playdoh43

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../60417010/1007

lesper4

iTrader: (3)

wow 4 cyl @160 and V6 at 360 what a huge difference or did i read that wrong.

saturn

I love how the review says that the new exterior styling is going to bring back a lot of people to the brand because it more closely resembles the second generation version. The second generation sold like ***, but somehow because Paul Walker drops a floorboard and blows the welds on the intake manifold, the second gen model is elevated to mythical status.

People can say what they want and like what they want, but it would be nice if they tried to keep in mind some facts and try to understand things from the manufacturers point of view.

saturn

V6 has 263 hp.

playdoh43

2g eclipse is to this day the most popular and beloved eclipse. the turbo 4g63 engine was great.

Skythe

Most popular and beloved of those in the "tuner community" Sales figures tell a different tale.

Glyphon

first gen was much better.

playdoh43

agreed.

saturn

Exactly. I'm not saying that tuners didn't like the 2G turbo version or anything. I just don't understand why people seem shocked when cars like the 2G Eclipse and RX-7 FD are pulled from the market after poor sales (and emission standards changes). They may be niche cars and they may serve more than just the number of units they sell, but at some point car companies are going to pull the plug. I'm not saying you have to like it, but being surprised at this is weird to me.

spork

Hmmmm, I think that generation eclipse looked FAR better than the last one. In fact, I liked the way that Eclipse looked, way before F&F came out.

Skythe

I wouldn't consider this a "bash" article unless you truly love the eclipse. Coincidentally I saw one today and stared at it becuase its sooo hideous. The ugly fish mouth front and huge rounded *** and gaping space between tires and wheel-well (sp) are just too much. I had a 3G eclipse I love the potential those cars have, but this iteration of the eclipse, just ain't cuttin it. I would love to see an article that did more bashing of the new eclipse. That would make me happy.

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

3G eclipse = Chrysler Sebring coupe

yea, great performance heritage right there....

playdoh43

and 3g eclipse = dodge stratus

saturn

I think you meant:

3G Eclipse > RX-8 > STi > Evo

cleoent

how did they manage those horrible 0-60 times for those cars? A mustang gt doing 0-60 in 6.6 ? WTF?

Just because of that, their opinions are vetoed.

Skythe

3G eclipse is greater-than the RX8?? What you have produced is clearly a typo, right?

dmorales

He needs to flip his less than signs into greater than or reverse the order of cars.
________
Web Shows

BlueEyes

Because they don't do performance launches.

playdoh43

they always have lower 0-60 times, their times are actually more acurate in some ways because they dont do clutch burning launches and simulate what normal skilled drivers would get in everyday driving...

strokercharged95gt

Wow I didnt know those new eclipses were 3500 + lbs. I think the 91-92 Eclipse turbo's were the best year even though I would prefer the talon.

Ike

Autoweek is an awful mag and is full of misinformation and bad test data. I can't blame them for not loving the new Eclipse though...


P.S. The 1gs were better

saturn

Nah, I was just trying to start an argument. I'll have to try harder in the future.

Skythe

Yup, that's one of the big reasons why many of us previous 3G owners hate them. The 3G was much heavier than the 2G and this 4G is just......a sad joke

Skythe

I've noticed that about you. I would characterize you as having inflammatory tendencies, nont in a man-man or man-boy love kinda way, but more like a "there's that guy gettin in someone's **** again" kinda way. Kinda makes one think, either you're having a lot of bad days or you are seriously having too much fun ******* with people.

Ike

Actually the sad joke was the 3g, which doesn't even deserve to be considered a 3rd Gen.