Mitsubishi 3000GT & Dodge Stealth Forum banner

1993 Car & Driver Six Car Comparo Article w/ VR-4

10585 Views 26 Replies 19 Participants Last post by  oxrageous
I was going over some of my older car magazines, and I stumbled across a few relating to the 3S. I figured most of everyone here would be interested in seeing them, so I'm going to post them. None of the three I found are in the "Library" section of The first one is a six-car comparo in Car & Driver September of 1993 between the Corvette, RX-7, Porsche 968, 300ZX Turbo, 3000GT VR-4, and Supra Turbo.

I'm really interested in opinions on this large comparo, so let's have them...the more, the merrier.

I also have some comparos in issues of Motor Trend, April of 1992 and July of 1993. I'll try and get them up soon.
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
PrometheusX said:
Does a C4 vette really only run a [email protected] stock?
It depends on automatic or manual and what gearing it has out back. They run mid to low 13s at ~105 on average.
I'm 5' 11" and have no troubles at all fitting in. I didn't actually realize my seat could lower until owning the car for about a month, so I'll admit, at first I did think it was a small fit. I'm really suprised though, the 300zx never seemed like that great of a car. Hell, I never actually see any TT 300zxs around here. And I cant believe they didn't like the looks of a 3000gt. I think it might've been the red though, I honestly think they look much better in a grey or black :D.
JagdStealth said:
It depends on automatic or manual and what gearing it has out back. They run mid to low 13s at ~105 on average.
I don't think any 1993 Corvettes ran a low 13 bone stock. Everyone has to remember this was TWELVE FREAKING YEARS AGO. Everyone keeps mentally comparing these cars to new ones. These times were blazing for the early '90s.
oxrageous said:
As far as I know, these guys are professionals and run the quarter mile (as well as the 0-60, etc) several times and pick the best runs of the bunch. I don't think it's a matter of them not knowing how to launch. Now, an argument can be made that these cars are brand new and not nearly broken in yet. Also, there are some cars from the factory that are faster or slower than others...there's no real explanation.
"Professional drivers" yes, but AWD was a relatively new thing back then. I ran consistent 13.6x's and 13.7x's at ~101mph when my car was stock, just a tad better than their 14.1 @ 99 ;) The only review I've ever seen where the author properly launched a vr4 was done by Popular Mechanics, and he got a low 13 out of it.
I think you define "properly launching" as 6K clutch dumps. Great for 1/4 mile times...too bad you can only do 1-5 launches before the transmission explodes. The DSM had been around for four years before this test...I think these guys had plenty of experience with AWD. I think they got the most out of that particular VR-4. Like I said, some are faster from the factory than others.
No.... I don't. My 60's at that time were barely 1.7s, mostly 1.8s. I am by no means the best driver in the world, and was not doing "6k dumps." My times were still faster, on a tired engine with tired components, than theirs by a considerable amount, and many/most others have the same results.
I wouldn't consider .3 to .4 seconds a "considerable amount". Some might, I don't. Teeny tiny things come into play when you're talking about a third of a second. Elevation, track conditions, humidity, temperature, I could go on and on. Who's to say you weren't at a much lower elevation? Or at colder temperatures?

EDIT: After re-reading the article, they are at 8000 FEET!
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.