Gallantry may be a fading concept, but there are still some old-timey Galants about. Not nearly as many as equivalent Toyotas, Hondas or Nissans, though – this is the first one I’ve managed to find so far. Still, it seems the sixth generation (1987-92) Mitsubishi Galant had a good reputation in its day. The domestic market loved it (it was the boom times, so they liked a lot of things in those days), the American market was all over it as well, and the rest of the world was also keen on the idea.
And there was a lot to like. The 2-litre DOHC 4-cyl. Cyclone engine, as used on the higher-trim MX model featured here, was a very capable performer: 140hp was a pretty impressive amount of power for the times. And then, there was the fact that said power was sent to all four wheels via a five-speed manual, and that later models, such as our feature car, even got four-wheel steering.
That technological package proved quite potent on rally tracks, obviously. In many ways, the whole Mitsubishi mystique about the Lancer-based Evo was pioneered on the E30 Galant, leading some to dub this car “Evo Zero.” Given the high-tech nature of the beast, I think the term beta-testing might also apply here. But they switched it to the Lancer for a reason: all this great gear was a bit wasted on a car that looked like a JDM taxi.
As is usually the case with Mitsubishi, Galant number six was part of a well-though out plan to build on previous generations’ innovations. The preceding generation (top photo) had switched the layout to FWD, but kept the body in the low-slung origami vein of the RWD Sigma (bottom photo), which it coexisted with for the better part of the ‘80s.
Then came the dowdy E30, ditching the Sigma name along with its clean-cut lines in favour of a tall greenhouse that looked almost like a Chrysler K-car with a pituitary gland problem. OK, maybe not quite as bad as that, but it really depends on the angle of the photo.
The front end seemed to try and borrow from BMW (but didn’t quite manage it)… Yes, they put that face on other Mitsus, and it’s not the worst angle of the car, but it’s a bit too derivative. For its part, the rear reminds me of the Corolla for whatever reason, which is to say it’s as bland as a cheap Toyota. Of note while we’re here, the failed “MMC” rebranding exercise was still applied to this generation of Galants, at least in Japan.
The E30 also did away with the previous generations’ body variants, namely the RWD wagons and coupes. As well as the FWD Galant’s “pillared hardtop” sedan, in favour of a choice of a regular four-door saloon or a five-door hatchback. In Japan, those were badged as the Eterna, but they were just as Galant as the rest in other markets.
Inside, things are just as gray and plasticky as any other medium-sized car of the period. This one seems to have survived the past three decades very well, but Mitsubishis are not reputed to be as well put together as some of their JDM rivals, so this may be a (welcome) exception to the rule.
If you happen to share my distaste for this Galant’s looks, the best option is probably to drive it. That’s the best way not to have to look at it, and everyone seems to agree that they’re lots of fun on a twisty mountain road. The question would be how reliable all this technological wizardry, analog though it (mostly) is, might be now that it’s over 30 years old.
Related post:
Curbside Classic: Dodge 2000 GTX – The Galant Canadian, by David Saunders
Thanks for such a nice post about this Galant. Mom got a brand new one back in 1992. It was the non turbo 8v 2.0 liter engine mated to a 4 speed auto Trans but it was a great looking car.
This styling was used on the 89 Mirage I had including the MMC badge, that was a well screwed together car it just wasnt much of a car to drive,
There was another Mitsubishi body style around this time the V2000 & V3000 another offshoot of the Galant/Sigma family, the V3000 in manual and auto was picked up as highway patrol cars in NZ they were fast in a straight line apparently but somewhat challenged on wet twisty roads this 4wd model could have been a better choice turbo Mitsus had been patrol cars here in the past
The wider Australian Magna variant looked better proportioned; the extra width made the roofline look less hydrocephalic. We still had the old 2.6 litre Astron as the base engine in them though, as it was locally produced.
Interestingly Mitsubishi Australia also sold the imported Galant as a medium size car (with the proper engine) and tried to position the not-all-that-much-larger Magna upmarket, but the pricing of the imported car made it too expensive to be competitive. They did import the VR4 here as well; I remember seeing a wrecked one when our previous-gen Magna was getting the gearshift fixed. I hadn’t heard of a Galant MX4 before; from a shallow dive into the net I think you might have found even more of a unicorn than you realized!
Room for one photo – today I’ll let CC-in-scale have it. This is the Hasegawa kit of the ‘more famous’ Galant VR4.
That´s a rather harsh evaluation of the styling. I think it looks very solid and consistent. The radii are well-judged all over. It´s a look Audi worked with for the last 80 but which is less interesting to gaze at. The inside has that robust look of Japanese cars. I like the seating and the fact it is spacious. This is in my view a serious and sensible saloon – well sized and useful. I wish there were more around as I haven´t got tired looking at them.
A few things to add here. First off, this Galant is not turbocharged. The only gasoline turbo used in generation six is in the VR-4 (or the Eterna ZR-4 hatchback). The proliferation of turbocharged models seen in the previous generation made way for the first use of DOHC 16 valve technology for Mitsubishi under the hood of this MX-4. Early cars (1987-88) with this variation of the 4G63 made 140ps and 127 ft-lb of torque, basically a draw to the class leader 2.0 16-valve four of the time, Toyota’s 3S-GE. The 1989 arrival of Toyota’s second generation 3S-GE changed that, however, with 165ps and 141 ft-lb. This mid-cycle refresh MX-4 was playing catch-up, and has either 145ps/129 ft-lb (1989-90) or 160ps/137 ft-lb (1991-1992).
