Why are 72's considered best Z

[RogerZ]

Seems like everyone refers to the 1972 240 as the best around and I was wondering what prompts that attitude. Why different than 73 or 71?

[MikeW]

I don't know that 72's are considered the best any more. They used to be simply because they were the most refined version before the 1973 models came out with emissions-driven carbs that people considered less desirable. A lot of the deficiencies with the earlier cars were corrected along the way. Now the emphasis seems to be the earlier the better with certain people proclaiming that a specific maximum VIN is what really matters and that the potential maximum value of the car drops considerably if you're not in that elite range.

There are plenty of people with very nice examples of all of the models. I say go with whatever makes you happy and don't worry too much about what others think.

[Arne]

Well, I'd heard that as well, mostly from magazines and the like. Road & Track made that claim back in the early '80s, and it's been batted around ever since.

The reasoning was that by '72, there had been some noticable improvements to the 240Z, such as improved position of the rear differential, stronger transmission, and better design for interior ventiation. But in '73 the driveability and horsepower went south because of emissions control. The '73s had slightly larger front bumpers as well, and were a bit heavier. So '72 was supposed to be the "prime" year for this car.

But by today, most of that is immaterial. The early Series 1 cars (with the "bad" ventilation, "bad" differential position and "weak" transmission) are typically considered to be more "collectible" and still make great drivers. And many of the '73s by now have early carbs on them, which corrects their biggest short-coming.

So these days, I consider the notion that the '72s are the "best" to be out-dated.

[a7dz]

There are several differences between the early series I cars and the 72. Some deemed better some not. The fact the early cars were not prone to vapor lock is what really made them more desirable in the late 70's and early 80's. If you watch the build dates on these early cars you will see there are a lot of subtle changes. Most of them are to deal with safety or rust issues. Some examples are that the smaller ball joints and steering knuckles are only found in the first 6500 cars. Rear brake cylinders are different on the early series I cars as well.

The list goes on and on. that is why it is important to get the parts CD so, you can look up the changes by build date. It answers a lot of frustration when you have a new part that will not fit in your car.

FWIW

[texasz]

Seems like everyone refers to the 1972 240 as the best around and I was wondering what prompts that attitude. Why different than 73 or 71?

I do not believe this to be the case at all. The '70 and '71 cars are much lighter and had pretty much the same equipment. I believe that we can all agree that the '73 may be considered the worst if for nothing else the blasted flat-top carbs!

Much of this will simply be one's own opinion.

[=Enigma=]

I bought a 73 for several reasons. Feel free to correct my thinking, as I'm sure you will..

1) The 73' is is the last model year of the 240Z and I banked on the thinking that by then, all the issues with the earlier models had been worked out.

2) I wanted intermittent wipers, which is admittedly kind of silly since I have no intention of driving it in the rain anyway. But nice when you need them.

3) I wanted a simpler path to swapping in an R200 diff. The 73, and some 72's have all the parts you need except for the moustach bar.

4) I wanted reclining seats. I think the 72 comes with them as well.

5) I figured that some of the additional weight of the 73' may have been due to a more rigid unibody in all the right places, or thicker, better quality steel. This is pure speculation on my part and probably incorrect, but it was on my mind nonetheless.

6) I figured I could get one a bit cheaper, not having to contend with the competition to buy earlier models.

7) I stumbled onto a one owner 73' with low miles that was in amazing condition, always garaged, no cancer, already had round tops, upgraded anti-sway bars, an early 5 speed, and I was able to negotiate a fair price for the car and drive it away.

As for the weight factor, I don't intend on racing the thing, nor do I care if an earlier car would decrease my 0-60 time by a few tenths of a second. I intended on putting a 280ZX motor in it anyway so I'm not all that concerned.

These are the things that were important to me since I intended it to be a driver and do not have the facilities to do a full tear down and ground up restore. I just wanted a car that I could make some minor improvements to, then drive and enjoy. I have no intention of selling mine...ever....so resale value was really not a factor in my decision.

.

.

[Curtis240Z]

I asked a similar question in '77 "Which 240Z year is the best", of then the local Z specialized mechanic at our local "Datsun" dealer.

He said the '71 or '72 with the '71 having a higher compression head and the '72 having a stronger transmission.

So I have '71s with 5 speeds, best of both worlds, although now after 30+ years all my 240Zs have L28s so get what makes you happy and personalize it the way you want.:classic:

[a7dz]

7) I stumbled onto a one owner 73' with low miles that was in amazing condition, always garaged, no cancer, already had round tops, upgraded anti-sway bars, an early 5 speed, and I was able to negotiate a fair price for the car and drive it away.

Adam

The biggest reason you bought a 73 is right here it was a fair price. Your number seven.

If you could of bought a very early serial number car in excellent condition at a fair price you would have.

The only reason I do not own a second 240z. Would of been a 73 flat top carb vapor locking night mare my lawyer owned, was money. Could of bought it for a song.

[jmortensen]

The 72 has the preferable ashtray configuration (even if you don't smoke it makes a nice cupholder).

It also has the correct shifter location to install at 5 speed.

As Enigma says it has the curved transverse link behind the diff, making R200 swaps easier.

My understanding is that the sheet metal in the 72 was galvanized. That's OLD memory talking there, so it may be wrong, but seems like I read something like that on IZCC years back.

The 72 gained some weight vs the earlier cars. Still haven't figured out where they put it, but it seems to be the case.

I like the 72 for a driver. I'll keep my 70 for a stripped down balls to the wall race car due to its lighter weight.

[JLPurcell]

Info, the 72 was not galvanized.jlp

[=Enigma=]

Adam, The biggest reason you bought a 73 is right here it was a fair price. Your number seven.

If you could of bought a very early serial number car in excellent condition at a fair price you would have.

Possibly, but I was actually shopping specifically for a 72 or 73 due to my plans for some mild modifications modifications to engine and body. I figured I'd leave the early cars for those who wanted to restore them to the original glory. Once I found the right one, the deal was made. On the other hand, if I had found a "steal" of a deal on a 70-71 in the same condition as the 73 I purchased(very unlikely), I would have had to think long and hard about it, even though it did not fit with my established plans.

Edit: I forgot to mention the desire for retractable seatbelts in my previous post.

[zman525]

Theres pluses and downsides to just about every year in my opinion. If ur into low # Z's then older is obviously better. If ur looking for a stiff rigid unibody then i would say 73 and into the 76 280z. The best Z car is the one that suites u best. Overall if i had to say which one was best it would be the 72