300zx vx 240sx

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

scruffy63 wrote:well I didn't intend for this thread to be a 300zx bashing thread, I was just curious.why did they put the vg in there instead of an rb. which engine is a better engine. I know the rb has been tuned more, but other than that which engine is better?


have you seen a Z32 bay? not a whole lot of room ... i thought about RB25DET but measurements made me think twice


Goose93
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 300zx Twin Turbo

Post

With the V design the engine is obviously wider at top where you are looking. But if you get under the car there is definately more room.

The Z motor does have a lower center of gravity, but the RB I believe is a little lighter depending on which model you have. The biggest known issue to putting the RB in the Z is dealing with plumbing. The right hand drive Z's have issues with the Exhaust/turbo plumbing so you would be getting into a lot of custom work.

Some of my ideas for a N/A VG30 would be to raise the compression to start. Also porting intake, exhaust and heads. You would need to lighten the internal as much as possible. This would allow you to dramatically raise the rev limit and move the power band up similar to a Porsche for example. You would still have a sizeable chunk of torque with the V design though. This would still give you a good punch out of the corners.

I also have a few secret ideas for playing with the Intake plumbing and ECU maps.

If you combine this motor with a slicktop chassis with minor weight modifications you would have a very potent machine. You could then play with gearing by looking at the TT pumpkin and wheel sizes.

If you could

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

jdmfreak03 wrote:Well I hate to break it to you, but the days of the stick shift will be coming to an end.


actually if governments had their choice all cars would be manual for the better gas milage and emmisions. But some refuse to learn to drive stick...why i'll never know, manual onthe snow in rwd is a lifesaver.

User avatar
scruffy63
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:12 am
Car: my nissan 240sx

Post

NismoRb20S13 wrote:.............3350#'s vs 2650#'s isn't much when the chassis is more than 15 times more solid. .......................


a 1990 z32 weighs in about 3700. my friend also thought his car weighed 3400, but in the door it says 3700.

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

it doesn't weight 3700 that is way too much ihave a 2+2 and with out ac is under 3350 this is with teh VG30DE in it im sure it will go up when the TT is in. Alot of weight can be saved by removing useless crap like the power drivers seat it's like 150#'s just by i's self.

I agree most drive the Z32 for the sport and class, me im in it for the sport. My Z32 by the time im finished will weigh around 1000 more than my 89 240sx and have 3 times the power.

Id still put a Rb in it, even tho i love the VG and it is very capible.

Goose93
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 300zx Twin Turbo

Post

This is the Gross Vehicle Weight. This includes 150lbs per seat for the average weight of occupant and it also includes a weight/cubic foot of cargo.

What you need to know is more commonly refered to as Curb weight. 3700lbs GVW - (2 X 150LBS) = ~3400lbs.

There is also a pretty sizable difference between years and models. The N/A slicktop is the lightest - no turbos, sunroofs, hicas, automatic climate control, leather, or power seats. The N/A is next followed by the TT. The 94-96TT's where lighter than the earlier years with the change in hicas from Hydro to electric being the biggest gain.

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

haha good call

i have a 1990 NA 2+2 with t-tops - duh hahabut soon to be TT and by soon i mean mid-summer.

it's just to painfull to look at on jackstands if you know what i mean and the 240 is just not cutting it with it's ka24e.

VimyJ
Posts: 1969
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:09 pm

Post

The J30 and Z32 plans came off the same table. The J is really solid and it's interesting to think insurance rates are higher as a result. Makes sense. My car's insurance is not cheap.

Goose93
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 300zx Twin Turbo

Post

In the Nissan family the Z32, J30, and R32 are all very closely related. For some reason I want to say the M30 is in there also but I might be wrong.

I know the R32 and the Z share a lot of design and hardware elements. It's kind of nice to know I got the better GT version, although I might have a little bias.

Before any of you Skyline fanatics start in on me, Just remember the GTR off the showroom floor is not the monster most of you think of.

User avatar
Megaseth
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Car: 2002 Pathfinder SE
Contact:

Post

the skyline and Z guys havent always gotten along. the two departments argued that they each were first and so they're better, even though i think the skyline was around longer. but yes, they do share a lot of the same plans, mostly cause they're both the result of the MID4 concept car.

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

Quote » Just remember the GTR off the showroom floor is not the monster most of you think of. [/quote]

I agree it's a great car but the Z could and would hold it's own vs the rwd GT model. Tho i belive the AWD GTR might have a few advantages but still shares the same basic setup.

And id take a R32 GT in a heartbeat, dont get me wrong but id rather have RWD than AWD, plus they are cheaper so i can continue to dream about the day i can get it imported and get bent over paying for it.

Altiman94
Posts: 5891
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:13 pm
Car: 1989 Nissan 240SX

Post

I too am more rwd bias and would prefer a rwd car over an awd car, although I'd never turn down any model skyline if I had a chance to get one at a decent price that I could afford. I think all in all, it comes down to personality and what you like. I prefer the look of the skyline to that of the Z, but thats just me. I would have to drive them both to know which one I truly like better in that aspect. With that said, I love my 240.

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

I agree, id take any.. but if i had my choice id get an R33 GT and swap the RB26DETT in and be very happy. And yeah i love the R33 more than my Z, But as far as american sports cars go the Z still looks badass 14 years after it was first sold, if they re-released it instead of the 350Z i bet it would have sold like hotcakes with just the JDM 1999 style spoiler and bumper.

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

This has really become a great off topic fourm..... keep up the good work boys

NismoRb20S13
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:27 pm
Contact:

Post

Quote »Back to the 240 vs. 300 conversation...

How many of you 240 owners have aggresively driven a 300? Just curious because I have driven both. [/quote]

I have,

compaired to the Z's chassis my 240sx feels like a wet noodle with terrible understeer. But i still love it, she was my first RWD and i'll stand by her till the end.....just might not be driving it since i got the Z lol


Return to “General Chat”