Mitsubishi GTO (Z15A) Twin Turbo MR [Premium] 1994

[Harsk100]

Despite the GTO being a duplicated version of 3000GT, the GTO of 280 HP has some differences. The GTO has Twinturbo MR (VR-4 Turbo was produced for 3000GT) and the GTO Z15A was produced from 1994 to 1998 (the 3000GT was produced from 1994 to 1999). Moreover, the GTO Twin Turbo MR has 280 PS while the 3000GT VR-4 Turbo has 325 PS.

Specs:
Engine: DOHC 24v V6 twin turbo
Power [kw (PS; HP)]: 206 kW (280 PS; 276 hp) at 6000 rpm
Torque [NM (LB-FT)]: 427 N·m (315 lb·ft) at 2500 rpm

http://mitsubishicars.kamikaze-drive.com/GTO009.htm

 

[RagingDaemon]

Mitsubishi GTO of any variant gets the go ahead from me. Loved all the different racing modification colours for them all in the 1st Gran Turismo.

 

[Tornado]

Moreover, the GTO Twin Turbo MR has 280 PS while the 3000GT VR-4 Turbo has 325 PS.

It should be pointed out that the 3000GT wasn't like the contemporary Mk. IV Supra and Z32 300ZX, where there were differences (for the Supra, somewhat substantial ones) between the engines of the Japanese and export models that lended some credence that the Japanese models actually had closer to 276 horsepower instead of the numbers claimed for export ones. The 3000GT engine was... pretty much the same as the GTO one. European models of the 3000GT have bigger turbos that don't drop off as much as the RPM climbs, but US and Japanese models shared pretty much everything.

 

[Harsk100]

It should be pointed out that the 3000GT wasn't like the contemporary Mk. IV Supra and Z32 300ZX, where there were differences (for the Supra, somewhat substantial ones) between the engines of the Japanese and export models that lended some credence that the Japanese models actually had closer to 276 horsepower instead of the numbers claimed for export ones. The 3000GT engine was... pretty much the same as the GTO one. European models of the 3000GT have bigger turbos, but US and Japanese models shared pretty much everything.

Yes, the 3000GT couldn't keep up the pace of Supra and Z32 300ZX as they were much popular than 3000GT.
Actually, in that time, Japanese emissions required that these cars have until 276 HP. But 3000GT managed to bypass the 276 HP because it is the exported version of GTO.

In the second part, as said and right, the US and Japanese models shared everything despite of some differences.

 

[Tornado]

That's not at all what I was saying.



What I was saying was that unlike with the Supra and 300ZX, where the engines powering export models had different builds than the engines powering JDM models, and you can't really conclusively say that they had more than 276hp:

Actually, in that time, Japanese emissions required that these cars have until 276 HP. But 3000GT managed to bypass the 276 HP because it is the exported version of GTO.

It's pretty safe to say that we know the JDM GTO had by all rights the same power as the US 3000GT regardless of what Mitsubishi said, since the engine was functionally identical between the two.

 

[90sEnthusiast]

As far as Z32 vs VR4:

Yes, the 3000GT couldn't keep up the pace of Supra and Z32 300ZX as they were much popular than 3000GT.
Actually, in that time, Japanese emissions required that these cars have until 276 HP. But 3000GT managed to bypass the 276 HP because it is the exported version of GTO.

In the second part, as said and right, the US and Japanese models shared everything despite of some differences.

Actually, the Z was slowest of the 4 stock, VR4 second and Supra first, FD3 and Z32 almost equal:
*PROOF THAT THE 1990-1999 MITSUBISHI 3000GT VR-4 IS FASTER THAN THE 1990-1996 300ZX TWIN TURBO*

*1990-1996 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo: 300 HP@6400-RPM / 283 LB.FT TQ@3600-RPM, 3,400-3,550 lbs*

*(1G)1990-1993 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 296 HP@6000-RPM / 306 LB.FT TQ@2500-RPM, 3850 lbs*

*(2G)1994-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 320 HP@6000-RPM / 315 LB.FT TQ@2500-RPM, 3780-3700 lbs*

