My first learn me thread (240sx)

So I tried to do a search and the site said no... this was my next best option.

I'd like to know more about the Nissan 240SX, can this car actually handle or is it better to leave it to the drifter types? How well would it take to autox and eventual HPDE?

I am thinking the S13 generation, but any info is appreciate.

-MaD

Well first off the search function will not be working again until the end of the year when the entire site is updated. Until then follow these directions for searching. http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/search-function-workarounds/38293/page1/

Yes the 240SX can and does handle very well. Majority of people build them to drift, but it's also very well suited to AX and hitting the track. GRM has done a handful of pieces on the 240SX in past issues.

The S14 240SX shares almost everything with the S13 240SX. Only differences being the body (obviously) and if I recall correctly a slightly more rigid chassis which makes it a bit heavier. Oh and the S14 is a bit less prone to rust.

I should also mention that an SR20 swap is pointless. The KA24 is rather stout and able to put out 400hp with a nice turbo setup on stock internals.

yes.. the stock engine is not very revvy.. but it is STRONG. Build one up with a quick spoiling turbo and amaze the fanbois of the SR20

I have a acquaintance that runs an '91 S13 at autocross. He's built a couple of them. Both with NA KA24DEs. Seems like a good runner.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DodgeRTC#p/u/10/mzY2mykqlhw

And he has a friend that has a SuperCharged KA24DE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ-M6ZqrI2I

that supercharged KA sounds GOOD

it's basically a rwd civic in almost all regards, motor swaps, brake swaps, diff swaps , etc . it can be good for drag racing, road racing or drifting, i love the crap out of them . zilvia is a decent resource as well as nico, but like the civic , listen to advice, make a good judgement and just think logically when it comes to doing things to it, suspension , power , braking and body wise it has a HUGE aftermarket.

This is very relevant to my interests. I always come back to 240sx's when I'm hunting for cars.

And that KA24DE-SC did sound delicious.

S13s came in three body styles: Coupe, hatchback, and convertible. The coupes are slightly lighter and stiffer than the hatchback. The convertibles only came with slushboxes and are heavy and floppy. 89-90 S13s came with the SOHC KA24E and the so-called "pignose" front bumper. If you are interested in a SR20 swap, you will need to rearrange a few parts for it to fit:

This is a 91-93 model, which came with the DOHC KA24DE. SR20 swaps are practically drop-in with these:

240SX SE hatchback models came with a VLSD (probably shot by now) and Super HICAS, a passive rear-steer system. If my FC RX-7 with a similar system is anything to go by, the rear-steer can make cornering on the limit somewhat unpredictable. There are bushings available to deactivate the HICAS system. The stock 4-lug hubs and brakes are easily upgraded with 5-lug Z32 300ZX bits. Watch out for rust, ricer/dorifto mods, and the so-called "drift tax," which makes S13's more expensive than they should be.

BTW, if you're 6'3" or taller, you'll fit fine in an S14, but not in an S13.

<--- still has a sub 100K kms non-winter driven S14, bought new, sitting at home in the family driveway.

Thanks for all the great info. I had no idea that the KA was that strong. Damn did that SC sound amazing.

The S14 may be a better option for me as I am 6'4"

Does the S14 have the same "drift tax"?

I think it's the S13 that the kids all want. I personally think the S14 is a much prettier car

S14s also suffer from drift tax, esp. the 97-98 models.

The 95-96 models are called the Zenki (Japanese for "early era") models by JDM fanboiz and have more rounded-off styling:

The 97-98 models are called the Kouki (Japanese for "late era"). They have sharper styling and are somewhat rare. I have seen stock versions still priced around $6-8k depending on condition and location.

RexSeven wrote:

Man, that looks perfect. The S14 body-style is actually very handsome when left alone, but you could be forgiven for thinking they came out of the factory with tacky bodykits.

