There's something fishy about this car

1997 Mitsubishi 3000 GT * CALL NOW! *

And I like how it has ONLY 249,555 miles.

Looks like someone with terrible taste got a hold of a nice car and drove the piss out of it? It's a SOHC which I think is basically impossible to kill short of draining the oil.

lol 4 doors!

Yea 4 doors, different interior in different shots, and they list it as a manual when it clearly has an automatic shifter.

Maybe no one will notice?

lmao Why can't I find my rear two doors?! GAH!

Judging by their horrible detail job with that bra, it's an honest mistake. Honest as in, not malicious, but incompetent.

I would never call an N/A high performance. But then I grew up with the 69-75 Firebirds and camaros with 350,396,400HO,454SD V8 engines.
I would call that high performance. The 3.0L V6 N/A 6g72 engine just does not fit the high performance catagory for me.

Quote:

---

If you're looking for a high performance

---

:w00t:

Quote:

---

3.0L V6 12V MPFI SOHC

---

:Doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hammer

I would never call an N/A high performance. But then I grew up with the 69-75 Firebirds and camaros with 350,396,400HO,454SD V8 engines.
I would call that high performance. The 3.0L V6 N/A 6g72 engine just does not fit the high performance catagory for me.

---

Well if those are your high performance standards, the NA 6G72 should fit just fine. Those F-body's only ran 14's at best with those 400+ cu.in. engines in stock form, and weighed more than a VR4. The smaller 350 and 396's were even slower. I'd bet the NA 3S would do better round a track, and in some cases, go faster down the quarter mile than most of those.

Granted I wasn't around in that time so feel free to correct my Google research.

I'd definitely say the 3.0L NA 6G72 is at least some form of high performance. as long as it's DOHC and mated to a manual. It's not Ferrari fast, at least not in stock form, but even with the weight of the platform it is faster than most other NA v6's.