Hi Botzos,

I've got an Outlander Turbo, so I'll try to give a bit of input of  you questions:

1) the lag up to 3500 rpm (which in many cases are describing it as very irritating)
Yes the lag is there and you will notice it. My last car was a SAAB 9-3 Aero, which was also turbo charged and had 205hp. The turbo lag was barely noticable with it and was a much smoother power curve in comparison. However I personally dont mind the lag and certainly wouldnt call it irritating, infact when the turbo kicks in, you feel the acceleration and power, which will bring a grin to your face  :grin:  If you have concerns, why not test drive it? That's the opinion that counts most.

I'd describe the lag like this...
Driving normally you dont notice it at all, no need to keep it in low gears.
Then you want to accelerate (without changing down a gear) , you feel the car accelerate slowly, then the turbo power comes (between 3000-3500rpm) and the hard acceleration comes (quickly followed by the grin factor!)
2) the very high consumption. Average Up to 18 to 20 liters per 100km!!
I'd say that is definately not average, unless they drove hard the whole time!! . My average (according to the car's computer) is just under 12/100km. That's purely driving around town and not thinking about how hard or soft I'm driving. Sure if you drive harder it will rise... I've seen mine read 20.5/100 :wacko: but that was only after reseting the computer and accelerating hard. But that not sustainable or realistic if I want to keep my driving license or the engine in one piece.
Mitsubishi lists the combined figure as 10/100km, but as usual listed figures are never realistic unless you have the right foot of a fairy. I took mine for a longish motorway drive last weekend, average speed about 120-130km/h. With that I got around 9/100km. when I tried to be economical I got around 8.5/100. But that was tough to keep.
Both points you make are valid, but in my opinion the first isnt too bad, and the second wasn't a shock to the system as I was prepared for it. The average is not as high as they say but it's certainly not an economical car.

In my opinion, I think the economy could/should have been better for the car but it doesnt take away anything away from it being a great car.
Hope that helps some!

(oh and the luggage space could have been better)
[right][snapback]22620[/snapback][/right]

Thanks Outkaster.

If the average is 12 liters then this is acceptable. Of course 20 liters even as a maximum is not that good. You have estimated the conumption based only on the computer's estimations? I do not know if this is accurate however. I mean that it may be considerable deviation to the actual consuption which could be really calculated if you use the traditional method...

I hope to hear also from other owners of Outlander turbo, their experiences about these two issues.
[right][snapback]22747[/snapback][/right]

Hi OutCaster,

I'm "considering" the Airtrek Turbo as well.  I used to drive a 9-3 turbo and I loved it every minute.  The minor turbo lag is there but since the Saab can kick it up at around 2000 rpm, so the performance is really good.  Plus after some mod, the car will PUSH YOUR BACK AGAINST THE SEAT :)

My question to a fellow ex-Saab owner, does the Airtrek have a more aggressive turbo.  Most Japanese turbo tuned their engine to have a high HP output, but the torque is not as "powerful" (plus the max output won't start until high RPM, unlike the Saab)

I love the Saab turbo since on everyday driving, I can choose to use the extra power, or just let the car cruise smoothly.  I have test drive some VTEC engines that have high HP, but only kicks in at high RPM.  I'd much prefer a turbo engine (Saab/Audi).  Is this Airtrek more like a high-reving vtec or a smooth european turbo (or a bit of both).

thanks

evilC
[right][snapback]22758[/snapback][/right]

I also got an Outlander Turbo where we have rebuilt and regulated the pressure built up by the turbo with a race waste gate. We have also made some changes in the intake to create better flow of the intake air. I made this changes with people racing for Mitsubishi. We are lokking in also to take the next step of increasing the power. As it it now you can easily leave 6 second cars to 100km/h or 60 mph. A nice cold evening better than so. Then we are talking about lower fives. We have made some changes according to the engines own system and adjusted the pressure of the turbo etc etc. We are now looking into how we can re-programme or change the "chip" for the next step. The exhaustsystem is then to be sligthly remodified etc + + +. Somewhere 270-300 bhp and 420-440 Nm is expected. People helping me are rally champions of the higher level with EVO-s. My car normally with around 370 Nm torque runs on 10.5-12 l/100km in the city. On the mainroads around 8,5/100 km. With a large trailer and a boat on it + extremly fully packed car + 3 grown men in runs on 10-13l/100km in 120 km/h, normally around 11,8 / 100 km/h. My car is extremly quick and really nice to drive. BRGDS TOJ 123

Hi Botzos,

I've got an Outlander Turbo, so I'll try to give a bit of input of  you questions:

1) the lag up to 3500 rpm (which in many cases are describing it as very irritating)
Yes the lag is there and you will notice it. My last car was a SAAB 9-3 Aero, which was also turbo charged and had 205hp. The turbo lag was barely noticable with it and was a much smoother power curve in comparison. However I personally dont mind the lag and certainly wouldnt call it irritating, infact when the turbo kicks in, you feel the acceleration and power, which will bring a grin to your face  :grin:  If you have concerns, why not test drive it? That's the opinion that counts most.

I'd describe the lag like this...
Driving normally you dont notice it at all, no need to keep it in low gears.
Then you want to accelerate (without changing down a gear) , you feel the car accelerate slowly, then the turbo power comes (between 3000-3500rpm) and the hard acceleration comes (quickly followed by the grin factor!)
2) the very high consumption. Average Up to 18 to 20 liters per 100km!!
I'd say that is definately not average, unless they drove hard the whole time!! . My average (according to the car's computer) is just under 12/100km. That's purely driving around town and not thinking about how hard or soft I'm driving. Sure if you drive harder it will rise... I've seen mine read 20.5/100 :wacko: but that was only after reseting the computer and accelerating hard. But that not sustainable or realistic if I want to keep my driving license or the engine in one piece.
Mitsubishi lists the combined figure as 10/100km, but as usual listed figures are never realistic unless you have the right foot of a fairy. I took mine for a longish motorway drive last weekend, average speed about 120-130km/h. With that I got around 9/100km. when I tried to be economical I got around 8.5/100. But that was tough to keep.
Both points you make are valid, but in my opinion the first isnt too bad, and the second wasn't a shock to the system as I was prepared for it. The average is not as high as they say but it's certainly not an economical car.

In my opinion, I think the economy could/should have been better for the car but it doesnt take away anything away from it being a great car.
Hope that helps some!

(oh and the luggage space could have been better)
[right][snapback]22620[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]25628[/snapback][/right]