Re: Shed Of The Week: Mitsubishi GTO
Discussion
Jeff Lemons said:
Status Quo's tour manager lives in my village and drives one of these...
...make of that whatever you want.
corrected ...make of that whatever you want.
Never fan of the GTO. They look dated back in 92 - like a even more tacky Trans Am of the era. For me the NSX or RX7 won hands down, with the Supra bringing up 3rd. I never owned a GTO in Gran Turismo either, although I do recall winning a 50 lap Grand Valley endurance race in a tricked up FTO (which I did like)
Exhaust: servo that opened/closed a flap in the exhaust, manual switch control.
Seats: nothing more complex than any other electric seat setup, manually controlled.
Suspension: speed controlled, simple feed off speedo sensor.
Active aero: controlled from the same speedo sensor as suspension and anything else speed-related.
Lots of electrics in a GTO/3000GT, but compared to modern cars (fibre-optics, CAN-BUS, etc), it's as complex and advanced as a telegraph pole. The only tools needed are a multimeter, test lamp and a soldering iron.
Seats: nothing more complex than any other electric seat setup, manually controlled.
Suspension: speed controlled, simple feed off speedo sensor.
Active aero: controlled from the same speedo sensor as suspension and anything else speed-related.
Lots of electrics in a GTO/3000GT, but compared to modern cars (fibre-optics, CAN-BUS, etc), it's as complex and advanced as a telegraph pole. The only tools needed are a multimeter, test lamp and a soldering iron.
American version... It seems that most issues are mechanical, Mitsubishi has never been famous for reliable manual gearboxes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1H4GTWdUyQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1H4GTWdUyQ
SWTH said:
Goodsteed said:
Anyone know what they're actually geared to top out at?
The 5-speed is geared to top out at 208mph, but aerodynamics defeat it at about 170. 4th is good for 161mph.I would suggest that many of the 'my mate had one and it blew up every Tuesday' stories are as a result of buying shagged examples, a sheddy GTO TT has been sub £2k for many years now.
I miss mine - huge fun if you know how to drive it.
And around 157mph. Their overall comment was of biblical overgearing to the point where it wouldn't
Pull vmax in 5th.
I always had a strong hate for these as my Italian girlfriend in the late '90's had a love for all
Things low & red.
So glad I wasted one with her on board in my 3.8 M5.
GTO. Three letters that, preceded by the right manufacturer's name, can mean the ultimate in performance and desirability. Names like Ferrari, Pontiac (though you could say the judge is out on that) and, er, Mitsubishi.
Nice work, shed, I see what you did there.
5 pages in, I didn't expect I'd be the first.
Shame on you, PH'ers.
Nice work, shed, I see what you did there.
5 pages in, I didn't expect I'd be the first.
Shame on you, PH'ers.
3795mpower said:
My point was simply that it was incorrectly geared.
My remaining comments are my preferences, ie I don't like it.
Each to their own..it's what makes the automotive world a better place.
It won't pull 170 unless you drop it off a cliff.
With a tail wind.
Bragging about 'wasting one' seems an odd way to make a point about gearing, especially without referring to it at all in your first post.My remaining comments are my preferences, ie I don't like it.
Each to their own..it's what makes the automotive world a better place.
It won't pull 170 unless you drop it off a cliff.
With a tail wind.
You prefer your M5 - thats fine, and the E34 is a great car (although it was somewhat eclipsed by the Lotus Carlton), but to say you hated the GTO just because your girlfriend liked them? That's a bit pre-pubescent isn't it?
Personal best for one of mine was a GPS reading of 167mph. Admittedly this was during a 21mile Vmax run at 3am, possibly even with a bit of downhill grade factored in. However, 21 miles in 8 minutes certainly doesn't mean the car is slow.
A 0-60 in around five and a half seconds, and a top speed (regardless of what actual figure anyone quotes) significantly above 150, Is anyone seriously trying to say those figures are slow? Of course there are quicker cars, there are better handling cars. Anyone who expects a GTO/3000GT to be some sort of track car/hypercar/GTR rival/etc doesn't have a clue as to what the car is about. It's a GT - a long distance coupe that has a decent turn of speed. Nothing more, nothing less.
SWTH said:
That's a bit pre-pubescent isn't it?
Very ! But then I was 19 at the time.Thanks for clarifying the top speed, I think you've been far more thorough than Autocar in leaving WOT
for 21 miles to confirm for me that it wouldn't do 170....
😉
Ps, still don't like it but that leaves one extra in world for anyone else to play with.
Gixer_fan said:
TinyCappo said:
There is a procedure for bleeding the air out of the hydraulic valve lash adjusters .... its a PITA proceedure but worth it if it fixes the noisy train, if not its fubar.
