Toyota Celica vs. Mitsubishi Eclipse

majid23majid23 Member Posts: 1
edited March 2014 in Mitsubishi
I have a 2000 Toyota Celica GT. I outraced a 2000
Eclipse GT and I have an automatic trans! The guy
was shocked. I think it is stupid how people
compare cars by how they race. How often do you
race someone? Toyota is the better choice: more
reliable, better name, and faster! Challenge the
guy in the Eclipse to race you in ten years. His
car would probably be broken down already! Bottom
line: Toyota wins.


  • SPYDER98SPYDER98 Member Posts: 239
    I think you just answered your own question.
    He was probably just shocked that you even tried to race him. He probably cared even less when he saw your none "S" GT badge from the rear too..
  • only1harryonly1harry Member Posts: 1,140
    Was the guy in the Eclipse GT really racing? An Eclipse GT should blow a Celica GT away easily and without much effort, especially an automatic one. Even a GTS auto would be humiliated by an Eclipse GT.
    It's true though that the Celica should outlast an Eclipse. If reliability is a major factor, chosing between the two is a no brainer..
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • sivlarsivlar Member Posts: 1
    Quote "Even a GTS auto would be humiliated by an Eclipse GT"

    I really doubt it. If you compare both cars they are near identical in specs. The Eclipse has a 200HP V6 but weighs 3120lbs. The celica has a 180HP I4 and weighs 2500lbs. I all comes down to an issue called power to weight ratio. The eclipse will take a celica off the line with the V6's Torque but won't kill it. It really will come down to who is the better driver. When the specs are that close one driver error will throw the race. I've beat and been beat by Eclipse GTs in my GT-S. Some races I was the better driver and others I was not.
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    If you're comparing GTS auto vs Eclipse GT auto, aren't you pretty much taking the 'better driver' out of the picture? Of the two, I would have to guess the Eclipse auto would win, from the simple standpoint that a 4-speed auto is a better matchup with the larger displacement, relatively low-revving V6 rather than the small displacement, peaky I4 in the GTS. Do you have an auto or 6-speed in your GTS?
  • racsojrracsojr Member Posts: 1
    Its all about what car is better. I was trying to decide between the New Toyota Celica and The Eclipse 2001 GS. After trying both cars, comparing quality, doing some research on the internet, comparing weight/HP, looks, and everything else. I decided for the Eclipse 2001 GS with Sportronic. The car not only looks sturdier but performs better (bigger engine, more liters, more HP)
    About racing, it has to do more with the driver than the car. After all what is the point of racing on the streets? But if I have to, I am sure I will outlast any celica on the street. :)
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    that you will outRUN any NEW Celica (stay away from Celica All-Tracs) in a heads-up race to 60 mph -- but outLAST?? Sorry, don't think so...just compare Mitsu's reliability record vs Toyota's in Consumer Reports.
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    make that "new Celica with an automatic"....
  • roadroachroadroach Member Posts: 131
    Read his post carefully: he has an Eclipse GS with the sportronic, not a GT. His GS (2.4liter I4) has 147hp to pull 2985lbs around (over 20 lbs/hp) while even the base Celica GT has 140 hp for 2425lbs (around 17 lbs/hp). While I agree that his torque superiority may help in a 0-60, I don't think he will be 'spanking' many Celica GT's. Woe unto him if he decides to tangle with a Celica GTS......
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
  • alex18talex18t Member Posts: 117
    my celica GT is the fastest car i've owned. it's great off the line and has great pull unless you get bogged down below 3500. my car runs as fast and usually faster than my friend's 93 z24 which has a better hp to weight ratio than the eclipse GT (if my friend knows his stuff). also the celica has superior handling. maybe im crazy but i dont think an eclipse could beat me in a drag race. certainly not an auto. but eclipses are definately a lot easier to drive fast because of their wider torque band.

    The important thing is we never criticize each other in these forums. lol
  • andonniandonni Member Posts: 7
    which is better anyways?
    one have more hp ..but..too much weight
    one is so so hp..but lighter...???
    can anyone tell me???
    and..wut about include prelude
    3 cars is better
    ( prelude SH, Celica GTS, Eclipse GT )
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    an't nuthin to sneeze at -- especially in a 2400 lb car. But driving a hot coupe with a hyper personality like the GT-S is totally different than the new Eclipse or Prelude -- both of which are more subdued.

    All three cars are wonderful, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to anyone. Try all three and decide for yourself -- you can't go wrong. Just be sure to drive them enthusiastically, or you'll miss the whole point of the exercise. And if the salesman tells you to back off, find yourself another salesman and do it again!
  • andonniandonni Member Posts: 7
    is GSX good?
    how come ... it has kind of low overall ???

    and... in prelude sh and eclipse GT celica gt-s
    three of 3 are ok?
    dont have a really good one mah??? or the same???
  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    was a lot faster, but not nearly as well put together or reliable as the new Eclipse is expected to be. Nevertheless, it's still very popular with the street crowd -- you can crank that turbo way up there with a few bucks and really scare somebody. The back seat is useless, though, while the new Eclipse's can actually accomodate real live people.

