This is my car.
Well, this is my second car. Technically, this is my third car, and my fifth vehicle, but as I only own two vehicles at the moment (both cars), this is the second one. The first vehicle was a 1985 Honda Nighthawk. This was a beautiful motorcycle, although it suffered from chronic electrical problems. I owned it from 1987 until 1992, when I went to Germany and a friend sold it for me. My second vehicle was a 1982 Ford LTD. I liked this car, mostly because it was 80% hood. I consider it my poor-man's foray into Cadillac land. My third vehicle was a 1966 Chevy pickup, which my dad had owned since the beginning of time, and which was stolen from me within two months of my owning it. That was a good vehicle because it had been running forever, and you could take it entirely apart with a flathead screwdriver. It really pains me that it was stolen, and I could really use it now. My fourth car is a 1992 Nissan 240SX. This was my first Really Great vehicle. It is sporty, comfortable, and as reliable as gravity. I still own this car, and recommend it (any post-92 model) to anyone considering a car in this class. The 240SX is not a sports car, per se, but is a "sporty" car. Is makes a good touring and around-town car. It has decent trunk space, but the rear seats are most useful when folded down to make more room in the trunk. As I have said, it is very reliable. This web page is dedicated to my fifth car, a Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4.
I love this car.
I've owned it for three days now, and have driven it once (as of
First, the specs. My 1991 3000GT is a VR4 Twin Turbo, all wheel drive, all wheel steering, ABS, active suspension and active exhaust speed machine. It has 300 horse power, and can do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, when driven by someone who knows how to drive it like that. If I tried it, I'd probably just kill the clutch. The average timeslip for this car I've seen tells me that this car (stock) does a quarter mile in about 13 seconds, achieving a speed of 100MPH. It does 1/8 mile in around 9 seconds, at a speed of 79MPH. The tech sheet that comes with the car says it will do 160MPH on the track, and the speedometer runs up to 180. The car I have has every option you can put on the vehicle, except for the sunroof (the lack of which, I'm grateful for). I'm very glad the first owner bought the car with all the extras; they make a real difference in my driving pleasure. Power windows, power & defrosted side mirrors, CD+tape, cruise control, automatic AC, leather powered seats... there's even a powered rear lifter that elevates when you pass 50MPH. The first owner installed a K&N air filter, which should give an additional 8 HP or so. The first thing I have to do is get a 60K mile tune up, which costs about $1,400. Ouch. This has to be done, however, as the timing belt is a hot spot in this car. If the timing belt goes while you're driving it, you can damage the engine valves, which costs another $5,000. No thanks; I'll get the tune-up. The car has no other common problems which are expensive to fix.
I function best on comparisons, so that's how I'll describe the car. First, you can't compare a motorcycle to a car. Almost any bike will spank almost any car for pure speed, and my 650cc Nighthawk was no exception. The 3000GT, however, may have some advantage over the Nighthawk in some cases. The bike was quicker off the mark, but the 3000GT has more passing power. This isn't suprising when you consider the Nighthawk's 800 pounds to the 3000GT's 3803. The engine on the Nighthawk wasn't huge; it just wasn't pulling much weight. The 3000GT, on the other hand, has to haul a lot of metal around. As you get up in speed, the power difference becomes more of a deciding factor. Anyway, as I said, any comparisons between a bike and a car are destined to show the car in poor light; my Nighthawk was a 650cc bike, which is a touch on the small side for a bike; add another 100cc's to that (750 is common; most bikes are in the range of 750 to 1100cc's) and the bike will beat the car.
Of the vehicles I've owned, the only vaguely reasonable comparison can be between the SX and the GT. I'm not going to do a feature by feature comparison between the 240SX and the 3000GT, because that would be unfair to the SX. My SX is lacking in any real features and is, as I said, a sporty car, rather than a sports car. The GT has an unfair advantage over the SX in speed, as the GT has 300 horse power to the 240SX's 149 horse power. There is simply no comparison in speed. The GT is a barely tamed beast; the SX is merely responsive. The SX feels more solid than the GT. Even at 3803lbs, the GT feels "plasticky". The SX has a more relaxed clutch and transmission. Curiously, the SX and the GT shift more alike than the Eclipse and the GT. The clutch on the GT has a definitely smaller range; you have about two inches of play in the clutch, whereas the SX has almost the whole range engaging the transmission. The GT rides more roughly than the SX; you get more bounce and noise. It isn't much more, but the SX is designed around comfort, whereas the GT is designed around performance. If my SX had the features my GT does, the SX would beat the GT for comfort, hands down. As it is, the SX is more comfortable for passengers, as the amenities in the GT are mostly for the driver. Most of the car's systems can be controlled from the steering column, including the audio system.
There is more luggage room in the SX, but the rear seats in the GT are superior to the SX's. In the SX, the rear seats are ornamental, whereas in the GT, they are functional. I wouldn't go on a long drive with four people in the GT, but you can definitely transport four average size people. In the SX, you can effectively seat three people, but the third is usually seated sideways across both rear seats. The real difference is in headroom. There isn't more legroom in the GT, but people can sit up straight. Anyone over 5'5" has to hunch over in the SX rear seats. The SX is more roomy in the front seats than the GT, but not by much. The legroom length is comparable, but the SX is more open, and wider at the knees than the GT. There is a touch more headroom in the SX.
I can't overstate what a blast the GT is to drive, even when you aren't breaking the law. There aren't many stock cars out there that are faster than the GT VR4. Personally, I use the power mostly in passing, although I must admit that 80 in the GT feels like 60 in the SX, and the GT handles at 100+ speeds much better than the SX. It's easy to loose track of the speed in the GT, especially since, to fit 180 on the speedometer, they had to skip the odd tens (10, 30, 50, 70 MPH). The 60MPH mark in the GT is way down where 40 is on the SX. The GT handles much better, probably due to the AWD and AWS system, and the wider, lower body. The SX takes 40MPH curves at 60 pretty well, but even so, I feel more in control in the GT at 75 on a 40MPH curve than I do in the SX at 60. I must state, if it isn't obvious, that I'm not a performance driver; a friend of mine once drove my SX at what felt like 60 on 20MPH curves, but relativity ensures that the GT outperforms the SX, no matter who is driving.
I love the GT. The 1991 model received "Best of Class" for reliability, so I'm not expecting a lot of trouble with it. This is the same reason we purchased the 240SX; it also received high reliability ratings, and true enough, in 3 years and 60K miles, we haven't had any problems. I recommend either of these cars to purchasers, depending on what you want. If you want comfort, go for a loaded SX. If you want power, go for the GT VR4.
(I'll post pictures of the SX later. You can see parts of the SX in some of the pictures of the GT. I don't have pictures of the other vehicles. Sorry. I know you were really interested in the LTD...)