# 300zx vs 240sx



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

Just a general question. I am new to Nissans and on the market for daily driver with some balls. I hear that 240sx handle very well at the same time 300zx looks pretty damn good. Any opinions will be appreciated.


----------



## psuLemon (Apr 23, 2003)

what years, and are we talkin 300zx twin turbo vs the na 240sx.. details my brother.


----------



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

We are talking 1990 NA 300zx vs. 95-98 NA 240sx. Just general differences such as drivability, ease of repairs, reliability. Basically I am looking for a daily commuter that I can beat on and have a feeling that it has some power and handling. We are not talking racing.


----------



## Slayer2003 (Jun 4, 2003)

Considering you currently seem to have an LT1 powered car, I'd go with the 300zx. The 240 would just seem way too sluggish.


----------



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

Sluggish on pick up or sluggish handling? I just sold my LT1 but will be driving it till next week and I am looking at a few cars locally.


----------



## primerblack200sx (Aug 29, 2004)

well as far as doing repairs....it would be easier to work on a 240 and get better gas mileage


----------



## xbrandonx (Mar 27, 2004)

primerblack200sx said:


> well as far as doing repairs....it would be easier to work on a 240 and get better gas mileage


well the 240 he's talking about is OBDII and the 300 isn't so it may or may not be.


----------



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

I am going to look at 300zx tomorrow. Sell says clutch is dead. Car has 150k on the clock. He wants 2k. What do you guys think? It's a black 2+2.


----------



## CMA (Sep 7, 2005)

BUY IT! if it is in here 0.0

in here they are worth 10k to up


anyway in my opinion

300zx is great for enjoying, fast, can afford anything for it and z is very great for collection

240sx is great for daliy fast car and cheap... and it is good reliable car.


----------



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

we arent talking TT its NA


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

snowcrash1984 said:


> we arent talking TT its NA


The 90 300zx is 222hp to the crank stock and the s14's are 155hp to the crank stock. So na or not the 300zx still has a good bit of extra kick

Mitch


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

Only the 300zx weighs 600lbs more.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> Only the 300zx weighs 600lbs more.


The 1990 300zx 2+2 weighs 3313 lbs. The hp to weight ratio is .067 hp per lb. The tq to weight ratio is .060 torque per lb.
The 1995 240sx SE weighs 2753 lbs. The hp to weight ratio is .056 hp per lb. The tq to weight ratio is .058 torque per lb. 

So going by power to weight ratio's the 300zx is faster. The 300zx also has a larger wheel base by 2 inches.


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

Yeah, but the 300zx isn't as quick as it would seem if you were just comparing hp #'s.What does the longer wheelbase have to do with anything? A shorter wheelbase will mean better handling.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> Yeah, but the 300zx isn't as quick as it would seem if you were just comparing hp #'s.What does the longer wheelbase have to do with anything? A shorter wheelbase will mean better handling.


Well it's typical to have more weight considering it has a bigger motor and such. Whats it matter if it's not as fast as it seems? The guy said he liked how they look and wasn't sure of performance. I just proved that even while heavier it is still faster than the S14's. Thats all he really cares about. And how does a shorter wheel base promote better handling? I think you have that backwards. 

Mitch


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

I was just pointing out that the HP numbers aren't everything. Weight matters just as much as HP. And shortwheel bases improve handling. Why do you think Minis are so popular at track days. A wider wheel base will improve handling, but that is left to right. I'm talking about from front axle to rear axle.


----------



## Jason Lange (Aug 22, 2005)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> I was just pointing out that the HP numbers aren't everything. Weight matters just as much as HP. And shortwheel bases improve handling. Why do you think Minis are so popular at track days. A wider wheel base will improve handling, but that is left to right. I'm talking about from front axle to rear axle.


This depends on how fast you are usually travelling for handling. A longer wheelbase will handle better at higher speeds.


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

It will be more stable, but not neccessarily take turns better.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> It will be more stable, but not neccessarily take turns better.


Having a bigger wheelbase gives better corning cuz with a larger wheel base the car will not lean as much in hard cornering. The smaller the wheel base the closer you get to being like a jeep. Give a jeep a wider wheel base and tip over is no issue. When a car begins to lean in a corner it looses traction cuz all four wheels are not grabbing the road evenly. This happens more easily with a shorter wheel base. Why do you think that pontiac use to advertise there car(either grand prix or grand am) with a wider wheel base and saying "wider is better" ?

Mitch


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

As I said earlier, I'm talking about length from axle to axle, not from left side to right side. A wider wheelbase and a shorter wheelbase is good. A longer wheelbase and a narrow wheelbase is bad.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> As I said earlier, I'm talking about length from axle to axle, not from left side to right side. A wider wheelbase and a shorter wheelbase is good. A longer wheelbase and a narrow wheelbase is bad.


LOL. Now I get it. So then why did you post that when I stated the wheelbase difference considering what you were refering to had nothing to do with what I was saying?

Mitch


----------



## kaptainkrolllio (Aug 8, 2005)

You said that the 300zx had a larger wheelbase like it was a good thing. I thought you were talking about length rather than width, in which case it would not have been a good thing. I guess we both got a little confused.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

kaptainkrolllio said:


> You said that the 300zx had a larger wheelbase like it was a good thing. I thought you were talking about length rather than width, in which case it would not have been a good thing. I guess we both got a little confused.


LOL. yeah we did. But now it all makes sense. You were correct in what you where thinking and I was correct in what I was thinking. Problems solved.

