Are 3000GT's slow? [Archive] - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

Gismo R

03-08-2002, 12:17 AM

On my way to school today, this guy in a 3000GT pulled up beside me revin' his engine and what not. I just kinda looked at him <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/whatsthat.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':whatthe:'> . Then, because he couldn't pull away due to a car in front of him he violently cuts in right behide me just as close as he could, so close I couldn't even see his headlights. I can't stand people ridin' my a$$ so I give him what he wants by throwing it in 3rd and takin off. Now, I expected him to just whip out and pass but no, I was pulling away from him and he didn't catch up till I hit the brakes. So what's up with that, I thought the 3000GT was supposed to be fast. All I have is CAI, but still, it doesn't make THAT much difference. I'm thinking that by the way he was driving, that he had just driven it too hard over the years and just wore it down. But maybe they're just slow. If so I just lost any respect I had for them.

BadMoJo

03-08-2002, 12:50 AM

yeah, from what I have heard the Base model ones are just crap. I dont know much about them, I have just heard stuff from people who have raced them.

thewholefnshow

03-08-2002, 06:41 AM

Aren't the base models a cheap assed v8 like in the stealth, it only made like 230hp or something like that in a car that in like 4000lbs... that is why they are slow, I might be mistaken but it seems to me that the base model is the crap v8 and the power model is the tt v6.

Zemus

03-08-2002, 06:49 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (thewholefnshow @ Mar. 06 2002,08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aren't the base models a cheap assed v8 like in the stealth, it only made like 230hp or something like that in a car that in like 4000lbs... that is why they are slow, I might be mistaken but it seems to me that the base model is the crap v8 and the power model is the tt v6.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I think that the non VR4 modles have the same engine that is in the Eclipes (the new v6 one) and the Dodge Daytona,  Dodge and Mitsu used the same engines for a while, im not sure if they still do.

240 2NR

03-08-2002, 08:25 AM

From what I can remember most non vr4's had a 222hp v6.
However in the first year or two the base model had something like a 160-180hp motor, making it a total dog for a 3200lb+ car.  I don't really know because I was a few years from drivin at the time, so all the cars I wanted were pipe dreams (vipers, porsches, the VR-4, 300zx tt, etc.) and anything less than the top model never caught my attention.

wherezmytofu

03-08-2002, 08:27 AM

oni dont give bad info! the 3000gt(stealth) never have teh same engine as the eclipse, the non-vr4 engine is a pile a shit and the 4000lbs kills it! <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/butbut.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':but:'>

transient

03-08-2002, 11:53 AM

I can't remember trims for the 3000GT, so these are stealth trims, but basically the same.

Base model: somewhere around 170 hp, 3200 pounds
ES: 220 or so hp, 3200 pounds (will kill a 240 with bolt-ons)
RT: I can't remember
RT/TT: don't even screw with it, I think they run in the 14's stock.

Thurazor

03-08-2002, 12:20 PM

Here's the specs for the Stealth:

Base : 164 hp weighing at 3086 lbs
ES : 222 hp weighing at 3186 lbs
R/T : 222 hp weighing at 3186 lbs
R/T TT (91 through 93): 300 hp weighing at 3803 lbs
R/T TT (94 through 96): 320 hp weighing at 3787 lbs

Here's the specs for the 3000GT:

Base (91 through 95): 222 hp weighing at 3252 lbs
Base (96 through 99): 161 hp weighing at 3131 lbs
SL (91 through 93): 222 hp weighing at 3524 lbs
SL (94 through 99): 222 hp weighing at 3263 lbs
SL Spyder (95 through 96): 222 hp weighing at 3439 lbs
VR4 (91 through 93): 300 hp weighing at 3791 lbs
VR4 (94 through 99): 320 hp weighing at 3737 lbs
VR4 Spyder (95 through 96): 320 hp weighing at 4025 lbs

transient

03-08-2002, 12:41 PM

Yeah, what he said... <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

SpoiledBoi

03-08-2002, 05:09 PM

Thurazor is right on the money...My Brothers got a 95 SL 3000GT....its got torque and thats about it...it reminds me alot of the 5speed Maxima.. same weight and power, but for some reason they are alot faster. 3000GT run about the same 0-60 as 240sx...good luck racing..

whateverjames

03-08-2002, 05:10 PM

that's the same thing i thought when i raced a stealth. i thought because it said R/T it would be fast. but no. their car had one more person than mine did. they got tore up <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> as soon as i punched it, i took off and i slowed down and everyone in the car were staring at my car smiling like it was fast. i felt like saying "no...it's not fast, you're just slow". but they were cool.

