Nissan 300 ZX Turbo specs

Hockenheim Short - 1:21.5
Sport Auto 06/1991

I own a 300ZX with some mods at around 550~580hp and weight loss and I managed to do some good pulls on stock turbos.

0-100: 3,9
0-150: 8,5
0-200: 11,4
0-250: 18,89
0-300: 34,57

I start to lose momentum after 200 kph, so if I upgrade my turbos it will pull harder and smoother.

It’s wierd. Why is it always famed to be slow? Every time I drive it and some dip wad with some loud a$! exhausted Mustang or throaty muscle car wants to race, it never looses. ????‍♂️ There is undeniable power vs power. But anyone who can actully drive, knows it more about the driver than the car. (When racing red apples to green apples). Like your tool belt, there’s never one tool for every job….unless your a tool!! Take a super cool car, drive it every day, stuck it on a track with real tires, and 300TT even stock is hard to beat for all around fun and performance. You can spend $225k on a Bentley GT and launch at 11.4, but if I took the $150k difeeence and put it into my Z….well…..you can keep the boring Ladyboy Bentley.

It's sad that this car is much slower than the Toyota Supra Turbo. Hell it's probably not even much faster than the N/A 300ZX.

Automobil Revue, № 26, 21.06.1990:
Curb weight - 1620 kg (53%/47%)
Acceleration (2 persons +10 kg) -
0-40 kph 2,0 sec
0-60 kph 3,0 sec
0-80 kph 4,5 sec
0-100 kph 6,1 sec
0-120 kph 8,8 sec
0-140 kph 11,1 sec
0-160 kph 14,6 sec
0-180 kph 19,2 sec
0-200 kph 24,1 sec
0-220 kph 34,4 sec
0-240 kph 47,6 sec
1000 m - 26,2 sec
Top speed - 247 kph

Performance Cars 04/1991:
0-30 mph 2,3 sec
0-40 mph 3,5 sec
0-50 mph 4,5 sec
0-60 mph 6,0 sec
0-70 mph 7,9 sec
0-80 mph 9,9 sec
0-90 mph 12,3 sec
0-100 mph 15,2 sec
0-110 mph 18,6 sec
0-120 mph 23,1 sec
1/4 mile - 14,7 sec 95 mph
top speed - 156 mph

Sport Auto 1/1994 (283 PS version):
Miramas Handling Course (2,6 km France) – 1:28,0
Curb weight – 1664 kg
0-100 kph – 6,3 sec
0-200 kph – 25,0 sec
Top speed – 250 kph

10 miles on the blue ridge parkway with my 96TT with 100 treadwear tires, 3 rd gear, 60-100 the whole time, for the money and overall comprehensive performance, it’s hard to beat the untapped ability of the 300TT.

I’ve owned both. The weight of the 3000 gt feels like a my 72 impala. The Z with only one cold air intake mos($80), 100% stock is twice the car. The gt is nice, but Mitsubishi make good tv’s and air conditioners not award winning race cars. Keep up with SCCA racing and see how many 3000gt’s you see. Just saying....heck, my 240sx with a $500 turbo upgrade made better times and handled like a Kart. Just sayin

Z32 all day long. In fact, we have two manual TT's in the family and what awesome all rounders they are. And without the boy-racer image !!

I would take a 300TT any day over that ugly vr4

The Z32 wasn't a straight line car like the GTO/VR4. Obviously due to its 6 speed and AWD the VR4 would easily beat the Z to top speed by a couple car lengths.

That being said, let's not forget that modding a Z32 can turn it into a monster.
Thanks to whoever posted those articles, what a blast from the past!! These days the only way to know stock performance of any of the 4 is those old magazine articles since most of those JDM cars are modded these days.
The Z32 was much more of a fun car, and it was well balanced. The GTO, although very fast stock and modded, is definitely an acquired taste, same with the others. The Z imo was the best balanced, no shame in running 13.8-14.0s in the quarter, it was slower than the others but had a charm about it that the others lacked. Just my opinion.

@JDM23 - Lmao the Z couldn't hit 60 in under 5 seconds if it's life depended on it. What are you smoking? The VR4 was the only one that hit under 5s to 60 on record. I think you meant 5.7s.

And the gearing on a stock Z32 is trash as well. They're nice cars and handle well, but they're not fast, and it wasn't very fast even when it debuted. It got a 5s flat once, and never again, I'm guessing Nissan threw a hot test car since the rest of the times it got were slower than the others.

And that list of links wasn't supposed to say VR4 vs, It has all 4 beating the Z in multiple articles. It's not beating an STI, especially an older one. The launch alone would put 3-5 car lengths on the Z. It would catch up mid-range but still not enough to actually pass.

The Z was the slowest of the JDM cars stock and lost to its competition in 1993. The fastest ET it ever ran was 13.7.

Its not pulling on much.