*Best Motoring* is a famous Japanese television show that’s focuses on Japanese performance cars. *They’re drivers are actual race car drivers that have WON AWARDS* They tested all the performance cars of the era. *In 1994 Mitsubishis 3000GT VR4 beat the R32 Skyline GTR a car that weighs 3100 lbs and dynos 270@whp* ! *And then in 1996, the GTO MR, which is identical to the 2G VR4, with 67 less pounds, bested an R33 Skyline GTR pulling a 12.8 quarter mile* *The 1990 300ZX Twin Turbo got 14.1 to the 1/4m for a TT 2+0 Slicktop, the lightest year*
*The Skyline GTR was the fastest model Nissan made, their Halo car. The J spec VR4 is identical to the USDM version, how would it lose to a 300ZX Twin Turbo which is a much less powerful and heavier car than the Skyline GTRs above? These videos alone prove how much faster the VR4 is*

*1990 to 1993*

1. *Road and Track 1989 300ZX Twin Turbo Debut* http://www.300zx.cl/ga2/300zx2/images/ryt895.jpg *0 to 60 / 6.5s. / 0 to 100 16.5s, quarter mile of 15.0@96mph*

2. *Road and Track 1990 3000GT VR4 Debut* https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...ubOzvpBK3qrEuS6PU=&docid=t4yeibB8a0bzPM&itg=1
*0 to 60 6.3s / 0 to 100 16.2 / quarter mile 14.5@95.0mph* In Road and Track, the VR4 consistently got more praise and better times

4. http://www.300zx.cl/ga3/300zx3/images/car3005.jpg -
*Car and Driver, 1992, Slide the High Country*
*300ZX Twin Turbo - 0 to 60 5.5, quarter mile 14.2@101mph*
*3000GT VR4 - 0 to 60 5.4, quarter mile 14.0@99mph*
Considering the VR4 is 350+ lbs more than the Z, this is a win for the VR4. It also won in handling, the Z pulled .89 and the VR4 .91 in the slalom https://www.caranddriver.com/review...e-stealth-r-t-turbo-archived-comparison-test/ - The 300ZX Twin Turbo won with a faster ET and trap. The Stealth weighed 200 lbs more. *Car and Driver states this is the fastest Z they've ever tested, and can't ever get these numbers again from the Z for over 4 years of testing*


5. http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/mopar/91_4.html -. 1G VR-4 running to 60mph in 4.89 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.67 ET taken from various road tests, with comparisons to other cars' times.

*1994 to 1999*

1. - *MotorWeek, 1994*
*3000GT VR4 0 - 60 in 4.9 and the quarter mile in 13.5@103mph. MW couldn't get the Z faster than 13.7@103, so the VR4 is 3 to 4 car lengths ahead at the same trap speed*

2. https://www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/
*MotorTrend 1995 Virtual Velocity*
*300ZX Twin Turbo - 13.9@102.0mph*
*3000GT VR4 - 13.5@101.6 mph*
The Z is 4-6 car lengths away and moving .4s mph faster - it physically cannot pass up that much ET difference.

3. -
*Stock 1999 3000GT VR4 quarter mile of 13.2@102.7* This is a thoroughly stock car. It took him over a month to get the launch down.

4. http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt10.jpg -
*Road and Track 1994 The 300 HP Club*
*300ZX Twin Turbo - 14.4@99.7mph*
*3000GT VR4 - 14.2@99.0 mph*
Another instance of the VR4 being too far ahead for the Z to catch up to with under a single mph. *It lost by 2 SECONDS around a track to the VR4* http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt07.jpg

5. https://www.motortrend.com/news/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4/ -
The launch was bad for both the Supra TT and VR4, *yet the VR4 did 0-60 in 4.8s* and tied the Supra TT in the 1/4m @ 13.6s, with the Supra trapping substantially higher (Obviously).

6. https://archiv.3000gt.org/viewtopic.php?t=2582 –
*Popular Mechanics 1999 Acceleration Nation*
*1999 3000GT VR-4 - 0 to 60 in 5.00s, 1/4m in 13.44s @ 101.79mph*
They could have had a better launch, but who cares, no 300ZX Twin Turbo is pulling a 13.4 ET without bolt ons and definitely slick rubber.

