Talk:Nissan 240SX

Merge?

I propose this should be merged with Nissan 180SX or vice-versa. As some examples, Toyota Altezza, the Japanese version of the Lexus IS300, redirects to Lexus IS, and Mazda Roadster redirects to Mazda MX-5. This creates an odd double standard. Should this be merged into 180SX or vice-versa? -SkylineBNR34 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Original uncategorized comments

The information provided in hre original "stub" is incredibly inaccurate.

"noob" status.

I have submitted corrections.

-- The 1998 240sx was not the "last 240sx in North America", it was the last 240sx period. The 240sx was unique to North America, and was a distinctly different car from the 200sx, 180sx, or Silvia. The S15 paragraph was left for continuity, but really does not belong in a topic discussing the "240sx". The articles from 200sx, 240sx, Silvia, and Nissan S-Chassis really need to be combined into a well-constructed single article, as they are all really the same car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.161.13 (talk • contribs) .

Overhaul

I did a lot of editing on this page, got rid of the "S15" part, and added more info for specific model years. I also removed some opinionated sentences. I also added some more illustrations.Sean1978 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions, but in the future please limit yourself to a few edits at a time. It is very hard to handle edits when the history of a single user takes up at least a page. I have reverted the edit with the intent of reintegrating most of the new info. However, making extensive changes like that to an article is very counterproductive without discussing it first.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry I'm new to this just getting the hang of it and have a lot of enthusiasm, I think I understand how the small revisions are supposed to work now, I just did a lot because the page was full of info on the Nissan Silvia that didin't need to be there and was also pretty incomplete in other aspects. I'll try not to go so big in the future. Sean1978 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Its all good. I'm reworking it now, trying to combine the best of both worlds. So far I've noticed a couple descrepencies. Zenki model extended partway into 1991, and the caption of the picture conflicts with the section. AC was available on the '90 fasback (I have it).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the AC thing you are talking about, I got that from consumer guides reviews http://used-cars.autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/reviews/article/?id=2218 I know all years of 240SX had AC, I think what I'm trying to illustrate is the XE trim was AC and leather standard (AC wasin't an option) Sean1978 05:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, XE trim =/= Leather. IIRC, XE trim was only available from '89-'90; both my 240SXes are XE's, neither one has leather. Both have power everything and AC, including a motorrized sunroof.

Leather was an option.66.245.37.173 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)kazuo

I think I combined the best of the two article versions. I hope I didn't come off too agressively, but its important to make sure that these matters get handled quickly before too many third party edits get made that can confuse the process. I think I included all the new facts you introduced.
If I missed anything please put it back in. And by the way, welcome to wikipedia.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

didin't come off to aggressivley, I wasin't sure how the moderation worked on Wikipedia, now I have a better idea. I just went to work. I do have some more modification suggestions for this entry but I'll do them at a slower rate next time I go at it with specific notes. Sean1978 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

by moderation did you mean like as in moderators with extra powers? In that case the only moderation is done by admins. You'll be suprised how much power regular users actually have. I can talk about it more on your talk page if you want.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

I took the liberty of reordering the links, and am posting this to try and establish a consensus on order. As I see it, it would make sense to Put 240sx.org at the top, consistent with its title being the most direct. Then, all the other sites directly related to the 240sx alone should go after it, with region-specifics at the bottom of this grouping. Then the specialized links like the Ka-T link (which I'm not even sure really needs to be there). After that, all the general nissan links, once again with region specific at the bottom. If anyone has a problem with this order please make a note here with an explanation before/when changing it, so that some kind of order can still be maintained.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I continued the theme somewhat, I think you've got the right idea. A reader who just wants to know about the car in general is probably not so interested in local club events or the inner workings of a turbocharger system. AKADriver 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the guidelines at WP:EL, I removed most of the links. Liks to forums just aren't kosher. For anyone who might be offended because their forum isn't listed, mind you, I'm a member of most of them (though I've been inactive since I sold my last S13). External links should be links to sources, or to reliable information that's too in-depth for the article. Forum information is unreliable by nature. I'm almost tempted to remove the 240SX CCA link, since their site doesn't have all the great info it used to have (copies of magazine reviews, original advertising) and seems to be just another front page for a forum now, too. — AKADriver ☎ 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that point, AKA Driver. 240sxCCA (240sx.org) now has more tech info than ever before, and is widely recognized as THE authority on the 240sx. The information is simply consolidated and moved from where it was previously. Please see also 240sxTech.com.

