If the business press is to be believed, the age of mass marketing is over. No more can automakers hope to dedicate an entire plant to a single model. Instead, they must learn to efficiently create, produce, and market specialized niche products.
But you’d never know this from the state of the midsized sedan market. In this segment, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry each garner about 400,000 retail buyers a year, Ford, Chevrolet, and Nissan each find a couple hundred thousand, and everyone else is left fighting for scraps.
This is especially the case with the smaller Japanese producers. Critics love the enthusiast-oriented Mazda6, but Mazda finds them piling up on lots nonetheless. Subaru can hardly give the Legacy away—will it have better luck with the all-new 2005? Then we have Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi first started selling cars under its own name in this country two decades ago. But while Mazda has a “driver’s car” image, and Subaru sells to New Englanders who appreciate its standard across the line all-wheel-drive, Mitsubishi has yet to craft an image for itself. That is, unless “easy credit, no money down, no payments until next year” counts as an image. Mitsubishi sells the volumes expected of a niche producer, but without the distinct image a niche producer needs to earn a return on its new product investment.
Mitsubishi has sought to create an image through ads full of quick-cut video and edgy music. But what really creates an image is distinctive product. For 2004 the company introduced a thoroughly redesigned Galant. The new car is three inches longer on a five-inch-longer wheelbase, four inches wider, and a couple inches taller, making it a bit larger than the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry and a bit smaller than the Nissan Altima. The larger exterior permits a solidly midsize interior (the 2003 was a compact based on EPA classifications; the Mazda6 still is). But a larger interior alone isn’t going to level the playing field against the big boys. The Galant needs to have something special about it you just can’t get from Toyota and Honda. Well, does it?
Before proceeding, I should note that not only Mitsubishi has a great deal riding on the answer to this question. The next generation of all of Chrysler’s front-wheel-drive cars (Neon, Stratus, Sebring) will use the new Galant’s platform. So the new Galant might presage Chrysler’s future success (or lack thereof).
Styling
Many people found the 2003 Galant attractive. I was not among them. For me to find a car attractive the proportions have to be right, and the Galant’s wheelbase was too short for its length, yielding excessive overhangs. Since with the 2004 the wheelbase grew a couple more inches than the overall length did, this issue has largely been addressed. The car’s proportions are now roughly equal to those of the Accord, Camry, and Chevrolet Malibu. A tighter look like that of the Acura TL or upcoming Pontiac G6 would be better yet, but the new body earns a pass in this area.
Stylistically Mitsubishi has tended to be a Japanese Pontiac, loading many models with gratuitous, poorly integrated styling details that scream, “Look at me, I’m different!” Thankfully, the new Galant has been spared these with the partial exception of overly busy front and rear lamps. The overall exterior theme looks like it could have come out of a Nissan design studio. It joins an arcing roofline with and strongly wedged, sharply creased lower body.
Look at it next to the current Maxima, and the number of similarities are so numerous that I must wonder if Mitsubishi received a sneak peak at the big Nissan during its development. Both share the aforementioned roofline, a similar side window outline, and a similar treatment around the wheel openings. The main differences: the Nissan is a less blocky design, and lacks the Mitsubishi’s distinct separation between C-pillar and rear fender. It is the more graceful, attractive design, especially at the corners, where the Galant looks a bit stiff and heavy. For decades the Soviet auto industry would knock off Western designs, though the results were inevitably cruder and blockier. All in all, the new Galant looks like the car Lada would have designed if it chose to knock off the 2004 Maxima. Compared to a Toyota Camry or Chevrolet Malibu the Galant looks sporty and unique. But the existence of the Maxima rules out at least the “unique” bit.
Of course, that the Mitsubishi will look much the same as the Nissan to all but the pickiest consumers could also help the car, as it costs significantly less.
I should note that I test drove the top-of-the-line, enthusiast-oriented GTS. The Galant is also available in DE, ES, and LS form. The wheel covers standard on all three could not be plainer. Where they designed with sales to rental car companies in mind? The alloys optional on the ES and LS do not suit the car, both because they have too many spokes and because their 16-inch diameter is too small relative to the tall bodysides. The Galant only looks attractive with the GTS’s five-spoke 17-inch alloys.
The last Galant I drove had a number of poorly matched hues inside, some of them an unappealing blue-green. The quality of some materials was also substandard.
