Should I or Should I not buy a 1979 280zx?

[Carl Beck]

Hi ehanvey (everyone)

I hope ehanvey got some useful information in response to his main question, even if there seems to be some conflicting and tangent inputs.

...{snipped}... The oft quoted lower power output is based on the fact the under hood label finally began to quote the net vs gross power output in 79. The engine is the same as a 280-Z. ...{snipped..cjb}...

.

I believe it would be a little more accurate to say that the engine block and head were the same between the 77/78 280Z and early 79 280ZX's. The 75/76 280Z's used the N42 square port head and the 77/78 280Z's used the N47 round port head. This was carried over into the initial months of 79... but then sometime during the production of that model year Nissan switched to the P81.

A slight tangent... to the thread... did appear in the above quote and I don't want to hijack the main subject, nor get too far afield... but as it relates to the HP ratings used by Nissan.. if anyone is interested here is what I believe to be the case...

See: <a href=http://ZHome.com/ZCMnL/tech/SAEHPRatings.htm TARGET=NEW>http://ZHome.com/ZCMnL/tech/SAEHPRatings.htm</a>

SAE Gross Horse Power, SAE Horse Power and SAE Net Horse Power. Three Rating Systems - not two.

FWIW,

Carl B.

Clearwater, FL USA

http://ZHome.com

[deadflo]

Carl, What is a P-81 head?Never heard of it. My 79 ZX (N-47 head)was made in June of that year, pretty late in the production run, whcih started Nov 78. I thought the heads stayed the same until the flat top pistons of 1981.

[ggarrard]

For a comparison of the various Z models over the years, refer to this table one of our TIZCC club members put together. http://www.tizcc.ca/zeds.htm Specifications are as published by Road & Track...

I own both a 72, and an 83 ZXT 2+2. The 240 is a sports car with no frills. The ZXT is a cruiser. Most noticable difference between the 2 models are the creature comforts on the ZX that we take for granted in our daily drivers (Air, cruise, power steering, windows etc.). I like them both for what they are. Neither are for sale....(sorry Carl:) )

GWGarrard

[SteveJ]

I believe it would be a little more accurate to say that the engine block and head were the same between the 77/78 280Z and early 79 280ZX's. The 75/76 280Z's used the N42 square port head and the 77/78 280Z's used the N47 round port head. This was carried over into the initial months of 79... but then sometime during the production of that model year Nissan switched to the P81.

A slight tangent... to the thread... did appear in the above quote and I don't want to hijack the main subject, nor get too far afield... but as it relates to the HP ratings used by Nissan.. if anyone is interested here is what I believe to be the case...

See: <a href=http://ZHome.com/ZCMnL/tech/SAEHPRatings.htm TARGET=NEW>http://ZHome.com/ZCMnL/tech/SAEHPRatings.htm</a>

SAE Gross Horse Power, SAE Horse Power and SAE Net Horse Power. Three Rating Systems - not two.

Clearwater, FL USA

http://ZHome.com

Carl, when are you going to write the next definitive book on Z cars? Most of the time when I'm trying to find an answer to somebody's question on Z cars, I end up referencing your site. For instance, I used your page on performance numbers drawn from car magazines to refute the argument that the 280ZX was a fat pig compared to the 280Z.

Okay, so it might not make you a lot of money, but it would certainly stir conversations within the community.

[ehanvey]

Great info, thanks! Will post again if I buy.

[deadflo]

This link has info on the L-6 cylinder heads.

http://www.geocities.com/zgarage2001/z.html

Again it seems to indicate the N-47 head was used on the ZX from 79 to 81, then they used the p-79 and p-90's.

Anybody else know about the P-81 Carl referred to?

[Carl Beck]

Hi deadflo (everyone):

Sorry for the confusion - I shouldn't have used that term here.

The "P81" was used initially on the ZX with Power Steering. Nissan Part Numbers 11041-P8100

See: <a href=http://ZHome.com/zcarfilesJPEG/P81HeadSM.jpg TARGET=NEW>http://ZHome.com/zcarfilesJPEG/P81HeadSM.jpg</a>

Brian's site is filled with useful data/info - but as usual, there are mistakes/errors there as well. (we all have them on our sites).

Brian writes:

>The E31 is an uncommon, desirable head that came on early 1970 240's. It's chambers

>were high-quench designs, however the valves were smaller than the 260 and 280* heads.

>Probably about 10,000 were made. But after 35 years, most of them are long gone, having

>been over-collected and used up in racing. 42cc chambers I believe.

Actually the head with casting E31 was standard on the Series I (69/70), Series II (71) and a few came marked as E88, when they actually were the castings of the E31 on the early Series III (72 Model Year) DATSUN 240-Z's imported into the North American Market. Not "uncommon" at the time, something less than 46,000 of them made their way here. ( I think Brian got that 10K number from reported sales for calendar year 1970 here in the US).

The only reason the E31 was used for "racing" in the early days... was because that was the only head available here, that could be used in C-Production/Stock classes in 70/71. Both BRE and BSR switched to the newer E88 heads when they became available on the Series III models in late 1971 (72 Model Year Z's).

The E88 had better flow characteristics and only slightly lower compression. It's quite easy to raise the compression using almost any of the L24/26/28 heads.. it's the design of the runners from the valves, to the intake/exhaust Ports that are cast into the head that are very hard to change.. the size, shape, length of the runners, the radius of the curves in it... all have a great impact on flow rates. You can polish these runners, and to a degree increase their diameters.. but it's not cost effective to attempt to change their routing and the radius of their bends. So you start with good "runners" and you can easily modify combustion chambers.

Brian writes:

>The E88 came on the 1971-73 240s and '74 260s, in 2 versions, small valve and large valve

>on the 260. It's chambers are the same cc size as later N42 and 47 heads. Despite what some

>older books say, I can't see why the E88 would have any performance advantage over any other head.

Actually as mentioned above - the E88's started on the 72 Model Year 240-Z's. There were at least 3 versions all with casting number E88. One on the 72 240Z, a different one on the 73 240Z (combustion chamber shape), and a different one on the 260Z (larger exhaust valve).

Here is where it can get confusing and I most likely shouldn't have used the "P81" designation here... Just as the heads all with E88 casting numbers were actually different, so were there differences in the heads with N47 cast on them. The P81 mentioned has a casting number of N47... but it is a different Part Number and the internal runners are different.

I would guess that Brian couldn't see why the E88 would have any performance advantage over any other head, because he didn't have a Flow Bench, nor could he see the internal design of the runners.

These differences may only matter if you are going to the extreme in head work - Jim Wolf uses the different Part Number designations to assure he and his customers are talking about the exact same head (regardless of the common casting number)... when they plan the applications and necessary modifications. You will note he also uses "N33", "P50" in addition to the original E88, as a way of telling exactly which E88 head they will be using/modifying and selecting cam's for etc.

See: <a href=http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/128combo.html TARGET=NEW>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/128combo.html</a>

Brian Writes:

>The larger valve N42 came on the 1975-76 280Z. 280Zs didn't use a catalytic converter until 1977,

>and the head came with softer bronze valve seats for use with leaded gas.Many people like these for

>performance because of it's square exhaust ports. And as a easy mod, putting it on a flattop L28

>motor puts compression in the mid 10's.

That may be a little misleading... actually the E88 on the 260Z got the larger exhaust valve (35mm vs 33mm) on the 74 Model Year Z's. The 75 280Z's with the N42 got the larger Intake valve (44mm vs 42mm). Until 77 all the Z heads in North America used the valve seats for leaded gasoline, the hardened steel valve seats were standard from the 77 Model Year forward (it wasn't only the N42). Also, as I recall every time we've figured the compression ratio using the N42 with flat top pistons we got something closer to 9.6:1 not the mid 10's.

FWIW,

Carl B.

Carl Beck

Clearwater,FL USA

http://ZHome.com

[EScanlon]

This is worthy of repeating:

It is a Z. Don't let anyone tell you it is not a fun car to drive. A lot of people are hardcore Z-only lovers and will tell you that it is not a real Z. Some of them even hate the new Z and just don't think anything else but an early car is the way to go.

However, I believe that even a ZX is a fun car to drive. The X actually stands for "luxury" and there are several videos in our gallery that depict quite a marketing venture toward that fact.

When compared to an early Z (240, 260, 280), a ZX is a different flavor of a Z. In fact, there will soon be a time when the ZX becomes a classic in itself.

-- Mike

This statement, along with the comments made by several members who are recognized by other club members as knowledgeable should give you the answer you need.

To answer your question directly:

As with any car, make sure you check it out thoroughly, then buy the best car for the amount you are willing to spend.

THEN,

Continue with your collection and get two 240's (Series I and Series II), followed by a 260 and a second 280 (75 - 78), that way you'll have one of each of the original Z cars. Lastly, get a 350.

Welcome to the club.

