In a Nutshell: Some good features, but there are better ways to spend your automotive dollars.

I had not planned on reviewing the new Eclipse right now, but the other new vehicles that you CL members have have requested (Camaro SS, Prius, BMW 750, RX450H) have not yet come into the Washington, D.C. area, and I have not been able to see them yet. So, since I just got a request a couple of days ago, from a well-respected CL member, to review a new V6 Eclipse with a manual transmission, I decided to do that now, without waiting.

The first-generation Mitsubishi’s Eclipse sport coupe was introduced for 1990 as one of three more-or-less rebadged triplets: the Eclipse, Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon. Mitsubishi was quite closely aligned with Chrysler, at that time, and Plymouth and Eagle were Chrysler divisions. The Eclipse and Talon had a choice of FWD or AWD; the Laser, FWD. Both turbo and non-turbo fours were offered, with the AWD and some of the high-line FWD models getting the turbo. The Eclipse/Laser/Talon triplets were well-received in the auto press (particularly at Car & Driver magazine, as I remember it) and were quite popular with the cap-on-backwards and sport-tuning crowd, where they rivalled Toyota Celicas and Honda Civic hatchbacks in popularity.

The second-generation model, introduced in 1995, added convertibles, dropped the Laser, but continued on with the Eclipse and Talon. These second-generation models were, if anything, even more popular with the aftermarket-tuners than the originals were. The FWD turbo (GST) models, for the period, had so much bang for the buck (more so, of course, than the heavier AWD turbo GSX) that a close friend of mine (I won’t use his name…he knows who he is) simply didn’t believe it until I got him to go to a Mitsubishi shop with me and check it out (he later bought a used GSX).

Mitsubishi and Eagle (it was a Mitsubishi design) really had a good thing going with the second-generation model, but, IMO, blew it with the third-generation model, introduced in 2000. Eagle, of course, folded, and was no more. In an attempt to have more a mature, “grown-up”, owner base for the Eclipse, Mitsubishi dropped both the AWD and turbo models and redesigned the car with a normally-aspirated four and V6. The interior was, IMO, cheapened, and the V6 model was noticeably more nose-heavy than prevous models, which affected its handling some. The outcry from the enthusiast crowd and the auto press was enormous, but Mitsubuishi officials stubbornly stuck to their guns and would not re-introduce the AWD and turbo models (some of the Mitsubishi brass, I might add, later went to prison for corruption and scandals, and the company still has not fully recovered from that). However, the demise of the AWD and turbo Eclipse, along with the introduction of Subaru’s WRX and STi, did lead to the stormingly fast, AWD, Evolution rally-cars, but the Evo, of course, and the later turbo Ralliart, cost a lot more than the earlier GST and GSX Eclipse, and many young people simply couldn’t afford it….Evos and STi’s today can run 35-40K or more brand new. (the Evo was also HARD-core…..I reviewed a new Evo a few years ago and found its handling awesome, but itsride and chassis just brutal on rough roads; even auto enthisiast magazines complained about its harshness).

The fourth-generation Eclipse, introduced in 2006, led to a major body and interior restying (somewhat awkward-looking, IMO…more on that below), roughly the same engine choices with the non-turbo 4 and V6, and the continuation of coupe and convertible Spyder models. If the past is any guide (and Mitsubishi is not forced out of the American market by the recession or low sales), look for an all-new Eclipse for 2011.