I would concur with Oni as well - 240sxTech.com is enormous in its breadth and scope, has FAR more information than it did when AKADriver sold his S13, and 240sxCCA is now on its 12th year of existence (240sx.org). One would think that would warrant an exception. Also, the links that are currently present on this page are arbitrary and far from helpful. 70.176.198.131 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Image removal

- what happend to the S13 zenki picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean1978 (talk • contribs) 19:24, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC).

It was removed because it was a possible copyright violation. This article could definitely use new pictures, on that note, though. AKADriver 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll upload another one (of either my car or one of my friends) as soon as I can get one. I contrinuted all of the other pictures and they are of my friends cars.. Sean1978 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nissan 240SX Performance Modification WIKIBOOK

We need some help on a WIKIBOOK we are working on about a related topic. Take a look and contribute if you can, thanks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nissan_240SX_Performance_Modification Sean1978 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

this needs to be cleaned up

I just had a look at this article after a long time and some of this is pretty rediculous for the average reader. read THIS:

The Zenki (前期, lit. preceding period) was sold under model years 1989 through 1990. It came in two body styles: fastback (SE) and coupe (XE). The coupe was closely related to the Japanese-market Silvia. It differed from the Silvia by having retractable headlamps (United States headlight height regulations prevented the use of the Silvia headlamp arrangement), and a 140 hp (105 kW) 2.4-litre SOHC KA24E engine with 3 valves per cylinder instead of the 1.8-litre DOHC CA18, with no turbocharged engine available in the United States. The fastback was closely related to the Japanese-market 180SX, but likewise had the KA24E engine. Four-wheel disk brakes were standard, with antilock brakes as an option on the SE. Both models were offered with either a 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual transmission. Coupes had a Head-Up Display showing a digital speedometer as part of the optional Power Convenience Group.

Too much information about the "180SX" and the "SILVIA". It's just confusing. It's like if I wrote an article about a truck by desribing what it didin't have in relation to a car

I edited this down to make it more concise, and hopefully easier to read. Floodo1 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"The truck is like the car except the truck has a long bed that can hold cargo, it also is taller than a car and weighs more"

sit a woman who is buying a 240sx from a used car lot in front of that article and she is going to walk away more confused that when she sat down. 71.68.37.86 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And? Since when did wikipedia become a buyers guide. To my knowledge it isn't. Its an encyclopedia. Thats like saying you should be able to expect a physics I student to comprehend every section in the String Theory. Wikipedia should not be used for car buying advice. That would imply assertions of value, worth, usability, and all sorts of other things that violate NPOV and are NOT encyclopedic content. There are guides for this on many sites that I wont name here. Honestly anyone who comes to Wikipedia to look up car buying information aside from basic info (make, model, years, engine, etc) are foolish for doing so. Everything in the article is encyclopedic, correct, and understandable when visiting the associated articles. In all honesty someone who wont understand that will get what they do need from the rest of the article and need not comprehend that to get the information they came for and leave. Your truck and car argument is quite amusing. I've had simmilar experiences in politics. Vague reference that can be barely related to the subject. A truck and car are classifiably different. The only reason an assertion isn't made about how a truck is similar and different to a car is because it is painfully obvious how it is and is not. The reason this needs to be here is the exact opposite. This information is relevant. It describes the history of the car, and its development over its lifespan. Both things that are part of making an article encyclopedic. With maybe one minor exception I'm going to look into there is honestly nothing wrong with that section. The one problem I do see is that some of the information is slightly misplaced and repetitive. I have corrected this in an effort of good faith.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

" Your truck and car argument is quite amusing. I've had simmilar experiences in politics. Vague reference that can be barely related to the subject."

wow, that's condensending. I'm sorry I gave my opinion. oh well, anyway. I think that engine options in a 180SX or a JDM Silvia belong in the articles for the the 180SX and Silvia.

read this line: "was sold under model years 1989 through 1990. It was powered by a 140 hp (105 kW) 2.4-litre SOHC KA24E engine with 3 valves per cylinder instead of the 1.8-litre DOHC CA18,"

Instead of? could my 240SX have came with a CA18DET? did the 240SX come with a CA18DET? I'm not going into any more detail but you should at least hear me out on that sentence because that's the way this entire article is written.

and this one: "with no turbocharged engine available in the United States." was there a turbocharged engine available in a 240SX in some other country? I don't think there was. Maybe we should add a line saying that there wasin't a supercharged model or a V8 available as well.

