2015 Mirage warranty rear axle (alignment)
 

I knew this was an issue an was not happy about how Mitsubishi addressed it until today. I took the car to the dealership in Hampton and had them do two recalls, one for additional protection for the air bag wiring where it could be corroded by salt from winter roads. The second for a noise on cold starts where the mixture is slightly too rich.

30.5k miles on the original tires, the rear axle alignment was not in specs, so I told them there was a problem. COSTCO will not honor a tire warranty if the car is not properly aligned, obviously due to excessive wear. The people were fantastic and I found out that the selling dealership had not submitted the alignment information where it was checked in August 2015, 3 months after I bought the car, to Mitsubishi for consideration in a replacement.

The new axle will be in on Tuesday and be replaced the next day. Retail the job would easily be over $1k.

I'm on the last few thousand miles on the tires. It will be VERY interesting to see how high the MPG will go on the original tires, with the wheels actually pointed in the right direction. Almost like Christmas when I was a kid, LOL.

I fine it amazing you are showing 58.1 as is.

Last tank 425 miles, 7.089 gallons, $15.02, 59.95 MPG. If anyone here is ever in the area, I invite them to observe how I do it. The other day I changed the oil after driving 20 miles with a stop for lunch. The oil I drained was barely warmer than my skin. Used to be almost hot enough to burn me, before hypermiling. I got 53 driving home from the dealership where I got it with 18 miles on the ODO. I lived in Houston, worked at the Benz dealership north of the beltway, Intercontinental Motors, 1982.

PS would be nice if I could lose the "vehicle not found" It's sold.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

I have family in Spring so I know right where that is.

Axle replacd
 

All readings well within specs now, drives like a different car. I wish they could get every one right, a lot of negative press on the handling of this car. Drove it 30.5k (odometer reading) before it got fixed.

I'm not one to dwell on the past, today was the first time I drove my car with it in proper alignment. Driving back through the construction on I64 with pavement changes that would have caused yaw tendency in the old rear axle, now it's rock solid. I find myself making minute corrections that are no longer needed and I drove a route today and averaged 75 mpg for close to 15 miles including a stop for lunch. Coasting distance seem better by up to 10%. This is going to be fun.

Asked him to set the front toe to 0, better mileage.

It does make a huge difference. I had a '01 Escort that must have went into the ditch or was lifted incorrectly because both rear trailing arms were bent causing the rear alignment to be off. The car didn't feel quite right on dry pavement but when you drove it in the snow, hold on! The worst handling was when you transitioned from dry pavement to snow and back. I ended up straightening the arms then selling it, telling the new owner to get it aligned. They did and now it's fine.

30.5k miles on original tires is not too bad. Manufacturers tend to put soft tires that are quiet and don't last long on their cars initially so that people think the car is quieter during the test drive.

My rear summer tires last 7,500 miles and my front summer tires last 20,000 miles. There is nothing wrong with my car, on the forum most AMG cars get the same tire mileage. The tires are also max performance summer tires and the rear wheel has -1.8 camber in the back and -0.8 camber in the front (factory setting). Car handles great, tire budget..not so much.

I'm glad they look like they finally came through for you!

Truth be told, I'm with luv2sps, factory tires seem to suck in terms of wear generally.

The tires they put on the Mirage are some of the lowest rolling resistance around, comparable to the RE92s they used on the 1st gen Insight. Both of those two tires have tread depth at around 8/32nds new, giving you about 6/32nds useable tread until the wear indicators are flush with the rest of the tread.

The Ecopias I have to replace the Ensaves are 11/32nds tread depth, giving you 9/32nds to worn out. Their tread wear rating is 640 compared to the Ensaves 340, which is higher than the OE Bridgestones.

A lot of trash talk about the OE tires was actually the fact that most of the rear axles were not aligned properly when built. Some OE tires were ate up long before 20k miles. If I push mine to the point where the tread wear indicators are flush they will go about 40k miles. Front tire wear is twice the rate of rear tire wear. I rotated them at 16k miles and now approaching 31k they are all worn evenly.

This is the point where the rolling resistance as well as tire weight is lowest, with peak MPGs reached just before the tires are legally bald. Mine are at 4.32nds on all 4 tires, with less than a 1/32nd variation on every tread. Running 50 psi helps them last the longest possible time.

I have an extra set of Ensaves, practically new without measurable wear. I got them for $160 and I had to swap out the replacement tires. I'm replacing the OE wheels and tires with "Imola" rims from a mini Cooper. They are 15x5.5 but weight 12 pounds compared to the OE rims at 13. The tires are 185x60x15 Ecopias, EP422 plus at around 17 pounds per tire, versus the Ensaves at 13 pounds per tire.

The larger diameter will drop my revs per mile by close to 6% (1.058 multiplication factor on odometer reading). Hoping I will not see too bad a MPG drop all things considered.

Just want to point out that the tire industry, at least in the US, doesn't use a universal testing methodology for the tire wear rating. This means the values is not comparable between manufacturers.

^^^^ What he beat me to by a few minutes. You can only compare numbers within the same brand. I wish they'd require a specific standard so you could compare between brands.

Would it even be fair to compare wear rates? I mean it's going to vary hugely depending on the type of journies you do, surfaces you drive on, driving style, how much weight you carry etc, much like fuel consumption. A friend of mine used to change his tyres every two weeks and he didn't do mega miles. I've been through a set in less than 5k before now, but I've also had 15k in the same car on the same roads. Too many factors to consider in my opinion.

