what do you think of the new eclipse, 2006 Options

[bloodrain]

The car is not economic anymore...now it is in the price range of the Maxima, 350Z, Accord...the GT engine is a big 3.8 liter V6 and it only produces 26x horsepower. They already have recalas for brakes failing when driving them out of the dealership, the car looks like ass, it only gets 15 miles to the gallon...it truly is a ****-up of a car. Bad performance, bad looks, bad reliability and bad price. Mitsubishi ****ed up bad with that car.
[right][snapback]300573[/snapback][/right]

well considering it just came out, and im 99% thats all BS. Give me links or videos of its horrible performace, better yet, buy one, drive it down here, and show me how bad it is. If you havent tested it, dont bash the car.

[turboinduction]

I'm with blooddrain. That was pretty - well - an under-thought response. The car was never economic. I owned 2 2G's and I didn't buy either one for gas savings. Now the MOST decked out 06 Eclipse is roughly 27000 MSRP!!!! After discount and I'm sure Mitsu's rebates - I'd except 25,000. Try finding me a Z with leather, premium audio, moonroof, etc etc for 25? Its roughly gonna be 5k more for the Z. You cant touch a max for less than 30, the Accord isn't even consider anywhere near the Eclipse and thats - even still - a high 20's car with leather and V6. But dont take it from me, I'd not like I dont work for Honda and Nissan. As for the breaks - its a recall yes. Its a brand new car and Mitsu caught something quite not right with the front breaks VERY early. Good for them. I consider this good not bad. Now for your performance take on it. The Scion Tc is a 2.4L with 160HP. Thats 67HP per liter. The Eclipse GT is a 3.8L with 265HP. Thats 70HP per liter. So breaking it down, the Eclipse is a better performer liter for liter than the Tc. And for our Celica GT you guys love - ouch 62HP per liter. Not bad figuring it doesn't have any variable valve timing of any sort. As for the miles per gallon - well EPA says as the GTw/6spd is 18/27. Thats about right considering its size. So the 15mpg is right outta your ass. Reliability is a question. In the late 90's it didn't do so well. However, I dont hear too much about the Evo needing work, so I can safety say that Mitsu is much better than 10 years ago. Holding a reliability grudge against them for 10 years is kindof silly. (and yes 96 was the last year of DSM's having trouble with cars. 97 got much better and had little to no problems unless heavy modified.) So all in all - pretty good performance, GREAT looks (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) OK reliability since 2000 and a very reasonable price. Mitsubishi did a great job with this car and I'm sure it will do very well.

-Ti