Think Mitsubishi, turbocharged and all-wheel drive. Now think midengine, five doors and three cylinders. Baffled? So were we until this eggplant-purple 2010 Mitsubishi i pulled into our office for a full shakedown several weeks back. Now we're just, well, curious.
There are several reasons for this. First, the Mitsubishi i is a machine meant for the famous Kei-car segment in the Japanese domestic market. Like the microcars of France, the keijidosha vehicles must meet strict limits on size, engine displacement and power, which entitle them to tax breaks. It is a class of urban commuters — cars designed to travel at low speed in congested areas and then be parked easily.
There's been talk lately that Mitsubishi might bring a car like the 2010 Mitsubishi i to the U.S. It might be a tough sell here, for the Smart Fortwo still struggles to find an audience, while the Honda Fit offers the clever spaciousness and utility we associate with Japanese small cars at a price that's hard to match.
Where Does It Fit?
First seen at the 2003 Frankfurt Auto Show and debuted as a production vehicle in January 2006, the Mitsubishi i has been enormously influential in the car design community and even won an award for its design from the Japanese Ministry of Economy in October 2006. Yet until you see it in person, there's no simple way to grasp the bizarre proportions of the 2010 Mitsubishi i with its egg-style passenger cabin and rear-mounted engine.
The i has a wheelbase of 100.4 inches, not only 26.9 inches longer than a Smart but also some 2 inches longer than a Honda Fit. At the same time, the i measures 133.5 inches, more than 2 feet shorter than the smallest Honda in America, largely because the i's wheels are literally at the end of its body. All this places the Mitsubishi in a strange dimensional limbo when it comes to the way you think of it when you see it on the street.
Within its modest footprint, the Mitsubishi i packs a lot of utility. It's big enough inside to fit four real people; not huge people, mind you, but four average-size adults will be comfortable for several hours if necessary. As a test, we had a 6-foot-1 driver adjust the seat for himself, then sit behind the driver seat with reasonable comfort. There's so much headroom that he could have worn a Stetson hat if he wanted.
This is not a car designed for handling or accelerating or stopping with enthusiasm. It is a pod.
Truly, the i is a packaging marvel. With a three-cylinder engine mounted transversely beneath the rear cargo area, you'd never know the 2010 Mitsubishi i has an engine at all. (We'd wager that most car buyers in this segment have no idea where the car's engine is.) Its rear seatbacks fold to create a nearly flat load floor, and in this configuration there's enough space to haul some serious gear — even a bike or other bulky cargo. There's far more cargo space than in a Smart, although the i still can't match the spaciousness and versatility of the Honda Fit.
More About That Engine
Currently regulations limit Kei cars to engines of no more than 660cc and 63 horsepower. Accordingly, Mitsubishi's 659cc 3B20 inline-3 yields 63 hp at 6,000 rpm and 69 pound-feet of torque. To get there, the engine features variable valve timing, a turbocharger and intercooling. Our test car delivers that puny punch to the ground via a four-speed automatic transmission and optional all-wheel drive.
Keep in mind that while you might be able to fit four adults in the i with reasonable comfort, you'll never want to. Even with only one relatively light driver as its ballast, the 2010 Mitsubishi i requires 14.9 seconds to reach 60 mph from a standstill (14.6 seconds with 1 foot of rollout).
The quarter-mile is lazily dispensed in 19.7 seconds at 68 mph. While this kind of acceleration might be OK in a congested Tokyo suburb, if you try this on the on-ramp of Interstate 405 here in Los Angeles, you'll find yourself decorating the grille of a Freightliner in no time. In its current configuration, the Mitsubishi i just isn't powerful enough for American freeways, where so much of us spend a good portion of time every day.
Though this Mitsubishi feels like it sails along pretty effortlessly once you get it up to speed, we still recorded only an average of 27.7 mpg over the 200 miles we spent in this car. Apparently the tiny turbocharged mill must operate at wide-open throttle and full boost as it tries to keep up with traffic, so it sucks down fuel as a result.
Mitsubishi acknowledges that the current engine wouldn't suit the U.S. should a version of the i eventually come to this country. One alternative might be the 1.0-liter inline-3 that Mitsubishi supplies for the Smart Fortwo. Of course, this engine still pumps out only 70 hp, so it, too, would need forced induction to have a significant impact on the acceleration capability of this 2,147-pound car.
It's Not About the Numbers
Let's make one thing abundantly clear before proceeding. This is not a car designed for handling or accelerating or stopping with any sort of enthusiasm. It is a pod — a people-carrying pod. It's about personal mobility in a world with fewer resources to go around. Most people would use it like an appliance. It just happens to be a particularly stylish toaster.
As for the slalom, well, the i dispatches our line of cones at 60.2 mph, which is a staggering 4.2 mph slower than the somewhat spirited Honda Fit Sport, although 1.1 mph faster than the Smart. It bounces and bounds to 0.74g on the skid pad, which places it in a dead heat with the soulless Smart and considerably below the 0.82g of cornering grip available from the Fit. The i does, however, stop from 60 mph in 120 feet, a distance shorter than both the Smart and the Fit. And it does so with a solid brake pedal and consistent, fade-free stops.
So What Is It About?
With its low power and high-utility ethos, the 2010 Mitsubishi i is a car for commuting short distances at low speed. And when measured using only this metric, it's remarkably capable. With the exception of the Smart, there isn't a car with a sharper turning circle. Nor are there many cars that are easier to park.
Relatively slow, electrically assisted steering gets the job done nicely by providing ample assist during low-speed maneuvering. Like most midengine cars, the i exhibits light yet responsive steering feel. Turn the steering wheel and the car changes direction with surprising ease. It's also nice that the engine noise is all behind you, since the engine isn't the smoothest we've ever experienced, especially as the revs approach redline.
The four-speed automatic transmission has a gated shifter that allows you to hold 2nd gear. We found this useful in certain situations where we didn't want upshifts. Otherwise, a manual transmission would better serve the i in most situations by allowing the driver to make better use of its limited power.
The i's all-wheel-drive system is a relatively simple setup that utilizes a viscous center differential to send power to the front wheels when the rears begin to slip. It's designed to give the little car better all-weather drivability, but we don't see this feature making the jump to the U.S. market, at least initially.
The Futuristic Transportation Pod
To be competitive in the U.S., a car like this 2010 Mitsubishi i needs to start well below the Honda Fit's base price of $15,700. Base models with a manual transmission need to cost even less. This is a tough row to hoe for any Japanese manufacturer given current exchange rates, yet it's not necessary to sell cars in this class at the volume of the Honda Fit. The Daewoo-engineered 2012 Chevrolet Spark headed to the U.S. has to respond to much the same requirements.
Mitsubishi has already said it will bring the i MiEV, the battery-powered electric version of the i, to the U.S. in 2011, so clearly the i is capable of meeting U.S. safety regulations. We're betting the gasoline version will show up here with a bigger engine and more airbags sometime in 2012.
The 2010 Mitsubishi i is bigger and more versatile than a Smart Fortwo and should cost less than the Honda Fit. And when it appears here, it will have almost no competition. That's a combination that rarely does any car wrong.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
imanidriver says:
09:25 AM, 03/29/2010
I drive an i - and have done for 2 years now and my husband has just bought one also. Whilst I don't get anything like as much MPG out of the vehicle as I'd like, it's an awful lot better than 37! You really DO have to drive one to appreciate just what a good little car it is. Once you are inside, it is easy to forget that this is a small car. The seats are comfy, the build quality is good. Air con is standard as is a cd player. It is nippy enough for the motorway/freeway with a top speed of 85mph - which is faster than any of us are supposed to go anyway! The load space is good for a small car, we can easily get a large shop inside and with the back seat(s) folded, there's plenty of room for suitcases, musical instruments etc.
