Our Community is 705,000 Strong. Join Us.


240sx vs. 300zx tt


keeva1220
07-25-2005, 11:09 PM
The s13 240sx and the z32 300zx tt both seem to all have they're pro's and con's but which car would be best overall? I am debating this bc i am looking into possible purchasing one of the two in the future.

The s13 240sx is said to have great stock handling but for any serious engine mods ud prolly have to look into an engine swap.

The z32 300zx tt would probably need some suspension work but could pretty good performance gains with a few smaller mods (ECU, air intake, exasut, etc.)

Anybody feel like adding on to these short lists of pro's and con's?

Broke_as_****
07-26-2005, 12:39 AM
Well you are really looking at two cars with completely different design intents in mind.

The 240SX was never meant to be a sports car really. Sporty? Sure. It handles the corners pretty well, brakes have some good intial bite and the ease of the SR20 swap or a KA turbo kit is at the level of weekend mechanics. However the stock suspension will all have to go for any kind of hard use at higher speeds, the stock brakes heat up far too fast for prolonged braking and as mentitioned, any amount of power will require a turbo kit or engine swap. You can do a turbo kit for the KA motor for $1500 or so provided your engine is in good shape, otherwise it would be better to rebuild or replace it with a lower mile engine first.

The Z is a dyed in the wool sports car. Suspension work? Not really, it handles better stock that most cars will with aftermarket bits. Brakes are a bit undersized for the car at only 11.1 inches up front but 12 inch brakes that will fit under the stock rims are only a $550 upgrade (MSW (http://www.mwsmotorsports.com/phpnuke/modules.php?name=UpgradesBrakes) for FYI). The VG motor makes power with ease, 400hp is an ECU, cone intake and cat-back exhaust away. Even running stock turbos you can get down into the 11s at the 1/4 mile track and run in excess of 180 mph.

I own both. I was originally going to buy another daily driver and stick an RB25 in the 240. However I started adding up how much it would cost, where it would get me and I just bought the Z. I would have ended up spending more modifying 240SX then I spent just buying the Z and ended up with not much more performance then the stock Z and nowhere really to go short of turning into barely legal street going race car. The Z just has way more potential because it was designed to go fast.

It would really help to know what you plan to do with the car. If you are looking for a good daily driver that you can get some decent performance out of then the 240 is probably the way to go. If you are looking for a serious performance machine then get the Z.

k3smostwanted
07-26-2005, 12:43 AM
the 300zx Twin Turbo will need suspension mods to do what? compete with ferrari's?

there is no way this should even be a comparison on overall standard performance. do people simply forget that the 240sx was built for sporty economy purposes only in the US?

bottom line: if your buying a car for performance and you can afford the 300zxTT, buy it. there is a reason why 300zxTT's are selling for $13k-$25k and S13 240sx's should not be sold for over $4k.

the only cons i can picture against the 300zxTT when comparing it to a 240sx is simply it weighs about 500lbs more. but the 300hp and performance oriented suspension more than makes up for its weight.

EDIT: 4 minutes too slow...:dunno:

kman10587
07-26-2005, 01:58 AM
The 240SX is not in the same league as the 300ZX TT. There is no question that the 300ZX TT is faster in every way, so it all depends on how much you want to spend and how much performance you want.

Sticky
07-26-2005, 11:54 AM
The 240 SX is cheaper...but that's all that it has going for it against the 300zx.

G-man422
07-26-2005, 04:12 PM
300zx TT is faster, and overall better than the 240sx.

King Of Crunk
07-26-2005, 08:25 PM
the 300zx would pwn the 240sx in every way...

keeva1220
07-26-2005, 11:23 PM
I didnt mean to make myself sound stupid, i realize the cars a pretty different. I was just looking at all the pro's and con's of the 2 cars, sorry bout that.

King Of Crunk
07-27-2005, 12:05 AM
it'd be different if you would compare a 240sx with a SR20DET in it and with some mild suspension mods.....then it would be a pretty good comparo, but since they're both stock the 300zx pwnz the 240, however i think the 240sx LOOKS better...hehe:)

Broke_as_****
07-27-2005, 12:09 AM
What are you looking for from this car?

The 240 is a good daily driver. It's not very fast on the straight line and there isn't much you can do to it to get much power short of turbo kit or engine swap. It is pretty fun to toss around and it handles pretty good for a stock ride, the wide torque band of the KA makes it a pretty good canyon carver. Good intake and exhaust set up on a KA yields 150-160rwhp if I remember correctly. It will be cheaper to fix, insure, and fuel. It also has a very functional rear storage shelf mistakenly labeled as the "back seat".

The Z is a sports car. Parts aren't cheap, needs more routine maintence and insurance is not going to be pretty. But if you are looking for a performance machine then it is certainly that. Simple upgrades yield surprising power gains and a healthy aftermarket means the sky is the limit for upgrading. It's more than civilized rnough to make a good daily driver but I personally think it's kind of a waste to use it in such fashion.

liquidPunk
07-30-2005, 02:25 AM
the 300 without a dought is faster but i say unless you are rich or a great mech. you'd probably be better off with the 240, but id take a nice 300 anyday. though i did hear they had rusting out issues on the bottom (true?).

Broke_as_****
07-30-2005, 03:49 AM
the 300 without a dought is faster but i say unless you are rich or a great mech. you'd probably be better off with the 240, but id take a nice 300 anyday. though i did hear they had rusting out issues on the bottom (true?).

Never heard of rust being a problem. Don't really have to be rich but 300ZX is probably not for anyone on a shoestring budget. The non-turbo isn't that bad but the Twin Turbo is somewhat pricey to own.

k3smostwanted
07-30-2005, 07:36 AM
actually, nissan went to extreme measures to make sure the bottom of the Z32 doesnt rust. it has a textured surface which doesnt allow water to sit flesh on the surface and from what i can tell it isnt even metal on the bottom. it seems to be all urethane or a layer of urethane over metal on the side skirts....if your talking about the floorboards, i havent seen one yet that didnt get that rubbery undercoat layed on the undercarriage.

if you see a Z32 (90-96) with rust, its usually the strip of metal between the t-tops and the windshield.

its the Z31's (84-89) that have problems with rusting through the bottom.

liquidPunk
07-30-2005, 07:10 PM
ohh, thanks. id been wondering about that b/c mabye thinking of saving up for a 300zx tt or a 3000gt vr4, what does everybody say

King Of Crunk
07-30-2005, 07:22 PM
the older vr4s (1996-1998) look BEAUTIFUL, it all depends what you want in a car.....rwd or awd...if it was my PERSONAL decision i would go with the 3KGT because they're mid 13 second cars with looks to kill...

Add your comment to this topic!