design...took me 3x to spell right

[vectorspecialist]

i was on youtube the other day, and was watching some old episode's of motorweek. i watched 3 episodes including the 3/s...even one about the praise of the vr4 spyder. but it got me thinking...

was the stealth and 3k built to compete with cars like the supra? relize the 3/s came out in 91, one yr after the 300zx z32. but the supra and rx7 didnt get their updated bodies/motors/trany's untill 93. it makes me feel that mitsu/dodge built em to compete with the gt 300zx, not the more sports car oriented supra/rx7. i'm asking because i would have thought that if they were going after the supra(i think highest performer in class) the vr4/tt woulda been lighter, and maybe a lil better response on the turbo's in 3rd and higher gears

on another note, motorweek was inacurate in stating that the spyder has 4ws, as well as the 96 stealth. they did a comparison between all 4. one between the 92 or 93 vr4/rt tt. and another one against those 4 and a 968 and something else. good episodes, bad vid quality but good enough.

[jason_bet]

They were made to compete with the Corvette

[vectorspecialist]

well that explains it's abilities to keep up with em if not outrun em. however then y are the 3/s compared to rx7 and supra's? i could understand maybe the base model versions. but seriously the sequential turbo's on the supra, at the time, we're a brillant idea, and still very few cars have sequential from factory.

another thing, test drivers on motorweek suck. the best they got for timing was 5.4 for the supra in 0-60, the vr4/tt ran 6.2 or something. i've done about 1sec quicker

[drunken monkey]

actually, it was genius when Porsche used sequential in the 959 way back in 1988.
Mazda followed with a similar set up in the RX-7 before Toyota used it in the Supra.

These days, sequential just isn't worth it anymore with variable vane turbos (as well as the added bonus of variable intake/exhaust systems) available.
The last time I recall a special sequential design was in the BMW diesel engine in the 535d but even then, the two dont actually run together, instead working one after the other controlled by a small bypass valve.

As for your original question.

Mitsubishi 3000GT.
276ish BHP.
Japanese.

Nissan Skyline GTR
276ish BHP
Japanese

Nissan 300ZX
276ish BHP
Japanese.

Mazda RX7
276ish (after the 250ish models..) BHP
Japanese

Toyota Supra
276ish BHP
Japanese.

Surely you can spot the pattern here that answers your question as to why they were compared.

[Crackhedbob341]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000GT

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Following the successful showing of the Mitsubishi HSX concept car at the 1989 Tokyo Motor Show, Mitsubishi developed the new GTO as a technically advanced sports coupe to compete with the Mazda RX-7, Nissan 300ZX and Skyline GT-R, and the Toyota Supra.

I forget where it is (the proof), but the Japanese auto makers agreed on a limit of like 276 BHP for their factory production cars in the 90's. The VR4 is so much heavier because of the goodies it has. AA, ECS, tunable exhaust, AWD, AWS... RX-7, 300ZX and Supra were all RWD, yet the skyline was AWD too. Just remember the 3S was meant to be a touring car anyway, so weight was not a big deal to Mitsubishi, and the cars weight helps in high speed stability.

[vectorspecialist]

the 276 was the gentalmens agreement(read nissan skyline on wikipedia) all those cars had more or less power than 276. supra had 320 in us spec, 326 in jspec. skline had between 280-328hp. rx7 had 255 from 93 till 96, and bumped to 300 with the r1 spec. 3000gt had 300-320, as well as the stealth.

it's the same idea than german automakers have with a 155mph top speed, limited in the sedan/gt cars.

so lets look at usa outputs...no so limited

3000gt/stealth= 300-320hp
300zx= 280-300hp
supra= 320hp
rx7= 255hp

yes the power outputs are pretty close, and with the difference of weight between the rx7 and the rest power to weight is pretty close. however think back to the original reasoning of posting this. the 3/s' came out 2 yrs prior to the supra mk4 and rx7 fd. the only one in the group out in 91 in last ggen form was the 300zx which was(for the usa) put out in 1990. prior to the final gens the 3/s didnt exist. the supra rx7 and zz did.

