WRX - vs- 3000gt vr4 - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74

This is a discussion on WRX - vs- 3000gt vr4 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally posted by dukmahsik no i am sorry you are wrong a have a few vids of stock 3kgts running ...

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    120
    Originally posted by dukmahsik
    no i am sorry you are wrong a have a few vids of stock 3kgts running low (read 13.1-13.3) passes. also if you go on the 3kgt forums you'll see that 1st and 2nd gens run mid to low 13s STOCK.
    buddy, pull your head out of your ass... 1st gens will not run a fuggin 1.3 much less 13.5 they dont have the boost in them.

    sencond gens RARELY run 13.5 or lower. you got a freak on your hands if you do.

    just a little fyi, i used to own one, and was on that ****hole of a forum they call 3si... NONE of them but 1 person hit 13.0 stock. no one else came even close. there is no difference besides maybe the lifters in a 99 vr-4 and a 94 vr-4. NONE.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    120
    also, the video you posted of that stealth, its not stock sorry, but there has been maybe a handful of people to trap 105 in a STOCK 3/s. it wont happen. they are sucky cars. it just wont happen. a stock wrx wont touch one, but a stock stealth wont touch a c5 if properly driven.
    verdict: modded( you can even hear freaking exhaust) 96 stealth tt takes horribly driven automatic 2.73 geared c5...


    show me 100 more videos like that and i MIGHT consider you to be partially in the right... why dont you find me about 10 vr-4's/stealths to run im my little ls1... ill whip that ass all day long.

  4. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    5
    Originally posted by AsianWRX
    If that car has not been taken care of and its still stock. I don't think a stock WRX will have any problem with it.

    If its been taken care of with some upgrades, I think it will be close.....
    A properly driven VR-4/TT can run:

    1st gen = 13.7 - 14.0 @ 99-101MPH
    2nd gen = 13.4 - 13.7 @ 100-103MPH

    I am being conservative.

    Also, what does the WRX run?

    -Shawn
    1996 Panama Green Pearl/Tan Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 46K

    TRACK STUFF:
    13.2 @ 104MPH 1.82 60FT. (BC @ 14.5PSI/INTAKE/BOV)

    PERFORMANCE:
    ProBoost MBC @ 14.5PSI/ATR DP/Removed Main Cat/South Bend TZ Clutch/K&N Cone Intake/TurboXS RFL Type H BOV/Nitto 555 Extreme 245-40-18/MSD Super Conductor Ignition Wires/NGK Copper BCPR7ES Spark Plugs/FrictionTech Brake Pads/Captain Chris's Removing All-Unnecessary **** in engine bay mod

    LOOKS:
    Valentine V1.7 w/ hidden display hardwired/AutoMeter Carbon Fiber Boost Gauge/AutoMeter Dual Gauge Pod/Palm M105 w/ PocketLogger Software

    MISC.:
    Pennzoil Syncromesh in transmission, Redline MTL in transfer case, RedLine 75w90 in rear differential, Castrol GTX 10w40 in engine, and 94OCT SUNOCO in fuel tank

    SOON:
    DR500s, 550cc injectors, Apexi S-AFC, Supra fuel pump, Dawes A/F meter, Blitz Peak/Hold EGT


    http://www.clubscience.com/shawnaugu...R4Overview.jpg

  5. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1
    Originally posted by AmethystGTO
    but a stock stealth wont touch a c5 if properly driven.
    bah, c5s run high 13s here allot. 1200ft
    I'll leave your bad driver comment to the guys that run
    low 14s in their c5s.
    94vr4

  6. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9
    WRX well driven, it'll run 14.3 @ mid - high 90's. poorly driven, the sky's the limit.

  7. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    120
    you guys are full of ****. especially you dj auggie... arent you the 300lb fat ass that everyone makes fun of on 3si?

    you arent being conservative... you are just about right on. 13.4 is not normal.

    and yes, most 50 year old guys cant drive worth a ****. how bout you step up to a real f body and get your ass handed to you.

  8. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    315
    Originally posted by AmethystGTO
    buddy, pull your head out of your ass... 1st gens will not run a fuggin 1.3 much less 13.5 they dont have the boost in them.

    sencond gens RARELY run 13.5 or lower. you got a freak on your hands if you do.

    just a little fyi, i used to own one, and was on that ****hole of a forum they call 3si... NONE of them but 1 person hit 13.0 stock. no one else came even close. there is no difference besides maybe the lifters in a 99 vr-4 and a 94 vr-4. NONE.
    yaye! here comes the immature stabs

    i've posted a vid of a 1g running low 13s and the source at the time where i got it from claimed it was stock. i at least posted a vid.

    anyways, the POINT of this thread is a stock wrx vs a stock 3kgt vr4. a stock wrx will never touch a stock 3kgt vr4. arguments about proper maintenance are a mute point because that sword can slice both ways.
    Kory "I love Rexes and STis"

    - 2006 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6
    - 2001 Acura CL Type S
    - 1998 Prelude S
    - 1997 Eclipse GSX
    - 1996 Eclipse GS

  9. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9
    AmethystGTO what do you run in the 1/4 & what are your mods?

