Guys,

 

I have a 200 sx of which I have an opportunity to trade in for an import non turbo Fairlady, what is the difference in performance between the Fairlady and the Zx twin turbo?

Nothing.

 

What we know as the 300ZX, the Japanese call the Fairlady. Its still the same car with a few minor cosmetic differences between the 2.

 

However the difference between a NA and TT is quite a lot. I think your 200SX will be faster than a NA ZX.

 

ZX TT does 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds. I think the NA is over 6.5.

OK thanks for that,

 

Without the turbos then is there much performance difference

 

I just dont want to make the mistake of later thinking I should of bought the turbo version with at present not totally under standing the differences

 

thanks for your help

Apologises,

 

I hadnt read your reply fully , you have already answered

 

Thanks

If you are even thinking that - then you must get a TT.

If you don't then you will only wish you did.

 

One has 2 turbo's..........one doesn't...........there is quite a difference in performance!

I actually sent the post before I finished it and then went back and edited it.

 

If you are looking for power and speed, go straight for a TT. Most people wish they got a TT after a few months with a NA. But there are many people who are happy enough with the NA.

 

If you ask nicely I am sure some one who lives near to you will take you for a spin in their TT.

 

Stuart

Thanks guys,

 

Im working in Warrington and their is a wonderful 94 silver Fairlady within walking distance for sale for 6K with 40K miles whereas I,ll have to go viewing all around the Northwest for the Zx

 

I think your right though I,ll regret not going for the ZX

Just to point out, the JAP is called a Fairlady, but is still a ZX.

They are ALL ZX's whether TT, NA, UK or Jap.

Let me point you to this......

 

http://www.300zx.org.uk/tech_20.htm

 

You HAVE to read this, no ifs or buts. Just take some time out and go through it.

Thanks for the website, thats stopped me jumping head first

Harry

 

...how many miles do you do per year. If it's a lot you need to consider the fuel consumption figures for the tt and the na. I do about 18k per year so can't afford to run a TT.

 

If I had enough money and an understanding wife I'd have a yellow TT in the garage for summers and warm weekends. I'd also have a Lancia Stratos to get to work in and Type 2 camper for trips to the beach...

 

But I digress, my na regularly returns in excess of 30mpg on fast runs (m25 etc) on Optimax, and to work and back about 24...

 

good luck - shop around.

 

Oh, and as no one notices a 200, no one knows what a 300 is...

 

cheerz

 

Jack

Thanks Jack,

 

My 200 is a mint silver 1991 of which I have done 133K miles to date and obviously the economy has to be examined in the TT.

 

In the past I have had 240 ,260 , 280 ,100 and 200 and now interested in the 300 with the presumption that it would be of improved performace plus all the extras but one comment in the thread is that the 200 make be quicker than the NA

 

I cant justify changing if the NA is the same!!!

 

I suppose you cant have the extra performance and economy but Ive got to complete ownership of this nissan range!

Basically just backing up Stu's point, go for a TT, they're great cars and dont have to use that much petrol if u drive sensibly, trouble is that's very hard to do in one!

 

Quite fankly i think my rover 620ti would beat a NA Z, whats the point on having a great looking car with no guts? I prefer a wolf in sheeps clothing car more than a sheep in wolfs clothing, and better still, a wolf in wolfs clothing!! Get a TT.

 

Did u understand that wolf bit? lol

:)

Cheers for the wolf bit, ive arranged to see a TT at the weekend,

now thanks to you guys i'm bit clearer, but have now got a back load of work that I should done today instead of talking 300 all day !!

LOL.......wait till you actually get one........you won't do ANY work!