Enrique

[boostedz]

i bought a 79 zx gl in 81. drove it as my daily driver for 2 years.

original owner had traded it in on an 82 zx turbo.

in comparison, the 240z rides and drives like a datsun pick up of the same era.

the zx is not a real z car. nor are others that came after the original z car. at least not in the idea and statement expressed by the 240z. a light weight stripped down gt sports coupe. built to excite the senses with good looks, reliability, and sheer sexy lines.

the zx is a solid car, more jaguar feel. quality without all the breaking down and lucas " the prince of darkness " electrical issues that plagued the jags.

when the zx was new, to people who owned and drove the 240z, the zx was considered a woman's or fat old man's car. not a true gt coupe. the car was fat, bloated and underpowered.

nissan/datsun had wandered far off the path the 240z was designed to follow.

that said, the 79 zx was a big hit, the best selling car of the z series at that time.

having driven and owned both the zx and a real z car, i could tell why.

one has to finesse a 240z and really drive it.

the zx was a much friendlier car to drive. it felt solid and sure footed. all doors closed with an assuring thud. the door glass didn't rattle. heater and airconditioning worked as well as any pricey euro trash bmw or other gt.

for it's day, it compared favorable in acceleration and cruise speed to cars costing much more. i had considered buying a new 79 vette. the '79 vette wallowed and was way under powered, felt as if it was going to fall apart around me as i test drove it. the 79 zx was, well it put a great big smile on my face.

i used to drive mine over 17 to santa cruz from san jose at least once a week. could drive the whole way in 5th gear. engine would pull it and suspension would handle it. 4 wheel disc brakes would stop it fast.

seats were comfortable, mirrors in the right place, stereo was excellent. ride was firm but not teeth rattling. a very enjoyable car to drive.

worst gas mileage in stop and go driving was 11 mpg. usually around town mileage was 17 mpg. on the road at 65, i consitantly got over 28 mpg. best mpg was a trip to the swap meet in pomona from san jose, 32 mpg. cruise set at 60 mph.

all that said.

until i drove one, i was very biased against the zx.

they took the beautiful shape of the 240z and turned it into a fat cow.

later they pinched the front of the 280zx called it a 300zx and made it a funny looking fat cow.

but, after driving the 79 zx, i wanted one. it is truly a nice car. more room inside than the 240z. luxury abounds. i was 25 when i bought my 79 zx. i was wrong about it being a fat old man's car.

it certainly wasn't a 240z, it wasn't a light weight gt sports coupe. in most 240z owner's eyes, it wasn't as pretty as the 240z, but it does have some beautiful lines of its own. beauty in the eye of the beholder. even though i prefer, have owned and currently own the real and original z, truth is, if i had the money i'd own another 280zx.

as far as collector status, outside of us z types, none of the z cars are really what one would call collectable.

all z cars are still a niche car, with a smaller audience than say the rambler AMX.

collector status ... as far as the most collectable

ranking in order of most to least.

the 240z, pretty much skip all the zx series until you get to the twin turbo 300zx. the 96 being the most collectable of the zx series. nothing after 96 is collectable ( yet ).

as clean 240's are becoming harder to find and more of the 280z's were produced people are settling for the 280z in place of a 240z. so the 280z may soon be as valueable as the 240z among those that don't know the difference between the two. right now the 280z is just slightly more desireable than the zx.

if you prefer the lines of the 280 zx series, the 83 turbo is the collectable one. but again, even it falls behind the 240z or the 300zx twin turbo in value and desireablity. if you are looking for something in the 280zx series to round out your personal collection, get the 83zx.

if the 79 zx is clean and the price is right, buy it for yourself, not for the collector value. you will enjoy the ride.

i'm off my soap box and expect the arrows to start flying over my statements.

I like the statement that you put here it was fat, bloated and underpowered, well lets see it did have more powere then the 240Z, it does weigh less then the 280Z.

So I find that your statement there is very incorrect and also technically wrong.

The aerodynamics of the ZX are far superior to the Z. The suspension was upgraded and so was the chassis, making the car more rigid and superior in handling if properly set up as with any vehicle.

I see that a lot of people put down the ZX, and all for the wrong reasons or for statems such as this that state is is slow and underpowered.

Personally on a looks note, I love the look of the first gen cars and I prefer theyre look, but to say that the ZX isnt a "Z" or isnt a good car are just talking out of theyre arse.

I have a late 82 280ZXT in my collection, and there isnt a car on the road or at the track that I cant keep up with and a lot that I can beat.

To name a few, SRT-4's, STI's, newer unmodified Vettes, Mustangs and even some of the supercharged variety.

So saying that the ZX isnt powerful well, that is just a falshood.

[sblake01]

I think you need to re read his post, rather than quoting the whole thing. He's basically said the same thing you did. He's not putting down the car.