Talk:Mitsubishi 3000GT/Archive 1

Page move
Unless there are any objections, I'm going to move this article to Mitsubishi GTO in a few days. It was called the GTO in the home Japanese market, and although the 3000GT name was notable, it should just redirect in. --Milkmandan 23:48, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)


 * Done. I've cleaned up all the double redirects and most of the linked-in pages, also.  As usual, I've tried to maintain context in the articles (e.g., if an article really means the 3000GT, it gets linked to the 3000GT) and I'm letting the redirects do the work. --Milkmandan 17:01, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Could we get a redirect to Mitsubishi GTO/3000GT and merge the 2 pages? That way it would match the entry for the Pajero/Montero entry, which is a similar situation. Two namesakes, which are the exact same vehicle, released at the same time, just in 2 different markets. (See: Talk:Mitsubishi 3000GT) - Adolphus79 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No HP?
Why is everything listed as PS and kw? Where is the HP for all the American users? 74.128.99.178 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PS is basically HP. 76.71.215.144 (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's all be honest - the reason there's no HP is that the measurement standard is being held captive by one of the plethora of special interest groups that populate Wikipedia - in this case a combination of technical pedants and unhappy Europeans mostly. So, despite the fact that the majority of users who read this page will be most familiar with horsepower, are used to reading car information in horsepower figures, etc. we get PS. Because, you know ... because. Let's check Britannica ... and bingo, "horsepower". (although they write it out in full - very English of them)


 * So, yes, it's kind of like the fact that most English wikipedia users are familiar with the car known (to 90% of the readers of this page) as the Mitsubuishi 3000GT but it is discussed under the heading of "Mitsubishi GTO". Another splendid decision designed to facilitate easy transfer of information and clarity of comprehension. Because we all enjoy being enlightened that the name of the car in Japan was "GTO". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.19.220 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Front/midengine?
Do Anyone know if GTO is a front or midengine? Heck, what Japanese cars are mid/rear engines?


 * The GTO is transverse front-engined and is either 4WD or FWD, depending on the trim. The only mass-market modern mid- or rear-engined Japanese cars I can think of are the Toyota MR2 and the Honda NSX, although many older examples (Subaru 360, etc.) exist.  The Toyota Previa (so-called in the US) had an engine under the passenger compartment, I think.  Daihatsu makes a light 3-speed utility truck which has an engine under the truck bed, as I remember.


 * I just noticed that there's a category for this: Category:Mid-engined vehicles. It looks like I only missed the Honda Beat and the Autozam AZ-1, although it's pretty clear that the list is nonexhaustive.  --Milkmandan 03:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Revision, 1 August 2006
I took an offline copy of both the Mitsubishi GTO and Mitsubishi 3000GT articles and edited their content together as best I could. I deleted the stuff about tranmission reliability and a lawsuit involving Getrag as unsourced (and not really encyclopedic - this isn't an online workshop manual), but the rest of it seems to be there. Personally, I reckon we should add more stuff on the Dodge Stealth since it redirects to this page, but my assistance in this would be limited to keeping the article tidy and contiguous.

I've also omitted stuff about wheel/tyre sizes, as the info given here conflicted with that found elsewhere, and though I was tempted to draw up a table showing Nagoya's production numbers for the US/Canadian market, I decided a link to the page was enough for now. It can be done later.

So, I think this is is now ready for merging, i.e. the 3000GT page can now redirect here. --DeLarge 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert, GTO MR figures (360 PS, 506 Nm)
According to the same source I referenced all the stats, the MR version has the same 280 PS / 427 Nm as mentioned in the article. I can only presume the figures given by 82.109.66.144 are an aftermarket model. I'd like to see a source before I allow such figures back in, thankyouverymuch. --DeLarge 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ps isnt same as horsepwer and they make the same power as jdm in america

A great car, but discontinued.
Just... a great car, but why did it be discontinued???


 * Sales were down, it couldn't meet emissions standards, and it was an eleven year old design.


 * I also removed the cleanup tags from this page and the Mitsubishi Galant GTO article. There's nothing wrong with the grammar, formatting, etc, which is what the Cleanup tag is for. If you have something specific to complain about (besides the fact that I keep reverting your nonsensical page moves), you need to put it on the talk page so other editors know what your objection is. --DeLarge 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Dodge stealth redirects here?
If I am not wrong, in Smokey and the bandit page, they talk about dodge stealth. It couldn't be this car, obviusly.

