1989 Nissan 240SX Reviews - Page 2 of 9

1989 Nissan 240SX 2.4 I-4 from North America

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.4 I-4 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 0 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired158000 miles
Most recent distance175000 miles
Previous carNissan 240SX

Summary:

Mustang Killer

Faults:

Idles low and rough when in neutral, sometimes dies at stoplights. Multiple trips to the mechanic finally determined that there is a hole in the catalytic converter, which tweaks the O2 sensor.

4 times, the car died while running on the interstate, felt nothing but a slight jerk, but started right back up, and was impossible to tell anything happened, but still scary.

Hatchback spring is broken, have to open trunk manually with the key and pry it open.

Steering column needed to be replaced, but hey, it's old.

Oh, and the motor for the automatic seat belts died years ago, and the rear seat belts seriously make no sense. None of them fit together.

General Comments:

This is my first car, and for being 15 years old with 175k miles on it, it runs Better than my moms 98 Mazda Protege.

Seriously fast, sexy look, and an engine that's almost too big for it.

I'm only 5'8, feels fine for me, but anyone over 6' is going to have problems.

I've fit a total of 8 people in it, but you can only comfortably fit 1 1/2. ;)

No matter how fast you are driving, it still feels like it's only going 35 miles an hour. Deceptive almost...

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th June, 2005

14th Jun 2005, 10:32

Your Nissan has 140HP tops.

A Mustang GT has 300HP.

The only way your car can kill a Mustang is if you literally crash your rust bucket into it.

2nd Jul 2005, 20:14

I have 96 240 and for the people cut off the 4 banger this has it can out run most v6's. and comparing a 4 cylinder to a V8 is just plain stupid, its twice the size and besides, it's a ford (I can say that because I have one).

1989 Nissan 240SX from North America

Model year1989
Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.6 / 10
Distance when acquired210000 kilometres
Most recent distance230000 kilometres
Previous carFord Focus

Summary:

Hot damn this car is amazing!!

Faults:

So far nothing has gone wrong with my car other than some person driving into it and its battery dying after a long time of it being parked.

The seats are kind of worn, but the car is 16 years old.

General Comments:

The 240SX is sleek and lots of fun to drive.

The 240sx handles very well.

The 240sx is rather good on gas, it is comparable to my previous car (a Ford Focus)

The cabin of the car is quite roomy for a 2+2 the back might be a bit cramped, but the front is roomy and not a bother at all.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th May, 2005

1989 Nissan 240SX Fastback 2.4 SOHC from North America

Year of manufacture1989
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 2.4 SOHC Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired190000 miles
Most recent distance190000 miles
Previous carToyota Pickup

Summary:

A sleeper tuner.

Faults:

The car ran really bad and got about 10 MPG on the highway. But after a change of spark plugs and a basic tune-up, the car started getting about 20+ MPG again.

The previous owner tried drifting with it and slid into a ditch. The hood is slightly bent on one side and the front bumper was cockeyed. There was also a small dent right behind the rear passenger tire.

The speedometer also does not work accurately or at all sometimes.

General Comments:

The car is a real attention getter. I have had numerous people in Civics and Eclipses want to race me.

The car is very fast and it handles like it's on rails.

The car is overall fun to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 18th May, 2005

9th Nov 2005, 12:52

They are nice cars, my dad used to have a 200 and my buddy at work is fixing up his dads old 240. They are quick and sporty. Definatly agree that it is a sleeper tuner. Some nice racing seats a turbo, NOS, paint and nice system and it is a nice two seater. Or one seater if you want to drop another 20 pounds.

12th Apr 2006, 00:50

I realize this is a year old post but I want to say my 2 cents.

1. If the Silvia originated in the mid 1960's... and the Z originated in about 1970... how are you saying that the Silvia descended from the Z if the Silvia came out first??

2. Keep the KA. If it runs good turbo it. Ideal mileage for a 15 year old car for prestine running shape is about 90-140,000 miles. Less mileage means it wasn't driven enough and has carbon build up... driven too much means..well,...you know what it means.

3. Silvia front end doesn't mean jack. Don't waste money on it. Slap a Zenki lip on it and call it a day.

Average review marks: 7.9 / 10, based on 39 reviews