ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nissan 200sx





Whats the spec of these cars?

I was on the way to my local shopping centre when i got on to a dual carriage way, there was a 200sx behind me (austrian and modded) so i let him go, and chased him to see what it was capable of. It only pulled away from me as much i would expect a 172 to (and he was going for it, including some stupid risks). At the bottom of the carriage way, (which is about a mile long altogther) is a tight roundabout. He took a strange line around it and so i done im lol..quite easily really! ;)

What do they drive like? Weight? Power? Performance?
 


They are about 220 bhp They are turbos too I think. My mate is buying one. Bloody ugly if you ask me but I suppose its cheap Jap thrills isnt it? I think the performance 0-60 is around 7 seconds?
 


possibly the older one, theyre all two litre turbos though i think, not in a very high state of tune in standard form (i think the early ones are about 180bhp) Theyre pretty quick though, theyre not very heavy (compared to most modern stuff), the newer ones are supposed to be great to drive, but i dont know much about the older ones.
 


Ive got a 200sx like the one in the pic above. Interested to read this as Im deeply considering swapping it for a 172 and was wondering if id be disappointed by the performance - will have a go in one soon.

Mine is standard with 200bhp and 200lb/ft although its pretty easy and cheap to get 280bhp (expensive after that). Bit too much roll for my liking but handling is good in the dry, fecking scary in the wet mind. Am thinking a 172 will be more fun, more of the time given our bad weather and congested roads.

I think Autocar quotes 0-60 as 6.6sec and 0-100 in 16.8ish. Quicker than a new WRX anyway.
 


I dont think youll get a very un-biased opinion on here mate;)

Ive not driven either car, so take what i say with a pinch of salt, but id have a rear drive turbo over an N/A fwd, but i must admit, 172s look cool, and theyre fast, and theyre probably alot easier to chuck about than a 200sx. just my opinions.
 


Steve whyd you say that? Are you presuming that a big power RWD is better? Ive too never driven a 200sx, but i have driven supras and the 172 is so much better i couldnt begin how to compare. Remember FWD has come along way. Power isnt everything..
 


I guess it might be that i havent driven any of the latest fwd fast stuff ill admit, but for me i like to be able to put my foot down coming out of a corner and get oversteer rather than understeer.

Dont take this the wrong way, im not trying to upset just about everyone on this forum, but my personal preference is rear drive. Im not saying every rear drive car is better than every front drive car at all. The latest hot hatches and that stuff are acclaimed as being great handling cars and i wont argue with that, its just that i prefer rear drive.
 


If I were Jo Pro driver (much as Id like to think...) then Id probably stick with the 200sx. But I aint and am not likely to be unless i come into a lot of cash and get a lot of track time.

At the end of the day, there isnt room to powerslide round the corners and the price is very high if it all goes pear-shaped - and it will sooner or later, Ive already had enough scary moments. A good FWD chassis can be fantastic fun and generally safer with it.

Likewise, a good N/A engine can be good - all too easy to be caught off boost. Am I talking myself into this or what??

Martin
 


your right about the repair costs, turbos are much more likely to lunch themselves too. Ive always been tempted to go out and get a new car (which would involve fwd and probably n/a) because of all the stuff you get as standard in new cars, the reliability, the warranty and peace of mind and so on, but im a sucker for performance, so i normally get the fastest thing i can afford at the time.
 


and so you should mr martinibeanie! I would say the honda integra r has the best fwd chassis over the last couple of years but would take a 172 overall.

Steve - I know understeer aint a lot of fun but you can get oversteer in an FWD just by fiddling with the tyres. If your looking at an ultimate drive, you should be looking at something mid engined as a big engined RWDs just aint much fun.
 
  CTR EK9 turbo


Martin - i see what youre saying. I would love a high-powered tunable rear wheel drive jap monster at some point in my life and will probably buy one. Its interesting reading what youve written and it puts things into a realistic perspective. I aggree with you about the handling issues, especially around our very small/twisty roads we have here in UK. I was following (briskly) a Skyline GTS (new shape) 2.5 single turbo tiptronic around a roundabout and he was fishtailing all over the place. If id been in front he simply wouldnt have been able to get around there as quickly as me (well with him driving anyway!). Too big and too powerful for tight corners, thats why i guess our lil clios are suited better. Obviously, as a UK roads drivers car id recommend any hot clio over most things, but if you want build quality you may wanna look/shop around? CTR is nice but wasnt impressed with the handling, i felt like i was sitting on the car rather than in it? possibly because it was only a test drive and i wasnt used to it as i am with mine tho.
 


