3000gt vr4 or 300zx tt

both great cars, which would u choose....

the vr4 definately costs more, with about 0.3 faster in the 1/4 mile

Gee - I wonder which I'd pick :evillol:


Seriously though, the 94-99 VR4 models are quicker then the 91-93 out of the box. I'd take either generation over the 300, but both are great cars.

Give me my fat, fast, gadget filled, AWD road ripping VR4 anyday :iceslolan Its a grand tourer with the heart and performance of a sports car. :bigthumb:

I'd take the 300ZX TT any day. It may not be as fast out of the box, but it looks much better, it's a couple hundred pounds lighter, and it's got better reliability (in other words, it doesn't share platforms with a Dodge).

i would really love to have either car but i think i'd probably go with the VR4. if the VR4 weren't AWD it'd be a real head-scratcher, but i think that's the way i'd go.

I'd take the 300ZX TT any day. It may not be as fast out of the box, but it looks much better, it's a couple hundred pounds lighter, and it's got better reliability (in other words, it doesn't share platforms with a Dodge).

Another myth about the VR4 is the reliablity. My VR4s have been the most reliable cars I've owned (includes Honda Accord, Nissan Sentra, Dodge Shadow, DMC-12) Almost all cars are as good as the care they are given.

I guess so, maybe I just see a lot of 3000GTs that aren't taken care of. Even so, I would think it'd be easier to take care of the 300ZX than the 3000GT...the 300ZX just seems so much simpler and cleaner. I guess that's why I like it.

I'd pick the VR-4, it's wicked fast and looks better, I'd compare the looks of the Mitsu to a Ferrari and the nissan to a Lambo, and I like Ferrari better.

thats a good way of looking at it

Interesting, when I was trading in my base 3000GT for a Twin Turbo, I had the choice of a 1994 3000GT VR4 with 56K miles on it or a 1990 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo with 30K Miles on it. Drove both, liked both a lot, bought the VR4. So that's my choice.

Gee - I wonder which I'd pick :evillol:


Seriously though, the 94-99 VR4 models are quicker then the 91-93 out of the box. I'd take either generation over the 300, but both are great cars.

Give me my fat, fast, gadget filled, AWD road ripping VR4 anyday :iceslolan Its a grand tourer with the heart and performance of a sports car. :bigthumb:

eh, Z32s or 300ZX of the 90s reigned from 90-96, N/A had 222 HP and the TT had 300 HP at the crank. So what are you trying to get at "91-93" out of the box? They were all equally the same exact power depending on respective models. And speaking road ripping aerodynamics and drag coefficiency, the ZX had lower center of gravity than VR4, not sure wider or not, but difference in shorter height is an imposing factor on handling.

eh, Z32s or 300ZX of the 90s reigned from 90-96, N/A had 222 HP and the TT had 300 HP at the crank. So what are you trying to get at "91-93" out of the box? They were all equally the same exact power depending on respective models. And speaking road ripping aerodynamics and drag coefficiency, the ZX had lower center of gravity than VR4, not sure wider or not, but difference in shorter height is an imposing factor on handling.

he was talking about 91-93 3000gt, not 300zx.

and as YOGS said

HMMMM i wonder which i would choose?

the vr4?

he was talking about 91-93 3000gt, not 300zx.

and as YOGS said

HMMMM i wonder which i would choose?

the damn 3000GT reminds me of those pre-2000 big butt Eclipses. lol. I see more girls driving them here than guys. But this is ironic, because the new Eclipse resembles the 3000GT. It seems Mitsubishi loves to recycle its designs.

3000GT any day...

3000gtVR4 or 300zx? of course the VR4. its faster in the 1/4, better looks imo and of course what is there not to love about awd. yes its heavier than the 300zx,but the vr4 is also faster. only thing there is to envy from the 300zx is the aftermarket support.

how is it faster I wonder, because it has extra 20 horses and lighter 100 pounds?? and if so faster, by how many increments?

how is it faster I wonder, because it has extra 20 horses and lighter 100 pounds?? and if so faster, by how many increments?

it has the extra horses, and the AWD, which pretty much beats many many many cars off the line as long as they are RWD or FWD. If you want more speed, the VR4 is the way to go.

I believe it's just that it's lighter and lil more power. AWD car needs more power to be distributed, as oppose to RWD.

i would choose the 300zx because i think it has a bigger aftermarket... im not sure though... cause if i had one of those cars, the hell with keeping it stock lol...