Or maybe we should go over to the 180SX article and say that it Came with a 2.0 Liter SR20DET instead of a 2.4 Liter KA24DE. or add a line "with no 2.4 liter option available in Japan"

point taken. I'm going to edit the page, at the top, to make it clear that the 240sx is the American-market version of the Japanese-market Silvia & 180sx, as well as the world-market 200sx. This should help anyone understand the references to the non-240sx engines and bodywork

Fastback

Nissan did use the term "fastback" in the literature for the 240SX. It isn't technically correct, but it was used to differentiate it from 2-box hatchbacks like the Golf, Civic, etc. "Liftback" was another term used by Toyota and others for the same body style. Since "true" fastbacks disappeared after the 1960s, I don't think it's out of line to use Nissan's nomenclature and call it a fastback. — AKADriver ☎ 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nissan referred to this car as the "240SX fastback" everywhere I've seen it, including the original brochures, manual, etc. Regardless of whether or not it's a correct term, the car's model name was FASTBACK and that's what Nissan refers to it as in all of their documentation. I think it would behoove us to refer to the car by the manufacturer's correct model designations and maybe point out that Nissan's designation wasn't technically correct...rather than omit the fastback name entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.253.190.218 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007

I added a note on the fastback-hatchback situation, since while I feel its important to use the technically correct description for the article text, it is notable to anyone seeking 240sx information that they will likely encounter them referred to as fastbacks by Nissan and others. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

S13?

I've noticed the article refers to the 240SX hatchback as an S13 but, unless I'm mistaken, it's not a Silvia or an S13 at all, it's a 180SX. Am I mistaken or does this need to be changed? 71.98.156.88 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

S13 is the general chassis type for the '88-'93 Silvia, '89-'94 240SX, and '89-'98 180SX. See Nissan S platform. — AKADriver ☎ 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost thinking of covering this in the article. It's certainly a mistake that is made a lot. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

S13 Silvia headlamps

the line reads like this: (United States headlight height regulations prevented the use of the Silvia headlamp arrangement).

it there a reference for that? What if Nissan just didin't market it in the states because of negative consumer reaction? I don't think I would have thought a S13 silvia front was very cool back in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.179.163 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, there needs to be a reference for this. The only factual reason I can think of would be that the exact lamps used don't meet FMVSS because they're set up for RHD and use non-US bulb types like the H3C... but that's true for any non-US car and many come here with the same style lights, modified to meet US beam patterns and bulbs. Customer opinion is more likely, and selling both the coupe and hatch under the same name here, I'm sure Nissan wanted to keep a consistent look. — AKADriver ☎ 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Silvia lights are perilously low based on the 22inch rule that the federal DOT has in place. Though it still needs citation, that is more or less the reason.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but, even taking into account the "22inch rule," there's no source for this, and I'm removing the sentence. Without a citation or any sort of proof, it's conjecture, and thus unsuitable for the article. It would be the same as guessing why the 240SX never had a CA18/SR20 and stating it in the article as if it were fact. 66.245.37.173 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)kazuo.

Chuki --> Kouki?

Why were the 91-94 240's renamed to Kouki? I've ALWAYS known them as Chuki.--Loki240SX 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, as usual, people don't actually bother to do any research when they disagree with something. Its why Wikipedia is starting to get a pretty bad rep.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my recent reversion.

