Resurrection of the 3000GT

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBM01
  • 28 comments
  • 2,321 views
JohnBM01

JohnBM01

21 years!
In Memoriam
Messages
26,911
United States
Houston, Texas, USA
Messages
JMarine25
The Mitsubishi 3000GT was perchance Mitsubishi's true offerings other than the Lancer. With horsepower tuning, the 3000GT was very powerful. How much so? 930hp in GT1, 600-something in GT2 (blasted shame if you ask me), and just over 1,000 in GT3. The car had style, aggression, power... everything you like in an American car, but from Japan. And just like one, it had one weakness (just like the Skyline), its heavy weight. While the Skyline is lighter by 200 or 300 pounds, Gran Turismos 1 and 2 quoted in the Information about the car, "it would be dominant on high-speed courses with gentle corners." But as you know from GT3, it was no longer in production since 2000. I don't know what kind of link Mitsubishi has with Dodge, but if the 3000GT were to be resurrected from the dead, what would this new generation have to be? Would you be interested in such a comeback of this powerful car "neglected" from the big three of today's Japanese cars (Supra, Skyline, and NSX)? What would you want the new 3000GT to be?

To me, I have two different views. If it were to be resurrected, it would either have to be a pure sportscar or the equivalent of the Toyota Supra- powerful, yet agile. If Mitsu wants it to be a pure sportscar, they will have to offer two different versions. It would be un-Mitsubishi like to offer a car with rear-wheel drive, considering their rally success. But can you picture a maybe 3,100 or 2,800 pound Mitsubishi that can deliver with exceptional turbo performance? If it had rear-wheel drive, I think weight would be lightened significantly. I wouldn't really change the front or rear of the car, but maybe some Lexus-like headlights would be nice. The back of the car looks old age, like the 300ZX. I can imagine the brake lights being a little bigger, but not overly done. And I don't want them expanding to the rear fenders like the 350Z/Fairlady Z. Aggression, as long as it isn't overdone. Yeah. Looks like Mitsubishi will be back in the Japanese car game (again, other than the Lancer.)

What do you think? Dust off the 3000GT? Your call, folks.
 
Yes!

I would like to see the 3000GT go up against the Supra again. It's funny that both Toyota and Mitsubishi pulled both their super cars around the same time. Fall back and regroup (redesign), I suppose. I have a hunch that both will roll out with new designs around 2007, just in time to go against the new GT-R. How convenient! :)

Although, I would like to see the Mitsubishi designers take a hike before any redesign of the 3000GT/GTO takes place.
 
Mitsubishi and Toyota along with Nissan and Mazda, pulled their super cars from the North American market because they were losing more capital than they were making, and the cars just flat out didn't sell.

Super Car Death Timeline -

1995 - Mazda Rx-7

1996 - Nissan 300zx

1998 - Toyota Supra

1999 - Mitsu 3000gt VR-4


The VR-4's 'weakness' is definitely the weight, but more so the transmission/driveline. I would love to see any of the above mentioned cars make a comeback.

Dust off the VR-4? Absolutely, dust them all off.
 
Originally posted by Monster7
Mitsubishi and Toyota along with Nissan and Mazda, pulled their super cars from the North American market because they were losing more capital than they were making, and the cars just flat out didn't sell.
Click to expand...

Don't forget this one!

92810071990103LRG.jpg


It wasn't quite the same as the others, but it was a very similar idea, and it was cancelled in 1997 (after five years) for the same reason.
 
Originally posted by Monster7
I've always been oddly fascinated with the SVX..
Click to expand...

It is an interesting car - in America, it was Subaru's first six-cylinder and, at 230-horsepower, their most powerful car until the 2004 WRX STi. Yet it was automatic-only outside of Japan. Plus - the styling!

Looking at them now, to me, it doesn't actually seem particularly radical - the word that came to mind when I saw one last Sunday was, more than anything, 'outdated.' Still - everyone knows they're cool. :D
 
Originally posted by Darin
In 1998 the Supra died in Japan. In America, the Supra died in 1997.
Click to expand...

The Supra was produced in Japan until 2000. Changes in emissions regulations saw the cars pulled from North America and Europe in 1998.
 
Originally posted by Monster7
Super Car Death Timeline -

1995 - Mazda Rx-7
Click to expand...
The RX-7 died last year, the RX-7 Spirit R was the last model and finished late last year.
 
Originally posted by live4speed
The RX-7 died last year, the RX-7 Spirit R was the last model and finished late last year.
Click to expand...
It was yanked from North America in 1995. The Spirit R was never sold here.

The list I posted was for the NORTH AMERICAN market.
 
