No one is getting that MR crap, wtf is with the Twin Clutch-Sequential Sportshift Transmission??

give me 5speed or 6speed.

Sexy side profile, kinda akward rear. I was hoping they'd break the 300 mark on power though. Hopefully the new TCSS tranny will knock some time off.

That will probably be a very fast car and the dsg tranny will most likely be amazing as well but I may be alone here that car is just hideous. It looks like a dodge magnum that someone hit int he face with an ugly stick and the body is really lack luster to me there is just nothing asthetically pleasing about this car. plus that pic they used looks pretty bad with all that nose dive.

"No one is getting that MR crap, wtf is with the Twin Clutch-Sequential Sportshift Transmission??"-HanZ

Are you f**king kidding me? Auto-clutch manuals are the perfect companion for small, high-revving turbo engines...they're practically made for each other.

"I was hoping they'd break the 300 mark on power though."-Gary

Come'on Gary, you know these EVO's respond very well to a few mods that allow safely increased boost levels (intake, exhaust, increased fuel = increased boost)

Wow....both the WRX STI and the Evo X are doing a good job....at being ugly to look at. Amazing that BOTH companies would decide to ruin their car designs at the same time.....oh, well

re-Noya

the auto clutch crap, how much of extra performance do you expect out of it over the standard?? I'm sure, it might be a tiny bit, but it's not worth giving up standard.

Also how the hell you drift with auto clutch????

You know comparing these pics to the endless videos of the old Evo 6, or even last gen, the shocks/springs look like they keep getting softer. Somehow I think the people who buys these don't really care about comfort. I know I wouldn't if I owned one. Kind of like a race/rally car, you know but street legal and all. Since everything was better "back in the day", why not bring back the stylings from the Evo 6, or H22 WRX STI. I'll say it again, the H22 was just sexy.

For the people who are complaining about this being an ugly car, how about example of (current) good looking cars?

Ok, so in response to all of these comments so far...

A) yes the auto tranny sucks balls because its not fun to drive, but i'm sure it works well for old people and idiots that can't drive stick...its a selling people for rich people who are afraid to actually do anything for themselves.

b) a car doesn't need a million hp if its light and can put the power down. the whole point of the car is to have 2L engine which is part of the world rally standard. so 295hp is pretty damn fine...there used to be a 400hp version in the UK but was that car was 100k... a real enthusiast will buy the stick version and will know how to mod out the car for themselves and not have pay a stupid amount for the extra hp from the factory

C) no the car isn't ugly at all. if you think it is then your over a hundred years old and your afraid of anything that looks aggressive. the plain lancers are incredible looking...i'm sure with some new rims and panels this one looks stunning up close...if you want an ugly car, look at every STI every made....or if you wants some elegant, go buy a shit ass benz.

done and done

@amac - you've never driven a twin clutch auto tranny have you? Or a dogbox (clutchless rally gearbox)? This isnt one of those crappy paddled triptronic things, it operates just like a clutched manual albeit without the clutch pedal, speeding up change time and the propensity for bad changes.

Do some reading and come back when you know what you're talking about.....

Looks better than the old one & 300bhp is the right amount of power for a 2 ltr engine, anymore and the bigger turbo's it requiries are a pain to live with.

clutch sounds a bit complicated to me - don't know how many starts with clutch dumped @ full revs it will make?

takes me back to the days of sierra cosworths, cailbra turbo's, & lancia delta's. For all the kids out there, Ford and GM did used to make interesting cars that we dreamed of owning & driving, and also inspired the Japanese to make these things!

First thing, the FQ400 was around 80K not 100K, it was also able to match a 300K Lamborghini around a track.

Second the number of people with no clue about the "auto" tranny is disturbing, this is the same tech VW calls DSG, or that Ferrari offers as an option that costs more than an EVO, it's also come to dominate many areas of racing, It's funny but getting a perfect shift every time, in 1/20th the time a normal human could row the gears actually makes the car faster. I have seen a video of 2 Golf GTI's going at it, one with a race driver and a stick, and the other with a DSG, guess what the DSG won, by around 2/10ths of a second on the 1/4 mile.

