Which is the better car and for what? The eclipse is faster and it seems a bit cheaper, but which car is more reliable after 80k miles and cheaper to repair?

 

is this a serious question? the honda will out live any mitsu ever made. and its cheaper to fix (usually lol). and what do you mean 98-01 eclipse? do you mean the second gen 95-99 or the third gen 00-05?

 

I don't mean to seem rude, but this is a Civic tech forum. How many members do you think are going to suggest that the Eclipse is the better choice?

I will say this, Honda is renowned for its reliability, and there is tremendous aftermarket support if you're interested in improving the performance of a Civic.

 

You're asking a question in an obviously biased forum but in all honesty go look at a consumer reports magazing and you'll see the Civic will be better on reliability and cost to repair. Research is your friend...

 

ugh
besides looking like a mach 5....i can't say anything positive about that eclipse.

i've always wanted to see one painted like a mach five though, maybe you could do that.

 

I mean second gen or third gen. So, basically honda is much more reliable, but you can't deny the power a eclipse has compared to a stock civic.

 

I personally don't have an Si nor have I driven an Eclipse, so take this with a grain of salt, but power isn't everything...

I'd be willing to bet handling-wise the Si would win. I couldn't say who would win in a straight-line race, but my Ex would probably get owned.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't mean to seem rude, but this is a Civic tech forum. How many members do you think are going to suggest that the Eclipse is the better choice?

I will say this, Honda is renowned for its reliability, and there is tremendous aftermarket support if you're interested in improving the performance of a Civic. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Enough 'said.

 

i've been in the 2nd and 3rd gen eclipses's and i am not impressed what so ever. the one thing i hate the most about them is the interior room. you seriously can't move or do anything in that car. even if your the driver/passenger, its not comfortable at all to be in that car. power wise stock for stock a eclipse is def the winner but as for every other category the Si is on top.

 

Yeah the interior room is pretty bad on the eclipse. I'm not very tall and my head bounces against the window in the back seats. But it does have a certain sense of style and the convertible version looks like it got a bit more head room. Whereas the older si's have really bland interiors. Guess I'm gonna test drive these two and see which has better handling.

 

Second gen Eclipses have that nasty A-pillar too. I can't help but think of meeting up with it in the event I were in an accident while driving one.

I had a friend with a '98 Eclipse and it's just as fast as my EX coupe. Only my Civic looks better (Eclipse looks curvy and kind of cheap and girly to me - but the interior is worse imo). Not to mention the issues of crankwalk with them, though I know this isn't the case for all Eclipses.

 

in terms of reliability

Honda &gt; DSM hands down.

the 3rd gen eclipses are garbage (00+)

I like the styling of 1st and 2nd gen's personally but the only ones worth getting are the AWD turbo models, which are even bigger pieces of **** in terms of reliability than their non-turbo counterparts.

 

haha the people over on the mitsubishi forums swear that the cars are reliable if you treat them right. crankwalk sounds nasty.

What's wrong with the 3rd gen eclipses? And this is a noob question, but what are the pros of AWD?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Civic199 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...the convertible version looks like it got a bit more head room...</TD></TR></TABLE>

LOL i wonder why?

 

I'm sure that an Eclipse can be a decent ride. I'm not sure how much they can take as far as mods though (regarding the crankwalk, which I don't know a whole lot about).

Asking either side which they like better is going to get bias opinions though. You need to read up on both independently and then go test drive some. Figure out pros and cons of each.

 

go buy the 2g turbo you will love it while you are putting an new engine in it while the si you did want drives by
i have owned 3
turbo 2 g's and every one of them
took the crank out for a perment walk

 

onlt a gst and a gsx has more power than a si. even then it weighs a **** load. there is more support for aftermaket parts for a si. i own a 2000 si and i can find any part i want bein used or new easily.....

 

dollar for dollar the civic would be a better choice. honda motors are very reliable. i beat the crap out of my ex motor everyday for two years and it still ran fine.
plus there are millions of parts out there for civics

 

Eclipse FTW!!! they're fast.. i seen it in Fast and the Furious.