One of the big problems with the Eclipse over the years, and the earlier Eagle Talon, has been the notriously poor Diamond-Star plant in Normal, IL, a plant jointly owned and operated by Chrysler and Mitsubishi. Several models of Dodge, Chrysler, and Mitsubishi vehicles are built there. Like the Nissan/Infiniti plant at Canton, MS, the Diamond-Star plant (the name comes from Mitsubishi’s 3-red-diamond logo) has had its share of troubles, including labor-management hassles, racial, and sexual-harassment lawsuits. Mitsubishi paid some $12 million (if my memory is correct) to settle one of them. The second-generation Eclipses and Eagle Talons, especially, I remember, had quality problems from that plant…..bad paint jobs, squeaks, rattles, parts working loose or not operating properly, etc… I distinctly remember looking at a new 1995 Eclipse in the showroom, the night I had my friend up at the dealer with me. The lime-green paint job looked and felt like the primer, paint, and clearcoat had actually been sprayed on over dirt and dust, with burrs and lumps in it. Consumer Reports verified the quality problems with a much-worse-than-average reliability record for the second-generation cars, improving to average (or incomplete data) for later models. Third-generation models, however, had a problem with the paint clearcoat flaking and separating from the color-coats underneath. The factory never recognized it as a defect or approved warranty re-paints.

For 2009, three trim lines of the current Eclipse are offered in the American market. The GS Coupe trim comes with a 2.4L, 162 HP, MIVEC in-line four and a choice of a 6-speed manual or 5-speed SportTronic automatic. The GT Coupe trim comes with a 3.8L, 265 HP, MIVEC V6 and the same choice of transmissions. The Spyder convertible version, with a power-operated soft fabric top, comes with the same powertrain choices. The turbo and AWD models, as indicated earlier, are long gone, having been delegated instead to the Evo and Ralliart.

The review request did not signify a body style; only the V6-manual combination, so, since it was an unseasonably warm day here for April in the D.C area (85-90 degrees predicted), I grabbed a black Spyder convertible (though black is not my favorite auto color), looked it over, and took it out for a spin. I had mixed feelings about the car, both good and bad, as the review will show, but, overall, it did not impress me as one of the better cars I’ve reviewed lately.

Discuss about this blog entry in LexusNet Forums – Blog Discussion

Model Reviewed: 2009 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT Spyder Convertible

Base Price: $28,999 (Mitsubishi has $28,844 on the web site for a manual GT convertible, but my particular car had $28,999 base on the sticker)

Options:
Premium Sport Package: $2000
Accessory Package: $199
I-Pod: $199

Destination/Freight: $675

List Price as Reviewed: $32,072

Drivetrain: FWD, Transverse-mounted, 3.8L MIVEC V6, 265 HP @ 5750 RPM, Torque 262 Ft-lbs. @ 4500 RPM, 6-speed manual transmission.

EPA Mileage Rating: 16 City, 25 Highway.

Exterior Color: Kalapana Black
Interior: Charcoal Leather

PLUSSES:

• Convertible top available even in base versions.
• Generally good underhood layout.
• Cast iron engine blocks on both the 4 and V6 for durability.
• Underhood insulation pad.
• GT model has front and rear ventilated disc brakes, unusual in this class.
• Fairly torquey V6.
• Excellent, buttery-smooth clutch.
• Flat cornering/lack of body roll.
• Thick, solid, durable body sheet metal.
• Good exterior hardware.
• Well-done fabric top and power mechanism.
• OK noise level for a convertible.
• Convertible cowl-shake fairly well-controlled.
• Nice sun-visor material.
• OK trunk space for a small convertible.
• Nice paint colors available (orange, yellow, red, blue, etc….)
• Reasonably nice interior seat leather.
• Generally comforable front seat cushions.
• Well-done, clear gauges.
• Clear, well-marked, easy-to-use controls and buttons.
• Steering wheel lacks spoke-buttons (yes, just the way I like it)
• Paint job better than on past Eclipses.
• 10/100 powertrain and 5/60 bumper-to-bumper warranties match that of Hyundai/Kia.
• Excellent web site (for most things) and easy information access.