PROOF THAT THE 1990-1999 MITSUBISHI 3000GT VR-4 IS FASTER THAN THE 1990-1996 300ZX TWIN TURBO

1990-1996 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo: 300 HP@6400-RPM / 283 LB.FT TQ@3600-RPM, 3,400-3,550 lbs

(1G)1990-1993 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 296 HP@6000-RPM / 306 LB.FT TQ@2500-RPM, 3850 lbs

(2G)1994-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 320 HP@6000-RPM / 315 LB.FT TQ@2500-RPM, 3780-3700 lbs

Best Motoring is a famous Japanese television show that’s focuses on Japanese performance cars. They’re drivers are actual race car drivers that have WON AWARDS They tested all the performance cars of the era. In 1994 Mitsubishis 3000GT VR4 beat the R32 Skyline GTR a car that weighs 3100 lbs and dynos 270@whp https://youtu.be/fwps3TVcJMM ! And then in 1996, the GTO MR, which is identical to the 2G VR4, with 67 less pounds, bested an R33 Skyline GTR pulling a 12.8 quarter mile https://youtu.be/ukVsqR66ldE The 1990 300ZX Twin Turbo got 14.1 to the 1/4m for a TT 2+0 Slicktop, the lightest year https://youtu.be/EWd70mdVfao
The Skyline GTR was the fastest model Nissan made, their Halo car. The J spec VR4 is identical to the USDM version, how would it lose to a 300ZX Twin Turbo which is a much less powerful and heavier car than the Skyline GTRs above? These videos alone prove how much faster the VR4 is

1990 to 1993

Road and Track 1989 300ZX Twin Turbo Debut http://www.300zx.cl/ga2/300zx2/images/ryt895.jpg 0 to 60 / 6.5s. / 0 to 100 16.5s, quarter mile of 15.0@96mph

Road and Track 1990 3000GT VR4 Debut https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/d2/76/a5d27610aee98d65afca0c502f712e31--posters-.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/gustavorivasrei/&h=1045&w=736&tbnid=4RgWyfNExLLBJM&tbnh=268&tbnw=188&usg=K_2YnWo_tW9WubOzvpBK3qrEuS6PU=&docid=t4yeibB8a0bzPM&itg=1
0 to 60 6.3s / 0 to 100 16.2 / quarter mile 14.5@95.0mph In Road and Track, the VR4 consistently got more praise and better times

http://www.300zx.cl/ga3/300zx3/images/car3005.jpg -
Car and Driver, 1992, Slide the High Country
300ZX Twin Turbo - 0 to 60 5.5, quarter mile 14.2@101mph
3000GT VR4 - 0 to 60 5.4, quarter mile 14.0@99mph
Considering the VR4 is 350+ lbs more than the Z, this is a win for the VR4. It also won in handling, the Z pulled .89 and the VR4 .91 in the slalom

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15140581/nissan-300zx-turbo-vs-dodge-stealth-r-t-turbo-archived-comparison-test/ - The 300ZX Twin Turbo won with a faster ET and trap. The Stealth weighed 200 lbs more. Car and Driver states this is the fastest Z they've ever tested, and can't ever get these numbers again from the Z for over 4 years of testing

http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/mopar/91_4.html -. 1G VR-4 running to 60mph in 4.89 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.67 ET taken from various road tests, with comparisons to other cars' times.

1994 to 1999

https://youtu.be/kBTwc8h-cnI - MotorWeek, 1994
3000GT VR4 0 - 60 in 4.9 and the quarter mile in 13.5@103mph. MW couldn't get the Z faster than 13.7@103, so the VR4 is 3 to 4 car lengths ahead at the same trap speed

https://www.motortrend.com/news/virtual-velocity/
MotorTrend 1995 Virtual Velocity
300ZX Twin Turbo - 13.9@102.0mph
3000GT VR4 - 13.5@101.6 mph
The Z is 4-6 car lengths away and moving .4s mph faster - it physically cannot pass up that much ET difference.

https://youtu.be/vFEYkgOZdC4 -
Stock 1999 3000GT VR4 quarter mile of 13.2@102.7 This is a thoroughly stock car. It took him over a month to get the launch down.

http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt10.jpg -
Road and Track 1994 The 300 HP Club
300ZX Twin Turbo - 14.4@99.7mph
3000GT VR4 - 14.2@99.0 mph
Another instance of the VR4 being too far ahead for the Z to catch up to with under a single mph. It lost by 2 SECONDS around a track to the VR4 http://www.300zx.cl/ga/300zx/images/rtt07.jpg

https://www.motortrend.com/news/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4/ -
The launch was bad for both the Supra TT and VR4, yet the VR4 did 0-60 in 4.8s and tied the Supra TT in the 1/4m @ 13.6s, with the Supra trapping substantially higher (Obviously).

https://archiv.3000gt.org/viewtopic.php?t=2582 –
Popular Mechanics 1999 Acceleration Nation
1999 3000GT VR-4 - 0 to 60 in 5.00s, 1/4m in 13.44s @ 101.79mph
They could have had a better launch, but who cares, no 300ZX Twin Turbo is pulling a 13.4 ET without bolt ons and definitely slick rubber.