Mitch


----------



## alexnds (Oct 1, 2005)

*300 Zx vs 240 SX, price and condition is the key*



sentra97gxe said:


> The 1990 300zx 2+2 weighs 3313 lbs. The hp to weight ratio is .067 hp per lb. The tq to weight ratio is .060 torque per lb.
> The 1995 240sx SE weighs 2753 lbs. The hp to weight ratio is .056 hp per lb. The tq to weight ratio is .058 torque per lb.
> 
> So going by power to weight ratio's the 300zx is faster. The 300zx also has a larger wheel base by 2 inches.


I feel this is a good discussion. In terms of dollars, which are also, not to be ignored, you're comparing an early 90's 300 ZX to a Mid 90's 240SX. So, if talking equivalent dollar-for-dollar relationship, the car that is roughly 5 years older in the 300 ZX family is in the same price class as the 240SX is that is a mid 90's car.

Now, the thing to remember is the early Z cars, (not counting the 240Z) are the VG series of motors, also found in the Maxima, Nissan Quest, and Nissan Pathfinder as late as 2001. However, the Z car and Nissan Trucks and Maxima are the VQ series motor.

In rough numbers, in the GXE maxima, that SOHC motor made about 165 HP, and in SE trim, DOHC form, it made about 190HP. However, with Y pipe and B-pipe changes, and better intake, another 30 HP could easily be gained. So, without extensive modifications, an easy gain of 30 HP can be realized with a cat-back exhaust system. However, consider this fact: the 2.4 Liter motor in the last generation Altima, and also in the 240 SX put out about 155 HP, so at 2.4 Liters, it was putting out about the same power as the V6 in the 1994 V6 GXE Motor, at least, in the broader sense of the word.

So essentially, a big 4 cylinder, with today's electronics and fuel metering is in the same class as an early 90's V6. That is a big statement. The V6 has more torque and is a richer motor overall, but the present day, late 90's car: 240 SX is closer in spirit to the original 240Z and 280 Z that launched the Z car in the first place. The New Z car (2006), to me, looks like some sort of imitation on the Porche 944 theme, especially from the back and I think Nissan has lost touch with its buyer base after the French connection.

If you're looking for big power however, the early 90's V6 is the VG series, (1989-1994) is not easily modified to be supercharged, but only the VQ series (post 1995) can have a Stillen Supercharger attached to it, and is OBD-II compliant.

So in essense, the question goes back to price. Will a 190-200 HP motor do, that can NOT be supercharged, in an early Z car, that is an overall older car (11 to 13 years old) in relationship to a 165 HP motor, but in a car that is 5 to 7 years newer overall. If price is equal, I would pick the newer car, since there is more to a car than motor alone. The cost of replacing any broken parts will be less in relationship to the overall cost of the car, in the newer car.


----------



## mjd4277 (Aug 18, 2005)

primerblack200sx said:


> well as far as doing repairs....it would be easier to work on a 240 and get better gas mileage


Not to mention it's cheaper to work on and insure a 240 than a 300!!


----------



## Dhunter (Jul 2, 2005)

alexnds said:


> I feel this is a good discussion. In terms of dollars, which are also, not to be ignored, you're comparing an early 90's 300 ZX to a Mid 90's 240SX. So, if talking equivalent dollar-for-dollar relationship, the car that is roughly 5 years older in the 300 ZX family is in the same price class as the 240SX is that is a mid 90's car.
> 
> Now, the thing to remember is the early Z cars, (not counting the 240Z) are the VG series of motors, also found in the Maxima, Nissan Quest, and Nissan Pathfinder as late as 2001. However, the Z car and Nissan Trucks and Maxima are the VQ series motor.
> 
> ...



You fail to forget that the SE had a different engine than the GXE. the GXE kept the VG motor, and from 92-94 the Maxima had the VE30DE. ALSO, the Z32 which is the car in discussion does NOT share the same motor as the Maxima, Pathfinder, and Quest. They used the SOHC VG engine. The only car which had the VG30DE was the 300ZX, IIRC.


----------



## alexnds (Oct 1, 2005)

*300 ZX vs 240 SX*



snowcrash1984 said:


> I am going to look at 300zx tomorrow. Sell says clutch is dead. Car has 150k on the clock. He wants 2k. What do you guys think? It's a black 2+2.


Don't buy it. There is an old saying: "I'm too poor to buy something too cheap". At that price, the car is being "gotten rid off". You may get it cheap enough, but the real question is, how much more you'll have to spend to bring it into shape. 

yes, the 300ZX is the more pure sports car than 240SX, but for more money, you can get a slighly newer 240SX that will be cheaper to fix and newer to begin with. In other words, 1990-1991 Z car is same price as 1995-1997 240SX car. But, it's the newer car!

So when you're buying an old car, performance is not the only question, but total dollars spent is question. Let us know hot it turned out


----------



## snowcrash1984 (Sep 22, 2005)

It actually turned out quite well. I did get a 300zx 1990 and so far I am happy with it. We installed Centerforce dual clutch with counterweight balances on it. This car need new tiers. After getting it on the lift, we discovered that one of the power steering hoses is leaking. Center joint on the drive shaft is worn out a bit. Other than that, I think it’s a decent car. I am enjoying it anyway. Didn’t get a chance to really get on it hard yet and clutch is not burned in yet.
240sx reminded me too much about my older Integra. It’s not a bad car but I just felt in love with 300zx.
In comparison to my LT1 Firebird, this car is much slower. Handling so far is very impressive. Very easy to get rear, back under control. Unlike on American car, every gadget on this one, works fine.


----------



## mjd4277 (Aug 18, 2005)

Congrats on the ride. Just remember, brake jobs aren't exactly cheap on a 300ZX!


----------



## Zen31ZR (Mar 24, 2004)

mjd4277 said:


> Congrats on the ride. Just remember, brake jobs aren't exactly cheap on a 300ZX!


Change that to "nothing is". But even if only used as a pimp mobile and a cruiser, the Z is still twice the car the 240 is. Makes it all worthwhile.


----------

