3000GT VR4
Been loving the s2k for some time now but got turned onto the 3000gt vr4 today and it looks amazing..twin turbos.. but the age is what is keeping me at bay. Can anyone with knowledge on the two cars enlighten me? THANKS!
Expensive to maintain if they haven't been cared for, earlier transmissions were weaker, heavy car (3700+ lbs). It can be a good car, but S will be faster stock vs stock. There's also a lot more to break on them.
The 3000GT VR4 and the 300ZX aren't known for their reliability and they are a pain in the ass to work on and they could run your bank dry if you aren't loaded.
I knew a guy who had a 3000GT Twin Turbo in college, his car made around 400whp. He was able to keep it because he was loaded, aka international student.
If you are financially sound and the 3000GT won't be your daily drive, I don't see why not. Having a twin turbo in the engine bay sounds scary to me though, says my bank account.
I knew a guy who had a 3000GT Twin Turbo in college, his car made around 400whp. He was able to keep it because he was loaded, aka international student.
If you are financially sound and the 3000GT won't be your daily drive, I don't see why not. Having a twin turbo in the engine bay sounds scary to me though, says my bank account.
IT was my dream car back in H.S., later college 
To me, back then it was like the Japanese Ferrari Testarossa look alike
My buddy (rich guy) had a blue VR-4 back in school and he had about 400hp as well slightly tuned with HKS parts. It's a car that was quite advanced for that era (4-wheel steering, 6-speed tranny, AWD, motorized rear wing, traction control, and correct me if I'm wrong but the first hardtop convertible)
I drove Eclipses back then and whenever I was in the Mitsu dealer, I was drooling over the Spyder they had with a price tag around $65k which was ALOT OF MONEY back then!
It's defintitely aged a bit but I don't see this car any different than a 300ZX or RX7 twin turbo. All of these cars will cost to play but it's no different. Don't forget about the sister car (Dodge Sealth R/T Twin Turbo)....loved that thing in yellow too
Oh for you younger kids on this site, just to give you an idea of the era of the VR4, back then there was no such thing as:
Internet
iPhone
Facebook
Car Forums
Twitter
So back then everything was very "local" meaning you don't learn things too quickly and everything was done through 800 numbers and magazines

To me, back then it was like the Japanese Ferrari Testarossa look alike
My buddy (rich guy) had a blue VR-4 back in school and he had about 400hp as well slightly tuned with HKS parts. It's a car that was quite advanced for that era (4-wheel steering, 6-speed tranny, AWD, motorized rear wing, traction control, and correct me if I'm wrong but the first hardtop convertible)
I drove Eclipses back then and whenever I was in the Mitsu dealer, I was drooling over the Spyder they had with a price tag around $65k which was ALOT OF MONEY back then!
It's defintitely aged a bit but I don't see this car any different than a 300ZX or RX7 twin turbo. All of these cars will cost to play but it's no different. Don't forget about the sister car (Dodge Sealth R/T Twin Turbo)....loved that thing in yellow too

Oh for you younger kids on this site, just to give you an idea of the era of the VR4, back then there was no such thing as:
Internet
iPhone
Car Forums
So back then everything was very "local" meaning you don't learn things too quickly and everything was done through 800 numbers and magazines
Trending Topics
s4play,
I think the 3000GT was the first modern power hard top. It was not the first as the Ford Skyliner beat it by several decades and I think it was Peugeot who did a non-powered hard top before WW2.
Regardless, I don't think the 3000GT was that well regarded when new. I just searched for the old C&D article (back when car mags didn't totally suck)
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=364469
It was last and was summed up as the trendy pretender. Even the C4 Corvette was considered the better car... and the article said their particular C4 was not the best sample they tested.
Anyway, of the Japanese early 90s GTs it would be my least favorite. Far behind an RX-7 or 300ZX (my two favorites of the period... the NSX is in another league, never was a Supra fan even if the 600+ lb engine could make big power). Anyway, if the price is right etc go for it but it wouldn't be my first or second choice.
I think the 3000GT was the first modern power hard top. It was not the first as the Ford Skyliner beat it by several decades and I think it was Peugeot who did a non-powered hard top before WW2.
Regardless, I don't think the 3000GT was that well regarded when new. I just searched for the old C&D article (back when car mags didn't totally suck)
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=364469
It was last and was summed up as the trendy pretender. Even the C4 Corvette was considered the better car... and the article said their particular C4 was not the best sample they tested.
Anyway, of the Japanese early 90s GTs it would be my least favorite. Far behind an RX-7 or 300ZX (my two favorites of the period... the NSX is in another league, never was a Supra fan even if the 600+ lb engine could make big power). Anyway, if the price is right etc go for it but it wouldn't be my first or second choice.
My wife owned a 94 3000 GT SL ( non turbo) for 7 years. The engine and transmission were both replaced. The battery and starter were replacemened at least 4 times. The car is known to have electrical gremlins. It would stop for no reason when starting off from a red light, leaving you stranded in the intersection. Take it to the store.... You better have a portable jumper because the battery will probably be drained and not have enough juice to crank it over. Parts of the car started to fall off. Stay far away from the 3000GT. I will never buy a Mitsubishi because of how crappy that car was.











