Talk:Nissan 240SX

message: I propose this should be merged with Nissan 180SX or vice-versa. As some examples, Toyota Altezza, the Japanese version of the Lexus IS300, redirects to Lexus IS, and Mazda Roadster redirects to Mazda MX-5. This creates an odd double standard. Should this be merged into 180SX or vice-versa? -SkylineBNR34 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I did a lot of editing on this page, got rid of the "S15" part, and added more info for specific model years. I also removed some opinionated sentences. I also added some more illustrations.Sean1978 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to add, XE trim =/= Leather. IIRC, XE trim was only available from '89-'90; both my 240SXes are XE's, neither one has leather. Both have power everything and AC, including a motorrized sunroof.
Leather was an option.66.245.37.173 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I combined the best of the two article versions.  I hope I didn't come off too agressively, but its important to make sure that these matters get handled quickly before too many third party edits get made that can confuse the process.  I think I included all the new facts you introduced.   If I missed anything please put it back in.  And by the way, welcome to wikipedia.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: I took the liberty of reordering the links, and am posting this to try and establish a consensus on order.  As I see it, it would make sense to Put 240sx.org at the top, consistent with its title being the most direct.  Then, all the other sites directly related to the 240sx alone should go after it, with region-specifics at the bottom of this grouping.  Then the specialized links like the Ka-T link (which I'm not even sure really needs to be there).  After that, all the general nissan links, once again with region specific at the bottom.  If anyone has a problem with this order please make a note here with an explanation before/when changing it, so that some kind of order can still be maintained.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I continued the theme somewhat, I think you've got the right idea.  A reader who just wants to know about the car in general is probably not so interested in local club events or the inner workings of a turbocharger system. AKADriver 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with the guidelines at WP:EL, I removed most of the links.  Liks to forums just aren't kosher.  For anyone who might be offended because their forum isn't listed, mind you, I'm a member of most of them (though I've been inactive since I sold my last S13).  External links should be links to sources, or to reliable information that's too in-depth for the article.  Forum information is unreliable by nature.  I'm almost tempted to remove the 240SX CCA link, since their site doesn't have all the great info it used to have (copies of magazine reviews, original advertising) and seems to be just another front page for a forum now, too. — AKADriver ☎ 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would concur with Oni as well - 240sxTech.com is enormous in its breadth and scope, has FAR more information than it did when AKADriver sold his S13, and 240sxCCA is now on its 12th year of existence (240sx.org).  One would think that would warrant an exception.  Also, the links that are currently present on this page are arbitrary and far from helpful.  70.176.198.131 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: - what happend to the S13 zenki picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean1978 (talk • contribs) 19:24, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC).
:It was removed because it was a possible copyright violation.  This article could definitely use new pictures, on that note, though. AKADriver 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removal

message: We need some help on a WIKIBOOK we are working on about a related topic. Take a look and contribute if you can, thanks:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nissan_240SX_Performance_Modification
Sean1978 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nissan 240SX Performance Modification WIKIBOOK

message: I've noticed the article refers to the 240SX hatchback as an S13 but, unless I'm mistaken, it's not a Silvia or an S13 at all, it's a 180SX. Am I mistaken or does this need to be changed? 71.98.156.88 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S13 is the general chassis type for the '88-'93 Silvia, '89-'94 240SX, and '89-'98 180SX.  See Nissan S platform. — AKADriver ☎ 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost thinking of covering this in the article.  It's certainly a mistake that is made a lot.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S13? 

message: the line reads like this:
(United States headlight height regulations prevented the use of the Silvia headlamp arrangement). 
it there a reference for that? What if Nissan just didin't market it in the states because of negative consumer reaction? I don't think I would have thought a S13 silvia front was very cool back in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.179.163 (talk • contribs) 
:Yeah, there needs to be a reference for this.  The only factual reason I can think of would be that the exact lamps used don't meet FMVSS because they're set up for RHD and use non-US bulb types like the H3C... but that's true for any non-US car and many come here with the same style lights, modified to meet US beam patterns and bulbs.  Customer opinion is more likely, and selling both the coupe and hatch under the same name here, I'm sure Nissan wanted to keep a consistent look. — AKADriver ☎ 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about you guys, but, even taking into account the "22inch rule," there's no source for this, and I'm removing the sentence. Without a citation or any sort of proof, it's conjecture, and thus unsuitable for the article. It would be the same as guessing why the 240SX never had a CA18/SR20 and stating it in the article as if it were fact. 66.245.37.173 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S13 Silvia headlamps 

message: Why were the 91-94 240's renamed to Kouki? I've ALWAYS known them as Chuki.--Loki240SX 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuki --> Kouki? 

message: The following edits were reverted by myself for the following rationale:  
*Change to viscous LSD in the wikilink causes a redirect.  Please add it outside the wikilink or use the # section reference if it is put in again.
*Chucki to Kouki Either vandalism or unintentional misinformation, can't be sure, but nonetheless extremely incorrect.  Kouki was only available on the S13 outside the US.
*Picture removal  If you insist on removing that, please give a real reason.  "Bad pic," "It looks ugly," and "I don't like it" are not acceptable reasons to remove a pic without discussion or replacement. (add:) In my personal opinion as an editor, I also believe we need a picture of a zenki S13, so until you can provide a better one or someone else does, all you're doing is deminishing the quality of the article by removing it.
*Simmilar to RX-7 No justification given for an edit that actually makes little sense.  The RX-7 may share some minor characteristics on some far-reaching level but it is a far cry from being similar.
--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my recent reversion. 

