15,000...

ONLY for ADVANCED technical discussion about the 240sx!
Borntohula330
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:05 am
Car: Saturn SC1

Post

Hola ok here the plan in 6 to 7 month (too far away) but times is flying right now just counting the payments left on my 2000 Sc1 worst car maybe not ever but its not good on enough rambling

so i will should have 15,000 in my back account if not im getting a WrX maybe or justa bunch of socks

well i want to get a 92 s13 and im torn between just a bolt on turbo kit or 20 swap after fixing everything that will be wrong with this car

Im 19 so i dont have much experience and i really would appreciate the help from all of you 240 gods haha



User avatar
redtop91
Posts: 16325
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:05 am
Car: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start

Post

Borntohula330 wrote:
well i want to get a 92 s13 and im torn between just a bolt on turbo kit or 20 swap after fixing everything that will be wrong with this car

Im 19 so i dont have much experience and i really would appreciate the help from all of you 240 gods haha
Turbo kit, SR, all the same effect. Both the KA-T and the SR20DET (Unless you are talking RB20DET) are essentially the same as regards capability but they have very distinct characteristics which can't be discerned by just how much HP or torque each puts down. I'd ride in a car that is KA-T and then one that is SR (in that order) and decide what you want from there. No doubt some people are going to come in an praise the KA's torque over the SR and that's fine but realize you'll never be making any real torque with a 4 cylinder motor. Welcome to NICO. Screw the WRX. 240's are way funner, cheaper, and lots easier to work on.

User avatar
twistedragdoll
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 10:25 am
Car: 1996 Nissan 240sx

Post

redtop91 wrote:
Turbo kit, SR, all the same effect. Both the KA-T and the SR20DET (Unless you are talking RB20DET) are essentially the same as regards capability but they have very distinct characteristics which can't be discerned by just how much HP or torque each puts down. I'd ride in a car that is KA-T and then one that is SR (in that order) and decide what you want from there. No doubt some people are going to come in an praise the KA's torque over the SR and that's fine but realize you'll never be making any real torque with a 4 cylinder motor. Welcome to NICO. Screw the WRX. 240's are way funner, cheaper, and lots easier to work on.

Borntohula330
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:05 am
Car: Saturn SC1

Post

thanks for the help

i cant wait for next year thats all i ever think about haha

my buddy is a V Dub fan goal put his thoughts to shame lol

User avatar
480sx
Posts: 4085
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 Pearl White 240sx

Post

redtop91 wrote: 240's are way funner, cheaper, and lots easier to work on.
So fun it deserves its own word!

User avatar
redtop91
Posts: 16325
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:05 am
Car: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start

Post

Hahahaha 240sx's circumvent grammar laws.

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

redtop91 wrote:Screw the WRX. 240's are lots easier to work on.
I actually disagree with that, I spend as much, if not more time working on Subarus than Nissans, I enjoy working on them because they are very well thought out, most things are meant to be removed quickly and easily to facilitate easier service between stages at rally events. Them guys were thinking when they put those cars together. Nissans and Hondas are a close second though.


Return to “240SX Technical Forum”