I wanted to ask this in a forum where the people already have the car in question (as opposed to most of the 2G Eclipse forum where I belong, where people only wish they had one mostly): What is the real-world noticeable difference between a 97 eclipse n/a and a 97-99 SL? I know the SL has 80 more hp but it's also nearly a thousand pounds heavier. I can't afford a VR4 and it would cost almost as much to turbo the eclipse as to just sell it and buy an SL (hence the decision). I love the way 3000GTs look, but is it worth the higher maintenance cost to switch cars vs just turbo the eclipse? Or would it cost any more to maintain the SL than a GS-aftermarket-T?

Let me specify, my question is purely performance (except for the cost part, that's about money): is there a huge difference between an SL and a GS or is it not enough to be worth the cost of trade-in/purchase and I should just turbo my eclipse instead?

The SL will run a full second faster in the 1/4.

SL can do it in 15 flat, a GS eclipse does it in about 16.5

the difference between an SL and a GS is like the difference between a fat chick and prom queen.

Last time I checked the 3000GT SL did NOT weigh 4400 LBS.

GS isbout 2900 the SL is about 3500.... right?

It would cost more to have a turbo 420A Eclipse.

So, it would be more economically feasible, in terms of maintenance, to go the route of the SL? And an SL will outperform a turbo-ed GS?

yes, no.