Mmmm... I'd suspect the fubar scenario would be the more likely ?It then did 3 years of track days without a single tap again.
I¨ve had an american imported 1991 black vr4 since november 1999, almost 15 years, and it has caused me almost ZERO grief. It has now gone a little over 100 000 miles.
I have changed out the clutch and slave sylinder, right wheel bearing in the back, and 3 brake pistons, and of course the timing belt evey 7 years.
Also the waterpump about 10 years ago.
So the weak spot for me is the brake pistons. Or it maybe is I who doesn't use them hard enough?
I have not had any problems with my gearbox at all.
But my adjustable muffler and aero system has not worked properly for a while.
The only modification is that the previous owner had the turbo pressure doubled at 29000 miles. So it now has 340 hp instead of the original 300.
The time from 3000 to 6000 in fourth gear went down from 29,4 to 21,3 seconds, and the pressure at 3,4,5 and 6000 rpm was raised from 0.51, 0,48, 0,40, 0,34 to 1.01, 1.01, 0,90, 0,72 bar.
So I am very pleased with the acceleration, but originally it wasn't very fast.
The top speed of the 1991 vr4 was 159 mph according to the manual.
It was slighty faster than a nissan r32 skyline in it's day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukVsqR66ldE
But other than that it's a great car to drive, it's comfortable when you need it, and sporty enough if you want to drive it fast.
But unfortunately, the majority now, (like the supra's), has been tweaked or overused, so there aren't many decent cars left.
But I still love my car as much as the first day it came out, especially the design.
I also have this car:
http://home.online.no/~ludvs/index.cfm
but I think the mitsu design is up there with the merc.
But the misconception about the gearbox is huge, as you can tell in this article clipped out of:
http://www.3swiki.org/Mitsubishi_3000GT/Dodge_Stea...
It is a common misconception that the 3000GT was equipped with a very weak transmission (which is technically a transaxle due to placement). Some even accuse it of being fabricated entirely of aluminum, which is quite ridiculous. This may stem from the fact that the external casing of the W5MG1 transmission was made of aluminum. The transmissions do have a tendency to fail, however this was not due to weakness or poor design. Rather this can be blamed on Mitsubishi's poor deal with Getrag, the transmission manufacturer. In the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to consider the transmissions "non-serviceable," and instruct all their dealers to simply replace the entire transmission if there was ever a problem. Indeed, the factory service manual has a single page devoted to the Getrag transmission, saying exactly this. This of course generated significant increase in sales for Getrag, at the expense of the loyal owners one might add. The major problem with the transmission was the synchronizers (notably 1-2 and 2-3), coupled with the fact that Mitsubishi specified the wrong viscosity fluid for the transmission. Some even speculate that this fluid is the major reason for said failures. As a result, many 3000GTs have developed grinding synchronizers that sound terrible and cause mis-shifts. In some cases, switching to a modern synthetic like "synchromesh" or a combination of Redline fluids, has been known to cure the problem entirely, or at least ameliorate it significantly. The fluids also go a long way to preventing new transmissions from developing this problem. Unfortunately, Mitsubishi technicians and dealers either do not know this or do not tell their customers this. Instead they [correctly] suspect bad synchronizers, and the only course of action is to replace the entire transmission. Getrag also refused to offer parts to any transmission mechanics who tried to fix the problem. As a result, many a VR4 owner has had to replace their transmission, and the car has developed a bad reputation for such, however it is unfair to accuse the transmission of being weak. Until recently there were absolutely no internal modifications for the transmissions, which clearly means that all the 700 and 800 horsepower VR4s out there run with perfectly stock transmissions. Though output shafts breaking is a common occurrence at that level of power (as it is for all AWD cars with that kind of power), internal failure is virtually unheard of.
I have changed out the clutch and slave sylinder, right wheel bearing in the back, and 3 brake pistons, and of course the timing belt evey 7 years.
Also the waterpump about 10 years ago.
So the weak spot for me is the brake pistons. Or it maybe is I who doesn't use them hard enough?
I have not had any problems with my gearbox at all.
But my adjustable muffler and aero system has not worked properly for a while.
The only modification is that the previous owner had the turbo pressure doubled at 29000 miles. So it now has 340 hp instead of the original 300.
The time from 3000 to 6000 in fourth gear went down from 29,4 to 21,3 seconds, and the pressure at 3,4,5 and 6000 rpm was raised from 0.51, 0,48, 0,40, 0,34 to 1.01, 1.01, 0,90, 0,72 bar.
So I am very pleased with the acceleration, but originally it wasn't very fast.
The top speed of the 1991 vr4 was 159 mph according to the manual.
