Sayonara...

[Gold Digger]

The Eclipse will finally die? It's about time.

While I am a fan of the 1G E/T/L, I'm not sad to see it go. About midway through the 2G run, it started looking more tailored to middle aged females (read: cougars) looking for a quick way to score a young stud.

It's performance was pretty decent for a stock 2.0L turbo, but the N/A versions in both 1G and 2G were pretty mediocre.

The E/T/L biggest selling point; they can be made to be decently fast for not a whole lot of money.

I owned a 1G GSX with the 6 bolt motor. APEXi N1 catback, removed honeycomb from the MAFS, 16psi of boost and that b**** would terrorize stock Fox body and early 4.6L Mustangs.

The interiors were alright, but cheap looking and the stock shift knob was hideous. Oh, and lets not forget about the very well known transfer case and crank walk issues. LOL.

I enjoyed mine, but I don't miss it. Trading my S13 hatch for that car was one of the biggest mistakes (monetarily) I ever made. I dumped more money into that thing just trying to keep it running than I spent on all the crap I did with my hatch.

The best way to sum up 1G and 2G E/T/L is, "Great short term cars. Terrible long term cars for guys on a budget."

The 3G and 4G cars...I haven't had any experience with them with the exception of the one and only time I drove my cousins 3G V6. Decent car, but it just felt slow compared to the turbo 1G and 2Gs.

[Jesda]

I remember the first time I went for a ride in a 1G Eagle Talon. I felt my guts being pressed against my spine. I'd never felt acceleration like that before. I was 18 years old and absolutely thrilled.


I'd be dead today if I owned one.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Late model Eclipses are a joke. Underpowered with crummy chassis dynamics, cheap build quality, seriously reliability issues, and horrid weight distribution. Once again I have to express my exasperation at Mitsubishi's obsession with putting the power to the wrong wheels in their "sports cars" and then "fixing" that mistake by sending some of it rearward on the pricier (and HEAVIER) models.
3000GT was the same thing. Base models were very meh. Hot versions drove nice, but not as nice as "real" sports cars like the Z. The 3000GT was at least nice to look at. But as with ALL Mitsubishi products, the competition is almost universally superior.
That's really Mitsubishi's problem as a whole: they build cars that sit RIGHT in the middle. They have no halo vehicle. They have no standout. They haven't for a very long time. Not since the early 90s when they tried Nissan's budget-bimmer-fighter take in the Diamante. And even that thing had serious engine problems that kept it from being appealing to own.

Third-gen Eclipses are terrible looking, and fourth-gens are just a disaster.

It's intended duties were primarily on pavement -- it could handle mud and rocks to get to a campsite or plow through a foot of snow, but nothing too crazy.

Yeah, they only look like a truck. They never claimed to be anything else, though. The rear suspension is NOT offroad-friendly. The lower control arms are LONG and hang way down. They're just begging to get snagged on a rock and ruin your day.

The third-gen Escape does not look like a truck. It looks like a lifted Focus.

[Bubba1]

Late model Eclipses are a joke. Underpowered with crummy chassis dynamics, cheap build quality, seriously reliability issues, and horrid weight distribution. Once again I have to express my exasperation at Mitsubishi's obsession with putting the power to the wrong wheels in their "sports cars" and then "fixing" that mistake by sending some of it rearward on the pricier (and HEAVIER) models.
3000GT was the same thing. Base models were very meh. Hot versions drove nice, but not as nice as "real" sports cars like the Z. The 3000GT was at least nice to look at. But as with ALL Mitsubishi products, the competition is almost universally superior.
That's really Mitsubishi's problem as a whole: they build cars that sit RIGHT in the middle. They have no halo vehicle. They have no standout. They haven't for a very long time. Not since the early 90s when they tried Nissan's budget-bimmer-fighter take in the Diamante. And even that thing had serious engine problems that kept it from being appealing to own.

Third-gen Eclipses are terrible looking, and fourth-gens are just a disaster.

It's intended duties were primarily on pavement -- it could handle mud and rocks to get to a campsite or plow through a foot of snow, but nothing too crazy.

Yeah, they only look like a truck. They never claimed to be anything else, though. The rear suspension is NOT offroad-friendly. The lower control arms are LONG and hang way down. They're just begging to get snagged on a rock and ruin your day.

