I HATE that they put a 1G VR-4 in, I get it's for nostalgic value, but it's so much slower than the 1994-1999 models! Anyways, I dragged both the above stock and the VR-4 won by less than half a car from 0-150. On a roll the Z walks unless it's low speed. In real life, the second gen VR4 actually beat the Z32 TT everytime. Real life numbers for both: 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 dyno 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 Skyline GTR was the fastest model Nissan made, their Halo car. The J spec VR4 identical, how would it lose to a 300ZX Twin Turbo which is a much less powerful car? These videos alone prove how much faster it is 1990 to 1993 Road and Track, 1989 300ZXTwin 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 Road and Track,1990 3000GT VR4 Debut https://www.stealth316.com/images/rt_9-90-p8.jpg 0 to 60 6.3s / 0 to 100 16.2 / quarter mile firstname.lastname@example.org In Road and Track, the VR4 consistently got more praise and better times 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 14.2mph@101 3000GT VR4: 0 to 60 5.4, quarter mile 14.0@99mph Considering the VR4 to be .01s faster when it weighs 350 lbs more, these aren't awful results, especially the slalom, where the Z is .89 and the VR4 .91. Ouch. https://www.caranddriver.com/review...e-stealth-r-t-turbo-archived-comparison-test/ - The 300ZX Twin Turbo won with a faster ET and trap, (though C/D did state this was the fastest TT-Z theyd every tested). Ouch. After 1994 Tests 1994 to 1999 1. - MotorWeek, 1994 3000GT VR4, 0 - 60 in 4.9 and the quarter mile in 13.5@103, MW couldn't get the Z faster than 13.7@103, so 3-4 car lengths ahead at the same trap speed 2. https://www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/ MotorTrend, 1995, 'Virtual Velocity Z, email@example.com / VR4, firstname.lastname@example.org The Z is 4-6 car lengths away and moving .4s faster isn't passing up that much ET difference. 3. - Stock 1999 3000GT VR4, quarter mile of email@example.com 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 300ZX Twin Turbo,firstname.lastname@example.org / 3000GT VR4, email@example.com 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. http://www.300zx.cl/ga2/300zx/images/cvsg4.jpg vs a C3 Vette. It loses Do you think there's any chance they'll drop a second gen car, or an GTO MR ??? Oh and I don't hate the Z32 at all. It's tons of fun to drive.