fresh kill of the weekend - 2006 eclipse - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

This is a discussion on fresh kill of the weekend - 2006 eclipse within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; This is from car and driver. On the 06 Eclipse to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds and through the quarter-mile ...

  1. #16
    Registered User TeamGuam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cheyenne, WY or Colorado Springs
    Posts
    106
    This is from car and driver. On the 06 Eclipse

    to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds at 100 mph. These times are very close to WRX times. So ya I was wrong about how slow it was.

    Car and driver also got observed 15 mpg, which doesnt have anything do with speed but with gas prices now that has to eat a hole in someones pocket.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    WRX
    WRX is offline
    Registered User WRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Montgomery, IL
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamGuam
    15 mpg.

    13.12@101mph
    248whp 204lb/ft torque
    mods

  4. #18
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by TeamGuam

    Car and driver also got observed 15 mpg,

    Damn, that cannot be completely accurate! That would just really really suck. I cannot imagine a FWD 6 getting 15mpg's. Then again, car and driver was probably flogging the hell out of the car during while recording mpg's so who knows.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  5. #19
    Registered User Black XT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by DTR rex
    good kill man!

    I dont why you guys are ragging so much on the Eclipse. Give credit where it is due. It is a HUGE HUGE improvement over the last gen and runs mid to lower 14's with 100/101mph traps. It runs par with stock wrx from a dig, and runs par with stageII wrx's from a roll... So I dont think making jabs at this car for being "slow" is really appropriate.


    +1

    I dont see Mitsu, ever bringing back the AWD and Turbo in the eclipse now that the EVO is here. Not a bad deal for that eclipse.

  6. #20
    Registered User ynotajb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    mmmm,, tater salad
    Posts
    2,711
    Quote Originally Posted by DTR rex
    LT1 camaro/TA

    LS1 Camaro/TA

    LS2 GTO

    Basically all vette engines

    4.6L/5.0L mustang engine

    B18C5

    VQ30/VQ35

    Basically all of those cars listed will drop just about a full second or more off of their 1/4mile times with just bolt on stuff and all are N/A

    I could go on and on.
    Beat me to it .. great point ...
    dude one time i tried to put the trailer bully into the coiler, and I got all messed up

  7. #21
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    Basically all of those cars listed will drop just about a full second or more off of their 1/4mile times with just bolt on stuff and all are N/A
    Wow I've never heard of v8's. I mean, who woulda thought a Corvette or F-body or Mustang would respond to mods ?!?. My Grand Marquis was faster than the NA imports at the 1/8 mile track here. Most of the buzz bombs cut 10.50s or slower. When the tank ran 9.90s they accused me of spraying it!

    For the 4's/6's in the list, it's easy to take a second off your timeslip with NA mods when it runs 17s to begin with. You can get a turbo car that ran 14.0s stock and take off a full second for $50. That's bargain performance.
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  8. #22
    Registered User enash99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    1,375
    Quote Originally Posted by SGOSWRX
    Too funny
    I raced one fresh off the lot still with paper tags. He went out of his way to line up next to me. I ended up putting bus lengths on him by 80mph.
    How much do the weigh? I would have expected a small car like that to be much faster with 260hp.

    Nothing better than taking your brand new car on its way home and running the **** out of it right off the bat.
    2003 Platinum Silver Metalic Sedan
    VF-34 Powered
    My Mods
    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian
    Even if your car was stock, your chances of warranty coverage are about as good as a retarded chimp trying to do a calculus problem while high on pcp.

  9. #23
    Registered User SGOSWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by enash99
    Nothing better than taking your brand new car on its way home and running the **** out of it right off the bat.
    Believe me I've seen more than my share of guys at the track with brand spankin new cars. I mean right off the lot.
    I've even know of one guy that took his STi to Bradenton Motorpark (1/4 mile track) the same day he bought it (yes, same day). He said he drove it straight from Mastro Subaru in Tampa to the track.
    He was running 13.3s @ 100 mph.

  10. #24
    Registered User garrettjj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    112
    I think Mitsu did the right thing with the car to boost sales and cater to more people. But the new car has morphed into a bloated fwd GT car. Even though it's faster than the turbo/awd models the car still lost some balls and the car looks hideous in my opinion. Much like the previous eclipse that seemed to meld together too many styling cliche's. The older GSX/GS-Ts had much more performance potential and looked way better in my opinion.

    We have the EVO to fill the old Turbo/AWD platform and it's filling that segment quite nicely
    95 Supra TT --BPU+ 420whp.
    05 Subaru STI --Cobb AP Stage 2 Protuned
    94 Integra GS-R --HIE/VTEC Controller.

  11. #25
    Registered User 04wrx4keeps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central NY/ Western PA (for school)
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by garrettjj
    I think Mitsu did the right thing with the car to boost sales and cater to more people. But the new car has morphed into a bloated fwd GT car. Even though it's faster than the turbo/awd models the car still lost some balls and the car looks hideous in my opinion. Much like the previous eclipse that seemed to meld together too many styling cliche's. The older GSX/GS-Ts had much more performance potential and looked way better in my opinion.

    We have the EVO to fill the old Turbo/AWD platform and it's filling that segment quite nicely
    +1

    The new Eclipse is a car designed to sell to a certain category of people, and I'm sure it will sell to those people very well. Their designed for people who just want a sporty car because its "sylish" or the "hip thing" to drive. Anyone who goes to mitsubishi and buys a new eclipse because they expect to mod it and get performance are just dumb, if they werent they would just save a little more and get an Evo if they really want a new Mitsu. Anything less than a full engine buildup, forced induction, or NOS is not likely to get any substantial usable performance gain in the new Eclipse.