The new interior is much nicer. First, the seats. On the ES and LS the cloth and optional leather are available in dark and light gray. The GTS’s standard leather is available in black or “crème.” The car I drove was fitted with the latter, and it is attractive both in shade and grain (the latter is a bit heavier than the average automotive leather). My wife would like it. In other cars I’ve often noted that as good as light shades often look on the seats, they tend to look less rich on the dash and door panels, especially if these are not constructed of the finest materials. Mitsubishi has side-stepped this issue in two ways. First, the quality of materials is nearly up to that in a Camry or Accord—and thus well ahead of those in current Nissan interiors (the soon-to-appear 2005 Altima is supposed to receive an upgraded interior, though). Second, much of the dash and doors is black even with the cream (I’ll skip the French).
In the GTS the center stack is finished in silver, again much like an Altima or Maxima (or Mazda6, for that matter). In the Galant this finish combines with the styling of the center stack to suggest a piece of home audio equipment. (The Galant-based Endeavor SUV uses the same control layout and styling.) Some might not like it, but I personally find the result interesting and much preferable to something like the Camry's boring instrument panel.
A couple more trendy details: First, in the GTS the gauge faces are white. They are attractively styled, though the binnacle around them is oddly shaped and the black plastic surround looks a bit cheap. Second, with the cream interior the trim strips on the instrument panel and doors are a faux blonde “birdseye” wood. To a large extent it blends into the cream panels below it, but once noticed--the birdeye pattern saves it from invisibility--it is far too faux in gloss, shape, and overall appearance. The black interior replaces this "wood" with a more recent trend: “metal mesh” trim.
The main issue with the cream interior is that it contains a few too many sharply contrasting colors: cream, black, silver, and blonde. At night ice blue lighting gets thrown into the mix. I like a high contrast interior, but this is a bit much. The black interior, with half as many shades, looks much more unified.
Accommodations
The driver’s seat is about average in comfort. My lower back was a bit sore after the test drive, but tweaking the adjustable lumbar support might have fixed this. The seat provides more lateral support than most in this segment. It is mounted high enough relative to the dash that the view forward is also typical of the class, less expansive than in an Altima or Mazda6 but about equal to an Accord or Camry. The nicely thick-rimmed steering wheel tilts but does not telescope. So far so good.
One issue with the controls: as in many recent designs a small flat panel display for the audio and climate controls is placed atop the center stack. This puts it too far away from these controls, especially the latter, to view both the controls and readouts simultaneously. Thankfully, the climate controls are labeled so viewing the flat panel is not necessary. With the audio controls viewing the flat panel is a must, but then the distance between the two is not so great. More of an issue: sunlight tends to wash out the flat panel, making it hard to read.
The rear seat is about equal those in the Accord and Malibu, and thus not as good as those in the Altima and Camry. On paper all offer similar amount of legroom, but the seat cushions in the former set of cars are mounted too low to the floor to provide adults with proper thigh support. I blame the arcing roofline. A higher cushion would have forced a higher roofline. Even with the lower cushion, headroom will be limited for adults near or over six feet in height. The rear seat is comfortably shaped. An armrest with cupholders is included.
At 13.3 cubic feet the Galant’s trunk is a cubic foot or two smaller than most in the class, and my eye suggests even this figure might be optimistic. Given the size and blockiness of the car’s rear, I’m not sure why the trunk is not larger. Making matters worse, unlike any direct competitor I can think of the Galant lacks a folding rear seat. Only a passthrough behind the aforementioned armrest is provided. In the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac Grand Prix not only does the rear seat fold, but the front passenger seat does as well. In comparison, the Galant is far less versatile. At least interior storage is at least average, with a deep compartment beneath the front seat armrest.
On the Road
The Galant DE and ES are fitted with Mitsubishi’s new 2.4-liter four-cylinder. It puts out 160 horsepower, within a pony or two of the similarly-sized base engines in the Accord, Camry, and Mazda6. I’ve sampled this engine in the smaller Lancer, and it is satisfyingly smooth and torquey, at least for a four. The Altima’s four is supposedly good for 175 horsepower, but any additional oomph it provides comes at the expense of significantly less refinement.
So the base engine might not be bad. But lately the midsize sedan segment has been all about powerful V6s. The Mazda6’s 3.0-liter kicks out 220, the Camry SE’s 3.3-liter 225, the Accord’s 3.0 240, and the Altima’s 3.5 245. The Galant’s six falls right in the middle of this spectrum, with a 230-horse rating.
But you’ve got to look beyond the horsepower number, and here the Galant does better, then worse. First, the better. Not long ago many thought the Asian manufacturers much niftier than their American counterparts for fitting their sedans with smaller, higher-revving engines. Against, say, GM’s 205-horsepower old-fashioned pushrod 3.8-liter V6 Nissan would field a 222-horsepower DOHC 3.0. Compared to the Nissan and other Japanese 3.0-liter sixes, the GM engines seemed unnecessarily large. (In its defense, the GM engine was considerably more compact and less expensive to manufacture.)
Well, Nissan pushed through the longstanding 3.0-liter barrier with a 3.5 in 2002, and Toyota introduced a 3.3 this year. The new Galant six matches the others and then raises them a couple hundred cc’s. Yep, it’s a 3.8.
Larger displacement coupled with lower horsepower generally means that the power peak is lower, and this is in fact the case. While the Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Mazda engines peak at 5600, 5800, 6250, and 6300 RPM, respectively, the Mitsubishi 3.8 peaks at a considerably lower 5250.
In midrange power, as indicated by peak torque, the Galant engine matches the Nissan, putting it well ahead of the other Japanese sixes. So in the real world is should prove at least a match for them.
But then there are the negative factors. First, the transmission is short a ratio compared to the Mazda, Honda, and Toyota. This virtually forces taller, more widely spaced gears, blunting acceleration. Put another way, the Mitsubishi engine might peak lower, but taller gearing means getting to this lower peak takes just as long. Combining these two factors, we’ve pretty much got a wash.
Then there’s the final big old ugly factor: mass. In times past Japanese sedans’ performance benefited not only from rev-happy engines but also from the cars’ relatively light weight. Lately they’ve all put on a few (hundred) pounds, partially mitigating their power gains. The 2004 Camry SE V6 tips the scales at 3,351 pounds, and the others weigh about the same. Well, compared to these cars—or a Chevrolet Malibu, for that matter—the Galant is a porker. It weighs 3649 pounds. Ouch.
The upshot: despite having the biggest, torquiest engine in the class the Galant’s acceleration is about average. A V6 Accord, Altima, or Camry SE feels quicker. The Galant feels easily quick enough for most drivers, but if you want the fastest this ain’t it.
The large engine produces a satisfying amount of torque in normal driving. It’s fairly smooth, though no match for the Accord and Camry sixes in terms of refinement. Dip deep into the throttle and the transmission drops down a gear or two, kicking the engine up to a speed where it puts out a healthy amount of noise. The engine note resembles that of a Ford or Chrysler 24-valve V6. For sweet sounds, a Honda or Toyota will do you better.
With 250 pounds-feet of torque channeled through the front wheels, I wondered if the Galant would suffer from excessive torque steer like the Altima and Maxima do. Luckily, torque steer, though present, is momentary and minimal.
Pairing a big six with a heavy body tends to be bad for fuel economy. The official EPA ratings are 18/26, about ten percent lower than the class average.
The Galant’s handling is similarly average for the ever-improving midsize sedan class. At least in GTS form it corners flatter than most and does not understeer excessively. Either midsize Nissan sedan is a sloppier handler, and the Honda and Toyota both lean more. The Mazda6 is significantly better, though.
The GTS’s Eagle RS-As are 215s. This width, typical for the glass, should produce less stiction when combined with the car’s greater mass, but I noted no issues in this area. It stuck to the road well enough. Oddly, the Maxima, despite being fitted with the same brand tires in a 245 width and weighing a couple hundred pounds less, suffered from excessive tire squeal in aggressive driving. Credit the Galant’s more neutral handling.
Where the Galant’s handling falls down, at least for me, is in the steering department. The steering is moderately firm—about right in my book—but it provides very little feedback. Effort does not increase much as the wheel is turned, and I generally did not feel connected to the chassis or the tires’ contact patches. Perhaps because of its mass, the Galant also does not respond any more quickly than the average family sedan to steering inputs. Chassis responses are fluid and smooth, but hardly sharp or agile. The upshot: the Galant GTS is a very competent handler, but isn’t much fun to push along a twisty road. Perhaps the tire width/weight would have been an issue if I’d pushed the car harder, but the car doesn’t ask to be pushed. What we have here is a another family sedan in sporty duds.
Hmmm, numb steering. Yep, old school Detroit again.
I’ve mentioned that the Galant is heavy, and heavy usually means more lean, not less. Good suspension geometry and thick anti-sway bars can help compensate, but generally more mass requires stiffer springs to yield the same amount of roll in turns. (Track is another factor, but the cars are about the same here.) Generally…and in this specific case. More than anything I’ve discussed thus far, what might hurt the Galant’s chances is its ride quality, At least in GTS form the ride, though never harsh, is much busier than I expected, with a frequent number of small vertical motions over even roads that to the eye appear smooth. The ride of the Mazda6 also suffers from such busyness, but less of it and that car is considerably more agile. For a smooth ride, you want the Accord or especially the Camry. The last Galant I drove was a base model, and rode much better. This might continue to be the case with non-GTS Galants.
The Galant GTS’s ride quality would be less of an issue is its handling was better. As it is, I suspect that they increased suspension stiffness compared to the vanilla Galant but left the steering the same, resulting in a mismatch.
Wind noise levels are a bit higher than the admittedly low class average. Road noise is a bit high on some surfaces, likely due to the performance tires. I’ve already discussed engine noise. Overall, I’d put noise levels inside the Galant about equal to the Nissan and Mazda, and higher than in the Accord and especially the Camry. Acceptable, but no better.
Frankly, “acceptable, but no better” describes about every aspect of the car’s performance. No breakthrough here.
Safety
The Galant GTS comes standard with ABS, EBD, traction control, side airbags, and the latest in front airbags in seatbelts. The only major omission from the roster is head curtain airbags. The Honda, Toyota, and Mazda either have two sets of side airbags as standard or optional. Stability control is not available on the Galant, but among sub-$30,000 midsize sedans only the Camry, VW Passat, Nissan Maxima, and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP currently offer it.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The following is from when the review was originally written:
Now we come to what Mitsubishi usually relies on to move cars: price. The GTS I drove was fitted with the only available option, $280 heated seats. Everything else, leather, sunroof, 270-watt stereo with CD-changer (not so impressive sounding) is standard. The sticker read $26,572, far from the lowest in this class. No rebate is currently available. Edmunds suggests the typical discount is healthy, though, bringing the typical price down to $24,700.
A similarly equipped Camry SE V6—with side curtain airbags thrown in for good measure (the Galant has only torso bags)—lists for $26,425, and tends to sell for $23,900. The Mitsubishi is more sharply styled inside and out, and corners more flatly, but the Camry’s overall handling is at least as good and its powertrain performance, fuel economy, ride quality, noise levels, rear seat room, and cargo room are all significantly better. The Galant’s styling is looking awfully pricey, especially when you consider that the Toyota will depreciate much more slowly. A final Camry advantage: stability control is an option.
The Accord EX V6 lists for $26,890, and costs about $25,000 even after the typical discount. It handles a bit better than the Camry, and possesses more distinctive styling (which no one I’ve met loves and more than a few dislike), but falls between the Camry and Galant in most other areas. Against the two segment heavyweights, the Galant clearly lacks a price advantage. Not good.
The Nissan Altima is more expensive than the above. Since the 2004 is about to be replaced, I’ll wait before going through the details. I wouldn’t buy the 2004. The Maxima will set you back nearly thirty large.
A similarly-equipped Mazda6s is priced much like the others, with a list of $26,980. The typical discount cuts this to about $25,400. The rebate situation is unclear. Mazdausa.com lists no rebate, but Edmunds says $1,500. Usually rebates on the Mazda6 exclude those with the sport package, required to get leather, anyway. So the Mazda is a bit more expensive than the Galant, and considerably more expensive than the Camry. If handling is your top priority it’s the one to get (unless you’re willing to settle for a four-cylinder, and then the Acura TSX warrants a look).
Among domestic brands the Chevrolet Malibu clears the curb in the low 22s. But it’s hardly a sport sedan, and thus more a competitor for the Galant ES.
Pontiac is the source of sport in the GM lineup. The 2005 G6 could well be a segment leader for enthusiasts. For now we have the larger Grand Prix. Compared to the Galant, the Grand Prix in normally-aspirated form has slightly lower grade interior materials compared to the Galant, accelerates about as well, and does everything else better—with the notable exception of a cramped, uncomfortable rear seat. A similarly-equipped Grand Prix GT2 lists for $27,645, but the typical discount and a $2,500 rebate slash this to about $23,200. The Pontiac’s price is right, a shame its rear seat is so bad.
All in all it’s very hard to beat the Camry in this segment. Even if you’re interested in the Galant, likely for aesthetic reasons, I’d wait. This puppy needs a GM-sized rebate to go with its GM-sized engine. A $1,500 or even $2,000 rebate seems likely in the next few months.
Last Words
The new 2004 Galant has the styling to compete against the big boys, but falls short in most other areas, especially acceleration, ride quality, cargo versatility, and fuel economy. It’s a nice car, but others are nicer. Yet it’s priced at or above the class average.
This formula isn’t going to pull Mitsubishi out of its slump. The way things are going, the brand is not going to last in the United States, and perhaps not anywhere. Similarly, the new Galant platform seems unlikely to help Chrysler reverse its continuous loss of car market share. I suspect that like Mitsubishi it remain a third-string player at best in the midsize car market.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.