Vr4!! No Reserve! Awd Good Miles! 5 Speed Special! Twin Turbo! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are your top 10 worst-selling vehicles of 2012

Despite 2012 being the best year of auto sales this country has seen since 2007, not every vehicle got an equally large share of the sales pie. Some barely got a sliver, as evidenced by this year's list of the top 10 worst-selling vehicles of 2012. We've dug through sales data from every automaker to come up with this year's list and, like last year, we've set some parameters to ensure it includes legitimately bad-selling vehicles. The first parameter is a starting MSRP under $100,000, which automatically excludes what's parked in most one-percenters' garages. We're also excluding vehicles cancelled in 2012, even if they garnered sales through the end of the year while dealerships sold off remaining inventory. This includes models like the Mitsubishi Eclipse, Mercedes-Benz R-Class and last year's worst-seller, the Acura RL. Next, vehicles are considered as they are reported by the automaker, which means that, while sales of the Murano CrossCabriolet were probably low enough to make the list, because Nissan reports only one number for all Murano sales, it was excluded. Cadillac, however, reports sales of the Escalade EXT separately from the Escalade, hence its repeat appearance. Finally, there was the question of whether or not eligibility should be given to Suzuki vehicles, as the brand announced in November that it would end sales in the US as soon as its current inventory ran out. We decided Suzuki vehicles should be included as the brand was offering 2013 models at the time of the announcement, and as far as we can tell, inventory levels remained high enough to satisfy demand through the end of the year. Without further ado, below are the top 10 worst-selling vehicles of 2012. Top 10 Worst-Selling Vehicles of 2012 10. Volvo C30 MSRP: $25,500 Units Sold: 2,827 Last Year: – 9. BMW Z4 MSRP: $47,350 Units Sold: 2,751 Last Year: – 8. Audi TT MSRP: $39,545 Units Sold: 2,226 Last Year: – 7. Subaru Tribeca MSRP: $32,595 Units Sold: 2,075 Last Year: 10 6. Suzuki Equator MSRP: $19,449 Units Sold: 1,966 Last Year: 7 5. Cadillac Escalade EXT MSRP: $63,060 Units Sold: 1,934 Last Year: 6 4. Nissan GT-R MSRP: $96,820 Units Sold: 1,188 Last Year: – 3. Acura ZDX MSRP: $50,920 Units Sold: 775 Last Year: 4 2. Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback MSRP: $18,495 Units Sold: 702 Last Year: 3 1. Mitsubishi i-MiEV MSRP: $29,125 Units Sold: 588 Last Year: – Want a little more "worst-selling" data? Check out our list of the top 10 worst-selling vehicles of 2011.

2015 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport Quick Spin

The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport is not new. It is also not sporty. Despite it all, the Outlander Sport is selling better than ever. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people take one of these crossovers home each month. That's good for Mitsubishi, a company clinging to life in the US market. But the Outlander's sales are a mere blip; that's about a week's worth of handshakes and signatures on Ford Escapes, at best. Until new product arrives, this is the stuff Mitsubishi has on the ground to sell, and the company has said it's committed to sticking around. That means I got to spend some time recently with a 2015 Outlander Sport SE with AWC (All-Wheel Control – you know, all-wheel drive). There are updates and changes for 2015, including an available 168-horsepower, 2.4-liter engine for ES and GT models, revised CVT, LED running lamps, thicker glass, better sound insulation, and electric power steering. But because I drove an E, I was locked into the 2.0 liter engine. It's the 4B11, a version of the GEMA engine, co-developed with Hyundai and DaimlerChrysler back in the Cretaceous. Driving Notes The most amazing thing I found after a week with the Outlander Sport is that it can bend the laws of physics. This is not a compact crossover so much as it's a time machine. Swing that door shut, and every trip takes place in 2008. Styling is pretty good. There's not a bad line on the Outlander Sport. It sits right on its relatively short wheelbase, and looks good doing it. I had low expectations for the powertrain. Most of my GEMA engine experienced comes from time with the Jeep Compass and Patriot, which are horrific NVH factories. Mitsubishi's version of this engine is more refined, and has a healthy 148 horsepower and 145 pound-feet of torque. The CVT has been revised to mimic the action of a seven-speed transmission. Why bother? The simulacrum doesn't hold. It's the typical 70/30 CVT split: unobtrusive 70 percent of the time, slippy and weird the other 30 percent. That same 70/30 split applies to on-road behavior. Most of the time, the Outlander Sport drives decently. Those other times, it just wants you to chill. Structural rigidity isn't up there with the segment leaders. Road noise is still higher than I'd have liked. This car has the single worst infotainment system I have ever experienced. Totally refused to pair with my phone, ever. This is not an isolated case for a Mitsu with this headunit.

Mitsubishi denies plans for Toyota/Subaru rival sports coupe

Forgive us for being wistful, but there was a time when Mitsubishi coupes and sports cars were the downright awesome. The 1990s brought us the all-wheel drive, turbocharged Eclipse GSX and the twin-turbocharged 3000GT VR-4 (seen here). The times, they were good.
Fast-forward to today, and the Lancer Evolution exists as Mitsubishi's sole, true performance offering. Mitsubishi killed off the Eclipse last year, by which time it had lost much the luster of its predecessors. With an affordable Japanese sports car fomenting underway thanks to Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ, one may think that it's an ideal time for a brand like Mitsubishi to jump back into the performance coupe game. A rear-drive Mitsubishi sports car to take on the Toyobaru twins could be just what the brand needs to gain some mindshare among consumers.
Not so, says Osamu Masuko. The president and executive director of Mitsubishi told reporters at the Sydney Motor Show, "Our engineers are very prominent to investigate new technologies, but to use that technology they are not that good to bring the revenue to make that money." Read: the engineers want to do it, but the company does not find it to be financially responsible.