![hpcptj4bukacjsqtz5ng[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NMN0uhD.jpg "hpcptj4bukacjsqtz5ng[1].jpg")
So I'm biased against Mitsubishi cars because >chrysler, but this board always talk about the 3000GT like it's good.
There's one sitting at a pawn shop in town with a $2,500 sign in the window. Are these things fast? Are they fun? Is the engine gonna explode the second I get home with it? The one they have is a popup model and it's been there for a few months
Not that i know anything about the 3000gt but if i was concerned about an engine exploding i wouldn't buy a car for 2500 especially from a pawn shop
>>13810977
The only thing I know about them is you could get like 1000hp out of the on the original Gran Turismo.
>>13810977
Non VR-4 / R/T twin turbos are slow. Yes, even the DOHC versions. Not saying they're not fun or baller looking, but if you want speed and performance the vr-4 is the only one worth looking at, but is quite the car with a 5 second zero to sixty and awd/all wheel steering.
They're not inherently unreliable, but they are mechanically complex, difficult to work on because of a transverse twin turbo v6, and parts are expensive.
I doubt the pawn shop one is a VR-4 but if it is I would grab it for that price, just expect to do some repairs.
It's sitting at a pawn shop for 2.5k for a few reasons. A, the base models are common as fuck and are complete shit in every way. Slow, heavy, don't handle, fwd, some would say they look good but it depends on the year imo. B, they are unreliable pieces of shit. I would stay the fuck away from it.
If you found a VR4, get it. It's really fast because of the TT V6 that can easily make lots of power, handles well for it's weight due to its awd and active 4WS, and is a future classic. That awd system is rear biased too, and the 4WS is active not the passive HICAS shit in the Z32 and 240SX. Still unreliable, but the difference is a VR4 is actually worth maintaining. If that car is a VR4, it might make a good project car but i doubt it runs well. VR4s usually go for close or over 10k.
It's gonna blow up.
They take dedication to own.
>>13811157
Not OP, but I really want a VR-4/RT stealth. They're such an oddity and I feel like a good condition one would be a blast on back roads. One of the professors at my college drives a red VR-4 and it looks Fucking mint, I really wanna find out who it is and chat him up about it.
that thing really was the definition of teh sexy for me in 1996, and I still kinda want one.
Weird but quick transverse AWD layout.
At $2500 I'd buy one as a project car. It'll be a money pit regardless, but you'll have one hell of a unique car
OP here, thanks for the info. I'll check it out next time in town to see if it's a VR-4 or not
>>13810977
Non turbo models are not slow contrary to popular belief.
The SOHC is the one slow as fuck. But the DOHC N/A is not the slowest car ever.
>>13811074
>>13811088
Base models are 1400kg with 222hp stock. Add a shitload of plug and play mods that you can get from various sites and your car can easily go to 240hp. Suspension mods are available. The point being that the N/A is not slow as fuck or heavy as fuck.
For a DD is a perfect choice. You won't be the slowest and you can overtake easily a GT86.
I don't think they are worth the trouble...they are ridiculously heavy and FWD based...even a vr4 isn't fast by todays standards, it wasn't the fastest thing back in its day either. I don't know anyone who daily drives one, something is always broken. I've driven an SL and VR4 and neither struck me as fun to drive, the gearing is insanely long, the weight makes itself known in every turn or time you try to stop the thing and it wasn't luxurious enough to warrant the lack of sportiness. It reminded me of a mk3 supra, but less comfortable. I do love how they look though...your best bet is to take a picture and move on
>>13810977
They're cool, but they're pretty awful. If you don't find one that has been meticulously cared for for its entire life, it will be a gigantic money pit, plus, SHITsubishi quality.
If I found one that was immaculate I might want it, but otherwise no.
>>13811651
beating a GT86 is kinda like raping an handicapped kid,its too easy and doesnt even get you fully erect.
>>13811651
>>Base models are 1400kg with 222hp stock. Add a shitload of plug and play mods that you can get from various sites and your car can easily go to 240hp. Suspension mods are available. The point being that the N/A is not slow as fuck or heavy as fuck.ake easily a GT86.
The base model is basically a bigger, fatter, better looking eclipse then. Sounds awful.
>>13811651
>>13813133
I've never owned a DOHC GT so I could very well be 100% wrong, but isn't it's 0-60 time somewhwere in the 8 second range? Or is that the SOHC?
>>13812774
Speak for yourself there m80
>it's not rape if they can't say no
>>13810977
>So I'm biased against Mitsubishi cars because >chrysler
And what do you think Chrysler has to do with anything?