XylathaneGTR

03-08-2002, 06:19 PM

Yup
the Base 3000gt / GTO is a peice of crap.
The best is a 3000gt VR4, Awd, v6 Twin Turbo...It puts out around 320hp...
But yeah, base 3000's are easy to rape

Tuck&Poke

03-08-2002, 08:08 PM

well a base model and an sl 3000gt will get its ass handed to it by a 240.  225hp is crap for a car of that weight and its fwd.  the vr-4 can keep up with a supra.  320hp and 4awd with twin turbo.  heh...fast.  the pre 94 only had 300hp but still a very fast car.

Thurazor

03-08-2002, 11:12 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 07 2002,9:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well a base model and an sl 3000gt will get its ass handed to it by a 240. 225hp is crap for a car of that weight and its fwd. the vr-4 can keep up with a supra. 320hp and 4awd with twin turbo. heh...fast. the pre 94 only had 300hp but still a very fast car.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Well, the base model may be beaten by a 240, but I would bet 10 to 1 an SL, R/T, or ES model would beat a 240. You'd be surprised how quick these cars are despite their weight. Nice torque.

XylathaneGTR

03-08-2002, 11:15 PM

Your Right...
the RT/TT / 3000GT vr4 / GTO are Fast...
Theres one by where i go to school, this pale ass yellow...its so nice...
but yeah, an rt/tt would prolly beat a 240 pretty easy...but a modded 240 could put up a good fight...

Tuck&Poke

03-09-2002, 08:19 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thurazor @ Mar. 08 2002,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteBegin--minime686+Mar. 07 2002,9<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 07 2002,9<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well a base model and an sl 3000gt will get its ass handed to it by a 240. 225hp is crap for a car of that weight and its fwd. the vr-4 can keep up with a supra. 320hp and 4awd with twin turbo. heh...fast. the pre 94 only had 300hp but still a very fast car.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Well, the base model may be beaten by a 240, but I would bet 10 to 1 an SL, R/T, or ES model would beat a 240. You'd be surprised how quick these cars are despite their weight. Nice torque.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
no dude those things are slow.  theyre about as slow as the n/a 300zx.  yeh they got torque but its also a fwd car.  0-60 is in the high 8's and maybe even into the 9's.  the vr-4 and r/t tt will make a 240 cry from the spanking and i dont think a lightly modded 240 can beat the tt models.  like i said the tt models keep up with supras.

ca18guy

03-09-2002, 08:23 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 09 2002,03:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thurazor @ Mar. 08 2002,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 07 2002,9<!--emo&<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well a base model and an sl 3000gt will get its ass handed to it by a 240. 225hp is crap for a car of that weight and its fwd. the vr-4 can keep up with a supra. 320hp and 4awd with twin turbo. heh...fast. the pre 94 only had 300hp but still a very fast car.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Well, the base model may be beaten by a 240, but I would bet 10 to 1 an SL, R/T, or ES model would beat a 240. You'd be surprised how quick these cars are despite their weight. Nice torque.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
no dude those things are slow. theyre about as slow as the n/a 300zx. yeh they got torque but its also a fwd car. 0-60 is in the high 8's and maybe even into the 9's. the vr-4 and r/t tt will make a 240 cry from the spanking and i dont think a lightly modded 240 can beat the tt models. like i said the tt models keep up with supras.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Minime you do know that a n/a 300zx though slow is still faster then a 240sx, they run a 7 second or faster 0-60 which is more then enough to beat a 240sx (hell I beat a 240 in my old 85' 300zx n/a) IMHO the 222 HP 3000GT would beat a 240sx.

tnord

03-09-2002, 09:21 AM

ok.......i have owned a NA Z32, driven many SL 3000GT's, and of course own a 240. first of all, in stock form, the Z32 will rip both of em a new asshole. in both handling and raw acceleration. i believe the 7.0 0-60 figure is correct for the Z32. a 240 will run circles around the tank 3000GT in any trim form. ok maybe not that bad, but it does handle better. as far as acceleration goes, initially i think they are the same, 0-60 in 7.5 maybe? but once you get higher up in speed and the 3000 builds some momentum, it's all over. at the track the 3000SL is classed in "B" while the 240 is in "D." i did beat a 3000SL by almost 8 seconds, but it was a woman driving so who knows. numbers don't mean that much when you consider that the SL is not fun tro drive at all.  the VR4 on the other hand is the japanese version of a camaro. goes fast in a straight line but that's it. there was one at work that had an overheating problem, so the service manager told me to go out and "get it to overheat" so they could read the ECU code. that was pretty fun. either way, i'd take the 240 over any 3000 any day.

