So does this mean we're not friends anymore?

 

I heart autoweek ,

whats wrong with the 3g? i like the way they look, but not the way they preform for the price. then you consider that its basically a prettier alternative to civic coupe and not many GT, GTS are sold... its not too bad for what it is.

 

YOU, SIR, have insulted my honor. I DEMAND satisfaction...*frantically searches for duling glove*

 

Saturn + Skythe = BFF

 

I don't mind the looks as much as most, still better than your avg car. And some decent, reliable power can be had for relatively modest $ investment (FI). The 2G Eclipse was nice, but it is a seriously overrated car.

 

Truthly the eclipse name should have ended with the DSM heritage, the 3rd and 4th gen shouldn't really be considered part of it. Though all said the 4gen does bring back some of the sporty nature of the orginal namesake. That and the engine in there is super super smooth, good little performer.

 

I actually didn't mind the 3g sebring/eclipse coupe. It's got 200hp and 200lbs/torque I believe. The car could get up and go but as far as all out performance, the 1st and 2nd Gen are the ones to have.

 

I like everything on the 4th gen except the mirrors just seem they design the entire car and forgot the door mirrors so they just put them on stalks and then the doors.

 

after owning a 1st and a 2nd gen eclipse, and 2 monteros and a evo VI, I have to say mitsubishi is one of the worse car maker out there, they make fun vehicles but after a year or 2 THEY FALL APART, my wife's montero engine die in the garage without any reason, my montero's engine also gave me problems, my 1st gen eclipse engine blew up like 4 times with stock boost , the evo was a nightmare, cluht and diferential problems then the engine, etc.

 

My parents had a '88 Chrysler ConquestTSI , the variant to the Mitsu Starion TSI.


Man the car was sweet, it talked to you, "Your door is open","Please turn off headlamps"..etc. For 190HP/240 Trq....that turbo 4 banger moved! But unfortunately the reliability was flawed. Chrysler replaced 3 stock turbos,2 turbo's in the first year, finally the last turbo they put in it was from the 89 Eclipse turbo. Mitsu released a new and improved turbo at that time. After that the car was fine....I was the most popular kid on the block at the time.....while other kids parents had Beemers and station wagons or un inspiring econo boxes we had the hot sportscar that could talk! Those were the days........ahhhhh.

 

Yeah, Autoweek must be driving at half throttle or something. Those times are VERY bad.

I honestly liked the first 2 generations of the Eclipse/Talon than the last 2. Even this one, with a big V6...gets ruined by its FWD orientation.

I almost got a AWD Turbo Talon as my first car but...get this, at first there was title problems then there wasn't any...then the owner of the used car lot decided to keep it for himself, what a jerk...lol.

Anyway, until they make it lighter and stick the EVO AWD package in the Eclipse my response is...YAWN...

It's a OK car, but not a really good sport-anything…it actually makes the EVO look bad, like an older drunk brother that ruins family events.

 

LOL...that also was ALMOST my first car. I always thought that it looked really aggressive and sporty, but my mechanic at the time told me...

STAY AWAY, it's garbage...so I did.

I wouldn't mind getting a used one stripping it inside and in the engine bay, and sticking something better in there. In many ways...it was a unique car, while yes...reliability pretty much sucked (so I hear).

 

My uncle is a mechanic and my aunt had a first gen, he said it had sooooo many problems. Either hers had bad luck with the car, or the first gen sucked ***.
just from what I was told...

 

my brother had a starion, it was at the time a really cool car, but it felt heavy, Ill take and fc over it any day

 

My dad had a Talon TSi AWD/5spd. It was a very early-build '90 model, and it was as reliable as an atomic clock... Even with the regular beatings I gave it.

Now THAT was a fun car. Small, light, plenty of power (even stock it is probably the equal to the RX8 if you don't do 7000rpm clutch drops in the Mazda), and an absolute HOOT to drive in the snow. I had a WRC-quality 4-wheel drift in a snowstorm in that car that I still remember like it was yesterday...

*sigh*

Personally, that was the first and last Eclipse that caught my eye.

Now a Q about that "Chrysler Conquest".... Wasn't that a DODGE? That's just what I recall. Damn, I loved that car, too, when I was still in the age range that began with a "1".

 

Well, that goes without saying....

 

Favorite car so far, 2nd gen Eclipse. So easy to make a fast car faster when you have a turbo to work with and that motor was bullitproof.

Just for grins, and the dealership had both Mazda's and Mitsu's, I went and drove the 4th gen. I do like the styling better than the 3rd gen, but still way too much plastic inside. Plus to me, and eclipse is just not the same without boost. Not to mention, I laughed when I saw a sticker price of 30,800 for the GT model I drove. Gotta be freakin kidding me.

Went and drove an 8 afterwords.........well, its in my driveway!

 

heheh...you called the 420a bulletproof.

edit: oops. i forgot the turboed engines didn't use the 420a. good thing too. those sucked ***

 

I had a 1988 Conquest TSI back in 1995 (it was the second car I'd bought on my own). It was a really nice car for the time.....and the guy I bought it off of took really good care of it. I owned for 6 months before I started having serious electrical problems and had to have the head gasket replaced. They told me the cats were plugged so I sold it.

 

Lets face it, a Lotus Super 7 wouldn't sell in North America today. ALL cars are getting fatter, more luxurious, more about the bling and less about the feel...a 3600 pound FWD sportscar, c'mon!

Its not Mitsu's fault, its consumer preference. True enthusiasts make up a tiny percentage of the market; guys who go for a drive for the sake of driving are a dying breed. Instead we got cruisers and parkers and import shows that are more about fancy paint, lambo doors, having 12 DVD screens, 2000 watt sound systems...this car will appeal to this crowd.

 

Why does everyone throw around the term "bulletproof" when talking about engines? Does it have some sort of special automotive meaning? If not, who the hell cares if an engine can be shot and continue to run? If I ever come to worry about the survivability of my engine in a gun fight, my life took a serious wrong turn at some point. I'd rather have the engine run for a long time than be able to be shot with a bullet. And if "bulletproof" means "well-built engine that last a long time" I'd be very disappointed in whoever coined the term.

 

saturn.... you just made me giggle like a schoolgirl nice.. but I can't tell if your kidding or not!?

 

There are far too many of these instances of automotive-rhetoric like refinement or telepathic-steering.....blah blah ****** blah. These abstract colloquial descriptions do nothing but confuse average dum-dums like myself into wondering "wtf are these people talking about." Has people's use of language become so poor that we've become lazy in taking the short route when describing something? How can you accurately describe something with a vague description? HUH? HOW CAN YOU? But I guess we're not people anymore; we're just towels.

 

Meh, neither do I anymore.

 

I just looked up their RX-8 times, and they don't make much sense either:

0-60 mph: 6.26 sec
0-quarter-mile: 14.75 sec @ 94.4 mph