Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Celica vs. Mitsubishi Eclipse



  • Just taking horsepower and dividing it by weight gives you an interesting statistic but not necessarily a useful one. Consider the Eclipse GT vs. an old Eclipse GSX. The GT weighs less and has the same number of horsepower, yet its 0-60 times are WAY slower (often around a second). The bottom line is that you need to time a car to see how fast it is.

    Car & Driver says the Eclipse GT does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds and a prototype Celica GS-T did it in 7.5. (The real Celica may be a little faster, I'm guessing.) Anyway, it's not like the GT is going to waste a GS-T from a stoplight, or vice versa, as many people seem to be claiming.

    I've test-driven both cars and didn't care for either, but if I had to pick one, I'd take the Eclipse. I don't like the Celica's exterior, I think the interior is needlessly cramped, the visibility is poor, and the lack of low-end torque is extremely annoying. (Be prepared to downshift every single time you go up a hill.)

    I'll stick with my [much faster] '92 Eclipse GSX, thanks... :)

  • SPYDER98SPYDER98 Posts: 239
    Easy with the "much faster" comment there. You may (most likely will) open up the floodgates from the toyota guys.
    Their "very" knowledgable here at townhall.

    A 92 GSX in its time...was a great performance bargain. But compared to its competition these days...the peformance gap has been closed and all these cars perform close to one another.

    The celica lacks low end grunt..but handles very sharply.
  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    the celica GTS does more like 6.6 - 6.8 seconds. it's the GT that does 7.5 - 8. the celica is one of the best handling Fwd cars there are IMO and it will run .89 on the lateral accel. test stock. hmm that spanks the camaro i think. the thing that makes the celica a little more uh... endearing to the owner is that so much of that 0-60 stuff depends on knowing your car. any fool can run under 7 seconds in say a WRX but it's not nearly as easy in a celica. this is not meant to detract from the wrx. do you tell that downshift stuff to type R owners too? people who drive 4cyl. VVT engines love to rev the engine, that's why they buy it. we treat it like it's a baby F1. the celica and eclispe are different cars for different types of drivers. they are very hard to compare.
  • Well, Car & Driver says their prototype Celica _GT-S_ did 0-60 in 7.5 s. They did say it felt like there was an engine bug when switching cams, but I hardly believe that would account for an entire second off the 0-60 time. Where is your reference that these cars can go much faster?

    (BTW, sorry for confusing the GT-S moniker for the old Eclipse GS-T in my last post.)

    Unfortunately, I don't know the skidpad numbers for new Eclipses, but I'm definitely not trying to defend new Eclipses here.

    As for downshifting, yeah, I also complain about Honda engines. Now, I'm as big a fan of revving engines as anybody, but when I'm casually driving to the grocery store in a car that's supposedly capable of putting out 180hp, I don't want to drive up hills at 6000 RPM just to avoid losing speed. There are times when you don't want to play F1 driver (at least for me).

  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    i agree about not always playing F1 driver. it can be annoying. i dont drive the GTS i drive the GT which has it's peak torque at 4200 so up hill is not so bad. all in all i think the car is lots of fun. but dont think that im not itchin' to put a SC in it as soon as TRD develops one. um... i guess that 6.6 number is in M/T or is it R&T, i buy both..dont know but it's there. some mags quote different numbers but i read 6.6 in quite a few articles. hey the fact of the matter is the car is damn fast when you want it to be and that's what sports cars are supposed to deliver. the way they do it is what gives them all different personalities. just pick the flavor you like.
  • denniswadedenniswade Posts: 362
    are posted in the back of Road and Track and, I believe, one other major magazine (Automobile? Don't remember.)

    The C&D test you refer to was an anomoly, and they admitted so later. The GT-S is a high-6 second car, slightly quicker but almost identical to the new Eclipse. Performance-wise, I'd call it a wash; the big difference is in the handling. Some prefer the Eclipse, others the Celica. Choices, choices!
  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    do you think TRD springs would be too harsh on new york city street? read: practically offroad. you have them in your corolla yes? i want them pretty bad but i dont want to like crack my oil pan or something. let me know.

    as for handling. i just dont see how a car as big as the eclipse can be as nimble as the celica. on the highway perhaps it is more sturdy but that's about it.
  • andonniandonni Posts: 7
    GSX OR GST????
  • denniswadedenniswade Posts: 362
    Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner -- I've been hanging out in news and views.