Tuck&Poke

03-09-2002, 09:26 AM

i stand corrected.  0-60 in 7.1  ok so yeh youll loose

Tuck&Poke

03-09-2002, 09:35 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tnord @ Mar. 08 2002,10:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok.......i have owned a NA Z32, driven many SL 3000GT's, and of course own a 240. first of all, in stock form, the Z32 will rip both of em a new asshole. in both handling and raw acceleration. i believe the 7.0 0-60 figure is correct for the Z32. a 240 will run circles around the tank 3000GT in any trim form. ok maybe not that bad, but it does handle better. as far as acceleration goes, initially i think they are the same, 0-60 in 7.5 maybe? but once you get higher up in speed and the 3000 builds some momentum, it's all over. at the track the 3000SL is classed in "B" while the 240 is in "D." i did beat a 3000SL by almost 8 seconds, but it was a woman driving so who knows. numbers don't mean that much when you consider that the SL is not fun tro drive at all. the VR4 on the other hand is the japanese version of a camaro. goes fast in a straight line but that's it. there was one at work that had an overheating problem, so the service manager told me to go out and "get it to overheat" so they could read the ECU code. that was pretty fun. either way, i'd take the 240 over any 3000 any day.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
are we forgeting the virtues of awd... a 3000gt vr-4 on a track and in a straight line will whore a 240. yeh we have great handling cars etc etc but the 3000 is in no way a...sloppy car in the twisties.

whateverjames

03-09-2002, 09:42 AM

yeah N/A 300zx's aren't too slow, my friend claims when he was coming to my house one day (he has a TT), a mustang tried teasing him, and a red N/A Z came out of nowhere and took care of the mustang for my friend. haha. then the mustang thought he try his luck with the modded TT. no need to finish the story.      you could probably tune an N/a to 300hp and with those 4.08 gears, you'd have one quick car.

tnord

03-09-2002, 10:54 AM

i didn't intend to convey the message that on a track (road course, not drag stip obviously) the 3000 would get beat by a stock 240, especially not a VR4. but i do intend to say that the 240 handles better (by better i mean it feels more capable, i have no idea what they pull on the skidpad). i think everyone will agree that with simple suspension upgrades the 240 will own on a 3000 in the corners. i'm not trying to be a jerk, but have you driven a VR4? i might as well be driving an APC. maybe it's just me, but i do find them sloppy through anything but big long sweepers.

transient

03-09-2002, 11:56 AM

Stock for stock, a 3Sx will rape a 240 on the skidpad too. Sorry guys.

Tuck&Poke

03-09-2002, 12:16 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (transient @ Mar. 08 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stock for stock, a 3Sx will rape a 240 on the skidpad too. Sorry guys.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
whats a 3sx?  im gonna guess its a 300gt vr4 and yes you are right

XylathaneGTR

03-09-2002, 12:36 PM

Yes, sad to say, no shit a 3000gt could rape a 240...
thats like saying a Fairlady Z would rape an mr2...
Of course it would...
3000gt's are a LOT more expensive, and are better cars, larger engines ect...
if the 240sx was made with same cost, power, and shit like a GTO, it would put up a very good fight.

tnord

03-09-2002, 01:56 PM

just because a car has a high skidpad rating doesn't necessarily mean it handles well

S13Grl

03-09-2002, 02:10 PM

They're FWD. (Aside from the VR4). How can they handle better?!?!