    Between the three, I'd probably choose the Celica on the basis of style and handling -- I have one already, and I love it. But the reviews of all three cars have been glowing, and the Eclipse has more torque than the GT-S, so would probably be more relaxing (but less exhilerating) to drive. The Prelude styling is a little too laid-back for my taste, but it's an elegant car and it handles beautifully too. The Honda and TOyota are both likely to be more trouble-free than the Eclipse, but that's based on past history, not the current car, so who knows?

    Cars like these are emotional, and buying one is an emotional process. I always say, drive em all, sleep on it and buy the one you wake up thinking about. What else can I say?!!
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    Want to compare these two vehicles side by side? Check out's new side by side Vehicle Comparison. Happy Motoring!



    Hatchbacks/Station Wagons Message Boards

  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
    Thanks -- first time I used that!

    Coupla questions -- why is the Celica listed as a coupe, not a hatchback, and why are 0-60 times not listed? Didn't you guys test all these cars?

    Curb weights would help too, for power-to-weight ratios.
  • SPYDER98SPYDER98 Member Posts: 239
    AWD (good all season car,especially with snow tires), 200+lbs torque, good handling, easy to add hp. With as little as $1000, you can add 30-40hp.

    Shaky reliablility record, poor resale
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    I'm sorry that I don't have an immediate answer; however, I will ask my immediate supervisor about these things. You may get a more expedient answer by copy/pasting your message into the feedback/question box on this page: Contact

    Thanks for your participation. ;-)

    Hatchbacks/Station Wagons Message Boards

  • denniswadedenniswade Member Posts: 362
  • alex18talex18t Member Posts: 117
    the comparison feature doesnt "confirm or deny" any preconceptions it just states the same kind of stuff you can find on the factory web sites.
  • kerrigat2kerrigat2 Member Posts: 7
    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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • kerrigat2kerrigat2 Member Posts: 7
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 7
    GSX OR GST????
  • denniswadedenniswade Member 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.
  • alex18talex18t Member Posts: 117
  • andonniandonni Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 134
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 134
    Why get Solara then? Get full size Crown Vic. Smoother, safer, quieter, and mine was problem free so far (7 years).
  • revkarevka Member 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
  • marktestmarktest Member Posts: 43
    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 Member 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...
  • silvercelica01silvercelica01 Member Posts: 11
    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.
  • badtoybadtoy Member Posts: 343
    that Sport Compact Car dynoed it and found an additional 8 WHP.
  • sergeissergeis Member Posts: 134
    marktest, there is something really wrong with your celica. I have GT auto, and it does 0-60 in 8.5 secs, the GTS auto should be slightly better, I guess ~7.5-8 s, and manual about 7. And leather is personal thing, I absolutely hate it, even if GTS would be same price as GT I would probably go GT because GTS comes with leather... Plus I can use regular with GT and get 39 mpg on highway.
  • boomn29boomn29 Member Posts: 189
    Take your 39 mpg, and I'll take the 40hp, wheels, suspension, etc and be happy.
    Besides, the GTS will pull 33mpg.
  • silvercelica01silvercelica01 Member Posts: 11
    Sometimes I wish I would have forked out the extra $3k for the GTS, however, in normal driving situations (under 6,000 rpms) is there much of a difference?

    I thought the suspension was the same on both cars?
  • marktestmarktest Member Posts: 43
    If there is something wrong with my GTS Auto (0 to 60 in 10 sec), two dealerships say there isn't. I get, "it's performing within factory specified parameters". From torque curves I've seen and the weight difference, I wouldn't be surprised if the GT Auto is quicker than the GTS Auto. The GTS engine is really gutless with the gearing of the 4 speed automatic. It only has power for the brief time it's over 6000 rpm in first gear. The shift to second drops to 4000 rpm and it takes for ever to get back to 6000.

    I also never seem to get the mileage people talk about, only 29 on the highway, but that's close to the EPA sticker
  • badtoybadtoy Member Posts: 343
    put a low-boost turbo on it. That's what I did with my Corolla (same 1ZZ engine/auto), and it's a Mustang eater. Of course, your mileage will drop to 28 mpg, but what the heck -- you can't have everything!
  • silvercelica01silvercelica01 Member Posts: 11
    I would never get the automatic in the Celica. The only advantage to the automatic is the fact you get better mpg because the final gear ratio is lower. However, you aren't going to notice a big difference in 32mpg to 35mpg. I also don't drive in traffic, so that may be another advantage to the auto.

    I have raced both GT-Ss and Mitsu GTs autos and beat them both. I also raced a Dodge Stratus R/T 5speed and was side by side with him from 0 - 65ish. (The Stratus R/T having the same drivetrain as the Eclipse GT) I have never raced a 6-speed GTS but I would like to, knowing that I would lose, I would like to see by how bad (and if the $3k option is really worth it).
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    It's pretty quiet. I believe the 10 bhp figure was for the GTS, not the GT.

    THe Kazuma exhuast will make you deaf.
  • boomn29boomn29 Member Posts: 189
    Where do you live at silvercelica01?
  • silvercelica01silvercelica01 Member Posts: 11
    St. Louis, MO.
This discussion has been closed.