CarTalk.com Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Eclipse GSX vs Mitsu Evo

Which is better performance wise? Eclipse GSX,3000gt vr4, or an 90s Evo?

It all depends on the condition of these old vehicles .

A simple web search will let you find reviews of both when they were new and you can decide for yourself.

4 Likes

Trying to win a bet with your high school friends?

3 Likes

No. Vr4 is my dream car, I just want to know what people say about how it stakes up against it’s brothers, i.e gsx and Evo.

I drove a few of the first generation Eclipse GSX when I worked at a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer, sold as the Plymouth Laser RS turbo AWD, fun cars but not over-powered. The 3000GT VR4 and Dodge Stealth R/T Twin Turbo (300 HP) are better cars.

And just how many owners of either of those vehicles do you think are going to see your post ? Maybe 2 at the most, that is why I said search the web for magazine road tests .

Better how ? And the vr4 is heavier and harder to modify than a AWD DSM. What do you considered overpowered?

The four cylinder turbo was sufficient but not overwhelming, The twin turbo V-6 had plenty of power, better suspension, 4 wheel steering, top speed of 155-165 MPH. I drove them when they were new, they were not modified race cars.

I owned two Chrysler Conquest cars, the Mitsubishi sports car that came before the Eclipse and 3000GT, parts were expensive, power was not impressive, makes the Camaro and Mustang look very appealing.

1 Like

So which car you taking for the long run, gsx or vr4? Would you consider an Evo?

To me gsx is a 90s legend. Vr4 is a car a lot of people don’t know how to work on

Actually I’m in college , nice attempt there lol. Would just like to see what people think about DSM vs Mitsubishi’s JDM.

I always thought the 3000 GT was too large and ungainly. Loaded with tech but didn’t really live up to the list of performance goodies it had. Considering the very high price, it was a disappointment.

The GSX was a cheap car with AWD and added power. More power than the chassis could handle. The clutch could barely survive the power it had, let alone the power that folks added. We would darn near bet when the next clutch explosion was going to happen at our local autocross. Several GSX’s competed and it wasn’t uncommon for one to be towed away with a grenaded clutch or transmission.

The Evos were a string of really competent hot rods. Not imported to the USA until 2003, it had 10-15 years more development and technology to make it a better car. Well, at least once we got to see one in the USA. Clutches were still an issue with autocrossers given the standing starts and sticky tires but pretty much the rest of the car was good.

That said, the layout for all 3 cars is wrong for a performance car. Front heavy, AWD versions of FWD platforms. Lots of power and technology to address a fundamental design flaw for a performance car.

I agree with you performance wise but those same cons are what made the three vehicles special. Vr4 competed and beat the gtr ,nsx ,rx7 300zx and Supra. Yes heavy but the tech made up for it. The Evo was always better than the Celica gt4 and Sti. The eclipse I believe was made to compete with the integras , civics type R and S Chasis from (Nissan). No car is perfect and every car has a pro to there con. You a mustang driver?

Yup. Another compromise vehicle!

Is your mustang a v6 or a v8?

5.0 DOHC V8 I had a previous model with a 4.6 3-valve V8.

The Eclipses of that era had issues with crankshaft walk, and once that happens you’re sidelined. Often permanently because fixing it is expensive. The VR4 was a great looking car, but oddly huge for a sports car. It was more of a GT wearing a sports car mask. Neat car, and the VR4 version was pretty fast for its day, but I wouldn’t want to have to keep one on the road today. I have enough trouble sourcing parts for my MR2.

If I had to choose between those vehicles, I’d get the Evo, but real world I wouldn’t get any of them. I’d get an MR2 or a CRX with an engine swap. Oh wait, that’s what I actually did. :wink:

Why mr2 and what gen?

Would you take a Terminator cobra over that 5.0?

I would not prefer a Terminator Cobra. The SN95 chassis is inferior to the later model S197 cars. The 4 link rear can’t match the 3 link in the later cars. The supercharger adds weight up front further hurting handling. You have to modify the chassis of an SN95 a bunch just to get to an S197. And simple mods to the S197 make big improvements in the handling. The guy in charge of the S197 chassis is now Ford’s motorsports manager if that is any pedigree!

It is also super easy and quite cheap to upgrade to huge brakes on the later cars. 14 inch rear Shelby brakes and 14 inch 4 piston or 15 inch 6 piston brakes come straight from Ford and bolt right on. No need for $4000 brake packages.

Plus the 5.0 makes more horsepower without the added weight and complication of the supercharger. My engine is nearly stock, very reliable and has plenty of power to keep me up with higher hp cars at track days.