1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
10-23-2006, 11:47 AM
#31
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,882
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
hey, your not carlos are you? my friend with the 90 eclipse finally blew his engine, now I'm trying to convince him about getting a 5.0 over a vr-4
10-23-2006, 04:21 PM
#32
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 23
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
I have a stealth tt same as vr4.....and i had it running low 11's with 14k into it....i run mid 12's now with about 1500 into it so its cheap for speed and very good daily driver car
10-23-2006, 05:02 PM
#33
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 355
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
I ran one at the track last year and they didn't have there boost turned up and I had street tires on and I almost beat them, I ran a 14.8 on that run. With just headers and exhaust then.
10-23-2006, 05:15 PM
#34
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,834
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
What the hell does DSM stand for? I've seen it a lot and never figured it out....
BTW, stang FTW. Cheap mods, easy do-it-yourselfer, goes fast, sounds good.
Done and done.
BTW, stang FTW. Cheap mods, easy do-it-yourselfer, goes fast, sounds good.
Done and done.
10-23-2006, 05:21 PM
#35
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 639
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
Crazy88, are you saying that your stang is into the twelves with about $1500? The stealth TT had 14K in it and only did 11's. They are nice cars but apparantly they way so much they just take alot to get moving. Were the 60 ft. times way down? For a long while I was considering a 300ZX TT, but durability issues scared me away. That and the fact that a V8 with a turbo will sound so much better.
10-23-2006, 05:36 PM
#37
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 8,467
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
ORIGINAL: gspfunk
What the hell does DSM stand for? I've seen it a lot and never figured it out....
BTW, stang FTW. Cheap mods, easy do-it-yourselfer, goes fast, sounds good.
Done and done.
What the hell does DSM stand for? I've seen it a lot and never figured it out....
BTW, stang FTW. Cheap mods, easy do-it-yourselfer, goes fast, sounds good.
Done and done.
'93 5.0 beat me to it
lol
10-23-2006, 05:37 PM
#38
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,834
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
ORIGINAL: 1993 5.0
dsm is Diamond star motors. I have a friend that is a mitsu 3000gt freak he has 3 of them.
dsm is Diamond star motors. I have a friend that is a mitsu 3000gt freak he has 3 of them.
Nevermind, I see Onyx's post...
10-23-2006, 05:38 PM
#39
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 664
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
this was my buddies 3000... i REALLY enjoed working on it.... imagine getting down in there... it was horrible.
the car had that intake filter and a straight 3 inch exhaust and ran 13.40's all day long. It was a awsome car and very quik... but I would never own one just because I like working on my own stuff. And dont plan on going to Autozone to get parts for it... dealer only, and they have to order parts for it
10-23-2006, 05:46 PM
#40
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 3,664
RE: 1992 3000GT VR-4 or 5.0 stang? What would you rather have?
i worked on one at work. had 78k miles on it and blew more smoke than a chevy with bad seals. was owned by an older guy i can tell he babied it but the thing looked way past its time.
not a cheap car to build by any means.. they can be fast but with twin turbo's you would expect more from them. not a fast car in stock form at all.. only has 2 turbos to make up for the lag
topend is good.. my stang would destroy one from a dig and its an automatic
not a cheap car to build by any means.. they can be fast but with twin turbo's you would expect more from them. not a fast car in stock form at all.. only has 2 turbos to make up for the lag
topend is good.. my stang would destroy one from a dig and its an automatic