MINUSES:

• 30K+ price tag on GT convertible questionable for what you get.
• Spotty and/or incomplete relibility record.
• Awkward-looking (IMO), coming or going (?) body styling.
• Low ground clearance makes underbody cleaning and speed bumps difficult.
• Cheap prop-rod for the hood.
• Slower-than-expected steering response for a sport-oriented car.
• Extremely poor rear visibility in the convertible with top up.
• OK but not impressive stereo.
• Outside mirrors too small.
• Poorly-located (for my feet) brake and clutch pedals.
• Uncomfortable baseball-stitching on shift lever.
• Steering wheel rim can block top of primary gauges for some people.
• No locking mechanism for the optional, alloy, racing-style gas cap.
• Rather long and vague shift-lever throws for a sport-oriented car.
• Donut spare tire.
• Terrible rear visibility with convertible top up.
• Moderate wind buffeting inside with top down.
• Coal-black interior, IMO, has far too much dark monotone.
• Cheaply-done interior hardware.
• Cheap-looking, feeling dash and door panels.
• Dated, rather hard-to-reach ignition switch.
• Worthless rear seat for adults typical of smaller convertibles.
• Small, somewhat unsubstantial front seat frames.
• Power front seats only partially power-controlled.

EXTERIOR:

The exterior styling of the Eclipse, as you first walk up to it, is, IMO, a little on the awkward side, though I would not consider it ugly (and I’ve seen far worse). The way the front and rear ends are styled (especially on the coupe), with the similiarly-shaped front and rear droopdowns and headlights/taillights, it is difficult, at a distance or at first glance, to tell if the car is coming or going. It actually looks like a somewhat squashed, lower-sitting version of an Audi TT. The low ground clearance, of course, is sporty, but can make it difficult to drive over speed bumps/ramps or to get a hose under it for winter cleaning. One of the car’s best features, though, is the solid, thick, high-quality sheet metal used for all of the exterior body panels…..I was quite impressed with it, especially compared to some of its competitors. The quality of the exterior hardware and trim was also better then average. The outside mirrors were a little too small and poorly-shaped for my tastes, but had good hardware, and the housings snapped/swivelled in place smoothly. The alloy wheels on the spyder GT, IMO, were not bad-looking, but I didn’t care for the someaht dark grayish color. Eclipse paint jobs, as I described above, were once a joke, but they seem to be getting their act together at the Diamond-Star paint shop….the current-generation cars have a noticeably smoother, glossier finish than the 90’s-vintage cars, but the black paint still shows some orange peel, and you can’t compare it with a Toyota/Lexus or Honda/Acura paint job. Other Eclipse colors don’t seem to show quite as much orange peel. Unlike most cars today, I had few complaints with the Eclipse’s paint color choice……one does not have to settle for a shade from Clancy’s Morgue. The usual black, gray, and silver is here, but also bright yellow, bright red, bright blue, and, one of my favorites, Bright Sunset (burnt) orange….the orange is what is used in most Eclipse ads and promotions. The black fabric top seemed well-done, with reasonably durable fabric, and was fully-power-operated. To raise it, you stop the car (or, at least, I did), unsnap two levers under the sun visors, hit the “Open” button on the console, and the electronics do everything else…..drop all 4 power windows, fold the top up, over, and drop the tonneau covers in place; all in 19 seconds. Raising the top back up again, with the “Close” button, of course, moves everything in reverse…..except that the electronics crap out on the power window cycle, and you have to push the window switches manually to get the windows up again. The optional (Accessory Pack) alloy racing-style gas cap, which my car had, lacks a lock on it to keep gas-siphoners out.

UNDERHOOD:

No real complaints underhood, except for the El Cheapo (for a car of this price) prop-rod to hold the hood up. As I mentioned above, the hood is a thick, strong sheet steel, has a nice insulaton pad to cut down on engine noise, and shuts firmly and precisely. The general underhood layout is quite good, with the 3.8L transversely-mounted V6 fitting in a little snug, but not overly tight. There is room to work on a number of components up front, including the alternator, and are no big plastic engine or component panels/covers to hide things annoyingly (those covers, IMO should be outlawed). The battery is back on the right, but fully exposed. All dipsticks, reserviors, and filler caps are easily and readily reached for service. And a real treat in the engine block….good, old-fashioned cast iron, in both the 4 cylinder and V6, for durability and resistance to damage from overheating. Not many cars have that any more, with most manufacturers prefering to use lighter but less-durable aluminum for weight control. Cylinder heads, though, are contemporary aluminum.

