4th Generation Mistu Eclipse

[JNasty4G63]

As for being a DSM and EVO enthusiast, Mitsubishi sucked another big one with this new ride. It is an embarrasement they still call it an Eclipse ever since 2000.

+1

But, you should expect that from me.

By the way, does anyone else see the hilarious irony in that pic in the first post???? The new 4G Eclipse sitting next to an ultralight glider??? If that isn't an oxymoronic pic, I don't know what is.

Hilg

 

[Driftster]

6a13TT....2.5L TT V6

280HP
267TQ

peaky engine...easily upgradable..good on gas..

Not to mention...ALLOWS FOR AWD!!!!

 

[McLaren]

Just adding my

Personally, I like the looks of this car. Before, when I saw it in a magazine, I thought, "D*mn that's ugly."

But now, it's grown on me, and I really like the looks of this car.
I haven't checked for myself, but I've seen 2 wheel sets on this car w/ the Mitsubishi logo on them.
IMO, the wheels in your pic are great with the car.
I'll really have to see if Test Drives are available. I think's one sexy car.

Again, my

 

[McLaren'sAngel]

+1

But, you should expect that from me.

By the way, does anyone else see the hilarious irony in that pic in the first post???? The new 4G Eclipse sitting next to an ultralight glider??? If that isn't an oxymoronic pic, I don't know what is.

Hilg

Hiya! Meow! (='.'=)

I actually like the glider being in the picture! It sure serves a wonderful purpose to be next to the new Eclipse since I can take the glider and fly away from the Eclipse....

I personally HATE the new Eclipse! I think it is quite ugly in real life and feel like it is a rushed project to get Mitsu out of its financial problem. 👍 Arg... I have never felt this way about any car but this new Eclipse just makes me want to get a C4 bomb and blow it up!!!

Sorry for the violent remark about the new Eclipse...I can't keep my sharp paws from scratching the *BEEP* out of it.

 

[Izanagi]

Well how many times have you seen a lower end cheaper model. People would still buy the Evo, but an AWD Eclipse would get younger buyers with less cash. If they priced it mid 20's you would have something.

Ok, good point. To further clarify, I'm saying that with the power output and AWD, the 4th gen would be a cheaper alternative to the Evo, yet with a few mods, could potentially close in on the Evo's performance and undermine the HUGE hype that the Evo brought with it. Are you going to tell me that after Mitsu FINALLY brought the Evo to the US, the company would make a car that could jeopardize the sales of Mitsu's flagship sportscar?

 

[JNasty4G63]

....It sure serves a wonderful purpose to be next to the new Eclipse since I can take the glider and fly away from the Eclipse...

HA HA, well I didn't think about it that way. That works too.

Hilg

 

[I6-4-eva]

I like the commercial of the new eclipse going around town and then all of a sudden you see a montego blue FD Rx7 and a bunch of evos "bow".

 

[TS1AWD]

I know Mitsubishi is struggling in money but what else would you expect when they keep making the same slow car. We all know how well the DSM's sold off the showroom as well as the EVO's when they first hit the shores. Now we are seeing how a dealership can't hold on to an SRT-4 because its fast, has a huge aftermarket following and is cheap! I think if Mitusibishi could stick the AWD 4G63 platform in a new body and sell it for under $25,000, you would have a winner!

 

[Joey D]

Ok, good point. To further clarify, I'm saying that with the power output and AWD, the 4th gen would be a cheaper alternative to the Evo, yet with a few mods, could potentially close in on the Evo's performance and undermine the HUGE hype that the Evo brought with it. Are you going to tell me that after Mitsu FINALLY brought the Evo to the US, the company would make a car that could jeopardize the sales of Mitsu's flagship sportscar?

So Chevy's flagship sportscar was the Corvete, they brought out the cheaper Camaro that with a few mods would be faster. I think Mitsu has done quite well with the Evo, although I've seen way more STi's on the road. If Mitsu would have made and AWD Eclipse it would have competed with the other sport compacts out there better then it will do right now.

 

[1X83Z]

Not to mention...ALLOWS FOR AWD!!!!