The following edits were reverted by myself for the following rationale:

• Change to viscous LSD in the wikilink causes a redirect. Please add it outside the wikilink or use the # section reference if it is put in again.
• Chucki to Kouki Either vandalism or unintentional misinformation, can't be sure, but nonetheless extremely incorrect. Kouki was only available on the S13 outside the US.
• Picture removal If you insist on removing that, please give a real reason. "Bad pic," "It looks ugly," and "I don't like it" are not acceptable reasons to remove a pic without discussion or replacement. (add:) In my personal opinion as an editor, I also believe we need a picture of a zenki S13, so until you can provide a better one or someone else does, all you're doing is deminishing the quality of the article by removing it.
• Simmilar to RX-7 No justification given for an edit that actually makes little sense. The RX-7 may share some minor characteristics on some far-reaching level but it is a far cry from being similar.

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss new pictures

Some users feel that the pictures are ugly and need to be replaced. What would you like to see in replacement images? Please discuss criteria here, so those with cars can contribute. Tips on angle, lighting, background, etc. would be helpful. Also, external links to images you like would be useful for comparison - a picture is worth a thousand words.

We should be looking for stock or near-stock cars, of course. I can provide pictures of a blue S13 Chuki once we have some suggestions. Ayecee 08:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The images as they stand now are fine. Essentially the criteria that would be best used are the following:

• One image for each variation of the 240sx (the variants not avail. in North America can be included under the proper named article)

• One for each S13
• One for each S14

• "Clean" images including no text, preferably no discernible tag numbers.
• Stock or near stock cars. No obvious visual modifications.
• Angles that appropriately show characteristics of the car, most aptly oblique angle shots, not head on or side on, because these reveal the most detail.

As of right now this is basically true. It also helps to have the seperate infobox pic to conform to vehicle page standards and give a clear format. Right now we have images that fill all that criteria, if someone has an objection to a specific image they really should present the following:

• Their objection
• The basis for their objection (justification and reasons)
• A potential solution other than simple removal of the picture (best served as an alternate picture)

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Made minor edits to "1989-1994 "S13"

Please discuss. I removed things that I felt were conjecture and had no factual basis (such as the comment regarding why the 240SX coupe didnt have the same bodywork as the S13 Silvia), and edited the stuff regarding "fastback/hatchback" to remain factual and unbiased.

The fact is, Nissan referred to them as "fastbacks," while they are commonly referred to by enthusiasts as a "hatchback."

Also, I feel that the article should be more specific when it compares differences between certain model-year 240SXes and Silvia's -- not all Silvia's are S13's, and not all 240SXes are based on a S13 Silvia. The 95-98 240SX is based on the S14 Silvia; it would be prudent to note the difference (hence why I use "S13 Silvia" in my edit). 66.245.37.173 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)kazuo

This has been discussed. Its not a fastback. To refer to it as a fastback would overstep OR and go straight to being an outright lie. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR, since Nissan used that term at the exclusion of any other. — AKADriver ☎ 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft can call internet explorer a p2p app. It doesn't make it true. It is critical that it is established early that the S13 is not technically a fastback. I suppose I don't see any problems with it being referred to as a fastback at every point after that, but it should probably be in quotes or italics to denote that it is not being used literally.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversions

I noted that the 270z front is listed as a conversion and implies that the car uses oem parts from the s30 chassis. this is not true, the front end is built to resemble the 270z's but is entirely comprised of aftermarket pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnsigma (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

aftermarket tuning section NEEDS CITATIONS.

As someone familiar with this car, I'm not going to argue with any of the content of that section, but when it comes to things that people do on their own time with their own cars, verifiability is very poor. Yes, people have done everything under the sun with the car, but I'm saying the section ought to only specifically mention modifications that are common enough that they can be verified by secondary sources. I know magazines like Sport Compact Car have covered things like Silvia front ends and SR/CA/VQ engines, and someone has probably written a piece about Hinson Supercars' V8 swaps by now. The more esoteric stuff is harder to verify.