    Yes, I've had the complete TRD set-up (Eibach springs, KYB shocks and struts) for a year and a half now. Had to trim my fenderwells a bit to fit the 16" Primaxes with 205/45 Sumis, but haven't had any other problems. Need to trim the bump stops, though -- shoulda done it when I first installed the kit. Toysport wants to put a set of Tokico coilovers on it, but I'm afraid that may be too harsh -- we'll see.

    I don't think you'd have a problem with rough roads, as long as you're not carrying more than one person with you. Remember, you're reducing suspension travel by about 20% (trimming the bump stops gives some of that back). Those nasty roads are he11 on your alignment, though.

    Be sure to get a strut tower brace too -- makes a big difference in steering response.
  • andonniandonni Posts: 7
    Does anyone know where i can get the website
    about 1995-1999 Mits. Eclipse's part website
    like change the parts...???
    thank you....
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    Interesting conversasion!
    I own a 2000 GTS and can confirm the 6.6 0-60 speeds. That comes from Motortrend.
    The Eclipse GT is right about 7.0 or a little over according to Motortrend. But, the 0-100 times have the Eclipse winning easily - also a top speed of 144mph (car and driver). HOWEVER, car and driver has the Eclipse winning in 0-60 so who know. I guess it goes back to the better driver theory!
    If anyone wants, I can provide the links to prove all of this.
    The GTS will go uphill in 6th gear without losing speed. No downshifting needed (unless under 60mph). The Eclipse however handles more 'sure-footed' and is much more comfortable in the interior.
    What do you think?
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    The GTS does the 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds
    The GT 5-speed is 7.6 seconds
    The GT auto is 8.3 seconds

    If you don't mind the softer, more nuetral handling of the Solara, the SE V6 5-speed does the 0-60 in 7-7.3 seconds. Price-wise, they will be similar. Handling can be improved with the TRD/Eibach lowering springs, rear swar bar, and TRD/Bilstein struts (about $1700 in parts plus labor). Though it has a trunk.
  • sergeissergeis Posts: 133
    You cannot through Solara into one bunch with Celica and Eclipse. The latter two have character, and Solara is just a mode of transportation, no matter how much you add to it, it just does not look like a toy.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    The Solara not looking like a toy? Isn't that a good thing? Maybe some of us prefer something that won't attrach cops or every other ricer to race you. It's great as a sleeper car.
  • sergeissergeis Posts: 133
    Why get Solara then? Get full size Crown Vic. Smoother, safer, quieter, and mine was problem free so far (7 years).
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    "With the car's 2003 changes, the Eclipse should improve in our eyes, and sales will likely continue to be strong."


    Read the full story here: 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Brent Romans. And let us know what you think. Thanks for your comments. ;-)

    Hatchbacks & Station Wagons Boards
  • I can say from personal experience, the 2000 Celica GTS-Auto has a 0-60 time of 10 seconds. The car is a big disappointment in acceleration, largely because the valve lift change over is too high (6000 rpm) and the gearing drops well below during a 1st to 2nd shift.

    I also have an acquaintance with a 6-speed and he says that getting under 7 with a GTS is very difficult, again the same cam switch over issue. Once you drop below 6000 rpm, the engine has no power. The car is reliable, it's unfortunate the leather and 4 wheel discs aren't available in the GT - I'd have gone that way for the lower fuel costs. I consider the Celica a sporty economy car in either configuration.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    I have a GTS and wish I could have gotten it without the leather. Maybe that's just me. It's too hot in the summer, and I'd prefer more grip for the twisties...
  • Has anybody installed a TRD Exhaust? I heard it brings 10 hp to the wheels, which is kind of hard to believe on a GT.
This discussion has been closed.