The current engine in the Eclipse, the 3.8-liter V6, is used in the Galant and Endeavor, the latter of which offers all-wheel drive. I don't know why an AWD 3.8-liter Eclipse is impossible. In fact, the four-cylinder Eclipse uses the same engine from the Outlander, which offers all-wheel drive, so it's at least possible too.

 

[JNasty4G63]

I don't know why an AWD 3.8-liter Eclipse is impossible.

It would be nice, but with the added weight of the AWD, you'd end up with a car that checks in at about 3800lbs. THAT would be absurd. It would be nice to have AWD, for sure. But, the car is already a fat-ass. Adding AWD would only make it worse.

Driving my car, and then driving my friends FWD 2G, you can easily feel the lighter mass of the FWD car. And the 2G cars are about 300lbs lighter than the 4G. I can only imagine how slow and lazy the 4G would corner and feel with that much heft.

Hilg

 

[1X83Z]

I don't know why you people keep giving this car **** for being so heavy. Everyone thinks '3000GT = heavy' so suddenly every ****ing Mitsubishi is heavy. It's completely absurd. Folks, here's a little perspective: the new Eclipse weighs 3274lbs - that's 26lbs lighter than the base Ford Mustang. Eclipse also holds a 20 horsepower advantage over that vehicle, which everyone agrees is finally decently quick. Meanwhile, the Eclipse is only 250lbs heavier than an RX-8, while holding a 33-horsepower advantage over the automatic version of that vehicle, which everyone agrees is a true performance car. Get over the fact that the Eclipse is no longer a wimpy little unreliable ****box like it was from 1990 to 1994.

 

[Emohawk]

But neither the Mustang or the RX-8 have a reputation of not being a fat ***** to live up too.
It's not heavy compared to everything else, it's heavy compared to itself.

 

[1X83Z]

Hence my last sentence. Everyone still thinks an Eclipse is a DSM. This one's better in every way likely including price. A large portion of the DSM plant in Illinois is probably still devoted to making replacement parts for the little hells.

 

[Driftster]

yes because I want a car that has been dubbed a womans car. that looks like a horrible cross between a Cougar and a Audi TT.. The design and look of a rear/awd Car.....MADE by a company famous for their Vr4's yet it's Front wheel drive, and yes.. It's heavy....
Wow the "mustang" and "rx8" compare to this... Except their RWD..
It looks like a Sedan, it doesn't look like the "sports car" eclipse that made this car famous in the first place. Reliability asside, i could care less about how many 1st and 2nd gens are in the junk yards.. It looks sporty, this looks like a Family car making an attempt at being sporty looking. Just like the Cobalt

 

[1X83Z]

Man, this post is riddled with crap. First you talk about the fact that it's been labeled a women's car, then you move on to the fact that the Mustang and RX-8 are rear-drive even though they're both slower, then you talk about how the DSM looks sporty. When you post a fact - anywhere in your 2500 posts - please send me a link.

 

[JNasty4G63]

.....here's a little perspective: the new Eclipse weighs 3274lbs - that's 26lbs lighter than the base Ford Mustang.

Correct.......for the 4cyl model, which makes a whopping 165hp, using the same engine as the Lancer Ralliart. The V6 GT weighs in a tad over 3500. My car stock weighed in the same as the new 4cyl Eclipse, but was packing 50hp more. (LINK )

.....Eclipse also holds a 20 horsepower advantage over that vehicle, which everyone agrees is finally decently quick.

No, it has a 55hp advantage over that car, unless you meant the 4cyl model, in which it has a 45hp deficit from the V6 Mustang. And, no, I don't think a base Mustang is quick. I'll give you "brisk" but not quick.

.....Meanwhile, the Eclipse is only 250lbs heavier than an RX-8, while holding a 33-horsepower advantage over the automatic version of that vehicle, which everyone agrees is a true performance car.