This car really looks fantastic, it's far better looking than the new WRX, in fact it looks so good that Mitsubishi is having a hard time keeping the better trims of the regular lancer on dealer lots. If you don't like the way it looks go buy a Pontiac Aztec, or a new Ford Focus, or a Chevy Aveo, or a Saturn whatever, or the new melting bar of Soap Sentra, or what ever "you" think looks good. But the fact is you calling this car ugly wont make that the truth, and most people will disagree with you.

Now the bad news, the leaked JDM brochure showed 311 ft lbs, if the US market only gets 300 that would be a shame. The car also gained a bit of weight which is no good at all, and it obviously is becoming softer. I really want to see how this car performs, I am hoping it's thumbs up so I can go ahead and buy one.

First thing, the FQ400 was around 80K not 100K, it was also able to match a 300K Lamborghini around a track.

Second the number of people with no clue about the "auto" tranny is disturbing, this is the same tech VW calls DSG, or that Ferrari offers as an option that costs more than an EVO, it's also come to dominate many areas of racing, It's funny but getting a perfect shift every time, in 1/20th the time a normal human could row the gears actually makes the car faster. I have seen a video of 2 Golf GTI's going at it, one with a race driver and a stick, and the other with a DSG, guess what the DSG won, by around 2/10ths of a second on the 1/4 mile.

This car really looks fantastic, it's far better looking than the new WRX, in fact it looks so good that Mitsubishi is having a hard time keeping the better trims of the regular lancer on dealer lots. If you don't like the way it looks go buy a Pontiac Aztec, or a new Ford Focus, or a Chevy Aveo, or a Saturn whatever, or the new melting bar of Soap Sentra, or what ever "you" think looks good. But the fact is you calling this car ugly wont make that the truth, and most people will disagree with you.

Now the bad news, the leaked JDM brochure showed 311 ft lbs, if the US market only gets 300 that would be a shame. The car also gained a bit of weight which is no good at all, and it obviously is becoming softer. I really want to see how this car performs, I am hoping it's thumbs up so I can go ahead and buy one.

amac:

i liked the 2006 Version of the STI! its the only one not ugly as hell.

ralliart everywhere will tune the 220kw motor to around 280kw (which is basically the same as the fq400 evo 8) plus twin dsg means 8ms gear shifts which virtually eliminates drivetrain shock between gears...

people are hating on it cos the ralliart tuned version is on as fast or faster than 95% of all ferrari's produced (only the enzo and the f40 are definitely faster, with a handful being similarly quick and the rest lagging behind in acceleration) for a fraction of the price :)

bring it on, I want one

I am an american muscle car lover (60's and early 70's models), personally. I don't think this car is ugly, but I did figure out what I don't like about it. I know there is no real way to "fix" it, but if you look at the picture with the cone, the car looks like the roof is too high towards the back of the car. The sleek design from front towards back is fine, but for the sake of cutting out headroom for the rear passengers, I think they should of left the roof lower. The top is too bubbly for me.
As for those who are bashing, this is a post for opinions. If someone thinks something is ugly, telling them they're an idiot does not make you right. Also, I would take an "elegant, shit ass benz" over this car any day, even if it was to sell it for something else!

The Lancer in general looks terribly boring... online. But in person it looks sweet. I don't know how the photographers do it, but they keep making it look plain and uninteresting. I've seen the non EVO versions in the wild and instantly lusted after them. Anyway, whenever I'm dating a girl, I kind of curse the manual... honestly girls get hot over your car but then they want to hold your hand while you're driving and the stick just ruins the moment. Yeah baby Corvette with an automatic ha! OK just kidding. Lighten up. Who cares if you think the car is good looking or not... YOU buy it or YOU don't. I won't be but that's because of timing and price. Maybe in 3 years if I still live up North and the new Accord Sedan still doesn't have the 6MT option...

Oh, I want one of these so bad, but the wife said NO
I am a pussy-whipped-pussy.
I only get to play video games.

In a day and age of high gas prices and global warming, does one really need all that gas guzzling horsepower?

Yes, cause I want a Tropical climate where I live.

an FQ400 can't be too far away... :D

and check out car and driver's review of the JDM model - it's slower in acceleration and 1/4mi but it's a heck of a track-eater.

I find it really interesting that most people who buy this car will likely never use the horsepower or torque - unless, of course, they actually participate in a rally. Participating in a rally is a good reason for having the car; however, for the street, you'll only be draggin other bros, and probably not many at that. This car is a waste of mental power engineering something for people who are nothing without it just so Mitsubishi can make a buck of suckers who buy into their marketing.

My Prius has 274 ftlbs of torque. When electrics finally get to the street, this car and all high-end cars will look like snails.

Don't bother replying. I'm trolling. Hahahahahahaha

The real "problem" with this car is it's 'pedigree' - Mitsubishi. In America, Mitsu is in the doghouse in terms of customer trust and sales (as an owner of 2 prior high-po Mitsu turbos, never had a problem with the turbo system but lots of problems with trannies and timing belts).

Mitsu had the HUGE fiasco with corporate malfeasance, with the president of Mitsu being arrested for the company hiding manufacturing defects, not reporting them to the NHTSA in American and other counties, and not issuing recalls (this is why I had so many problems with snapped timing belts - 'invisible' recall, via hidden extensions of warranty (only if you bitched), to cover the defects).

And, of course, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries bailout of Mitsubshi Motors because MMI was almost broke - even Chysler pulled out.

Who wants a Mitsu? Not many people...

The new engine was designed in cooperation with Hyundai and Chrysler if my memory serves me.

Hanz, you ought to read up on dual clutch transmission before posting comments. If you are comparing performance (assuming the EvoX one is well implemented), its superior compared standard single clutch design and defintiely far better than manual.

As for drifitng, why not? Even auto cars are able to drift.

i'm guessing that more than 300hp and this car would become a bit of a hassle to live with. i remember on top gear they gave all the FQs a go around the track, and whilst they said the FQ400 was the quickest, it would be pretty unpleasant to live with day to day, and they recommended one of the less powerful ones. burning around a track is one thing, but nipping down the shops is quite another
even at 300hp this car will beat pretty much anything on any road including porches, astons, you name it. rally cars always do

it's certainly not pretty, but i dont think its that ugly. it just looks like a complete beast, which is probably the point

can anyone explain to me why this looks a lot like a mazda 3 or 6? the body shape is so much like it that i though it was one at first glance.... if there's a connection between mazda and mitsu i didn't know of.. please.. point it out!

While I don't think this is a bad-looking car, I must say I agree with those who's opinion is that the new design really isn't an improvement over the previous. When I look at it I agree with the guy that said the rear roofline and rear windows look too tall and take away of what could be some better, more aggressive, styling. I'm also not a big fan of the very front of the car. I liked the hood and vents on the current/previous model, but the new one doesn't do it for me. Also, the very front looks like it was "chopped off" if that makes sense. Part of it is that the middle grill/bumper is black, and might look better painted. Everyone has their opinion, and I'm interested to see how this and the STi compare in tests. Right now I'm leaning towards the STi, and like the hatchback approach, although even that one's front end isn't as good as a few years ago.

This car has all the right specs, but I wouldn buy a Mitsubish ever. I love the car, love the rallye pedigree and all. I simply don't trust them to do the right thing, if I have any problems with it.

In that respect, Subaru is much better. But it is so F* ugly...

@sphere - the Subaru actually isnt much better, its actually a lot more agrarian than the mitsy (this has been the case for a while now), and while simpler to work on the EVO will best it 9 times out of 10.

Not sure I like this over the normal Lancer front end. I love the R34 looking front end, but the revised fascia for the Evo trim just rices it up a little too much and makes it look thick and fat compared to the normal Lancer.

I dunno that front in just looks a little, messy and chopped up I guess.

Darmok: we don't NEED cars at all... but as long as we are going to have them and as long as I am paying for my own gas I will pick what I want thank you. Not to mention this is a low volume "high end" car.

What pollutes more, 200,000,000 Civics and Sentras driving around 24/7 with 200k miles on the clock, or the 1,000 Vipers that mostly only see weekend driving?

Besides the whole "humans cause global warming" thing is BS.

Ok, it's been said enough, but I'll say it too. The Dual Clutch is way better than manual. Don't be confused with the DSG system that BMW and others use, the dual clutch is basically an automatic manual. BMW's automated shifting tech. (although I love their cars) is crap. All it does is take an automatic and change the way it shifts. VW, on the other hand, actually has a dual clutch system. The gear you’re in and the next gear are engaged at the same time through two different clutches (even gears on one and odd's on the other). When you shift, instead of shifting gears, it just switches clutches.

Now, for those of you concerned with shifting. If Mitsubishi does the computer system properly, it'll be exactly the same as shifting. You pick either paddle shifting or automatic. In auto it does all the work for you, in paddle it will only shift if you are in the red (instead of limiting the revs). The best part, it can shift way way faster than any person can. Even the best drivers in the world cannot shift faster than a dual clutch (1-4 seconds vs. .008 seconds).

Now, for all of you greens out there. Go cry me a river. First off, having a 2.0 L engine, a dual clutch, and turbo do two things. First, and most importantly, it give you better performance. Second, it also gives you better gas mileage and is therefore better for the environment. More horsepower does not always mean that it burns more gas. With the technologies they are using, they get a more efficient engine and that is what is important (on average you loose 15-20% of the hp from the engine by the time it gets to the tires). My question, though, is why do greens ago after cars? There is a huge selection of cars out there (each with a different purpose and use), and everyone wants something different, so why go after such a broad market? The average coal power plant pumps out 1 million times the CO2 than the average vehicle does…Most people don’t care where they get their electricity from; most do care about what they drive.

Now, back to the car. I don’t know what it is, bit it doesn’t look…right? It seems kind of smooshed together…I can’t really place my finger on it, though…

"BMW's automated shifting tech. (although I love their cars) is crap. All it does is take an automatic and change the way it shifts."

Wrong. It's a manual with the computer controlling the clutch and shifting.

On the topic of sequential transmissions though, I'd never buy one. It's still an automatic in the end and doesn't require the skill or provide the fun of a manual (plus it's one more unnecessarily automated thing on a car to break down).

Are you guys kidding me... This thing look like a bad kit on Neon. I'm pretty sure it's heavier the model in replaces and not as quick. Oh yeah they are fast but not that fast. Also when modded the power trains with great frequency. I've seen more Evo's towed from the track than any other make of vehicle. Upgrading those parts is quite pricey or so I've been told by the owners.

To Hanin: No connection and please don't insult Mazda like that it totally uncalled for.

To Darmok:. While they aren't good on gas the emissions are more or less harmless to the environment. Beside before all the oil is gone I plan on having as much fun as possible. Even at 10 mpg it's worth every penny.

Lastly Larry: Don't believe the BS about turbos improving gas mileage. On boost they run crazy rich plus it feels so good you just want to do it again.

I'll stick with my 3rd gen sexy and fast, what a concept...

Well this car is just plain boring in style its a lackluster car their upping its this type of crap that kills ford and the other dsm cars because its not very exciting to look at, I know many people can say a ferarri or something is amazing to look at but even cheap cars have great looks. off the top of my head but s2k is a very nice looking car its not trying to show off hell even the new civic as well as challenger camaro concepts. If you live in europe a car we dont get here in the states is teh alpha berara or w/e its called very nice looking car. As well as mitsu does have problems with trannys and I have personal experiance with them and their shitty wiring on my old 3kgt as well as other various problems that car has.

Hah... ok, I'll admit it. I was just messing with you guys. I drive a V-8 Mustang. Every time there's a thread about an American car someone comes along and says something stupid like that, so in fairness, I'm going to throw it at other performance cars too.

This is one nice car...and i would buy this over Mustang 500 anytime...

Finally some good news about this car. More HP and a manual, this Mitsu is back on my list. I just wish they increased displacement and lowered the boost pressure. a 2 liter 4 cylinder producing 295 Hp can't last long...

It will last longer then any Ford or Chevy car...i wouldn't worry about 2 liter 4 cylinder producing 295HP. It's just fine...

You have to understand that the automatic has evolved way beyond what ppl assumed with a double cluth automatic??? Y would you want a manual trany? Especially now that the automatics are becoming faster than a manual.