The Mitsubishi Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp): An Economical Global Compact
The Mitsubishi Lancer III, also known by its chassis code C10 series, represents a significant chapter in the Lancer’s long and varied history. Launched in 1984, this generation marked a shift towards a more aerodynamic and modern aesthetic compared to its predecessors, while retaining Mitsubishi’s reputation for robust engineering and reliability. The specific variant under examination, the Mitsubishi Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp), was positioned as an entry-level, highly economical compact sedan, primarily targeting markets outside of North America where fuel efficiency, affordability, and lower taxation on smaller displacement engines were paramount. While the Lancer nameplate did see various iterations in the United States, this particular 1.2-liter, 55 horsepower model was not offered stateside, instead serving as a workhorse in Asian, European, and other international markets. It embodied the practical, no-frills approach to personal transportation that defined many compact cars of the mid-1980s.
This third-generation Lancer was built on a new platform, offering improved ride quality and interior space over the previous generation. It competed in the highly competitive compact segment, striving to offer a balance of comfort, utility, and cost-effectiveness. The 1.2-liter model, in particular, was designed for maximum efficiency and minimal running costs, making it an attractive option for first-time car buyers or those seeking a dependable daily driver in urban environments and beyond.
Engine & Performance of the Mitsubishi Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp)
Powering this iteration of the Mitsubishi Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp) was the Mitsubishi 4G16 engine, a naturally aspirated, inline four-cylinder gasoline (petrol) unit. With a displacement of 1,198 cubic centimeters (approximately 1.2 liters or 73.11 cubic inches), this engine was engineered for efficiency and durability rather than outright speed. It produced a modest 55 horsepower at 5,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) and delivered 66.38 lb-ft of torque at 3,500 rpm. These figures, while humble by modern standards, were perfectly adequate for the car’s intended purpose and the driving conditions of its primary markets.
The 4G16 engine featured a Single Overhead Camshaft (SOHC) valvetrain with two valves per cylinder, a common and reliable configuration for the era. Fuel delivery was handled by a carburetor, a technology that was still prevalent in the mid-1980s before the widespread adoption of electronic fuel injection. This setup contributed to the engine’s simplicity and ease of maintenance. Mated to a 5-speed manual transmission, the powertrain drove the front wheels, a layout that was becoming increasingly standard for compact cars due to its packaging efficiency and improved traction in various conditions.
Performance figures reflected its economical nature: the Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp) could accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in a calculated 14.2 seconds, with a top speed of approximately 93 miles per hour (150 km/h). Fuel economy was a strong suit, with an urban consumption rate of around 27.7 US mpg and an impressive extra-urban (highway) rating of 43.6 US mpg. These numbers made it a highly practical choice for cost-conscious consumers, especially in regions where fuel prices were a significant consideration. The engine’s modest power output and light curb weight of 1,840.86 pounds resulted in a weight-to-power ratio of 15.2 kg per horsepower, emphasizing its role as an efficient commuter rather than a performance vehicle.
Design & Features
The Mitsubishi Lancer III adopted a sleek, wedge-shaped design that was characteristic of the mid-1980s, moving away from the more angular styling of the 1970s. As a four-door sedan, it offered practical access for five occupants, making it a suitable family car. Its dimensions – 162.4 inches in length, 64.37 inches in width, and 53.54 inches in height – placed it firmly in the compact car segment. The design was functional and understated, prioritizing interior space and aerodynamic efficiency, as evidenced by its drag coefficient (Cd) of 0.38, which was respectable for its time.
Inside, the Lancer III provided a straightforward and ergonomic cabin. While luxurious amenities were not a focus for this entry-level model, the interior was designed for durability and ease of use. Seating for five was standard, with a focus on comfortable, if basic, accommodations for daily driving. The dashboard layout was logical, featuring analog gauges and simple controls for heating, ventilation, and the radio. Safety features, typical for the era, would have included basic seatbelts and a robust body structure, but lacked the advanced airbags and electronic aids found in modern vehicles.
The suspension system comprised an independent MacPherson strut setup at the front and an independent coil spring system with a transverse stabilizer and trailing arm at the rear. This configuration provided a comfortable ride and predictable handling, suitable for varied road conditions. Braking was handled by disc brakes at the front and drum brakes at the rear, a common and effective setup for vehicles of its class and power output. The steering was a rack-and-pinion system, offering direct and responsive feedback to the driver. Standard wheel rims were 13-inch steel units, often fitted with hubcaps, further underscoring the car’s economical positioning.
Technical Specifications
| Category | Specification | US Equivalent / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| General Information | ||
| Brand | Mitsubishi | |
| Model | Lancer | |
| Generation | Lancer III | |
| Type (Engine) | 1.2 (55 Hp) | |
| Start of Production | 1984 year | |
| End of Production | 1986 year | |
| Powertrain Architecture | Internal Combustion engine | |
| Body type | Sedan | 4 Doors, 5 Seats |
| Performance Specifications | ||
| Fuel consumption (economy) – urban | 8.5 l/100 km | 27.7 US mpg |
| Fuel consumption (economy) – extra urban | 5.4 l/100 km | 43.6 US mpg |
| Fuel Type | Petrol (Gasoline) | |
| Acceleration 0 – 60 mph | 14.2 sec | Calculated by Auto-Data.net |
| Maximum speed | 150 km/h | 93.21 mph |
| Weight-to-power ratio | 15.2 kg/Hp | 65.9 Hp/tonne |
| Weight-to-torque ratio | 9.3 kg/Nm | 107.8 Nm/tonne |
| Engine Specifications | ||
| Power | 55 Hp @ 5000 rpm | |
| Power per liter | 45.9 Hp/l | |
| Torque | 90 Nm @ 3500 rpm | 66.38 lb.-ft. @ 3500 rpm |
| Engine layout | Front, Longitudinal | |
| Engine Model/Code | 4G16 | |
| Engine displacement | 1198 cm3 | 1.2 Liters / 73.11 cu. in. |
| Number of cylinders | 4 | Inline configuration |
| Cylinder Bore | 68.2 mm | 2.69 in. |
| Piston Stroke | 82 mm | 3.23 in. |
| Compression ratio | 9.5:1 | |
| Number of valves per cylinder | 2 | |
| Fuel injection system | Carburetor | |
| Engine aspiration | Naturally aspirated engine | |
| Valvetrain | SOHC | Single Overhead Camshaft |
| Engine oil capacity | 3.5 l | 3.7 US qt |
| Coolant capacity | 5 l | 5.28 US qt |
| Space, Volume and Weights | ||
| Kerb Weight | 835 kg | 1840.86 lbs. |
| Max. weight (Gross Vehicle Weight) | 1340 kg | 2954.19 lbs. |
| Max load | 505 kg | 1113.33 lbs. |
| Fuel tank capacity | 45 l | 11.89 US gal |
| Permitted trailer load with brakes (12%) | 1000 kg | 2204.62 lbs. |
| Permitted trailer load without brakes | 400 kg | 881.85 lbs. |
| Dimensions | ||
| Length | 4125 mm | 162.4 in. |
| Width | 1635 mm | 64.37 in. |
| Height | 1360 mm | 53.54 in. |
| Wheelbase | 2380 mm | 93.7 in. |
| Front track | 1390 mm | 54.72 in. |
| Rear (Back) track | 1340 mm | 52.76 in. |
| Drag coefficient (Cd) | 0.38 | |
| Drivetrain, Brakes and Suspension Specifications | ||
| Drivetrain Architecture | Front wheel drive | Internal Combustion engine drives the front wheels |
| Number of gears and type of gearbox | 5 gears, manual transmission | |
| Front suspension | Independent type McPherson | |
| Rear suspension | Independent coil spring, Transverse stabilizer, Trailing arm | |
| Front brakes | Disc | |
| Rear brakes | Drum | |
| Steering type | Steering rack and pinion | |
| Wheel rims size | 5J x 13 | |
Legacy & Market Impact
The Mitsubishi Lancer III, particularly its economical 1.2-liter variant, played a crucial role in Mitsubishi’s global strategy during the mid-1980s. While not a performance icon, this model cemented Mitsubishi’s reputation for producing reliable, fuel-efficient, and affordable compact cars. In markets across Asia, parts of Europe, and other developing regions, the Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp) was a popular choice for families and individuals seeking dependable transportation without a hefty price tag or high running costs.
Its primary competitors included other Japanese compacts known for their reliability, such as the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Nissan Sunny (Sentra in North America). European rivals like the Volkswagen Golf and Opel Kadett (Vauxhall Astra) also vied for market share, though often with different engine offerings and market positioning. The Lancer III distinguished itself through its straightforward engineering, relatively spacious interior for its class, and a durable powertrain that could withstand demanding conditions.
The Lancer III’s legacy is perhaps best understood as a foundational stepping stone for the Lancer nameplate. While this specific 1.2-liter model was a humble workhorse, the Lancer family would later evolve to include high-performance variants like the Lancer Evolution, which gained legendary status in rallying and enthusiast circles. The success of more basic models like the Lancer III, however, provided the sales volume and brand recognition that allowed Mitsubishi to invest in and develop such halo cars. It represented a period when Japanese manufacturers were globally recognized for practical, well-built cars that offered excellent value.
Today, the Mitsubishi Lancer III 1.2 (55 Hp) is a classic car, appreciated for its simplicity and historical significance in the evolution of the compact sedan. While not a collector’s item in the same vein as its performance-oriented successors, it serves as a testament to Mitsubishi’s engineering philosophy of the era: building durable, efficient vehicles that met the real-world needs of millions of drivers worldwide. Its impact was not in groundbreaking technology but in consistent, reliable service, contributing to the global automotive landscape of the 1980s as a dependable and economical choice.