Supposedly the biggest suspension problem with the S240 is in the rear suspension. They have a ton of geometric anti-squat which makes them not so good at putting the power down but great for drifting, which is sort of the opposite of putting the power down.

I've driven a couple, and even with 200 ish hp, they didn't have any trouble lighting the tires up coming out of corners.

The 14 has less anti-squat than the 13. If you want to buy a 15 subframe, they have even less anti-squat and pretty much solve the problem.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Supposedly the biggest suspension problem with the S240 is in the rear suspension. They have a ton of geometric anti-squat which makes them not so good at putting the power down but great for drifting, which is sort of the opposite of putting the power down. I've driven a couple, and even with 200 ish hp, they didn't have any trouble lighting the tires up coming out of corners. The 14 has less anti-squat than the 13. If you want to buy a 15 subframe, they have even less anti-squat and pretty much solve the problem.

This confuses me - are you sure you worded that properly? More anti-squat = more grip launching. Drag cars often run much higher than 100% anti-squat. Effectively, this pushes the wheels into the pavement as the car launches. Are you sure you didn't mean the opposite? I know the 280Z supposedly had anti-anti-squat such that the rear end would hunch down when launching...

madeatdark wrote: Thanks for all the great info. I had no idea that the KA was that strong. Damn did that SC sound amazing. The S14 may be a better option for me as I am 6'4" Does the S14 have the same "drift tax"?

I daily drove this '97 S14 for about 7 years and 100k miles. If you are 6'3" you may be challanged to fit. At 6'1" I was tight with my short hair brushing the headliner.
Mine was an automatic that I happened to find while looking for an Accord Coupe as a commuter. At that time, the S14 was actually several thousand cheaper than the similar vintage Accord. I thought it was a great touring GT car but all in all it reminded me of a JDM version of a V6 Mustang. It was completely trouble free in its years of service.

If you plan on going with the s13, I have a lot of wiring information from my project. It has been slowly rusting into the landscaping as I swap an RB20det into her which has proven to be rather easy. Yes, there is some rearranging.. With a sledgehammer. Seriously.

Edit: I plan on autocrossing and drifting just as soon as the donor rust bucket body with good wires go bye-bye as I swap to a clean s13 chassis.

tuna55 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Supposedly the biggest suspension problem with the S240 is in the rear suspension. They have a ton of geometric anti-squat which makes them not so good at putting the power down but great for drifting, which is sort of the opposite of putting the power down. I've driven a couple, and even with 200 ish hp, they didn't have any trouble lighting the tires up coming out of corners. The 14 has less anti-squat than the 13. If you want to buy a 15 subframe, they have even less anti-squat and pretty much solve the problem.

This confuses me - are you sure you worded that properly? More anti-squat = more grip launching. Drag cars often run much higher than 100% anti-squat. Effectively, this pushes the wheels into the pavement as the car launches. Are you sure you didn't mean the opposite? I know the 280Z supposedly had anti-anti-squat such that the rear end would hunch down when launching...

This is where I got my information. That and my personal experiences in S13s.

http://www.modified.com/tech/0512_sccp_making_it_stick_part_4/info.html

I think the distinction is between a drag car, where it's okay to slam the tires down on launch, and an autocross/road racing car, where you don't want to lift the rear during acceleration.

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: Supposedly the biggest suspension problem with the S240 is in the rear suspension. They have a ton of geometric anti-squat which makes them not so good at putting the power down but great for drifting, which is sort of the opposite of putting the power down. I've driven a couple, and even with 200 ish hp, they didn't have any trouble lighting the tires up coming out of corners. The 14 has less anti-squat than the 13. If you want to buy a 15 subframe, they have even less anti-squat and pretty much solve the problem.

This confuses me - are you sure you worded that properly? More anti-squat = more grip launching. Drag cars often run much higher than 100% anti-squat. Effectively, this pushes the wheels into the pavement as the car launches. Are you sure you didn't mean the opposite? I know the 280Z supposedly had anti-anti-squat such that the rear end would hunch down when launching...

