Nope stock times for the SL is 16.4. So I'd say it COULD run like low 16s.

 

16.4?? Ouch! Maybe you can beat it then!

 

Swave drifts!! Someone needs to show me how to upload it to the forum? To bad I dont have the race with the TTStealth. I was only 2 cars back from 30-100 but he actually stoped pulling at the end of my third. I probly could have caught up. My friend has the video of me spanking a new 2000eclipseGTS 210hp with intake. After third I said c..ya and took him by around 4 cars t0. Also beat my best friends 97 miata with intake exaust and timing bump all in the same night. Pretty fun. But that 3 way race was not recorded well.

 

the 16second GT is the 160hp versions. Not the 94sl

 

you'd win bro. even the NA 300zx (90+) is faster than those damn 3000gt's. front wheel drive also sucks a hard dick to launch.

 

Never dis Mitsubishi. Eclipse GSX and 3000GT VR4. Enough said.

 

Never dis Mitsubishi. Galant VR4, Eclipse GSX, Lancer Evo I-VIII, and 3000GT VR4. Enough said.

 

If it was really enough said, why did you have to post it again?

 

I dont understand some of the logic? I am not trying to flame or be flamed I am just saying alot of you are like the car would kick your *** but it sucks because it is front wheel drive and heavy? Well at least give it some more credit since it is faster despite being fwd and heavy. If you have driven a nicely tuned VR4 the wieght is not an issue, very nimble car despite the wieght I know I own one of the 3800 beasts, as well as a 2100 pound beast and I drive both the 2100 lb car has sway bars too and granted the suspension is not dailed in but it doesnt handle as good as the vr4, AWD is awesome, Now all the people that dont like the mitsu's at least give credit where it is do, they are capable of 10 sec time slips on street tires, can you say the same, and the cars that are putting down these times are daily driven with almost full interior, it isnt a tub'd race car with huge slicks. My car is very close to 10 sec. timeslips on street tires as well, I am waiting on some more feedback from some of the new stand alones (btw the 10sec times were put down with stock ecu and piggy back systems) and I need to sort out some issues with my turbos (returning them because they are crap and buying bigger ones) pics of my car are up at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/brainfoo

and some info.
1. DOHC N/a's run very low 15's stock with a very good driver, a tt stealth ran a 13.00 completly stock, a mildly modified dohc is good for mid 14's with a good driver, not many have turned better times in n/a trim.
2. Your roomate is full of **** unless he just got the headers or they were custom made because they aren't made for the cars until recently
3. He is not making much more if any than stock power, chips are a joke on these cars and I dont think they even make a chip for the n/a only for the tt that all it does is up the factory boost. with no intake he isnt making much more power out of the opened up header. I dont think he is making anywhere near the power he is claiming, but he is still good for low 15's if he can drive.
4. 1991-1996 all 3000gt's base/sl were 222hp dohc v6
5. 1991-1996 stealth base and 1997-1999 3000gt base were sohc 160hp
6. 1991-1999 3000gt-vr4's and 1991-1996 stealth tt's are basically the same except in '94 they switched to the 6-speed and up'd the boost a little (easily done with a bleeder or bc)

if anyone has any questions I work on these cars all the time as well as do all my own work, and if you check out my webshots album that is pretty much everything

 

1. I don't believe that DOHC NA's run low 15's. maybe the best run ever: low 15's. last time i checked, the z32 300zx was faster than the NA 3000gt (with the same hp 3 liter v-6 @222hp) and i think that goes for any year 3kgt, but not sure. The 300zx averages mid 15's and i have never heard of an na 3000gt being faster than a Z32.
no one here is talking about the vr4, so i think we can all disregard that. then again, no one is talking about the 300zx, but i used to own one and they are very comparable cars. there is my reasoning for bring it up.

 

my uncle has a 91 tt z with bigger injectors, garret turbos boosting a helluva huge boost (not sure exactly what psi) straight back exhaust with gutted cats, and turbo xs type h bov's and he's running low 11's, 10.97 was his best run.

 

And your point is......

 

LOL whoops, must have been lagging on my end, sorry.

 

No they do run low 15s with a good driver and intake and exaust. My friend trevor that I raced was seing low 15s in his. Mid to high 15s easy.

 

Your claims are very amusing at best, but not factual. How bout this, "the best stock 1/4 mile time for a TII is 13 flat." You believe me? Your times are way off what is true and about the TT stealth, are you talking awd or no? Cause with awd theres not that much room for error, meaning its easy to launch them so there would be no way in hell to get that much faster a time than the stock rating. Bring some facts back with ya.

 

sure sure...

 

Intake and exhaust is not stock though. And 13 flat stock for a stealth is just not feasible.

 

Ask him for a dyno sheet to prove the 280hp.
Just race him and find out. Don't be surprised when you lose. Headers/exhaust/chip/intake....make the 222hp V6 scream. FWD sucks only in first gear. If you can't beat him in first, don't waste your time shifting to 2nd---go home.

http://www.daveblack.net/asp/3SiSpecs.asp
http://www.3si.org/

 

Same here, I walk away from from a SL with exhaust (at least) from a 3rd gear roll. My 91 NA had rB header & pre silencer, HKS catback, HKS filter, and a half assed ported job............

 

I believe he was talking about a 13 flat for the TT stealths and 3000GTs. That is feasable. Ive even heard of some hitting 12.9x completely stock. I always thought these #s were for the 95+ 6-speeds though, but Im really not too knowledgable when it comes to the stats for these cars, so could be wrong.

 

How can you tell them apart?

Hmmm, maybe I raced a SOHC

 

I am not going by magazines but the real world I have seen 15.3's and 15.2's from stock n/a's (fwd, dohc) they may have had intake but that is all.

Body style differences

Actually it is from a '96 stealth r/t tt, I know the person and I will look for the time slip, once again I am not going by magazines here I am going by real world experience, I work on these cars all the time!

Have you Ever launched an AWD car? I garuntee they are not super easy to launch, too much throttle and you smoke the clutch because you aren't able to burn out, not enough throttle and you stall or bog, too much throttle and too much clutch and pop you bog because that power has no place to go. not like fwd or rwd where it will spin the tires. I see stock tt's running 14's and 15's because the driver is new to a track situation and can't launch, a stock tt driven correctly can turn 1.7 60ft's yes this helps a lot but no one that hasnt had tons of practice turns these kinda 60'ft's most turn 2.3+ and this is easily matched by a rwd or fwd car.

47 Joe Gonsowski 96 R/T TT 1.772 8.438 84.52 13.087 105.9 10/27/2001 Lapeer Dragway that was the stock rt tt's run

http://www.mn3s.org/fastest3s.html
list of 3/s times

 

I have launched an awd, its pretty damn easy. You think awd is harder to launch than rwd? And about that 13 run, DAMN! I stand shocked and apologize for doubting you. But its very hard to believe.

 

Very true AWD cars are harder to lauch than anything easily! But I still highly doubt the 13 sec flat 1/4 time on a stock car, I've driven one that was very healthy and it's not a 13 sec car (DAMN quick though easyily low 14 if not 13.9). I'm still not very fond of the driving experience though.

 

What did you guys find so hard about launching an AWD car? And what car was it? I drove a stock VR4 and it was pretty damn easy to launch. I don't find rwd to be too hard(not saying I'm an expert or anything) either.