I will only part with my i in favour of the i-MiEv.
mirde98 says:
05:44 AM, 01/30/2010
This is perfect timing for this vehicles. Mitsubishi I is a clever design and with Mitsu small engines experience they shouldn't have problems finding the right engine for US market. I agree a 5 speed manual would help this car alot. Just make it competitive and hip, Ipod and bluetooth conectivity, gps, subwoofer, keyless entry, etc.
wikiwiki says:
10:33 AM, 01/29/2010
27.7 MPG?? I'll keep my 06 Vibe and enjoy getting 32-34MPG while having more versatility and more car. These little things should be getting well over 40 MPG. What gives??
toxic_science says:
09:07 AM, 01/29/2010
I think people are missing the point that in Japan there is a 0.6 litre cap on the size of the engine in order to qualify for tax credits. So to produce the extra HP they had to add the turbo setup which is going to reduce mileage. Additionally, in Japan, you would never drive over say 40 mph. I'd like to see a malibu get 37 mpg in the city. The geo metro has almost 50% more displacement at 1 litre (think of it as an extra 20 oz bottle of soda) and is lighter because it was made of metal as thing as tin foil with no sound deadening materials and very few safety features, so of course it'll get better mileage.
This is from Wiki on the metros (important that the mileage ratings have been revised to mimic the 2007 standards to which the current cars are being rated):
2nd generation metro: 1989 through 1994: a 1.0 L I3 engine. Rated at 55 hp (39 kW), the engine achieved 38 city, 45 highway mpg per the revised 2007 EPA mileage standards.
The detuned 49 hp (37 kW) engine in the XFi combined a shorter duration cam, leaner fuel map, two ring pistons, and a higher final drive gear model to achieve 43 city, 51 highway per the revised 2007 EPA mileage standards
In 1995, with the third generation Metro came the 1.3 L I4 with 70 hp (52 kW)
dont' know the mileage standards.
gordancin says:
06:30 PM, 01/28/2010
Bring it with a larger more powerful engine that doesn't have to "strain" to get 40 mpg and make all wheel drive standard. It will sell. At least up here in Canadian cities (T-Dot, Montreal, Vancouver etc). We'll take up. Trust me.
shelbyturboz says:
04:27 PM, 01/28/2010
I still dont get it. I had a 1990 geo metro for my first car and it had 1.0L in it with no turbo and it got 45 mpg. I could get 4 people in it and 66hp was fine. why 20 years later are all the 3 cilinders getting 30 plus mpg? I they are forgeting that people that buy this car are buying it on the price not the performance. If they sell them at 15k to 16k people are not going to buy them,they are going to get a chevy aveo or a honda fit ect ect. Just start selling the metro or the old beetle.
PikachuRacer says:
02:27 PM, 01/28/2010
One more thing, AWD was not standard on the "i" in Japan. The standard was a rear wheel drive version.
So, when I said the AWD being available for the "i" in North America, I meant the RWD version would be there standard, but the AWD would cost extra.
PikachuRacer says:
02:19 PM, 01/28/2010
If It came to N.America, It would take a bit more than the Smart fortwo's 1.0L I3 to power this car (since it is heavier and has the ability to carry 4 passengers, which will make it even heavier when loaded). The Smart's Engine would make the Mitsubishi "i" faster, but still slower than a Smart fortwo in "Pure" trim (the lightest and bare-bone model).
If power is needed, they could upgrade the engine used on the Smart Fortwo with a Supercharger, which will up the power to somewhere around the area if the 98hp 999cc Euro-spec Brabus-tuned Smart Fortwo Engine (including gearbox tweaks) to produce enough power to be decent even on the freeway (The brabus fortwo made 0-60 in 8.9sec with the 98hp Euro-spec engine, so the "i" should be somewhere in the 9.4-9.6 territory with the same or an equal engine).
Also, Those skinny tires got to go. In this configuration, the car will become extremely unstable at around 70mph. With it being that tall and small, it will require more rubber (and a wider body) to plant the car on the road, which provides a more safe & stable ride.