Again, not sure where you got your facts. The RX8 with auto only makes 200hp, according to their website. And, also from their site, either with auto or manual, both RX8s weigh in at just a hair over 3000lbs. Which makes them 500lbs trimmer than the new Eclipse GT. Put the 6-speed in the RX8, and you have 240hp. Thats only 25hp less, but still weighs in 500lbs lighter. That is performance. (LINK )

.....Get over the fact that the Eclipse is no longer a wimpy little unreliable ****box like it was from 1990 to 1994.

Well, if your talking about the non-turbo GS, I'll give you wimpy. But, the 1G turbo versions made 195hp, all while weighing in at 3100lbs. While not featherlight, thats still 400lbs lighter than it is now. And much smaller. And, as I said earlier, the 2G turbo cars only weighed in a tad over 3200lbs in AWD, slightly less in FWD. All while packing 215hp.

Were they unreliable??? No, not when stock. But, the problem was, many owners didn't leave them stock. Thats when the problems come. I've owned 4 DSM cars, some turbo, some FWD, some AWD. Every one of them was a model of reliability when stock. A gas hog, sure. But very reliable.

I eluded to this in an earlier post. This new Eclipse is basically a dead ringer for competition with the Accord Coupe V6 now. The V6 Accord has 240hp, all while coming in at a touch over 3200lbs. If the Eclipse GT had that kind of weight, then maybe I'd get more excited about it. But, it doesn't. As it stands, if a sporty coupe is what your searching for, the RX8 or, sadly, the Accord Coupe should be on your list higher than the new Eclipse.

I like the look of the car. I think its great looking from just about every angle. But, it just keeps getting bigger and fatter. If this car was like 7/8ths its current size, then I'd love it. At that size, I could get over the fact they got rid of the fun bits, the turbo and awd.

But, it isn't that big, or that light. And, it still doesn't have the fun bits. Its a great cruiser, sure. But, I don't want a cruiser. I want a car thats small, fun, and exciting. To me this isn't an Eclipse, its the new Galant Coupe. Honda has the Accord Sedan and Coupe, and if you want small, quick and fun, you get the RSX. Now, Mitsu has the Galant Sedan and Coupe, but if you want small, quick, and fun, where do you go???

Hilg

 

[Drifting Thunda]

And don't say the V6 Accord should be higher on his list than a new Eclipse GT when you don't know anything about it. I can gaurantee you the Eclipse GT is in general much sportier than the Accord. Weight isn't everything.

I can't believe the V6 Mustang was brought into this...

 

[JNasty4G63]

And don't say the V6 Accord should be higher on his list than a new Eclipse GT when you don't know anything about it.

Well, thanks for making up my mind for me. I'll be sure to ask you what I should wear today.

Look, I'm not disputing the fact that the new Eclipse has a great engine, and good ammounts of power. It does. And, the car looks great. But, the fact is, when it comes in at over 3500lbs, I highly doubt it will be that great of a handler. And, as more and more reviews come in on the car, that seems to be the case. According to R&T, the Eclipse now has less cornering prowess than a Mazda3 5-door, a BMW 745Li, and VW Phaeton, just to name a few (R&T 6/05, 7/04, 5-05).

So, as I said before, what we have now isn't a new Eclipse. We have a new Galant Coupe. And, going by the data, my comparison to the Accord Coupe isn't bad. Both are larger 2-door coupes. Both are FWD. Both have big V6s connected to 6-speeds. And, the data is very similar.....

Eclipse GT V6 (C&D 7/05)
0-60 = 6.1sec
1/4 = 14.5@100mph
Street 5-60 = 6.4sec
City mpg = 18
C&D mpg = 15
Slalom = 0.81g
Curb Weight = 3560lbs

Accord Coupe EX V6 (C&D 9/03)
0-60 = 5.9sec
1/4 = 14.5@98mph
Street 5-60 = 6.3sec
City mpg = 20
C&D mpg = 23
Slalom = 0.82g
Curb Weight = 3299lbs

So, you see, its not so far fetched. The Accord was better in every one of those stats, with the exception of 2mph in the 1/4-mile time. So, I still stand that this isn't the new Eclipse. Its the new Galant Coupe.

