I love 300zx tts, had a 93. It was the slowest accelerating compared to the 3000gt vr4, supra tt and rx7 tt, but it was the best all around package. I had a 96 vr4 and 93 300zx tt at the same time, the vr4 was much faster in a straight line but the z tt was way more fun to drive. Good luck on your build, z32s are awesome cars!
secon-alled out, all of those cars were tested very close to each other in acceleration. Here was a comparison in 1996 where the 300zx beat all of them. Other tests had different results so they were all pretty close. ua-cam.com/video/GbYQO1UDRAU/v-deo.html
Erek K alot of testers couldn't launch any of the 4 correctly. But the VR4 and mk4 Supra TT were quite a bit faster stock to stock than the z32 tt and rx7 tt, ive had seat time in all 4. The 94 and up VR4 and mk4 Supra TT were the only 2 of the 4 to trap mid 13s, and the VR4 was the only one to hit 60mph in under 5 seconds. My VR4 was markedly faster in a straight line than my 93 300ZX TT (5 speed manual), i raced the two alot with the same results - the z would be 2 car lengths or so behind at 140mph shut down, and about a car behind off a roll depending on the speed. I ran a best of 13.31@105mph in my bone stock 96 3000GT VR4 vs a best of 13.72@103mph in my z32 tt. From a dig the z just couldn't close the gap, stock to stock. I loved my z, it handled way better than my VR4 and was more fun to drive, but it was definitely slower in a straight line. I added mild bpus before i sold it and my VR4 would still gap it until 100mph or so from a dig, though with bpu the z killed my stock VR4 from a roll. See below, it's interesting reading: Motorweek 1994 VR4: 0 to 60 4.9s, 1/4 13.5s @ 103mph ua-cam.com/video/kBTwc8h-cnI/v-deo.html Motortrend, 1997 VR4 0 to 60 4.8s, 1/4m in 13.6s @ 101mph www.google.com/amp/www.motortrend.com/news/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4/amp/ Motor trend, 1995 VR4 0 to 60 5.4, 1/4 13.5@101mph (notice the difference between the z32, mk4 and fd3) www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/amp/ Popular mechanics, 1999 VR4, 0 to 60 5.0s, 1/4m 13.44@101mph ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Magazines&currPage=&scanId=&query=&prodId=SCIC&search_within_results=&p=SCIC&mode=view&catId=&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CA55165262&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=&source=Bookmark&u=s0635&jsid=873912f7e887e09abccfc24b7fd4541b And a bone stock VR4 with a correct launch, 1/4m in 13.2s ua-cam.com/video/-C5FRs1n9G4/v-deo.html I miss my z alot, im looking for another one. But no stock z32 tt can beat a 2g VR4 in a straight line, despite the trap speeds, the VR4 was just too far ahead for the z to close the gap (stock to stock). Im not biased towards either, i love both, and all 4 posted similar times give or take .3 or .4s and 2 to 4mph in trap speeds.
Brandon im just stating facts, no need to be defensive. Im looking for another z32tt. But facts are facts, the z32 300zx tt was slower in a straight line than the 94 and up VR4. The 1g VR4 (1990 to 1993)with the 5 speed manual is a driver's race against the z32 tt, the 2g (1994 to 1999) VR4 with the 6 speed manual is quite a bit faster stock to stock than a z32 tt. See what i posted below. The z32 tt is the more fun car, and i miss mine a lot. Im not copying and pasting shit, im giving props to ppl building z32s. I love them.
Nice way to make a nice looking car look like shit. Also Spending thousands of dollars in a wbk and can’t get your wiper and cowls refinished . Lol I felt like talking shit today and this really give me an excuse
I just ls swapped my 300zx convertible an have been looking at these wide body kits. Thank for uploading the video.
I love 300zx tts, had a 93. It was the slowest accelerating compared to the 3000gt vr4, supra tt and rx7 tt, but it was the best all around package. I had a 96 vr4 and 93 300zx tt at the same time, the vr4 was much faster in a straight line but the z tt was way more fun to drive.
