Does anyone know the reason Datsun raised the last 6 inches or so of the rear decks on the early 1977 280Z only? Do you suppose it was to keep things from sliding into the access panel for the tail lights? If so, why would they change design in mid year (77) back to the flat deck. My 1978 had the flat rear deck just like the 240Z.

Vicky

Hi Vicky.

The rear deck on my '78 280Z was actually a full length and width, elevated fiberboard configuration that was completely flat and was about 6" above the steel deck below it. It reached from the top of the bulkhead behind the seats to the rear panel that covered the taillights and had a section over the spare tire that was hinged on the front and was raised up to access the spare and tools underneath from the back of the car through the open hatch.

My '75 280Z's rear deck is flat as well, but except for the round, fiberboard, spare tire cover, is all steel. It is covered only by the carpet and has two "trap door" storage bins below the steel deck located on either side of the driveshaft tunnel directly behind the bulkhead. These storage bins are accessed by lifting the carpet to get to the trap doors and is where the tools are stored.

I was told the reason for the change to the elevated deck was to make room for the space saving tire (which actually took away interior space)! :stupid:

Does anyone know the reason Datsun raised the last 6 inches or so of the rear decks on the early 1977 280Z only? Do you suppose it was to keep things from sliding into the access panel for the tail lights? If so, why would they change design in mid year (77) back to the flat deck. My 1978 had the flat rear deck just like the 240Z.

Vicky-

So your '77 had an access panel. I guess over time the PO's decided to remove the ones that were in both of my cars. I have seen so many of the '75-'76 had that panel (got 2 of them from the boneyard for that purpose, but never installed it since I'm still resolving the electrical issues). My guess was I thought Nissan attempted to omit that plastic piece in favor of the raised rear deck.

Wayne

From what I've heard it was only on the very early '77 280Z's. Mid year they returned to the flat even deck from the bulkhead to just under the tail light panel. Scott's 77 had that (he changed the deck and lowered it) and the Scarab, yes the Scarab has it also. It looks like this __/ . Sort of like if someone was going to mount speakers there. I don't know, I was just curious as to why the limited run. Another Datsun mystery.

Thanks for the replys

Vicky

The FMVSS for 77/78 changed the requirements for rear-end impact damage control. As far as I know, all the 77/78 280Z's had the raised rear deck originally intended to pass the new FMVSS ....

If you order rear bumpers you will notice that they are all different for the late 260Z (based on the 280Z body), the 75/76 280Z's and the 77/78 280Z's.. this is because the rear impact test requirements changed in those years.. So to did the uni-body structures that carried the bumpers and took the impacts..

FWIW,

Carl

Carl Beck

Clearwater, FL USA

http://ZHome.com

I have owned a few examples of the '77 280Z as well as the '78 280Z. I have owned as early as a 09/77 280Z and it was equipped with a flat floor although as Rob states it was elevated by a series of aluminum spacers to accomodate the bulky "space saver" spare tire. Most of my '77 280Z's were early in the production run (12/76, 01/77 and 02/77) and all three of those cars have the raised rear deck example. Since both model years used the same "space saver" spare tire I would tend to believe Carl's statement regarding the crash standards.

FWIW, I once stumbled across a website which listed the weights for the early '75/'76 280Z bumper assemblies compared to the '77/'78 bumper assemblies and the '77/'78 280Z bumpers were a few pounds lighter given less material due to the design of the bumper blade itself as well as the rubber endpieces which contradicts the crash standard suggestion.

It may have been Nissan's way of keeping the car fresh in the marketplace while the S130 was being prepared for production? Notice the hood vents and different wheel covers for the '77 model year.

Wheel covers yes but I thought the hood vents were the same on the 77 and 78. 77 was the first year the vents were introduced, no? 77 was also the first year for the 5-speed too.

Vicky

<<<this is because the rear impact test requirements changed in those years.. So to did the uni-body structures that carried the bumpers and took the impacts..

>>>>

Carl B--are you saying that the 77-78 body has more metal for reinforcement in the unibody in the front and rear?

Carl Beck's response is right on. From what I know, the raised deck was added to accomodate the mounting of the new federal spec bumpers which debuted in 1977. The new bumper height requirements and clearance for the bumber mounts and shocks necessitated the raised deck. The interior mod was handled as a running change involving the additional spacers and initially, a molded upswept fiberboard deck, which covered the tailight housings and was an easy fix for starters. By mid year (April '77) the new molds were ready for production and a plastic interior taillight trim piece was added to allow the return of a flat loading floor space with additional storage volume.

At that time, MG addressed the issue by introducing their infamous rubber nose models. Bumper height requirements were met by simply raising the ground clearance of the car. Not the best for handling but a quick fix.

Carl B--are you saying that the 77-78 body has more metal for reinforcement in the unibody in the front and rear?

Hi Dave:

No. I do not know if there was more metal or not.. only that the structure was redesigned to meet and pass the impact test criteria. As I recall the impact test used a swing arm weight that struck the bumpers in the middle..

This impact had to be absorbed without disabling the car, and leaving the lighting in tact and working (both front and rear)..

So it was quite possible that they simply moved some metal around.. where it would reinforce the structure.. or allow it to crumple without taking out the lights.

FWIW,

Carl B.