Performance info in on new Eclipse GT

[gts_rosh]

So Edmnunds.com finally got there hands on the new 2006, and with the 3.8L putting out 263hp @ 5750rpm and 260ft-lbs at 4500rpm, 6spd.

Performance figures: 0-60 in 6.8secs 1/4 mile in 14.9. The 0-60 sounds resonable but the 1/4 in 14.9 sounds fishy. I never seen a 14.9 out of a high 6sec car before...?

Apparently quicker times then the Mazda RX-8.

Curb weight: 3472
Gross weight (full gas tank, driver and all options added): 4288lbs!!! (WTF)

In terms of weight, its like the resurrection of the 3000GT, less turbos & AWD.

Damn its a heavy beast & has major front torque steer, huge turning radius but the torque keeps it moving decently.

Full review here: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/mitsubishi/eclipse/100543748/researchlanding.html

Performance figures quoted here:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/mitsubishi/eclipse/100543748/roadtestarticle.html?articleId=105582&tid=edmunds.e.roadtest.content...Mitsubishi*

ALSO: This Saturday, Speedvision at 12PM (Pacific Time) will show a full video review of the new Eclipse, including track tests.

[NoRulzAt140 Mph]

The celica has a high 6 second 0 to 60 and hits high 14's. You own one.

The mazda RX8 will get quicker times than a 14.9.

The New Eclipse GT has seen 14.5 so people have said.

[Blue Bomber]

The 0-60 sounds resonable but the 1/4 in 14.9 sounds fishy. I never seen a 14.9 out of a high 6sec car before...?The GT-S is mid/high 6 sec 0-60 and can do high 14s...
Gross weight (full gas tank, driver and all options added): 4288lbs!!! (WTF)
Gross weight is the max safe capacity of the car, like if you had 4-5 people and possibly some stuff in the trunk.

[gts_rosh]

^Oops, ok I stand corrected.

[DopeCelicaGT]

Old News.

[sO mAnY mOdS]

thats wrong even lame ass mags got 14.4@100 in the new eclipse..unless it was auto

[jonnyess]

62% of the weight up front?? Sweet Jeezus, these should come equipped with a bumper sticker:

ASK ME ABOUT MY TORQUE STEER

[Blue Bomber]

62% of the weight up front?? Sweet Jeezus, these should come equipped with a bumper sticker:

ASK ME ABOUT MY TORQUE STEER
Better weight distribution than our cars. :p:

[gts_rosh]

thats wrong even lame ass mags got 14.4@100 in the new eclipse..unless it was auto

I wonder how they got a 14.4 out of such a heavy car, cause the power-to-weight ratio is so bad. And 100MPH for a car that has bad highend and low-rpm peak, just doesn't sound right either.

[sO mAnY mOdS]

idk that was the firest review i saw..its not that hard to believe considering the v6 accord with 23 less hp and way less torque .8 less displacment can do like 14.1 or 2 and the v6 altima can do like 14.0(with awsome drivers of course)

[marc]

I wonder how they got a 14.4 out of such a heavy car, cause the power-to-weight ratio is so bad. And 100MPH for a car that has bad highend and low-rpm peak, just doesn't sound right either.

Its called torque

Most Celica drivers have no idea what it feels like.

[sO mAnY mOdS]

yup i drove a 3.5 altima 5 speed...**** was pretty quick and its quick in every gear too..not like the celica...torque isnt as fun..lol

[vejita_13]

i liked the older eclipse better (95-99ish), and i don't know how much that gen eclipse weighed, but i'm sure it wasn't 4000 lbs. i don't know why they would put the same engine in their flagship sedan as their only two door "sports" car. am i nuts, or shouldn't sports cars have sports car engines? (then again, there is the tC, but i don't know if that's really a sports car...and i've begun to babble)

[Blue Bomber]

i don't know why they would put the same engine in their flagship sedan as their only two door "sports" car. am i nuts, or shouldn't sports cars have sports car engines?Nissan has variations of the same engine in their Z, Maxima, Altima, probably the Murano, and most likey another car I'm forgetting (Infiniti?).
(then again, there is the tC, but i don't know if that's really a sports car...and i've begun to babble) It's comparable to a Corolla. :chuckles:

[EasyC]

I wonder how they got a 14.4 out of such a heavy car, cause the power-to-weight ratio is so bad. And 100MPH for a car that has bad highend and low-rpm peak, just doesn't sound right either.

