One thing Cobravert did not mention, is that it comes down to the driver as well. You can have the baddest car on the planet, but if you can not drive, you are not going to win a lot of races.

Which race? Rally? Drag? Circuit? On dry, or wet? Which set of tires? Etc. Please refer to at least answer the first question

I think Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4, was a pretty advanced car for its time. In addition to turbo charged engine, that car had a four-wheel drive that Mitsubishi borrowed from Lancer Evolution line. Rear wheels on 3000GT were turning by a few degrees to improve the handling, also that car had an active aerodynamics. Even though, I love Shelby cars, I thing it would be pretty hard for Shelby Mustang to beat Mitsubishi.

This is too open ended of a comparison. There are 3 model variants for the Mitsubishi 3000, and 2 1965 Shelby GT's. If it's the base model 3000 or the 3000GT, either Shelby wins. Getting into the meat of it; Mitsubishi 3000 VR-4 twin turbo V6 320 hp 0-60 4.7 seconds 1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds Achilles heel - it's heavy 1965 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 289 N/A V8 271 hp 0-60 5.4 seconds 1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds Achilles heel - old tech, not meant for straight line speed. No Shelbys were. 1965 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 428 N/A V8 355 hp 0-60 6.1 seconds 1/4 mile in 14.3 seconds Achilles heel - also very heavy for a sports car. The 428 wasn't up to it's later in life specs where it was closer to 400 hp, and the car lightened. This year in particular, they were a pooch, but very, very collectible. So of these, if it's a drag race, the Mitsubishi 3000 VR-4 would just edge the GT 350, trounce the GT500. But in all fairness, comparing these head to head isn't really a fair assessment. Compare the Mitsubishi to the Mustang GT of that era, the Mustang would beat it. It's all a matter of power to weight, and the different technology in them for their times. But you're comparing cars roughly 30 years apart in age and evolution in tech.