Talk:Nissan 240SX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Shortcut: WP:SCR

Contents 1 Original uncategorized comments 2 Overhaul 3 Links 4 Image removal 5 Nissan 240SX Performance Modification WIKIBOOK 6 this needs to be cleaned up 7 Fastback 8 S13? 9 S13 Silvia headlamps 10 Chuki --> Kouki? 11 Regarding my recent reversion.

[edit] Original uncategorized comments

The information provided in hre original "stub" is incredibly inaccurate.

"noob" status.

I have submitted corrections.

-- The 1998 240sx was not the "last 240sx in North America", it was the last 240sx period. The 240sx was unique to North America, and was a distinctly different car from the 200sx, 180sx, or Silvia. The S15 paragraph was left for continuity, but really does not belong in a topic discussing the "240sx". The articles from 200sx, 240sx, Silvia, and Nissan S-Chassis really need to be combined into a well-constructed single article, as they are all really the same car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.161.13 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Overhaul

I did a lot of editing on this page, got rid of the "S15" part, and added more info for specific model years. I also removed some opinionated sentences. I also added some more illustrations.Sean1978 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions, but in the future please limit yourself to a few edits at a time. It is very hard to handle edits when the history of a single user takes up at least a page. I have reverted the edit with the intent of reintegrating most of the new info. However, making extensive changes like that to an article is very counterproductive without discussing it first.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry I'm new to this just getting the hang of it and have a lot of enthusiasm, I think I understand how the small revisions are supposed to work now, I just did a lot because the page was full of info on the Nissan Silvia that didin't need to be there and was also pretty incomplete in other aspects. I'll try not to go so big in the future. Sean1978 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Its all good. I'm reworking it now, trying to combine the best of both worlds. So far I've noticed a couple descrepencies. Zenki model extended partway into 1991, and the caption of the picture conflicts with the section. AC was available on the '90 fasback (I have it).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the AC thing you are talking about, I got that from consumer guides reviews http://used-cars.autos.yahoo.com/usedcars/reviews/article/?id=2218 I know all years of 240SX had AC, I think what I'm trying to illustrate is the XE trim was AC and leather standard (AC wasin't an option) Sean1978 05:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I combined the best of the two article versions. I hope I didn't come off too agressively, but its important to make sure that these matters get handled quickly before too many third party edits get made that can confuse the process. I think I included all the new facts you introduced.
If I missed anything please put it back in. And by the way, welcome to wikipedia.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

didin't come off to aggressivley, I wasin't sure how the moderation worked on Wikipedia, now I have a better idea. I just went to work. I do have some more modification suggestions for this entry but I'll do them at a slower rate next time I go at it with specific notes. Sean1978 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

by moderation did you mean like as in moderators with extra powers? In that case the only moderation is done by admins. You'll be suprised how much power regular users actually have. I can talk about it more on your talk page if you want.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I took the liberty of reordering the links, and am posting this to try and establish a consensus on order. As I see it, it would make sense to Put 240sx.org at the top, consistent with its title being the most direct. Then, all the other sites directly related to the 240sx alone should go after it, with region-specifics at the bottom of this grouping. Then the specialized links like the Ka-T link (which I'm not even sure really needs to be there). After that, all the general nissan links, once again with region specific at the bottom. If anyone has a problem with this order please make a note here with an explanation before/when changing it, so that some kind of order can still be maintained.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I continued the theme somewhat, I think you've got the right idea. A reader who just wants to know about the car in general is probably not so interested in local club events or the inner workings of a turbocharger system. AKADriver 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the guidelines at WP:EL, I removed most of the links. Liks to forums just aren't kosher. For anyone who might be offended because their forum isn't listed, mind you, I'm a member of most of them (though I've been inactive since I sold my last S13). External links should be links to sources, or to reliable information that's too in-depth for the article. Forum information is unreliable by nature. I'm almost tempted to remove the 240SX CCA link, since their site doesn't have all the great info it used to have (copies of magazine reviews, original advertising) and seems to be just another front page for a forum now, too. — AKADriver ☎ 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that point, AKA Driver. 240sxCCA (240sx.org) now has more tech info than ever before, and is widely recognized as THE authority on the 240sx. The information is simply consolidated and moved from where it was previously. Please see also 240sxTech.com.

