1g eclipse gst,2g eclipse gst,3g eclipse gts?

[epic]

is it true what i have heard? 1g eclipse gst 2.0L has bigger turbo than 2g eclipse gst 2.0L and its faster than the 3g eclipse gts 3.0L?is the 1g faster than both?because my cousin is planing on getting a 1g eclipse gst 2.0L?does anyone know how fast all go in the 1/4 except the eclipse gts?how much does the stock turbo push on 1g and 2g?will a 2000 eclipse gs 2.4L be faster if you put a turbo in it?my cousins brother did a 14.9 stock in a 2003 eclipse gts.

 

[Boost Lee]

TS1AWD is the man to ask about dsm stuff. My knowledge is a little rusty.

will a 2000 eclipse gs 2.4L be faster if you put a turbo in it?

It depends on the size of turbo used, and the supporting mods used with it. If you're asking if it will be faster than a stock 1g/2g turbo, more then likely yes.

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by Monster7
TS1AWD is the man to ask about dsm stuff. My knowledge is a little rusty.

Im flattered

Lets just start from the beginning. A 1G DSM's have the biggest turbo's out of the bunch, they have a TD05-14G turbo at 12 psi. They also have the 6 bolt engine wich is the strongest of the 4G63 class. The rods are bigger, the engines dont crank walk, and they are just an all around better engine. The Transmissions are alot stronger as well. The drivelines such as in the 92's are alot stronger because they have a 4 bolt patern as to the 3 bolts.
In my oppinion the 2G's suck. They are alot heavier, they have a weaker suspension, they are a mechanics nightmare. The turbo's arent even a mitsubishi turbo, they use a Garret turbo wich is significantly smaller than the 1G turbos. The 2G's 4G63 engine is prone to crankwalking wich is a major issue, this is why you see most 2G owners swaping for a 6 bolt engine.
3G's arent a DSM . Diamond Star Motors went under in 95 and the 3G's just use a crappy V6 and go as fast as my dads minivan.

So in other words, if you want speed, get a 91 or 92 DSM, and if you want rice, get a 95 and up.

 

[TS1AWD]

the 1G AWD's put down a 14.7 stock, and the 2G AWD I think is around a 15.00. The 3G's are rated somewhere in the high 15's or 16's. 1G's are the fastest out of the 3. A turbocharged 3G still wont be as fast as a 1G AWD because you have the factor of awd vs fwd, and the 3G's are just alot heavier, and you take a engine built for boost up to one thats not. 1G turbos put out about 12 psi stock, and the 2G's I think its around 10-11. A stock turbo in a 1G you can push about 17-18 psi without hurting anything. 18 psi is pretty much maxed out for the 1G turbo. 2G's will max out at about 15 pounds because it is a little ****ty heat box. for $500 bucks you can purchase a bolt on Mitsubishi turbo (16G) wich is the common upgrade, and I run about 23 psi.

And the 1G Eclipse AWD's are a GSX and the 2G Eclipse AWD's are the GS-T

 

[Boost Lee]

Originally posted by TS1AWD
the 1G Eclipse AWD's are a GSX and the 2G Eclipse AWD's are the GS-T

You were doing good too.

I'll race your talon in a 3g w/drag radials, built top-end, and a T04.

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by Monster7

I'll race your talon in a 3g w/drag radials, built top-end, and a T04.

Why dont you save yourself the expense and just by a 96 Dodge Caravan

Nah just kidding Im not bashin on any car. It takes almost 10 times as much money to get a 3G to run a 12 than it does my car. With any amount of money you can make any car go fast. Im actually the slowest in the family. My brother runs 11.52 @ 121 in his 92 GSX on street tires, no NOS.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TS1AWD
the 3G's just use a crappy V6 and go as fast as my dads minivan.

Your dad must have a pretty nice minivan, because, as the only human being on the planet to presently like and recommend both the Eclipse GTS and GTS Spyder, I know that at 2910lbs it does 0-60 in about 7.8 seconds with a 210bhp 3.0L V6.

It's a nice car, too - ABS, side airbags, leather, traction control, a power driver seat, a power sunroof, an Infinity 6-disc CD player with steering wheel radio controls, a compass, an outside-temperature indicator, 17" polished alloy wheels, and fog lights are part of the standard equipment at just $24500. That said, I'd rather have an RSX-S at just $23300 with most of the same stuff. Still, don't discount the new Eclipse just because it "isn't DSM" or it doesn't have the "panache" of the first-generation model.

 

[bengee]

so ts1 what do you think about the 94 eclipse's when they moved from the flip ups to the regular lights but kept the general body design... Were there any significant changes to the engine/chassis with this facelift that i should now about... Thanks

 

[Fenrir51]

My friend has a 90 GSX, heavy car. 3095 lbs with 195hp and 203ft/lbs torque id like to know how it ran a 14.7 STOCK. Because last time i read up on it, it had 15.8 1/4th.