In regards to Evolution Zero, beta testing is a good analogy. Depending on the year and transmission, the 4G63T powered VR-4 was working with 205-240ps and 217-224 ft-lb. Pretty heady stuff at the time, and that did translate well in the WRC. Initially… There is some debate wether the early VR-4 works cars were really legitimate or not. Developed with input from rally driver Pentti Airikkala (remember that name), The VR-4 won the ’89 1000 Lakes and ’89 Lombard RAC rallies with two extremely strong finishes. These cars were posting very fast stage times during the whole season, but it was the ’89 RAC where people were questioning how this barge-sized Galant was able to post dramatically shorter stage times, stage after stage. The winning gap was too great to ignore for Mitsubishi, apparently. With no explanation, Mitsubishi had all works-cars sent back to Japan, and then DENIED the team to compete in the first rounds of 1990, in events Mitsubishi historically had been strong competition. When the cars eventually did return to the WRC that season, they were noticeably neutered. No more consistent stage lead times, and only one additional WRC win, the 1991 Swedish. This was with a supposedly improved “Evolution” model (here is where Mitsubishi picked up that now famous name; from the FIA rulebook). As for Pentti? He was part of Dealer Team Vauxhall in the 1970’s when they were ejected from competition for a time after it was discovered the Chevette HS’ they were running had a Lotus 16-valve head the road cars distinctly did without. DTV gestured that the Lotus head was available to anyone who wanted one for their car via the parts department. It is believed today that about 100 heads, give or take, were actually manufactured (basically enough stock for the competition department), and the FIA was not impressed with the theoretical compliance defense. Did Mitsubishi want to avoid a similar embarrassment? Draw your own conclusions.
As for the styling of these, I don’t hate it, but I don’t love it. They look the product of two distinct eras of fashion in auto design, which they were; the geometrical 1980’s and organic rounded early 1990’s. Whereas their contemporaries were going for a low and wide feeling (CA Accord, Vista hardtop), these… weren’t. The Galant is most formal to these eyes, and more comfortable it being 1985 than 1990. The Eterna hatch is an ugly afterthought that has no business using that thick c-pillar. Pass. The Eterna Sava, on the other hand, seems the most crisp of the three, and does a good job not looking too tall, unlike the Galant:
Thanks for the corrections and all this excellent additional detail, cjiguy!
I don’t know why I put that turbo reference in the text, which I have now amended — must’ve dreamt it, as I have downloaded the JDM brochure (http://www.wald-licht.com/~oldcar/87_m_galant_01.html) that spells it all out in pretty obvious (and legible, even for extremely poor Japanese readers like myself) detail.
That Eterna Sava is a better resolved shape, indeed. Still prefer the older Galants though…
I had the VR4 version of this car. Compared to the Subaru Liberty (Legacy) RS turbo I owned before, it was rubbish in terms of fit, finish, build quality, ergonomics, and handing. So much so that I will never go anywhere near another Bits Are Missing.
The arrangement of the HVAC controls was a text book example of stupidity
The handling in particular was hugely disappointing considering the specification.
The only area it was better than the
Subaru was the strength of the drivetrain.
It was a relief to sell it and get move to my next car, a Honda which was designed by people with common sense.
Ah! So you’re one of the three who bought one, then.
For reasons forever concealed inside an enigma wrapped in an inscrutable, Mitsu Oz tried to sell these as upmarket jobs, to which the market largely responded, “Why pay more, when it isn’t?”, and didn’t.
My enduring memory of them is that they had dials that led the industry, but not in any direction it was going. Stonking great wall clock-sized speedos and tachs, that couldn’t help but appear to be yelling in that not-so-big cabin. “YOU ARE DOING 50. AS THE BEAM LOWERS, YOU ARE NOW DOING 45.”, etc. One can only imagine that they were designed for the sight-impaired, a possibility, when I think about it, that may be borne out by that exterior. A very niche market, the blind driver, which is probably why the Chivalry is dead. Sorry, Galant.
Had a 1989 dodge 2000gtx, it was the Canadian version of the Galant, collaboration with dodge obviously. Anyway, was my first car and it was amazing. Wasn’t a race car, but was a tank. Only problem i had with it was finding a mechanic to work on it, dodge wouldn’t touch it cuz t was all Mitsubishi under the hood, and Mitsubishi wouldn’t touch it cuz it had dodges name on it. But other than that was a great car. With I could find a rhd Vr4 for a decent price! Sorry don’t have a pic of my old baby.
Never been sure why, or been able to test the theory, but I always quite liked the look of the hatchback.
But not enough to do anything about it.
Surprising amount of hate for these!
My first car was an 89 model 2L GLSI and i loved it!
I preferred the handling to the 97 impreza wagon i learned to drive in, and i loved the styling and comfy interior – the dash was soft padded and i liked the interior styling.
lots of good memories driving around and going on roadtrips wih my mates.
Would buy again!
These were extremely popular and highly regarded in NZ; it wasn’t until I read your post Tatra87, that I realised I haven’t seen one in months, possibly years… One of those largely inoffensive cars that you notice when they’re there but don’t notice when they’re gone.