The third-gen Escape does not look like a truck. It looks like a lifted Focus.

I agree with most except Mitsuckbishi has made a couple decent cars. The Evo series are pretty dang fun, and is probably their Halo. AWD 300hp, all the gofast goodies installed by the factory, grippy rubber, big brakes, recaro seats. It's a turnkey track day car. Yes, it's mediocre for reliability (on par with many american cars), and the earlier ones were sadly lacking in creature comfort (early ones didn't even have cruise control), and the tires wear out after 10K miles, but they are a hoot to drive. I've been in several, and they always put a big smile on face. Really can't knock 'em

I also liked the 1st generation Eclipse Turbo. Looked like the 240sx, but with the extra horsepower that 240sx badly needed. I had many students with them. Quite nice cars to thrash around though fragile. I thought the 2nd generation had some promise, until problems caught up with it. They were fun to drive too, but a nightmare to own. After that, Mitsubishi lost their way with the Eclipse. Very disappointing. It's a shame the Eclipse devolved into a chick mobile.

[ADDirishboy]

I've actually always been fond of the Avalanche. My uncle has one and I love driving it. Interior is unbelievably roomy, the dash layout is simple but flows well, it has good power and makes a good noise with an aftermarket exhaust. I'd still rather have a Silverado 2500HD crew cab just for the larger bed and diesel motor, but I wouldn't say no to an Avalanche.

[Mr1der]

It's just the Escape HYBRID

it didn't see very big gains in fuel efficiency anyway.

I for one think an Escape SHO would be a fantastic idea.

[Jesda]

Mitsu's Asian market pickups seem pretty durable too. There was, however, a safety-related braking issue that they covered up, but if I recall correctly one of the top managers threw himself off a building out of shame.

You can't beat that for corporate accountability.

[MinisterofDOOM]

For a while about 5-10 years ago I was trying to get a used mine-duty Mitsubishi Diesel compact pickup.


I've always found it very odd that Mitsubishi chose to rebadge the Dakota (a pretty horrid truck) rather than sell one of their own.

[zacmil]

I've always found it very odd that Mitsubishi chose to rebadge the Dakota (a pretty horrid truck) rather than sell one of their own.

Actually, the Mighty Max was it's own truck; Dodge actually rabadged it as the Ram 50 in order to fill the compact truck slot. The Dakota was larger and was intended to be a mid-size truck, rather than a compact.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The most recent Mitsubishi truck (Raider, I think) is a rebadged Dakota with even uglier bodywork.

[zacmil]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Raider. I thought you were referring to a Mighty Max, like the one in the picture you posted. Nevermind

[PapaSmurf2k3]

What about the Ranger? Didn't production stop on that this year? Or was that late last year?

[MinisterofDOOM]

What about the Ranger? Didn't production stop on that this year? Or was that late last year?

Yep, it did.
Ford killed it off, 2011 was its last model year in dealerships.

It's super disappointing, too, because it was the last truly compact pickup left in the US market. But it was also a 30-year-old design, with an interior that hasn't changed significantly in 20 years. That's four times as long as most models' entire production runs. So it had a good run.

Then again, that's sort of Ford's specialty: design it once, change the bodywork every 6 years or so, and call it "all new" and save on R&D while selling for full new-car prices.

I really loved my 2.3 Ranger.

But the Mark LT conversion was neglected. It looks like a cheap aftermarket grille was slapped on an F-150 and wood kit added to the interior.

I am actually particularly fond of the Mark LT for exactly the reasons you criticize it (though my interpretation of them is a little different ).
The Blackwood was Lincoln's previous attempt at a luxury pickup. It was THOROUGLY Lincoln and thoroughly luxo. It was called the Blackwood because the bed bodywork was designed to look like black wood. It was, with the exception of the tiny headlights and rounded nose it shared with the F150, gorgeous. The cabin was plush, and the bed was lined with carpet with a permanent hinged tonneau cover. The tailgate did not hinge down, but as two side-hinged doors split down the center. It did not come with 4wd or even AWD. It couldn't tow much and rode low. It was crew-cab short-bed only.

It was the perfect Lincoln. But it was a terrible truck.