Hilg

(PS - I'm thinking of khaki shorts and a blue shirt today, is that ok for you???)

 

[1X83Z]

Accord Coupe EX V6 (C&D 9/03)
0-60 = 5.9sec
1/4 = 14.5@98mph

Of all the made-up bull**** I've seen done by Car & Driver and Road & Track, this absolutely takes the cake. This is absolutely the most absurd thing I've ever read from a reputable (or, now, formerly reputable resource). This is just completely silly. At this point, I wonder if they even test the cars anymore - I think they just take the manufacturer estimates and subtract about a half-second from them. Man. Just absurd. Totally absurd. Words don't describe. Completely classic. I need to buy this issue just so I can show this to people.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Of all the made-up bull**** I've seen done by Car & Driver and Road & Track, this absolutely takes the cake. This is absolutely the most absurd thing I've ever read from a reputable (or, now, formerly reputable resource). This is just completely silly. At this point, I wonder if they even test the cars anymore - I think they just take the manufacturer estimates and subtract about a half-second from them. Man. Just absurd. Totally absurd. Words don't describe. Completely classic. I need to buy this issue just so I can show this to people.

So, you ask for links and sources. In both of my previous posts I gave you links and sources. But, now you just scoff at it, and call it bunk. What the hell??? If you don't want it, don't ask.

And, why is it so hard to believe that an Accord that weighs some 260lbs less with only a 25hp deficit couldn't do that??? We're talking 13.43lbs/hp for the Eclipse, and 13.75lbs/hp for the Honda. Wow, that 0.32lbs/hp margin is just WAAAY to big for those numbers to be real. You don't seem to think the Eclipse #s are crazy. But no, because its a Honda Accord and not the new SWEET Eclipse, they must be made up. Right??? Get over it, the car is a spiffy looking Galant Coupe, built to battle with Solaras and Accords.

Hilg

 

[Driftster]

Are you talking about the v6 6 Speed Coupe?....yeah man, i've seen them run 14's in 100% stock trim. "BS" No not really..That was the "huge" selling point of that model accord, is that it was quite faster than the Si...

 

[JNasty4G63]

Are you talking about the v6 6 Speed Coupe?

Yes. Some people think that the new Eclipse is a sweet piece. I'm just suggesting that its not the only thing to consider of all the cars like it. I like the looks, for sure. But if I want sporty, I'm going elsewhere.

Hilg

 

[1X83Z]

So, you ask for links and sources. In both of my previous posts I gave you links and sources. But, now you just scoff at it, and call it bunk. What the hell??? If you don't want it, don't ask.

Look - I didn't ask for the sources, and I don't believe for a second that they're credible. Car & Driver and Road & Track are as bad for actual street timing as tabloids are for reporting. You think I'm exaggerating here, but I'm not - C&D and R&T simply make things up. It's not worth the newsstand price or even the subscription price if you're looking for accuracy.

Basically R&T and C&D's figures are to times what the EPA's figures are for fuel economy - a point for comparison and in no way relative to real-world happenings. I'm sorry - it's complete crap.

And, why is it so hard to believe that an Accord that weighs some 260lbs less with only a 25hp deficit couldn't do that???

Don't worry - I don't believe the Eclipse's time either. Just the mere fact that whatever trashy magazine that was claimed under six seconds for a vehicle whose manufacturer doesn't even claim 6.5 is funnier than hell. Remember, when R&T or C&D ran 5.4 seconds in 2001 with a 2002 WRX, Subaru at the time was claiming 6.2. The 5.4 has been running in ads for the last four years because the time was (and is) so absurd. I wonder how many cars that sold for Subaru, a paid advertiser...

Are you talking about the v6 6 Speed Coupe?....yeah man, i've seen them run 14's in 100% stock trim.

Yeah man, I've seen my car run low eights with only three cylinders firing! The difference between you and JNasty? He posted facts. You ... whatever.

 

[Duke]

But neither the Mustang or the RX-8 have a reputation of not being a fat ***** to live up too.

It's also front wheel drive, and in a heavy car, that's like putting tiny shoes on a big guy's feet. Even if he's an athletic runner, it's going to be a handicap.

