FRS vs. 2g Mitsubishi eclipse gst/gsx

[BioRage]

Originally Posted by Chen

I liked them at first. Then I saw the fast and the furious and it killed it for me.

Guess you'll wait for 6 fast 6 furious than, and see what they do to the BRZ/FRS.

So if they "kill it" than you won't like your car anymore?

[Turbowned]

The FR-S is a slow piece of awesome, the DSM is a fast piece of shit. I know my fair share of people who own or have owned DSM's; that's the general consensus among them. I've actually got a buddy with an AWD-converted GS-T Spyder; one of very few in the country.

[Van]

Had a 98 RS pushing 8 psi on an aftermarket setup.

haven't had that much fun in a car since, till I test drove the FR-S!

Nonetheless it was a FWD, but you can see my point

[tlovesm]

I had a 1990 Plymouth Laser RS, 1997 Eagle Talon Tsi and finally a 1999 GSX. The GSX stickered for an astronomical $27,500 in 1998/1999. The '90 was the most fun to drive even though it didn't have a turbo. I loved the pop up headlights and the design was years ahead of its time.


Anyway, the two later turbo cars I had "felt" fast to me because I had never owned anything that "fast." But honestly, the chassis was terrible; the lag was very bad; the gap between the top of tire and bottom of fender was huge; etc. My 1996 Toyota Paseo had a much better chassis than my later DSM's. The DSM's were bloaty an handled like crap! I could barely get any tire spin on the Talon (front wheels only).


Contrast this to my wife's current 2014 Jetta SE 1.8 Turbo. With APR's tune, the stock Jetta is pushing 265 HP with similar torque. The thing absolutely screams! Half gas and the car begs for traction! And, the VW chassis is light years ahead of any DSM.


The "twins" are beautiful cars. The interior is gorgeous and I've heard they handle very, very well. But in a drag race against a modified BRZ, my wife's Jetta left it by a few car lengths to 80. The desperately need more power.


That's my rant for the day :-)

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah i get that but there is a huge difference between giving credit where its due or being good for its time and saying it will mop the floor with the twins. turbo or not it only has like 210 hp and im not sure that archaic awd systems make cars that much faster

The 99 GSX had full time AWD with a limited slip rear diff. It's a very good AWD setup. I've had mine for 10 years and it never loses traction in anything short of snow/ice. And unlike the electronic diffs in the Evo's, it is much more smooth/predictable when transferring power. I also like how the Eclipse has less body roll than the Evo's (especially with stiffer dampers).

I've test driven the FR-S a few times and frankly, it felt very similar to my Eclipse. I actually like the torque, traction, steering wheel feedback, and styling of my Eclipse better. But I want a newer car with modern conveniences so I will be getting a 2017 BRZ PP soon and likely selling my Eclipse GSX.

If anyone really wants an almost entirely stock red with black interior, manual transmission 1999 Eclipse GSX, PM me before the 2017 BRZ PP's come out. But I'm not doing trades and I'm not going to let it go for cheap. I put so much money in maintaining it over the years and realize there are basically none like it left out there. I don't think I've ever come across another GSX like mine in the 10 years I've owned it. I've seen more 3000GT VR-4's around than GSX's!

[weederr33]

I had a 1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS as my first really sporty car. I was in love with the 2G eclipses, especially the face/butt lifted 97-99 models. They were as close to a perfect car in my eyes; awd, 2 door hatchback/ coupe, turbocharged I4, and that DSM spoiler was beautiful. I really wish I could find a near pristine model. All of the ones I ever see are trashy or riced the hell, which is a damn shame.

[2ZZW30]

Different cars from drastically different times. In the mid 90s to 2000 they were at the top of the import heap. They did well at AutoX. Could be made wicked fast for drag racing, and made damn good street cars for their time. I bought a stock 96 Talon TSI AWD in 1997 and over the next few years did sway bars, springs, Tokico Illuminas, a FP green with all of the normal supporting mods, racing seats, etc. Tweaked just about every facet of the car and it never broke, never left me stranded and was a ton of fun. It would trap 122mph in the quarter on pump gas in DD trim. Most of the guys on this forum are too young to know how good these cars were in their time. Properly maintained and modded they will still give many modern cars a run for their money.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

The 99 GSX had full time AWD with a limited slip rear diff. It's a very good AWD setup. I've had mine for 10 years and it never loses traction in anything short of snow/ice. And unlike the electronic diffs in the Evo's, it is much more smooth/predictable when transferring power. I also like how the Eclipse has less body roll than the Evo's (especially with stiffer dampers).

I've test driven the FR-S a few times and frankly, it felt very similar to my Eclipse. I actually like the torque, traction, steering wheel feedback, and styling of my Eclipse better. But I want a newer car with modern conveniences so I will be getting a 2017 BRZ PP soon and likely selling my Eclipse GSX.

If anyone really wants an almost entirely stock red with black interior, manual transmission 1999 Eclipse GSX, PM me before the 2017 BRZ PP's come out. But I'm not doing trades and I'm not going to let it go for cheap. I put so much money in maintaining it over the years and realize there are basically none like it left out there. I don't think I've ever come across another GSX like mine in the 10 years I've owned it. I've seen more 3000GT VR-4's around than GSX's!

yeah i get that but there is a huge difference between giving credit where its due or being good for its time and saying it will mop the floor with the twins. turbo or not it only has like 210 hp and im not sure that archaic awd systems make cars that much faster

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by fatoni

yeah i get that but there is a huge difference between giving credit where its due or being good for its time and saying it will mop the floor with the twins. turbo or not it only has like 210 hp and im not sure that archaic awd systems make cars that much faster

Yeah, that statement is only true if you modify it a bunch. Adding a bigger turbo and good coilovers/tires would easily result in a faster car. The FR-S has the advantage of a stiffer and lighter chassis and can seemingly handle a turbo quite well. In stock form, the GSX likely only has an advantage of traction off the line (especially if wet/slippery).

[mdost03]

Originally Posted by tlovesm

Anyway, the two later turbo cars I had "felt" fast to me because I had never owned anything that "fast." But honestly, the chassis was terrible; the lag was very bad; the gap between the top of tire and bottom of fender was huge; etc. My 1996 Toyota Paseo had a much better chassis than my later DSM's. The DSM's were bloaty an handled like crap! I could barely get any tire spin on the Talon (front wheels only).

This is a joke, correct? Lag on a stock 2g dsm? lol

[Token11b]

Obviously the people bad mouthing the DSMs never owned or really driven one. I had a 91 Talon TSI AWD. The thing flew. It handled well. Responded really well to mods and was a blast. Yes they have their issues but they weren't nearly as bad as people made them out to be especially "crank walk". Keep up on their maintenance just like any other car and your golden.

[DAEMANO]

Cue @Tcoat in 3.... 2.... 1...

[burdickjp]

DSMs seem appealing.
Until you compare them to a GT-four.
But either is a completely different kind of car with completely different intentions compared to the ZN6/ZC6.

[Xxyion]

I had a 95 GST. LOVED that car. But imo it was nothing compared to my BRZ.