>>13813538
Chrysler and Mitsubishi had a long running partnership throughout the 80's 90's leading to captive imports like the conquest/starion, laser/talon/eclipse, and I think that Chrysler actually collaborated with them on the design of the 3000gt/stealth. It's a match made in heaven, the two least reliable automakers joining forces. Can't deny the GTO and starion are neat tho.
>>13813572
Because of this partnership, I was stuck with a shitty 3L V6 mitsu motor in my Lebaron. Power of a good 4cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.
>>13813584
>Power of a good 4cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.
Like ford's 3L vulcan.
>>13813572
Except that isn't what happened at all. The only Chrysler product Mitsubishi ever put their name on was the Dakota. The 3000GT has NOTHING to do with Chrysler other than having a model with their name on it. Mitsubishi did all the engineering and design work, as well as producing them solely at their facility in Japan.
The biggest thing Mitsubishi got out of the whole deal was a manufacturing facility for a couple models for a little while.
>least reliable
No.
>>13813620
>>least reliable
>No.
Yes
Shitsubishi is Japan's Chrysler.
>>13813616
Yes. Very similar power and mpg specs. It's not a boring type of engine, per se, but it's just not satisfying when you see how much you have to pay in gas.
>>13813630
You're just regurgitating bullshit you hear on /o/.
>>13813133
>The base model is basically a bigger, fatter, better looking eclipse then. Sounds awful.
Also faster yes. And not a DSM. And it's not awful. You have clearly never driven one.
Reminder that a transverse V6 did this.
Obviously is fat and useless... Bunch of fags.
>>13811088
>>13811134
>>13812516
>>13812747
>>13813572
>>13813630
Refer to >>13813790
Speak for your fucking selves.
This is the problem with /o/ faggots. They never speak for themselves. Not with this car but with every fucking car.
They are amazingly good cars. Avoid first gens, they are cheap for a reason. Even a 2nd gen shell for 2.5K is a fucking bargain.
If ever a car needed an LS1 swap this is it.
Leave the FDs alone
>>13811045
This fueled my love for 3000GT. I also think they just look neato.
I've ragged an N/A 2nd gen pretty hard. They're not _that_ fast, but they're certainly fun and cool cars. Certainly not slow.
>>13811185
What college/state?
I think the real problem with the 3k/Stealth is how amazing they look. I think everyone holds them to a higher standard because its such a striking car. I don't see how anyone can disagree with the issues with weight and gearing though...IIRC 2nd gear goes to about 85mph. They are really just good grand touring cars, if you go in expecting it to go as fast as it looks you'll be extremely let down
>>13814482
I know its slow as fuck.
>>13814520
>top speed runs
>>13814527
>0-60 runs
>>13814566
>drag
>>13814482
The gearing issue was US market specific. In Japan they had shorter gearing. I'm not going to yell at Mitsubishi for that. It WAS a GT car just like the other cars it competed with.
there's no such thing as a gearing issue. you just change the gears/diff.
>>13816507
Yes, there is. There is only 2 sets of R&P gears available in the US market and the highest (numerically) available is 3.54. Transmissions you can have either the 5 or the 6 speed and their gearing is fixed unless you're having someone make you custom gear sets.
>>13816521
So use the jap gears??
or swap the diffs with something that works.
surely someone out there has swapped or made aftermarket gears for this car.
is this shitty weeb car awd?
>>13816536
Also, surely this same diff size is used in other models of car. I highly doubt that carrier/pumpkin, or the size, is unique to this single car. isnt shitsubishi like renowned for using shit across multiple models?
It's probably like bmw where there's really only 3 sizes for like 40 years of differentials. e36 diff carrier and gears will fit inside e21 diff housing. 20 year car difference.
I'd bet like an entire $1 theres 3.90 or 4.10 or something out there for this hunk of garbage.
>>13816536
>So use the jap gears??
Ok, get me some, you maverick importer.
>or swap the diffs with something that works.
Oh yea, let me just do that. You're not only capable of finding someone breaking a Japanese GTO, you're also a master engineer.
>surely someone out there has swapped or made aftermarket gears for this car.
Maybe I spoke too soon. Aftermarket gear sets are not a common thing. They're either completely custom or due to high demand, and the 3000GT has neither thanks to every moron buying them and bumping them to 500HP.
>>13816565
Getting things from japan is easy.. just use a proxy service.
SURELY something out there uses the same diff to subframe bolt pattern. SURELY.
There's no way shitsubishi casted an entirely unique diff housing just for this car. There's no way shitsubishi is using a totally unique pumpkin just for this car. I JUST CANT BELIEVE IT.
>>13816565
>You're not only capable of finding someone breaking a Japanese GTO, you're also a master engineer.
