So what do you guys think about the new 2006 Eclipse?
Thread Starter
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 987
Likes: 23
From: Southern Cali 310
So what do you guys think about the new 2006 Eclipse?
...... 
Do you guys think Mitsubishi got it right this time? I know most fans of the original turbo all-wheel drive model still dislike the FWD layout, but the car has posted pretty impressive times.The design is better than the last one and the car has a modern look to it. The problem is,coupes like this are usually hot their first year,then ,they slump and are soon forgotten (Cougar,Celica,etc..).My issue of Car and Driver has the car listed as 6.1 seconds for the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile in 14.5 sec. It has a big 3.8 liter V6 the produce 263 hp and 260.lb feet of torque. While I'm not a big fan of Mitsu (except the EVO),this car as some style,and is pretty quick(in a FWD coupe sort of way).I give the car 
They did a great job of keeping the look of the concept.
So what do you guys think??
Eclipse concept
Production version
Do you guys think Mitsubishi got it right this time? I know most fans of the original turbo all-wheel drive model still dislike the FWD layout, but the car has posted pretty impressive times.The design is better than the last one and the car has a modern look to it. The problem is,coupes like this are usually hot their first year,then ,they slump and are soon forgotten (Cougar,Celica,etc..).My issue of Car and Driver has the car listed as 6.1 seconds for the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile in 14.5 sec. It has a big 3.8 liter V6 the produce 263 hp and 260.lb feet of torque. While I'm not a big fan of Mitsu (except the EVO),this car as some style,and is pretty quick(in a FWD coupe sort of way).I give the car They did a great job of keeping the look of the concept.So what do you guys think??
Eclipse concept
Production version
Last edited by robloc93; Jun 16, 2005 at 12:48 PM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. It reminds me of the 2nd gen
2. Its the usual Mitsubishi very ugly
3. These tools have almost a perfect AWD system in the EVO and give this car with almost the same power in a lame FWD setup.
4. The interior is nice.
5. I think Road and Track got a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds.
How can they go from offering such an exicitng car to something that looks exciting but a pedestrian powertrain....
2. Its the usual Mitsubishi very ugly
3. These tools have almost a perfect AWD system in the EVO and give this car with almost the same power in a lame FWD setup.
4. The interior is nice.
5. I think Road and Track got a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds.
How can they go from offering such an exicitng car to something that looks exciting but a pedestrian powertrain....
Damn! Also forgot to mention,the car is 72.2 inches wide.......... that's wider than a Ford Explorer 
Pole Position
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
1) I agree with 1Sicklex, it's ugly.
2) I know many people in the target market for this car who will shy away due to no rwd/awd version.
3) Mitsubishi build quality is plain awful and their service/warranty support is worse.
4) 0-60 and 1/4mile is better than I expected, and an improvement, thumbs-up there.
5) It's 3540lbs! Staying with FWD, the Acura RSX type S (approx. same speed) is the same price and only 2460lbs. I'd happily take an RSX type S over the eclipse. Anyone see any track times/comparison's of this thing? Something where corners are involved?
6) What's up with the WIDE times this thing's getting in the mags. Did C & D really get a 6.5 out of this thing? I find that hard to believe in a 3500lb 263hp/260lb torque car. The latest Automobile mag got 6.4sec 0-60, 15.8sec 0-100, 15.1sec 1/4.
This car's based on the galant sedan right?
2) I know many people in the target market for this car who will shy away due to no rwd/awd version.
3) Mitsubishi build quality is plain awful and their service/warranty support is worse.
4) 0-60 and 1/4mile is better than I expected, and an improvement, thumbs-up there.
5) It's 3540lbs! Staying with FWD, the Acura RSX type S (approx. same speed) is the same price and only 2460lbs. I'd happily take an RSX type S over the eclipse. Anyone see any track times/comparison's of this thing? Something where corners are involved?
6) What's up with the WIDE times this thing's getting in the mags. Did C & D really get a 6.5 out of this thing? I find that hard to believe in a 3500lb 263hp/260lb torque car. The latest Automobile mag got 6.4sec 0-60, 15.8sec 0-100, 15.1sec 1/4.
This car's based on the galant sedan right?
Trending Topics
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,223
Likes: 221
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
I've read a number of articles and tests on it. Haven't seen the car up close yet or driven it, but it obviously looks much more like the beloved 1995-1999 model that was so popular with tuners than the 2000-2005's did, both inside and out. I'll post some pictures of the interior here......
http://www.mitsucars.com/eclipse/image_gallery.html#
The interior is somewhat cheap-looking but not as bad IMO as some recent Nissans.
Mitsubishi, however, IMO, has not come up yet with a credible reason why they STILL won't bring back AWD for this car other than to say that the Evo has that market covered.
No, guys.......that lame excuse won't work.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.
http://www.mitsucars.com/eclipse/image_gallery.html#
The interior is somewhat cheap-looking but not as bad IMO as some recent Nissans.
Mitsubishi, however, IMO, has not come up yet with a credible reason why they STILL won't bring back AWD for this car other than to say that the Evo has that market covered.
No, guys.......that lame excuse won't work.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 94,223
Likes: 221
From: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Oops.....sorry, robloc....you beat me to the interior shots....and the ones you posted look better than the factory ones I did.
Last edited by mmarshall; Jun 15, 2005 at 11:26 AM.
Thread Starter
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 987
Likes: 23
From: Southern Cali 310
Originally Posted by roguenode
1) I agree with 1Sicklex, it's ugly.
2) I know many people in the target market for this car who will shy away due to no rwd/awd version.
3) Mitsubishi build quality is plain awful and their service/warranty support is worse.
4) 0-60 and 1/4mile is better than I expected, and an improvement, thumbs-up there.
5) It's 3540lbs! Staying with FWD, the Acura RSX type S (approx. same speed) is the same price and only 2460lbs. I'd happily take an RSX type S over the eclipse. Anyone see any track times/comparison's of this thing? Something where corners are involved?
6) What's up with the WIDE times this thing's getting in the mags. Did C & D really get a 6.5 out of this thing? I find that hard to believe in a 3500lb 263hp/260lb torque car. The latest Automobile mag got 6.4sec 0-60, 15.8sec 0-100, 15.1sec 1/4.
This car's based on the galant sedan right?
2) I know many people in the target market for this car who will shy away due to no rwd/awd version.
3) Mitsubishi build quality is plain awful and their service/warranty support is worse.
4) 0-60 and 1/4mile is better than I expected, and an improvement, thumbs-up there.
5) It's 3540lbs! Staying with FWD, the Acura RSX type S (approx. same speed) is the same price and only 2460lbs. I'd happily take an RSX type S over the eclipse. Anyone see any track times/comparison's of this thing? Something where corners are involved?
6) What's up with the WIDE times this thing's getting in the mags. Did C & D really get a 6.5 out of this thing? I find that hard to believe in a 3500lb 263hp/260lb torque car. The latest Automobile mag got 6.4sec 0-60, 15.8sec 0-100, 15.1sec 1/4.
This car's based on the galant sedan right?
and the skip pad was 0.81g and suffered from minimal understeer.2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse
Base price (est) $20,000
Vehicle layout Front engine, FWD, 2-door, 2-pass coupe/convertible
Engine type I-4, iron blk/alum head, SOHC, 4 valves/cyl
Displacement, ci/cc 145.1 / 2378
Max horsepower SAE net 165 @ 6000 rpm
Max torque SAE net, lb-ft 162 @ 4000 rpm
Optional engine 60° V-6, aluminum block/heads, SOHC, 4 valves/cyl
Displacement, ci/cc 233.6 / 3828
Max horsepower SAE net 260 @ 5750 rpm
Max torque SAE net, lb-ft 260 @ 4500 rpm
Transmissions 5- or 6-speed man; 4- or 5-speed auto
Curb weight, lb (est) 3300-3550
0-60 mph, sec (est) 7.0-9.0
EPA mpg, city/hwy Not yet rated
On sale in U.S. May 2005
Pole Position
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
The v6 is estimated at $24k. I suppose it's also a direct competitor is the supercharged cobalt. Both are coupes, both FWD, both approx. 6 sec 0-60 (cobalt 6 flat by Motor Trend, 14.5 1/4). The SS cobalt would be a coupla grand less if the estimate on the v6 eclipse is accurate. Of course, the SS achieves it's speed with a supercharged i-4 and the eclipse uses an n/a v6.
In the end, if I was in the market for a fast, cheap (25k or less) car, I'd go with a wrx or to really go cheap, maybe a Dodge neon srt-4. But, to be honest, I think someone who wants a quick, good-looking sports coupe in that price range the Acura RSX type S is the way to go. It's not quite as quick, but you can always mod it. In my area, these are going for 22k.
In the end, if I was in the market for a fast, cheap (25k or less) car, I'd go with a wrx or to really go cheap, maybe a Dodge neon srt-4. But, to be honest, I think someone who wants a quick, good-looking sports coupe in that price range the Acura RSX type S is the way to go. It's not quite as quick, but you can always mod it. In my area, these are going for 22k.