So you haven't had any new RX-7's for 9 years. Damn.
 
Yep, and most of them are rehashed turds that have been rode hard and put away wet. We also never got the Rx-7 RZ.

On the other hand, we do have more Camaros and Mustangs than you can shake a stick at.
fez.gif
 
Originally posted by live4speed
So you haven't had any new RX-7's for 9 years. Damn.
Click to expand...
The odd thing is, all those cars were cancelled in a period of economic growth, and now that we're in something of a recession, demand's never been higher.
 
The 3000GT is an incredible car. Its biggest downfall was its weight and high insurance. I have been able to see what these cars can do, Altered Atmosphere's twin 20G set-up pushed it close to 900 hp @ 10 second 1/4's. I would love to see them come back, In a lighter version.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see mitsubishi bring out a new 3000GT or a 3000GT variant. With Nissan anouncing the GTR, rumors of a new Supra, and no plans to cancel the NSX, I expect mitsubishi to try to get a piece of the pie.
 
I think Mitsu should worry about getting some direction for the rest of their product line before they develop a new 3000GT. A good next-gen Eclipse (that actually has a turbo-4) would be far better for the bottom line of that company. Then they can worry about halo cars.

So, no 3000GT yet. First make some profits, then worry about that.
 
I tend to agree with Mitsubishi trying to save their other cars before touching the 3000GT. But if you ask me, it should be like the Skyline. You know, a choice of RWD or 4WD. Since Mitsu is more of a rally company, maybe it would be FWD or 4WD. If it were FF, it would be kind of rare to have a heavy car with front-drive. If I wanted that, I'd look into maybe a 1999 Seville, maybe.

But for the most part, I think Mitsubishi should be a serious contender. I can imagine it as a powerful race car in the JGTC. It can challenge the Skyline, Supra, NSX... all the GT500 competitors. Last Mitsu I seen in that series was probably the Taeivon Trampio FTO.

So imagine what the re-launch of this car would be like...
 
Originally posted by skylineGTR_guy
and no plans to cancel the NSX,
Click to expand...

In fact, it's getting a full redesign in CY 2006. (like nearly every other vehicle on the market - CY 2005 and CY 2006 are going to be the best years ever for car fans)

The NSX is riddled with problems, though - $89000 for 290-horsepower is unheard of, even though it competes against the likes of the Mercedes SL-class, Cadillac XLR and Lexus SC430. Also, you can't actually buy one - I've seen just two new models in two years and dealers don't actually have them in stock, which leads to my next problem: image. Acura's trying to be a sporty company now, so why not advertise for the NSX to boost image? The NSX does nothing for Acura - it's a great driver's car but particularly poor in value, and even used ones are pretty overpriced. I wish they'd cancel it.

I tend to agree with Mitsubishi trying to save their other cars before touching the 3000GT.
Click to expand...

So why do they continue to release cars that are several years behind when they come out? In order to compete in the midsize sedan, sport sedan, midsize SUV, and minivan markets today, you need at least 230-horsepower and aside the Lancer Evo, they haven't got that (though the Galant is a great car even though it just has 215). They don't even make a minivan. And do they really need four crappy SUVs? Wasn't two enough four years ago?
 
Originally posted by M5Power
So why do they continue to release cars that are several years behind when they come out? In order to compete in the midsize sedan, sport sedan, midsize SUV, and minivan markets today, you need at least 230-horsepower and aside the Lancer Evo, they haven't got that (though the Galant is a great car even though it just has 215). They don't even make a minivan. And do they really need four crappy SUVs? Wasn't two enough four years ago?
Click to expand...
Definitely. Their model line kind of reminds me of Chevy. Their sedans and coupes are all right, but nothing is really exceptional enough to bring any new interest to the brand. Every car seems to define mediocrity. So anonymous (esp. the Lancer) that I think of them like those debadged cars in insurance ads. That, and they are trying to cash in on the SUV fad by releasing a plethora of them, none of which top the class. They should think like Honda, spend their time developing just ONE good SUV, like the Pilot.
 
Originally posted by skip0110
Definitely. Their model line kind of reminds me of Chevy. Their sedans and coupes are all right, but nothing is really exceptional enough to bring any new interest to the brand. Every car seems to define mediocrity. So anonymous (esp. the Lancer) that I think of them like those debadged cars in insurance ads. That, and they are trying to cash in on the SUV fad by releasing a plethora of them, none of which top the class. They should think like Honda, spend their time developing just ONE good SUV, like the Pilot.
Click to expand...