GTOs in Japan are cheap
>>13816628
Assuming you're referring to the 3000GT
Base 3000GT is fwd
All GTOs are awd
>>13816562
>highly doubt that carrier/pumpkin, or the size, is unique to this single car. isnt shitsubishi like renowned for using shit across multiple models?
1. you are a fag that just talks complete garbage.
2. You are a fag
3. The transmission was designed for the car only
4. The differentials and all drivetrain components are unique to the model
5. The entire suspension is unique to the model
6. The brakes are unique to the model
7. The 6G72 used in the car is unique to the car, the Diamante had the same engine from '91 to '92 only.
8. Although the 6G72 engine was used in othe cars, the components of the engine were changed, forged crank and block for example. The engine can handle with stock internals 700HP. You can't swap parts from the other versions.
9.The only thing that could share with other Mitsubishis are some interior parts like alarm modules, automatic shifters, and sometimes, the steering wheel.
TL;DR- the car is entirely unique, with parts made only for this model. And you are a fag.
>>13816635
TLDR buy a 6 speed jap trans get it shipped with a proxy service and use it with your 5 speed diff = 4.15 final drive
problem solved next question
>>13816645
FIND one, retard. I looked, couldn't find one.
>>13816635
You can swap 6G72 parts from other DOHC 6G72s. You just wouldn't want to. I have 6G72 heads on a 6G74, even. Rest of the drivetrain is unique, though.
>>13816628
ur gay dude
About the only diffs that 'might' fit up to a GTO off the top of my head are the ones out of a V6 Delica, V6 Pajero and the Challenger as they've got a big 9" diff in them too and come out with some fairly steep ratios.
But, I've not ripped apart those units (or my own GTO's diff) to really have a handle of the guts and how they would connect together as I'm not living in a JDM spare parts yard (mores the pity).
I reckon if you where looking to do something different with the ratios, those 3 have a relatively diverse amount of 4.6 or 4.8 ratios in them. Heck they may well even be the same diff across quite a few of the models, but I just don't know how much they'd differ from the GTO's to tell anyone for sure.
>>13816883
I always thought you could use an Evo RS diff in them.
Or was it GTO diff in Evo?
>>13816899
I know they've used GTO into Evo, but never heard of it the other way around
The evo's tended to have diffs in the 4.01 to 4.5ish, I can't remember the exact size of them though off the top of my head
>>13816883
Only some Pajeros/Delicas have the 9" rear axle and I'm pretty sure the carrier won't work and the ring gear won't mount up to the GTO carrier.
https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/5240170750.html
Should I get it /o/? I might be able to talk the guy down to a grand so this can be my DD slut or something to just fuck around with mechanically.
>>13813790
Wrong. Mitsubishis are trash.
>>13817442
Wrong.
>>13811651
>>13811074
The forums I would visit back in the day would say that the 12v and 24v only had a difference of like 10 wheel horsepower. They overrated one and underrated the other.
>>13813479
Both. Please See:
>>13817902
>>13817902
They're full of shit. The 12V SOHC is rated at 140-150HP while the 24V DOHC used in the 3000GT rated at 220HP and definitely put that out.
>>13813630
Mitsubishi industries manufactures parts for EVERYTHING. I bet your car has something OEM Mitsubishi built inside of it.
If ChrYsler did that.... Fuck us all.
>>13817934
Mitsubishi "Industries" isn't real. MHI and Mitsubishi Electric provide a lot of parts and machinery for the automotive industry. Those companies are not MMC.
>>13816562
>>13816536
>>13816507
>>13816645
This person is a faggot benchracer troll that plays too many video games. Please be careful when you reply to him! :-)
I know I will never be buying a Mitsubishi again. Fucking sold my 4x4 Chevy 1500 Pickup for an Eclipse GT. Fucking transmission in the Eclipse went out after 40 miles of driving, the same night I bought it.
Stay away.
>>13817923
The SOHC 12v was stated to be 161 HP at the flywheel while it can DYNO 150+ HP.
The SOHC 24v was stated at 222 HP, but many were estimating it to be around 205 at the crank.
>>13817941
So who makes the TD04?
It sounds to me like you want me to believe that your Chebby ain't a GM.
>>13818041
>The SOHC 12v was stated to be 161 HP at the flywheel
No, it wasn't. 151HP at most. I would know, since I actually OWNED a vehicle with one. It needed 4.88 gears to keep up with the 200HP 3.5 that had the same transmission gearing, but 4.27 gears.
>>13818053
MHI makes the TD04. If you ever actually saw one, you would know this. I don't know why you think GM has a comparable business structure to the Mitsubishi Group.
>>13818054
The 3.5l is a different motor.
Read up on your Specs for a 3000gt, bro. Have you driven both vehicles? Where did you get a 4.88 ratio from?
Also, there's only a 1 second difference in the quater mile.
>>13818110
My nigga you think 1 second difference in a standing 1/4 mile is insignificant? What?
>>13818122
When both cars are slow as shit.
But my point is the 12v SOHC is underrated while the 24v DOHC was overrated.
>>13818170
You can think that, but the evidence doesn't support your theory.
>>13818178
Manufacturers say things, so it must be true. What if some of the difference is made up in low-end breathability while the 24 valve has the revs and torque curve. Unless I'm terribly wrong and that 12v transmission only has a 4% drivetrain loss.
My 2002 Camaro Z/28 only has 305 horsepower.
Termi's Cobra only has 390 hp.
>>13818054
>>Nigga isn't even talking about the same engine or vehicle
There's different cams and gearing and torque converters on your Pajero, Pajero.
The 12 valve and 24 valve NA 3000gts (they are 3.0 liters) litterally, LITTERALLY on have less than 25 hp at peak output to the wheels.
Torque curve is noticablly better on the 24 valve, but the numbers were fudged.
>>13818329
>shit I made up
lol
>>13817934
Yep, they make all kinds of things well, funnily enough their cars are shit.
>>13818350
MMC cars are not shit, and they don't make anything but automobiles.
>>13818341
Are you the guy with the 3.5l GTO??
STFU talking to me.
http://www.3si.org/forum/f36/222hp-dohc-overrated-388761/index40.html#/forumsite/20680/topics/388761?page=1
>>13818413
>Are you the guy with the 3.5l GTO??
No? Who is that?
Stop pretending like you know things, your forum posts don't prove shit.
>>13818420
Just go to post number 14 on the thread. We've talked about this shit forever ago. The SOHC vs. DOHC simply shifts and extends the powerband while adding around 30 crank horsepower.
Revving is cool, but at this point in time there isn't a multi-thousand dollar price difference in NA 6G72 motors.
YOUR forum posts prove nothing. Do you believe political statements since you already believe manufacturers claims?
I thought you were this dumbass.
>>13818054
>>13818122
A SOHC Manual is faster in the quarter mile than a DOHC Automatic that *from the factory factory has 61 more horsepower at the crank*.
>>13818515
Proof. Also at the time the automatic would have been a 4 speed vs a 5 speed.
>>13818576
The losing car has worse gearing and hampered power to weight ratio.
You're being spoon-fed shit and still trolling.
Should I buy a 92 automatic Stealth R/T? The dealer is asking 11k for it and says the car has only done 1400 km. That's difficult to believe because it adds up 8km per month (!)
The pictures look really nice though.
http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/details.html?id=214796426
>>13818912
>92 automatic
Eh, nah. INVECS is good, but not as good as INVECS II which introduced a manual shift mode.
>>13818937
okay good to know. Biggest problem in Europe is that the 3000 GT never sold well and the Stealth was never officially sold here, so we're not exactly spoilt for choice. The one I posted is tempting but I'm not sure I could get myself to spend 11k on a 23 year old Chrysler that has spend most of its life parked somewhere.
There is literally nothing you can do to the non-VR4 versions. 220hp crank is more like 190 at the front wheels, in a car that is as heavy as a truck. We're talking 16 to 17 second quarter mile slow. Slower than a SOHC honda slow. So yeah...they look and sound cool though.
>>13818996
It's not a Chrysler. Also I'm pretty sure the R/T wasn't 4WD or twin turbo.
>>13817011
>Only some Pajeros/Delicas have the 9" rear axle
That's why I specified the V6's- not the diesels
There's quite a lot of shared parts over the few diff's that I thought would be suitable for a look at. Mostly the bearings and in some cases the housings themselves.
Of particular note- C: the pinion shaft
34177 and 34181 goes into all 3 vehicles at some point depending on the ratios, so I think there's the possibility of mounting a different carrier inside a different housing.
Something to look at practicality if they where interested.
>>13819056
>That's why I specified the V6
But there are several V6s. The only V6 powered Pajeros with the 9" are the 6G72 ones. 6G74 and 6G75 powered ones have the 9.5". It also works the same for the diesels. The 4D55/56 both have the 9" while the 4M40/41 both have the 9.5".
Also you can't go by reference numbers as they all reference the same basic parts on different vehicles. They are not physically the same.
>>13818912
Hell fucking no.
>>13819007
Is this cracker serious?
And yes, Stealth RT/TTs exist.
>>13813584
They came with the 2.2 and 2.5 i4s so I don't know how this isn't your own fault