DSC

03-09-2002, 03:04 PM

Well, fwd doesn't always = bad handeling. But I was thinking about getting one when I was car shopping (when I got my s14) and It looked good, felt good to sit in but it was just SLOW. It wasn't vr4 and it was auto, but it didn't seem to have nearly enough power for it's weight. I coudn't really judge cornering too well though, cauz I didn't push it and I couldn't drive nearly as well 6 months ago <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> but it just didn't feel good...almost like a mustang but less power <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/huh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':huh:'>

XylathaneGTR

03-09-2002, 03:39 PM

3000gt's are also very advanced...the vr4 anyways...
I read somewhere that once the car reach's a certain speed, i think stock, it's 80mph, The cars suspension lowers the car 3cm and the wing automatically adjusts itself to a more aerodynamic posistion...
I think anyways...it might jsut be the GTO version tho.

transient

03-09-2002, 05:18 PM

Sure you're not thinking of a porche or something? hehe, j/k. Well, I know Thurazor'z Stealth doesn't do that. I haven't heard that before either though...

whateverjames

03-09-2002, 05:30 PM

i've heard of the rear wing adjusting itself at certain speeds. not all years of the vr4 do it i don't think.

MorganS13

03-09-2002, 06:18 PM

the 3000gt VR4s had the active aero package (adjustable rear AND front spoiler) up till 98 or 99 (???, whenever they added the high rise spoiler). handling wise both the stealth TT and 3000gt VR4 had AWS up till 93, in 94 they modified the suspension and didn't need the AWS anymore, this was good because it reduced weight.

the stealth R/T TTs never came with the active aero package, but came with all the other same toys as the 3000VR4 (i might be forgetting somethin). the stealths were always slightly cheaper than the 3000gts similarly equipped. thats my short history of the twins off the top off my head <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'> i doubt it helped anythin but i haven't posted in a long time....

oh yea and i've driven a 98 3000gt SL around and the only good thing about it was this gorgous chick sayin "if i could find a way, i'd have sex with that thing...". it was a REALLY nice lookin but so slow and big... i wouldn't mind a VR4 though <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

XylathaneGTR

03-09-2002, 06:22 PM

Yeah, the sl isin't as good...
the vr4 is so...amazing tho <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>
these are prolly my Fav GTO's...this and Veilside <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
sry for image spam

http://www.takakaira.com/aerokits/kaze/gto_f2.jpg
and this
http://www.takakaira.com/aerokits/kaze/gto_f3.jpg
and this
http://www.takakaira.com/aerokits/kaze/gto_r.jpg
and finally, this
http://www.takakaira.com/aerokits/kaze/gto_d.jpg

tnord

03-09-2002, 06:45 PM

no offense, but those cars make me want to puke

XylathaneGTR

03-09-2002, 06:50 PM

heh, their pretty ricey...
I like the black one <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>...but tha'ts just me

Thurazor

03-09-2002, 09:58 PM

As far as the body kits go, since it was brought up, the best looking body kit available for 3S cars is the PitroadM kit.

http://www.pitroadm.com/public/seihinn/new1.JPG

http://www.pitroadm.com/public/seihinn/new2.JPG

Personally I would take a stock 99 conversion over the PitroadM kit, but whatever floats their boats.

p.s. I'll bring my Stealth to one of the Zilvia meets so I can show you what a real car looks like hehe  <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'> j/k

Fuzzy Ewok

03-09-2002, 10:44 PM

One of my friends had a '92 VR-4 for a couple years--had a nice exhaust system on it and a aftermarket intake, I think...maybe a few other things.  Anyway, I had several opportunities to drive it.

Those things are fast--even the early '90s ones.  He had good tires on it, and no matter how hard he tried, he couldn't make the tires spin off the line, and he had a really hard time getting them to break loose on turns.  The only time we ever got it to really break loose was coming out of the final turn of a triple S-turn (almost 90 degree turns) at about 75 mph when the inertia was just too much for it to handle.  He raced a mid-90's (I think) Supra once, and that car was amazingly fast.  I don't think it had much work done to it, but couldn't tell for sure.  One of the really bad things with the VR-4, though, is how much it costs to fix stuff...it was unreal.

Anyway, I loved driving his VR-4, but it did feel big and lumbering compared to a 240...no question.  And as was said before, base models are just...bleh.  SL's aren't much better, it seems to me, but VR-4's are just nice cars.  But they're too damn common around here...can't swing a dead cat without hitting one.

