A very good economy car

The 200SX was marketed as a sports coupe that is also practical. Honestly, the 200SX was an economy sedan (Nissan Sentra) with two fewer doors.

Once you know what the 200SX is and what it isn't, it is much easier to objectively look at it as a used car choice. If you want something fast and really fun to drive, well the SE-R version qualifies, but the base model (like I had) won't do it. Likewise, if what you want is a small, economical car for running your errands, commuting and the occasional road trip, all with low-maintenance and fuel costs, the 200SX is a very good choice.

Okay, I owned a 1998 base model 200SX with automatic transmission. At the same time I also had a 1997 Sentra GXE sedan with a 5-speed. The 200SX was mostly my wife's car, wile I drove the Sentra. Except for the transmission, the number of doors and some trim variations, the two cars are identical, with the exact same engine, brakes and suspension. There were some other subtle variations on account fo the two cars being a model year apart, such as larger 14 inch tires and a much better CD audio system on the 98s, while the 97s had 13 inch tires and a crummy cassette system, but all of those changes were common to both the Sentra and 200SX product lines.

We bought the car new in 1998 and even in base trim, which had a good-sounding CD audio system, full gages (white faced) and air conditioning, for somewhere around $13,000, which is about $500 more than my admittedly much more loaded Sentra cost the year before. The Sentra tends to be about $800 cheaper new than a comperable 200SX, but we bought the automatic as my wife won't learn manual.

The car was very plain and honest, and never gave us any trouble whatsoever in the four years we owned it. It wasn't fast, but even with the automatic, the 116 hp 1.6 liter engine had no trouble moving the car around. Acceleration was adequate, the transmission was well-matched to the engine and always up and downshifted smoothly and at just the right moment. The engine made some noise when revved, but it was a sporty 4-cylinder snarl that I rather enjoyed both in the 200SX and the Sentra (same engine, same sound).

Handling was also good, just as it was in the Sentra. The 200SX cornered just a bit better, but that is entirely the result of the larger 14 inch wheels and tires, as everything else is identical.

The seats are one area where the 98 models were improved over the 97s. The 98 seats are a bit firmer, but of identical shape. The base 200SX also had a very stiff cloth covering that Nissan thought would feel lower-grade than the soft, plush fabric of the higher trim levels, but I preferred it. It felt sporty and like it would hold up better than the plush fabric on my Sentra, and I was correct as that 200SX interior still looked brand-new when we sold the car.

The instruments were my favorite aspect of the 200SX, with nice, large round dials that had a sporty black lettering on a white background. I believe Nissan started that trend with the Maxima in 1988 or thereabouts, and this 200SX was perhaps the first inexpensive car to offer them. They are all the rage now (look at the brand-new Mazda 3), and they looked just as cool in 1998 on our 200SX.

We only sold the car because after four years, my wife was just sick of hauling my daughter in a two-door car, and it had higher mileage than my Sentra did. She replaced it with a 2001 Saturn L200 which has been a terrific car, but other than the 2 door body, the 200SX was every bit as good, if not a little better.

Just like the 1994 Mazda 323 I just reviewed, what I liked most about the 200SX (and my Sentra) was that the car was just an excellent transportation appliance, with a few fun moves up its sleeve. The car was mildly entertaining to drive, but very good at just covering a lot of mileage without any problems, issues or drama. I miss it.