i like hondas..thaey can be made fast and handle good
but everyone just thinks of them as ricers

 

What cracks me up are the rustang owners who put that giant donkey sticker on their rear window and call civic owners rice. Hahahaha

Mike L.

 

gotta love the rustangs

 

Well, funny thing is, I just realised that I've owned only Mitsubishis, whole my life. My dad bought a 79 Galant, we drove it for a hell of a long time. Then in 1994 we bought another Galant LS, it still is perfect. Believe me, I've tied with many Civic Si's with this baby. In 1997 we bought a 94 3000GT VR-4 that I sometimes still drive. In 1999 We bought a Diamante, still have it, its perfect, leather everything, good power, low gas guzzler. And finally in 2002 I bought a 96 Eclipse GST.
Out of the 5 Mitsu's we've owned. None has ever given my any problems. As far as I recall, the 79 only needed a new alternator. Heck we even pulled trucks with that 1.6L I-4, but that's what finally killed it, but it was still a great car. The 94 Galant, like I said is in excellent condition, got tottaled and Insurance just handed me the 4,500 dollars check, which then I bought a eclipse GST. The Diamante only needed a alternator belt. The 3000GT has been perfect, no problem at all. Not even a belt change. The Eclipse, well just bought it, don't know much about it atm.
Anyway, my point being, I don't understand why so many people are saying Mitsu's are crappy cars. They are excellent. Apart from the 5 mitsu's we've owned. We also had a 1990 Nissan Bluebird (Maxima), a 1991 Peugeot 405 GR, 92 Golf GTI, 82 Honda Civic, 1980 Renault something and a 1989 Mazda 323. Out of all these cars, the mazda was hell, nissan was terrible, and the honda was basically, so much crap. I mean for a year it just sat in the corner. The Renault was also pretty crap, the VW had ball joint problems all the time. The 405 was great. I mean this car, apart from the frequent need of new distributor caps, it was perfect.
And for the Mitsus, no problem at all. That's why I plan to buy the Evo 7. Mitsu hasn't never let me down the last 5 times, I doubt it will now.
IMO, Hondas are some serious ****.

 

looks like someone has been pretty damn lucky with mitsus...

by the way, i would say an 82 civic is a piece of crap too.

I would like to credit Mitsu for making a few good cars, but to put credit it so high and to say honda's are worthless compared to them...someone's a dumbass~

:soapbox: :soapbox:

 

Here is a simple test for those debating Honda vs. Mitsubishi quality. Go over to your Mitsubishi dealer and take a look under a base line lancer. Crawl under the car and inspect the chassis, look at the seams, hardware and engineering. Then head over to a Honda dealer and do exactly the same with a base line Civic. It should be quickly apparent who builds the superior product.

Mitsubishi always ships their cars with inferior transmissions. Why is this relevant? It hurts the cars driving experience. The shifting feel of a car has much to do with the overall driving experience. Clutch and brake pedal feel, steering weight, feedback etc all play into the driving experience. Honda engineers understand this and thus put considerable effort into these areas. Most brands of cars will feel tight and new for the first 20,000 miles. After that things begin to deteriorate. How quickly this happens depends on the engineering and development put into the car.

Honda is able to develop high hp numbers with technology not turbochargers. A normally aspirated motor is always more responsive and in my opinion sounds better than a turbo motor muted by an exhaust wheel. Obviously the configuration and number of cylinders has much to do with the sound of the engine as well. Has anyone ever heard a good sounding 4 or 6 cyl engine either turbo or NT? Probably not. I suppose some of you will tell me how awesome a BOV or external WG sounds. Stop and listen to a Ferrari 360 run through the gears some time.

That being said, well setup turbochargers have definite advantages over NA motors, mainly in the area of torque. This is why rally cars use turbo engines. Low rpm high torque numbers can be generated from small displacement engines. This is what makes the EVO VII so interesting and fun to drive. In the case of the EVOVII boost starts to come on around 2800 rpm which really helps to eliminate the feel of turbo lag. I think another thing that makes the GSR attractive is the fact that Mitsubishi is not afraid to set up the chassis to over steer. An AWD car that pushes is no fun at all.

After all of my rambling what is my point? If Honda was tasked to build a turbocharged AWD EVO VII with 280 hp, the car would be a legend. Instead we have the EVO VII which is an awesome car, just not the gem it truly could be. What can we really expect from a $25,000 car though? Now that I think of it, I guess the car I would like has already built, its was just manufactured by Nissan (R34)

ha!

 

Bro you took words right out of my mind and onto the keyboard...my sentiments exactly.
here for you :headbng2:

 

Hey Infinity,

Pull the oil pan on your GST and check you crankshaft endplay before its too late. Many 2G turbo Eclipse motors suffer from premature thrust bearing failure which destroys the entire short block. You may have heard people refer to crank walk? This is what they are talking about. Hopefully Mitsubishi has this problem sorted out on the 4G63 the Evo is running.

Turbo

 

developing high output/RPM NA engines is not new at all, whether it be by variable valve timing, the stress is not as great that is why it can afford to have such high compression ratio, but do that to a turbocharged engine and it will be toast. That is why to build a reliable turbo engine is a feat in itself, and the evo can accomplish it even with the addition of boost (to a point). My point is we're comparing apples and oranges.

 

ya you mean apples (meaning hondas) and LEMONS (meaning....)

 

 

Show me a mass produced 2.0 liter NA automobile engine that puts out 240hp before the year 2000?

 

the SR20VE and the SR16VE engines?

 

You got some nerve talking about 2L turbo engines being crap. Let me see...Civic EX, lemme get my galant for this. the other 3 cars would be overkill.

 

Is that what I said or is someone putting words in my mouth?

I love turbo cars who doesn't?