Gismo R

03-10-2002, 12:47 AM

I knew a guy that had a vr4. I never got to ride in it though. But he said it was fast. He was telling me one day how he raced a Cobra and wolked away from it. Last I heard from him though he had hit a tree in is own yard. How the hell do you hit a tree in your own yard??  <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/eh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':eh:'>

XylathaneGTR

03-10-2002, 12:50 AM

Thu...that's a nice kit too <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>
lol, Hitting a tree in his own yard?
dude...thats pretty fucked up...and a sad way to end a gto's life...
btw, the pics i posted, those were for Older 3000gt's...the pre 94 ones...best for that year.

junia

03-10-2002, 06:58 AM

The 3000GT is the states side version of the GTO right?  I thought they came with twin turbo v6's?  I think I'm wrong but I think they were either FF or 4WD because when I looked under the hood of one the engine was mounted from left to right unlike regular FR's.

Thurazor

03-10-2002, 10:01 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (junia @ Mar. 09 2002,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 3000GT is the states side version of the GTO right? I thought they came with twin turbo v6's? I think I'm wrong but I think they were either FF or 4WD because when I looked under the hood of one the engine was mounted from left to right unlike regular FR's.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
The VR4 had 24v v6 with twin turbos. They were all AWD. And yes, the GTO was the name for the 3000gt in Japan.

XylathaneGTR

03-10-2002, 10:24 AM

Mitsubishi renamed the GTO to the 3000gt VR4...
Why?
Everyone knows the about the dirty old pontiac GTO muscle car from the 70's...And if mitsubishi released a GTO...rednecks would flock from their trailor parks with bats and pitchforks and other weapons of Japanese car destruction in hand and wouldn't rest until every last one was Destroyed.
Mitsubishi did their research...
and it was a good think they did too.  
they look so nice  <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blush.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':blush:'>  <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/dozingoff.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':zzz:'>

Tuck&Poke

03-10-2002, 11:10 AM

well they had aws all the way till 99.  they were the last sports car with aws.  and to the guy who said of course theyre gonna handle better bla bla if the 240 were made like the 3000gt bla bla. no shit sherlok.  its called a 300zx ya know they made it back in the early 90's.  i dont know how it compared to the 3000gt though.

Jeff240sx

03-10-2002, 11:34 AM

People just dont understand.  Sure, you can beat a base 3kgt.  The SL, you shouldn't beat in a race, unless you're lucky like me and he miss-shifts.  Then you can laugh in the drivers face and tell him he got beat by 70 less horsepower.
And a 3kgt VR-4 is gonna be quick.
According to Cartest
240sx
1/4mile  - [email protected]
0-60  - 7.1secs
top speed  - 135 mph in 137 secs
Sorry..  No base model.
SL
1/4mile  - [email protected]
0-60  - 6.5secs
top speed  - 153 mph in 103 secs
VR-4
1/4mile  - [email protected]
0-60  - 5.2secs
top speed  - 161 mph in 164 secs
And to those who said a vr-4 will beat a supra...
1994 Supra Turbo
0-60 -  4.9 secs
1/4 mile - [email protected]
top speed - 167 mph in 146 secs

tnord

03-10-2002, 01:00 PM

6.5 for the SL? that seems pretty generous to me, that or the 3kgt's i've driven were beat to hell and weren't puttin down the power they used to

3750/220=17.045 (rough estimate)
2700/155=17.5

so if my numbers are accurate each hp is pullin 1/2lb more on a 240. i don't particularly think that would equate to a .5 second faster 0-60 time, especially with the whole fwd thing.........but hey, what do i know?

MorganS13

03-10-2002, 01:05 PM

"   In 1995, the differences between the top-of-the-line models (VR4 and
   R/T Turbo) are (off the top of my head - might not be complete):

           1) No 4WS (same-phase 4 wheel steering) on the Stealth
           2) No ECS (electronically controlled suspension) on the Stealth
           3) No automatic A/C with graphic display on the Stealth
           4) No power sunroof on the Stealth
           5) Manual sunroof is different between the two (I think)
           6) Mitsu version has a longer warranty period (all models)
           7) 18" 5-spoke chrome wheels are optional on Stealth; 18"
              6-spoke chrome wheels are standard on the VR4
           8) No active aero system on the Stealth
           9) No electronically controlled exhaust on the Stealth

   Items 1, 2, 3 and 9 were phased out of the Stealth over the '94 to '95
   model years.  Regarding item 6, the warranties used to be identical, I
   believe (I had a 5/50 (or maybe 5/60) bumper-to-bumper on my '93, but
   only 3/36 was available on the '95).  Items 4 and 8 have never been
   available in the Stealth."
from3000GT FAQ (http://http://www.gate.net/~dhaupert/3000faq.html), this page was from 95 so it doesn't mention the newer models

i was a little off, sorry.  i've never seen 0-60 times below low 7s for a N/A 3000SL or stealth ES/R/T though.  i'm not doubting them i'm just wondering how much they had to abuse the car to get them.  i've see around a dozen magazine times and they were all pretty consistent from mid 7s to low 8s for the 222hp models.  pretty even match for a stock DOHC 240...i'd say it depends on drivers and launch, just my .02 since i was seriously considering them at one point