Seems the Z32 isn't all it's shaped up to be, it lost to a 250HP Corvette by a SECOND around a track and ran identical numbers. QUOTE: When all was said and done, the Cor¬vette turned laps in the one-minute 38-second range, at an average speed of 64 mph, while the Nissan was almost a second per lap slower. "No big deal," you're saying? On the contrary. It is a big deal in a two-hour race. Far more important, the Corvette—with its hip-hugging seats, smooth power delivery, and neutral handling—is far easier to drive for long peri¬ods at those speeds. To put the Cor¬vette's racetrack prowess into per¬spective, remember that the big V-8 produces 50 fewer horsepower than the twin-turbo terror (LOL) https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15112003/1991-chevrolet-corvette-z51-fx3-vs-nissan-300zx-archived-comparison-test/ http://www.300zx.cl/ga2/300zx/images/cvsg4.jpg - 300ZX Twin Turbo - 0 to 60mph 5.6, 0 to 100mph 16.3, quarter mile in 14.6@96mph
Car and Driver never got this slow of a time in a 1G VR4 or Stealth Twin Turbo

Publications notice the VR4 being markedly faster than the 300ZX Twin Turbo.
Since 1996, it became 320 hp and 315 lbft. It feels decisively more punchy than the contemporary 300ZX turbo yet without adding turbo lag -AutoZine Magazine https://www.autozine.org/Archive/Mitsubishi/old/GTO.html

Wikipedia states that the 2G VR4 is faster. The new 6-speed, while notchy, was geared well and the extra horsepower and torque allowed it to out-accelerate most of its' rivals from a standing start to top speed. Road tests at the time showed the second generation 3000GT VR-4 to be capable of 60 mph (97 km/h) in 4.8 - 5.4 seconds[18] and the quarter mile in 13.5 seconds at 101 to 105 miles per hour (163 to 169 km/h), making it faster in a straight line than the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and Mazda RX-7 Twin Turbo.[19][2][20] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO Wikipedia has to have sources to prove the above to be true, or it gets taken down.

Where are all the stock Z’s running mid 13s stock? It never tested below a 13.7 ET with a professional driver The proof is overwhelming - after 1994, the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo couldn't touch the Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4.The 1994-2001 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, with it’s 320HP and 315TQ, is faster than any version of the 1990-1999 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo, including earlier models that were slightly lighter.

https://www.modernracer.com/mitsubishi3000gtvr4 -. This site averages out every single time recorded for each car
The 2G VR-4 got a 13.5@105.0. Yes, the VR-4 traps higher than the Z most of the time

The gear ratios are better in the VR-4 and the Z32 TT cannot physically pass the VR4 after the brutal AWD launch that leaves the ZX flailing and two car lengths behind at 150mph.
*Ratios, 1990-1996 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo: 40/67/100/130/155 (OD), 3.69:1 final ratio
Ratios, 1994-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4: 40/69/106/143/155/159 (OD), 3.87:1 final ratio
As anyone can guess, the VR-4 holds more boost and for longer. The VR-4 has 12.5 PSI, the Z only holds 9.5 PSI To top it off, the Z when stock doesn’t hold boost for long and it drops off before redline; the VR-4 holds boost from 3K-RPM to redline at 6.5K on the tach. Redline shifts on the VR4 make sure it stays in boost, the Z again starts to lose boost at 6,000-RPM, 400 RPM before it’s at it’s 6.4K Redline.
Sources: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zcar.com/forum/12-90-96-tech-discussion-forum/164530-300zx-stock-boost.html%3famp=1
https://www.nissanforums.com/threads/300zx-tt-stock-boost.65627/

The proof is OVERWHELMING that the 1994-2001 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 is faster than the 1989-1998 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo stock for stock, and that goes for any model Z, Slicktop to T-Top to 2+2

Alright when my z was stock I walked wrx sti’s from 40roll, from a dig the sti would be about a car ahead but the z’s long gear make it catch up and pass it easily. the low 14s to high 13s is about right for the quarter mile, and the actual 0to60 is 4.7. These are things that I know if your z doesn’t run like that you probably have an auto, high miles or something is wrong, yes 100,000 is high

I know 4 years is a long time to pass before an answer is posted but...

The U.S verison of the 300ZX Turbo came with either 300bhp 5 speed manual or a 280bhp with 4 speed auto.

No way a 300zx twin turbo ran the 1/4 mile in 13.6, I'd be inclined to agree with road and track.

As for power it'll be BHP, Back when this thing was built the jap's had some sort of agreement to limit their cars to around the 280bhp mark.

Im confused about the source of this data
1)Is the a forign Spec version of the car?
2)Is the Hp rating Brake Hp or Crank Hp?
I ask because the United States Spec model came with 300HP and would 1/4mi in 13.6 seconds. Also road & tracks 1/4mi times seem a little high for the cars tested in the article sited on this page.

1/4 Mile: 14.4 sec.

0-200km/h 26.4s sportauto 12/1992