Venturi 400 GT

Venturi 400 GT: which 3.0 MT to choose (400 hp vs 408 hp)

Two catalogue versions of the Venturi 400 GT share the same name, 3.0 MT, the same Coupe body, the same production window (1994–1998), and the same 5-speed Manual / RWD layout. They are not the same car. One is 3.0 MT at 400 hp; the other is 3.0 MT at 408 hp.

Two catalogue versions of the Venturi 400 GT share the same name, 3.0 MT, the same Coupe body, the same production window (1994–1998), and the same 5-speed Manual / RWD layout. They are not the same car. One is 3.0 MT at 400 hp; the other is 3.0 MT at 408 hp. The buying question is not “which generation” — there is only 1 generation — but which of these two mid-engine turbo sixes matches the use you actually have for a 1990s French Coupe.

Both versions sit in the same generation (`1 generation`, 1994-01-01 to 1998-12-31). There is no restyle listed as a separate generation. Everything below is a comparison of those two 3.0 MT lines, using only the figures in the catalogue and arithmetic on those figures.

Specs that decide the purchase

Shared hardware, on paper: 2975 cc, Gasoline, 6 cylinders V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, Turbo, Central engine, Distributed injection (multi-point), 95 fuel, 5-speed Manual, RWD. Peak power is quoted at 6000 rpm on both. The split is in output, torque curve, compression, mass, economy data, wheels, and rear brakes.

Power, torque, and what 8 hp actually buys

3.0 MT at 408 hp makes 8 hp more than 3.0 MT at 400 hp (408 − 400), and 6 kW more (300 − 294). Specific output on the same 2975 cc is 400 ÷ 2.975 ≈ 134.5 hp per litre versus 408 ÷ 2.975 ≈ 137.1 hp per litre — about 2.6 hp per litre extra, not a different engine family in the catalogue.

Torque is the clearer gap. 3.0 MT (408 hp) lists 540 Nm at 4100 rpm; 3.0 MT (400 hp) lists 520 Nm at 4500 rpm. That is 20 Nm more, and the peak is 400 rpm earlier. If you care about how the mid-engine Coupe pulls in the middle of the 5-speed Manual, the 408 hp line is the one with more twist and an earlier peak.

Compression ratio is 7.3 on 3.0 MT (400 hp) and 8.3 on 3.0 MT (408 hp) — 1.0 higher on the stronger tune. Bore and stroke are listed as 73 × 93 on the 400 hp version and 93 × 73 on the 408 hp version. Those are the catalogue strings; they are not interchangeable, so treat the two 3.0 MT entries as distinct mechanical specs, not a typo of the same row.

Both versions quote a top speed of 290. Acceleration 0–100 is not measured for 3.0 MT (400 hp) and not measured for 3.0 MT (408 hp). You cannot rank sprint times from this catalogue. The extra 8 hp and 20 Nm do not come with a published 0–100 advantage.

Weight, kg per horsepower, and why the lighter 400 hp car can still be the “driver’s” pick

3.0 MT (400 hp): kerb weight 1000, gross weight not measured. 3.0 MT (408 hp): kerb weight 1150, gross weight 1400.

The 408 hp Coupe is 150 kg heavier at kerb (1150 − 1000). Mass-to-power:

• 3.0 MT (400 hp): 1000 ÷ 400 = 2.50 kg per hp
• 3.0 MT (408 hp): 1150 ÷ 408 ≈ 2.82 kg per hp

The lighter car has the better ratio by about 0.32 kg per hp. Power-to-weight the other way:

• 3.0 MT (400 hp): 400 ÷ 1000 = 0.400 hp per kg
• 3.0 MT (408 hp): 408 ÷ 1150 ≈ 0.355 hp per kg

So the “stronger” 3.0 MT is not the denser performer on these numbers. If you buy on catalogue power-to-weight, 3.0 MT at 400 hp wins. If you buy on peak torque and earlier torque rpm, 3.0 MT at 408 hp wins.