It was slighty faster than a nissan r32 skyline in it's day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukVsqR66ldE
But other than that it's a great car to drive, it's comfortable when you need it, and sporty enough if you want to drive it fast.
But unfortunately, the majority now, (like the supra's), has been tweaked or overused, so there aren't many decent cars left.
But I still love my car as much as the first day it came out, especially the design.
I also have this car:
http://home.online.no/~ludvs/index.cfm
but I think the mitsu design is up there with the merc.
But the misconception about the gearbox is huge, as you can tell in this article clipped out of:
http://www.3swiki.org/Mitsubishi_3000GT/Dodge_Stea...
It is a common misconception that the 3000GT was equipped with a very weak transmission (which is technically a transaxle due to placement). Some even accuse it of being fabricated entirely of aluminum, which is quite ridiculous. This may stem from the fact that the external casing of the W5MG1 transmission was made of aluminum. The transmissions do have a tendency to fail, however this was not due to weakness or poor design. Rather this can be blamed on Mitsubishi's poor deal with Getrag, the transmission manufacturer. In the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to consider the transmissions "non-serviceable," and instruct all their dealers to simply replace the entire transmission if there was ever a problem. Indeed, the factory service manual has a single page devoted to the Getrag transmission, saying exactly this. This of course generated significant increase in sales for Getrag, at the expense of the loyal owners one might add. The major problem with the transmission was the synchronizers (notably 1-2 and 2-3), coupled with the fact that Mitsubishi specified the wrong viscosity fluid for the transmission. Some even speculate that this fluid is the major reason for said failures. As a result, many 3000GTs have developed grinding synchronizers that sound terrible and cause mis-shifts. In some cases, switching to a modern synthetic like "synchromesh" or a combination of Redline fluids, has been known to cure the problem entirely, or at least ameliorate it significantly. The fluids also go a long way to preventing new transmissions from developing this problem. Unfortunately, Mitsubishi technicians and dealers either do not know this or do not tell their customers this. Instead they [correctly] suspect bad synchronizers, and the only course of action is to replace the entire transmission. Getrag also refused to offer parts to any transmission mechanics who tried to fix the problem. As a result, many a VR4 owner has had to replace their transmission, and the car has developed a bad reputation for such, however it is unfair to accuse the transmission of being weak. Until recently there were absolutely no internal modifications for the transmissions, which clearly means that all the 700 and 800 horsepower VR4s out there run with perfectly stock transmissions. Though output shafts breaking is a common occurrence at that level of power (as it is for all AWD cars with that kind of power), internal failure is virtually unheard of.
SWTH said:
3795mpower said:
My point was simply that it was incorrectly geared.
My remaining comments are my preferences, ie I don't like it.
Each to their own..it's what makes the automotive world a better place.
It won't pull 170 unless you drop it off a cliff.
With a tail wind.
Bragging about 'wasting one' seems an odd way to make a point about gearing, especially without referring to it at all in your first post.My remaining comments are my preferences, ie I don't like it.
Each to their own..it's what makes the automotive world a better place.
It won't pull 170 unless you drop it off a cliff.
With a tail wind.
You prefer your M5 - thats fine, and the E34 is a great car (although it was somewhat eclipsed by the Lotus Carlton), but to say you hated the GTO just because your girlfriend liked them? That's a bit pre-pubescent isn't it?
Personal best for one of mine was a GPS reading of 167mph. Admittedly this was during a 21mile Vmax run at 3am, possibly even with a bit of downhill grade factored in. However, 21 miles in 8 minutes certainly doesn't mean the car is slow.
A 0-60 in around five and a half seconds, and a top speed (regardless of what actual figure anyone quotes) significantly above 150, Is anyone seriously trying to say those figures are slow? Of course there are quicker cars, there are better handling cars. Anyone who expects a GTO/3000GT to be some sort of track car/hypercar/GTR rival/etc doesn't have a clue as to what the car is about. It's a GT - a long distance coupe that has a decent turn of speed. Nothing more, nothing less.
The 300 ZX wasn't that much quicker, going by the figures and even the Supra TT isn't as quick as we perhaps imagine based on reputation, which is usually based on tuned examples.
A friend has a 300Zx that is bog standard and reckons that it would destroy my 350Z, looking at it, on paper it wouldn't.
Even the hallowed NSX took 13 - 14 seconds to get to 100 when it came out, quick in its day but no great shakes nowadays.
R34 GTR's were spoke of in reverential terms, but as standard would be on par with a 135i nowadays, the R35 is substantially quicker, its just called progress, more power, electronic improvements, fancy gear boxes cutting change times down.
