2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Mr on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1991 Mitsubishi Mighty Max Super Max

While the Montero SUV sold well enough in the United States, Mitsubishi-badged pickup sales didn't quite measure up to those of their Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda rivals. Second-generation Mighty Maxes are hard to find, so this '91 in Colorado was worthy of inclusion in the Junkyard Gem canon. The ADX Florence Supermax federal prison is just 100 miles to the south of this self-service wrecking yard, but it opened several years after this truck was built. The garish lettering and striping has the look of a dealer-installed option package. Chrysler sold rebadged Mitsubishi pickups for decades, as the Plymouth Arrow and Dodge D-50/Ram 50. When Mitsubishi began selling vehicles under their own brand in the United States in 1982, the Triton pickup got the Mighty Max name. The Dodge Ram 50 always outsold its near-identical Mighty Max twin, but the debut of the all-Detroit Dakota in 1987 cut into Ram 50 sales; by 1995, truck shoppers who wanted a Mitsubishi pickup had no choice but the Mighty Max. After 1996, the Mighty Max was mighty gone. This one is quite solid and doesn't appear to have been wrecked, and the odometer shows a surprisingly low mileage figure for a 26-year-old Japanese pickup. The 2.4-liter 4G54 four-cylinder engine is gone, purchased by a junkyard shopper. This engine family went into everything from the Mitsubishi Galant to the Hyundai Sonata, not to mention the Chery V5. The sunroof has an aftermarket look, which fits with the SUPER MAX dealer-option theory. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Mitsubishi trucks were pitched as cheap, cheap, cheap in the United States.

Japan readying first stealth fighter for 2016 test

This post is appearing on Autoblog Military, Autoblog's sub-site dedicated to the vehicles, aircraft and ships of the world's armed forces. The nation of Japan is somewhat unique in terms of the world's militaries. Following its loss in World War II, the country was stripped of its ability to wage war, and its military was reestablished nearly a decade later not as an aggressive force but as a self-defense force. Today, the Japanese constitution forbids the country from maintaining anything but its Ground, Maritime, and Air Self-Defense Forces. Since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first took office in September 2006 and continuing in his second term, which began in late 2012, Japan's military has seen something of a renaissance. Earlier this year, the country's legislature officially approved a new law that allowed Japan to use its military in international conflicts, even if there's no direct threat to the Home Islands. And even earlier still, Japan announced a desire to increase its drone capability. Now, like the US, Russia, and China, the country is preparing its own stealth fighter. Slated to take to the skies for its maiden flight in early 2016, the Advanced Technology Demonstrator X is a Mitsubishi-built plane that looks like the lovechild of an F-22 Raptor, an F-16 Falcon, and an F/A-18 Hornet. According to the attached video from Bloomberg, the ATD-X carries all the stealth fighter hallmarks. Its shape is designed to minimize its radar cross-section, while the body is coated in radar-absorbent material. And of course, the weapons systems are stored within underbelly bays. But why is Japan even testing it, especially when you consider the company placed an order for 42 F-35 Lightning IIs way back in 2011? Well, for one, it's going to be a lot more affordable than the F-35, which is the single most expensive weapons platform in human history. Where individual F-35s cost around $100 million, depending on what source you're looking at, Bloomberg reports that the ATD-X could be developed for just $324 million. Even if there are some utterly absurd cost overruns and the per-unit cost is closer to astronomical than affordable, putting together a fleet of production ATD-X's is probably going to be cheaper overall. You can hear more about why Japan is considering the ATD-X in the video down below. Check it out.

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.