[edit] Image removal

- what happend to the S13 zenki picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean1978 (talk • contribs) 19:24, Apr 6, 2006 (UTC).

It was removed because it was a possible copyright violation. This article could definitely use new pictures, on that note, though. AKADriver 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll upload another one (of either my car or one of my friends) as soon as I can get one. I contrinuted all of the other pictures and they are of my friends cars.. Sean1978 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nissan 240SX Performance Modification WIKIBOOK

We need some help on a WIKIBOOK we are working on about a related topic. Take a look and contribute if you can, thanks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nissan_240SX_Performance_Modification Sean1978 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this needs to be cleaned up

I just had a look at this article after a long time and some of this is pretty rediculous for the average reader. read THIS:

The Zenki (前期, lit. preceding period) was sold under model years 1989 through 1990. It came in two body styles: fastback (SE) and coupe (XE). The coupe was closely related to the Japanese-market Silvia. It differed from the Silvia by having retractable headlamps (United States headlight height regulations prevented the use of the Silvia headlamp arrangement), and a 140 hp (105 kW) 2.4-litre SOHC KA24E engine with 3 valves per cylinder instead of the 1.8-litre DOHC CA18, with no turbocharged engine available in the United States. The fastback was closely related to the Japanese-market 180SX, but likewise had the KA24E engine. Four-wheel disk brakes were standard, with antilock brakes as an option on the SE. Both models were offered with either a 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual transmission. Coupes had a Head-Up Display showing a digital speedometer as part of the optional Power Convenience Group.

Too much information about the "180SX" and the "SILVIA". It's just confusing. It's like if I wrote an article about a truck by desribing what it didin't have in relation to a car

"The truck is like the car except the truck has a long bed that can hold cargo, it also is taller than a car and weighs more"

sit a woman who is buying a 240sx from a used car lot in front of that article and she is going to walk away more confused that when she sat down. 71.68.37.86 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And? Since when did wikipedia become a buyers guide. To my knowledge it isn't. Its an encyclopedia. Thats like saying you should be able to expect a physics I student to comprehend every section in the String Theory. Wikipedia should not be used for car buying advice. That would imply assertions of value, worth, usability, and all sorts of other things that violate NPOV and are NOT encyclopedic content. There are guides for this on many sites that I wont name here. Honestly anyone who comes to Wikipedia to look up car buying information aside from basic info (make, model, years, engine, etc) are foolish for doing so. Everything in the article is encyclopedic, correct, and understandable when visiting the associated articles. In all honesty someone who wont understand that will get what they do need from the rest of the article and need not comprehend that to get the information they came for and leave. Your truck and car argument is quite amusing. I've had simmilar experiences in politics. Vague reference that can be barely related to the subject. A truck and car are classifiably different. The only reason an assertion isn't made about how a truck is similar and different to a car is because it is painfully obvious how it is and is not. The reason this needs to be here is the exact opposite. This information is relevant. It describes the history of the car, and its development over its lifespan. Both things that are part of making an article encyclopedic. With maybe one minor exception I'm going to look into there is honestly nothing wrong with that section. The one problem I do see is that some of the information is slightly misplaced and repetitive. I have corrected this in an effort of good faith.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

" Your truck and car argument is quite amusing. I've had simmilar experiences in politics. Vague reference that can be barely related to the subject."

wow, that's condensending. I'm sorry I gave my opinion. oh well, anyway. I think that engine options in a 180SX or a JDM Silvia belong in the articles for the the 180SX and Silvia.

read this line: "was sold under model years 1989 through 1990. It was powered by a 140 hp (105 kW) 2.4-litre SOHC KA24E engine with 3 valves per cylinder instead of the 1.8-litre DOHC CA18,"

Instead of? could my 240SX have came with a CA18DET? did the 240SX come with a CA18DET? I'm not going into any more detail but you should at least hear me out on that sentence because that's the way this entire article is written.

and this one: "with no turbocharged engine available in the United States." was there a turbocharged engine available in a 240SX in some other country? I don't think there was. Maybe we should add a line saying that there wasin't a supercharged model or a V8 available as well.