--Alan92rttt 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) My bet is that the people that are editing the entries are not true car people. They do not understand that while the GTO the 3000GT and the stealth were made from the same platform their are difference in the vehicle and look that deserve separate content. When the GTO and 3000GT pages were merged alot of good information was left in the 3000GT entry.

the stealth body style was used in alot of movies im not sure of this one the music video had stealth version

The Dodgr Stealth is exactly the same car, the difference between them are just in the body. Voughtrazer (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image
I'm going to replace the infobox image placed by User:PrimeAKF11, as a Commons image was already in place, so there was no need for a new picture.

According to one of his edit summaries, "A non turbo base model is not a good representation of a 3000GT / Stealth, which is regarded as one of the highest performance vehicles of its day". However, as per the production stats at Stealth316.com and Suthnr.com, in North America the base and SL (non-turbo) versions both outsold the turbo by a margin of 2:1. In fact, overall the turbo version accounts for less than 20% of all 3000GT sales. Therefore, the non-turbo version is a better representation of a typical vehicle than the VR-4. --DeLarge 09:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

the base model and sl are just striped down vr4 but the place to stick the parts for vr4 are still on the dash and in engine bay

-- http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=summary&crpPage=summary.jsp&makeid=12&modelid=154&year=1994&myid=2968&acode=USA40DOC041A0&mode=&aff=hertimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay173 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
There's precisely one cited fact in the trivia section, which I'm going to extract and integrate into the main text. The rest of it does not deserve inclusion. For those who disagree, consider these WP policies and guidelines:
 * Verifiability: ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
 * What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information."
 * Avoid trivia sections in articles: "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic."
 * Notability: "All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." If the car's appearance in a movie or TV show received less than four (or even five) stars at the Internet Movie Cars Database, it's unlikely to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. --DeLarge 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about for the TV & movie appearances, we make a List of GTO appearances in media article? (or if someone can think of a better title...) I have added a few of those listings myself, due to my obsession with the car, and I thought about it the last time I added an entry...  I will create the new article and move them over in the next couple days unless someone has a better idea... Adolphus79 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done... see List of Mitsubishi GTO appearances in media... Adolphus79 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

links
The Stealth 3000gt and GTO are all three diffrent versions of the same car basicly diff body styles. Please put the links back i just edited there names they where on there for couple years now. 3si is resurce for owners of these cars stealth316 has many links and resources for these cars, as well as team3s. If not here where else. please stop messing up this artical i love my car i do own one. there is no non personal pages that help out resources for this page and for car owners aswell and people that want to work on these rare hard to find cars. Thecar is known as mitsubishi 3000gt/stealth in america and the mitsubishi gto body style was sold everywhere else besides north america. Basicly the mitsubishi gto should be like it is now link to 3000gt/stealth wich shows details on gto aswell. --Jay173 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to trace through the history and find where/why the links were modified and was unable to do so. Could the person that did it explain why the technical resource links were removed?

Would a link to the 3S Wiki be acceptable?

