Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61
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.
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...
Look on this website. 0-60 times.
http://www.geocities.com/edmodscarspecs/
Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)
1989 Nissan 240SX 8.8 16.5.
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.
Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)
1982 Ford Mustang GT 8.0 N/A
1985 Ford Mustang GT 7.2 15.9
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.3
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1.
That doesn't seem much faster to me than the Nissan 7.9-9 0-60 time.
Take your 240 to a nissan dealer, most nissans have a unlimited warranty on the seat belts, I have a 94 sentra and had the same problem and the dealer fixed for free.
I've go an 89 240sx and I've murdered a few mustangs myself so don't tell me its slow. All the mustang times posted are GT's and all have engines that are about twice as big. Shouldn't they be twise as fast. Not even close. 200sx's have a 2.0L engine and they smoke gt mustangs left and right. how do you explain a 1998cc motor ripping apart a 4.6L?
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).
I'll explain how your 135HP 4 cylinder engined car beat a
Mustang GT. The Stang GT did not deem your little 4 cylinder a worthy opponent and probably was laughing so hard he coudn't drive. Everyone who is a car enthusiast knows a 4 or 6 cylinder Mustang is slow (comment for the person who stated that posted quarter miles and 0-60 are
only for Mustang GT's).
And for the person who thinks his 240 could do 0-60 in
7.9 sec.'s he's dreaming. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Car and Driver reviews on a 240 did 0-60 in 9.6 sec.'s.
That's Mustang 6 cylinder times.
Just bought an 89 240SX, 80K on it for $250. Threw a cold air intake a big flow resonator on it for kicks. Great results. But if you want one of these to go fast you need to engine swap for an S13 or 14 turbo. I plan on doing it if I can save up the loot.
"The only way your car can kill a Mustang is if you literally crash your rust bucket into it."
That is just too funny!
But seriously, I think you all need to grow up.
Too many of you Nimrods maim & kill innocent victims, trying to prove your "manhood" by racing your sleds.
The only things you're really proving is your immaturity and your ignorance.
A 240sx can beat a mustang gt... if you think about it.. the mustang is much heavier and more bulky than the 240...the 240 is light and more aerodynamic.. a mustang gt has a v8 right?...but if you did a engine swap to a 240sx..its possible to get over 280hp stock... plus twin turbo.. so id like to see someone race a 240sx that has twin turbo and over 280hp against a mustang..b/c the pony would eat the 240's dust.
I own a 93 240 and it runs fairly respectable. However I also own a 2001 cobra and I must say there is absolutely no comparison.I've owned 2 mustang gt's and the only way a stock 240 could take a stock gt is by being towed behind a cobra.
Hey buddy, where talking stock not modified, if I were to supercharge my 300HP Mustang GT, I'd surely get close to 400HP and leave you and your 240 so far behind that all I'd
see is a small dot in my rearview mirror.
A factory 240 gets its arse handed to it by the Mustang GT, I'm sorry there is no comparison... and if you want to talk mods... Super charge the beast if it's a 5.0 that's from 225 hp to about 360 then you put a dif intake manifold on about to 400, some pipes 410-415..air intake upgrade about 420 so do you think the 240 can take a 420 hp beast?? and that's not even over 3k worth of mods.. a 240 would have trouble getting to 425hp with 3k in mods.. I love the 240s and I don't hate them its just come on not compareable. Now a 97 240 could prolly whip a 97 6 cylinder stang.. but not a friggin GT! hehe.
Doommarine44.
Depending one what country your stock 240 is from I wouldn't say a Mustang GT can beat a stock 240. Mustang are played out.
I really feel sorry for you 240SX owners, buying a 140HP
"Sports Car" only to find out it's not a performance car.
I don't have anything against the 240Sx, just their owners
who make false claims about beating Mustang GT's or any other
high performance cars like Corvettes, Z28's or Trans Ams, come on, these cars are out of your league. For the person who thinks their 240 could do 0-60 in 7.9 sec's, wake up from your dream. Where I come from, 240Sx's know better than to pick a race with a real car, they usually try to race 2DR Civics and 2DR Sunflowers and 2DR Cavaliers, all in the same category.