without rebuilding major engine components?

I dont see anything wrong with rebuilding major components, because of connections I basicly can take labour costs out of the question.

And parts themself arnt to much of a strain on the wallet.

So probably not the most premium parts but a solid rebuild isnt out of the question for me, but I am not sure if i can make this a project car, rather amass all the parts and put them together all at once while using the car as my daily driver.

so the question is now are you looking for boost or not? if your looking for boost i have repeatedly read that the 1G Eclipse engine internals are far better than the 2G eclipse engine internals. granted the stock systems on the 1G verse the 2G were about 10-25 HP less, but that could be adjusted with a simple boost controller. also the 1G turbo's are easily customized(buy a turbo shop, don't attempt a home custom job unless you know what you are doing) from the stock 16G to a 20G or even 24G turbo. the 24G can boost in excess of 30psi. which is more than you'll ever need for a 1G.

looks wise, you really can't beat the 2G Eclipse, i mean maybe if you got a special kit car for a 1G, but that would be expensive. i mean maybe it is just me, but the trim panels they have on the 2G are just BAM YEA-E-YEA-EEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! they look so good its almost painful. i think the do have a kit car for the 1G to look like the Dodge Daytona 500 GT Turbo interceptor they have on the movie "The Wraith" that would be a awesome kit car to have, especially if the car was a 10 second car.

anyways, enough of my day dreaming, its up to you now man. let us know what you decide ok?

or you could bash in some of the panels on a rusty 1g and dump 5 grand under the hood, something to be said for a sleeper.

If you want fun and speed go with a GTS. They look better, feel better and smash on a four banger. Don't know what they are talking about when they say it's not riliable, if you do the maitance it will run forever.

^^would most likely be in the low 12s^^

you guys all gotta hate on the 3 gen lol not kewl...there good cars and they look freaking sweet. soo ha lol

This is true with any car though. And the GTS has the least potential for aftermarket upgrades. Turbo application is out of the question without replacing the pistons because of that cars ridiculously high compression ratio. And they are more of a pain in the butt to maintain and work on.

4cyls are the way to go if you're looking for later modifications and more potential in the aftermarket world.

Plus they're cheaper on gas. :thumbsup:

FTW :trophy: :thumbsup:

Minimally, from what I understand, you might save like 3 dollars a fill up.

3rd gen= fun,reliable,newer,sexy,lower miles(generally),not cheap to modify,V6 or 4cyl options.handles speeds up to ?.

2nd gen=fun,fast,super sexy,light to moderate maintenance(generally),cheap to mod,AWD & turbo options,handles speeds up to 170mph+.

1st gen=fun,super fast,moderate^ maintenance etc.,cheap to mod,AWD & turbo options,not suitable for speeds over 125 mph.

The question is what is most important to you?

And that's 3 dollars you wouldn't have had the chance to save if you bought the GT or GTS now isn't it?

All I'm saying is that everyone is trying to save every penny that they can anywhere they can with the ridiculous gas prices these days, which is why I mentioned the slightly better gas mileage.

For instance, my 5spd GS averages 26mpg on almost strictly highway driving. much better than anybody with a GT that I know gets.

shoot i wish i got 26 miles per gallon. even on the freeway that would be nice. i get maybe 20 miles to the gallon in my RS, of course i drive my car like an ***hole, but they are so fun to drive fast. 120MPH in my car feels so much better than 120 in a Escort GT..........SCARY bro.

i have seen a video of turbo'd 3G eclipse easily doing over 140, but they didn't have a upgraded digital speedometer so we can't really know how fast they were going.

26 highway? I got 25 my last fill up which consists of my trip to work which is back roads, 12 miles, probably 8 stop signs/lights (always red, my luck) not to mention the starts. Not trying to start a war here but that's even more marginal than I thought. I'd like to know what I get on the highway but work is most of my driving.

No mine is 26 mixed but it's mostly city. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. My work is all driving from store to store in my car. I work for Bunny Bread, and I work 5 days a week at least and every route that I do is at least 40 miles. And like I said it's all city most of the time and I usually get 26mpg when I fill up with regular.

But at least my work pays me for my mileage that I put on my car. :grin:

Although gas mileage has become quite the raging tangent of discussion over the 4 & 6 argument, and I like saving money, but the few bucks it costs to drive one or the other doesnt concern me as much as overall performance.

I honestly want to hear some really technical discussion of the 2&3 g's 4&6 cyl. Versions

Like what makes the 4 easier to mod, given the same amount of money willing to go toward a v6

You engine = air + fuel + spark = go

Contrary to popular belief adding more air doesn't do anything.

You need to add more fuel and then add air in order to run a stoich air/fuel mixture. and then that will = more power.

More fuel also mean you need a higher octane, and more strain on your wallet. And that goes for any car.

1g or 2g were the best years
I only like 1st gens because of John Shepard what he did with one. fastest unibody eclipse

The main thing between the 4 and 6cyls in the 3g is the fact that it is much easier to do a forced induction system on the 4g64. the pistons in the GT eclipse are crap and would have to be replaced if you were to even think about doing a forced induction system on a 3g GT. The 4cyls the only thing that I know of that would absolutely have to be changed is the intake manifold cause they are a piece of crap on both engines.

But there is a post on the top of this forum about mods for 3g's and it goes into why it's easier to do turbo/super on the 4g64 than it is on the 6g72 a little bit. Check there first and you'll get a basic understanding of why it's easier to mod the 4cyls.

Here's my 2c:

For daily driver reliability, n/a is king. While it's true you can build a reliable f/i car, all motor has less things to worry about. While the V6 will use more fuel than a 4 cyl, the only reason you put a turbo on is to increase the amount of air and FUEL you can burn per power stroke. It'll probably be a wash in terms of fuel mileage between a turbo'd 4 or an n/a 6, if not I'd bet the 6 still gets better mileage. Not to mention smother power delivery through the rpm range and no lag.

Nothing against turbos, when your boost kicks in you get that funny feeling down in your balls... lol. They ARE fun, but I'll put it this way: if you're gonna race it: buy a 2g AWD turbo. The 3g's too heavy anyway. If you want the best performance out of a daily driver, and like it for it's looks get the 3g v6. If you want cheap mileage get the 4 banger (sohc though...), then if you wanna make it a project car and turbo it "just because", go for it. But you'll spend a couple of grand just to get to the 210hp, and you probably could have gotten a GTS for the same money, and got more options... Why do you think Mitsu opted for a more powerful n/a on 3g and 4g? The 4g's are at almost 270hp n/a!

Just my thoughts though....