--Alan92rttt 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We use the dmoz template now to replace all external links and avoid spam build up, as per WP:NOT and WP:EL. It was added to the page to replace the various individual links on May 9, 2007. The 3Si.org site is already linked to via this. If you think a link should be added which isn't covered there, you should submit it to the Open Directory Project and they can assess whether it's good enough. --DeLarge 09:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Stealth vs Mitsubishi
Although the Dodge and Mitsubishi versions were fairly different in terms of styling, over time they became closer alike, eventually becoming almost identical (more so that when they were originally introduced). Jon the dodgeboy 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They are the same body in front only the doors and spoiler where diffrent and fact it said stealth instead of 3000gt they never where diffrent in anyway I have put my 91 up close to alot of diffrent years during 3000gt/stealth gatherings the stealth had extra back window trim styling and 3000gt just had it ferrari style doors while stealth r/t tt had its one indent I have yet to see ecs, tunible exaust, active aero specs for this car listed as part of the artical. 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a split suggestion tag to the article. It is misleading for the introduction paragraph to suggest that the Mitsubishi GTO was sold as the Dodge Stealth in North America. After all, the Mitsubishi 3000 GT was also sold in North America. Yes, the two share the same platform, but that does not mean they have to share an article. A separate Stealth article will help avoid confusion and indicate better the differences it has from the Mitsubishi model. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean reversing the merge discussed at the top of this page, and implemented late last year? And also discussed at Talk:Mitsubishi 3000GT? *Bonks head on table*
 * How is the lead paragraph "misleading"? Manufactured in Japan by Mitsubishi, and sold in the United States as a 3000GT, and "also" as a Dodge Stealth captive import. Quite commonplace in Mitsubishi's history; see Dodge Conquest/Chrysler Conquest/Plymouth Conquest --> Mitsubishi Starion, or Mitsubishi Expo/Eagle Vista Wagon/Dodge Colt Wagon/Plymouth Colt Wagon --> Mitsubishi Chariot for similar examples. For the reverse, see the Mitsubishi Precis, also sold as the Hyundai Excel. Same market, one manufacturer, two different cars. And the Mitsubishi redirects to the "original".
 * There is a precedence for not merging, in examples like the Mitsubishi Sapporo/Dodge Challenger, but that's because the latter name spans several generations of vehicles which had nothing to do with Mitsubishi; those two pages are like a venn diagram where the two circles barely overlap. Contrast that with the GTO/3000GT/Stealth. Three circles which almost entirely overlap each other. If there were any generations of Dodge Stealths not built in Japan the two pages would never have been merged, but there isn't. There's only minor variations on a single Japanese original.
 * Also, what "confusion" are you referring to? Over the two talk pages I see a lot more people admitting they're the same car than saying they're different. I'd say that there'd be more confusion splitting the pages, because readers might wonder why we're spreading one car article over two different pages. Some people claim that "there's differences" (Here. Here. Here. Here). But I've yet to hear what those differences are. Can't be the engine. Can't be the drivetrain. Can't be the chassis. So... the headlights? The rear spoiler? A couple of characters in the VIN codes? --DeLarge 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Stealh and 3000GT/GTO should infact be split into seperate pages. Grouping these together would be like putting all of the 1980's GM G-Body (Regal, Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Grand Prix) styles all on one page. There is not much different other than appearance in those cars either. They may be built on the same platform, but they are seperate cars. The earlier Stealths especially looked very different from the 3000GT at the time. I have included a photo of each car to display the difference between the 2 makes so you can see how they differ. You can also view more photos as well as scans of photos from both cars from the cars owner's manuals here

--DJKotel 22:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Stealth should be split into another page. Even though the Stealth was just a rebadged GTO/3000GT, the Toyota Soarer and Lexus SC get different pages. OfficerPhil 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Soarer and the SC overlap but there was a generation of the Soarer not sold as a Lexus and they could probably be merged in anycase. As the 3000GT and the Stealth are pure badge engineering sold at the same time I don't feel a separate page is needed unless the article becomes unwieldy in trying to describe the differences. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the Stealth wasn't just a rebadged 3000GT - the exterior design was very different. Also, the production timespan of the Stealth was shorter than that of the GTO.  Not to get into a precedence debate, but there are plenty of "badge engineered" models with their own pages (the Mitsubishi Eclipse, Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon, for example), so if splitting those is okay, why wouldn't splitting this be? --Vossanova o&lt; 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation with the 3000GT/Stealth is the same as with the Eclipse/Talon, however the Eclipse and Talon articles are split. The Stealth is a different car in its own right and deserves to be seperated from the GTO article, much like the latter example.  Despite being mechanically identical, it does not share the same history that the GTO does.  The difference in features/lifespan/cosmetics is worth mentioning, so splitting the article and mentioning that Stealth=GTO mechanically in the first sentence would be appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.158.132 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ask me we should be merging the Eclipse/Talon/Laser pages as well, although God knows there'll be plenty of fanboys keen to revert. They should be treated as a single entity, since that's what they are. As for the G-Body argument, those cars shared a platform, a common occurrence in the auto industry. Not the same as badge engineering, which is what the GTO/3000GT/Stealth is. --DeLarge 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up about the Eclipse/Talon/Laser pages, now done the job, can't wait to have a party with the fanboys. Willirennen 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens to be the same car with a diffrent spoiler and doors and made in the same plant, the stealth is clsoer to the 3000gt/GTO than the diffrences of Eclipse/Talon/Laser wich had some major diffrences but underneith the same. http://www.ypass.net/3s/