message: Please discuss. I removed things that I felt were conjecture and had no factual basis (such as the comment regarding why the 240SX coupe didnt have the same bodywork as the S13 Silvia), and edited the stuff regarding "fastback/hatchback" to remain factual and unbiased.
The fact is, Nissan referred to them as "fastbacks," while they are commonly referred to by enthusiasts as a "hatchback."
Also, I feel that the article should be more specific when it compares differences between certain model-year 240SXes and Silvia's -- not all Silvia's are S13's, and not all 240SXes are based on a S13 Silvia. The 95-98 240SX is based on the S14 Silvia; it would be prudent to note the difference (hence why I use "S13 Silvia" in my edit). 66.245.37.173 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not OR, since Nissan used that term at the exclusion of any other. — AKADriver ☎ 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft can call internet explorer a p2p app.  It doesn't make it true.  It is critical that it is established early that the S13 is not technically a fastback.  I suppose I don't see any problems with it being referred to as a fastback at every point after that, but it should probably be in quotes or italics to denote that it is not being used literally.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made minor edits to "1989-1994 "S13" 

message: I noted that the 270z front is listed as a conversion and implies that the car uses oem parts from the s30 chassis. this is not true, the front end is built to resemble the 270z's but is entirely comprised of aftermarket pieces.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnsigma (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversions  

message: As someone familiar with this car, I'm not going to argue with any of the content of that section, but when it comes to things that people do on their own time with their own cars, verifiability is very poor.  Yes, people have done everything under the sun with the car, but I'm saying the section ought to only specifically mention modifications that are common enough that they can be verified by secondary sources.  I know magazines like Sport Compact Car have covered things like Silvia front ends and SR/CA/VQ engines, and someone has probably written a piece about Hinson Supercars' V8 swaps by now.  The more esoteric stuff is harder to verify.
Of particular concern is the edit war that seems to be brewing over the inclusion of the "Type X" model name when referring to 1996-up 180SX body parts.  While I've personally heard the "Type X" moniker used to describe the entire 1996+ appearance package, it's not exactly correct, since all 1996+ models had most of the same parts.  It's just jargon, and it's impenetrable to someone who doesn't already know the car. — AKADriver ☎ 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aftermarket tuning section NEEDS CITATIONS. 

message: The article mentions that the Canadian versions of the S14 Zenki had lights in the ventholes (foglights) to be used as daytime running lights, however not all 240s have those. I myself have a 95 LE with a replaced bumper (and now I don't have foglights), but my daytime running lights are my headlights. Perhaps there can be some adjustment here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.5.243 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daytime Running Lights 

message: I recently bought a '95 Nissan 240SX SE Limited Edition. I noticed this article makes no mention of the Limited Edition. The only differences I can spot with my Limited and the other SEs I've seen is that mine sports a power moonroof and 17" alloys instead of 16"s. Anybody have any other information on the Limited Edition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.193.16 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SE Limited Edition 

message: Currently each revision is described as "The Zenki was sold for..." which implies that "Zenki" is an official name for the revision. The Japanese terms are just nicknames and while they do have technical meaning describing the different revisions, the 240SX is an American-market-only car (not Japanese, otherwise we should merge this article with the 180SX article) and these terms were never published or referred to by Nissan in America (if I'm wrong, please provide references). This might confuse people into thinking Zenki, Chuki, and Kouki are technical or official terms, while they are just examples of the tuner crowd using Japanese words instead of the same word in English. I would like to propose rewording the article to say something along the lines of "From 1989-90 the 240SX was built such and such way, and is referred to as Zenki..." etc. There's no arguing that Zenki, Kouki, etc have become synonymous with each revision among the tuner crowd, but Wikipedia should at the very least note that they are nothing more than nicknames referred to by owners. They are, as far as I know, unverifiable with respect to any official American Nissan literature. If I am mistaken and it is an official term, there should be references inline with the term. Please discuss. Wikipedia:Verifiability Bdc101 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese names 

message: I reverted an anonymous edit back to list the 240 as a "sport compact." I think it's pretty clear that is the correct category for the car to be in. The only thing that differentiates it from cars like the Prelude, Celica, etc., is RWD, and those cars are all classified as sport compacts. Please discuss here if you think otherwise. Bdc101 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If this car qualifies as a sports car, then so does a Chevrolet Chevelle any year, as well as, a Ford Torino.  Whilst some may aspire for the car be a sports car, doing so only diminishes the special niche this car occupies as a sleeper sport compact.  CredibleSources (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sportscar vs Sport Compact 

message: When the article says "The KA24DE did not come turbocharged while the SR20DET did" or "the turbo-charged and intercooled 1.8-liter DOHC CA18DET" it creates a number of redundancies to anyone who knows what those abbreviations mean. With links provided to the KA, SR, and CA Nissan engine families, anyone can learn that the T shows that an engine is turbocharged, among other codes. 
Therefore, to anyone who knows how Nissan engine names work, (and this is the best engine naming system there is,) the first quote referenced above is interpreted literally as "The DOHC electronic fuel-injected naturally aspirated (implied) 2.4L KA engine did not come turbocharged while the DOHC electronic fuel-injected turbocharged 2.0L SR engine did" which goes without saying. The second quote referenced above is even worse: "the turbo-charged and intercooled 1.8-liter DOHC DOHC electronic fuel-injected turbocharged 1.8L CA engine" being entirely redundant aside from the mention of an intercooler, as not all turbocharged Nissan engines were intercooled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.184.203.6 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How informed or how research-prone are the readers assumed to be? 

message: At some point I recall the 1993 s13 having four wheel steering. As well as electric seatbelts on certain models. 2600:6C55:78F0:81B0:40F9:14B:A4D8:1EA3 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  4-wheel steering?