INTERIOR:

There are a few good things inside, but, in general, I found it a major disappointment (others, of course, may or may not agree). Let’s start with the things I liked, first. The steering wheel has no buttons or controls on the spokes, even with optional packages. That’s the way I like it, because, while cruising in a straight line, I often rest my hands and fingers on the spokes at the recommended 9-3 or 10-2 positions, and if there are spoke-mounted buttons, you could hit them and turn something on or off inadvertantly. I’ve never liked steering-wheel buttons, and it’s getting harder and harder to find new vehicles without them. I liked the fairly comfortable front seats, and the decent black leather used on them (which is also getting harder to find, especially on lower-price leather interiors). I also liked the well-marked, easily legible gauges/buttons/controls, which, in some cars, are better off marked in Braille. The two sun visors were also well-done, with nice, soft, felt material and snap-up mirror covers. headroom, with the top up, is OK for someone my size.

But little else inside impressed me. The general interior decor, except for the silver-painted door handles and shifter surround, looked like the inside of a coal mine (I don’t know where auto manufacturers get the idea that all-black interiors are sporty…that’s nonsense). Gray and Terra-Cotta is offered with some exterior colors. The interior trim surfaces and panels almost all have a hard or cheap look and feel. The climate-control knobs, though with nice chrome rings, wobble rather loosely like on some of the newer Toyotas. The front seats are comfortable, but have rather small, unsubstantial framework….and the power adjusters only work the bottom cushions. The stereo sound quality was not the worst I’ve heard, but was a little mediocre….not quite worthy of the Motley Crue and Twisted Sister I was giving it. The rear seat, as is common in small-to-mid-sized convertibles, was virtually useless for anything but packages or small children. The hardware inside was rather cheap-feeling and unimpressive, except for the steering-column stalks. The steering wheel rim, for some tall people, blocked the top of the two primary gauges…..even with the column adjusted full-up, I had to dial in more rake to the seatback than I wanted, to get my head down a little and compansate for it. Visibility out the back, in the convertible with the top up, was truly AWFUL…..and I can’t over-emphasize that. Peep-shows at the local porno house give you a bigger window to peer through.

With a few exceptions, this interior was clearly done to a budget. I have noticed this in some other newer Mitsubishi vehicles as well.

CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

Not bad for a convertible this size….which are often VERY skimpy. The trunk lid (behind the tonneau cover for the top), like the hood, is thick, strong sheet metal and closes with a solid “thunk”. Trunk space inside is more generous than you would expect from this type of car, but it is clear that this is is not a Suburban or Expedition……don’t expect to be able to pack up for a week-long family vacation. The trunk area is fairly well-finished, with a nice grade of carpet. Under the floor is a small donut spare tire/wheel instead of the real one that a 30K car, IMO, should have. The split-rear seats fold down in the coupe versions to add to trunk space; that, of course, is not needed in the convertible, as the folded top takes up all the space between the trunk and the rear seats.

ON THE ROAD:

Start up the 3.8L V6 with an old-fashioned key and an old-fashioned, somewhat-hard-to-reach ignition switch on the side of the steering column. The engine comes to life with a smooth and fairly quiet idle…..although some faint, rather nasal-sounding exhaust noise filters in. This engine is not as peaky as the Nissan/Infiniti 3.7L that I have mentioned in recent reviews, but throttle response is a little on the slow side until about 3000 or so, when you start to feel a noticable shove in the back (torque max of 262 ft-lbs. is at 4500 RPM). Once you get that shove, though, you take off…this car is not a slug by any means. The nasal exhaust noise at idle, of course, becomes louder with acceleration, but not unduly do….it sounds like a somewhat muted version of the Mustang V8’s burble. The aforementioned underhood exhaust pad keeps out a lot of the engine noise.