Jeff240sx

03-10-2002, 02:51 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Thurazor @ Mar. 07 2002,3:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's the specs for the 3000GT:
SL (91 through 93): 222 hp weighing at 3524 lbs
SL (94 through 99): 222 hp weighing at 3263 lbs
SL Spyder (95 through 96): 222 hp weighing at 3439 lbs
VR4 (91 through 93): 300 hp weighing at 3791 lbs
VR4 (94 through 99): 320 hp weighing at 3737 lbs</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Ok.
You people are forgetting a lot of things.
Where in this post does a SL come out to 3750 lbs tnord?
So.  With the numbers, I only have a '92 SL in the database, and it says 3510 lbs, you must change your equations.
3500/220 = 15.9 lbs/hp
2750/155 = 17.74 lbs/hp

Then it has 40 more ft/lbs of torque, which makes us and them the same torque:weight ratio, and their gears are larger than our final drive, with a 4.15:1

Finally, it also has a 7000 rpm redline, so it can go longer without shifting, with optimal shift points between 20 and 200 rpms below redline, while ours are 400 - 700 rpms below redline.  
-Jeff

Tuck&Poke

03-10-2002, 03:39 PM

no there is no way in hell a supra does 0-60 in 4.9 sec.  fuckin impossible.  i dont know where you got your specs from but theyre not right.  320hp does not get you 0-60 in 4.9 sec.  5.2 yeh its believable but not 4.9.  it might only be .3 sec buts thats a lot in racing.  im almost 100% positive the 0-60 time is 5.4 for both the vr4 and teh supra tt

ca18guy

03-10-2002, 03:52 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 10 2002,10:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no there is no way in hell a supra does 0-60 in 4.9 sec. fuckin impossible. i dont know where you got your specs from but theyre not right. 320hp does not get you 0-60 in 4.9 sec. 5.2 yeh its believable but not 4.9. it might only be .3 sec buts thats a lot in racing. im almost 100% positive the 0-60 time is 5.4 for both the vr4 and teh supra tt</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I have an issue of car and driver were they say the Supra turbo doe's 0-60 in 4.8 seconds so that sounds right.  Thing I don't understand Jeff is were you got 7.1 for the 240SX!!! I'm sure you use the same program and mine comes out with a 7.9 0-60 for a 95' SE.

Tuck&Poke

03-10-2002, 03:58 PM

yeh ive heard 4.8 too but i dont belive it.  anyone got that car and driver issue with the supra vs the 3000gt vs the rx7 vs the z32?

ca18guy

03-10-2002, 04:06 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 10 2002,10:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yeh ive heard 4.8 too but i dont belive it. anyone got that car and driver issue with the supra vs the 3000gt vs the rx7 vs the z32?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Comparision Link (http://www.nutsandvolts.com/rx7/articles/93_cd_comparo/article_p1.asp)

Tuck&Poke

03-10-2002, 04:34 PM

your a god thank you!  it says here 5.2 sec to 60 and a 13.8 1/4mile

Jeff240sx

03-11-2002, 02:26 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ca18guy @ Mar. 09 2002,6:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an issue of car and driver were they say the Supra turbo doe's 0-60 in 4.8 seconds so that sounds right.[b] Thing I don't understand Jeff is were you got 7.1 for the 240SX!!! I'm sure you use the same program and mine comes out with a 7.9 0-60 for a 95' SE.[b]</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Sorry.  I had the shift times turned down.  I dont think it takes me .5 seconds to shift, so I bumped it down.  Back at .5 sec shift time, it is a 7.8 0-60.  15.8sec 1/4mile.
-Jeff

ca18guy

03-11-2002, 02:31 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (minime686 @ Mar. 10 2002,11:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">your a god thank you! it says here 5.2 sec to 60 and a 13.8 1/4mile</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
That issue is from when the Supra first came out. The issue I have is like the last year they made them in the states. Guess they wrung alittle extra out of it towards the end.