Its called torque

Most Celica drivers have no idea what it feels like.


For once marc you're right. Torque is the big player here. Unfortunately for the new eclipse, I don't think the torque is placed well enough to yield that low of a time. Sorry.

[vejita_13]

Nissan has variations of the same engine in their Z, Maxima, Altima, probably the Murano, and most likey another car I'm forgetting (Infiniti?).
It's comparable to a Corolla. :chuckles:


ah, forgot about those, and the corolla/matrix/celica thing. those nissan engines seem more high performance oriented in my mind, but that's just me. another argument about the way that mitsu is going is that they are not filling the small coupe niche (i.e. celica, rsx, civic si etc., sub-3000lbs, small displacement 4cyl), but then again, so is toyota. from a marketing pov, they are missing out on the competition that these other companies are deeply involved in (to me, the evo is in another category based on price, performance level), even though the price is somewhere near the price of a fully loaded rsx-s. bah, i don't know.

[RookieGTS]

Its called torque

Most Celica drivers have no idea what it feels like.

Actually I do. I found out some major torque when I drove my friends brand new 04 ZO6 Corvette :chuckles:

[slidr]

Nissan has variations of the same engine in their Z, Maxima, Altima, probably the Murano, and most likey another car I'm forgetting (Infiniti?).


G35.

[Another_Ricer]

fugly

[marc]

For once marc you're right. Torque is the big player here. Unfortunately for the new eclipse, I don't think the torque is placed well enough to yield that low of a time. Sorry.

MIVEC gives it near max torque ALL the time, it has a sick powerband.

[Blue Bomber]

For once marc you're right. Torque is the big player here. Unfortunately for the new eclipse, I don't think the torque is placed well enough to yield that low of a time. Sorry.

MIVEC gives it near max torque ALL the time, it has a sick powerband.
Too bad its brakes will crumble while trying to slowing down after using that sick powerband. :chuckles:

[vejita_13]

i'm no car expert by any means, but does it seem that the hp that engine makes seems low for the displacemnt?

[ArchangelX]

F the new Eclipse. The FD bows to noone. :fawk:
http://www.raceeventshawaii.com/Assets/Webpix/rx7eclipselaugh.gif

[Blue Bomber]

:rofl:

[EuGeNiLe GTS]

lol my eclipse can make a lot of FDs bow down from a stop

[gts_rosh]

i'm no car expert by any means, but does it seem that the hp that engine makes seems low for the displacemnt?

Yeah its 69HP/L isn't anything to brag about, even with MIVEC...but I guess MIVEC isn't about producing HP more then it does torque? Either way its disappointing for almost 4L of displacement.

But I guess for such a tank of a coupe, they had to go with high displacement engine to get the torque to move this thing fast.

Its too bad speedvision didn't tell us in its dyno test how much baseline HP this car actually puts down? I'd be interested in seeing those #s.

[ArchangelX]

lol my eclipse can make a lot of FDs bow down from a stop

From a stop, with no turns...yeah, Gene. And you're highly modified. There are tons of modified cars that will stomp on a stock FD.

You're missing the point...That Eclipse up there has more power than a 93FD as well, and from a stop, it might give it a run for it's money as well (I doubt it..it's a fat pig). But on a road course? I don't think so. That's what has everyone in an uproar about it...it's a FWD, heavy-azz, fat SOB that the FD would stomp on, literally, stock to stock. And yet they have it bowing down? BS.

[Butt Dyno]

Yeah its 69HP/L isn't anything to brag about, even with MIVEC...but I guess MIVEC isn't about producing HP more then it does torque? Either way its disappointing for almost 4L of displacement.
Hp/liter is a ricer number.

But if you want to play that game, my WRX would be somewhere around 140-150 hp/liter :p

It's a car that'll be useless for any competitive motorsport, but for the 99% of you who don't do that, who cares? It'll be torquey and look "sporty" around town.. that's its target market. Kinda like a Japanese automatic V6 Mustang.

(Oh yeah and it'll have mad tyte highway roll powAr! )

john

[vejita_13]

[/QUOTE]
Hp/liter is a ricer number.

But if you want to play that game, my WRX would be somewhere around 140-150 hp/liter :p


[/QUOTE]

how is this a ricer number? isn't it a legitimate way to compare power production and displacement? i remember reading an article by toyota about the celica, and how it manages to produce 100hp/liter.

