GPTourer

I think the Eclipse mainly changed due to its move upmarket, to further
fill the shoes of the 3000. People who want a real GT, as in Grand Tourer
want a car that is comfortable to drive as well as has good performance. The current Car and Driver comparo that put the Eclipse GTS tied
for second with the Celica GT-S and behind the Acura RSX Type-S prove this. They called it a an "athletic old lady." Though this isn't
very flattering, and has touch of male-oriented chauvanistic jounralism,
it is almost exactly what Mitsubishi wanted for the car's image, as 60% of our buyers are women. For the men, there will be performance parts,
and a 3G can be made very capable. Don't get me wrong, I love my 2G
turbo, and wouldn't trade it for a 3G. But I get behind the wheel of 3G's
everyday, and they are tighter, more comfortable, more ergonomic,
and better constructed overall. The V6 is silky smooth and makes for a good running car, it just doesn't have the ultimate potential of the turbo,
but then again, how many engines domestically available do? How many
can acheive such power so easily and so cheaply?

Styling, reliablity, larger and more luxurious, are qualities inehrent
in the nicer GT's and now the GTS. The RS/GS class is still typcial
bread and butter Eclipse, but with a better chassis and ride. Turbo is a dirty word to a lot of people. Most buyers shun such cars invisoning right away high insurance premiums, high gas mileage, poor reliability and higher maintenace costs. (but then these same people will happily jump into an SUV, go figure) The 3G's have had no chronic probalems that I
am aware of.


I trust you are not referring to the 3G Eclipse as a piece of crap, because
then you would be wrong.

The old 2G car shared a lot of parts with the Galant of its time, as did the 1G. They are both built/assembled off the same platform in Normal, Illinois, as will the new Outlander coming this fall. So I'm not so sure
it is cheaper to make. Getting 4G63's from MMC of japan and 420A's
from Chrysler for RS/GS was pretty easy. The key is they are selling
more of them. Cheaper to warranty? Probably.

I agree wholeheartedly.

GPTourer

I agree, to an extent. Everytime I read a Speedoptions.com review
of a new car that's NT, most of the comments, are to the extent of
"it's okay, but a turbo would be better" Like a car is crap without
a turbo, I don't believe that. The Nissan V6, the Covette's LS6 and
the straight six in the M3 are among the best engines in the world
and don't need forced induction. But I think the 2.0L ceiling might
have something to do with Japanese tarriffs on big engines above
two liters, I'm not sure, maybe our overseas brethren can comment
on this. In the meantime somebody with skill should make a Frankenstein motor like the Honda boys do it by taking a '64 block
and slapping a '63 head and 20G turbo on it and see what happens.


Anyway, when all the big GT cars get reincarnated they may come
back as NA cars, witness the RX-8 and the 350Z. I also here the Supra
will come back as a RWD with the I-Force V8 up front. Looks like Japan
is going to to start doing it the old fashioned Detroit way, with
their brand of technical experitse. At any rate, the way the Japanese
build engines (DOHC, variable timing, etc), you think 4cyl turbos
are overally complicated? HA! Imagine Four camshafts, 32 valves
aluminmum blocks on typical Japanese V8. That ain't a baragain either. A long block for a 3kGT VR-4 without the turbos is about 11K. Compare that to a 3K 350 pushrod Chevy V8 from a Summit catalog. I wonder
what an NSX engine costs. At any rate, it's going to
be fun.

zeroize

hey truth is an all motor 300HP is technically better than a engine boosted to 300 by a turbine device. turbo's are somewhat bang for the buck, like the richer guy's nitrous, slap it on to a 4 cylinder and you got cars that could match some NA V6s, like GPtourer said, it seems like most people feel that A TURBO is the end all of performance, and that is certainly very far from the truth, ofcourse there is the exoticism associated with an aftermarket turbo in an otherwise NA car, just like the situation with nitrous now after the cheesy flick "fast and the furious". technically and performance wise i'll take a NSX anyday, but thats like 90k, whereas a GT 'clipse and Evo is in the sub 30k range, so financially, ofcourse i'm leaning towards a turbo, you got turbo lag, they're still tons of fun oh well thanx for reading my babble

evo_dan

What makes the Evo so special is how it evolved. Mitsubishi was running a Group A Lancer Evolution. In Group A the regulations are stricter in that the rally car and the street car HAVE to share specific parts. The Lancer Evo, up to the TME 6.5 is a rally car, streetifed (if that's even a word). This made the Evo the only street legal rally car you could buy. This is what makes the car so special and I wouldn't want it tampered with in any way and I feel very strong about this. This point is also what concerns me now that Mitsubishi has moved to a WRC spec car. The production car doesn't have to share as much, therefor the street car may not be as faithful. However the Evo VII is still benifiting from past Evo racing technology. An Evo that is not true to it's rally car brother would be like a car that uses the term "racing heritage" as a marketing gimick in the way other companies use this term. Only time can tell to see what happens with the Evo. May it always remain faithful to the rally car.