I'm going to throw in another vote for splitting off the Dodge Stealth into its own page. Were the cars more truly identical in styling, I might accept the redirect, but there were a lot of subtle but important differences in the sheetmetal and it does make a difference. I'm not saying this wasn't badge engineering, but I'd still prefer a separate page for the Stealth and the 3000GT/GTO. the_paccagnellan (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for splitting of the Dodge Stealth to another page as well. In my opinion, cars with identical bodywork but sold under different names in different markets (i.e. Honda Integra and Acura RSX or Nissan 300ZX and Nissan Fairlady) are identical and would be on one page. But vehicles that are sister cars but marketed by different companies, that looked different, often had different options, had different MSRPs, a separate marketing campaign etc. should have their own page (i.e. Camaro and Firebird, Talon/Eclipse/Laser, even the mid 90's Cadillac Fleetwood and Buick Roadmaster.) Expandinglight5 (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Horsepower discrepancy
In the trim level listings for the last generation, the VR-4's power is listed as 221kW (320 PS), which is not a valid conversion. I'm not sure which of the listed powers, if either, is valid. Scott Paeth 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a copy/paste error from a while back, since 221kW equates to 300hp (see previous entries). --DeLarge 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely Different
These are 2 completely different cars. Some split it up please! FogDevil 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely different how? I keep asking, and no-one's replied. Same engines, same transmissions, same platform, built on the same production line. What're the differences, FogDevil? --DeLarge 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * DeLarge is correct, they are the same (badge-engineered), i strongly oppose splitting the article..., i suggest expanding the article by incorporating dodge stealth...---MitsuFreak 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just look at the picture above and these.

Hmm... FogDevil 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --
 * '96 Stealth: http://kydrives.net/photos/stealth1.jpg
 * '96 GTO: http://www.ssip.net/upload/mitsubishi-3000gt-vr4-front-1_212.jpg

-- ""Im tired of this i own a dodge stealth and all clubs i belong to are for 3000gt and stealth owners they are exact same car with diffrent look major diffrences are spoiler and doors and the stealth body style is more in common with mitsubishi gto altho trims for a gto match the 3000gt. Do what you guys want you messed up a perfect artical. these cars arnt dsm but they are closer related than a dsm platform vehical such as the ecplise, talon, laser was wich actuly had some major diffrences"" --Jay173 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC) --

Alan92rttt 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) If you search the wiki you can find many many examples of vehicles which share a common manufacturing platform but are allowed to have separate entries(Chevy Camaro, Pontiac Trans am), (Dodge Stratus (and its twins, the Chrysler Cirrus and Plymouth Breeze)(Geo Metro, Suzuki Cultus) (Geo Tracker,SuSubscript textzuki Escudo)(Mitsubishi Lancer,Dodge Colt)(shall I keep looking?) These pages are separate and even link to each other. I have searched and was not able to find another case where cars from different companies had their pages merged into one just because they were manufacturered on the same assembly line. A case can be made that the GTO and the 3000GT should share a page. The Dodge Stealth should be seperate. Any attempt to merge the other platforms am would be met would enough resistannce to stop it. These entries should be split as each vehicle has enough unique history to deserve their own entry.


 * The Dodge Colt was based on two different Mitsubishis during its history, so cannot be accurately merged with either Mitsubishi Galant or Mitsubishi Lancer. If you want another example where "twins" are merged into a single article, see Hyundai Excel/Mitsubishi Precis, Daewoo Kalos/Chevrolet Aveo/Pontiac Wave, Mitsubishi eK/Nissan Otti, Lexus GS/Toyota Aristo, etc etc etc. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we don't use the existing untidy state of the various articles across WP as justification for making things worse.
 * Second, and I keep saying this over and over with no response, what "unique history"? Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and despite what you see in most car pages, we're not here to simply regurgitate every piece of trivia you can find on fan sites elsewhere. Ironically, the most "notable" fact in the article (its non-role at the 1991 Indy 500, cited in the NY Times) is demonstration that the two cars are inextricably linked: the Stealth was denied pace car duties because the UAW saw it for what it was: a Japanese-built piece of badge engineering.
 * And let me say this. If some fanboy wants to create a Dodge Stealth page which isn't a redirect to Mitsubishi GTO like it should be, I'm not going to stop him. Like (Mitsubishi-owning) User:Alan92rttt has pointed out, there's already plenty of crap on WP scattered to the four winds already; I'm not going to fight a battle to consolidate it. However, I will continue to maintain this page as it should be, i.e. a summarization of the Mitsubishi GTO and other vehicles it was badged as. There will be no removal of information just because it pertains to the Dodge Stealth. As a result, there'll be enormous amounts of duplicated info, and that will undoubtedly lead to future merge proposals since there's no need of two pages when one will do. --DeLarge 08:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the two main opponents to splitting the article appear to be fans of Mitsubishi (see User:DeLarge/Mitsubishi, and User:Mitsufreak is self-explanatory), arguing against them for a split will be futile. I suggest you be bold and perform the split. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

