"and the fact that it's a 73" Whats wrong with a 73. If your looking for a collector car then the very early number cars are what you want. Aside from that a 73 is no worst than a 70,71 or 72. Most 73's have done the early carb swap, and a 73 is still a 240z, with lots of the bugs worked out.

No it's mess. Unless you just want to drive it in to the ground. Has nothing to do with the money it's the product. It's just an awful specimen. I would almost rather buy a shell then a car like that.

Sorry if I disapointed you.

Since you're in TX, this car might fit your needs http://www.zcar.com/forums/read/8/1811301. I just came across it on zcar.com. It is around the same money and looks much better than the one you were looking at from the one pic he posted. It might be a POS, but it looks decent in the picture.

"and the fact that it's a 73" Whats wrong with a 73. If your looking for a collector car then the very early number cars are what you want. Aside from that a 73 is no worst than a 70,71 or 72. Most 73's have done the early carb swap, and a 73 is still a 240z, with lots of the bugs worked out.

There are other differences to be noted between the different years/iterations of the 240Z.

Carl has a good summary on his site:

http://zhome.com/History/DesignChanges.htm

Some major changes aside from the carbs were exhaust, head and big-arse bumper changes (the head changes were material as the later heads had larger volumes and consequently lower compression) which affected performance and, depending on which jurisdiction you live in, you may or may not be able to modify/rectify.

I'd also add that beyond just the '69 240Z's, there is a distinct mark-up on Series I vehicles that were produced until January 1971 and the remainder of '71s still trade at a premium to '72s and '73s (you can debate whether this is justified or not).

The '73 is still a great looking, great performing vehicle, just not quite as desirable as some of the earlier years.

Cheers,

Since you're in TX, this car might fit your needs http://www.zcar.com/forums/read/8/1811301. I just came across it on zcar.com. It is around the same money and looks much better than the one you were looking at from the one pic he posted. It might be a POS, but it looks decent in the picture.

That looks much, much nicer. But something that should be preserved closer to stock and not total juiced up.

Nothing wrong with any Z. But I suppose Nissan had their reasons to only restore 70-72 model years a few years ago.

There are other differences to be noted between the different years/iterations of the 240Z.

Carl has a good summary on his site:

http://zhome.com/History/DesignChanges.htm

Some major changes aside from the carbs were exhaust, head and big-arse bumper changes (the head changes were material as the later heads had larger volumes and consequently lower compression) which affected performance and, depending on which jurisdiction you live in, you may or may not be able to modify/rectify.

I'd also add that beyond just the '69 240Z's, there is a distinct mark-up on Series I vehicles that were produced until January 1971 and the remainder of '71s still trade at a premium to '72s and '73s (you can debate whether this is justified or not).

The '73 is still a great looking, great performing vehicle, just not quite as desirable as some of the earlier years.

Cheers,

If you look closely, you can actually see the existing Bondo in the rear fender lip photograph. If you bought that car, buy the time you were done sanding on that fender lip it would be mostly air...

I expect that the car has been "restored" some time ago and then driven a lot. It may run fine, but you would end up doing a lot of body work...

"and the fact that it's a 73" Whats wrong with a 73. If your looking for a collector car then the very early number cars are what you want. Aside from that a 73 is no worst than a 70,71 or 72. Most 73's have done the early carb swap, and a 73 is still a 240z, with lots of the bugs worked out.

No it's mess. Unless you just want to drive it in to the ground. Has nothing to do with the money it's the product. It's just an awful specimen. I would almost rather buy a shell then a car like that.

Sorry if I disapointed you.

I disagree. If the carbs have been swapped, a '73 makes a better driver than any of the earlier cars. The bumpers are only a little bigger, and if that bothers you they can be replaced by the earlier bumpers.

The rest of the changes (those that weren't forced upon Nissan by legislation) were all improvements. The '73s have the improved differential location, many have mounts for rear sway bars, decent retractor seatbelts, and intermittent wipers.

So don't dismiss the '73s if you are looking for a 240Z to drive and enjoy.

My apologies to Mckrack. I quoted his post in my '73 rebuttal out of context. Mckrack was referring to the car pictured in the first post, not '73s in general. Sorry!

Condition-wise it doesn't look much worse than my 280, however, I paid about 2k less than what this guy wants

I disagree. If the carbs have been swapped, a '73 makes a better driver than any of the earlier cars. The bumpers are only a little bigger, and if that bothers you they can be replaced by the earlier bumpers.

The rest of the changes (those that weren't forced upon Nissan by legislation) were all improvements. The '73s have the improved differential location, many have mounts for rear sway bars, decent retractor seatbelts, and intermittent wipers.

So don't dismiss the '73s if you are looking for a 240Z to drive and enjoy.

Exactly. I didn't buy my 73 because I couldn't find 70-72, I was actually looking for it and sought out the cleanest and least molested one I could find within my budget. Everyone has their own idea of what makes the perfect car.

thats a sweet color. what is that?