I had mixed feelings about the 6-speed manual transmission. The clutch was superb….on start-up, one the best I’ve driven. It lets out and engages smooth as butter, not too high or too low off the floor…..but the pedal was too close to the brake for my big size-15 feet. The shift lever had rather long throws for a sport-oriented car, somewhat vague linkage, and the baseball-type stitching on the leather cover was not the most comfortable I’ve seen. I liked the reverse-collar, though, that you pulled up with your fingers to let the lever pop into the reverse slot, back on the left and up…it worked well.

Handling was generally good, with flat cornering, minimal body roll, and good tire grip, but the steering response was not very quick for a sport-oriented car. It felt and handled, more or less, like a regular family sedan with low-profile tires and firmer-than-average spring/shocks. Ride quality was definitely on the jittery side, even on smooth surfaces. Mitsubishi engineers need to take some classes in Stuttgart (Mercedes) or Munich (BMW) on how to effectively mix ride and handling in chassis design…..nobody, IMO, does it like BMW.

The body/chassis, with the top down, was reasonably solid for a convertible. There was a small amount of cowl shake and vibration in the windshield frame, dash, and A-pillars (where you often find it in a convertible), and I didn’t hear any rattles or squeaks……nothing like the old shake/rattle convertibles of yesteryear. I remember the old Dodge 400/Chrysler LeBaron convertibles of the early 1980’s that had rubber-band-like frames; they would drive you nuts with shake, shimmy, and vibration.

Brakes were also one of the cars better points, with V6 GT-model Eclipses getting ventilated rotors both front and rear; the vast majority of cars have vented rotors only up front. Like with the clutch pedal, I didn’t care for the placement of the brake pedal either…it was too high and close to the gas pedal, where my big size 15’s hung up on it a little going from gas to brake. But the brakes, otherwise, worked well…little sponginesss, effective response, and smoothness of operation.

The convertible top, as I mentioned earlier, was generally well-done, and, considering it was only sealed-fabric and not a retractable hard top, sealed out wind and road noise pretty well. With the top down, there was some wind buffeting right behind my head, but right where I was sitting, it wasn’t bad…..or strong enough to force my ever-present cap off. A wind-deflector is part of the Premium-Sport package that my car had…like I said, it seemed to have some, but not a huge amount, of effectiveness.

THE VERDICT:

While, admittedly, the Eclipse has some nice features, notably in the warranty, engine, brakes, clutch, trunk space, and fabric top, this is clearly not a car that I would spend my money on. The Spyder GT convertible, IMO, is not worth the 32K it listed for, especially whan you can get the extremely well-built but less-powerful Mazda Miata or Honda S2000 for less money (though the S2000 is about ready to go out of production). The Eclipse’s interior, to my taste, is a major disappointment, with many cheap cost-cutting features…..and you spend a lot of time in your car’s interior. The ride/handling combination and steering gear, while not the worst I’ve seen, needs work and refinement. The paint job is an improvement from earlier models, but is still short of Toyota/Honda standards.

Are lower-line, 4-cylinder and coupe Eclipse models, which cost less money, better buys then the top-line convertible? Perhaps…..I didn’t test every model. But Mitsubishi’s entire U.S.-spec model line, to an extent, seems to be showing signs of its problems here in the American market. The dealer network is rather sparse, compared to other makes, though it is somewhat better than Suzuki’s.

So, I’m not saying don’t buy an Eclipse, whether coupe, convertible, 4, or V6…..you, as an auto shopper, may find a lot of things in it to your liking and won’t mind the things I find annoying or questionable. I’m just saying that, IMO, I personally don’t consider it as wise a buy for the money as a number of other cars in its price range, though, to its credit, it does combine decent front-seat and trunk space for a convertible its size that is hard to find.