Or maybe we should go over to the 180SX article and say that it Came with a 2.0 Liter SR20DET instead of a 2.4 Liter KA24DE. or add a line "with no 2.4 liter option available in Japan"

[edit] Fastback

Nissan did use the term "fastback" in the literature for the 240SX. It isn't technically correct, but it was used to differentiate it from 2-box hatchbacks like the Golf, Civic, etc. "Liftback" was another term used by Toyota and others for the same body style. Since "true" fastbacks disappeared after the 1960s, I don't think it's out of line to use Nissan's nomenclature and call it a fastback. — AKADriver ☎ 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nissan referred to this car as the "240SX fastback" everywhere I've seen it, including the original brochures, manual, etc. Regardless of whether or not it's a correct term, the car's model name was FASTBACK and that's what Nissan refers to it as in all of their documentation. I think it would behoove us to refer to the car by the manufacturer's correct model designations and maybe point out that Nissan's designation wasn't technically correct...rather than omit the fastback name entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.253.190.218 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007.

I added a note on the fastback-hatchback situation, since while I feel its important to use the technically correct description for the article text, it is notable to anyone seeking 240sx information that they will likely encounter them referred to as fastbacks by Nissan and others. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S13?

I've noticed the article refers to the 240SX hatchback as an S13 but, unless I'm mistaken, it's not a Silvia or an S13 at all, it's a 180SX. Am I mistaken or does this need to be changed? 71.98.156.88 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

S13 is the general chassis type for the '88-'93 Silvia, '89-'94 240SX, and '89-'98 180SX. See Nissan S platform. — AKADriver ☎ 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost thinking of covering this in the article. It's certainly a mistake that is made a lot. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S13 Silvia headlamps

the line reads like this: (United States headlight height regulations prevented the use of the Silvia headlamp arrangement).

it there a reference for that? What if Nissan just didin't market it in the states because of negative consumer reaction? I don't think I would have thought a S13 silvia front was very cool back in 1989. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.33.179.163 (talk • contribs).

Yeah, there needs to be a reference for this. The only factual reason I can think of would be that the exact lamps used don't meet FMVSS because they're set up for RHD and use non-US bulb types like the H3C... but that's true for any non-US car and many come here with the same style lights, modified to meet US beam patterns and bulbs. Customer opinion is more likely, and selling both the coupe and hatch under the same name here, I'm sure Nissan wanted to keep a consistent look. — AKADriver ☎ 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Silvia lights are perilously low based on the 22inch rule that the federal DOT has in place. Though it still needs citation, that is more or less the reason.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chuki --> Kouki?

Why were the 91-94 240's renamed to Kouki? I've ALWAYS known them as Chuki.--Loki240SX 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, as usual, people don't actually bother to do any research when they disagree with something. Its why Wikipedia is starting to get a pretty bad rep.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my recent reversion.

The following edits were reverted by myself for the following rationale:

• Change to viscous LSD in the wikilink causes a redirect. Please add it outside the wikilink or use the # section reference if it is put in again.
• Chucki to Kouki Either vandalism or unintentional misinformation, can't be sure, but nonetheless extremely incorrect. Kouki was only available on the S13 outside the US.
• Picture removal If you insist on removing that, please give a real reason. "Bad pic," "It looks ugly," and "I don't like it" are not acceptable reasons to remove a pic without discussion or replacement. (add:) In my personal opinion as an editor, I also believe we need a picture of a zenki S13, so until you can provide a better one or someone else does, all you're doing is deminishing the quality of the article by removing it.
• Simmilar to RX-7 No justification given for an edit that actually makes little sense. The RX-7 may share some minor characteristics on some far-reaching level but it is a far cry from being similar.

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)