The Mark LT swung the pendulum back the other way. It has good looks (I don't think the grille looks cheap or aftermarket...in fact next to the stock grilles on REGULAR F150s these days, it looks positively mundane). The classic Lincoln tail lights looked nice on it. The lower bodywork was still very trucklike (big panel gaps to absorb abuse) but clean and classy. But you could get it with 4wd and a proper bed. You could do TRUCK STUFF with it. Yeah, you can get an F150 Platinum with the same interior quality. But it doesn't have the classy crosshairs on the tailgate.
Pearl white or black Mark LTs look gorgeous. That generation of F150 is already one of the nicest looking trucks ever (I will FOREVER HATE FORD for f#$king it up with extra chrome, flamoyant wheel arches, oversized and overchromed light housings, and that ugly pile of s*** they pass off as a tailgate on the revised F150) but when you add the Lincoln touches, which are very tasteful, it looks even better. I'd LOVE a Mark LT to park next to my LS. In fact it was shopping for Mark LTs and Navigators on autotrader that reminded me how much I've always wanted an LS and led to my owning one.

[Mr1der]

You're on f*** drugs if you think the Blackwood was gorgeous.

That's about all I have to say on that.

[Jesda]

Never been in a Blackwood, but I did see one on I-70 in Indiana once. Was like a MF unicorn!

[Bubba1]

The Blackwood was gorgeous? Uh, sure. And Kelly Clarkson would look better if she put on 150 more pounds.

[Jesda]

Blackwood's biggest issue was the interior


It was okay, but it wasn't very special. The Chriscraft-inspired bed was weird.

[Bubba1]

Blackwood's biggest issue was the interior


It was okay, but it wasn't very special. The Chriscraft-inspired bed was weird.

I think FoMoCo made worse decisions with the Blackwood than it's bland interior. It was essentially an optioned up F150 with Navigator fenders. The real issue was it was RWD only plus only came in one color...black. I don't remember them adding pearl white as an option. Perhaps that came toward the end of the run after it's fate was sealed. Combine that dumbness with the huge premium in price over a similarly equipped AWD F150 (which has a bed you could load without ruining it), and that's why Ford couldn't sell 'em.

[Xdisaster240sX]

Mitsubishi Eclipse Thank god!

[Mr1der]

The only black part didn't bother me on the blackwood. It was that goddamn ridiculous bed.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I like the bed. The only part I'm not fond of is the forward sweep of the tailgate.

[Mr1der]

The Blackwood looked like it was designed by a 60 year old Mexican gardner trying to be "hip and cool" like the kids.

here, let's have another look.



I don't think you're allowed to drive these unless you're 60 years old, wear a Hawaiian shirt with sandals and socks and have exceedingly thin hair that's been died black only so you can thin have the tips frosted so it "matches" your thin gold chain that's visible because you don't know how buttons work on the previously mentioned Hawaiian shirt.

Yes I despise that truck for even being a Lincoln. Your LS and the Towncar are the last cars worthy of wearing the Crosshairs in the past 20 years.

[TgduMg]

The Mark LT swung the pendulum back the other way. It has good looks (I don't think the grille looks cheap or aftermarket...in fact next to the stock grilles on REGULAR F150s these days, it looks positively mundane).

My cheap aftermarket grille statement may have been a little exaggerated but to a point. I have seen F-150s (2004-08) with the Mark LT grille and it appears the grille was a direct bolt on. They still rock the F-150 badges and tailgate and usually have big aftermarket wheels. I've also seen older F-150s with a Navigator front clip. You could not just bolt on a Navi grille to a 97-03 F-150. You had to swap the clip. Cadillac in a sudden rush for a Navigator competitor (the Caddy division head turned down the idea of an suv in the lineup before the Navigator was introduced) took what was supposed to be theirs in the first place. Replaced the GMC badges for wreaths and crests, switched a few nameplates, and swapped the gauge cluster with one with a different font. Added a little wood and voila. The 99-2000 Escalade was introduced to the world. The way GM started out with the Escalade seems to be the way FoMoCo ended with the Mark LT (the LT's tailgate is a nice piece though). It's all about differentiation. The Lexus ES was much further separated from the Camry than the I30/I35 was from the Maxima. GM just about equalled the effort Nissan put into differing the Max from the I30/I35 with the 2002-06 Escalade exterior. Different front and rear clips. Slightly different front and rear fenders. Same greenhouse. The interiors on both corporate offerings were slightly different from their upscale divisions but I'd score Nissan a slight win on that one (we wont get into the 2004 Titan-Armada/QX56 right now).