Of particular concern is the edit war that seems to be brewing over the inclusion of the "Type X" model name when referring to 1996-up 180SX body parts. While I've personally heard the "Type X" moniker used to describe the entire 1996+ appearance package, it's not exactly correct, since all 1996+ models had most of the same parts. It's just jargon, and it's impenetrable to someone who doesn't already know the car. — AKADriver ☎ 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Daytime Running Lights

The article mentions that the Canadian versions of the S14 Zenki had lights in the ventholes (foglights) to be used as daytime running lights, however not all 240s have those. I myself have a 95 LE with a replaced bumper (and now I don't have foglights), but my daytime running lights are my headlights. Perhaps there can be some adjustment here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.5.243 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SE Limited Edition

I recently bought a '95 Nissan 240SX SE Limited Edition. I noticed this article makes no mention of the Limited Edition. The only differences I can spot with my Limited and the other SEs I've seen is that mine sports a power moonroof and 17" alloys instead of 16"s. Anybody have any other information on the Limited Edition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.193.16 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no SE Limited Edition. The S14 LE was introduced in MY 1997. Also the S14 never came with 17" wheels from the factory, so your wheels are either aftermarket or OEM from another Nissan/Infiniti car. As for the power moonroof, you may want to check that it is a factory moonroof and not aftermarket. Aftermarket moonroofs tend to leak, a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.215.117 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The moonroof is stock, operation of the moonroof is detailed in the original owner's manual and the Chilton's manual. It does not leak, even after being 14 years old. I can only assume that the dealership added the "Limited Edition" badge on the back of the car to boost sales or there's something Nissan isn't telling me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.193.16 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese names

Currently each revision is described as "The Zenki was sold for..." which implies that "Zenki" is an official name for the revision. The Japanese terms are just nicknames and while they do have technical meaning describing the different revisions, the 240SX is an American-market-only car (not Japanese, otherwise we should merge this article with the 180SX article) and these terms were never published or referred to by Nissan in America (if I'm wrong, please provide references). This might confuse people into thinking Zenki, Chuki, and Kouki are technical or official terms, while they are just examples of the tuner crowd using Japanese words instead of the same word in English. I would like to propose rewording the article to say something along the lines of "From 1989-90 the 240SX was built such and such way, and is referred to as Zenki..." etc. There's no arguing that Zenki, Kouki, etc have become synonymous with each revision among the tuner crowd, but Wikipedia should at the very least note that they are nothing more than nicknames referred to by owners. They are, as far as I know, unverifiable with respect to any official American Nissan literature. If I am mistaken and it is an official term, there should be references inline with the term. Please discuss. Wikipedia:Verifiability Bdc101 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. Beyond the tuner crowd, there is no official reference to those terms in any official Nissan literature that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.75.105 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sportscar vs Sport Compact

I reverted an anonymous edit back to list the 240 as a "sport compact." I think it's pretty clear that is the correct category for the car to be in. The only thing that differentiates it from cars like the Prelude, Celica, etc., is RWD, and those cars are all classified as sport compacts. Please discuss here if you think otherwise. Bdc101 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If this car qualifies as a sports car, then so does a Chevrolet Chevelle any year, as well as, a Ford Torino. Whilst some may aspire for the car be a sports car, doing so only diminishes the special niche this car occupies as a sleeper sport compact. CredibleSources (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

How informed or how research-prone are the readers assumed to be?

When the article says "The KA24DE did not come turbocharged while the SR20DET did" or "the turbo-charged and intercooled 1.8-liter DOHC CA18DET" it creates a number of redundancies to anyone who knows what those abbreviations mean. With links provided to the KA, SR, and CA Nissan engine families, anyone can learn that the T shows that an engine is turbocharged, among other codes.

Therefore, to anyone who knows how Nissan engine names work, (and this is the best engine naming system there is,) the first quote referenced above is interpreted literally as "The DOHC electronic fuel-injected naturally aspirated (implied) 2.4L KA engine did not come turbocharged while the DOHC electronic fuel-injected turbocharged 2.0L SR engine did" which goes without saying. The second quote referenced above is even worse: "the turbo-charged and intercooled 1.8-liter DOHC DOHC electronic fuel-injected turbocharged 1.8L CA engine" being entirely redundant aside from the mention of an intercooler, as not all turbocharged Nissan engines were intercooled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.184.203.6 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

4-wheel steering?

At some point I recall the 1993 s13 having four wheel steering. As well as electric seatbelts on certain models. 2600:6C55:78F0:81B0:40F9:14B:A4D8:1EA3 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)