1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 Twin-Turbo from North America - Comments

5th Jul 2006, 17:11

I am considering to buy a 1992 VR-4 that has 35,000 original miles for $14,000, and is in perfect condition. That's twice book value, but I was wondering if the car is still worth it?

6th Jul 2006, 08:43

Forget book value. Sometimes I wonder where those prices come from. To get a better idea as to price, look on eBay and see what these cars are going for. Weigh in the fact that you are looking at a very low mileage example. Do a search for the last 7 days and see what current bidding is. Look on Cars.com and Autotrader to see what else is available. If the car is in excellent to pristine condition, no mods or mods put in professionally, I would say that is not a bad price for the car. Of course lower would be better. Of course you have to remember that it is getting harder and harder to find good low mileage VR4. Look at the alternatives I have mentioned, and have it checked out completely. Good luck.

8th Jul 2006, 10:19

Thanks for the response. I have agreed to purchase the VR-4 at 14,000. The car is on its 2nd owner who purchased the car 3 years ago when it had about 7,000 original miles from a lady who had it in a climate controlled garage for 10 years before selling. The owner is a Doctor in his late 40's who drove the car, but extremely good care of it. I ran a carfax on the VR-4 and everything told checks out. I made the decision to purchase this car instead of a 40,000 mile 2 owner Buick Grand National from a 70 year old man retired from GM who said he would sell the car for the same price as the VR-4. It was a VERY tough decision. The Buick is already at collector status and value seems to increase regularly and from a collectability and resale standpoint would seem to be the wiser choice. But I made my decision based on the features and performance of the also rare unmolested VR-4. I'm going to drive this car and enjoy it, maybe down the road another Grand National will be in my sights, but right now I think the VR-4 is 10 times the value from a performance standpoint. Thanks again.

9th Jul 2006, 06:33

$200,000? Lets see a used Viper with a Hennessy Twin Turbo conversion pushing 1000 hp and just enough $ left over to buy a 2006 stock Viper. Pretty hilarious comment.

9th Jul 2006, 14:42

Not saying the VR-4 is a bad car, but, better than a Grand National "from a performance standpoint"? A Grand National runs a 13.4 or so quarter mile, depending on which magazine tested. Needless to say, a VR-4 does not. And, I know, it's a "big American drag-racing boat with no handling," but the Grand National also rates higher on the skidpad than the VR-4, which gets an already-high 0.97 or so, again depending on testers. The worst-gripping example I saw of a GNX got a 0.99. and the Grand National's 300hp is rated like all GM vehicles (maybe not Cobalt SS), at the wheels, not "claimed at the crank HP" like the Japanese do it. So 300 GM horsepower becomes at least 375 VR-4 hp. Hard to believe a 3.8L twin-turbo would make more power than a 3.0L twin-turbo, I know. So, I must assume you're talking about the amazing performance of the many cool gauges in the VR-4. You've got the GNX beat hands down when it comes to blinking lights.

10th Jul 2006, 12:45

By the way, could you please tell me where you got your Skidpad results on the Buick Grand National (not the GNX) VS. the 3000gt VR-4. I would like to see where the AWD/AWS VR-4 was outperformed by the buick regal. Thanks.

10th Jul 2006, 20:25

Yes I do believe the GNX ran a faster quarter mile than the Grand National... after all, it was a limited 547 units of a special edition of the Grand National modified by Mclaren, more horsepower and upgraded interior, suspension, etc. And was probably faster than the VR-4. I was not even comparing the VR-4 to a GNX, I was comparing it to a Grand National (you do realize there is a difference, right?) The buick GN in 87 and the GNX in 87 were 2 different cars. I pesonally love the GN and I'm not trying to run it down, I'm just saying that in my opinion in OVERALL performance the VR-4 has the edge.

16th Jul 2006, 21:31

Congratulations on the purchase of your VR4 with 14,000 miles. It sounds like you got a great deal.

21st Jul 2006, 14:49

The Buick spins like crazy. I saw one against a VR4 and the VR4 ate it for lunch - it wasn't even close. I also saw an Eclipse with minor engine mods, a stock turbo and intercooler smoke a Saleen Mustang 97'. Turbos are a must for racing.

10th Sep 2006, 18:32

I'm thinking about getting this vr-4 for $8995, and I know its probably overpriced, but I want one pretty bad. It has 90,015 miles, but everything is good condition. What do you guys think, is it worth it?

14th Sep 2006, 01:04

I just bought a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 Twin Turbo, its pearl white, with all black leather interior, and it has 98000 miles on it and I would say that it is in good condition besides a slight common lifter tick... i paid $6,500 is that a good deal? or should I have shopped around a bit more?

25th Sep 2006, 18:16

The lifter tick is common... they all have that. You need to do the 60,000 mile tune up if it has not been done already, this is very important. The price you paid sounds about right if the car is in good shape and seems to be taken care of. I have had mine for a few months now and I can't begin to tell you how much I love driving this car... the best $$ I have ever spent on a vehicle. I installed a manual boost controller and cold air intake ($150.00 for both) and with 13 lbs. of boost this car is a blast!! have fun with your new baby... and join the 3si forums, there is tons of members with information and tips!!!

27th Jun 2010, 15:07

So I'm seeing the big argument has to do with the argument over which car is faster; a Grand National or a VR-4... Well first off, they aren't even in the same category. You're comparing apples to oranges. Muscle to high tuning high revving compact engines. I'm sure the GN could beat the quarter mile time. But the VR4 would dust it in the turns.

Furthermore, you're claiming this is the fastest pre 200k car? That's just not true, because the Porsche 959 made in the 80's had 0-60 times of 3 seconds and top speed of 220. FAR faster then either of these cars.

HOWEVER I'm personally in love with my 93 Dodge Stealth RT/TT, so I'm going to go ahead and say I'd take that over a GN any day.

8th Jan 2011, 21:17

I'm looking at a 92 VR-4 in good condition with 80k miles for $4500. Pretty good deal?? What do you think?

9th Jan 2011, 11:26

Okay, I know this is an old post, but even in 2004, cars like the Z06 Corvette for around $70K or so would wipe the pavement with one of these! This was a cool car when it came out, but it really isn't all that fast compared to anything after 2000.