@look gto, 3000gt, stealth same car under diffrent look@

Reverts of 14 November
I undid the latest additions because...
 * As can be seen at Category:Dodge vehicles, the Dodge Stealth redirect is already categorized correctly, specifically to avoid the necessity of categorizing this page.
 * The Dodge Avenger was not a successor to the GTO. Aside from the fact that the two were for a time available simultaneously, there's the small matter of their target markets. The MSRP of an Avenger ES was $17,191 in 1995, while the Stealth range was $23,236 to $37,905; a 35% difference between a top-of-the line Avenger and a base model Stealth. Regards, --DeLarge 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision, 10th feb 2008
I added stealth316 to externel links because people can find any websites relating to the 3000gt and stealth on it under technical and garage sections. Yes I have owned a stealth for more than a year and hang out with 3000gt stealth owners. This should help enthuisist needing help with there older cars finding parts and repairing it there self.

sighned stealthguy

Revision, 10th feb 2008

AWS?
I don't see the AWS feature of the first generation (91-93) of the Stealth being mentioned. Stealths never had Active Aero, but they did have All Wheel Steering, a feature I enjoy and would love to know more about. Why isn't it mentioned anywhere? WereTiger (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Final production year
The infobox has "1990-2001" for production years, and yet, the last section states "Production for the Japanese domestic market finally ceased in 2000". So which is it, 2000 or 2001? Remember, this is final production year, not the final year in which new models were sold. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Production ceased during the 2000 financial year, which ended on 31 March 2001. The final sales were in the 2001 financial year, which ended on 31 March 2002.
 * As for the infobox, I'd question your interpretation of what the dates represent. How do we know that production of the car didn't begin sometime in 1989? The start date is based on first sales, so for consistency, so should the finish date. See Mitsubishi i for a parallel. It's listed as being from "2006–present", quite rightly since it was released on January 24, 2006. However, in order to have enough models ready for sale, production actually began at the factory in December 2005. In that particular case I know all the dates and can cite references to support them, so all the information is present in the article. In the case of the GTO/3000GT it's more difficult, so all we can do is provide the best available info. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The dates represent production. It says "Production" next to the dates, right?  Also, the first sentence states "The Mitsubishi GTO is a sports grand tourer built by Japanese automaker Mitsubishi Motors between 1990 and 2001", so that too contradicts the line "Production for the Japanese domestic market finally ceased in 2000", since, in my mind, "built" = production.  Now, depending on whether we're going with model years or calendar years, it should start when production started.  So if we're going with calendar years and production started in 1989, then yes, 1989 is good. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so which is it? Using reliable sources, I can only say it might have been 1989 that production began, and it might have been 1990, while production ceased in 2000 or 2001 (depending on how late into the 2000 fiscal year they were still building them). --DeLarge (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unsure and don't have an accurate opinion on the final production year of these cars. But I have seen a Mitsubishi GTO registered as 2001 vechile. I've heard of some cases where registration can be wrong (as I'm sure it can too). So it may have been a mistake, but I have seen a Mitsubishi GTO registered as a 2001 vechile.

Why?
Why does it state that all the GTO's where v6???? I'm pretty sure they are v8, and with a 4wd v8 twin turbo i'm pretty sure your gonna get much bigger bhp's than stated??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.28.207 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GTOs are deffinatly not V8s. I have a GTO (just selling it acctually) and am in a GTO club and have gone to meets. They are all V6s, and can be Twin Turbo or NA.

1993 gto twin
I would like to know if their is a way to change the boost setting on My gto also does anyone have a surgestion for a better exhaust system that would make to car sould better?

