3000GT Vr-4

[vorros]

My man I have a gt3000!I haven`t driven many other cars so I can not say much!but I want to ask you have you ever ride a gt3000 or you just talking with your ass? If you have and testet to its limits then I would agree with you!

[djfux69]

vorros. do you have the vr4?

[thepolarfoxqx]

huh, let's see, to deal with that leviathan post up there, a few comments.

I: How does a VR-4 not have speed or handling. Unless you Michael Schumacher or JP Montoya, I am pretty sure a VR-4 is a very fast and slick handling car.

II: You destroyed their enthusiasm? Isn't that a bit arrogant, you have power over other peoples emotions? I guess you'll crush me next?

III: What is wrong with automatic spoilers. Porsche used them for a long time, actually, the same time period that the VR-4 did. It allowd constantly optimizing aerodynamics.

IV: You state if 4 wheel steering is so great why isn't it still in a honda prelude or in F1 cars. A few thoughts - firstly, airbags aren't in F1 cars either, i guess they are crappy. what about turbochargers, they aren't there either, so they must be bad too. F1 cars don't have AWD either, so AWD must be bad as well. Great logical reasoning there. The 4 wheel steering was part of the lude's type SH package, which if I remember right, got dropped as a whole. It is expensive and complex. That alone is enough for a bean counter to nix the whole thing.

V: you stated they don't have the money or brains to tune a car themselves besides a 3000GT, well, I'll be straight, I don't like japanese cars in general, and I'll tell you, i'd sooner work on a VR-4 than an audi. It is an easy car to work on. And usually one uses brains and skill so as not to have to pay money to some tuner for simple things.

VI: A VR-4 isn't modern now? Wow, that is interesting. I know quite a few people who'd buy one if it came back. I guess it is yours and mitsubishi's secret that their car isn't modern. I wonder what a "non-modern" car is doing with electronic all wheel drive, multi-mode exhaust, 4 wheel steering, and automatic spoilers. Huh, I guess mitsu forget they were making a low-tech 60k sports car.

To give some concessions, yes, a VR-4 is very heavy, probably too much so. That said, it, on specs alone, has to rank with NSX, Skyline GT-R, and the like as one of the best cars out of japan. I am not a fan of japanese sports cars, in fact the sound of a riced up car with a huge muffler makes my skin crawl, but the 3000GT VR-4 has always impressed me. To say it is not fast, not modern, can't handle is just false. Seriously, let's be real here. I bet you'll tell me that a civic is faster, handles better and is more modern right?

[djfux69]

we can clear this up right now, anyone know the skidpad on that car? lets see what that beast can transfer to the ground, also slalom speed, 0-60 acc. top speed and of course curb weight. someone find these facts, i will try to look as well. then we can compare stats of all the other jap cars and show fact, not opinions, and clear this up.

[djfux69]

1998 3000gt vr-4 _____2003 350z____1997 nsx-t
engine____3litre TT v6____3.5 NA v6____3.2v6
hp________320 _____ 287 _____________ 290
tq ______ 315 _____ 276 _____________ 224
0-60 ____ __5.5______ 5.4 _______________ 5
top speed 160 _____ 159 (limited) _____ est 168
lateral acc. _ .90g __ .99g ______________ .89g
1/4 mile __ 13.9 ____13.9 _____________ 13.5
curb weight 3870 ___ 3180 ____________ 3050
base price ___ 44k ____ 26k ______________ 88k


stats arent bad, but remeber they acheived this with TT, the others are NA

[bleh]

as far as i am concerned nobody has even tried to appeal to the logical part of my argument. i mentioned that if anyone could show me statistics of that car being better than any other i would humbly accept correction.

now tell me what has 4ws done for that car? numbers anyone?

what has the varying downforce done for that car? numbers?

awd is definately a given advantage and worth the weight

but does all that account for 3800+lbs.?

i can understand if own this car and your on this site that you dont want anybody giving the thumbs down to your car.

speed is relative therefore what one thinks is fast is based on ones previous experiences.

ok fox here we go(i like the roman numeral point listing ill respond to each in that manner):

I: i didnt say that it couldnt reach a good top end or that it couldnt haddle. i just said that it was the worst in its class, which is the nsx and the skyline gtr?