 

to the op dude like stated before this is a biased fourm. so don't be surprised win everybody says CIVIC FTW!!!! to me the only eclipse i would own would be the oldschool one. old talen, laser. that would be the only on i would own. after that they look like something only should girl would drive. honestly i think that is the gayest thing to see a guy driven an eclipse. (give him the benifit of a doubt that it is his girls car). also the civic will be way more reliable in the long run. just my .02

 

Corolla..

 

Go to General Discussion and ask the same question.

I for one would get a 97-99 front GSX over any Civic. Looks are subjective, and though EK is my favorite Civic, I did like the Eclipse before I got over the EK's headlights.

And speed, **** the thing comes with the best motor possible. No need for a $3000 swap that going to run mid 15's. If you get crankwalk, which isn't as common as people think, a rebuild is less than a shitty *** B18B motor. With an Si, youre in the 15's but you still need more displacement. So you need a GSR, ITR, or H22, which either way no less than $3000. Then you gotta go all out NA build, or boost, which is another $4000+ if done right. $7000, and thats on the low side. Whats that getting you? 12's maybe?

Hell for the first $3000 you would have payed for the Civic motor, an Eclipse would be low 12's or even 11's.

Also the crankwalk. Funny, people mention it, and admit to knowing nothing about it. It only affects late 94 1st gens, as they have 7 bolt motors, and 95-96 manual turbos. Secondly, if it hasn't happened by 80K miles, then it probably wont happen.

I almost had a nice turbo Eclipse, but I couldn't get it because it was green with a light gray interior, and that reminded me of the Cypress Green EK with the light Gray interior, and I wouldn't touch a Civic that color combo, same applies to the any car.

Eclipse.

 

I have personally owned a 2nd gen eclipse (well an eagle talon) non-turbo, and currently own a 94 ex. the talon within one year of driving, which wasn't hard driving either, broke a power steering rack, the diff blew, cylinder 2 lost all compression, and the car started over heating.(the last 2 simultaneously ) this was all at 140k. My civic has 207k, is just as fast as the talon, and i haven't replaced anything yet (except the oil). I personally like the looks of the eclipse/talon 2nd gens, but i would go with the civic

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94excivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have personally owned a 2nd gen eclipse (well an eagle talon) non-turbo, and currently own a 94 ex. the talon within one year of driving, which wasn't hard driving either, broke a power steering rack, the diff blew, cylinder 2 lost all compression, and the car started over heating.(the last 2 simultaneously ) this was all at 140k. My civic has 207k, is just as fast as the talon, and i haven't replaced anything yet (except the oil). I personally like the looks of the eclipse/talon 2nd gens, but i would go with the civic</TD></TR></TABLE>

You are talking about a NA, we are talking about turbo.

NA = 420A = Neon motor
Turbo = 4G63

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DCSportEJ1Civic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">is this a serious question? the honda will out live any mitsu ever made. and its cheaper to fix (usually lol). and what do you mean 98-01 eclipse? do you mean the second gen 95-99 or the third gen 00-05?</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is a retarded statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In any event, I agree with padawan - this is a Honda forum, what the **** else are they going to say?

I got a lil experiment for you - ask them how much they like your civic in a cobra mustang forum, see what kinda responses you get.

If you can get past the stage where the eclipse will crank walk (usually if it hits 1k and hasn't crank walked yet, it won't) then they're fine, just like ANY other car, if you take care of it, it takes care of you.

When it comes to maintenance though, Honda wins HANDS DOWN.

Honda parts are cheaper than ****. Why? Don't know, probably due to the commonality of Hondas, but when it comes to getting new parts (OEM) - Wow, you really get raped by a mitsu dealership. I had a GSX eclipse and though I loved the thing to death, the parts were murder on the wallet - and that's with the 20% discount (order through a garage)...so in terms of maintenance, the Honda's a lot cheaper to maintain, but if somebody gave me the option right now, my old eclipse or my civic, I'd take the eclipse.

Yes they're a girls car, but **** they're pretty chill to drive, handling, etc.

Oh yeah, that's another thing, civic's a hell of a lot lighter.