The Blackwood was Lincoln's previous attempt at a luxury pickup. It was THOROUGLY Lincoln and thoroughly luxo. It was called the Blackwood because the bed bodywork was designed to look like black wood.

I remember the Blackwood well. The truck with a trunk. IIRC, the concepts bed body actually was made of some kind of wood and aluminum that was simulated on the production model. The Blackwood was likely designed for the uber wealthy that wouldn't dare transporting their beluga and fine bubbly in anything less. By now I'm sure someone in Southeast Houston has one with candy paint, a pop trunk/neon set up and swangas.

Danisiti 1

[TgduMg]

Ground-up Caddies are generally superior to Lincolns. But they're not good at making luxo Chevies in the same way Lincoln excels at making luxo Fords.

Score Card

1976-77 Seville vs 1977 Versailles? Point: Cadillac

The Seville was built on a stretched X (Nova) platform with no shared body panels, completely different interior and Olds 350 with Cadillac exclusive port fuel injection. I hated the narrow rear track on the 1st Gen Seville though. A successful failure (cannibalized other Cadillac sales instead of making inroads on the Europeans).

Versailles. Different front and rear ends with very thick vinyl roof. Same wheelbase and shared body panels with Granada/Monarch. Interior nearly identical to topline Granada and Monarch. The Lincoln Versailles was the first regular production car with clearcoat paint.


1982 Cimmaron vs No Lincoln competitor? Point: Lincoln

The product planners score a win for not trying to turn a Escort or Tempo into a Lincoln.


1980-82 Seville vs 1982 Continental? Point: Lincoln

Continental based on Fox platform. Exclusive body and interior. 302 or 351 V8.

Seville goes FWD. Based on 79 Eldo/Toro/Riv. Windshield shared with all. Hood shared with Eldo. Interior. Moderate differences from Toro and Riviera, slight differences to Eldo. Standard Olds diesel with optional gas Cadillac 368 with DFI (throttle body) 49 states, Olds 350 with TBI in California (1980), 368 V8-6-4 (1981), HT 4100 (1982), optional Buick 4.1 V6 (1981-82).

I believe Cadillac went to throttle body injection on the gas Olds in 79 and on the 6 liter 368 in 80. The V8-6-4 may have stood a chance if port injection were still in use. After 1980, Caddy just couldn't get the powertrain right. Diesels sucked in every model year.

Bustle-backs were in vogue. Seville, Continental and Imperial.


1998-00 Navigator vs 99-00 Escalade? Point: Lincoln

Already covered.


Escalade EXT vs Mark LT? Point: Draw

Maybe slight edge to the Escalanche. Like the Blackwood, I really wouldn't want to use either vehicle as a truck. They make Fords, Chevies, and Dodges for that type thing. I had to get some stuff on a rainy day for the boss a few years back in his 02 Avalanche. Folding down the mid-gate and rear seat gave me just enough room for the long bulky items and they stayed dry as well. It also rode a lot more like a Cadillac than the fully loaded 03 Escalade he owned with 24 inch wheels.


1st Gen SRX vs 2nd Gen SRX vs MKX? Points: 1st Gen SRX and MKX

Although it's a little odd looking, if I were in the market for this type of vehicle it would be based largely on passenger comfort and friendliness. The 2004-09 SRX does deliver in that area. Any year MKX is a much more comfortable place to spend time than the current SRX. And as much as they deny it, the marginally smaller SRX is based on the current Equinox (Theta).

And who at GM thought the 2.8 litre Turbo V6 and weak 3 liter V6 should be installed in the Gen II SRX while the High-Feature V6 was an Equinox option? Good thing this was corrected MY 2012, but the 13 SRX is rumored to get a four cylinder. I do feel they managed to make a decent Saab (9-4X) out of it though. Jesda and the other Saabaphiles would probably be a better judge of that.

Danisiti 1