Would a Turbo TC beat a Eclipse GST???
#1
Would a Turbo TC beat a Eclipse GST???
Hey guys. Well after doing some research and adding up prices, Im highly thinking of buying a TC and turboing it. Ive been building and taken apart turbos since I was 15 years old (Im 18 now). My last car was a Mitsubishi Eclipse GST. With the boost turned up a little, intake, exhaust and a couple mods the car was fast as hell. Even stock the car was fast. Well the 4G63T comes with roughly 215 hp. Stock Scion is 160 hp with basic turbo kits Ive seen around the 200 hp range. Well I just wanted to know have any of you turbod TCs raced a GST? I want to get something atleast faster then my last car, otherwise Im thinking of buying another Eclipse, though I really want a newer car. Can anyone give me a comparison of the two cars? Thanks.[/b]
#2
i killed a regular wrx, and am very close to the sti range.....off the ZPI stage 0, with a correct tune and a fre mods, you can net around 230 whp...which is what the sti runs about....
#3
With different boost setups out there you can break over 300 easily. So it shouldnt be a problem. Understand though that the tC isnt that fast of a car. It takes alot of time and money to make it throw down something nice. For just above the price of a new tC you can get a used STi or Evo which will be a ton faster than a tC for the same price you would have spent making the tC STi fast.
#5
sti only put about 230-240 whp stock, and the evolution puts around 250 whp....with a stage 1 from zpi, and the bigger turbo you should definetly put higher numbers than that out....so it wouldn't cost as much as you think it would.....16000 for base tc....lets say you spend 7000 which would be overpriced on a turbo build....23000......seems affordable over time....i mean, this also mean you have a full time job, lol
#6
bolt-ons into a gst with a stock turbo can be really quick
had a friend that used to have one and beat the new sti (06) by a car (from a 40 roll)
on a stock turbo..... that's pretty good
i wouldn't even shoot for any of the newer eclipses
get a tC or...
2nd gen>1st gen>other gens
had a friend that used to have one and beat the new sti (06) by a car (from a 40 roll)
on a stock turbo..... that's pretty good
i wouldn't even shoot for any of the newer eclipses
get a tC or...
2nd gen>1st gen>other gens
#7
I am not going to say which car will outrun the other in a straight line race... dont care really since we are talking about a fwd 4banger, which is not a sports car to start with....
But stop comparing whp. First, most wheel dynos will read incorrectly and differently to start with. Second, peak HP means nearly nothing overall ( the average power delivery.. aka the integral of the power curve or area under the curve is what tells what a car can do power wise). And finally, how that car gets the power to the ground tells the real story. For example, an AWD will get better traction of the line than a fwd any day of the week but will lose more the wheels. A rwd properly driven and set up will school both of them and a fwd is an economy setup that was meant to allow a low power engine move a car since losses are lower.. but overall is the absolute worst setup for performance. Give me a rwd that I am familiar with over a comparable awd or especially fwd and I will kill it any day of the week.
So comparing cars based on peak hp is ridiculous.
Dont even get me started on the driver part of it.
Can a fwd be modded to be fun? Sure. Is 220 -230 whp in a fwd "fast" ? Hell no. It may be fun, but fast is WAY above that.
The tC is fairly quick for a sub 20k NA 4banger. It can be made quick and fun fairly easilly. It can be made to handle well enough to be fun. But if you are really looking for that next step and an actual sports car, look for a rwd. Now, if you are looking to rally a car, then buy a used sti. But for pavement, give me a rwd with about 300 HP and a good suspension setup any day.
But stop comparing whp. First, most wheel dynos will read incorrectly and differently to start with. Second, peak HP means nearly nothing overall ( the average power delivery.. aka the integral of the power curve or area under the curve is what tells what a car can do power wise). And finally, how that car gets the power to the ground tells the real story. For example, an AWD will get better traction of the line than a fwd any day of the week but will lose more the wheels. A rwd properly driven and set up will school both of them and a fwd is an economy setup that was meant to allow a low power engine move a car since losses are lower.. but overall is the absolute worst setup for performance. Give me a rwd that I am familiar with over a comparable awd or especially fwd and I will kill it any day of the week.
So comparing cars based on peak hp is ridiculous.