7. Seems the Z32 isn't all it's shaped up to be, it lost to a 250HP Corvette by a SECOND around a track and ran identical numbers. QUOTE: *When all was said and done, the Cor¬vette turned laps in the one-minute 38-second range, at an average speed of 64 mph, while the Nissan was almost a second per lap slower. "No big deal," you're saying? On the contrary. It is a big deal in a two-hour race. Far more important, the Corvette—with its hip-hugging seats, smooth power delivery, and neutral handling—is far easier to drive for long peri¬ods at those speeds. To put the Cor¬vette's racetrack prowess into per¬spective, remember that the big V-8 produces 50 fewer horsepower than the twin-turbo terror* (LOL) https://www.caranddriver.com/review...fx3-vs-nissan-300zx-archived-comparison-test/ http://www.300zx.cl/ga2/300zx/images/cvsg4.jpg - *300ZX Twin Turbo - 0 to 60mph 5.6, 0 to 100mph 16.3, quarter mile in 14.6@96mph*
*Car and Driver never got this slow of a time in a 1G VR4 or Stealth Twin Turbo*

8. Publications notice the VR4 being markedly faster than the 300ZX Twin Turbo.
*Since 1996, it became 320 hp and 315 lbft. It feels decisively more punchy than the contemporary 300ZX turbo yet without adding turbo lag* -AutoZine Magazine https://www.autozine.org/Archive/Mitsubishi/old/GTO.html

9. Wikipedia states that the 2G VR4 is faster. *The new 6-speed, while notchy, was geared well and the extra horsepower and torque allowed it to out-accelerate most of its' rivals from a standing start to top speed. Road tests at the time showed the second generation 3000GT VR-4 to be capable of 60 mph (97 km/h) in 4.8 - 5.4 seconds[18] and the quarter mile in 13.5 seconds at 101 to 105 miles per hour (163 to 169 km/h), making it faster in a straight line than the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and Mazda RX-7 Twin Turbo.[19][2][20]* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO Wikipedia has to have sources to prove the above to be true, or it gets taken down.

10. *Where are all the stock Z’s running mid 13s stock? It never tested below a 13.7 ET with a professional driver* The proof is overwhelming - after 1994, the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo couldn't touch the Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4.The 1994-2001 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, with it’s 320HP and 315TQ, is faster than any version of the 1990-1999 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo, including earlier models that were slightly lighter.

11. https://www.modernracer.com/mitsubishi3000gtvr4 -. This site averages out *every single time recorded for each car*
*The 2G VR-4 got a 13.5@105.0. Yes, the VR-4 traps higher than the Z most of the time*


12. The gear ratios are better in the VR-4 and the Z32 TT *cannot physically pass the VR4 after the brutal AWD launch that leaves the ZX flailing and two car lengths behind at 150mph.
*Ratios, 1990-1996 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo: 40/67/100/130/155 (OD), 3.69:1 final ratio*
*Ratios, 1994-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 40/69/106/143/155/159 (OD), 3.87:1 final ratio*
As anyone can guess, the VR-4 holds more boost and for longer. *The VR-4 has 12.5 PSI, the Z only holds 9.5 PSI. To top it off, the Z when stock doesn’t hold boost for long and it drops off before redline; the VR-4 holds boost from 3K-RPM to redline at 6.5K on the tach. Redline shifts on the VR4 make sure it stays in boost, the Z again starts to lose boost at 6,000-RPM, 400 RPM before it’s at it’s 6.4K Redline.
Sources: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zc...ion-forum/164530-300zx-stock-boost.html?amp=1
https://www.nissanforums.com/threads/300zx-tt-stock-boost.65627/
http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt08.jpg

*The proof is OVERWHELMING that the 1994-2001 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 is faster than the 1989-1998 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo stock for stock, and that goes for any model Z, Slicktop to T-Top to 2+2*

I deeply apologize for commenting on such an old thread, especially if it's against the rules. In 1994 when the GTO/VR4 got 320hp/315tq and a 6 speed, it was second only to the Supra in acceleration. Driving a GTO TT back to back with a 300ZX TT makes the Z feel a bit lacking. However, it handles better.