Mitsubishi Eclipse Ralliart Concept
11-02-2005, 11:04 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: So. King Co.
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how heavy is this new eclipse to begin with? the evo's curb weight is listed at 3300 lbs. if this thing does come equipped with the fq400 powertrain as playdoh suggested, the performance stats could be nuckin futs.
11-02-2005, 11:52 PM
#27
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the entire FQ line...from FQ260-FQ400...has the same exact drivetrain. The FQ400 and FQ360 just have bigger turbos and heavier clutches.
I don't see how this car could weigh any less than 3600 or 3700lbs with the addition of a center differential, rear differential and 7 feet of driveshaft. Even the FWD 4 banger version of the new Eclipse is pretty close to 3500lbs IIRC.
I don't see how this car could weigh any less than 3600 or 3700lbs with the addition of a center differential, rear differential and 7 feet of driveshaft. Even the FWD 4 banger version of the new Eclipse is pretty close to 3500lbs IIRC.
11-03-2005, 12:10 AM
#28
T-29 years and counting
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Fontana, CA.
Posts: 3,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the concept car the gold one with the sideways opening trunk and hood looked nice and had a lot of potential, but when I saw the actual thing on the road the front and rear porportions after the axels just wasn't right. This rally cars does look a little better but I think it is the colors. I will have to test drive one and get close to one to be sure.
11-03-2005, 09:56 AM
#31
Registered
are know you guys arent into domestics but have you seen this yet?
General Information
Price: $38,500
Miles Per Gallon: 17/25 mpg
Curb Weight: 3698 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/AWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual
Engine
Type: DOHC V6
Displacement: 3600 cc
Horsepower: 450 bhp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 465 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline: 6500 rpm
Performance
0-60 mph: 4.2 sec
0-100 mph: 10.2 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.8 sec @ 112.5 mph
Skidpad: .96g
Top Speed: 179 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 115 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.4 mph
General Information
Price: $38,500
Miles Per Gallon: 17/25 mpg
Curb Weight: 3698 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/AWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual
Engine
Type: DOHC V6
Displacement: 3600 cc
Horsepower: 450 bhp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 465 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline: 6500 rpm
Performance
0-60 mph: 4.2 sec
0-100 mph: 10.2 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.8 sec @ 112.5 mph
Skidpad: .96g
Top Speed: 179 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 115 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.4 mph
11-03-2005, 10:09 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
it looks like a photochopped GTO to me...
and a DOHC V6, unless turbocharged, as no chance at making 450bhp. we are talking GT-R type numbers here, looks pretty fake to me.
and a DOHC V6, unless turbocharged, as no chance at making 450bhp. we are talking GT-R type numbers here, looks pretty fake to me.
11-03-2005, 12:02 PM
#34
Need'd a Turbo
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mugatu
i do like the wing on that car, even though it doubles up on the 'spoiler' that comes stock. not bad at all.
but the exhaust tips are horrendous and I hate mismatched hood colors.
but the exhaust tips are horrendous and I hate mismatched hood colors.
11-03-2005, 11:17 PM
#39
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
I like a lot of what I see of this Ralliart Eclipse. As far as Mitsu not releasing it because of the Evo...I understand and know that that is their current top of the line car but the reason they brought the Evo to the U.S. shores was in hopes that it would have a similar impact as the WRX had for Subaru! If they can't draw people into the dealership with the Evo then I wouldn't put it past them to put this car on the showroom floor. I haven't kept up with their situation as of late but last I remember they are a company fighting for their survival and they more than likely will have to break protocol and do whatever it takes to get people into their showrooms!
BTW, if they were to release this car and it came out at $30k with 400hp then it would take the crown from the GTO as the most inexpensive 400hp car available. Just an interesting little thought!
BTW, if they were to release this car and it came out at $30k with 400hp then it would take the crown from the GTO as the most inexpensive 400hp car available. Just an interesting little thought!
11-08-2005, 06:56 PM
#40
Spooled You!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by devoid
would be a nice new replacement for the 3000GT....though personally, I think they should just bring back something along the lines of the 3000GT period. But that's just me.
11-08-2005, 11:38 PM
#43
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by archangelcomp
Theyre all sweet :p
Yes, the SL's may be a bit slow...but stock vs. stock they will still beat an RX-8 :p
Yes, the SL's may be a bit slow...but stock vs. stock they will still beat an RX-8 :p
11-08-2005, 11:49 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
yeah the ikester is right, SL was really slow not to mention super heavey, i think it was 200hp and 3600-3800 lbs. 8 will easily take it, back in the early to mid 90s, the rx8 would be considered a pretty fast car.
11-09-2005, 09:15 AM
#45
Spooled You!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you guys think the SL is slow...youre calling your own cars slow. Stock 1/4 mi times for a 5spd NA and a 6spd RX-8 are quite similar. And yes, they might be a bit heavier....but they definitely still handle well.
VR-4's have more going for them than just being good in bad weather. Tue...awd is good in bad weather. But also did you consider the all wheel steering, electronic controlled suspension...automatic climate control...active aero...the list goes on.
BTW, numbers on the SL are 222fwhp stock, VR-4 320awhp stock.
VR-4's have more going for them than just being good in bad weather. Tue...awd is good in bad weather. But also did you consider the all wheel steering, electronic controlled suspension...automatic climate control...active aero...the list goes on.
BTW, numbers on the SL are 222fwhp stock, VR-4 320awhp stock.
11-09-2005, 07:55 PM
#47
Spooled You!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOOSTD 7
No more talk about the 3000GT, it makes me queesy just thinking about what a piece of crap those things were 
11-09-2005, 07:57 PM
#48
Spooled You!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha actually...I'll give you a chance to talk your side. What made them such a piece of crap? This could be a decent little debate haha.
I dont think RX-8's are a pos...I love them. I also love RX-7's.
I dont think RX-8's are a pos...I love them. I also love RX-7's.
11-09-2005, 08:20 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
where did you get the 222fwhp stock numbers from for the SL? last i check it was power at the cranck. its slowwwwwww and handles bad... 0-60 is high 6 seconds - low 7 seconds.