Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
signifying monkey
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Originally Posted by koreandragn
Why do you guys keep comparing the 2000+ Eclipses to the Eclipses of old. Mitsu. had to make room for the Evo. yeesh. This new Eclipse is a waste though. They needed to throw a V8 in there and compare it to the Mustang/GTO's/Lightnings and the such...lose the Eclipse name too, the whole performance aspect name behind Eclipse in new cars is gone.
Good point on making room for the Evo. In terms of sales, there just isn't enough demand in the US market for an EVO AND Eclipse GSX.
As for the new Eclipses being a waste...It just depends on your preference. All cars change in time. The Z isn't turbocharged from the factory any more and neither is the RX, doesn't make them any less of a car.
People are and have been turbocharging 3g eclipses and up, as well as the Z and the RX.
I just depends on whether you want a turbo from the factory (that you're most likely to upgrade from anyway) or want to build the car up and put in a turbo of your liking the first time.
signifying monkey
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Originally Posted by Dr. 4.6
8.3 in the 1/8 would mean it runs low 13s, sorry but that's not happening. They weigh 3600+ lbs, they will run at best 14.3s or so.
Then you added in the weight and said they would run 14s at best. Where are you getting this math?
been around awhile.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,846
Likes: 0
From: 757
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Originally Posted by GR1FFON
Isn't 1/8 HALF of a 1/4? And if that's the case, then wouldn't 8.3 in the 1/8 be doubled to run 16s in the quarter?
Then you added in the weight and said they would run 14s at best. Where are you getting this math?
Then you added in the weight and said they would run 14s at best. Where are you getting this math?
are you fucking kidding me?
Patron
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,951
Likes: 0
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Originally Posted by GR1FFON
Isn't 1/8 HALF of a 1/4? And if that's the case, then wouldn't 8.3 in the 1/8 be doubled to run 16s in the quarter?
Then you added in the weight and said they would run 14s at best. Where are you getting this math?
Then you added in the weight and said they would run 14s at best. Where are you getting this math?
If you decide to fucking stop at the 1/8th mile mark and take off again.
...
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,739
Likes: 0
From: Virginia Beach
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Originally Posted by ritz
Yeah.
If you decide to fucking stop at the 1/8th mile mark and take off again.
If you decide to fucking stop at the 1/8th mile mark and take off again.
go look at some time slips, and you'll find that what you said really doesn't make any sense.
Patron
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,951
Likes: 0
Re: Interesting Read: Virginian Pilot-Reviews 2006 Eclipse
Ok let me try to explain this too you.
You can't multiply your 1/8th mile ET and MPH by two. When you start racing you're going from a dead stop. When you pass the 1/8th mile mark you already have momentum, therefore; it's not going to take you the same amount of time to get that other 1/8th mile that it did for the first 1/8th mile.
You can't multiply your 1/8th mile ET and MPH by two. When you start racing you're going from a dead stop. When you pass the 1/8th mile mark you already have momentum, therefore; it's not going to take you the same amount of time to get that other 1/8th mile that it did for the first 1/8th mile.