As I continue to kick tires on convertibles, the 2G and 3G Spyders come up in the price range I'd want to spend. I certainly know what they are and have some familiarity with them, but am not a certified expert on them. I'm looking at the 4cyl non-turbo versions...preferably 5spd, but will do auto if it's the right price. The 2G used the 4G63 engine, right? Are they fairly solid? What else should I be looking out for on these? Do they have an Achilles heel?
The non-turbo 2G used the Chrysler 420A in the US market cars. Being a Mitsubishi, I would be leery of, well, everything on the car.
2G generally used the 420a motor in NA trim. they are pretty good engines, but I have had limited exposure to them.
The 3G had a 4g64 which would be the motor I would want. The 4g63 is interchangeable with 4g64 in many ways. One thing to notice is the engine is rotated 180 degrees from the 1g/2g platforms. So, your 4g63 parts will need to come from a evo 8/9. Also, a EVO motor will bolt into a 3g.
BTW, these guys were able to make a convertible DSM go pretty fast...
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRjEdH8eqDU
I've known two non-car-people with 2G N/A Eclipses, one Spyder one Coupe. I would say, based on anecdotal evidence, they were both fairly problematic. The coupe was owned by a good friend of mine and had constant electrical gremlins. For reference, it was replaced with a 2.7t A6 and that was an improvement in reliability (for the first few months at least.) They're also very small inside. I'm 6'3 and could never comfortably fit in the coupe, regardless of how the seat was adjusted.
A bit of misinformation here. The 2g spyders came with either an NA sohc Mitsubishi 2.4 4g64 or a Mitsubishi 2.0 4g63t. The turbo cars were labeled as GS-T Sypder with the NA versions a GS Spyder. The Chrysler NA 2.0 (420a) only came in the hard top 2g cars.
I love the 2g eclipse. My first car was an NA talon with the 420a. Car was unbelievably reliable. From what I've heard the NA 2.4 sohc 4g64 platform is super reliable as well if left the hell alone. A common swap is to put the turbo head on the 2.4 block to spool big tarbos. The turbo cars are an unreliable pain in the ass. You cannot believe how often they break. You can rebuild them with all stock parts and still lose an alternator, then a starter, then the transmission. Get that all fixed and the engine starts knocking. It's amazing.
I look for them in all forms from time to time. When I was into them in the early 2000's they were riced and abused. Hard. Now, they are very very hard to find in decent shape. Good luck.
3g cars are completely different from the dsm triplets. They went to a chrysler v6 of some fashion iirc for the gt cars.
Interesting bit of trivia, the 2g verts are the easiest ones to swap from fwd to awd, since they used the awd pans.
TunaMom had one of these:
I drove it for about 50 miles once. I would try really hard not to drive it again. Slow ever with a stick, and it felt like it was going to twist in half over bumps. I've driven a 70's Corvette convertible which felt more rigid.
mndsm wrote: 3g cars are completely different from the dsm triplets. They went to a chrysler v6 of some fashion iirc for the gt cars.
It's a SOHC variant of the 6G72 - the engine was some sort of Chrysler / Mitsubishi joint venture. The four bangers used the same 4G64 as the 2G convertibles.
On the 2G's, make sure to look for rust on the strut towers under the hood. I've seen cars that look super clean on the outside, have nearly non existent strut towers under the hood...
Exterior door handles like to break on 2G's, but they are easy and cheap to get since they are the same on the 95-2000 Avenger and Sebring coupes.
I'm not as familiar with the 3G, but I do know that it's best to steer clear of an example with black paint...
If you're sticking to the NA versions, you'll be dealing with the same engine. They both use the Mitsubishi 4G64 2.4. Although, the 3G makes a tad bit more power at 154hp vs 141 in the 2G. By only considering the NA models, you're alleviating the gamble that might come along with questionable maintenance history and/or modifications that can be catastrophic to the 4G63T in the 2G. That and a whole lot of people incessantly warning you about the (falsely) inevitable demon that is "crankwalk". The 4G64 drivetrain is usually pretty reliable. The 6G72 V6 in the 3G GT/GTS is similarly reliable to the NA 4 banger and has decent and smooth power for daily driving.
The real Achilles heel is the first two Fast and Furious movies, which inspired owners to make tasteless cosmetic and audio modifications to these cars....
MadScientistMatt wrote:mndsm wrote: 3g cars are completely different from the dsm triplets. They went to a chrysler v6 of some fashion iirc for the gt cars.It's a SOHC variant of the 6G72 - the engine was some sort of Chrysler / Mitsubishi joint venture. The four bangers used the same 4G64 as the 2G convertibles.
The 6G72 is basically 100% Mitsubishi. Chrysler just used their stake in Mitsu to fit them in their amazing minivans and give them a FWD V6 option while they finished developing their own 3.3/3.8.
You'll need to log in to post.