The weight difference isn't as big as some like to believe, the difference in weight is around 200 to 300Lbs, 20 extra horses and AWD makes up the difference. Both cars are fast, but the VR4 is slightly quicker. Still all around performance is also very close, the handling may slightly be in the 300ZX favor, while braking is close between the two cars. I choose the VR4 because I loved the styling more and the active areo system was kind of cool. As far as reliability for the VR4, never really had any major problems, besides my driving (2 accidents, one fatal for the car).

Thanks for all your opinions, I'm leaning towards the vr-4

awesome beautiful car in my opinion
the 300zx is nice, great aftermarket, but it just doesnt appeal to me as it has before in the past

yup vr4 all the way!! hey are you planning on getting a VR4? If you are and you have some good money than i suggest getting a 99 VR4. that is like the dream car for us 3000gt fans. last year the car was made and only like 287 99 vr4s out there.

Another thing to note is that the VR4 has 32 extra pounds of torque, which helps make up for the 200-lb. weight disadvantage.

3000GT coupe is actually 100lbs LIGHTER than 300ZX TT. which might explain why it's quicker with added HP. plus they had more production time than 300ZX, not to mentioned, Nissan stopped refining the Z for the last 3 years.

sorry what do you mean????

your thinking of the sl model. the vr4 wieghs 3800lbs the sl weighs more like 3400

that was the convertible, at least that's what chart that Im looking at says. eitherway, could you give me a link to where it says VR4 is 3800? thanks.

no the convertible is something like 200lbs more.
the awd system makes it so heavy


1994-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4

This Mitsubishi has only undergone minor changes for a decade since its 1990 release. The Spyder came in 1995. Numerous facelifts have kept the styling fresh. It was sold in USA till 1999. Sold as GTO in Japan till 2001.

Base price : $30,000 (used '99) Get a free price quote

Engine : V6, turbocharged, DOHC, front engine AWD
Displacement : 2,972 cc
Valve : 24 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 6-spd manual
Fuel economy : city - 18 mpg
highway - 24 mpg

Suspension : F - Independent MacPherson strut
R - Independent upper and lower A-arms
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Vented discs

Horsepower : 320 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque : 315 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
Redline : 7000 rpm

Top speed : 155 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 5.0 sec.
0-¼ mile : 13.5 sec @ 105.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 125 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.90 g

Curb Weight : 3760 lbs(coupe), 3995 lbs(Spyder)
Overall length : 180.7 in.
Wheelbase : 97.2 in.
Overall Width : 72.4 in.
Height : 50.6 in.(coupe), 49.3 lbs(Spyder)


the base model and the sl's are i beleive 3400lbs

the sl weighs a little less than 3400lbs,but thats from 91-96. from 97-99 they weigh more like 3200lbs.

I doubt all the VR-4's had 13.5 1/4 mile. It also sounds a bit ridiculous and impractical with the given power to weight ratio. AWD only takes care of handling.

Anyway, this is what Auto Consumer said:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2213

They negated VR-4.

awd throws you off the line like a bat out of hell, thats what it does.
no not all vr4's ran 13.5
91-93 vr4's ran a 13.9 about the same as the 300zxtt. this is cause the vr4 in 91-93 had only 300hp and 305lbs tq

in 94-99 they ran 13.5 some 13.6 and some 13.4 but 13.5 is about the average time they run. sorry if ya don't beleive it because its too heavy. must not be familiar with awd

if you want i'll give you mor and more sites that tell you its 3700lbs
on the site you were looking at they confused things, but if you check it it has the vr4 stats on the left and sl on the right

awd cars also use up all the power on 2 pair of wheels as oppose to one set of wheels, as far as I can tell. but since i never launched a vr-4 through 1/4 mile, ill take your word for it.

how are its reliability? friend of mine had a Galant, transmission went sour after 26K, and mitsubishi charged like as if it was a Merc. they also refused to use full warranty.

that sucks! well i have 150,000 miles on my car

problems:
synchros
waterpump
timing belt

trannies can give you a problem up high in miles like mine. but its a $800 fix

besides that my car has been running like new.

also the trannies are very strong. there are people with 650-700hp on the stock trannie. its just the synchro's get worn out after a certain amount of time, like 100,000 miles and up

not to jack the thread, but how are VR-4's compared to Supra Turbos?