Steve - I see your point about understeer and respect your buying tactics. But, its equally frustrating not being able to put your foot down because of lack of traction/risk of spinning (in the wet at least). I do like the uncorrupted steering though.

Integra Type-R seems good but cant really afford the insurance - a bit too compromised too. Was kinda after something a bit cheaper to run - tyres dont last 2 minutes.

Gonna get myself a drive in a 172 asap so I can speak from experience. Is the build quality really a problem? Ive never owned a renault but know people that have and theyve been generally reliable. I know theyre not the most solid of things but the new ones seem a lot better and the nissan isnt as good as i thought it would be. Any common faults to look for?
 


I dont have a 172 but a new clio extreme. The fitting of interior is really good (really blows pugs and citroens out of the water), but still there are some creaks and rattles. Generally i wouldnt worry about the mechanicals, were passed the days of unreliable engines in quantity. Just dont expect VAG build quality and youll be pleasantly suprised. Bear in mind the 172 is grp 17 in mk2 form.
 


Owned both a 200sx and a Clio Cup.

200sx is very underrated and quick. I reckon it probably edges the Clio at higher speeds and is a better GT. Excellent motorway car and pretty luxurious. ONly real downside is poor image and looks.

Clio is more point and squirt and better steering with less roll. Was caught out big time in the 200sx in the wet at high speed and lucky to walk away.
 


my dad has a 200sx and the turbo kick on it is brilliant. only had a little go in it but very impressive, sounds great too, but i was wondering if the brakes had failed first time i had to use them (those 172 brakes must be good or something)

the 172 and the 200sx are too different to compare really, both good at different things

oh, and my old mans is a 95 plate (mk1 i think?) and i think it looks great, nearly as good as mine ;)
 


umm that photos the old one! the new ones a lot better.

my freind has one it puts out about 220 horses(standard). bloody awesome in a straight line.great tail out action thats so easy to control (the best rear wheel ive driven).not to happy in the wet though evan with its lsd. good car though if anyone is thinking of buying one,ultra reliable.forget about problems with the turbo etc thats all sh*t. the "SER-20-DET" engine is bullit proof,just do regular oil changes (every 3000 miles), i have seen them put out 600 bhp with no problems (yes...600 bhp,and im not pulling your leg).and its the same engine found in the sunny gtir 4wd.

my clio has it for for lights grand prix for a while(first couple of hundred meters) but then the 200 sx really starts to move.but i can beat it in the wet our very twistie roads.

very popular here in aus, but go for a jap import( more bhp and creature comforts).will send piccy if no one has seen the new one!
 


theres an even older one than the one in the pick, i refer to that as the old one and the one in the pick as the new one becuase the current one in japan (and i guess in aus) has never been available in the u.k.:cry:

Plus i know from experience that the sunny pulsar 2.0 turbo is not bullet proof, i cracked the crank so bad on mine that you could stick your thumbnail in it. Although having said that, my mate whos a bit of an expert on them said he couldnt beleive that id done it.
 
  Clio 197


The Jap imports are great value. It is hard to get that sort of power and rear wheel thrills for less.
 


Wilf, sounds as though the performance is fairly similar then so hopefully I wont be disappointed. Is the 172 fairly torquey? Sounds as though you didnt choose to get rid of the 200sx.

The S15 was never sold in the UK. The one in the pic (S14a) does have a fat arse but the front looks great in my opinion - very aggressive and people do seem to get out of your way.

the SR20 is a good engine but you do have to put up with its "characteristic" noises on startup. Sounds nasty but they all do it or so Ive been told. I think the gearbox is the weak link.
 


just to make things evan more fun, ive just been shown one (an s15) that makes..........get this, 735 bhp @ the wheels!!! running "Elf turbomax racing fuel" (ive never heard of it,has anyone else?) and drinks it at about 4 litres a min ! (about 3 quid a litre).

does the word "BANG" sound about right!
 

Jas

ClioSport Admin
  Audi A4 v6 & Clio


I agree with wilf, Ive also owned a 200SX (H reg, so mid-shape), and now own a 172. Over 80/90mph the 200sx would beat a 172, but up to 80 I think the 172 would def. have the edge. Handling on the 200sx, especially in the wet, is pretty poor, as also are the brakes. The 172 is a better car, however, as wilf says, the 200sx makes a great GT.
 


Top