Good luck on your build, z32s are awesome cars!
its funny how you copy and paste this same comment on every z32 video. maybe you should post this on Vr4 videos wouldnt that make more sense?
secon-alled out, all of those cars were tested very close to each other in acceleration. Here was a comparison in 1996 where the 300zx beat all of them. Other tests had different results so they were all pretty close.
ua-cam.com/video/GbYQO1UDRAU/v-deo.html
Erek K
alot of testers couldn't launch any of the 4 correctly.
But the VR4 and mk4 Supra TT were quite a bit faster stock to stock than the z32 tt and rx7 tt, ive had seat time in all 4.
The 94 and up VR4 and mk4 Supra TT were the only 2 of the 4 to trap mid 13s, and the VR4 was the only one to hit 60mph in under 5 seconds. My VR4 was markedly faster in a straight line than my 93 300ZX TT (5 speed manual), i raced the two alot with the same results - the z would be 2 car lengths or so behind at 140mph shut down, and about a car behind off a roll depending on the speed.
I ran a best of 13.31@105mph in my bone stock 96 3000GT VR4 vs a best of 13.72@103mph in my z32 tt. From a dig the z just couldn't close the gap, stock to stock. I loved my z, it handled way better than my VR4 and was more fun to drive, but it was definitely slower in a straight line. I added mild bpus before i sold it and my VR4 would still gap it until 100mph or so from a dig, though with bpu the z killed my stock VR4 from a roll.
See below, it's interesting reading:
Motorweek 1994 VR4: 0 to 60 4.9s, 1/4 13.5s @ 103mph
ua-cam.com/video/kBTwc8h-cnI/v-deo.html
Motortrend, 1997 VR4 0 to 60 4.8s, 1/4m in 13.6s @ 101mph
www.google.com/amp/www.motortrend.com/news/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4/amp/
Motor trend, 1995 VR4 0 to 60 5.4, 1/4 13.5@101mph (notice the difference between the z32, mk4 and fd3)
www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/amp/
Popular mechanics, 1999 VR4, 0 to 60 5.0s, 1/4m 13.44@101mph
ic.galegroup.com/ic/scic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?disableHighlighting=false&displayGroupName=Magazines&currPage=&scanId=&query=&prodId=SCIC&search_within_results=&p=SCIC&mode=view&catId=&limiter=&display-query=&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7CA55165262&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=&source=Bookmark&u=s0635&jsid=873912f7e887e09abccfc24b7fd4541b
And a bone stock VR4 with a correct launch, 1/4m in 13.2s
ua-cam.com/video/-C5FRs1n9G4/v-deo.html
I miss my z alot, im looking for another one. But no stock z32 tt can beat a 2g VR4 in a straight line, despite the trap speeds, the VR4 was just too far ahead for the z to close the gap (stock to stock).
Im not biased towards either, i love both, and all 4 posted similar times give or take .3 or .4s and 2 to 4mph in trap speeds.
Brandon im just stating facts, no need to be defensive. Im looking for another z32tt. But facts are facts, the z32 300zx tt was slower in a straight line than the 94 and up VR4.
The 1g VR4 (1990 to 1993)with the 5 speed manual is a driver's race against the z32 tt, the 2g (1994 to 1999) VR4 with the 6 speed manual is quite a bit faster stock to stock than a z32 tt. See what i posted below.
The z32 tt is the more fun car, and i miss mine a lot. Im not copying and pasting shit, im giving props to ppl building z32s. I love them.
Not bad I like it
Is it finished yet?? Curious how it came out, the marroon on color shift makes it hard for me to see a finished car but looks like it'll be sick
Looks really good brother, looks mean on a drop Z , I have a 91 TT going on 20 years. . Elaborate on the film production. ..what's that about?
Lookin sickkkkkk dude
You're kidding right?
Erek K no? It’s a work in progress I like what he’s dojng
Where did you get the wide body kit?
bro what are your wheel specs?
alex sanchez 18x10.5 sorry for such late reply
It looks so weird on a convertible but different
Nice way to make a nice looking car look like shit. Also Spending thousands of dollars in a wbk and can’t get your wiper and cowls refinished . Lol I felt like talking shit today and this really give me an excuse
Verts are ugly asf