Just a final comment on the performance of the Lancer:
We have two Lancers. One 1.5 with 109bhp and manual transmission, and the euro spec 1.8 143bhp with the CVT transmission, which is about the same as the 2.0, although the 2.0 has somewhat more torque than the 1.8.
The funny part is the 1.8 CVT is actually somewhat slower than the 1.5 manual, even it has 34 bhp more. Also, I've tried the 1.8 with the manual transmission, and it's pretty fast in comparison. But I drive a lot in the city, so I wanted an automatic, that's why I opted for the CVT version.
But I was fully aware that buying an automatic means lower performance figures, and I don't complain about it. If performance is important, why not buy the manual version?
A car with 1600 miles doesn't misfire, randomly surge on the highway and stall in reverse. Do you have a check engine light on? Did you even bother taking it back to the dealer?
Either you bought a vehicle that was written off in an accident and poorly rebuilt (which is not the case, since you bought it with 9 miles on it), or you have no sweet clue what you're talking about. I'm inclined to think the latter.
I drove hundreds of Lancers while I worked at a Mitsu dealer and never encountered anything like this.
Granted, the 2.0L with CVT isn't particularly quick and the interior is a fair argument, but that's why you test drive a car before you buy it.
Seems like an angry Honda fan. Never understand why in the US, the Honda users hate so much the Lancer GTs.
You point out so many faults that are not correlated, that I'm surprised you didn't say that the doors fall apart..
Oh come on! I drive my Lancer hard, and I've never heard of one of the faults you list. You can say that it has poor quality materials in the dashboard, but look at the price. You get what you pay for.
It's not as sporty as it looks, but is still a fun car to drive.