II: are you a lying pubscent teen? i didnt think so. that would be the only way i wouldve destroyed zeal. i knew an adult who knew what he was talking about wouldnt get defensive and insecure(not saying you are or s/he did but just taking the extra step in diplomacy).

III. how much to porsches weigh? and do porsches break 160? o so then its not really a problem for them.

IV. this was probably your weekest argument and a horrible analogy. airbags? turbos?. airbags arent needed since they are in a carbon fiber shell. and turbos? isnt that against regulation? forced induction is artificial displacement that weighs a lot less. turbo f1 cars would have an advantage with exception to the lag. f1 cars dont have awd because they dont need it they have no problems coming out of turns with a few g's in the rain. i wouldve thought that wouldve been obvious. the last little choppy bit of this point: the 4ws prelude was slower, handled worse(but it felt like it handled tighter) than the prelude with out 4ws.

V. but we arent talking about audis we are talking about japanese cars in the 3000gt's class. either way you buy the parts and tune the car your self hence brains and money.

VI. eleven years ago (correct me if im wrong about the date) this was high-tech. eleven years before that what was high-tech? and was that better than the 3000gt?

you hate ricers and i can completely sympathize with that. they make me look bad. the 3000gt is just another rice rocket and it is not the best in its class. when did i ever say my car was fast? ever? more modern? what are you talking about? tagent much?

[bleh]

Originally Posted by djfux69 1998 3000gt vr-4 _____2003 350z____1997 nsx-t 0-60 ____ __5.5______ 5.4 _______________ 5 top speed 160 _____ 159 (limited) _____ est 168 lateral acc. _ .90g __ .99g ______________ .89g 1/4 mile __ 13.9 ____13.9 _____________ 13.5

numbers.
0-60: worst
topspeed: if the z was not limited (which only takes a few dolars) worst
lateral acc.: the only thing the 3000gt barely has over the nsx(show me the g's in both directions though)
1/4 mile: tied with the z
coclusion: over all the 3000gt is the worst of these three

any more comments Shayon201, thepolarfoxqx, vorros?

[thepolarfoxqx]

your numbers make it look competitive. It is negligibly slower than a 350Z (compare it to the '96 300ZX TT, that would be a fair comparo). The 4 wheel steer is how this 3,800lb goliath of a sports car beats the center engine NSX on the skidpad, top speed is competitive, through the quarter it was even with a 350Z. That doesn't sound so bad to me. I don't like it that much, but it isn't a bad car. I'd rank it even with a 350Z, and the NSX is a league ahead in prestige, if not always performance. NSX is nearly european in execution.

I am not all "Pro VR4", but it isn't a bad car. It is fair, and is a little bit better than (in my opinion) the 300ZX of its day. I am not impressed with the new 350Z at all.

[djfux69]

hahaha... why arent you impressed with the 350z? i would like to know why a car that starts at half the price of the 3000gt, post the same if not better numbers than both the cars, isnt impressive. is the nsx impressive because its expensive? please, let me know what YOU think is impressive.

[bleh]

fair comparison maybe but that doesnt have anything to do with it not being the worst car in its class.

Originally Posted by thepolarfoxqx The 4 wheel steer is how this 3,800lb goliath of a sports car beats the center engine NSX on the skidpad.

no definately not maybe on a smaller skidpad but the 200ft it barely beats the nsx. now i have many theories on this and non of what i am about to say is solid fact but more of food for thought:
wheelbases of both cars?
tires and rims used?
the 4ws is definately just for a shorter turning radius.

Originally Posted by thepolarfoxqx through the quarter it was even with a 350Z.

i dont think you should compare the 350z to that car and no it doesnt stay even through the 1320 not at all. the 3000gt definately takes off the line and the 1/8th time is better (so is the 60' trap) than the z. but wait something is forgetten. i dont consider those cars in the same class. tt awd vs. na rwd yea rediculous.
you like the nsx since it handles like an exotic and i understand that 100%

Originally Posted by thepolarfoxqx but it isn't a bad car.

i never said it was. i am just saying its the worst in its class. if your going to compare the 300zx to the 3000gt show me the numbers(even though i consider these cars in a different class). there are 4 determining factors of the class of the car: car type(sedan, coupe, etc.), cylinders, forced induction, drive train configuration. when cars are in a lower class with a lower cost and are posting better numbers there is something wrong.

i dont want anymore opinions that arent backed up by any core statistics, this thread is getting dumb real fast.