Just like mpg it's no guarantee but at least you can see that in the official testing cars A, B and C did x, y and z respectively and the same could be said of tires. Now it only works for tires within the same company. I'd rather across the board even if my results don't match the tests, just like now with mpg.

Driven until they were bald, I could probably get another 20+k miles. Best time in a tires life for mileage.

I've seen fairly consistent wear to grading standard over the years. I could just replace them with the set of Ensaves I had waiting, but with the new axle, I just want more handling for emergencies.

It will be seen if I want to keep the larger wheels and tires, but mid 60s mpg seem to be fairly easy now. Under best circumstances maybe 115. When you get to this level in mpg, every small improvement is amplified. It may be that the rear axle improvement covers the larger tire penalty. You never know, but I sure enjoy finding out at 3.3 cents a mile.

The alignment issues are possibly related to shipping. If they yank the cars down for shipping, you can get alignment issues if the cars aren't aligned on the PDI. I forget which, but there was a high volume manufacturer which recently ran into issues with this.

I originally thought the same thing, shipping damage, until I actually tried to bend the axle using a 6 foot piece of aluminum pipe, giving me a leverage factor of about 12 to one. A member on the Mirage forum, 3dplane, a tech at a dealership went through the process and also had no luck cold bending the axle stubs. Only heat (think acetylene torch) would move the stub axles.

That pipe was giving me about 2400 pounds of torque on the 1 inch diameter axle shaft. Like trying to bend a leaf spring, about 20% more force than the whole car weighs. It would have ripped the tie down hook out of the bottom of the trunk floor. Probably blown out the rear shocks.

Huh. Well I guess I'll just have to confirm my old stereotypes about "Mitsutrashi" quality. I'd have liked to believe they'd turned a corner.

Shame, Mirages are turning up cheap on the used market and tear up the fuel economy numbers.

Topped it off yesterday, 62.3 mpg. Looks like when I swap the tires-wheels it will probably still be pushing 60mpg.

Typical drive today, about 20 miles. Picked up some paint for the porch chairs, then Wendy's for a quick lunch, back home to put some cabinets, I got for free, in the garage. At one point I was very close to 70 mg indicated until a couple of situations beat it down some. Final reading was 67.2. I would put the improvement at close to 4-5% all other things being equal (which they never are LOL). Think I'll try Craford road tomorrow. last time I hit 110 for the length of the road. 35-45 MPH with almost no traffic, perfect for pulse and glide (EOC).

Rims and tires installed today. I bought this car May 9th 2015, 31485 on the original tires today. Could have gone further but I got the itch to see the rims on this car. Looks like MPG hit will be in the range of 5%, probably drop some as they wear in. Tires did not need to be ANY larger, clearance to the skirts under 1 inch at 50% of max turn. I have not heard any rubbing but it is close. I can feel the 6% taller final drive difference and almost 200 RPM drop at highway speeds (used to be 3k at 60 mph, now just over 2800).

Photos for above post.

55.4 mpg last tank. I can handle that now that this car handles so well with the new wheels-tires.

I'd like to run this thing on an autocross now. Refill second tank tomorrow, looks pretty good right now.

The most efficient flywheels have the greatest mass, the greatest distance from the axis of rotation. In essence the four wheels on your car are batteries. The original tires and wheels were 13 pounds each for a total of 26 pounds. The replacement wheels are just over 12 pounds, while the tires are 17 pounds each and about 1.5 inches larger in diameter. At 60 mph this reduces rpms in 5th gear by 180, down from 3000 to 2820.

You can feel the difference when accelerating. The best flywheels are those with the greatest weight at the outer perimeter. With all of the weight increase in the tread area, each wheel is a better "battery" and holds more energy that will increase coasting distances as long as rolling resistance is not too much greater than the Ensaves. As the tires "break in" I can feel the coasting distances increasing. While the tendency of this car to start rolling on the least grade was exceptional with the OE tires, the replacements are starting to show signs of the same movement.

To adjust driving technique to the new status quo, requires faster pulses, generally in one lower gear, to increase the coasting distances, utilizing the "flywheels" to their fullest extent.

Last tank (63.6mpg) was a short fill, even thought it was done at my usual station (Costco) AND at the front pump where I can drop my front wheels in the drainage depression in the pavement. Seen this happen twice, I think it is caused by another pump shutting off right when I am close to full.

Next one will show it, probably tomorrow. First 1/8th was gone at 55 miles, usually lasts 75-80 miles, probably about .3 gallon short. Even then, it would still be pushing a 60 mpg tank. Coasting distances are improving, still need to snip all the nibs off the inside of the new tires.

I averaged the last two fills together. 740.5 miles on 12.576 gallons, 58.9 MPG.
It looks like this tire and wheel combination MAY have no mileage penalty. If it does it will be minimal, maybe 1 or two MPG at most. Remember that is on brand new tires, versus the OE tires with just over the legal minimum tread depth.

Combined with the new axle, proper alignment, the 185X60 Ecopias have worked out better that I would have believed and remember, that's comparing new tires to tires on their last leg, 11/32nds tread to 3-4/32nds tread. 15x5.5 rims to 14x4.5 rims.

At certain points in turning the front wheels the outer edge of the tread is so close to the fender liners that I can't stick my finger between them. ODO under reads 6%. I have never been a fan of super low profile tires that can suffer a failure on the bad pot holes you get here.

Never heard them rub, another half inch anywhere and they would rub, just about perfect in my book. This car would be fun in an autocross now.