6th Sep 2005, 12:42

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.

27th Oct 2005, 12:49

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.

5th Nov 2005, 23:44

OK first of all, the Nissan 240SX comes stock with 155HP and 160 ft lbs of TQ (92-98) not 135. It can run very good for an engine of its size, but I am sure it can't take a Mustang GT. Its just too powerful and I own a 1992 Nissan 240SX Fastback so I'm not being biased, I just don't think it is fast enough to beat a Mustang GT.

6th Nov 2005, 07:06

Have pulled 7.86 seconds. Mid 7 seconds is possible if you are willing to burn your clutch a little.

9th Nov 2005, 13:07

All this talk about 240's and Mustangs, I think that if both racers, one with the stang, and the other with the 240, put both the same amount into both cars, the 240 would come out first. When you buy a stang, it's at least 20 grand for it. Now the 240, your paying under 10 grand and this is close to new. when you add in the extra 10 grand to the 240 to make it even with the price spend on the Stang, I don't' know, you do the thinking of which car will come out 1st!

10th Nov 2005, 06:06

WHAT is the previous commenter babbling about?

Does spending less money on the 240 make it faster than the Mustang?

22nd Nov 2005, 11:50

At last, a 240SX owner/potential owner who knows what he's talking about. I admit the 240Sx is a reliable, sporty car, but like the above person said, cannot skmke a Mustang.

Yes, the Grand National is a very powerful car, and rare as well.

25th Dec 2005, 22:16

Haha, the only mustang GT's a 240sx can beat is the mid 90's automatics with the 5.0. I've seen my friend beat one in his 89 sohc manual, those automatics were dogs though. Nothing to brag about.

19th Mar 2006, 21:07

The best shot a stock 240 has to outrun a mustang gt would be with a 96-98 4.6.The best a stock 96-98 gt can do is a high 14-low 15 in quarter. And that's with a 5-speed and a good driver, automatics run mid 15s.Pretty much any stock 5.0 can run mid to low 14s with a decent driver. Stock 240s run about 16 flat so it is possible a good driver in a 240 could beat a not so good driver in a 96-98 gt. The 99-04 gts with 5 -speeds can dip in the 13.9s with a good driver, so there really is no way a stock 240 would have a chance against one of them. And forget about anything with a snake or mach-1 on the fenders (unless it's a v-6 with cobra badges).

23rd Mar 2006, 19:45

I like mustangs as much as anyone, but I think a LS1 out of a 98-02 SS camaro or ram air T/A would rock in a 240.Might as well throw the 6 speed and rear end under it too.

2nd Apr 2006, 20:09

I own a 2003 gt mustang and I have raced a 240 and totally dogged on him! stock for stock no comparision none no way! so end this stupid discussion and come race me ill show you that youll get wiped out.

12th Apr 2006, 01:03

You guys must not know about the nissan 240sx cuz I have a 92 240sx fastback and I ran 15.2 and if you were to do a sr swap youll run 13's all day with about 13 psi and smoke stangs all day so don't even say anything if you know nothin bout 240's and I bet you didn't even know they came in two different size of engines sohc and dohc sohc runnin 16s and dohc runnin 15...ask any real drag racer...kids these days know nothing.

12th Apr 2006, 09:27

I'm going to ignore the fact that single cam and dohc engines have nothing to do with displacement. Its people like this that are beginning to make me ashamed to own a 240sx, as it is fastly approaching civic-status. It's sad because 240's are great nimble little cars, they're incredibly well balanced, but hardly fit in stock form to be the weapon of choice for "real drag racers".

If you want to drag race, get a Mustang, it has what drag racing necessitates, a solid rear axle and a big engine up front. Don't waste time, effort, and money converting a car meant to take the twisties at a good pace into a straight line terror, it will cost more than its worth.

16th Apr 2006, 19:07

I guess since all "real" drag racers apparently run 15.2 in the 1/4 mile, John Force will be trading his 7000hp 4.6 second 330mph mustang funny car for a real drag car, like a 150 hp 240 with a huge wing and a fart can.

18th May 2006, 16:04

Just wanted to give people here an update... a new record has been set for the KA engine of 718 WHP with a built engine C16 fuel and 43 PSI of boost. Don't believe it?

Too bad...


3rd Jul 2006, 14:18

Aside from the performance I'd like to know how he fitted 8 people into one of these cars.

21st Aug 2006, 00:15

OK, I was reading some of these comments and had a few myself to share.

First of all, GT meant nothing until the late 90's, all GT meant from a 87 to 93 was power windows doors and maybe leather.

Second of all, the 91 5.0 was was exactly the same as the 89 to 93, so how could it be the worst fox body they made? In the late 92s they changed their pistons from forged to something else, but that only made a difference if you were going to add boost.

I own a 88 mustang 5.0 and my friend just got a 89 240sx, and there is no comparison performance wise. And whoever said that a Mustang and a 240sx with the same amount of money put into them the 240sx would come out on top was wrong, Mustangs, especially 5.0 Mustangs are one of the cheapest and easy cars to mod. Just my 2 cents.

23rd Sep 2006, 23:42

Why are 240sx being compared with Mustangs?

Mustangs were MADE TO DRAG. With their big V8s and live rear axle, they are great platforms for drag racers to develop on.

240sx were MADE TO TRACK-RACE. Taking corners fast with confidence is what it's all about.

Clearly, America is not 240sx's home turf. It amazes me that people are comparing two totally different animals!

In stock form, the Mustang will pass 240sx with ease. But are you really surprised? Twice the cylinder count and twice the displacement... it's only RIGHT that Mustang should win.

It's a different story on the track however...

1st Jan 2007, 19:51

240 beats Mustang. Right. How about this: Consumer Reports got a 1989 240SX to 60 in 10.5, with a 5-speed. Conversely, they tested a 1989 Mustang LX with the automatic, and it did 0-60 in 8.0. And if you want to say, Oh, they went easy on that 240, then they damn well went easy on the Mustang too.