  10. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1
    Originally posted by AmethystGTO
    also, the video you posted of that stealth, its not stock sorry, but there has been maybe a handful of people to trap 105 in a STOCK 3/s. it wont happen. they are sucky cars. it just wont happen. a stock wrx wont touch one, but a stock stealth wont touch a c5 if properly driven.
    verdict: modded( you can even hear freaking exhaust) 96 stealth tt takes horribly driven automatic 2.73 geared c5...


    show me 100 more videos like that and i MIGHT consider you to be partially in the right... why dont you find me about 10 vr-4's/stealths to run im my little ls1... ill whip that ass all day long.
    I was not going to post but, this just made me.

    So you'll believe a stock Stealth can run a 13.08 but, you don't believe a stock stealth can take a 98 vette?

    What would you say if I told you that was the same Stealth that had just run 13.08? and ran a 13.1 on that run?

    Read this page for detail of that day at the track. http://joeg.mi3si.org/102701_MI3S_Ga...r_Dragway.html

    And for the record a WRX spurred the driver of the Stealth to that record 13.08 stock run
    Last edited by alan92rttt; 08-25-2003 at 01:09 PM.

  11. #40
    Registered User Prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8
    I just want to say about the earlier comments about the 3000GT being heavy, you gotta remember that it has 315 ft/lbs @ 2500 rpms which really helps it get moving fast.
    1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4

  12. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    246
    Yeah what I said earlier exactly...

    huge ass, but huge legs to haul that huge ass.

    I mean sure it weighs 300-400 lbs more than a supra or 300zx but the AWD obviously makes up for it.

    I mean in eclipses, our wrx's, the awd more than makes up for the extra couple hundred pounds it adds.



    3si's are SOOOOOO underratted...


    ..and people keep asking me for fuggin' rides cause the wrx has 5 seats. If it weren't for the cool wrx guys I'm strongly thinking about trading my wrx for a VR4 + sportbike!

    Not to mention they are one of the most beautifully designed cars ever!
    '03 white rex

  13. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    15
    HAHAHAHA Alan got involved in this, not thats just tooo funny.

    Now i dont want to start anything here, but this is basically the truth.

    Stock 1st gen VR-4 will run high 13s-low 14s depending on driver
    Stock 2nd gen will run mid 13s to-high 13s depending on driver
    Some of the BPU VR-4s can pull of high 12s which is basically just intake, exhaust and MBC, thats not too shabby if you ask me.

    Stock vs. Stock, i dont see a regular WRX coming close to a VR-4, now an STi i would say would beat a VR-4 stock vs. stock. Now from experience, an N/A 3000GT can hang with a regular WRX from a roll and will begin walking the WRX after 100 mph because of gearing. WRX's can pull off some good times for their 227 horses because of their AWD, and you might think i'm crazy for saying an N/A can pull on a WRX from a roll, but you have to look at the factors that WRX is AWD and N/A is FWD (drivetrain loss) and depending on the N/A, some of them weigh less than the WRX and some weigh more than the WRX.

    Note: Specs are from stock, so dont even think about calling bull**** if you're a modded WRX.
    1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT Twin Turbo (twin TD04L 18T's in the works)
    1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (daily driver)

  14. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    246
    why the hell are you guys beating a dead horse...

    the 3000gt costed like 50 grand the wrx isn't supposed to come anywhere near 3000gt performance come ON stop beating the dead horse!!!
    '03 white rex

  15. #44
    3SI
    3SI is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1
    For those who are listening to him-

    AmethystGTO was VR4Wannabe on 3SI (the 3000GT/Stealth forum). He was warned again and again, and eventually banned for flaming and trolling, pretty much talking the same way he has on this thread.

    Just FYI for those who actually thought he had something good to say. I guess that's why he thinks 3si is an a**hole forum.
    www.3si.org/portal/forums/index.php

  16. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    15
    originally posted by verc:

    why the hell are you guys beating a dead horse...

    the 3000gt costed like 50 grand the wrx isn't supposed to come anywhere near 3000gt performance come ON stop beating the dead horse!!!
    i'm not beating the dead horse, i said an STi can take a VR-4 up to 1xx mph and the STi's cost less than VR-4s


    oh yea, WRX's are much better than EVO's
    1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT Twin Turbo (twin TD04L 18T's in the works)
    1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (daily driver)

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •