Hi guys,

 

Joined the forum as im in the market for a 300ZX.

 

Ideally im looking for an SWB Manual.

 

Currently I drive a Rover 220 Coupe Turbo which is fairly quick.

 

I am confused though as to the true performance figures for a 300ZX, as the following information shows a huge amount of discrepency.

 

1989 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.5 15.0

1990 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo 5.6 14.1

1991 Nissan 300ZX 2+2 7.5 15.9

1991 Nissan 300ZX Turbo (auto) 7.0 15.4

1992 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.7 14.2

1993 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.2 13.8

1994 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.0 14.4

1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.5 13.9

 

Can anyone explain?

 

The 1993 model looks the one to have. No mention of SWB or not.

 

The figures could always be alot of rubbish though.

 

Any explanations would be most welcome if anyone has any!

 

Ross

Think with the age of a zed that stock figures like you have quoted dont mean too much. If I were you I would concentrate on driving a few and trying to buy the best one possible within your budget. Also try and drive autos and manuals if you can as there is a difference in their power delivery. I also went from a Rover turbo to a zed (first one). Although the rover was fast the zed was a lot better.

 

Good luck. There are a few zed owners about Dundee and when I get mine running you can have a look.

 

ronnie

I wouldn't worry too much about figures.

They always vary a bit depending on who tests and what equipment they use.

I wouldn't worry too much about figures.

They always vary a bit depending on who tests and what equipment they use.

not forgetting the pilot ;)

plus most zeds have had mods done to them over the years to get them even quicker

Hi guys,

 

Joined the forum as im in the market for a 300ZX.

 

Ideally im looking for an SWB Manual.

 

Currently I drive a Rover 220 Coupe Turbo which is fairly quick.

 

I am confused though as to the true performance figures for a 300ZX, as the following information shows a huge amount of discrepency.

 

1989 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.5 15.0

1990 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo 5.6 14.1

1991 Nissan 300ZX 2+2 7.5 15.9

1991 Nissan 300ZX Turbo (auto) 7.0 15.4

1992 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.7 14.2

1993 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.2 13.8

1994 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.0 14.4

1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.5 13.9

 

Can anyone explain?

 

The 1993 model looks the one to have. No mention of SWB or not.

 

The figures could always be alot of rubbish though.

 

Any explanations would be most welcome if anyone has any!

 

Ross

Ahh! Yes but only one of those in the list is a Twinturbo :D

I'd go with five and a half seconds for a twin turbo as your average.

Trust me, had 220gsi turbo, with the odd mod by motobuild in London, it was quick, zeds are much more fun, plus get more looks. The only downside is the price of fuel in this wonderfull country.

Has everyone had a rover turbo before a z? I had a 620ti!

I love my Rover turbo.

 

Just not fast enough and its front wheel drive ......

 

18,000 miles on the clock.

 

Its a minter.

 

Im keeping it, and want to run a Z.

 

I was in a Brakedusts 300ZX on saturday night. Its running 410bhp + a 100 shot of nitrous. It was brutally fast. It was attracting crowds of onlookers!

Hes only got a pair of T25's in there aswell.

I love my Rover turbo.

 

Just not fast enough and its front wheel drive ......

 

18,000 miles on the clock.

 

Its a minter.

 

Im keeping it, and want to run a Z.

 

I was in a Brakedusts 300ZX on saturday night. Its running 410bhp + a 100 shot of nitrous. It was brutally fast. It was attracting crowds of onlookers!

Hes only got a pair of T25's in there aswell.

 

 

Those T25's will be dying soon enough if it's running a true 410bhp.

Hi guys,

 

Joined the forum as im in the market for a 300ZX.

 

Ideally im looking for an SWB Manual.

 

Currently I drive a Rover 220 Coupe Turbo which is fairly quick.

 

I am confused though as to the true performance figures for a 300ZX, as the following information shows a huge amount of discrepency.

 

1989 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX 7.1 15.5

1990 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.5 15.0

1990 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo 5.6 14.1

1991 Nissan 300ZX 2+2 7.5 15.9

1991 Nissan 300ZX Turbo (auto) 7.0 15.4

1992 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.7 14.2

1993 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.2 13.8

1994 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 6.0 14.4

1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.5 13.9

 

Can anyone explain?

 

The 1993 model looks the one to have. No mention of SWB or not.

 

The figures could always be alot of rubbish though.

 

Any explanations would be most welcome if anyone has any!

 

Ross

 

 

Stock Twin Turbo Manual is around 5.5 secs 0-60 and 14secs 0-100.

They are the same for all years.

 

Exhaust, filter, boost raised to 1 bar offer under 5secs, and under 12secs

 

1st two and 5th one in that list are the Non turbo

to give you an idea, I have a induction kit, straight through zorst to backboxes, andy p chip, boost raised to 14/15psi as power mods and testing on datascan gives me a 4.7 sec 0-60 time and 11.8 sec 100 time

Stock Twin Turbo Manual is around 5.5 secs 0-60 and 14secs 0-100.

They are the same for all years.

 

Exhaust, filter, boost raised to 1 bar offer under 5secs, and under 12secs

 

1st two and 5th one in that list are the Non turbo

 

Exactly what he said mate!

 

In the UK, the 300zx was available between 1990 and 1994. All were the same mechanically and tests in Autocar, WhatCar etc etc ALL showed 0-60 in 5.6/0-100 in 14.

 

Auto is very similar to manual, despite Nissan advertising. The auto box was designed to ensure both cars performed similarly; it is said that whilst the manual may be a couple of 10ths quicker to 60, the auto is quicker to 100.

 

I drove both when looking for a ZX and TBH there was nothing between them.

 

Richard :)

Cool.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Looks like the 1993 model time was alot of rubbish then!

 

Unless someone different tested it in that year with some grippy tyres.

Cool.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Looks like the 1993 model time was alot of rubbish then!

 

Unless someone different tested it in that year with some grippy tyres.

Yes, each one of those published times would of been different people from different magazines at different times.

 

Car and Driver Magazine, for example, achieved a 5.0 secs 0-60 and 13.1 sec 0-100mph time in there test.