3000gt vr4 vs Supra turbo

[92teggsr]

first of all in a stock 3000GT VR4 you won't pull a high 12's no matter how good of a driver you are. Stock for stock with equal drivers a TT SUpra will take you out. Just as easy as that. You have to accept defeat. I could beat a TT Supra in my Integra iof the guy doesn"t know how to drive. Obviously a 3000GT VR4 is a much closer race but if you let the numbers speak for themselves you have to accept that stock for stock the Supra IS faster.

[98MitsuTurbo]

Heres the numbers, 320hp AWD 3200lbs, vs. 320hp RWD. Lets look at this again. With the active suspension in the 3000GT set to SPORT and the exhause set to SPORT the 3000GT not only would beat the supra off the line, but it would also take it in the quarter
Those are the numbers and i DO win

TIm

[syr74]

In all fairness...hp is not just hp. In stock trim a Mk IV Supra has a much nicer torque curve than the 3000GT. And, the Supra also loses a lot less hp to parasitic drag through the driveline than a 3000GT does. The first one is just the way it is (largely due to the fact that the Toyota's six is an inline engine.....better torque than a V naturally by design) and the second one is simple physics as it requires more power to drive four wheels than two.

Not to mention if hp levels aren't in the stratosphere...and sometimes even if they are....AWD is not the end all be all of acceleration. Take a look at the current 911 Turbo with AWD, and the 911 GT2 with the turbo engine but no AWD.

If you opt for the 444hp engine option on the std AWD Turbo hp is nearly the same as in the GT2. The GT2 does weigh less than the Turbo, but most of this comes from it's lack of AWD. A GT2 will leave an AWD 911 Turbo like it is tied down.....Where did the awd acceleration advantage go?. Part of this is the 911's brutal rear weight bias, but not all of it.

AWD definately benefits the 3000GT chassis as it is fwd without it and that is the worst of all worlds. However, from a strictly performance oriented standpoint, unless you are speaking about something with a weird and undesirable front/rear weight bias like a pickup, I do not believe awd offers as much of a peformance advantage over rwd as it offers easier accessed performance.

In other words an inexperienced driver is a lot less likely to get himself in trouble in the 911 Turbo than in the 911 GT2....hence the purpose of the AWD system. But, an experienced driver will drive that GT2 faster...or at least Porsche thinks they will. Put simply Porsche took the awd OUT to go faster, not put it in.

Also, in lower powered (stock) engines...especially those without a good amount of torque. AWD has a tendency to bog the engine down on launch. Folks, put simply, that isn't good. AWD had it's advantages, but it also has it's downside too.

Also, I am no Supra lover.......I would take a last generation 300ZX (Man those things look good.), a 3rd gen RX7 turbo, or probebly even a 3000GT over the Supra as the Toyota just is not my cup of tea. But facts are facts and 3000GT's were never faster than Supra MkIV's stock....unless it was raining.

But then, a LT4 C4 Vette would out 1/4 a Mk IV Supra, so should we all bow to the C4 Grand Sport and should all MkIV Supra guys go throw themselves from a cliff.....of course not. I have a line of cars I would pick over a C4 Vette. But, like a car or not you have to give it it's due.

[92teggsr]

Alright Tim you just gave Horsepower numbers and talked about active supension on the 3000GT and then said those are the numbers.....what numbers ? We all know how much horsepower each of them have and that the 3000GT VR4 is AWD but we're talking about what's faster here. I've gone into it before and there's no point in going into it again.

Syr74 pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Read his reply. I could not have put it any better.

I think the problem is that you, Tim, want your car to be faster than it really is(at least in stock form). Now I'm not saying that they are slow in anyway because their not. As a matter of fact I love those things and wish I could afford one but the fact is still that it can't keep up with a Supra TT and I think you're just in denial of that.

[98MitsuTurbo]

Ive owned both cars and i have driven both cars. i know which one is faster. I know how fast my car is and i know how fast a twin turbo supra is. Im not comparing my 3000gt to a supra. Im comparing a stock 3000gt to a stock supra. And the fact is that MY 3000Gt most deffinatly can beat any stock supra. It is no wear near stock anymore.

Anyway the Toyota supra does the quater in 13.9 Secs, where as the 3000GT VR4 does it in 13.4. Thes are numbers from Road and Track. Personal i dispute all the numbers of the quarter miles of any magazine because there are to many variables. Like tires, track temperature, millage on engine, and the lay out of the car. But these are the numbers i found. Althought the supra did make it to 100mph faster than the 3000GT VR4.

Tim

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by syr74

But then, a LT4 C4 Vette would out 1/4 a Mk IV Supra, so should we all bow to the C4 Grand Sport and should all MkIV Supra guys go throw themselves from a cliff.....of course not. I have a line of cars I would pick over a C4 Vette. But, like a car or not you have to give it it's due.

I agree with everything you've said except that one.

Read this:
http://www.geocities.com/ma71supratu...95mtsupra.html

Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1:
1/4 mile - 13.6 @ 106.0 mph

Toyota Supra Turbo:
1/4 mile - 13.5 @ 107.1 mph

That's against an LT5 (405HP) ZR1 'Vette. An LT4 (350HP) would have lost even worse.

And here's a Supra that was run by a magazine with a better driver or in better conditions:
http://mkiv.com/publications/car&dri...3/6-cd3-93.jpg

As for 98MitsuTurbo, check this out:
http://www.geocities.com/ma71supratu...94rtsupra.html

Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4:
320 bhp @ 6000 rpm
315 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
Maximum engine speed - 7000 rpm
Curb weight - 3810 lbs
1/4 mile - 14.2 @ 99.0 mph

Toyota Supra Turbo:
320 bhp @ 5800 rpm
315 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Maximum engine speed - 6800 rpm

Curb weight - 3550 lbs
13.7 @ 105.0 mph

The trap-speeds alone should tell you something.

While you're at it, check out the acceleration graph they made of each car.

I was going to reply to you last night, but since I like backing my claims up with proof, I waited till today to pull these facts out. I was going to ask you last night what you are smoking, thinking a stock VR-4 is capable of 12's stock...

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by 98MitsuTurbo

Anyway the Toyota supra does the quater in 13.9 Secs, where as the 3000GT VR4 does it in 13.4.

Okay...you posted this while I was typing up my last response...I WILL ask you...what ARE you smoking?

Please show me the Road & Track article where they ran these times.

AWD or not, a nearly 300-lb difference in the weight of the cars with similar output WILL have the Supra pulling on you anywhere beyond 10MPH EVERYTIME, stock-for-stock.

[2000LS1Z28]

Re: Re: 3000gt vr4 vs Supra turbo (Post #51)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by syr74
But then, a LT4 C4 Vette would out 1/4 a Mk IV Supra, so should we all bow to the C4 Grand Sport and should all MkIV Supra guys go throw themselves from a cliff.....of course not. I have a line of cars I would pick over a C4 Vette. But, like a car or not you have to give it it's due.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with everything you've said except that one.

Read this:
http://www.geocities.com/ma71suprat..._95mtsupra.html

Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1:
1/4 mile - 13.6 @ 106.0 mph

Toyota Supra Turbo:
1/4 mile - 13.5 @ 107.1 mph

That's against an LT5 (405HP) ZR1 'Vette. An LT4 (350HP) would have lost even worse.

Where the hell are you and 98 Mistu Turbo getting your numbers from. A ZR1 running a 13.6 sec. 1/4 mile. That's F#$king BS. They can run low 13's to high 12's all day long. You do know that that car set a record for endurace top speed runs, and held it until the Maranello took it out a decade later. A ZR1 can pull a 12.9 sec. 1/4 mile at 113 mph. That may be from a magazine that had a crappy driver, but overall the ZR1 is faster in almost every mag. BTW the ZR1 has the LT5, the grandsport has the LT4. The LT4 is alot less potent then the LT5. 98 Mitsuturbo, the 3000 GT weighs 3800 pounds, don't read that door handle sticker. They also run an identical 1/4 mile to a Supra (Both 13.6 sec., unless you wanna post all the "my best time for my car are better then your car", in which case my LS1 has your daddy, as Chevy coerced a 13 sec. flat 1/4 mile out of a 98 Z28 when it came out). I'm getting at comparing apples to apples. Whenever I go to LS1.com I don't see any mustang driver's posting the 15 sec. flat 1/4 mile a 2001 Mustang GT conv't ran in Car and Driver. They post the 13.9 sec. pass that Fast Fords and Mustang Monthly got.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by 2000LS1Z28

Where the hell are you and 98 Mistu Turbo getting your numbers from. A ZR1 running a 13.6 sec. 1/4 mile. That's F#$king BS. They can run low 13's to high 12's all day long. You do know that that car set a record for endurace top speed runs, and held it until the Maranello took it out a decade later. A ZR1 can pull a 12.9 sec. 1/4 mile at 113 mph.

Maybe they did have a crappy driver. Or an underpowered LT5. Stock Supras have also ran 13.0's-12.9's, BTW.

I never said that the ZR-1 is inherently slower. I was showing syr74 that Supras are more than a match for LT4 'Vettes, as he said that the LT4 'Vettes "out-quarter" the Supras stock-for-stock.

Originally Posted by 2000LS1Z28

BTW the ZR1 has the LT5, the grandsport has the LT4. The LT4 is alot less potent then the LT5.

I know that and yep, know that too. I almost bought an LT4-6M (only the LT4's had the 6M, I know ) myself a while back, then realized I couldn't come up with the funds.

Originally Posted by 2000LS1Z28

They (3000GT's) also run an identical 1/4 mile to a Supra

THAT's the mis-conception I was trying to disprove with my posts above.

With the same driver, from the same magazine, under the same conditions, the 3000GT was not only .5 seconds slower in E.T., which is a LIFETIME at the track, it is also 6MPH SLOWER, which is HUGE. It clearly shows a stock Supra running away from a stock 3000GT anywhere beyond that.

[youngvr4]

do i have to post the times again
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)

and thats on www.modernracer.com
there times are the same

[youngvr4]

*3000GT VR-4, Stealth RT/Turbo:
As quoted from the July 1995, Vol 47, No. 7 issue of Motor Trend:
[NOTE: 1995 3000GT VR-4 tested]
Horsepower, hp @ rpm, SAE net: 320 @ 6000
Torque, lb-ft @rpm, SAE net: 315 @ 2500
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Acceleration, 0-60 mph, sec: 5.4
Standing quarter mile, sec/mph: 13.5/101.6
Braking, 60-0, feet: 118
Handling, lateral acceleration, g: 0.89
Slalom, 600-ft, mph: 68.9

www.gate.net

again

[youngvr4]

Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)
_____ _________________________________ ______ __________

1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT SL 8.5 16.4
1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.3 13.8
1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.8 14.3
1993 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.3 14.0
1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.7 14.2
1995 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.4 13.5
1997 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 4.8 13.6

1983 Toyota Supra 8.9 16.8
1984 Toyota Supra 8.7 16.8
1986 Toyota Supra 7.0 15.4
1988 Toyota Supra 7.9 16.0
1989 Toyota Supra Turbo 6.6 15.2
1991 Toyota Supra Turbo 7.1 15.6
1993 Toyota Supra Turbo 4.9 13.4
1994 Toyota Supra 6.9 15.2
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.3 13.7
1995 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.1 13.5
1997 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.1 13.6


and thats on www.angelfire.com

you can say they been known to run high 12's and all this bs
i've seen a stock vr4 run 13.0 flat was it realy stock?
and you said you seen them run high 12's were they really stock?

those are the numbers 14.2 that carnut posted is for the 1st gen vr4's
95 and up run 13.5.
so the race is the driver PERIOD.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by youngvr4

those are the numbers 14.2 that carnut posted is for the 1st gen vr4's
95 and up run 13.5.
so the race is the driver PERIOD.

On the contrary, if you stop and read the article, they are testing the 95 model with the 6-spd and 320HP -- 2nd Gen. 1st-gens have 5-speeds and 300HP.

Also, if you actually read the ACTUAL articles I linked to, as opposed something somebody posted up on a personal website, one of the tests on the Supra netted a 13.1 @ 109 mph.

That other test was obviously in bad conditions, since all the cars, EXCEPT FOR THE SUPRA ran in the 14's. Not saying that VR-4's arent capable of mid-13's, but when everything else is equal, including driver and conditions, the Supra has major E.T. and trap-speed advantages over the VR-4.

What do you think the guy running 13.5's in a VR-4 in certain conditions on the same track, knowing how to launch the car, will run with a Supra? 13.0?

Here's the acceleration graph of each car:




Look at where the Supra beats icons like the Ferrari F50, Viper, and the Porsche 911 Turbo in top-gear acceleration here:



I don't see the VR-4 in that list.

Look, I'm not knocking the VR-4 in any way here, but you gotta be realistic with the power claims. I mean you're right in saying that it's a driver's race, just like it's a driver's race between a Civic HX and a Geo Metro...the HX driver slips up, it's over.

But we know that the same person driving the two cars WILL go faster in one car than the other, ya know?

[2000LS1Z28]

Motor Trend (About the only mag I trust to run correct 1/4 mile times) ran both the Supra Turbo, and the 3000 GT VR4 against each other. They both ran identical 1/4 mile times of 13.6 sec. The Supra had a noticeably higher trap speed (106 mph versus 101 mph for the VR4). The VR4 had a 0-60 time of 4.8 sec., while the Supra had a 5.2 sec. 0-60 time. Basically the Supra had to play catch-up. I have no doubts about 98Mitsuturbo beating a supra in a stoplight to stolpight race, but from a roll, that's a different story. I think everyone here knows that Supras are notoriously hard to launch, in order to get a decent 60' time.

[youngvr4]

100%

every time i ever in my life seen the 1/4mile times for a supra the best was 13.4
now all the sudden it runs 13.0, no magazine on this earth from what i've seen at least 5 mags say around the same thing 13.4-13.6
all vr4's exept the one you found, 13.5-13.6

yeah from a roll i'll believe it will eat it but from a dig
it...... is......... the racer