Not Your Average SR Swapped 240....

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

May be true, but it will be fun for the first 35 seconds of driving it. :mrgreen:



Naw, Black 6spd MKIV Turbo Hardtop any day of the week. Except Tuesdays - which would be a nice MKII.
 
Does that mean I win ?

And the "Mk2" (Second Gen... Marks are generational changes.. I almost got hunted down by SOGI for this argument) would be my personal favorite. I don't need to be the fastest in the world, I only need to be faster than those around me.
 
EGProject @ Jan 27 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
I'll just take a 2JZ-swapped Corrolla.





But yeah, Celerity has a point - Supra > 240. Sorry, but after they sorted out the MKIII, the MKIV has gone on to be one of the only Japanese cars whose resale value GOES UP year after year.

Dorifto - 240, Speed - Supra. Touring - Supra, Power - Supra, Brakes - Supra.


Hrm... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

it only goes up in resale value because people are ludacris enough to pay it.

i think its not even worth discussing "supra vs. 240" the cars were built on entirely different levels. Z vs Supra or GTR vs Supra is a much better discussion.

nissan driveline is delicate? they've been using the same R200 differential in the vehicles for 30 years. Slightly modified of course. Even the full drag guys still use that differential. I do understand what you mean by complex vs. simple.

I'd just like to put this out there. Which car holds more records and titles?

3sgte vs. 2jz ? If i remember correctly, didn't TOP SECRET at one point ue a 3sgte in a MKIV Supra for the silver state challenge rather then use the 2jz? makes ya think
 
That motor into that car is dumb. It just is, youre wrong if you think otherwise.

240>supra.... I dont care what Cel has to say. The 240 can turn, a supra... cannot.... calling it substatial is like saying paris hilton's list of sexual partners is "substantial". CADILLACS weigh less than those things.
 
NissanNiNjA2nd @ Jan 28 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
240>supra.... I dont care what Cel has to say. The 240 can turn, a supra... cannot.... calling it substatial is like saying paris hilton's list of sexual partners is "substantial". CADILLACS weigh less than those things.
Click to expand...


Have you ever driven a 240?




They are cheep, budget sports cars. They are only fun once you have changed the motor, upgraded the breaks, and done a full suspension upgrade . . . .
 
I like the 240SX more than the 300Z anyday. It's got a more usable power range, gearing and interior. The sunroof is pretty bitchin', the interior is shoddy and the plastics are 3rd rate. The seats (As in all Nissans) are for shit. But the interior is laid out properly, the shifter and wheel is in a correct place, and the gauge cluster is easy to live with.

The 240 should, realistically, be compared to a Celica. But no one is doing that because it's RWD. So to make it fair, I'll compare it to a 1985 GT-S.

The GT-S for the win. More torque (Yeah.... SOHC.. so what, the valves do their job) and the transmission is stronger, the rear is too. The interior is laid out and high quality. I think the 240SX didn't make that much progress over the S11 200SX / Gazelle / Silvia of the gen before. The GT-S is the Supra with a 22RE, basically. Available in Hatchback, Coupe and the rare Convertible (By ASC). These cars are comparable.

The worst thing Toyota did was make the Celica FWD, seriously. But I guess since they had the MR2 there, it was granted.
 
Celerity @ Jan 29 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
I like the 240SX more than the 300Z anyday. It's got a more usable power range, gearing and interior. The sunroof is pretty bitchin', the interior is shoddy and the plastics are 3rd rate. The seats (As in all Nissans) are for shit. But the interior is laid out properly, the shifter and wheel is in a correct place, and the gauge cluster is easy to live with.

The 240 should, realistically, be compared to a Celica. But no one is doing that because it's RWD. So to make it fair, I'll compare it to a 1985 GT-S.

The GT-S for the win. More torque (Yeah.... SOHC.. so what, the valves do their job) and the transmission is stronger, the rear is too. The interior is laid out and high quality. I think the 240SX didn't make that much progress over the S11 200SX / Gazelle / Silvia of the gen before. The GT-S is the Supra with a 22RE, basically. Available in Hatchback, Coupe and the rare Convertible (By ASC). These cars are comparable.

The worst thing Toyota did was make the Celica FWD, seriously. But I guess since they had the MR2 there, it was granted.
Click to expand...
Celica's arent ever fwd. I am sorry, but that is not a celica. You cannot go from a Rwd platform screw the entire car over make it,act,feel, of work like the pervious ones and still call it the same car.

the last celicas were made in the 80s.

as for the 200sx.... WINS. the v6 200sx hands the 240sx its ass, and the CA18ET.... YES PLEASE! cept for the stupid coilpacks.... SCREW THAT!
 
My S14 feels much more 'stable' when driving down the road, turning, and when driving at high speeds than my honda, but you can tell it was never meant to be a 25k car when new.
 
I hated my 84 and two 87 200SXs. They were ok (None were talkers). I had a 1982 talker hatchback and I loved that car. Shotty quality, the brakes seized every 9 months and the original engine was weak for what it was touted to be. The L28 swap did well for that car (I didn't do that swap, my ex-brother-in-law did). It basically became a Supra with even MORE toys loaded into the dash.

And I had a re-recorded voice tape in the back, that was cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top