I'm looking for a '95-'98 200SX SE, but would take a '95-'99 Sentra if I came across a good enough deal.
This thread says someone bought a '96 Sentra in 2003 w/ 120K for only $1500. And someone says you should be able to get one now $1500-$2500. This thread isn't that old (gas $ hasn't changed much since then). Yet, all the Sentras I find seem to be much higher, many around $5,000, unless they have over 150,000 miles. I'd prefer a 200SX instead, but they're the same way. ie. I see a 200SX with 180K for $3800, and one (a '96) with 166K for $5000. I've looked on ebay and autotrader. Is there somewhere else I should be looking?
You can get the same gas sipping 1.6L in the 200SX too. Not sure why the guy in above thread just said the 200SX comes with the 2.0L.
I'm having trouble figuring out the exact gas mileage on various years. I will be making a lot of long distance trips and am hoping for 40 MPG.
Edmunds says the '95 Sentra has the same engine as previous models, but highway MPG went from 35 to 40 from '94-'95. The engine even got 5 more HP. Is that MPG correct? How did they manage that? Was the newer body design that much more aerodynamic?
fueleconomy.gov says '95-'96 Sentra with 5 spd manual gets 30/40 MPG, but the '97-'99 went down to 29/39. Not that big of a deal, but anyone know (if that's correct) why that happened?
However Edmunds says the '97-'99 Sentra still gets 30/40 MPG. Which is correct? Also Edmunds also says the '97-'98 200SX ('98 is last year of 200SX) gets 39 MPG. But these have the same engines, and I think the 200SX even weighs a bit less. Maybe the 200SX's rear spoiler? Or just incorrect data.
Edmunds also says the '99 Sentra SE Limited Sedan (2.0L 140HP) gets 39 MPG, but says the Sentra SE has also has a 140HP 2.0L and gets 39 MPG. First, I think starting in '99 only the SE Limited has that engine, and surely it doesn't get 39 MPG, the same or about the same as the 115HP 1.6L?
It says the '98 Sentra SE has the 140HP 2.0L (no Limited until '99) and only gets 31 MPG!?
Same with the 95-98 200SX SE-R (same 2.0L 140HP engine), Edmunds says only 31MPG. Surely they didn't improve the body design that much from '98 to '99 to increase the gas mileage that much? Is the 39 MPG for the 140HP 2.0L engine a mistake?
This person only got 33 MPG in their 1.6L Sentra. Did the 14" tires get lower MPG vs. 13" tires? Or some just don't get near the rated MPG?
Here's a 200SX that didn't sell on ebay. It's at a dealer local to me. What's the absolute lowest you think I could get it for (I'm paying cash or check)? How much do you think they have in it?
The left rear bumper is sagging for some reason, tail lights don't seem to match up real good (maybe normal?), and it's got some some cig. burns in the seats. I don't like cars that have been smoked in, but for the right price, I'll take it (and get it shampoo'd).
This thread says someone bought a '96 Sentra in 2003 w/ 120K for only $1500. And someone says you should be able to get one now $1500-$2500. This thread isn't that old (gas $ hasn't changed much since then). Yet, all the Sentras I find seem to be much higher, many around $5,000, unless they have over 150,000 miles. I'd prefer a 200SX instead, but they're the same way. ie. I see a 200SX with 180K for $3800, and one (a '96) with 166K for $5000. I've looked on ebay and autotrader. Is there somewhere else I should be looking?
You can get the same gas sipping 1.6L in the 200SX too. Not sure why the guy in above thread just said the 200SX comes with the 2.0L.
I'm having trouble figuring out the exact gas mileage on various years. I will be making a lot of long distance trips and am hoping for 40 MPG.
Edmunds says the '95 Sentra has the same engine as previous models, but highway MPG went from 35 to 40 from '94-'95. The engine even got 5 more HP. Is that MPG correct? How did they manage that? Was the newer body design that much more aerodynamic?
fueleconomy.gov says '95-'96 Sentra with 5 spd manual gets 30/40 MPG, but the '97-'99 went down to 29/39. Not that big of a deal, but anyone know (if that's correct) why that happened?
However Edmunds says the '97-'99 Sentra still gets 30/40 MPG. Which is correct? Also Edmunds also says the '97-'98 200SX ('98 is last year of 200SX) gets 39 MPG. But these have the same engines, and I think the 200SX even weighs a bit less. Maybe the 200SX's rear spoiler? Or just incorrect data.
Edmunds also says the '99 Sentra SE Limited Sedan (2.0L 140HP) gets 39 MPG, but says the Sentra SE has also has a 140HP 2.0L and gets 39 MPG. First, I think starting in '99 only the SE Limited has that engine, and surely it doesn't get 39 MPG, the same or about the same as the 115HP 1.6L?
It says the '98 Sentra SE has the 140HP 2.0L (no Limited until '99) and only gets 31 MPG!?
Same with the 95-98 200SX SE-R (same 2.0L 140HP engine), Edmunds says only 31MPG. Surely they didn't improve the body design that much from '98 to '99 to increase the gas mileage that much? Is the 39 MPG for the 140HP 2.0L engine a mistake?
This person only got 33 MPG in their 1.6L Sentra. Did the 14" tires get lower MPG vs. 13" tires? Or some just don't get near the rated MPG?
Here's a 200SX that didn't sell on ebay. It's at a dealer local to me. What's the absolute lowest you think I could get it for (I'm paying cash or check)? How much do you think they have in it?
The left rear bumper is sagging for some reason, tail lights don't seem to match up real good (maybe normal?), and it's got some some cig. burns in the seats. I don't like cars that have been smoked in, but for the right price, I'll take it (and get it shampoo'd).