i do agree that they all did come from japan, and were part of the japanesse tour de force in the 90's, but i don't feel that they directly competed with each other. out of the box, they are all incredible cars, but consider the supra weighs 3500lbs(rounded off) the rx7 around 2800lbs and the 300zx somewhere around 3300lbs. both the 3000gt and stealth weigh in over 200lbs more.

and if you wanna state that they were ment to compete, why isn't the NSX put into this comparison? 0-60 low 5's quater low 13's, simular to all the others. or is it not in here because it was made to compete with higher end euro imports?

i'm not gonna use the skyline in this comparison, mainly because very few americans have experience of driving a skyline gtr32-34

now i guess for me i'm lucky enough to have driven all of em, plus the skyline and nsx, i can outright tell the differences in daily driving, other than gas milage or looks from other drivers.

i will admit that the supra i drove had very little inside, it was built as a street leagle racer. no a/c no radio/speakers, or stock seats, so comfort for me wasn't that great. the only downside to the gtr here, trying to go thru taco bell drive thru, i didnt think bout it...

[Crackhedbob341]

Those are crank HP, not WHP.

[vectorspecialist]

ok, but still performance will differ. awd looses more power to the ground than the rwd cars or fwd cars would. so still not meeting the 276 idea u had before. yes i do know of that agreement, but it only applies on paper. and if u want whp, than the rx7 gets to the ground what a 92 vette had at crank...around 240hp, though it still had the same performance as the cars we're debating now. the porsche 968 had the same power and performance as well.

i'm not saying that number wise the 3/s is capable of competing with the supra, rx7 and 300zx. but i doubt that toyota and mazda had reveiled the 93 models in 1991, maybe made some announcements of coming updates, but not power or really looks. whereas the 3/s was based upon a concept from 1989.

evidentally i've sparked a debate instead of just lettin it go with jason's answer. i was fine with the vete idea, but guess no1 else was

[drunken monkey]

Surprisingly, I forgot about the NSX.

The thing you're missing out is the cars in their context.
Mitsubishi have always been making 4wd cars with gizmos by way of their Lancer Evos. If they were to make a flagship sports car, logic says that they would aim to fit all of their gizmos into one.

Toyota's supra has a long history of being front engined and rear wheel drive and a 2+2 seat coupe.

Nissan had the 240Z to use as "inspiration" for the 300zx which is reflected in the eventual model range with 2 and 2+2 seaters.

Nissan also had the Skyline range of cars that went from non turbo to single turbo to twin turbo and rwd and awd cars.

The NSX stands out as it was made to directly compete with Ferrari as well as being a representative of their position as a formula 1 winning engine provider and at the forefront of car technology.

The simple fact is, each of these cars were meant to be the best car from each of the major manufacturers. That's why they were compared. Whether or not they wre all out at the same time is a moot point. Audi's RS4 was out before the latest M3 but they are rivals. Just in case you didn't know, car manufacturers don't time their release of cars with each other.

[vectorspecialist]

really didnt know they dont plan em...i always thought that right before the unveiling of the cars the presidents sat down and had coffee and talked about a reveal date. i know they dont.

2yrs is just a big gap, usually it's within a yr. the gt3 came out in early 06 and in early 07 out came the audi r8...for some reason they compare em, but within a yr. the new rs4 and m3 came out within a few months of each other. m3 in late 07 and in early 07 for the NEW audi

i think we forget about the nsx because it's as light as a rx7 with more power, and a bit better traction than the supra....and it's just a hard to find. and compared to ferrari not other japanese supercars.

this is my thought, the mk4 and fd were designed to take on the gto and the 300...not the other way around. hell i know for a fact that the mk4 was due out in 90, but after nissan released the zx in 89, toyota was forced to go back to the drawing boards, not to up the engine but the look, comfort, performance, and well the whole car. the rx7 idk, just one of those cars u want but dont wanna have to fiddle with the engine.