This is where I got my information. That and my personal experiences in S13s. http://www.modified.com/tech/0512_sccp_making_it_stick_part_4/info.html I think the distinction is between a drag car, where it's okay to slam the tires down on launch, and an autocross/road racing car, where you don't want to lift the rear during acceleration.

I'll read the link a bit late, but the point I want to make quickly is that under 100% anti-squat, the car still squats, just not as much, so you are not lifting the rear.

From your article, which seems very contradictory to me:

Extreme anti-squat can cause wheelspin and rear wheel hop under power, which is why the Z32 is notorious for launching poorly at the dragstrip.

Rear-wheel-drive drag racers have made a science of anti-squat tuning to maximize rear-wheel traction. Drag cars often have so much anti-squat geometry that the back of the car actually lifts when launching, driving the tires into the ground.

I maintain, more anti-squat = more forward traction.

tuna55 wrote: I maintain, more anti-squat = more forward traction.

Sounds correct to me, but wouldn't allowing proper squat do essentially the same while providing enough damper or will the tire pressure allow enough damper for traction. I can see it either way, but assume if the ties are allowing the power to hit the ground as opposed to the shocks, you have more surface area provided by the tire and therefore better traction. Therefore I side with Tuna.

Just ran across a 91' hatchback for $500 on craigslist. The body was in good shape but the miles were high, it had an automatic, and needed a head gasket.

Just need to hang onto the camaro for a few more years and then repurpose its drivetrain in a nice japanese sports car that weighs less and can handle.

tuna55 wrote: From your article, which seems very contradictory to me: Extreme anti-squat can cause wheelspin and rear wheel hop under power, which is why the Z32 is notorious for launching poorly at the dragstrip. Rear-wheel-drive drag racers have made a science of anti-squat tuning to maximize rear-wheel traction. Drag cars often have so much anti-squat geometry that the back of the car actually lifts when launching, driving the tires into the ground. I maintain, more anti-squat = more forward traction.

Isn't launching one drag tires (where you have enough traction to pop a wheelie) different from coming out of a corner on autocross appropriate tires?

I would think that the additional, momentary pressure of actually lifting the rear and the front at the same time would work in a drag launch but cause all kinds of shocks and geometry surprises coming out of a corner.

Just for comparison, what puts down the power better, a z31 (which has anti-anti squat) or an S13. Having driven both, it's not really that close a comparison in my opinion.

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

tuna55 wrote: From your article, which seems very contradictory to me: Extreme anti-squat can cause wheelspin and rear wheel hop under power, which is why the Z32 is notorious for launching poorly at the dragstrip. Rear-wheel-drive drag racers have made a science of anti-squat tuning to maximize rear-wheel traction. Drag cars often have so much anti-squat geometry that the back of the car actually lifts when launching, driving the tires into the ground. I maintain, more anti-squat = more forward traction.

Isn't launching one drag tires (where you have enough traction to pop a wheelie) different from coming out of a corner on autocross appropriate tires? I would think that the additional, momentary pressure of actually lifting the rear and the front at the same time would work in a drag launch but cause all kinds of shocks and geometry surprises coming out of a corner. Just for comparison, what puts down the power better, a z31 (which has anti-anti squat) or an S13. Having driven both, it's not really that close a comparison in my opinion.

Once you get into cornering your situation becomes about more than anti-squat. If the rear suspension also has some binding under acceleration, or the front suspension is soft enough to allow the inside rear to lift, you'll have traction issues. Out Lemons Amazon picked up the inside rear wheel and spun like mad, but it wasn't the rear suspension's fault.

I wasn't too happy after seeing what was done to my Nissan to make her drift. Sport springs in front, front springs in rear, no rear sway bar, and adjustable rear suspension.. That and the massive dents in the under body worth the plate welded where the frame broke.

Looking forward to finding a new rolling chassis.