Other than that, If all these requirements are made, I would not mind having a Mitsubishi "i" for my own (not in that purple, I would like it in a shade of mediun to dark blue). Seating 4 makes it more versitile than a Smart Fortwo as a city car, and having AWD is a plus for additional traction.
I hope unlike most modern Japan to US small cars, AWD will be available for Americans too if the "i" arrives. For example, Toyota has a AWD option on both generations of the Toyota Vitz in Japan, but it has not been an option in N.America for either the Echo (1st-generation Vitz) or Yaris (current-generation Vitz).
firstwagon says:
09:39 AM, 01/28/2010
If it came to North America I'm sure it would have a larger engine. If you read the article you will see why they use a 660 motor in Japan.
The automatic and AWD really hurt this car. With a 5 speed and front wheel drive it would likely be 4 or 5 seconds faster to 60 and get 10 mpg better mileage. They would have had the turbo at full boost all the time hence the medioce mpgs.
It really is a car designed of people who live in the middle of giant cities. (and there are countless millions of them). While it doesn't feel at home on a freeway, a 2010 Taurus will feel even worse trying to squeeze around the crowded streets and tiny parking spots of Tokyo.
brn says:
08:42 AM, 01/28/2010
With Smart sales starting to slump, I'm not sure the timing is right.
icecubefosho says:
08:28 AM, 01/28/2010
27.7 mpg for a car that needs premium unleaded with a 63hp turbo engine and weighs a ton (2,000lbs)? Something is wrong as well with the numbers. The Chart on the right records 27.7 twice for MPG, while in the article, it says 37.
The 1983 Corollas had 1.6 liters with 70 horses, and could boast 36mpg in the city with the same amount of weight and a shorter wheelbase.
raytheater says:
07:48 AM, 01/28/2010
For the people that complains about a Kei car interior, you are missing the point. Maybe you should wait for Aston Martin to posh one up then buy it at $35K.
Weighing at just 2150, Mitsubishi needs to put an engine with about 100 HP in it.
There are people like me, who drives 10 minutes to work and see no reason to start up a V6 car.
People who live 10 minute from a grocery store and this will work.
I also live 3 minutes from Lowe's, and I think 3 cans of paint should fit nicely.
This car might work in US, it just needs a bigger engine.
tourian says:
07:35 AM, 01/28/2010
@stingray
Well then whats the point of a Honda Fit? It "only gets 28/35 with an auto. You have to realize, these cars aren't hybrids. The i is meant to be cheap urban transportation. Take a Malibu into a dense urban envirnoment and stop and go traffic and it might not be as appealing as this one. And it may be, that's the point of having options.
stingray454 says:
06:08 AM, 01/28/2010
37.7 mpg? What's the point of this car then. I just rented a new Chevy Malibu with a 4-cylinder, and it was averaging 30 MPG, and the Malibu is 4 times the size of this thing, and accelerates MUCH faster. Not to mention the Malibu is a much nicer, real car.
ahsanman99 says:
05:03 AM, 01/28/2010
this is ugly,very slow purposless car.honda fit 5sp manual runs 0 to 60 in a little under 9 seconda. no wonder mitsu cant even sell 100k cars in 3 years in usa.its another failed company like suzuki.
fhwulala says:
04:33 AM, 01/28/2010
mitsubishi must have been insane.
They have a perfectly build small car - colt plus io. that will smash fit to the ground.
But they never thought of bring that to the U.S.
Instead they bring this "decoration for your daughter's room" stuff
johnnyr3 says:
03:12 AM, 01/28/2010
Where's the video?
jackson611 says:
10:56 PM, 01/27/2010
my soul was sucked out when i saw the pictures of the inside, and i read this after doing accounting homework.
that has to be the most bland and boring interior that i have seen.
double_duece says:
09:29 PM, 01/27/2010
I'm not knocking it yet only because I haven't tried it. And please, don't get me wrong. I love small cars, but damn.
I'm sure it'll serve a purpose to someone, but the freeway doesn't seem to be the place at all for a car like this. Crowded, traffic-clogged inner city, sure. It jut makes me wonder who is going to buy this thing when it comes stateside.