as for the gtr...i drove 3 prior to buying my stealth, and had an r32. only difference, gearing makes for better 1/4 mile and its 4ws is awsome, and takes a lil time to get used to under hard driving. the zx was a lil different, only rwd and 4ws. and no the 3/s 4ws and nissan 4ws are different for those that don't know.

and what real gizmo's does the evo have. the X has paddle shifts, so did a toyota MR-S. two clutch idea, new 911's have the same thing. if mitsu wanted to make a car to compete with the like of the 911 turbo or nissan gtr35, evo wouldn't be the one i'd choose. their lineup doesnt have a car like that anymore. a new gto would be a good idea. i'd personally never buy an evo, 2.0 with 20+ lbs of boost sound like a bad idea for such a lil motor. yea i know its a built motor, with yrs of tuning behind it, but still only 2.0. i'll take a 2.5l STi please.

[vectorspecialist]

Originally Posted by Crackhedbob341

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000GT



I forget where it is (the proof), but the Japanese auto makers agreed on a limit of like 276 BHP for their factory production cars in the 90's. The VR4 is so much heavier because of the goodies it has. AA, ECS, tunable exhaust, AWD, AWS... RX-7, 300ZX and Supra were all RWD, yet the skyline was AWD too. Just remember the 3S was meant to be a touring car anyway, so weight was not a big deal to Mitsubishi, and the cars weight helps in high speed stability.

only issue is that by 96 the AA, 4ws, tunable exhaust and ecs were gone. hell all of but AA were gone by 94. awd isnt incredibly heavy...the skyline i think is around 3450 maybe a lil less. a 911 turbo(997) weighs 3570lbs. and remember the skyline has a rwd bias, so driveshaft going to rear, and one going to the front.

[2old]

Just a quick point:

I beleive the 3000GT was not designed to race in the All-Japan GT championships and the rest of the cars that you mention were...

Therefore comparisons to them are like comparing a Austin Martin to a Ferrari... Sure, they cost the same and put down "simular" numbers... But if really need to compare them, you just don't "get" what an Austin Martin is about.

[AutostradaVR4]

Originally Posted by vectorspecialist

and what real gizmo's does the evo have. the X has paddle shifts, so did a toyota MR-S. two clutch idea, new 911's have the same thing. if mitsu wanted to make a car to compete with the like of the 911 turbo or nissan gtr35, evo wouldn't be the one i'd choose. their lineup doesnt have a car like that anymore. a new gto would be a good idea. i'd personally never buy an evo, 2.0 with 20+ lbs of boost sound like a bad idea for such a lil motor. yea i know its a built motor, with yrs of tuning behind it, but still only 2.0. i'll take a 2.5l STi please.

forgot the yaw control, active center diff, the whole super all wheel control system (tarmac, gravel, snow)...it really is a fantastically engineered car.

The Evo has a 2.0 becasue it HAS to have a 2.0 to race in WRC races...the whole Point of the Evolution platform. That's also why i think the new 2.5l STi is lame.
not to mention the evo looks amazing and the STi looks like a nimivan...but hey, whatever floats your boat.

[vectorspecialist]

ok yea i agree that the new sti is a smaller version of the forrester(is that even made anymore).

and i know bout the 2.0 to meet homoglation rules. but wouldn't it be leagle to produce 2 motors, as long as they kept producing the 2.0 for the street and modded versions for the rally?

the only ferrari aston martin is compared to are the 599gtb and the 612(the ugliest ferrari ever). and relize that in racing thte aston martin is in a higher racing class than that of the f430. and mitsu did race the gto, i dont know if it was factory backed, but there was a puma mitsubishi gto that ran in jtc

[AutostradaVR4]

Originally Posted by vectorspecialist

but there was a puma mitsubishi gto that ran in jtc

that car is partially responsible for my obsession and love of 3000gt's