Dont even get me started on the driver part of it.
Can a fwd be modded to be fun? Sure. Is 220 -230 whp in a fwd "fast" ? Hell no. It may be fun, but fast is WAY above that.
The tC is fairly quick for a sub 20k NA 4banger. It can be made quick and fun fairly easilly. It can be made to handle well enough to be fun. But if you are really looking for that next step and an actual sports car, look for a rwd. Now, if you are looking to rally a car, then buy a used sti. But for pavement, give me a rwd with about 300 HP and a good suspension setup any day.
#9
YEAH.. but a stang is slow. Again, an economy family car that was eventually turned into a muscle car by the enthusiasts. Now they are just trying to turn it back into a muscle car. The gt is farily quick, but doesnt handle all that stellar, the v6 is just plain depressing for a supposed muscle car. But give me that 300 bhp rwd NA (better powerband to start with) and TRY to beat me in 1/4 mile in a little 220 HP fwd turbo. RWD has better traction off the line to start with, the NA power plant, which is producing slightly more power and most likely a much better powerband to start with, is doing a better job of providing power, and the weight transfer off the line is bettering the traction in a rwd. If that race is won by the 220 whp fwd... the other driver just plain sucks
Now, if you want to compare to a real sports car, even a "cheaper" one at that... then tell me how much work and loss of reliability it takes to beat a newer vette in 1/4 mile (11.5 sec straight out of the box) and we are comparing... then take the same car you spent forever building to beat it in that 1/4 mile and try to corner with a rwd sports car and you will see what I mean. :D
so it is relative when you say "Fast"
Now, if you want to compare to a real sports car, even a "cheaper" one at that... then tell me how much work and loss of reliability it takes to beat a newer vette in 1/4 mile (11.5 sec straight out of the box) and we are comparing... then take the same car you spent forever building to beat it in that 1/4 mile and try to corner with a rwd sports car and you will see what I mean. :D
so it is relative when you say "Fast"
#12
Do what I did (well sorta) I just got the tC then an old 1g awd DSM. Unfortunately I got distracted with turboing the tC (whoops) but it is nice to have that DSM as a backup beater (it is funny sometimes when I have to rely on the 1990 DSM for the daily driver). My future goals are to significantly modify the DSM when money permits.
#13
Originally Posted by malibuboy54
sti only put about 230-240 whp stock, and the evolution puts around 250 whp....with a stage 1 from zpi, and the bigger turbo you should definetly put higher numbers than that out....so it wouldn't cost as much as you think it would.....16000 for base tc....lets say you spend 7000 which would be overpriced on a turbo build....23000......seems affordable over time....i mean, this also mean you have a full time job, lol
#18
#19
Originally Posted by 318_tC
alright i ran a gst on the highway 60-120 he had the greddy kit and boost turned up and i got him by 3 cars
#20
Originally Posted by engifineer
YEAH.. but a stang is slow. Again, an economy family car that was eventually turned into a muscle car by the enthusiasts. Now they are just trying to turn it back into a muscle car. The gt is farily quick, but doesnt handle all that stellar, the v6 is just plain depressing for a supposed muscle car. But give me that 300 bhp rwd NA (better powerband to start with) and TRY to beat me in 1/4 mile in a little 220 HP fwd turbo. RWD has better traction off the line to start with, the NA power plant, which is producing slightly more power and most likely a much better powerband to start with, is doing a better job of providing power, and the weight transfer off the line is bettering the traction in a rwd. If that race is won by the 220 whp fwd... the other driver just plain sucks
Now, if you want to compare to a real sports car, even a "cheaper" one at that... then tell me how much work and loss of reliability it takes to beat a newer vette in 1/4 mile (11.5 sec straight out of the box) and we are comparing... then take the same car you spent forever building to beat it in that 1/4 mile and try to corner with a rwd sports car and you will see what I mean. :D
so it is relative when you say "Fast"
Now, if you want to compare to a real sports car, even a "cheaper" one at that... then tell me how much work and loss of reliability it takes to beat a newer vette in 1/4 mile (11.5 sec straight out of the box) and we are comparing... then take the same car you spent forever building to beat it in that 1/4 mile and try to corner with a rwd sports car and you will see what I mean. :D
so it is relative when you say "Fast"