J4CKO said:
These always remind me of a Technic Lego supercar and in the Lexicon of 90's Jap metal, these were a bit like your mum getting you a pair of trainers when she went shopping,
Let me explain, you had designs on getting Nike (a Supra), Adidas (300 ZX), Kappa (Skyline) or even some Le Coq Sportif (Impreza) but she comes back with bloody Hi-Tec (3000 GT) and you cannot hide your disappointment, looks the part, is really "Jazzy" (mum word there) and was probably on offer, but it isn't the real deal, its an imposter and completely misses the point and your mates will laugh, even the spod in the Tesco Tearaway trainers.
Brilliant! Let me explain, you had designs on getting Nike (a Supra), Adidas (300 ZX), Kappa (Skyline) or even some Le Coq Sportif (Impreza) but she comes back with bloody Hi-Tec (3000 GT) and you cannot hide your disappointment, looks the part, is really "Jazzy" (mum word there) and was probably on offer, but it isn't the real deal, its an imposter and completely misses the point and your mates will laugh, even the spod in the Tesco Tearaway trainers.
Exactly.
Let's go back to 1990 - the year the GTO went on sale. Back then the big Japanese GT's were:
Toyota - the Mk.3 Supra, already a bit outdated.
Nissan - the 300ZX. Similar performance, but without the 4WD. Skyline not really a rival.
Honda - the NSX was a supercar, not a GT. No quicker in a straight line either.
Non Japanese:
Mercedes - 450SLC, a class above the jap stuff and by then an old model (if it was even still on sale?).
BMW - 8-Series was either fresh in the showrooms or not far away, but either way a class above.
Jaguar - XJS. A 20 year old design, very long in tooth.
Nothing from Ford/Rover/Vauxhall/Renault/PSA/etc.
By 1994 the Mk.4 Supra moved the game on in Japan. European GT buyers wanted (and still do want) a prestige European badge - in the mid-90's the Jaguar XK, Mercedes S-class coupe and the Bentley Continental R served the needs of the fairly well-heeled (in the case of the Bentley the very well-heeled), so the Jap coupes had no market. The NSX suffered similarly, because people wanted a Ferrari rival to have an equivalent badge.
Also, the price new here was just silly - £45,000-odd for a car that in Japan sold for less than £30k. £45k was just too much, which is why Mitsubishi only sold 670 or so in 9 years in the UK. In Japan and the States where they were far cheaper, they were considerably more popular.
Both the 300ZX and GTO made little to no sense here, which is why they still don't, 20 years on. Nissan never bothered with official Skyline GTR imports (I know Middlehurst Nissan did UK-spec a few).
Horses for courses and all that.
Let's go back to 1990 - the year the GTO went on sale. Back then the big Japanese GT's were:
Toyota - the Mk.3 Supra, already a bit outdated.
Nissan - the 300ZX. Similar performance, but without the 4WD. Skyline not really a rival.
Honda - the NSX was a supercar, not a GT. No quicker in a straight line either.
Non Japanese:
Mercedes - 450SLC, a class above the jap stuff and by then an old model (if it was even still on sale?).
BMW - 8-Series was either fresh in the showrooms or not far away, but either way a class above.
Jaguar - XJS. A 20 year old design, very long in tooth.
Nothing from Ford/Rover/Vauxhall/Renault/PSA/etc.
By 1994 the Mk.4 Supra moved the game on in Japan. European GT buyers wanted (and still do want) a prestige European badge - in the mid-90's the Jaguar XK, Mercedes S-class coupe and the Bentley Continental R served the needs of the fairly well-heeled (in the case of the Bentley the very well-heeled), so the Jap coupes had no market. The NSX suffered similarly, because people wanted a Ferrari rival to have an equivalent badge.
Also, the price new here was just silly - £45,000-odd for a car that in Japan sold for less than £30k. £45k was just too much, which is why Mitsubishi only sold 670 or so in 9 years in the UK. In Japan and the States where they were far cheaper, they were considerably more popular.
Both the 300ZX and GTO made little to no sense here, which is why they still don't, 20 years on. Nissan never bothered with official Skyline GTR imports (I know Middlehurst Nissan did UK-spec a few).
Horses for courses and all that.
Edited by SWTH on Monday 18th August 16:40
EggsBenedict said:
GTO. Three letters that, preceded by the right manufacturer's name, can mean the ultimate in performance and desirability. Names like Ferrari, Pontiac (though you could say the judge is out on that) and, er, Mitsubishi.
Nice work, shed, I see what you did there.
5 pages in, I didn't expect I'd be the first.
Shame on you, PH'ers.
Dammit!Nice work, shed, I see what you did there.
5 pages in, I didn't expect I'd be the first.
Shame on you, PH'ers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff