0-60 in 6.1 sec

and low 14'* in the 1/4

Mitubishi MIVEC = their variable valve timing and/or valve lift (which the 3.9 VVT doesn't have).

I feel it'* a lot to do with the seperate cam profiles, as well as weight.

MIVEC is very similar in nature to VTEC (but NOT i-VTEC). It'* even Honda licensed technology, I'm not sure on that one. Whereas Honda went with only two profiles for low and high RPM ranges, Mitsubishi uses three - one for low RPM, one for midrange, one for up top. I'm thinking this 15mpg (and other peoples' similar poor mileage) comes as a result of hitting that middle cam profile in the middle of the rev range. However, I'm not 100% sure, as the 2.4L motor is set up this way in the Lancer Ralliart edition, which is the same as the new Eclipse'* base motor. I'm only assuming the 3.8 is the same.

Also, it'* a heavy car. Maybe not quite as heavy as a Bonneville, but combining its almost 3600lbs and the more agressive cam profiles, and you've got a recipe for dismal fuel economy.



My theory.

I worded it wrong. Did the 2006 eclipes come out yet? I see ads in the paper for it but I haven't seen one yet on the road. Also are the mitsu'* N/a or do they have any turbo,superchargers?

they are out on the road and on dealers lots....they are all N/A but with all the ricers im sure that the turbo setup will be avaliable shortly


sidenote, i was at the plant where the Eclipse is built in Normal IL

I've seen 'em when I passed by a Mitsu dealer, so they're here.



No forced induction, but straight-line performance rivals that of the old-school turbo models.

Now this would be a good match up

Buick grand national

Vs.

Mitsubitshi eclipse

Just don't ask the Buick to turn

true. I think it is a beefed up version of the 3.8 used in the Galant. http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMSA/j...p?t=mechanical

Blasphemy. If a moderator could ban, you'd be outta here, mister.