myk Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I guess I should probably axe my plans to buy a '97 or so GS-T...
emajnthis Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Mitsubishi has a TON of problems, my good friend is a master mechanic at Nissan/Mitsubishi dealership and the mitsubishi side is going to quietly close its doors in January. The 4G63 motor is nearly 2 decades old and eventhough it went through a couple redesigns, the most recent being flipping the motor 180 degrees and giving it new cam timing, it still goes to show that Mitsubishi doesn't innovate (to its compared market) whatsoever. They have a decent AWD system, though its still subpar compared to Nissan's and even Subaru's. The 4G63 is the ONLY motor they have that is decent, but even that motor still uses a cast iron block and is belt drive (where as most motors are now chain driven) just like their V6 is also belt drive. Overall they make dumb decisions, especially in the American market; why didn't they bring the FTO instead of the Eclipse? and as soon as the GTO (3000GT) got cool looking, they dumped it. As for the GS-T eclipse, it uses the old style 4G63 before they rebuilt it, its front wheel drive so you'll have torque steer, and no normal sized male can fit or see out of the car comfortably.
areaseven Posted January 1, 2006 Author Posted January 1, 2006 One year ago, I started this thread after attending the L.A. Auto Show. Well, it's that time of year again. This Saturday, I'll be attending the 2006 L.A. Auto Show. And now that I have a better camera than last year's, I'll be taking much more photos than ever. Anyone else here planning to attend?
myk Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 As for the GS-T eclipse, it uses the old style 4G63 before they rebuilt it, its front wheel drive so you'll have torque steer, and no normal sized male can fit or see out of the car comfortably. 355576[/snapback] Hmm...I always assumed that the Eclipse was RWD; silly me, although that does paint a very big mark against it in my book. As for driver comfort, being 5'-4" means that I can get behind the wheel of a micro-machine and still be comfortable. It's strange though-I've seen anyone that's taller than me, trying to get into the driver's seat of either my Camaro, Mustang or Charger and noticed how akward and uncomfortable it is for them. Do they build them like this on purpose? The rumor stating that short people design cars may be true after all...
Poonman Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 if you're gonna buy a ten year old eclipse atleast get the GSX. the GS-T is quick- I "borrowed" one for a day from a couple who was selling one and they loaned it to me for a whole day. I ended up getting a '98 Prelude- it was not quite as fast as the mitsu but it felt a lot more well built than the eclipse. the doors on the eclipse rattle everytime you shut them because the windows don't have frames around them and everytime I shifted gears my hand would hit the radio and turn it off. really annoying. so yeah, if you're gonna get an old eclipse spend a couple more grand and get the AWD GSX. might as well.
Seven Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 The first turbo car I ever drove was a Eclipse GS-T and I definitely agree that while it is a fun car, the combination of the turbo 4G63 and FWD is not so fun. I've been wanting to buy a AWD GSX since 92, even though I've got a twin turbo 93 RX7 for weekend drives. I remember the first time I saw a 400+hp GSX gun it on the street and it's still a thing of beauty in my eyes. Although, I prefer the 1st gen pop up headlight ones and don't like the later iterations at all (reminds me of the lime green Brian Earl Spilner F&F version).
myk Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 I had always thought that the GS-X would be the better car, but local ricers told me that the GS-T was quicker because of the simpler drivetrain, and less expensive to maintain because of....the simpler drivetrain. Well, they also told me to stick to Detroit Muscle, so what do they know...
emajnthis Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 The AWD in the GS-X was known to have issues, also it is VERY rare to find a GS-X without a Sunroof and sunroofs not only add weight, but they also kick off some inches on the already minimal head room. The GS-T is only quicker in a straight line and that all boils down to weight. You can find one w/o a sunroof and w/o the extra power amenities which shaves off enough pounds to give you a good headstart against the GS-X model. But if you're going to go through all of that trouble, just buy a used SRT-4. Then you still get a Turbo I4 FWD but the motor will require less work to make it faster and it will be much newer so there won't be any heavy maintenance to perform.
areaseven Posted January 3, 2006 Author Posted January 3, 2006 But if you're going to go through all of that trouble, just buy a used SRT-4. Then you still get a Turbo I4 FWD but the motor will require less work to make it faster and it will be much newer so there won't be any heavy maintenance to perform. 357009[/snapback] I don't care if it's new or not, or if it's fast or not - it's still a NEON. And I'd never touch any Neon with a 10-foot pole.
