Can anyone give me some advice, I'm looking at buying a 300ZX but am torn between buying a Non Turbo and TT Model, Is there much of a difference between the 0-60 time of a manual non turbo compared to an auto TT, also the I have seen a non turbo with a man box 1991 spec with about 70k on the clock, are these more reliable then a simular TT model. Also if anyone can give me an idea to the serving costs between the 2, and finally do they have to run on super unleaded if they are jap imports?

 

thanks in advance

Hi Michael,

Rougly, a manual NA will be about 7.1, whereas an auto TT will be about 5.9.

Reliability-wise, a manual will be better than an auto, seeing as there seem to be so many autobox problems (especially imports) of late (me included :( )

I think it's up to the ECU as to what RON petrol the car takes - there are ECUs out there that claim they are better set up for UK fuel, but tbh i dont think there's been any problems regarding putting standard unleaded into an import (me included again :) ). However optimax seems to have everyone's vote :D

If you're being cautious, go for an NA. If you want crazy power, go for a TT! :bow:

Auto zeds arent like most other autos, ie theres no massive difference in performance from the manual version.

 

In fact they are quicker to 100mph :hyper:

...how many miles a year do you want to do in the Z. That's the real question. If it's a lot, you might favour the ''economy'' of an NA. If it's a few, you might favour the ''thirst'' of the TT. And if you are comparing the Z auto box with others, don't. My wife's Saab (2.3 Turbo) auto box is absolutly dreadfull compared with the Z. The Z snaps through the gears in comparison.

 

And problems with auto boxes, I might be tempting providence, but my NA auto is almost 15 years old, 150k on the clock (so it'll have done more) and it's sweet as a nut. I've owned it for 5 years, and do about 15k miles per year in it.

 

good luck

 

Jack

Thanks guys for your feed back, I plan to do about 8k a year, so not really loads of miles, I've was under the impression that running the TT model cost loads more due to expence of servicing, fuel etc..... also in the guide buying a 91 model is a no no because of engine problems that were rectified in the 92+ models (as you can tell I'm not the most technical person). I really like the look of the car so out and out performance is not the be all and end all although I hope it will be faster then my Honda Prelude VTEC 2.2i.

I dont think anyone here has experienced the "91 engine problems" :confused: I'd say the vast majority on here own 90/91 TTs.

 

It has been 13/14 years since 90/91 so if there had been any problems they'd have been sorted years ago :)

Does anyone know what sort of mpg I should expect for both types of ZX (I know it can alter drastically depending on how it's been driven) also what are the servicing costs like?

 

TA

...NA perspective: No servicing costs in the last 4+ years. All DIY inc timing belt, tie rod bushes, disks, pads, tyres etc. Petrol, M25 A12, 30+mpg, dashing about town mid 20's.

 

Good luck

Hi mate

 

I drive my auto TT everyday to and from work - a round trip of 50 miles. Costs me around £50-£60 per week in fuel.

 

Mixture of fast A road (single carriageway), bit of dual and 4 miles town driving.........plus some hard overtaking :D

 

The auto in a ZX is a good 'box unlike that of ordinary cars so you don't lose performance. Kickdown is instant and fast so overtaking 3 cars and a lorry in one hit takes a couple of seconds :hyper: The UK spec Auto tends to be more reliable owing to better oil cooling - but you can fit the UK 'cooler to a Jap spec car, an essential upgrade most people reckon. The J-spec 'box has more options (sport, hold etc)

 

The ZX is a heavy car so the extra power and torque of the TT is IMO essential, but the N/A is no slouch and should still be quicker than your Prelude.

 

Buy a Zed, you'll not be dissapointed ;)

 

Richard :smw: