The contact owns a 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer. The contact stated while driving approximately 45 MPH, there was an abnormally loud thumping sound coming from underneath the vehicle. The contact pulled over the shoulder of the roadway. Upon inspection, the contact became aware that the front driver’s side wheel had caved inward from the top. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was towed to a local independent mechanic where it was determined that the cross members were rusted. The local dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 125,000.
The worst 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
- Transmission6
- Airbags5
- Body3
- Suspension2
- Driver assistance1
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Transmission6
- Airbags5
- Body3
- Suspension2
- Driver assistance1
- Electrical1
- Engine1
- Fuel system1
- Seat belts1
- Steering1
- Wheels1
Recalls
No recalls on record for this model year.
Defect investigations
Electrical overstress
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V‑668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (âEOSâ) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.  In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V‑668, 18E-043, 18V‑137, 18V‑363, and 20V‑024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
EA19001
Technical service bulletins for the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer 75
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Tech Talk is a service newsletter that was sent out to dealers
- This Technical Service Bulletin instructs the dealer to update the Hands Free Module software to improve...
- Service Manual Revision
- This is a Dealer Letter sent to dealers informing that Mitsubishi Technical Training has launched the 3rd...
- This Technical Service Bulletin provides service manual corrections and additional information for the...
- This Technical Service Bulletin reviews the regulations that require a label showing the reduction in load...
- This Technical Service Bulletin provides instructions and material safety data sheets for removal of...
- This is a Dealer Letter sent to dealers informing that Mitsubishi Technical Training has launched the 2nd...
- This is a Technical Information Notice informing dealers and parts managers about possible causes after a
- This Technical Service Bulletin contains technical information and troubleshooting for the accessory...
2014 Mitsubishi Lancer fuel economy
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0L 4‑cyl | FWD | 24-25 | 32-33 | 27-28 |
| 2.4L 4‑cyl | FWD | 22-23 | 28-30 | 25-26 |
| 2.4L 4‑cyl | AWD | 22 | 28 | 25 |
| 2.0L 4‑cyl | AWD | 18 | 25 | 20 |
What 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Vehicle has aprox. 100k miles on odometer as of time of complaint. Vehicle has been repaired for transmission "slow down" message before. Vehicle hesitates for aprox. 1-2 sec. Before moving from a stop. Vehicle then proceded to completely stop and not drive while "drive" range was selected. Vehicle was stuck in traffic until driver was able to put vehicle in park, shut off, and restart engine. Similar problem with outlander vehicles of similar age and same transmission, caused by faulty TCM software. Multiple vehicles affected by similar faults.
The subframe on a 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer with 57,000 miles on it has rusted and cracked. This seems identical to the federal safety agency campaign number: 20V‑279 but this year/make is not covered under recall. I have pictures and a video taken by Conrad's as they are doing the replacement. I attached the photos but the video is to large, so here is a link https://photos.app.goo.gl/akY1TzhF6SXRSJFs7
The contact owns a 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked, he smelled a strong gasoline odor inside and outside of the vehicle. There was no warning light illuminated. The contact was able to continually drive the vehicle. The contact referenced the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 15V546000 (Fuel System, Gasoline, Parking Brake). The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 151,000.
Tl* the contact owns a 2014 mitsubishi lancer. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, slow down message displayed on the instrument panel as the vehicle stalled. The vehicle was pulled over and restarted and operated as designed. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic to be diagnosed. The contact was informed that the transmission was defective and needed to be repaired or replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer were notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.
I was hit yesterday when someone pulled out in front of me. I was going maybe 40 MPH down a straight city street but my airbags did not go off when I was hit
Belt tensioner is bad and when accelerating makes noise especially when the vehicle is cold in the morning
The ayc pump(awd pump) keeps saying it's going out and this happens to multiple people. A lot of other owners have the exact same experience. The pump needs to be relocated and replaced at mitsubishi's cost. It's not fair to the buyers that we were paying for a car that we had to buy 1 $1700+ part and labor. It should be a safety concern because if the pump goes while driving it is a safety hazard. In winter of 2018 was my first year in snow with it. About february whenever the weather would get above 40 degrees, the tarmac light would start to flash signaling the pump is failing.
Warning indicator in manual and display has a seatbelt and airbag picture.
Tl* takata recall. The contact owns a 2014 mitsubishi lancer. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency campaign number: 17v569000 (air bags). The part needed for the repair was not available. The contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact called a unknown local mitsubishi dealer where it was confirmed that the part was not available. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The contact had not experienced a failure. Parts distribution disconnect.
Compare the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer
Other model years
199620002002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017
Questions about the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer
Is the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer reliable?
Owners have filed 16 complaints about the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer, fewer than a typical Lancer model year.
What is the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer year score?
The 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer scores 82 out of 100 (good). The score compares it with the other model years of the Mitsubishi Lancer: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.
What is the most common problem with the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer?
Transmission and drivetrain, with 6 complaints. Next is airbags (5).
How many recalls does the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer have?
No recalls on record.
What year does the Mitsubishi Lancer have bad transmission?
The Mitsubishi Lancer model years with the most transmission complaints are 2003 (51 complaints), 2002 (22 complaints) and 2016 (21 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer get?
Official estimates for the 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer range from 20 to 28 mpg combined. The most efficient version (2.0L 4-cyl, FWD) gets 24-25 city and 32-33 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history