can go from pointless to... well, slightly more than pointless - and this has forced induction too. As it is, it puts out 63hp/69lbft - in order as much as, and much more than, my 1.3 litre Fiesta had - in a car weighing markedly less than 2,000lb.

Remember - specific power output is THE most pointless unit of measurement of an engine ever.

the largest engine in the US market is the 8.3-liter V-10 in the Viper, and the power of that one can be judged based on its size.

Yep. About as much as supercharged 6.0 LS2 or 4.2 AJ-V8.

 

[1X83Z]

In a car, perhaps (though the i actually has a 0.7 litre engine - 659cc - which puts it ahead of the MCC Smart which, prior to the ForTwo rebranding, had a 598cc engine. Coming to a US State near you in 2008).

The analogy holds true nonetheless. 5.0 litres covers a multitude of sins - from barely more than a hundred horsepower to not far short of 400, without even touching forced induction. Similarly 0.6 litres can go from pointless to... well, slightly more than pointless - and this has forced induction too. As it is, it puts out 63hp/69lbft - in order as much as, and much more than, my 1.3 litre Fiesta had - in a car weighing markedly less than 2,000lb.

Remember - specific power output is THE most pointless unit of measurement of an engine ever.

I don't get why you're pushing this - my point stands - we're comparing the smallest automotive engine to an average sized one. I agree that specific output is a stupid unit of measurement, and I'm sure you've had the argument many a time where you rolled out many a statistic, but I'm not having the argument. I'm just saying the engine is too damn small.

Yep. About as much as supercharged 6.0 LS2 or 4.2 AJ-V8.

Or just "a lot" compared to the Mitsubishi's "a little."

 

[Famine]

I don't get why you're pushing this - my point stands - we're comparing the smallest automotive engine to an average sized one. I agree that specific output is a stupid unit of measurement, and I'm sure you've had the argument many a time where you rolled out many a statistic, but I'm not having the argument. I'm just saying the engine is too damn small.

For what? It's suits the "i"...

Or just "a lot" compared to the Mitsubishi's "a little."

It only needs a little. The Viper needs a lot. Meh.

 

[jammyozzy]

But in the UK and much of Europe 5 litres is a large engine capacity. Here anything over about 2 litres is considered fairly big and 0.6 litres, while small, probably wouldn't be seen as 'too small'. For a car that size it seems ideal, because it doesn't need anything bigger.

 

[1X83Z]

For what? It's suits the "i"...

Maybe in the UK. I like my cars to get to 60mph before the end of the onramp. Or in this case, the highway.

 

[Famine]

Yep - it'd be about as much use on a freeway as a Dodge Ram would be in the centre of Burnley.

 

[Dave A]

But in the UK and much of Europe 5 litres is a large engine capacity. Here anything over about 2 litres is considered fairly big and 0.6 litres, while small, probably wouldn't be seen as 'too small'. For a car that size it seems ideal, because it doesn't need anything bigger.

0.6 is small no matter where you go, apart from Japans Kei car trend. It's just that were far more tolerant to smaller engines, we don't feel that we need a big engine to be able to enjoy driving, or to be able to use a car daily or whaever. A big engine is nice, used correctly, but we don't generally feel it's needed as much as some people.

 

[Philly]

Yep - it'd be about as much use on a freeway as a Dodge Ram would be in the centre of Burnley.

Very true. I've seen that this is a clash of interests. Here, we love big engines and don't see the point of the tiny R/C car type things. Over there, big means gas guzzling and size and small is cheap. Also, our cars wiegh a lot more. 62 hp will get a Suburban nowhere, while 600 hp would be completely useless in a FWD peugeot hatch.

Over there, E-classes have, what, 2.7 liter diesels, while here most are a 5.0 liter. The US is one of the only places where big engines thrive.

I think this car should sell fairly well in places like Paris and London. Americans might, just might find limited use in New York. I do think it looks a little too Japanese in styling, though.

 

[Rue]

Source: AutocarPreviously only on sale in Japan,

Autocar need to get their facts correct. It's officially been on sale here in Hong Kong for months!

 

[Philly]

It's officially been on sale here in Hong Kong for months!

How many? If it just came out, then yes you could say it was previously Japan exclusive. That implies that not long ago, you could only get them in Japan.

 

[JCE]

What's the 0-60 in this thing? If its less than 9 or so seconds it might not be so bad.

 

[1X83Z]

Yep - it'd be about as much use on a freeway as a Dodge Ram would be in the centre of Burnley.

Good. Another car you can't use in day to day driving. You've already got your convertibles which you can't take out when it rains, your rear-drive cars that don't run in snow, your exotics which can't do rock salt, your two seaters which can't accommodate passengers... now we're doing 'doesn't do freeways.' Lord.

 

[inferno]

Well, it IS a turbo...

290 ft-lbs of torque?

 

[Philly]

Good. Another car you can't use in day to day driving. You've already got your convertibles which you can't take out when it rains, your rear-drive cars that don't run in snow, your exotics which can't do rock salt, your two seaters which can't accommodate passengers... now we're doing 'doesn't do freeways.' Lord.

Well, keep in mind that it is Europe. The only non-rural experiences I've had on highways there hasn't been much above 40 mph. Their roads are really packed.

 

[daan]

Good. Another car you can't use in day to day driving. You've already got your convertibles which you can't take out when it rains, your rear-drive cars that don't run in snow, your exotics which can't do rock salt, your two seaters which can't accommodate passengers...

So, am I to assume, that in the US, you've got cars that fit into all those categories? I'd be particularly interested in the 2 seaters that can accommodate passengers...

now we're doing 'doesn't do freeways.' Lord.

Which for a city car, is not a big deal. We can get by perfectly well without using motorways.

 

[Famine]

Good. Another car you can't use in day to day driving. You've already got your convertibles which you can't take out when it rains, your rear-drive cars that don't run in snow, your exotics which can't do rock salt, your two seaters which can't accommodate passengers... now we're doing 'doesn't do freeways.' Lord.

And you've got your behemoths which don't do Burnley or pass gas stations.


For reference, I drove a rear wheel drive convertible in snow with the roof down just two weeks ago.

 

[YSSMAN]

Good. Another car you can't use in day to day driving. You've already got your convertibles which you can't take out when it rains, your rear-drive cars that don't run in snow, your exotics which can't do rock salt, your two seaters which can't accommodate passengers... now we're doing 'doesn't do freeways.' Lord.

You're probably here to push buttons once again, but I really don't see the argument here at all. How much of your daily drive is spent above 60 MPH? Most roads in America are set at 55 MPH (unless I'm mistaken...), so even if the 'i' can't do over 60 MPH, I'm not sure why it matters.

...Yes, I'd love to have all the horsepower in the world for stoplight drags and outrageous top-speeds, but these cars are clearly catering to a completely different kind of people. They want a car that looks good, works well, and isn't thirsty at the pump. Fun to drive? Here and there is good, but it isn't necessary.

Women are going to be the prime target with this car, city-dwellers as well. I think it is a great little "thing" that would serve my duties (for the most part) rather well, but me being an American, I'd be more likely to go for more power and size with the Fit, Rabbit, etc.

...But if they had the Hello Kitty model in America? Hell yeah, I'd buy that!