    What pisses me off is all the ignorant kids that I'm sure are going to go buy them becuase the add says its fast, then weld a fart-can on it and go harassing and trying to race everyone in town who has a sporty car because they think their eclipse is the fastest thing on 4 wheels. I ran into pleanty of these people with the last generation eclipses, I'm sure the 06 will be even worse because it is actually quick, which is just going to make these kind of drivers more common, and more obnoxious.....
    Cobb Stage 2.5 VF-34 + uppipe
    Best ET so far - 13.1@103 with a 1.81 60'

  12. #26
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    Wow I've never heard of v8's. I mean, who woulda thought a Corvette or F-body or Mustang would respond to mods ?!?. My Grand Marquis was faster than the NA imports at the 1/8 mile track here. Most of the buzz bombs cut 10.50s or slower. When the tank ran 9.90s they accused me of spraying it!

    For the 4's/6's in the list, it's easy to take a second off your timeslip with NA mods when it runs 17s to begin with. You can get a turbo car that ran 14.0s stock and take off a full second for $50. That's bargain performance.
    That is not the point... The question was not whether or not a turbo car will respond better to mods.. You said that N/A cars are a waste of time to mod and that is a completely inaccurate statement and in-turn I posted cars that are N/A and respond quite well to mods. And as for those cars knocking a full second off because they are 17sec cars to begin with
    Name one car that I listed that runs 17's

    The slowest car one I listed was the VQ30 (refering to the 4th gen maxima 5spd) which runs high 14's (hardly 17's) and with intake, catback, ypipe, mevi, ecu the car will run high 13's.

    Next slowest was the B18C5 (integra type-R motor) which ran high 14's stock and will knock off high low 14's - high 13's with intake, race header, exhaust, ECU.

    Next we have the VQ35 which is used in a plethora of nissan cars but I was mostly refering to the 5.5gen Maxima's which run mid 14's stock and with catback, ypipe, intake, and ecu will run mid to high 13's and low 13's with slicks.

    And I am sure you are aware of what the V8's can do. But the cars I just listed were two V6's and an inline 4cylinder. I could also name a few more (non) V8's that will do the same.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  13. #27
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    And for the same price as the Maxima you can buy a Legacy with a turbo and go quicker in stock form despite the Nissan's extra liter of displacement. Give the Legacy the same intake, full exhaust, and ECU mods and you'll run high 12s, and you won't need slicks to do it. You can put the turbo car into the 11s without major work -- try that in the front wheel peel machine.

    The Integra may feel quick until you realize it's slower than a Subaru Forester SUV. Yeah, like any other car, they go fast if you put enough money into it. For the cash that the "intake, race header, exhaust, ECU" cost you, it'd put the SUV or any other turbo car from the last 15 years into the 12s -- again, without the traction issues.

    There are several article that reviewed Honda exhaust systems. The highest hp gain was like 4hp, and it cost over $1200 for the cat-back. Yep, that's performance. Maybe with the intake and a header they're up 8 hp over stock - whoopeee. The ones that are truly fast get there by using a fully-prepped engine (that didn't come in the car stock) and nothing OEM is left. Don't even start to think of the pricetag - it's usually many times what the car itself cost. With that kind of approach you can make any vehicle fast, but what do you have then?
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  14. #28
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    And for the same price as the Maxima you can buy a Legacy with a turbo and go quicker in stock form despite the Nissan's extra liter of displacement. Give the Legacy the same intake, full exhaust, and ECU mods and you'll run high 12s, and you won't need slicks to do it. You can put the turbo car into the 11s without major work -- try that in the front wheel peel machine.
    You are completely diverging from the point. ONCE AGAIN, I am not saying that N/A cars respond better to mods than boosted ones.. And I am not saying you can make a maxima faster than a Legacy GT for the same money. I am just refuting your original point which was "n/a cars are worthless to mod and a waste of time" which simply is not true. I would say picking up a full second in the 1/4 with just bolt on's is pretty good for an n/a and MANY can do this. It is not about how much a turbo car can drop off of time with the same mods.. its just abotu the fact that you said modding n/a is a waste of time and worthless... which simply is not true.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  15. #29
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    Ok, so "worthless" may have been too harsh. Like I said, I've modded NA cars of my own before. Hell, I just put a throttle body spacer on my 92 GMC truck last weekend. This is considered a worthless mod on most cars but on the throttle body injection engines it actually makes gains of 10+ rwtq but most importantly the drivability went waaaay up. It's much stronger at 10-40% throttle than it was before.

    Anyone that would buy the new Eclipse as a platform for building a "fast" car is barking up the wrong tree. Mitsubishi already made a 3500 lb v6 car; it was called the 3000GT. It also had twin turbos and AWD to go with that weight, making it worthwhile to own.
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  16. #30
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by John M

    Anyone that would buy the new Eclipse as a platform for building a "fast" car is barking up the wrong tree. Mitsubishi already made a 3500 lb v6 car; it was called the 3000GT. It also had twin turbos and AWD to go with that weight, making it worthwhile to own.
    well that is all relative. Someone might consider high 13's "fast" while another considers it "decent" and what not. (just saying high 13's and assuming thats what an eclipse would run if it was n/a modded).
    While I agree it is not a prime building platform if you want large power, we cannot accurately judge that (just yet). For all we know the internals and trans of this car might hold up really well and a s/c or turbo could be bolted right on for 300whp+. But in the same sense, this might not be the case at all... we will just have to wait to find out.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •