Jump to content

Talk:Mitsubishi Mirage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hey guys...

[edit]

hey... here's somthin' i want to share with you, here in Venezuela, (my country), just appear the mirage cyborg as Colt GTI, (4G93 DOHC N/A), and mitsu give for the most high grade executives from mitsubishi in Venezuela a lot of 90 that "drop" on each one. A good friend of mine told me that just in Europe, people call Colt to the Mirage Cyborg, (for people who don't know, It's a Mirage version that presented an HB 3doors body), and there's just 20 or less was to the public sale in 1992 to 1994. It came to compite in the market directly with the Toyota Starlet(EP82) or something, but this one showed up too basic, it was too basic. A single 1.3L carburated sohc, with no enough kw to compite with a Colt. The difference between Colt GTI (CA5A) and Mirage Cyborg (CA4A) was just a few things. The Colt came out with a funny a 1.8 DOHC 16 valves (4G93 DOHC) that fit well and hit 143hp @ 8300rpm stock. In the other way, the Cyborg made a run with a 1.6 DOHC 16 valves MIVEC,(4G92 MIVEC) that some people told me that hit 175hp @ 9600rpm stock, and use a stock Launch Control and short ratio gearbox and employ 1 way LSD stock, as i see... that's somethin' to be scare for any SI, SIR, GSR, or else... (hahaha). rigth now, i'm a 2nd owner of this such pretty car... and i am no complaint, just by the aftermarket and brand new or used parts for this car, I CAN'T FIND IT!!! IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! Here in Venezuela, too much CA5A are on junk yards, or crashed. In fact, more than 86 Colts was hitted and losted on accidents. I will apreccied if someone know any link to aftermarket parts.


Ahhh!! i almost forget, sorry about my translade, i learned by my self... jajaja, hasta luego y gracias...

i found some aftermarket parts.... check out rpw racing parts or search it on yahoo if you cant find it

Trans

[edit]

I used to have a guide with all the variations of the mirages, with vins and specs of the chassis... I can't seem to find it however =\

anyhoo 3-speeds(F3A21-2 ) were offered in the 4th and 5th generations if i remember correctly (least my freak model 95's S has one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.35.132 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Assembly?

[edit]

The article currently states that the first generation Mirage was assembled in Australia as the Mitsubishi Colt. However on page 304 of his book, Great Ideas in Motion - The History of Chrysler in Australia, Gavin Farmer quotes former Mitsubishi Australia Managing Director Ian Webber as saying that “We did seriously look at assembling the Colt in Australia within 18 months of its introduction and we did have discussions with Leyland who were looking for more volume at its Enfield (Sydney) factory. However nothing came of those ideas and it remained a full-import for its life on the market.” Does anyone have anything further on this to allow us to determine if the Mirage/Colt was or was not assembled in Australia? GTHO (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This and this. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found a contemporary reference which would seem to confirm that Mr Webber was mistaken. In the Mitsubishi Colt entry on page 33 of The New Car Buyers Guide - 1st Edition - 1990/91, Tony Davis provides the following “Local manufacture of Colts ceased at the end of 1989, by which time Mitsubishi hoped to have many months supply on hand.” He also gives the “Heritage” of the Colt as “Built in Australia by Mitsubishi (production ceased at the end of 1989).” GTHO (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great research, I've clarified the dates in the text as other sources state 1990 as the last year of production—which is probably half-right—1990 compliance, but 1989 manufacture. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion errors

[edit]

Is anyone else getting a whole heap of errors from this page? Problem is, I can't see how to fix them! (most of the conversion bits are broken) Lukeno94 (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Positive feedback, anyone?

[edit]

We get the negative stuff, but shouldn't we include any sourced positive reviews for the current Mirage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.252.209 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitsubishi Mirage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mitsubishi Mirage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back the "green car" picture

[edit]

Hello, I don't know that my recent edit was reverted by Mr.choppers for changing the picture back to the "green car" one. But by this time I did not revert it back.

This is the picture above that I was about to insert it back into the infobox.

But it was replaced by this old model picture:

In an edit 3 days ago after EurovisionNim reveted back to the original green car picture.

Here are the edit summary by Mr.choppers and EurovisionNim:

"Undid revision 872657854 by EurovisionNim (talk) Irrelevant. And no, there is no need to use the most recent iteration for the infobox."

Edit summary of EurovisionNim:

"Green car is more evenly cropped. Also if you want to replace the top infobox with a Mirage, feel free, but use something in the current gen."

I just want to restore the current-gen model picture onto the article rather than doing edit wars so the problem will be solved. Thanks. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of have to agree with you on this one. The reason being is that as you mentioned, we should use the latest one. I think Mr.choppers is a bit fantasised on WP:CARPIX guidelines stating that its more the quality of the image as opposed to the latest gen. Not gonna blame him, but to be honestly fair, it seems a little bit harsh. Also as we all know CARPIX is NOT an official policy (I always thought it was, but its not really, its just based on the advice of OSX. What we should do is get Mr.choppers to talk about this, and come to a consenus. Well done mate !! Good job --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to have a picture of the current gen rather than any other. Never has been. I have raised this several times and both of you just keep restoring it instead of offering any reason why it ought to be the current gen. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a new car guide.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tried to raise this at Victor's talk page, here is that message:

Hi VT, I am not sure why you think that the infobox needs to depict the most current generation? From WP:CARPIX:

The image field displays an image of the subject vehicle to display in the infobox. The image used in the Infobox must comply with the standards outlined in the images section of WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Use an image showing the front three-quarter view (the vehicle parked at an angle relative to the photographer so that the photo shows the front and side of the vehicle) preferably taken against a non-distracting background with appropriate lighting. Enter the image file name and file type extension only.

Nothing about most current generation. It should be of a relevant car (ie, if the first generation was super popular worldwide and the third generation was only sold in Yemen in small numbers, don't depict the third). As a matter of fact, the main picture can even change every few months, hopping between generations. Now that I think about it, maybe this could be automatically generated? That would be cool.

In the end, this is an encyclopedia. People look up things that happened in the past. Thus, there is absolutely no need for the first photo to be of the most recent one. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitsubishi_Mirage&oldid=1204031255"