Lightning Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 well, to add to the Mitsu debate, my uncle and aunt just went thru a divorce and I ended up with her '94 Galant ES (only REAL problem, it's an auto)! '94 was the first year they started going bigger than the Mirage/Lancer platform and the first for the 4G64 engine, I believe. plans for it: maybe raiding any AWD 4G63 Eclipse's in the 'yards around here and build a Super VR-4. -or- give it to my mom once I find out if the local 'yards get any good mopars.
emajnthis Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 I don't like the fact that it's a Neon either, but when compared to an Eclipse, it definitely adds up. The Eclipse is an overrated car, much like Integra's and Prelude's. It's decent looking, but they're heavy, hard to see out of, and are way underpowered. The second gen eclipse or the old Talons, eventhough they're not as good looking (though that's a matter of opinion) they're much cheaper and come with the same motor and drivetrain, so you get more for your dollar.
Poonman Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 In my opinion AWD >>> FWD. ofcourse off the line and from stop light to stop light the FWD version of a car will be quicker but unless you plan on professionally drag racing why not just spend a couple more grand and get AWD? I drive a quattro A4 and read all kinds of trash talk about it on web forums from owners of FWD A4's. Its slower, heavier, blah blah but in my opinion they're just justifying their own purchase of an inferior vehicle and are often just plain jealous. after all a man's job is to defend his own vehicle till the day he dies. so unless you just wanna race guys from light to light or just flat out can't afford it get the AWD. its a better car in the rain and snow and in the GSX's case comes with nicer wheels and a lower front, side and rear valence kit. its a rarer car and gets more "oohs" and "aahs" from people who are into cars.
emajnthis Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 but also the whole point of getting the FWD model and not the AWD model is not just to save weight, but to save dollars. I don't know about you, but a few thousand dollars is a LOT of money to someone like me, especially to be spending it on a car that is 10 years old. I don't understand why FWD A4 owners would trash talk the quattro, the A4 is a drivers car not a racers car, so the quattro is of course the better choice. I personally thing AWD wins in most cases but it also depends on who's making it. There is no way i would take Mitsu's AWD over Nissan's or Subaru's because there is far superior technology that is invested into the latters drivetrain (electronic differentials, rear favored torque splits, active yaw control, etc.) that Mitsu, Honda, and Toyota are behind on (especially if you go back 10 years).
Seven Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 Thought I'd share this site with you guys. This guy takes amazing pictures of the most amazing cars in Japan. I believe he is a photographer for some car mag in Japan as well. http://blog.gtroc.com/dino/
Seven Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 This article in particular makes me jealous... A 1000+ hp street driven Lamborghini Diablo?! http://blog.gtroc.com/dino/2005/10/lamborghini_dia.php
myk Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 1000 hp. It boggles the mind...I liked that website you linked to, though...
emajnthis Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 only in Japan would people purposely shoot for 1000hp and actually get it.
pfunk Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 Ive seen the twin turbo 6 ltrs (diablo vttt), but never a 5.7, I think the 6 was at about 750hp and they were capable of 1200 but the viscous couplings wont handle the torque so Im sure if this guy ussed sticky rubber and ran it at the track in the right conditions, something would break
emajnthis Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 But then that is typical of pretty much any 1000hp car. I mean just look at Ferrari's that push less than 400hp. They're required for scheduled maintenance (not including oil changes) every twenty thousand miles, and it is NOT cheap. At least if you're going to blow money on broken (or parts that typically break at certain mileage) parts, then it may as well be on a car with 1000hp.
myk Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 (edited) Breakage shouldn't be an issue though. Other than rare cases, cars like that 1,000 hp 'Lambo or the garden variety 400hp Ferrari never see the road anyway. Golly. Give me any '355 Spyder or even an old '308 GTB-I'd drive it everyday, everywhere, in every condition... -Did you know that an 'Enzo oil change would run you about $700? Edited January 5, 2006 by myk
Agent ONE Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 Breakage shouldn't be an issue though. Other than rare cases, cars like that 1,000 hp 'Lambo or the garden variety 400hp Ferrari never see the road anyway. Golly. Give me any '355 Spyder or even an old '308 GTB-I'd drive it everyday, everywhere, in every condition...-Did you know that an 'Enzo oil change would run you about $700? 357604[/snapback] Before I got my M3, I went to look at a 308 at the local Ferrari dealer, it was way cheaper than my M3. I told the sales guy I was going to drive it every day. He told me if I did that I would pay at least 15k per year in maintainence. He said in his thick Italial accent "Old Ferrari cars are double cursed, you have old technology, and you pay as much to maintain it as you would with a new one." Then he said, "I work with Ferrari, my Father worked with Ferrari, he started the dealership, but when I need to get somewhere I drive my Toytoa."
pfunk Posted January 5, 2006 Posted January 5, 2006 carbed versions are notorious for high maint prices. injected are much less
Seven Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 Speaking about 1000 hp cars, I just watched an episode of Top Gear where Jeremy Clarkson got to drive the new Bugatti Veyron across Europe. That thing is a monster of engineering! A W-16 engine with 4 turbos, and premium leather inside and all amenities... thats crazy. I especially like the part where he says that you could sit a McLaren F1 and a Veyron side by side and let the F1 take off up to 120 mph, then let the Veyron go and it would beat the F1 to 200 mph... then be able to stop from 200 mph in 10 seconds. The looks might not be to everyone's taste, but its a Bugatti, not a Ferrari.
ComicKaze Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 Speaking about 1000 hp cars, I just watched an episode of Top Gear where Jeremy Clarkson got to drive the new Bugatti Veyron across Europe. That thing is a monster of engineering! A W-16 engine with 4 turbos, and premium leather inside and all amenities... thats crazy.I especially like the part where he says that you could sit a McLaren F1 and a Veyron side by side and let the F1 take off up to 120 mph, then let the Veyron go and it would beat the F1 to 200 mph... then be able to stop from 200 mph in 10 seconds. The looks might not be to everyone's taste, but its a Bugatti, not a Ferrari. 357800[/snapback] I'm just mightily disappointed they didn't run it on the test track. This was the most boring race across Europe episode they've done yet. You always know Jeremy will win, but nothing cool happened. He just drove and it was utterly boring. Why didn't they just give it to the Stig to run it around the track.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 I especially like the part where he says that you could sit a McLaren F1 and a Veyron side by side and let the F1 take off up to 120 mph, then let the Veyron go and it would beat the F1 to 200 mph... then be able to stop from 200 mph in 10 seconds. 357800[/snapback] Really? It can do 0-200 faster then an McLaren F1's 120-200?!?? But that damn thing is a porker! I am sure the F1 can beat it on the track. I don't like the philosophy behind that car. Take it to the extreme and you can just strap a RR Spey on a ladder chassis with fat tyres and it'll beat the Veyron's 220-300 with it's 0-400 time too!
Seven Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 I especially like the part where he says that you could sit a McLaren F1 and a Veyron side by side and let the F1 take off up to 120 mph, then let the Veyron go and it would beat the F1 to 200 mph... then be able to stop from 200 mph in 10 seconds. 357800[/snapback] Really? It can do 0-200 faster then an McLaren F1's 120-200?!?? But that damn thing is a porker! I am sure the F1 can beat it on the track. I don't like the philosophy behind that car. Take it to the extreme and you can just strap a RR Spey on a ladder chassis with fat tyres and it'll beat the Veyron's 220-300 with it's 0-400 time too! 357968[/snapback] There is a world of difference between a race car and a street driven supercar capable of 200+ mph. Sure you can make anything blazing fast, but can you do it safely, reliably, and still shoehorn in all that luxury to placate buyers paying a million dollars for it? Its not like this car has a pit crew that will rebuild its engine every couple of drives.
Lightning Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 this is why I don't like cars that cost waaaay above the $100,000 wall.
Agent ONE Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 I especially like the part where he says that you could sit a McLaren F1 and a Veyron side by side and let the F1 take off up to 120 mph, then let the Veyron go and it would beat the F1 to 200 mph... then be able to stop from 200 mph in 10 seconds. 357800[/snapback] Really? It can do 0-200 faster then an McLaren F1's 120-200?!?? But that damn thing is a porker! I am sure the F1 can beat it on the track. I don't like the philosophy behind that car. Take it to the extreme and you can just strap a RR Spey on a ladder chassis with fat tyres and it'll beat the Veyron's 220-300 with it's 0-400 time too! 357968[/snapback] There is a world of difference between a race car and a street driven supercar capable of 200+ mph. Sure you can make anything blazing fast, but can you do it safely, reliably, and still shoehorn in all that luxury to placate buyers paying a million dollars for it? Its not like this car has a pit crew that will rebuild its engine every couple of drives. 357972[/snapback] Actually these cars do... 100 grand to get a service on the F1.
Seven Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 You guys were talking about the Lotus Elise a couple of pages back, but what do you guys think about the Lotus 340R? Man I'd love to ride in one of those. I remember reading in CAR magazine where one of the editors crashed the front of his and had to send it back to Lotus to get the whole fiberglass body replaced, since well, its a one piece body. Ouch.
Agent ONE Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 I like the elise and the exige but that thing is a tad too extreem even for me.
Agent ONE Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 Lotus uses FRP, not fiberglass... In fact I don't think anyone uses Fiberglass anymore.
emajnthis Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 i would imagine death trap more than fugly. It's for the same people who are fans of the Ariel Atom. A street legal go kart with a car motor.
Seven Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I forgot, was this thread about performance cars or Volvos?
myk Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Yes and yes-it's an automotive thread so anything goes. On that note, I'd like to talk about this '87 Escort GL my mom used to have...
Recommended Posts