GJCRHE550 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.234.188 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

corrections/additions
I feel that this page needs to include the production number for each year and if possible the number of each color as well, also the car should be listed as all-wheel-drive not four-wheel-drive i believe that it is more descriptive of the car and also that four-wheel-drive implies selection between two and four. The production numbers are difficult to find and including them here would put wiki ahead of the game on stealth information available to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.132.245 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Original names
Curious as to why this car is at its original name when the article itself claims that the car was known as the 3000GT in most other markets. Policy aside, the article for what should be the Eunos Roadster (also the original name, as far as production goes) is at Mazda MX-5. Despatche (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, seems we had an error: the Roadster was given an incorrect Japanese date; there it was actually released some time after the North American release. Unrelated, but I'm still not sure whether MX-5 or MX-5 Miata came first; we're still missing dates and names and things. Despatche (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Spyder Info
I'm not sure who has edited this page to state that the 3000GT Spyder was a soft-top converable, but whoever did is just wrong, wrong, wrong. A 10 second Google search will show you pictures of the VR4 retracting it's top. Road and Track did a 4 or 6 page article about how the VR4 and SL got converted to Spyders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:C11D:F5A9:DDD0:A7F6:ACA1 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi GTO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305232559/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/fact2005.pdf to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/fact2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that! VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi GTO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022103426/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/products/1990/e/popup/060_gto.html to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/museum/products/1990/e/popup/060_gto.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nissan Skyline deletion?
I edited the competitor list to add the Nissan Skyline - in Japan the Skyline was one of the GTO's biggest rivals, especially the GTO MR and Skyline GT-R. Best Motoring almost always put these two head to head. Why was it deleted? Also, thank you to whoever cleaned up the overview and EU version GTO Twin Turbo, it is much more professional. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Competitors /rivals lists needs to be referenced, and same category cars for example legal for street use. Not sure if very limited car can be real rival? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's me on both counts. As far as Best Motoring, you can find a magazine that states just about anything you care to say. The 300ZX and the 3000GT were definitely competitors, but the Skyline GT-R was a competition car built for homologation purposes. The GTO is another thing entirely, a technology showcase, a sporting luxury halo car, whatever you like but not a car made for competition.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from, although i think the GTO MR was meant to be more of a 'race car for the streets' deal.
 * Thanks for clearing it up. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, did the MR cost more or less than a regular VR-4?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The MR cost less than the GTO Twin Turbo in Japan, it was NOT considered a special addition - it was actually an option. They continued making MR models until the death of the platform.

It's most famous for that Best Motoring video where it beats an R33 Nissan Skyline GTR and pulls a 12.888 to 400M, I'm sure you've seen it :) VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The MR was only available from the factory in Japan, but you can find many in the grey markets of the UK and NZ. The MR was really just a lighter weight model - cloth seats, deletion of other things, the total weight loss was something like 100lbs (not much).

There seems to be a TON of back and forth on whether the MR came with 9Bs or 13Gs.

Unfortunately sources on the MR are pretty much non existent. I've heard confirmation on both the 13G and 9B coming stock on MRs, I'd check 3si on that. The best source on the MR is unfortunately on YouTube in the Best Motoring vid. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess quartermile times are not of that much importance to me (I enjoy driving slow cars as fast as humanly possible... my dream Mitsu is the assymetric Minica Lettuce), but good to know that it was priced lower. I will try to dig out a source from my library. I assume the lower-cost MR was an attempt at boosting sales in post-bubble Japan.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It was, yes as far as I know. It was aimed after the Nissan Skyline GT-R series as a kind of cheaper alternative. I can see why youd think of acceleration that way though, many people and car enthusiasts do. I think performance numbers are important for sports/GT cars as it's a reflection of what that type of car set out to do - go fast. I like to clean up vauge acceleration numbers and lap times of cars when I can dig up a magazine source with the numbers so people remember what the car ran with professional drivers behind the wheel. In the GTOs' case its faster than many people think and I think that's important to fans of the GTO and for car fans and ethuaiasts to know, as well as the general public. It was doing low to mid 13s at 101-105mph in the mid 90s, that's near exotic times then. I saw that you like kei cars, I love them as well. I love the Autozam 1 personally. And I love that your updating them, I was on a binge of kei cars and found scarce info. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

GTO MR section fleshed out?
Last time we talked -

Thanks. I guess quartermile times are not of that much importance to me (I enjoy driving slow cars as fast as humanly possible... my dream Mitsu is the assymetric Minica Lettuce), but good to know that it was priced lower. I will try to dig out a source from my library. I assume the lower-cost MR was an attempt at boosting sales in post-bubble Japan. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It was, yes as far as I know. It was aimed after the Nissan Skyline GT-R series as a kind of cheaper alternative.

