Toyota Celica vs. Mitsubishi Eclipse

boomn29

I'm there too. I have a 2001 6 speed GTS...

nippononly

They do have the same suspension. I confirmed this in the service department of the dealership where I bought my GT. The wheels and tires are different of course.

I think the celica has really nice leather seats, as leather goes, but I still prefer the cloth, which is one of the reasons I went with the GT. All the GTS around here had the leather. Not to mention, they all had the "action package" with the huge rear wing, which is not to my tastes.

nippononly

if anyone out there has raced a eclipse GT vs celica GTS? Kind of a loaded race, I know, with the eclipse's 6-cyl, but I was just wondering.

SPYDER98

I took a co-workers out for a ride last summer. I concur once this thing gets around 6krpm it's a screamer. But as soon as the upshift happened, the engine would just bog down when dropping into the 5k rpm range.

It would be a complete shame to own this car with an auto. too bad, the kid spent good money on the car too...

filiusdex

i need to get a new (to me) car, and i have it narrowed down to an Eclipse GS and a Celica GT. Both cars are 2000's, have ~25k miles, and are priced the same. Everything in my gut is leading me toward the Eclipse, but Mitsubishi's poor track record for reliability (esp. compared to Toyota), and the crankshaft problems they had in the mid 90's eclipses are holding me back. Also, from what i've found, it seems that the eclipse also depreciates faster than the celica. i've heard the latest (2000 and beyond) models for the eclipse are supposed to have improved reliability, but i've been unable to determine how true this is and will be. anyone have any insight to help me in my decision? i'm more interested in seeing if the eclipse would be relatively problem free to/for ~100k miles/5 years, not necessarily 10 years from now.

nippononly

in the celica is looking to be up to the typical standard of Toyota engines so far. Mitsus in general have a lot of drivetrain problems as they age, but a lot of the biggest Eclipse problems from the mid-90's were on the turbo models, of which there is none now. Yes, the Eclipse will depreciate faster than the celica.

These are two very different cars - you might want to make a higher priority of their differences relative to your driving style. Eclipse is porky and powerful with smooth ride, celica is modestly powered with rail-like handling.

sergeis

I have GT 2000 with 34K. So far I had to replace tires - the original Dunlops were junk. Also the body paint is not very good, at least compared to Ford. I should also mention cruise control which is certainly faulty, sometimes goes into oscillations, but one can live with it.
Otherwise very good car and I like it, especially sporty handling and gas milage. It certainly beats Eclipse in these departments. Acceleration is not impressive but not bad - 8.5secs for 0-60 (auto).

jefffarley

Does anyone know why the eclipse 99- is the strongest 4 banger available? Also I've heard that the crankshaft is poor on the GST & GSX, does anyone know where this rumor came from???
If anyone knows please tell me.

00silvergts6sp

"#55 of 61 I would like to know by nippononly May 21, 2002 (4:20 pm)
if anyone out there has raced a eclipse GT vs celica GTS? Kind of a loaded race, I know, with the eclipse's 6-cyl, but I was just wondering"
I was at the local street races by house and I raced one. Just to settle the which is faster question. It was very close. by the 1/4 mark I was maybe 12" ahead and by the 1 mile mark I pulled my rear past his front end and got in front of him. I was at 143 ish mph. The road got windy and I made it threw screeching all the way down to 60mph he however didnt make the second wind slid off the road and totaled his car. Lucily no one died. just badly injured. end result comes down to driver. and better handling in the celica. And yes a stock gts can break 140!!