[NoRulzAt140 Mph]

Yeah its 69HP/L isn't anything to brag about, even with MIVEC...but I guess MIVEC isn't about producing HP more then it does torque? Either way its disappointing for almost 4L of displacement.
Hp/liter is a ricer number.

But if you want to play that game, my WRX would be somewhere around 140-150 hp/liter :p

It's a car that'll be useless for any competitive motorsport, but for the 99% of you who don't do that, who cares? It'll be torquey and look "sporty" around town.. that's its target market. Kinda like a Japanese automatic V6 Mustang.

(Oh yeah and it'll have mad tyte highway roll powAr! )

john


:werd:

how is this a ricer number? isn't it a legitimate way to compare power production and displacement? i remember reading an article by toyota about the celica, and how it manages to produce 100hp/liter.


It is a ricer number because it doesnt mean anything. The celica priduces 100 HP per liter. But guess what. It wont produce much more from a tune. The bigger displacment of a car enables it to mor emod friendly. Generally not always.

[EasyC]

Yeah its 69HP/L isn't anything to brag about, even with MIVEC...but I guess MIVEC isn't about producing HP more then it does torque? Either way its disappointing for almost 4L of displacement.
Hp/liter is a ricer number.

But if you want to play that game, my WRX would be somewhere around 140-150 hp/liter :p

It's a car that'll be useless for any competitive motorsport, but for the 99% of you who don't do that, who cares? It'll be torquey and look "sporty" around town.. that's its target market. Kinda like a Japanese automatic V6 Mustang.

(Oh yeah and it'll have mad tyte highway roll powAr! )

john


I sense bitterness towards rolling racing.....Lacking a little with that WRX of yours? :chuckles:

Yeah its 69HP/L isn't anything to brag about, even with MIVEC...but I guess MIVEC isn't about producing HP more then it does torque? Either way its disappointing for almost 4L of displacement.
Hp/liter is a ricer number.

But if you want to play that game, my WRX would be somewhere around 140-150 hp/liter :p

It's a car that'll be useless for any competitive motorsport, but for the 99% of you who don't do that, who cares? It'll be torquey and look "sporty" around town.. that's its target market. Kinda like a Japanese automatic V6 Mustang.

(Oh yeah and it'll have mad tyte highway roll powAr! )

john


:werd:

how is this a ricer number? isn't it a legitimate way to compare power production and displacement? i remember reading an article by toyota about the celica, and how it manages to produce 100hp/liter.


It is a ricer number because it doesnt mean anything. The celica priduces 100 HP per liter. But guess what. It wont produce much more from a tune. The bigger displacment of a car enables it to mor emod friendly. Generally not always.


It's not about displacement. It's about how efficiently the engine pumps air. That's exactly why our cars make nice figures from minor mods. Our head outflows the ungodly ITR head.

[Butt Dyno]

I sense bitterness towards rolling racing.....Lacking a little with that WRX of yours? :chuckles:I don't street race from a stop, either, and for some reason the SCCA hasn't adopted "from a roll racing" as the next legitimate motorsport...

<Announcer>Hello all and welcome to the 1st annual "from a roll" championships. In our first race, we have a 2003 Lancer Evolution versus a 1999 Honda Civic Si. The race will begin at 90 mph and go until 110. The Evolution is a more powerful car, so he has added two passengers, a full tank of gas, and a rather large subwoofer. In comparison, the Civic is running with only two gallons of gas, no subwoofer, one passenger (who only weighs 90 lbs) and with the removal of seven pounds worth of rear seat cushion. It should be a great race!</Announcer>"

[sO mAnY mOdS]

a car being "mod friendly" means it was poorly designed in the first place. If you can find all sorts of ways to squeeze more power out of an engine, it means that the stock configuration is not ideal for producing as much power as it safely can. Unless you are talking about a car that lacks hp for gas saving reasons which is a different story. Another reason why hp per liter is important is that it allows you to have a lighter engine in a fast car which is why ferraris are better then corvettes...sorta.

[EasyC]

I sense bitterness towards rolling racing.....Lacking a little with that WRX of yours? :chuckles:I don't street race from a stop, either, and for some reason the SCCA hasn't adopted "from a roll racing" as the next legitimate motorsport...


Of course they wouldn't, they are more about driver skill. Roll racing eliminates most driver screw up opportunity and focuses on high end power. But then again, why would you care about high end? You have teh m4d tyte trubo y0.

edit: Please note this is with a lighthearted tone.....:chuckles: