Author | Topic |
Location: toowoomba qld
Registered: March 2004
|
2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Mon, 18 October 2004 01:25
|
|
A mate I work with recently traded his VR Lexcen in for a 2004 Lancer VRX. although I didn't like the front ends looks much and the interiour looks very different too me for some reason (I reckon I could live with it but) I must say this Lancer isn't a bad little car, very comfortable indeed, very nice ride,has one of thoese sequensial shift thingy's. I must say I thought when he said it was an auto it would be slow being a 4-cyl. but it seemed to pick up alright for what it is. I know it's not a Toyota but for once a Lancer I like strange enough sticking up for Mitsubishi. go TOYOTA!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Location: Tassie
Registered: October 2003
|
Re: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Mon, 18 October 2004 02:48
|
|
I drove 1 for work.
It was the manual and i found all the grunt was in between 4000 and 6000 (it's not mine so i can thrash it lol )
But trying to get to 4000 i found was a struggle.
The handling was very good i found in the short distance i drove it.
|
|
|
Location: Burlington, On. Canada
Registered: January 2004
|
|
|
Location: Newcastle
Registered: June 2002
|
Re: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Mon, 18 October 2004 21:13
|
|
My freakin eyes!
|
|
|
Location: Burlington, On. Canada
Registered: January 2004
|
|
|
Location: toowoomba qld
Registered: March 2004
|
Re: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Wed, 20 October 2004 02:15
|
|
yeah I don't mind them, the seem like a nice little car to get about in.
|
|
|
Location: Adelaide, SA.
Registered: May 2004
|
Re: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Thu, 21 October 2004 04:45
|
|
i dont fully understand why they call it a 2005 model....
when clearly....
looks like a schmick car, though.
|
|
|
Location: Burlington, On. Canada
Registered: January 2004
|
Re: 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer (was rather impressed)*shocked*
|
Fri, 22 October 2004 04:40
|
|
whip wrote on Thu, 21 October 2004 00:45 | i dont fully understand why they call it a 2005 model....
when clearly....
looks like a schmick car, though.
|
Because it was built for the 2005 model year.........
|
|
|