 

[inferno]

The old turbo 4 cylinder eclipses were the last of the compacts. The eclipse has been ballooning into a midsize car ever since and this one is in fact based on a midsize platform. However, it is the first eclipse to be more powerfull than the peak of the DSM's and it looks way better than the "rib-side" monstrosity of the last generation. All in all, The Eclipse has gone away from it's turbo, awd heritage, but has become a respectable midsize coupe in the vain of the Nissan Maxima and Honda Accord.

 

[McLaren'sAngel]

Accord Coupe EX V6 (C&D 9/03)
0-60 = 5.9sec
1/4 = 14.5@98mph

Hiya! Meow! (='.'=)

That really scares me....

Base on some sites, my 1993 Camaro Z28 runs 1/4 mile in 14.7 and this Accord runs 14.5???? Makes my car look slooooowwwww now.

 

[JohnBM01]

This is more like a Super Eclipse. I thought the 1999-2000 type Eclipses really killed the 1995-type Eclipses. I had the 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse in Gran Turismo 4. I wouldn't necessarily call it a compact, but it is pretty powerful even for its class, at 260 or so horsepower. I've always thought this was a pretty slick machine, though I'm not blown away too much like I I'd be blown away with the look of a 1963 Corvette, the Toyota 2000GT, the Jaguar XJ220, or even the McLaren F1. While not the flagship car of Mitsubishi, it is still a pretty powerful machine.

Designwise, it has a little of everything. My brother said this car looked like the front looks like the mid-late 1990s Mercury Cougar. But the car has some Porsche lines at the rear, supercar-like looks on the side, and a mean look up front. I guess performance wise, 260hp could kind of be better with four-wheel drive as opposed to front-wheel drive. I don't think this car will revive Mitsubishi, but should be a hit among Mitsubishi tuner crowds. My favorite color for it (and the one I used in GT4) was UV Blue, a radiant, just-right blue color that looks pretty nice.

Believe me or not, I think this car will catch on. Maybe not right away, but at least it will be better than the early 2000 Eclipses. If 260 or so horsepower isn't enough to convince some buyers, MAYBE you think the car doesn't look that bad and makes for a styish two-door car.

 

[Azuremen]

Maybe the Hybrid V6 Accord runs under 6 seconds for 0-60.

But the only way to ever get a good idea for comparison ONLY, is to test the cars back to back, under the exact same conditions.

I'm gonna agree with John that comparing times for speed from most any magazine is not gonna give good results. That, and magazines to tend have drivers that are a bit better at driving and launching than most people.

Personally, I do feel the new model is too heavy. And I know that disagrees wtih you John, but you know my taste in cars to a degree. I might be happy if the damn thing weighed under 3000 lbs.

My opinion is the engine is gonna make too much torque for it to be a civil FWD car. At reasonable power outputs, FWD isn't at that much of a disadvantage than RWD or AWD. You can see this by the fact that a VW Scirrico is faster than STi's in autocross where I live. FWD does hurt launches, thats a fact.

The looks of the car are pretty good. Its a bit big feeling for my taste, and I feel its bordering on the sport compact line.

Between the price, the look, the options, and the power; this car will sell. Though the brake recall will hurt it no doubt, it has potentional to appeal to groups. And its not like there is a large option of Import cars that aren't FWD from Japan, espcially in this price. And two of them people in my age (around 20 year olds) think are "fruity," the MR2 Spyder and the Miata. So yeah.

 

[JNasty4G63]

I'm gonna agree with John that comparing times for speed from most any magazine is not gonna give good results.

My point wasn't to show that the Accord is faster or slower, just to show that its comparable. Maybe the Accord is that fast, maybe not. Thats not what were talking about here. I'm simply saying that Mitsu has made this car bigger, heavier, and designed more suitable to comparison to the Accord Coupe and Solara. And, to me, thats not what the Eclipse is about. It should be comparable to the RSX, GTI, WRX, or SRT. But now it doesn't seem like those comparisons fit anymore.
Hilg