2+2's huh, well while your ducking I'll say this, my first car was a 2+2 and I'm so used to the extra weight and length that I'm having trouble steering my 240 at the moment. The 2+2 is like a fairlane it is very predictable and slower to respond. The dam 240 when u have it in a tail slide snaps back so quick that you can go into an oppossite tail slide if your not right on the ball. No matter how far out the 2+2 goes it always comes back and with that extra time you can power slide it magnificently. It definetly and no one can argue this, ( I think! I hope) rides better on a long trip with the extended wheel base. Now quick it's my turn to duckLOL

Weight! Wait! Wate!....I am in favour of the stiffer body of the 280's and what if you have a 280 that only weighs about as much as a 240 with a really fat driver? Some of our 280's have been on serious diets!

steve(2500lbs)77

What if you have a great car but drive like grandma.. Ha Ha!

Weight is important, I have had both 280 and 240. I like the way a 240 runs, but a 280 is a much more comfortable ride, either way they can both be made to run quite well. My 280 weighed about 2500 after a bit of stripping, Ihave managed to get my '73 down to 2240. The 280 was faster, but also had many more modifications. I raced 240's with my 280 and believe that if both are stock the 280 would be hard pressed to keep up 240 below 100mph. The 280 might come arround at higher speed.

have fun

Yeah just a little overweight. I eat too much fast food. :classic:

I would agree the 240 might be a little faster off the line but not in the 1/4 mile. :devious:

'70 240Z

0 to 60 =8.2

1/4 mile = 15.5 @ 87 mph

'74 260Z

0 to 60 = 10.0

1/4 Mile = 17.9 @ 79 mph

'75 280Z

0 to 60 = 8.3

1/4 mile = 16.7 @ 82 mph

'78 280Z (5 spd)

0 to 60 = 8.0

1/4 mile = 16.6 @ 84 mph

'79 280ZX

0 to 60 = 9.2

1/4 mile = 17.2 @ 82 mph

'82 280ZXT

0 to 60 = 7.9

1/4 mile = 16.1 @ 86 mph

'84 300ZXT

0 to 60 = 7.3

1/4 Mile = 15.4 @ 90 mph

'90 300ZXTT

0 to 60 = 5.4

1/4 mile = 13.9 @ 105 mph

datsun76 just accept that your car is slower than a car 6 years older than it ....

Ooooa Alfadog - don't wound him with the TRUTH!

If I meet up with one will be sure to have the owner send you a picture of my tailights

..In the meantime we'l all make do with the view of your receding headlights..

A "stock" 4 speed is not going to beat a "stock" 5 speed that has a higher overall horsepower.

Does not matter if it is a Z, Honda or a Ford Pinto.

Most members on this site own 240's so of course their opinions may be biased. Biased is one thing unrealistic is another.

280 wins deal with it.

It's hard to believe I know, but I've never seen any performance figures which haven't reiterrated what Zed said...

Will a MACK truck accelerate faster than a Lotus Elise ? No of course not. It's not just about HP. It's to do with weight also.

A Westfield has 151 BHP like a Z. It goes like bloody stink though - 0-100kmph in just 5.4 seconds.

Ok, ok, my preferences for a 240z aside...

A lighter car with a 4-speed is not necessarily slower than a heavier, more powerful car with a 5-speed.

I would suggest that the 4-speed gearbox has taller overall ratios than the 5-speed which the less powerful engine can cope with because the car is lighter. In a side-by side drag, the 4-speed car may launch slightly slower but it will go for longer between gearchanges than the 5-speed car and therefore catch up and/or overtake. More power and more gears does not necessarily=faster car.