I can see why youd think of acceleration that way though, many people and car enthusiasts do. I think performance numbers are important for sports/GT cars as it's a reflection of what that type of car set out to do - go fast. I like to clean up vauge acceleration numbers and lap times of cars when I can dig up a magazine source with the numbers so people remember what the car ran with professional drivers behind the wheel.

In the GTOs' case its faster than many people think and I think that's important to fans of the GTO and for car fans and ethuaiasts to know, as well as the general public. It was doing low to mid 13s at 101-105mph in the mid 90s, that's near exotic times then. I saw that you like kei cars, I love them as well. I love the Autozam 1 personally. And I love that your updating them, I was on a binge of kei cars and found scarce info. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the GTO MR (whether it's just bold like it is) with cited info if possible - it's been elusive since it's debut in Japan and many wonder what the exact differences are. Theres probably tons of info on Japanese websites but I'm not fluent and my computer uh isn't awesome. What I do know for a fact: 1. Short ratio gears were an option to the MR package. 2. It deleted features for weight loss, possibly the Active Aero and 4WS. In fact in a BM video it shows the two and the MR doesn't have the active aero, I can link that if needed. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And the GTO MR section VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and the GTO MR section VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

GTO MR
GTO Twin Turbo MR - The ‘Mitsubishi Racing’ or MR was a lightweight TT without 4WS, ABS, ECS or Active Aeros, but was mechanically identical to the normal GTO TT. Chassis numbers for the MR should start Z15A.

Found this on a UK site. https://forum.gto.club/t/gto-3000gt-model-differences/17692

Thought it may help since you did the MR section. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

, VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletions
Why? I have a solid sentence from a legitimate source. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you mean autozine? Toasted Meter (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If that's not legitimate i apologize. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, autozine is one guys blog. And I can see how you would think it's some kind of real publication. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I saw the 'zine' part and assumed it was legit. Thanks for looking out. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this link allowed?
I've seen many wiki car pages use 0-60.com or dragtimes.com They don't list sources, so I figured they aren't useful. Is that the case? VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please ignore this question. Thank you. I can't seem to delete it. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

GTO MR
Is any video hosting site ok to use as a source? What about a forum page? Or a Japanese page? Any suggestions on how to get a legit source so its cited correctly? VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you asking what qualifies as a reliable source? Specifically user generated content? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can cite a video if it's from a real publication like Best Motoring, forum pages are almost never reliable. A source being in Japanese is no mark against it, as long as it is from a real publication (not user generated). One other line of enquiry you might try is asking Mitsubishi directly, they may have some kind of corporate archive, and if you can talk to the right people (probably at headquarters in Japan) they might be very helpful. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What tidbit of information are you trying to provide a source for?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It says at the top of this article that *merging is being considered* ?
Are we really going to make seperate pages for this platform? What page would be merged? I thought you had fought to keep this whole platform - Dodge Stealth, Mitsubishi 3000GT, Mitsubishi GTO - on one page, which I totally agree with.

Let me know, thanks! Hope you are well, and I love the new pics! VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's about merging Infobox tractor with Infobox automobile, nothing to do with this page. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a car nut forum
The entire article is filled with largely informal jargon that isn't going to mean anything to some readers, without any links to other articles to even give them an idea. It is not "a 4 bolt main", that is short informal use for a 4-bolt main bearing cap. "Long shifter". "24V V6". You can't assume that every reader knows what all this stuff is, use the correct, formal terms. Wide ratio gearbox, 24 valve V6 engine. Link to the relevant articles. And don't call the turbocharged version "the turbo". This is not a thread on a car forum. It is "the turbocharged model"

Also, it starts out saying "Early models were internally designated Z16A and incorporated full-time four-wheel drive, four-wheel steering, active aerodynamics with automatically adjusting front and rear spoilers, sport/tour exhaust modes and electronically controlled suspension (ECS)." Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these all optional features? This makes it seem like these were standard features found on all 3000GT/Stealths. I am pretty sure most of this stuff is only found on the turbocharged models. The base models were FWD, and I doubt the 164hp SOHC V6 came with active aero, all-wheel steering, dual-mode exhaust, etc. The last I heard, only the turbocharged versions were available with AWD, at least on the Stealth model.

And while I'm at it, what on earth are "articulated blister caps over the front struts"? The only definition of articulated that I know of is that something moves. Why and how would the bulges in the hood move?

Idumea47b (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)