Blog

Sep 03, 2023

1995 Nissan 200SX SE

From the Archive: Requiem for a lightweight? Hardly. From the February 1995 issue of Car and Driver. Please continue reading while we observe a moment of silence for the Nissan Sentra SE-R. At the

From the Archive: Requiem for a lightweight? Hardly.

From the February 1995 issue of Car and Driver.

Please continue reading while we observe a moment of silence for the Nissan Sentra SE-R.

At the thin-wallet end of the spectrum, the SE-R was rare metal. Cheap, with X­-Acto handling and an unadorned shape plain to the trained cop eye. It virtually reinvented the inexpensive sports sedan­—on BMW terms, in Japanese quality, at an American price.

We gushed, foamed, and put it on five Ten Best lists. And most of you ignored it. You called and wrote "What's a good car for under $15,000?" We answered with three letters: SE-R.

You said, "What else?"

As Sam Kinison would scream, "Thanks a lot, guys!" It's gone. You might still find one, but Nissan built the last of the Sentra SE-Rs on a buggy June day in Tennessee.

Or you might hold your collective breath—as we did—and hope that the replacement would be as lively and endearing and cheap as the Sentra SE-R. Lucky for you, the second act on Nissan's Sentra-based playbill is nearly as enter­taining as the first one.

The 200SX SE-R is the most sporting of the fourth generation of Sentras, filling the hole left by the dearly departed. The new name recalls the low-buck, high­-performance Nissan coupes from the mid-­Eighties, married to the glossy image of the recent SE-R. This palimony agreement neatly divorces two distinct models, allow­ing the two-door 200SX to get on with its life and go after younger, sportier buyers with minimal assets.

You can't deny roots, though. Like it or not, the SE-R remains based on the frugal Sentra, now in its fourth iteration. And for the fourth time around, Nissan has given more thought to increasing the Sentra's rear-seat room and to reducing the gush of cash it takes to pop out some 200,000 cars a year. Both of these goals have direct effects on the perfor­mance and handling of the related SE-R.

The lovingly con­structed powertrain is nearly untouched. The SE-R is still propelled by an expensive-feeling, very-expensive-to-build 140-horsepower 2.0-liter four. (The base 200SX and the mid-line SE model host the likable 1.6-liter four from the last Sentra, pumped up to 115 horsepower.) We're not sure that there has ever been another four-cylinder engine with as much verve and slickness as this one. It races ahead of you to reach the redline, waiting happily there until you realize it's time to stop that mechanical childishness and shift.

When you do, you engage a five-speed that might have been lifted intact from the best arcade games, so light and correct and intentional are its movement through its ratios. Swapping gears here is a fun job, much like being pool boy at the Playboy mansion cabana (minus the risk of finding Hef's toupee in the skimmer, of course).

If you choose not to shift, you will notice that the engine's remarkable flexi­bility remains. If anything, the new appli­cation has quieted the last minor roar from the rhythmic beating of the four-cylinder. A stiffer body structure is responsible for the quietness—full throttle creates only 76 dBA of whining music, compared with the 82 dBA in the older car.

A whit of performance may have been lost somewhere between generations, kind of like William Shatner's formerly virile physique. The 200SX SE-R we sampled­—one of eight in the country as we write—hit 60 mph in 8.0 seconds, four-tenths slower than the former SE-R. Odd, because the new car weighs 23 pounds less than last year's model (even with standard dual airbags and side-impact protection). We have a hunch that the light dip in the numbers is due to both the prototype status of our tester and to the new model's 7100-rpm redline, which is 400 rpm lower than before (for emissions reasons).

Quite intentionally, top speed has plunged, despite the similar weight and the more favorable aerodynamics of the 200SX. Nissan and the insurance companies appar­ently agree that keeping things down to 109 mph (from 124 mph) is politically correct. It may be the only case of a Democratic gov­ernor picking up work this year.

More noticeable is the evolution of the SE-R's underpinnings, away from mechan­ical exactitude to a simpler, cost-effective solution. The front wheels are still con­trolled by MacPherson struts and an anti­-roll bar, but the pairs of links that guided the old SE-R's rear wheels have been replaced. Borrowing from the new Maxima, Nissan engineers worked up a beam axle with trailing arms, a Panhard rod, and a unique sliding link that connects to the axle at its midpoint. This arrangement cancels the jacking effect common to Panhard-rod setups. Nissan calls the arrangement a "multilink beam" and claims that it's a better compromise than a completely inde­pendent rear suspension because (a) it's more compact, freeing up rear-seat and trunk room; (b) it's lighter; and (c) it has fewer moving parts and mounting points, making it cheaper to build and quieter on the road.