Certainly - but look what Honda had to go through before they got their good SUV:

96802051990313LRG.jpg

00802051990001LRG.jpg

95802061990314LRG.jpg

98801051990101LRG.jpg


At least Mitsubishi isn't going to other companies for help. (Rant about Acura SLX follows) I mean, look at the Acura SLX. Here's Honda sacrificing their peerless reputation to take a luxury version of Isuzu's Trooper because at the time Honda outright stated that they 'didn't like SUVs' and didn't want to develop one. And of course, something went wrong, in the form of ConsumerReports saying the car was susceptible to rolling over - giving Acura a bad name. And it's a shame because here's a rare case where Honda anticipated the trend - premium SUVs - before they got popular, but they screwed it up anyway. What a damn mistake.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
The NSX [...] I wish they'd cancel it.
Click to expand...

Wash your mouth out! That's the future Ms. Famine you're talking about...! :D

You can pick up an early 3.2 NSX for about £15k with almost no mileage on (comparatively) - compared to a 1996 Supra MkIV TT with 100,000+. I'm not sure why this is exactly, but... :D

In the UK, Honda slashed £10,000 off the NSX's new list price (and introduced the NSX Type-R in a limited run at the old list price... :D) when the new shape came out. £63,000 is not bad in the UK - our prices are awful though. That said, one of the magazines does say "Very few people fancy spending this sort of money on a Honda. Their loss."



Honda SUVs... We get two. The HR-V - a sort of "lifestyle car" (I HATE that term) and the CR-V. Both have been around since at least 1998 - and neither look like the examples posted above. In Europe, certainly, Honda have never stated that they "didn't like SUVs"..
 
Originally posted by Famine

You can pick up an early 3.2 NSX for about £15k with almost no mileage on (comparatively) - compared to a 1996 Supra MkIV TT with 100,000+. I'm not sure why this is exactly, but... :D
Click to expand...


Here, you're lucky if you can find an early (10-12yo) NSX for under $22000 - about the price of a brand new V8 Mustang. Not that they're competitors or bought by similar people, but for a little perspective.

Honda SUVs... We get two. The HR-V - a sort of "lifestyle car" (I HATE that term) and the CR-V. Both have been around since at least 1998 - and neither look like the examples posted above. In Europe, certainly, Honda have never stated that they "didn't like SUVs"..
Click to expand...

The quote I mentioned was from about 1996 regarding why Honda chose to license the Isuzu Trooper for an Acura SUV rather than build their own. Honda finally began building their own SUVs in 1997 with the CR-V and 1998 with the HR-V, but those were rather small (not that size matters, but they took little development - they debuted with a non-working 4WD system :) and a well-used Honda engine) - it wasn't until the 2002 model year that Honda finally entered the largest and most profitable SUV market on Earth (North American midsize) with their own product.

Incidentally - the top model is a 1994-1997 Honda Passport, a rebadged version of the 1992-1997 Isuzu Rodeo; the second one is a 1998-2002 Honda Passport, a rebadged 1998-present Isuzu Rodeo; the third one is a 1995-1998 Honda Odyssey, also sold as the Isuzu Oasis from 1996 to 1999 and called the Honda Shuttle (1995-1999) in Europe; the fourth is the 1996-1999 Acura SLX, a rebadged 1992-2003 Isuzu Trooper.
 
The 3000GT is about Japan's most powerful car other than the Nissan Skyline. I would first like to see this car with lighter weight. If Mitsu can shed off at least 500-1000 pounds, it's well on its way to being better than its predecesor. The rest will be on making the most of its motor. Since this is a powerful machine, I think prices will be at least $30,000. But if they follow suit to what Toyota will do with their next Supra, prices can drop pretty rapidly for the next 3000GT. But the question will be "can this car still perform as well as its turbo version despite its higher price?" I don't really know of an instance whereas a car's NA version performs better than its turbo version. I don't think it's ever happened, especially among Japanese cars. The only exclusion might be the GT500 Supras of this year.
 
Originally posted by JohnBM01
The 3000GT is about Japan's most powerful car other than the Nissan Skyline. I would first like to see this car with lighter weight. If Mitsu can shed off at least 500-1000 pounds, it's well on its way to being better than its predecesor.
Click to expand...

I'm finally going to call bull**** on this.

It seems to me that people claim the Mitsubishi 3000GT is heavy for two reasons. One is that it looks heavy and it's certainly the bulkiest-looking of the Toyota Supra, Nissan 300ZX, Subaru SVX, and Mazda RX-7 bunch (it also looks heavier than competitors like the Ford Mustang GT, Lexus SC300 and SC400, and twin Dodge Stealth) The second is that other people call it heavy, so it's repeatedly passed on and on.