0-60 and 1/4 mile for Supra Turbo? I suppose the better handling will go to VR-4's.

well there's a rumor that our cars can't handle very well cause of its weight. so most people will tell you it SUCKS!. but actually it handles very nice anyone who feels the handling on the car will not tell you otherwise.

but i've never driven a supra to know its handling, but i do know that they are pretty even in the 1320. the supra will run ya about a 13.5 as the vr4 will.

i beleive it was r&t that ran them both at 13.6 and the supra had a higher trap speed.

heres a video to show you what a vr4 can do if you got 15 min
99 VR4 vs 911 turbo
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=260081&page=1

great, Im downloading the vid, any clue for supra turbo's 0-60?

a 300zx tt will do 5.5-5.7 if you dont miss it.

and you tested your VR-4 to do about 5 flat? if so, that's impressive.

as for handling, my N/A feels like it's born for track, it will hug every corner. fast in, fast out. you don't get lagging or the uncontrollable rwd spin. however in the rain, I'll confess, it skidded once or twice, when I kinda floored coming into a turn.

The VR4 handles very well despite it's weight, but I believe the Supra does handle a smudge better. I drove a stock Supra Twin Turbo once with 110K miles on it, and the Supra did feel a smudge slower (my car had around 400HP at the time though) but it felt easier to control in turns and better steering feeling. Still for a stock car with 110K miles, wasn't that bad, wasn't too impressed, but then again I was stepping out of my modified VR4 into a competely stock Supra Twin Turbo. 1/4 Mile times, well my first time ever drag racing my VR4 I ran a 13.94@99MPH (just HKS intake) with 2.0 60FT times, so I believe I could have ran a 13.5 or 13.6 with better launches. The best time I ever got with my BPU VR4 was 13.29@107MPH, ignore the E.T. because I ran that with a crappy 1.9 60FT time but the trap speed suggested 12s. That was just with bolt ons, so the VR4 does respond well to modifications. YoungVR4 what is the best times you have ever got in your VR4?

i don't think he's takin it to the track...but im not definately sure?

I still appreciate all your help and encouragement, but youngvr4 when i saw those stats it showed 30 grand american for a used one? lol i'm hoping thats wrong cuz thats like 40 grand canadian and i sure as hell dont have that much

i've seen a few 1993 vr4s for about 18 grand CDN, what do you think of this generation of vr4's

lol no, the vr4's are getting really affordable now. not too long ago i seen a 95 vr4 for $13,000 with 65k

i bought mine for $7,200 with 112,000 miles on it.

if your looking for a 99 vr4 in nice condition its gonna cost ya a good $23,000-25,000 grand. mainley cause there so rare..

and no i haven't takin it to the track yet. once my car gets fixed i'll give it a run or 2. but i'm trying to cut back on the abuse of my car.

yea I'm looking to get one for about 15 grand canadian, i just want a nice looking vr4 with little mileage on it...btw what year is yours?

i heard launching with awd fucks up the tranny/clutch a lot, whats your input on this?

the 91-93 is the first generation 3000gt. the vr4 came with 300hp and 305ft-lbs. pretty fast car. but if you want the fastest VR4 get the 94-99. 320hp and 315ft-lbs.

yea I'm looking to get one for about 15 grand canadian, i just want a nice looking vr4 with little mileage on it...btw what year is yours?

i heard launching with awd fucks up the tranny/clutch a lot, whats your input on this?

Never had any trouble with my clutch when I had my VR4 and I launched it a pretty decent amount of times. I have heard others who have had some issues, but I believe the stock clutch on the VR4 is much more durable and can hold more power than say the 2003-2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution clutch. Yet all AWD cars put more stress on the drivetrain than 2WD cars, it's a fact of life. Yet the problems are not as big on some AWD cars as it is on others. If you are worried about the clutch, then I suggest upgrading it, it will help out very much in the long run especially if your planning to seriously modify the car.

clutch in the vr4 is just fine but depending on how many times you launch depends on how long it will last. i abused the hell out of my car and it went out.
i then got a racing clutch and the diff is amazing. a clutch upgrade in these cars helps a lot.

mine is a 92 check the sig

lol oh sorry im blind...anyways ya i think the 3000gt's are seriously under-rated cars, they should be right up there with the skyline gtr and supras, i've really turned my view around and am starting to admire this car more and more

the GTO is a direct competitor with the R32 skyline