Why would you want a 280?

[Palmer]

My first Z some 18 years ago was a 280, had to sell it to pay for some college. When I was shopping around for a Z project my intent was to find a 240 but the cost to find one in good shape was beyond my budget. So I found a 280 and that's where I am right now. The folks here at classiczcars seem to be a little more patient with certain questions or subjects vs over at hybridz so this site is 'home' to me. It's really not about what you drive and if one car is better than the other. It's about what you grew up with and the memories you are trying to bring back to life....It's a Z car, that's all that matters.

[Mike]

Thanks, Mike, now I feel really inferior:stupid: . No, just kidding-you are right. My beloved, while equiped with the same L28 as the 280z, puts out a sorry excuse for power, at least when compared to its older brothers.

I think the important thing to remember here is that all the older Z cars are incredible, even if they are flawed in one way or another. My ZX is underpowered, and a little overweight, but I love it just the same:love: . Does that mean that I would never consider buying an older Z car? Hell no:finger: , I'd love to add to the collection and discover that little something that defines each model.

Be safe out there.

I agree. I don't mind the ZX. I really like some of the 300ZX cars. There's a guy in the local NW club that has a beautiful burgundy 300 that's been lightened and trimmed to a very nice combination of style and performance.

As a comparison between the 240/280z, just look at how many people take the good parts of a 280 and put them into a 240.

I just saw my balanced, blueprinted, and refreshed L28 yesterday. I can't wait to listen to her run!! If I had the right gas-tank, fuel lines, and didn't spend $600 on triple carbs, I probably would have gone with EFI.

-- Mike

[veritech-z]

The folks here at classiczcars seem to be a little more patient with certain questions or subjects vs over at hybridz so this site is 'home' to me.

Isn't it strange how that works? I was thinking about that the other day, how personalities still find a way to either mesh or grate on each other even without direct physical interaction...I feel more like a guest over here than at Hybridz personally (not because anyone's personality grates on me or anything over here-I think you all are very knowledgeable and pretty cool), maybe it's my low post count...I guess even birds of a digital feather will find a way to flock together.

[e_racer1999]

^it's actually the exact opposite for me!

[CoastGuardZ]

Sure, I'll add my $.02... but let me start by saying I love ALL Z cars, even the 350 that so many seemed repulsed by.

It all started for me back when I was a kid and one of my dad's Navy buddies had a black 280ZX turbo T-top... God it was sexy. As I grew older learned more about cars and the Z I realised the 240's were for me. I don't feel that the 280 is a "corrected" version of the 240. I feel it's more of a "fluffed" and "market friendly" version. I feel that the '72-'73 240's were the "corrected" models. Big bumpers and back seats aren't corrections, they're government mandates and a way to find more buyers for a niche car. I don't own a classic car because it's safe or starts easy, I have an '02 Pathfinder for that. My Z gives me the raw automotive experience that makes me want to wake up every day.

So the question at hand, Why would I want a 280? For parts. Namely the F54 (zx) block and 5-spd tranny. I do not dislike the 280, It's just not for me.

I get excited when any variant of the Z goes by, but it's the 240 that gives me goosebumps.

Nate

[Arne]

I don't own a classic car because it's safe or starts easy, I have an '02 Pathfinder for that. My Z gives me the raw automotive experience that makes me want to wake up every day.

Well said! That sums up my position as well. Nothing wrong with the later cars, they're just not the ones that I get excited about.

[KDMatt]

All.Zcars.are.sexy

'Nuff said.

[daddz]

You know, that not really true. In the U.S. they changed the way that horsepower was reported for the 1979 model year from gross hp which had previously been used to net hp which shows a lower number. I think we've discussed that in other threads.

Steven,

Not exactly:

1978 rated at gross bhp: 170hp/ 177 lb/ft torque

1978 rated at net bhp: 149hp / 163 lb ft torque

1979 rated at net: 135bhp / 149 lb ft torque

1981 (the comeback) rated at net: 145bhp / 156 lb ft torque

1984 VG30E rated at 160bhp / 174 lb ft torque

In any case the torque value is what you feel as expressed by the twisting force generated from the engine.

[Mr Camouflage]

I don't know if you'd say 'born from' but from what I've read, they share what Nissan calls the 'FM' platform which was a new platform in 2001. The Z was produced in early 2002 and released for the 2003 model year. So the G35 actually does precede the 350Z.

I've read that the Z33 was produced in 2002 and the G35 coupe not untill 2003.

[cegrover]

I've read that the Z33 was produced in 2002 and the G35 coupe not untill 2003.

Just for the record: the way platform development works, the investment in a new, RWD platform was not likely approved until multiple derivatives (two G35s and a Z, maybe even FX) with specified volume were committed; so it doesn't really matter which car came to market first - the G35 Coupe was not conjured up AND brought to market inside of one year.

[CoastGuardZ]

I've read that the Z33 was produced in 2002 and the G35 coupe not untill 2003.

A snippet from wikipedia...

This platform debuted with the 2001 V35-series Nissan Skyline, and has been used as the basis of nearly all of Nissan's rear and all-wheel drive applications since its inception.

That being said, the V35 Skyline is the near identical twin of the G35 sedan. This just means that the Z33 was the first 2 door...

Nate

[sblake01]

That's basically what I said on page three. But as cegrover said, that doesn't mean that the Z33 wasn't part of the original plan for that platform.