What would be faster 0-60, a 99 eclipse supercharged or a 99 GSX. I can get both for around the same price.
I'd take the GSX. 4g63 has much more potential
Well would the GSX be stock? How much boost would each car be using?
Yes the GSX would be stock. I just want to know cause wanna buy one and i wanna know if i bet a GS and put a supercharger on it and thats it, would it be faster than a GSX. Also whats the difrence between the RS and the GS.
the rs and the gs both have a 2 liter non turbochaged engine. but the gs has a side skirt, different wheels, and i think a rear window wiper and the antenna goes down, the rs doesn't have any of that.
The RS also doesnt have painted door handles, the GS does.
and the RS doesnt have power windows etc......
I would take the GSX because it's AWD compared to FWD and a supercharger is not even enough for the 70 hp and crapload of torque.
i would say the gsx, because the engine comes ready to handle the HP from
the turbo. the Gs is only set up for economical uses. It isnt designed to
take the HP from a supercharger.
ALSO, you would be able to do ALOT more with a 4g63 engine. the parts for it are relativaly cheap and very easy to come by.
Once again in English please?
There aren't any figures on your theoretically supercharged Eclipse. It is
impossible to give you a correct answer.
All of the answers you've received have been given by people who don't love you.
My apologies. What I meant is the GSX has about 70 extra hp and a lot more torque than the GS. I don't think the supercharger is enough to make up for that.
I agree here. I have heard of a supercharged GS, however have not seen
one. I would still say the GS loses because of the fact the 4g63 is much
more suited to beat the GS's 420a. Power vs. Economy, not much competition
Ok thanks for your help. I guess the GSX is the better choice. I guess AWD prevails over all.
Is that so, becuase I would surley hope it did. God forbid you ever get a
car that isn't ready to handle the horsepower that comes out of the turbo.
Jeez :banghead: . Now that would be a real shame..
I suppose you concluded that all by yourself when Chrylser assigned you to a special room to engineer the 420a, huh?
That still does'nt make any sesne. It would make any sense if it was written in 70 different languages. But I suppose you know how much horsepower a 420a with an Eaton M64 puts out. Something is definetly blowing hot air, and it is certainly not a supercharger.
Oh you have, have you? Thats funny because I've heard of intelligent people, however I have not seen one in this thread yet. Strange eh?
DSMer...because you clearly hold the most knowledge on this subject, maybe, rather than putting people down and making it appear as though you have the knowledge to be doing so, say something productive towards the subject and help out the readers, repliers or for that matter, the person who asked the question, so that one day we may be able to talk down to others the way that you do. Theres a good chance you will attempt to find something wrong with this post, and again reply negatively, which will further you not posting a productive response. I stated what I thought to be the truth on the matter, I have not seen a Supercharged 420a in my experience, and would still vote against the GS because after driving both, have to say that overall performance of the GS is far less than that of the GSX.
Ha ha ahah! DSMer? Knowledge? That sumbitch knows...little.
Your leaving yourself open for people who go around searching for discrepancies like DSMer. He doesn't know the answer, but exploiting an open ended response like you gave makes him appear intelligent.
This question all but unanswerable. There aren't any specifics given on the the "theoretical" supercharged GS. How much horsepower is it making? 215? 600? Simply saying "supercharged GS" does not give nearly enough clues to answer this question, as I said earlier. It isn't fair to the reader to give your opinion without proper info.
I'd take the GSX simply for the AWD. But I'm saying this in disregard to any power figure the "supercharged GS" is making. If the GS is making 1000 hp, I'd still rather the GSX.
I've found, that when a question is asked with holes in it, that repliers
tend to fill those holes with presumptions of their own. Hence, their reply
only works in their mind, and no one else's.
You've changed, What. Dare I ask what prompted it?
Unlike your buddy What here. As Godlaus said, a very knowledgeable person
can make somewhat close to correct assumpstions. Especially when dealing
with a subject that they themselves are familiar with.
To answer your question. The Supercharger you would put on the 420a would more than likely be the Eaton. Wich puts out about anywhere from 180-220HP with proper tuning.
With that being said, we all know a GSX still puts out about 200+HP. You're going for a drivetrain battle. Wich in this case the GSX would be the better candidate for the job of a race.
It's weird, but the more you waddle in this pool of automotive knowledge,
the more blatantly stupid these "What would be faster 0-60, a 99 eclipse
supercharged or a 99 GSX?" questions get. And even if we give them the
right answer using all of their assumptions, they won't understand it.
Simply put, you can't fill the holes, there's just too many of them. Assumptions just don't work out here, they'll always start a fight when someone doesn't hear what they want to hear.
some rs does have powered windows
DSMer, did you actually run 7.9's with that eagle talon?
No, that's not his car, it's like the fastest DSM car in the world or something lol...
of course not, he google'd his 7.9 :mrgreen:
That's Shep's Talon.