2006 Mitsu Eclipse numbers from R&T
05-04-2005, 03:31 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"yes but we are talking about the V6 equipped Eclipse here, as the thread starter had posted stats on such. Bring the 4 banger into the equation is irrelevant."
Uhh...
I was responding to --->"There will be a lot of these cars on the road before year's end, but most will be the base model IMHO."
Uhh...
I was responding to --->"There will be a lot of these cars on the road before year's end, but most will be the base model IMHO."
05-04-2005, 03:35 PM
#27
Originally Posted by DreRX8
"yes but we are talking about the V6 equipped Eclipse here, as the thread starter had posted stats on such. Bring the 4 banger into the equation is irrelevant."
Uhh...
I was responding to --->"There will be a lot of these cars on the road before year's end, but most will be the base model IMHO."
Uhh...
I was responding to --->"There will be a lot of these cars on the road before year's end, but most will be the base model IMHO."
Ok sorry - I couldnt tell because you didn't quote who you were answering to.
05-04-2005, 04:13 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few clarifications...
The six speed GT's generally weigh 3,450-3,500 lbs, the heavier optioned GT's weigh close to 3,600 lbs.
Oh yeah, those times were done on crappy Eagle RS-A tires; better rubber could net you at least another few tenths.
The six speed GT's generally weigh 3,450-3,500 lbs, the heavier optioned GT's weigh close to 3,600 lbs.
Oh yeah, those times were done on crappy Eagle RS-A tires; better rubber could net you at least another few tenths.
05-04-2005, 04:16 PM
#30
"Call me Darkman"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto/Florida
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO this is a big step back for the eclipse. Who cares about a v6 in the 14 second range!!!!!
I never thought I'd say this but I rather buy the Neon srt then that POS!!!!!
I never thought I'd say this but I rather buy the Neon srt then that POS!!!!!
05-04-2005, 09:16 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by joseight
never. the 300C is a car my grandma should be driving. those things are huge and ugly (like most other dodge/chrysler cars)
05-05-2005, 04:43 AM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steiner
It's my understanding that Mitsu didn't make AWD an option on the new Eclipse for 2 reasons...1.) This platform is from an existing FWD setup and the R&D associated w/adding AWD would have put this car in the price range of the Evo.
05-05-2005, 07:26 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Razz1
Several women buy the Eclispes.
What ever happened to the most beautiful car ever built?
The 3000 GT.
What ever happened to the most beautiful car ever built?
The 3000 GT.
LOL @ the talkin down on me liking the SRT8 Charger and 300C :p
05-06-2005, 01:28 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TTish back is 10 years late... looks okay from the back only... once you go to the side view, the image of overweight comes to your mind... a big assed overweight car. The front looked okay too... nothing special.
And if they are serious about making a good sports cars, they shouldnt even consider FWD...
Pity all that money is used to make a Celica-classed car... they should have rework that boring Evo model... make it a true sports coupe with beautiful flowing shape... with the same performance, that will rescue the company... not this thing.
And if they are serious about making a good sports cars, they shouldnt even consider FWD...
Pity all that money is used to make a Celica-classed car... they should have rework that boring Evo model... make it a true sports coupe with beautiful flowing shape... with the same performance, that will rescue the company... not this thing.
06-04-2005, 02:22 PM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More numbers, from Motor Trend this time.
0-60, 5.9
1/4 mile, 14.2@100.9
60-0, 116 ft
slalom, 65.8 mph
Summation: "This is an impressive new coupe, a vibrant alternative on streets thick with Mustangs and Z's, and the best Eclipse yet-by far."
I'm sure 2g owners wont like that last part.
0-60, 5.9
1/4 mile, 14.2@100.9
60-0, 116 ft
slalom, 65.8 mph
Summation: "This is an impressive new coupe, a vibrant alternative on streets thick with Mustangs and Z's, and the best Eclipse yet-by far."
I'm sure 2g owners wont like that last part.
06-04-2005, 02:59 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this picture makes it look sort of like the gto. from this angle it looks pretty good. i had the last gen eclipse it was ok just didn't have any power and the handling was pretty lousy. would have to actually see and drive this car to make a comparison.
06-04-2005, 10:09 PM
#46
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
I just saw one on the streets a couple of hours ago! It was in the same color as all of these pics.
I personally think that a color other than that funky orange will make a difference in the way that car looks (I actually think that with most cars though)!
So for what I have seen of this car so far I don't like the front! I kinda think the side view is okay and I actually like the back. The performance numbers are pretty good!
I personally think that a color other than that funky orange will make a difference in the way that car looks (I actually think that with most cars though)!
So for what I have seen of this car so far I don't like the front! I kinda think the side view is okay and I actually like the back. The performance numbers are pretty good!
06-05-2005, 01:53 PM
#47
Edmunds decided not to do a clutch drop and got...
0-60 in 6.8
and 1/4 in 14.9
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=105582
0-60 in 6.8
and 1/4 in 14.9
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=105582
06-05-2005, 06:42 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road & track: 14.4 @101 mph
Motortrend: 14.2 @100.9 mph
Edmunds: 14.9????? <---------- .5 to .7 second difference here = Anomaly
The Edmunds numbers are so divergent than the rest because they cannot launch, or they drove the car like a grandma.
This Eclipse is no street terror, but it moves fast enough for most people.
Motortrend: 14.2 @100.9 mph
Edmunds: 14.9????? <---------- .5 to .7 second difference here = Anomaly
The Edmunds numbers are so divergent than the rest because they cannot launch, or they drove the car like a grandma.
This Eclipse is no street terror, but it moves fast enough for most people.
06-05-2005, 07:02 PM
#49
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LNWLF
The Edmunds numbers are so divergent than the rest because they cannot launch, or they drove the car like a grandma.
06-05-2005, 07:34 PM
#50
Free Autographed Pictures
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: PRC
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RX8-79
They were easy on it: "With medium throws and easy clutch work, our six-speed Eclipse GT pulled a 6.8-second 0-60 and a 14.9 quarter-mile."