Honda Car Forum

On 28 Jun 2003 08:43:37 -0700, analystresearch2002@yahoo.com (Andrew)
wrote:

>I am going to be purchasing a sports car in the next month and I just
>wanted to get some feedback on the board from past owners or
>test-drivers of sports car on what they've found to be good or bad
>with various cars.
>
>I'm looking into the usual suspects:
> Toyota Celica
> Mitsubishi Eclipse
> Acura RSA
> Hyundai Tiburon

The only 2 cars I would consider in that list are the RSX and the
Celica. The Eclipse and Tiburon both weigh WAY too much for a sporty
car. The Hyundai is a Hyundai, and no matter what people say about
their turnaround as far as reliability, the resale value on a Hyundai
will be bad. The Eclipse is also underpowered for how much the car
weighs.

I would add the Subaru WRX to your list, I think they can be had for
about the same cash as an RSX.

>I'm really leaning toward the Celica right now because I've heard its
>the most reliable and best interior/exterior design.

I've found my Celica to be a little rattle-prone. I also had to
replace the rear brake discs after only 26000 miles because they were
scored, which the dealer wouldn't cover under warranty. I am about to
take it in to have the accessory belt tensioner replaced, which is a
known problem with these cars (mine's a 2001 GTS, I don't know if they
fixed this in more recent model years)

>However, I've
>also heard its not that fast and there are safety concerns about blind
>spots, etc.

It does have a very limited amount of viewable area in the rear
window. Just don't get the spoiler. Blind spots are a little problem,
but with good mirror adjustment and a little neck craning, you should
be OK. See below about the power.

>Just curious to see if anyone had any strong opinions on these cars -
>any recommendations? What are the tradeoffs with these cars? Also,
>does the trim make a difference? Is there a big diff between Celica
>GT and GTS?

GT has less horsepower, but its power is more accessible, coming at
lower RPM. GTS has VVTLI, which is Toyota's variable valve timing and
lift scheme (like VTEC in the Acura), but its real benefits don't kick
in until 6000 rpm or something. However, the Celica only weighs 2500
pounds. The real great thing about the Celica is the handling: its
steering and brakes are phenomenal.

Also, the GTS has disc brakes in the rear to the GT's drums. I got my
GTS used at a great price: if I was buying new, I think I'd get the
GT. The price premium you pay for the GTS only really gets you some
extra HP you'll probably see only rarely, and the rear disc brakes.

Diff's between Eclipse RS, GS, GT, GTS? Its one thing to
>have 4 extra features and more hp, but I'd like to hear really
>people's impressions about these things.
>Would be great to hear your thoughts and experiences with any of these
>cars. Thanks for the help!

"Jacque_Strapp" <JacqueStrapp@SpringfieldNuclear.com> wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2003 08:43:37 -0700, analystresearch2002@yahoo.com (Andrew)
[snip]
> GT has less horsepower, but its power is more accessible, coming at
> lower RPM. GTS has VVTLI, which is Toyota's variable valve timing and
> lift scheme (like VTEC in the Acura), but its real benefits don't kick
> in until 6000 rpm or something. However, the Celica only weighs 2500
> pounds. The real great thing about the Celica is the handling: its
> steering and brakes are phenomenal.
>

I'd want to bring another car into play: the Mirage Turbo/Colt GT. Its curb
weight is 2545 pounds. Although the stock engine has only 135 hp, you could
easily swap the engine for a 4G63T that has 210 hp stock and (at least)
slightly over 400 hp heavily modified. The handling is excellent! The
downside is that it's very rare and a FWD. For more info look at
www.4g61t.com.

[snip]

-Andy

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:25:23 +0200, "Andy" <andypavlow@anfmail.com>
wrote:

>I'd want to bring another car into play: the Mirage Turbo/Colt GT. Its curb
>weight is 2545 pounds. Although the stock engine has only 135 hp, you could
>easily swap the engine for a 4G63T that has 210 hp stock and (at least)
>slightly over 400 hp heavily modified. The handling is excellent! The
>downside is that it's very rare and a FWD. For more info look at
>www.4g61t.com.

They haven't had a Mirage turbo in the US since the very early '90's.
The first car I bought was a (then new) 1987 Mirage Turbo. If I recall
it had around 112hp or so but weighed considerably less than the above
and it seemed to favor nice rough dirt roads as it's playground.
Drove the thing to death for 180k miles and replaced a clutch, brake
light relay, and a few odd oil changes. I wonder why they aren't that
reliable now. Sheesh.

"DragonRider" <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:25:23 +0200, "Andy" <andypavlow@anfmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'd want to bring another car into play: the Mirage Turbo/Colt GT. Its
curb
> >weight is 2545 pounds. Although the stock engine has only 135 hp, you
could
> >easily swap the engine for a 4G63T that has 210 hp stock and (at least)
> >slightly over 400 hp heavily modified. The handling is excellent! The
> >downside is that it's very rare and a FWD. For more info look at
> >www.4g61t.com.
>
> They haven't had a Mirage turbo in the US since the very early '90's.
> The first car I bought was a (then new) 1987 Mirage Turbo. If I recall
> it had around 112hp or so but weighed considerably less than the above
> and it seemed to favor nice rough dirt roads as it's playground.
> Drove the thing to death for 180k miles and replaced a clutch, brake
> light relay, and a few odd oil changes. I wonder why they aren't that
> reliable now. Sheesh.

Right and wrong. You're thinking about the Colt C10, I'm thinking about the
C50.
The C10 is the earlier model. And I agree, that old Colt was as solid and
bullet proof as reinforced steel. Sigh...

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:21:05 +0200, "Andy" <andypavlow@anfmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"DragonRider" <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:25:23 +0200, "Andy" <andypavlow@anfmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd want to bring another car into play: the Mirage Turbo/Colt GT. Its
>curb
>> >weight is 2545 pounds. Although the stock engine has only 135 hp, you
>could
>> >easily swap the engine for a 4G63T that has 210 hp stock and (at least)
>> >slightly over 400 hp heavily modified. The handling is excellent! The
>> >downside is that it's very rare and a FWD. For more info look at
>> >www.4g61t.com.
>>
>> They haven't had a Mirage turbo in the US since the very early '90's.
>> The first car I bought was a (then new) 1987 Mirage Turbo. If I recall
>> it had around 112hp or so but weighed considerably less than the above
>> and it seemed to favor nice rough dirt roads as it's playground.
>> Drove the thing to death for 180k miles and replaced a clutch, brake
>> light relay, and a few odd oil changes. I wonder why they aren't that
>> reliable now. Sheesh.
>
>Right and wrong. You're thinking about the Colt C10, I'm thinking about the
>C50.
>The C10 is the earlier model. And I agree, that old Colt was as solid and
>bullet proof as reinforced steel. Sigh...

Mine was the more contemporary hatchback, not the box with a nose
stuck on it as were the later models. (pics of mine are available if
needed). I remember they had a great ad though, where the guy plants
his foot on the gas and his face melts slowly backwards into the seat.
hehe