MITSUS?

J

JTAM963

New Member

Sep 5, 2004

64

0

0

Aug 22, 2006

#1

• Aug 22, 2006

• #1

Just wondering what an 02 AUTO GT stock would fare against any of the 300GTs stock?? and 5 speed?

 

BurningRubber

10 Year Member

Dec 6, 2004

1,865

24

58

Aug 22, 2006

#2

• Aug 22, 2006

• #2

My freinds mom had a 3000 GT and he got ahold of it one night and took me for a "spin" in it. It felt quick and nimble, but my Mustang would brush it off in a straight line race. They are fun cars though, sooo much tighter (body and suspension wise) feeling than my Mustang, haha.

Now, on the other hand... a VR-4 3000 GT would kill ya. They are turbo charged (like 320hp or so) and AWD.

Anyway, I think the stock non VR-4's run a mid or lower 15 in the 1/4 mile. A stock 99+ auto GT should be consistantly in the mid 14's, some people have gotten lower 14's stock from them..

 

d98gt

Founding Member

Mar 14, 2002

4,505

59

204

SE Texas

Aug 22, 2006

#3

• Aug 22, 2006

• #3

I actually really dig the looks of the 3000GTs They seem to hold their value really well so I can't get my hands on one

You shouldn't have a problem with one performance wise, though they are still a sweet ride

 

Dope 97GT

New Member

Jul 16, 2005

439

0

0

Rochester, NY (SUNY Brockport)

Aug 22, 2006

#4

• Aug 22, 2006

• #4

yeah the normal 3000GTs are pretty slow i dont see them running lower than 15's. But make sure its not a vr-4 I know a guy with minor mods in the 11's.

 

R

RoadconeTuning

New Member

Apr 4, 2006

458

0

0

Upstate, SC

Aug 22, 2006

#5

• Aug 22, 2006

• #5

3000GT/Stealth's are slow unless they are VR-4 or R/T TT

 

streetstang03

unModerator

Dec 27, 2003

0

1

0

the dark side of the moon/home of the 1999, 2003,

Aug 22, 2006

#6

• Aug 22, 2006

• #6

ya, but the VR-4 will break mid race, so you'll win either way.

 

TweekedGT

New Member

Jul 22, 2004

1,274

0

0

Alberta

Aug 22, 2006

#7

• Aug 22, 2006

• #7

BurningRubber said:

My freinds mom had a 3000 GT and he got ahold of it one night and took me for a "spin" in it. It felt quick and nimble, but my Mustang would brush it off in a straight line race. They are fun cars though, sooo much tighter (body and suspension wise) feeling than my Mustang, haha.

Now, on the other hand... a VR-4 3000 GT would kill ya. They are turbo charged (like 320hp or so) and AWD.

Anyway, I think the stock non VR-4's run a mid or lower 15 in the 1/4 mile. A stock 99+ auto GT should be consistantly in the mid 14's, some people have gotten lower 14's stock from them..

Click to expand...

A VR-4 guy wanted to race me at the track a few weeks ago talking **** about how bad he would beat me. The results were not in his favor shall we say. Me 12.7 vs. his 14.6. Yes it was a VR-4, we checked each others cars out before hand. Bye bye Mitsu. They suck for an AWD twin turbo car. Teenie weenie turbo's Here's the timeslip. View attachment 446438

 

streetstang03

unModerator

Dec 27, 2003

0

1

0

the dark side of the moon/home of the 1999, 2003,

Aug 22, 2006

#8

• Aug 22, 2006

• #8

they're heavier than rosie o'donnell and the awd eats up so much power that they are useless.

 

BooWFO

New Member

May 10, 2005

991

0

0

Louisville, KY

Aug 22, 2006

#9

• Aug 22, 2006

• #9

a 2.32 60' for an AWD car. He sucks at life.
Judging by his MPH I'd say he was stock. Vr4's can be bad rides but they need a few things. It's like supra's one might be a slow pig the next might be a dyno queen that still is slow, then there might be one in the middle that lays waste to your ego.

 

96_SVT_VeNoM

Banned

Jul 17, 2006

8

1

0

Fontana, Ca

Aug 22, 2006

#10

• Aug 22, 2006

• #10

TweekedGT said:

A VR-4 guy wanted to race me at the track a few weeks ago talking **** about how bad he would beat me. The results were not in his favor shall we say. Me 12.7 vs. his 14.6. Yes it was a VR-4, we checked each others cars out before hand. Bye bye Mitsu. They suck for an AWD twin turbo car. Teenie weenie turbo's Here's the timeslip. View attachment 446408

Click to expand...

WOW even with his .07 reaction time against your .6

 

RedBullitt

New Member

Jul 7, 2004

462

0

0

Morgantown WV

Aug 22, 2006

#11

• Aug 22, 2006

• #11

he has a hell of a reaction time lol

 

d98gt

Founding Member

Mar 14, 2002

4,505

59

204

SE Texas

Aug 22, 2006

#12

• Aug 22, 2006

• #12

How the hell do you manage a 2.3+ 60' with AWD?

 

F

FNG 2001

Founding Member

Sep 5, 2001

201

0

0

Hawthorne, CA

Aug 22, 2006

#13

• Aug 22, 2006

• #13

2001 Mustang GT vs. 1992 3000GT VR-4

I can actually talk with some conviction on this, being that I owned both cars. Yes, the 3000GT is heavy- mine was about 3,750 lbs. The 3000GT was faster, but it is not nearly as fun to drive. The AWD kicks ass in the handling department, but it just lacks the v-8 rwd fun. I spent a lot of money on upkeep with the Mitsu too. Both cars are gone now, but I have Mustangs on my mind. Stock for stock- VR-4 wins (the awd is tough to launch though, so you may win on account of driver error).

BTW, if you wasnt to see a 10 second vr-4, check out the videos on http://www.dynamicracing.com.

 

J

JTAM963

New Member

Sep 5, 2004

64

0

0

Aug 22, 2006

#14

• Aug 22, 2006

• #14

SOOO basically only worry about then vr4s...twin turbo...don't worry about the normal 3000gts

 

96_SVT_VeNoM

Banned

Jul 17, 2006

8

1

0

Fontana, Ca

Aug 22, 2006

#15

• Aug 22, 2006

• #15

I dont worry about either of them....

 

TweekedGT

New Member

Jul 22, 2004

1,274

0

0

Alberta

Aug 22, 2006

#16

• Aug 22, 2006

• #16

96_SVT_VeNoM said:

WOW even with his .07 reaction time against your .6

Click to expand...

Ya, I really sucked anus on that one. I just put the 14# pulley on and wasn't quite sure what it would do.

 

BurningRubber

10 Year Member

Dec 6, 2004

1,865

24

58

Aug 22, 2006

#17

• Aug 22, 2006

• #17

Looks like VR-4's can pull 13.5's stock according to some 1/4 mile time source.