Ok this is not a thread asking what fits what, but more of a question as to what drivers think of both.

In Australia we are getting the 2.4L Lancer in about 2 months (Over the existing 2.0L) and I am thinking of holding off to get the bigger engine.

My question is to anyone who has driven BOTH the 2.0 and 2.4 in which they prefer?

Pros and cons for both?

Is it worth getting the 2.4 over the 2.0 or are they really similar in the way they drive and act?

Any help would be appreciated as we don't have the new type 2.4's to compare to.

Ta

Thank you for pointing that out... because I was about to say "Not another one..."

I have only driven the 2.0L engine and it seems fairly quick considering the weight of the car. The 2.4L has 168 HP according to Mitsubishi's website, an additional 16 HP in comparison to the 2.0L engine. In all honesty though, I think the 2.4L engine is just a huge gimmick. Rather than adding an additional 0.4L to the engine, they should have just went ahead and made it a V6/inline-6.

Who's to say that Mitsubishi is claiming it has a 2.4L engine when it's really a 2.0?!? THEY LIE TO YOU! JUST LIKE HOW THEY SAID THE PAINT WOULD STICK TO THE CAR! :bwekk:

Personally, I say save the money (on the car AND gas) and stick with the 2.0L. I really don't think 16 HP will make all that much of a difference (you're still driving a naturally aspirated sub-200HP vehicle).

The Lancer is a rally inspired vehicle... it's not about how fast you can forward, but how fast you can go sideways!

the 2.4 has more torque due to the majority of the displacement increase coming from the longer stroke.
it also has the balance shaft assembly that is missing from the 2.0 liter (the longer stroke makes for more primary and secondary vibration).

otherwise, the engines are pretty much the same.

Very true indeed,mitsu should have changed the 2009 lancer to V6 or inline 6.
Haha,good point there where lancer is all about how fast you can corner than how fast you can sprint it.

My biggest reason for not waiting was because of the mileage diff. It's only 2 less, but it adds up.

But that extra power would be nice :57:


I don't know if this is true or not....but I heard that the 2.0 was a rev'r (rev's quicker)& the 2.4 was more of a grunter....cuz of the extra torque....doesn't rev as quick....but with the extra power....maybe it doesn't have to...

But that would make it a galant.... lol. Then again it does weight a ton.... a 6 might have been better for getting the boat around :grin:

Personally I would rather have the 2.0, its not worth it to me for an extra .4


2.0 Specs
Engine type Inline 4 cylinder DOHC 16v, MIVEC
Displacement 2.0 L (1998 cc)
Bore 86 mm
Stroke 86 mm
Compression ratio 10:1
Fuel system ECI multiple
Peak power 114 kW (155 PS) at 6000 rpm
Peak torque 198 N·m (146 ft·lbf) at 4250 rpm

2.4 Specs
Engine type Inline 4 cylinder DOHC 16v, MIVEC
Displacement 2.4 L (2359 cc)
Bore 88 mm
Stroke 97 mm
Compression ratio 10.5:1
Fuel system ECI multiple
Peak power 125 kW (170 PS) at 6000 rpm
Peak torque 226 N·m (167 ft·lbf) at 4100 rpm

True... but what would you rather have? The Galant or the Lancer? :grin:

Willy's new quote:

"The Lancer is a rally inspired vehicle... it's not about how fast you can forward, but how fast you can go sideways!"

Huzzah!

Seems no one that answered here has actually DRIVEN both type of engines :bwekk:

As for the OP, the 2.4 is faster (especially 0-60)and sucks more fuel (1-2 more MPG )

2.0 L is the opposite, now, make a choice!!!!

There are a lot of people with 2.0s on here and not many with the 2.4s yet since they haven't been out long. I sell at a chrysler-dodge store but our sister store has mitsubishi along with gmc and buick. I've driven both the 2.0 and 2.4 gts 5 speed models. the 2.0 just doesn't pull in any gears really. and when it does rev to 4k and higher its just buzzier and not as smooth. It doesn't invite you to run it hard. I came back from the test drive unimpressed. The 2.4 is a big improvement in my opinion. The engine is smoother so you feel like it wants you to run it hard more often. The power is noticeably stronger. the loss of fuel mileage wouldn't be enough to factor in for me. the smoother engine just makes it feel like a more high end car instead of a fuel saving grocery getter.

ya i have to agree with that. I test drove an ES sport before I got my 09 GTS with the 2.4L. I noticed a difference. It just picks up a lot more once you get over 3500 rpm and sounds a lot better too. the gas mileage is still good. I try to drive it nice (except when some punk kid wants to go in his saturn or honda) and I get a lot better mileage than what the sticker says. I usually average 26 or so in the city and about 34 on the hwy

There's no replacement for displacement, except more displacement.

It was an easy choice for me seeing how in Massachusetts they force the PZEV down everyone's throat making the 2.0 go from 152 hp down to 143 meaning here it wasn't just a 16hp increase but a 25hp increase and that, with all the extra goodies they added to the 09 GTS was enough for me to seal the deal. Plus I've been averaging about 27/28 mpg.

Everyone hit it on the head. I too test drove a 2.0 then a 2.4 and the difference is very noticeable once you get up to 3500-4500rpm and it pulls better in general and yes sounds smoother too. 24 foot pounds of torque is a pretty nice little chunk if you ask me. Get the 2.4 :thumbsup:

i owned a Lancer 2008 DE... Totaled it ( other person falt) now i have the Lancer 2009 GTS... both 5Speed... and the 09 is quicker... i raced my friends 03 Tib GT-V6 5Speed with the 08 and 09... in the 08 he owend my A** but in the 09 i was dead even with him!!!! so my choice is the 09 Lancer 2.4L, i made mine, now... you make your choice
P.S. 09 Turbo Kit is coming out VERY VERY VERY SOON!!!!!!! hehehe

~Kevo~

When I was originally looking at a Lancer, I was looking for a 08 GTS since it had a 0% financing deal.

Unfortunately, there were none in the province somehow :o.. of course, we only have two dealers in the city.

So I took a 09 GT for a spin -- and it put a smirk on my face. I liked the way it handled, how it accelerated for being such a heavy car, and the general feeling I had when I drove it. I wasn't a fan of the plastic steering wheel, but it wasn't the first car I drove with that kind of material.

Then I made a crucial "mistake". I wanted to see what the real difference was between the GT 2.0 and the GTS 2.4 without S&S. It was the difference between a smirk and a full-blown ear to ear grin. They made other improvements to the engine than just the extra horsepower. Smoothness, quietness, and how it pulls have been modified. I never noticed the MIVEC changing the timing nearly as much with the 2.0 as with the 2.4.

Needless to say, I never considered a non-GTS after that and drove away with it a couple days later -- same one I test drove.

[OT]
Man, I still remember the first time I really opened the taps and felt the MIVEC system start tinkering with the engine. Reminded me of my friend's old RSX Type-S. Feels like if the tires were less wide than they are, they'd be wanting to break loose above 4k. Didn't feel that with the 2.0.

All the comments above regarding the 2.4L are true.
That torque is definitely useful. More importantly, I gather
that many of you guys plan to modify your car, there is alot
more potential HP on tap with the 2.4L than the 2.0L.
(for instance, WORKS has an ECU reflash that is available
which boost it almost 20hp)