"It's hard to know whether a dual-clutch automated manual transmission is a high-performance gearbox or just a more fuel-efficient automatic. And even after the introduction in the last year of dual-clutch transmissions from BMW, Mitsubishi and Porsche, there's still no resolution of the question." We have found ourselves asking this question on the long-term blog before.
When the continuously variable transmission (CVT) first reached volume production, we questioned its durability. Surely it must be a fad, we thought. Just an example of a fancy automatic geared toward fuel conservation. But the CVT not only remains, it continues to improve. It is with this perspective that we now must evaluate the automated dual-clutch manual transmission.
When Mitsubishi chose to install its Twin Clutch Sporttronic Shift Transmission (TC-SST) in a production car, it showed confidence. But the TC-SST hasn't been mounted beneath just any car in the lineup. Mitsubishi chose to bolt it beneath the most popular model on the showroom floor, and a complex car with a transverse engine and all-wheel drive besides. Now this made a statement about its purpose, performance and durability. And that grabbed our attention.
Why We Got It
TC-SST was the most influential factor in our decision to test the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR. This dual-clutch transmission is offered exclusively in the MR. Automated manual transmissions have been an emerging technology in the automotive world, embraced by Bugatti, Ferrari and Lamborghini, as well as Audi, BMW, Volkswagen and even Smart. And Mitsubishi had a lot riding on its success with the Evo, being the first manufacturer to utilize this Getrag-engineered dual-clutch hardware. We took it as our social responsibility to break it. Or perhaps even praise its durability, should it survive. For comparison purposes, a BorgWarner-engineered dual-clutch automated manual happened to be in the Nissan GT-R, which we happened to have just purchased for our long-term garage.
Mitsubishi sent a shockwave through the Evo-geek nation when it introduced the 2008 Evo X. Gone was the iron-block 4G63 inline-4 used for the previous nine generations, now replaced by a Hyundai-engineered aluminum-block 4B11 engine that emphasized lower emissions and improved fuel economy. An increase in chassis stiffness also came with the new package, but the price proved to be a wider platform that weighed far more than before, the kind of thing likened to blasphemy by the Evo faithful. Was this new Evo worthy of its heritage or did Mitsubishi just build a Mustang II?
There was another obvious motivation for us to test the Evo MR, as we had a chance to compare it side-by-side with our long-term Subaru Impreza WRX STI. A 12-month, fender-to-fender durability test of these rivals was sure to spur the debate between the historically divided camps. If nothing else, why not pit them against each other whenever possible and accelerate the 17-year-old rivalry?
Durability
We began with the transmission. At speed, the Evo X's TC-SST is truly in its element. This car has been built with track capability in mind and the transmission is an extension of this intent. But when you drop it into our stop-and-go lifestyle as a daily driver, it breeds frustration.
Senior Road Test Editor Josh Jacquot noted the MR's street-driving characteristics: "Here's an observation about twin-clutch transmissions that won't cross your mind until you drive an Evo MR. Because this transmission relies primarily on throttle position and (presumably) rate of change of the throttle to determine actions like clutch take-up, gear selection and shift rate, it can be slow when it needs to be decisive. Jab the throttle from a stop and there's an awkward delay before forward motion actually begins. The electronics controlling the engine and transmission see this throttle request and respond: 'Oh crap, he really wants to move quickly.' Moving quickly requires power. Power requires boost. Boost — even with a twin-scroll turbo — requires time. Eventually, things begin to happen. It requires an undesirable adjustment in driving style to reconcile this. Luckily, the SST is brilliant in Super Sport mode on a racetrack, completely eliminating the need for a third pedal once up to speed. Too bad I don't live on a racetrack."
Comparisons between the TC-SST of the Evo and the dual-clutch in our long-term Nissan GT-R were common, as was the MR's propensity to come out on top.
Engineering Editor Jason Kavanagh listed the reasons why he favored the MR's design over the GT-R. He wrote, "One, click the paddles in quick succession to drop two (or three) gears, and the Evo 'remembers' to give you the second (or third) downshift. The GT-R ignores any additional paddle-clicks until it's done with the first gearchange you requested. Two, manual gearchanges in the Evo can be commanded via the paddles or the console selector. The GT-R's console selector has no manual gate at all. Three, from auto mode both the Evo and the GT-R will switch to manual mode simply by flicking a paddle. The difference is that this single paddle-flick in the Evo gives you a gearchange. In the GT-R it only gives you manual mode. To get the gearchange you were looking for in the first place, you have to hit the GT-R's paddle a second time."