Edit: It was 15.3

 

[Boost Lee]

Originally posted by bengee
so ts1 what do you think about the 94 eclipse's when they moved from the flip ups to the regular lights but kept the general body design... Were there any significant changes to the engine/chassis with this facelift that i should now about... Thanks

I am a putz.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Monster7
The fixed light change happend in '93.

In fact, it happened in 1992.

1990-1991:

1992-1994:

 

[bengee]

Thanks for the clear up m5... always wondered when it really happened... This isnt considered another generaltion of eclpise is it... Its still with the first right...

I was really wondering if there were any real differences besides the lights to this car, when comparing it to the flip up ones...

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by bengee
so ts1 what do you think about the 94 eclipse's when they moved from the flip ups to the regular lights but kept the general body design... Were there any significant changes to the engine/chassis with this facelift that i should now about... Thanks

The 94 Eclipse's arent that special. 92 was the first year for the fixed headlight models. If you want a 1G for speed, you dont really want to by anything past the late model 92 because they put the 7-bolt crapy engine in them. The first half of production for the 92's is the best year to buy, it is the only year they have the 4-bolt rear end with the 6-bolt engine. The sencond half of the manufacturing year for the 92 they cut costs and put in the 7-bolt engine. So other than have the bad engine its pretty much the same. If you want my advice, get a 91 or an early 92 (or for your friend, whoever)

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by M5Power

It's a nice car, too - ABS, side airbags, leather, traction control, a power driver seat, a power sunroof, an Infinity 6-disc CD player with steering wheel radio controls, a compass, an outside-temperature indicator, 17" polished alloy wheels, and fog lights are part of the standard equipment at just $24500.

ABS- taken out
Side Airbags- Dont want my car to explode on the inside too
Traction Control- I want to accellerate not have power taken away.
Power driver seat- uneccessary weight
Steering wheel radio controls- Uneccessary weight
Compass- Im driving not sailing
6 disk cd player- Uneccessary weight
Outside temperature indicator- Roll down window and stick finger out.
17" wheels- too heavy
Fog Lights- ripped those out along time ago.

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by M5Power

It's a nice car, too - ABS, side airbags, leather, traction control, a power driver seat, a power sunroof, an Infinity 6-disc CD player with steering wheel radio controls, a compass, an outside-temperature indicator, 17" polished alloy wheels, and fog lights are part of the standard equipment at just $24500.

ABS- taken out
Side Airbags- Dont want my car to explode on the inside too
Traction Control- I want to accellerate not have power taken away.
Power driver seat- uneccessary weight
Steering wheel radio controls- Uneccessary weight
Compass- Im driving not sailing
6 disk cd player- Uneccessary weight
Outside temperature indicator- Roll down window and stick finger out.
17" wheels- too heavy
Fog Lights- ripped those out along time ago.

I want a race car not a 3G eclipse

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TS1AWD

I want a race car not a 3G eclipse

Cool! I find it really humorous that everybody seems to think that spec levels, prices, and engine sizes on cars should be adjusted to fit their needs. Most people (all people?) buying an Eclipse don't want a race car and couldn't care less about the "unnecessary weight" carried by some of the spec. Simply because you do doesn't mean the car is bad (or slow - 0-60 in 7.7 is damn good).

 

[epic]

Originally posted by TS1AWD
(or for your friend, whoever)

for him...

 

[bengee]

Thank you epic... I was curious because its easy for me to find 93-94 eclipses in relatively good condition, and i was wondering how the car was and if it would make a good project car... I was actually only interested in the chassis itself, and perhaps the drivertrain, but i was thinking of slowly re-engineering this car... with some help of course. But the better of a chassis you start out with the better it will be in the end...

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by M5Power
Cool! I find it really humorous that everybody seems to think that spec levels, prices, and engine sizes on cars should be adjusted to fit their needs. Most people (all people?) buying an Eclipse don't want a race car and couldn't care less about the "unnecessary weight" carried by some of the spec. Simply because you do doesn't mean the car is bad (or slow - 0-60 in 7.7 is damn good).

Dont get me wrong tho, I really dislike the 2G and 3G's. You can pretty much ask anyone with a 1G and they will pretty much tell you the same. Im running 1.8 60' times which I think calculates somewhere around a 0-60 of 4.5-5 seconds. So to me a 7.7 is pretty slow.

 

[TS1AWD]

Originally posted by epic
for him...

Go to www.dsmtrader.com
He can find just about anything DSM he wants

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TS1AWD
Dont get me wrong tho, I really dislike the 2G and 3G's. You can pretty much ask anyone with a 1G and they will pretty much tell you the same. Im running 1.8 60' times which I think calculates somewhere around a 0-60 of 4.5-5 seconds. So to me a 7.7 is pretty slow.

Cool! (again) But it's completely irrelevant. A stock first-generation model gets about 7.7 seconds 0-60, same as the present one. Compared to its rivals, the present Eclipse is a good vehicle. Why does it matter how quick your (heavily modified) ten-year-old model is?

 

[epic]

Originally posted by TS1AWD
Go to www.dsmtrader.com
He can find just about anything DSM he wants

👍