Gross mass is only given for the 408 hp line: 1400. Payload on that version is 1400 − 1150 = 250 kg. For 3.0 MT (400 hp), payload is not measured because gross weight is not measured. Ground clearance is 120 on both. Fuel tank is 90 on both. Wheel sizes are not measured on 3.0 MT (400 hp); 3.0 MT (408 hp) lists 235/40 R18 and 295/35 R18 (front/rear stagger implied by the two sizes, not by extra commentary).

MPG, economy, and the version that actually has figures

Fuel use is the other hard split.

3.0 MT (400 hp): city not measured, highway not measured, mixed not measured, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured. 3.0 MT (408 hp): city 20.5, highway 9.5, mixed 12, CO2 not measured, eco class not measured.

There is no mpg conversion in the source data; the numbers are as listed. Mixed 12 on a 90 tank implies a mixed range of 90 ÷ 12 = 7.5 (in the same distance units as the consumption figure). Highway 9.5 implies 90 ÷ 9.5 ≈ 9.47; city 20.5 implies 90 ÷ 20.5 ≈ 4.39. Those ranges apply only to 3.0 MT (408 hp). You cannot claim the 400 hp car is thirstier or more efficient: those three consumption fields are not measured.

If you need documented economy for a catalogue comparison or a trip plan, the only version that supplies it is 3.0 MT at 408 hp. If you refuse to treat missing economy as “better,” do not pick 3.0 MT (400 hp) on fuel grounds.

Chassis, brakes, and what the extra mass is paired with

Front and rear suspension are the same English labels on both: Independent, spring / Independent, spring. Front brakes are Disc on both. Rear brakes are Disc on 3.0 MT (400 hp) and Disc ventilated on 3.0 MT (408 hp).

The 408 hp car is the one with ventilated rear discs in the data, and the only one with listed R18 tyres (235/40 R18, 295/35 R18). Combined with 150 kg extra kerb weight and 250 kg payload (from 1400 gross), that version reads as the more fully specified road Coupe in this catalogue. The 400 hp version reads as the lighter, less fully documented spec: wheels not measured, gross not measured, consumption not measured, rear brakes not ventilated in the label.

Engine placement is Central on both; drive is RWD on both. There is no AWD option and no Automatic option in the data. Choosing a version is not choosing a gearbox or a drivetrain.

Generations: there is nothing to “skip” or “wait for”

1 generation covers 1994–1998, body Coupe, 2 versions, both 3.0 MT. There is no second generation to buy “for the facelift,” and no third to buy “for the engine.” Year-to-year change inside the generation is not broken out beyond the two modification rows. You are not choosing 1994 versus 1998 as separate generations; you are choosing 3.0 MT 400 hp versus 3.0 MT 408 hp inside the same span.

Which version to choose

Choose 3.0 MT (400 hp) if you want the lowest kerb mass in the model (1000), the best kg-per-hp in the model (2.50), and you accept that 0–100, consumption, CO2, eco class, wheels, and gross weight are not measured. You give up 8 hp, 20 Nm, the earlier torque peak (4500 vs 4100), 1.0 of compression ratio, ventilated rear discs, and listed R18 tyre sizes. Top speed is the same 290.

Choose 3.0 MT (408 hp) if you want the higher output (408 hp / 300 kW, 540 Nm), documented mixed 12 / city 20.5 / highway 9.5, a published gross 1400 and 250 kg payload, 235/40 R18 and 295/35 R18, and Disc ventilated rears. You pay 150 kg of kerb weight and a worse 2.82 kg per hp. Top speed is still 290; 0–100 is still not measured.

Do not choose on 0–100 or on “which generation is faster.” Both 0–100 values are not measured. Both generations are the same 1 generation. Do not choose on tank size or clearance: 90 and 120 are identical. Do not choose on cylinder count or fuel type: both are 6, V-shaped, Gasoline, Turbo, Manual, RWD.

A short arithmetic summary for a buyer who only wants the delta: the 408 hp 3.0 MT is +8 hp, +20 Nm, −400 rpm on the torque peak, +1.0 compression, +150 kg kerb, +2.6 hp/L specific output, −0.045 hp/kg power-to-weight, same 290 top speed, and the only version with measured fuel use. The 400 hp 3.0 MT is the light specialist with more holes in the spec sheet. That is the whole choice on this catalogue.