Inside the cabin, the Evo received some complaints. We experienced visibility issues. A lack of vertical adjustability from the supportive Recaro seats created forward blind spots, as did the location of the side mirrors. But the most unforgivable interior restriction of the Evo X proved to be a lack of storage space. Compared to the Subaru WRX STI it bunked with in our garage, the Evo didn't stand a chance. Maybe Mitsubishi should add a rear hatch and maybe call it a Lancer Sportback; then we'd be onto something. But for the time being, Subaru is the clear favorite for practicality.
One recall surfaced for the Evo X during our test. It's a problem Evo owners have seen in the past, as we learned the hard way when the hood latch seized and the dealer had to cut out the grille to repair the mechanism. The car sat out of commission for eight days while it awaited parts. Several months later, Mitsubishi began a service campaign to resolve this issue by replacing the cable connecting the release lever and latch. Our other out-of-service experience came after a rear-end collision when we had to park our MR at the body shop for six days while the back bumper was repaired. Out-of-pocket expenses were limited to regular service and four new Yokohama Advans. Our reliable MR otherwise remained on the road.
Total Body Repair Costs: $502.68 to repair back bumper (paid by at-fault party)
Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over 12 months): $407.99
Additional Maintenance Costs: $1,631.56 to replace four tires
Warranty Repairs: Replaced hood release cable and latch mechanism twice
Non-Warranty Repairs: None
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 3
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: None
Days Out of Service: 14
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: None
Performance and Fuel Economy
We had some complaints with the MR's dual-clutch transmission when driven in automatic mode during stop-and-go situations. But once up to speed, it did well — so well that we compared it to every vehicle we could. The MR became the car to beat. Prior to our long-termer arriving, we compared loaner MRs to an STI and an Evo X GSR and a Pontiac G8 GXP, and entered it into a GT-R versus the world shootout. Once our Evo X arrived we put it through numerous comparisons against the STI on the blogs. It was always up to the task.
Only the tires and brakes showed signs of aging by the conclusion of our test. Track tests showed consistency in all other areas. A 0-60-mph time of 5.4 seconds was repeatable with the aid of launch control. The quarter-mile fell in 13.8 seconds at 101.2 mph after 20,000 miles on the odometer. Our shortest recorded stopping distance from 60 mph grew from 108 feet when it was new to 113 feet as the Evo aged. Tire wear contributed to a slightly slower slalom speed, decreasing slightly over time from 69.7 mpg to 69.1 mph.
Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton commented following a 0.95g pass around the skid pad, "I love how the Evo can hang the rear end out all the way around the skid pad. Virtually no change in steering angle is required. Only throttle manipulation is needed to alter course. Too cool."
Best Fuel Economy: 27.2 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 11.7 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 17.3 mpg
Retained Value
Our Evo X MR arrived with an MSRP of $41,765. When we passed it back to Mitsubishi just prior to the 20,000-mile mark it had depreciated 24 percent according to Edmunds' TMV® Calculator. By comparison we noticed just 22-percent depreciation from its archenemy the WRX STI over the same length of time.
True Market Value at service end: $31,627
Depreciation: $10,138 or 24% of original MSRP
Final Odometer Reading: 19,396
Summing Up
Mitsubishi delivered an Evo X that was larger and heavier than any before it. A wider platform and softer lines were geared toward broadening the Lancer's appeal beyond the Evo trim. Purists feared it was the end of an era. But in time many of them came around. This Evo still gets it done. With the addition of the automated twin-clutch transmission, Mitsubishi has taken it up a notch.
Mitsubishi has a lot of confidence in its TC-SST, and we have to admit that as we conclude our 12-month tour with the MR, we're thoroughly impressed. Set the transmission in Super Sport mode and the Evo X is nothing short of brilliant, as its demeanor remains true to its track-ready lineage. But the same cannot be said for life around town with the twin-clutch. There is such a delay to throttle input from a stop that it requires significant driving style adjustment. And that becomes frustrating.
This could be the beginning of an era. Automated manual transmissions are becoming more and more sophisticated. Performance and fuel economy benefit and everybody appears happy. But with the automated dual-clutch transmissions comes a loss of connection to the vehicle that our dedicated drivers notice. There is an isolated, digital quality to the driving experience, and we're still unsure we think it's what we want for the future. Maybe we fear change. Or maybe we just aren't willing to give up our shift lever and clutch pedal.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
ndahi says:
01:12 PM, 12/28/2009
One thing that was not mentioned about the SST is its tendency to go into limp mode when it is driven at the track. I have seen it happen at Streets and Cal Speedway. Any sustained and hard track runs (15-20 min) will overheat the tranny and shut down the power. You have to come into the pits and cool down the car before going back out for hotlapping. What fun is that!!! R&T experienced the same thing when they ran the SST on an autocross. MotoIQ had the same issue with their Evo MR project car.
Mitsu did not do its homework on this car. They need to add a tranny oil cooler or come up with tranny fluid that can handle track duty.