Is Camelot lost? The handling differ­ences between the former SE-R and the 200SX are evident but not too bother­some. The hybrid beam-axle rear suspen­sion doesn't absorb one-wheel bumps as easily as the previous SE-R, but it does offer more grip. It rides softer because the uniform motion of the rear axle allowed engineers to put some slack back in the springs and bushings. But it seems more reluctant to turn in, which might be blamed on the four-inch increase in wheelbase.

Except for the infrequent harsh motions induced by tar strips, the 200SX SE-R rides smoothly for a car of its size. And a magnitude jump to 15-inch, 55-series tires (with a little help from the flat cornering motions of the rear axle) boosts lateral grip to 0.85 g, versus the 0.80 g we measured for the previous SE-R. Some cornering transitions are less settled than in its rail-riding predecessor, but mostly the new SE-R is eager to attack favorite stretches of two-lane road.

Along those same lines go the brakes­—although they feel softer, they deliver slightly more stopping power. The 200SX SE-R brought itself down from 70 mph in 182 feet, four feet shorter than before. Anti-lock control is optional on the SE-R and 200SX SE models but is unavailable on the base 200SX.

You'll recognize the new duds before you can catalog the dynamics, and it's on that basis that Nissan thinks it can sell 40,000 200SXs a year. Agreed, the former Sentra two-doors were plainer than North Dakota, but they had a certain elemental, ascetic appeal. The 200SX is less plain but not necessarily more attractive. We see a lot of different cars in its me-too two-door form—Thunderbirds, Accords, even Infiniti's G20 (no surprise, really, since the Nissan was styled in the same Japanese studio as the G20). From its corporate face to its sloping trunkline snatched from the Altima, the 200SX is in need of some styling inspiration. A little '95 Fiat Coupe, perhaps.

The interior is very little changed, with the same functional switches and gauges now nestled in finer-grain plastic surrounds. Somehow, the inside works better than the outside. It's black and stark—not unlike how BMW might outfit a $16,500 sedan—with smooth but straight-edged forms, clearly arranged controls, and a well-placed four-spoke steering wheel. The front seats are comfortable and sup­portive, and the new passenger airbag hasn't displaced the glovebox.

The more flowing look liberates a lit­tle more rear-seat room, but not as much as we expected. Headroom has actually dropped, by more than an inch, to give the stylists some freedom to drape the C-pil­lar artfully. The car has gained 4.1 inches of wheelbase, but only 0.5 inch goes to gapping out vital knee room in the back. In all, the rear seats don't seem usefully larger than the old ones, although they split and fold to swallow large packages. But by the numbers for shoulder, leg, and hip room, the 200SX SE-R is roomier in back than two-door Civics, Saturns, and Integras.

You might have assumed by now, what with all the constant comparison, that we adored the Sentra SE-R. You would be correct. Buckling into its sport seat was like tightening the laces on a runner's shoe.

What Nissan has wrought with a rethunk suspension and (supposedly) sex­ier styling is more mainstream than that paragon. The 200SX's appeal may be broader than the old SE-R's, but it's also less intense.

Does a Nissan still reign atop the mid­-priced pack of sporting two-doors? We'll let you know in next month's compari­son test.

Specifications

1995 Nissan 200SX SE-RVehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe

PRICE (ESTIMATED)Base/As Tested: $15,800/$17,400

ENGINEDOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injectionDisplacement: 122 in3, 1998 cm3Power: 140 hp @ 6400 rpmTorque: 132 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

TRANSMISSION5-speed manual

CHASSISSuspension, F/R: struts/multilinkBrakes, F/R: 9.9-in vented disc/9.3-in discTires: Goodyear Eagle RS-A M+S195/55VR-15

DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 99.8 inLength: 170.1 inWidth: 66.6 inHeight: 54.2 inPassenger Volume, F/R: 50/34 ft3Trunk Volume: 10 ft3Curb Weight: 2588 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.0 sec1/4-Mile: 16.1 sec @ 83 mph100 mph: 27.2 secRolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.7 secTop Gear, 30–50 mph: 10.5 secTop Gear, 50–70 mph: 11.3 secTop Speed (gov ltd): 109 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 182 ftRoadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g

C/D FUEL ECONOMYObserved: 26 mpg

EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/Highway: 24/31 mpg

C/D TESTING EXPLAINED

1995 BMW 318ti: The Shortest Path to a New BMW

Tested: 1989 Jaguar Vanden Plas

1996 Cadillac Catera Preview Drive

1996 Chrysler Minivans Preview

1995 Off-Road SUV Adventure: North By More North

1995 Lincoln Continental Takes Aim at Lexus

1989 Eagle Summit LX: Chrysler's Mitsubishi Mirage

1995 Mercedes-Benz C36 AMG Has a Split Personality

1996 BMW Z3 Roadster Was 'a Shrewd Execution'

1996 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport Tested

1990 Acura Integra GS Grows Up

Tested: Third-Gen 1996 Toyota 4Runner SR5