It's virtually impossible to find the curb weight of this vehicle. On Google, the weights that come up are 3791lbs, 3524lbs, 3350lbs, 3995lbs (95 VR4 Spyder), 3351lbs (95), 3263lbs (97), 3737lbs (99), 3760lbs (94-99 VR4), and 3200lbs (94 VR4). The average of that is a healthy 3553lbs. That is fairly heavy - it's a good 1600lbs heavier than any 1995 Hyundai, and there were four of them.

That isn't particularly bad, though, when you consider powetrain. The 3000GT VR-4 had 300 horsepower from 1991 to 1993 (weight to power is 11.84) and 320 horsepower from 1994 until 1999 (weight to power is 11.10). Even the 1991-1999 3000GT SL models had about 222-horsepower. In my opinion, the 'heavy' crap comes from the base 1997-1999 models which had just 160-horsepower in an attempt by Mitsubishi to get some sales. Yes - that one was heavy.

But its competitors aren't much lighter. A 1995 300ZX Twin Turbo weighs 3516lbs with 300-horsepower (11.72); a 1995 RX-7 weighs 2881lbs with 255-horsepower (11.30); a 1995 Subaru SVX weighs 3580lbs with 230-horsepower (15.57); a 1995 Toyota Supra Turbo weighs 3510lbs with 320-horsepower (10.97).

The 3000GT wasn't the lighest car on Earth, but it got the job done, further evidenced in the VR4's 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds, quicker than the 300ZX Twin Turbo (5.8sec) and SVX (7.3sec) and not far behind the Supra Turbo (5.1sec) and RX-7 (5.1sec).
 
Originally posted by M5Power
I'm finally going to call bull**** on this.

It seems to me that people claim the Mitsubishi 3000GT is heavy for two reasons. One is that it looks heavy and it's certainly the bulkiest-looking of the Toyota Supra, Nissan 300ZX, Subaru SVX, and Mazda RX-7 bunch (it also looks heavier than competitors like the Ford Mustang GT, Lexus SC300 and SC400, and twin Dodge Stealth) The second is that other people call it heavy, so it's repeatedly passed on and on.

It's virtually impossible to find the curb weight of this vehicle. On Google, the weights that come up are 3791lbs, 3524lbs, 3350lbs, 3995lbs (95 VR4 Spyder), 3351lbs (95), 3263lbs (97), 3737lbs (99), 3760lbs (94-99 VR4), and 3200lbs (94 VR4). The average of that is a healthy 3553lbs. That is fairly heavy - it's a good 1600lbs heavier than any 1995 Hyundai, and there were four of them.

That isn't particularly bad, though, when you consider powetrain. The 3000GT VR-4 had 300 horsepower from 1991 to 1993 (weight to power is 11.84) and 320 horsepower from 1994 until 1999 (weight to power is 11.10). Even the 1991-1999 3000GT SL models had about 222-horsepower. In my opinion, the 'heavy' crap comes from the base 1997-1999 models which had just 160-horsepower in an attempt by Mitsubishi to get some sales. Yes - that one was heavy.

But its competitors aren't much lighter. A 1995 300ZX Twin Turbo weighs 3516lbs with 300-horsepower (11.72); a 1995 RX-7 weighs 2881lbs with 255-horsepower (11.30); a 1995 Subaru SVX weighs 3580lbs with 230-horsepower (15.57); a 1995 Toyota Supra Turbo weighs 3510lbs with 320-horsepower (10.97).

The 3000GT wasn't the lighest car on Earth, but it got the job done, further evidenced in the VR4's 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds, quicker than the 300ZX Twin Turbo (5.8sec) and SVX (7.3sec) and not far behind the Supra Turbo (5.1sec) and RX-7 (5.1sec).
Click to expand...

Well I did a rather extensive search on google aswell and out of 2 dozen "respectable" websites all but 3 said it weighted from 3700 and up.
And out of all of those websites it's run's a general 13.6+ in the 1/4 mile. And of course the Vr4 is going to have a faster 0-60 than a 300ZX TT. There's quite a few sources saying the Z can do the 0-60 in 5.5 Not to mention that's the results of the original Motor Trend test of it. yes Motor Trend actually got good #'s from a car. Remember, the car also works off of a usually disfunctional AWS system.
 
I have never seen a VR-4 weigh in at anything under 3700lbs.

The 2881lb quote for the 1995 Rx-7 is for the heaviest model available, the Touring.
 
Giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying it weights in at 3700 it's P/W would be 11.56......Looking at more 300zx specs it seems that it weights in at about 3450-3480 which would put it's power to weight in the neighborhood of 11.5 to 11.6
 

Latest Posts

Back