HLS30-00400 on CL

[JohnnyO]

My opinion of the body is that it was hit hard on the passenger side at some point before it was parked. Very drastic difference in the paint oxidation between the door and the rear quarter. I would take a good look at the frame and weld areas.

If all checks out I would pay no more than 3 grand for it. You have probably got at least 15 grand in repairs and paint there.

John

[lonetreesteve]

I agree, $6,500.00 is too much for this car. It's a real gamble at that price with all the work that needs to be done and particularly if If the original matching engine is beyond repair and cannot be rebuilt, the value drops significantly.

[Arne]

I guess it depends on how badly you want a low VIN, and how much of the low-VIN stuff is still there. But for anyone not as concerned about that, it seems pretty dear for the condition. I didn't pay much more than his asking price for my red car. Not low-VIN, but the condition was much better. I'v got some of the pre-purchase pictures on my web site - http://1971.240z.home.comcast.net/~1971.240z/extras/red-gallery.html

[26th-Z]

I agree. That car has been hit and it may not track properly. But that's not necessarily something that can't be fixed on frame machines available today. Yes, restoration is a big ticket hobby. I was looking at a collection of old Healeys the other day and marveling at the value of those old beasts. There seems to be quite the disparity in price between them and 240Zs.

[zcar70]

I think the attached brochure was the first in the US. It has a 1969 production date and shows a very early car without emblems, no radio or clock, etc. I think this is the same car used in the service manual and may be HLS30-00003. I think HLS30-00007 was also red and was used in the 1970 brochure you are referring to.

-Mike

You are correct Mike. I was referring to the 240z trifold brochure with the "flying" 240z logo on the front.

[bpilati]

Looks like the back windows doesn't have the defogger wires either.

[sblake01]

Looks like the back windows doesn't have the defogger wires either.

It shouldn't. 00488 didn't have them. I've always heard that no sub 500 vin had them.

[Chris280Z]

I might check it out, but I don't need 4 z's. It looks like the front and side of the car was repainted red. On the front on shot, the wires are painted in the front, they paint the car first then wire it. If it was hit, when they repaired it they probably did the bumpers black and the respray. I'll see if I can find the car, I'm having relay problems with craigslist. I'm in NH.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Chris280Z

[deadflo]

I think the attached brochure was the first in the US. It has a 1969 production date and shows a very early car without emblems, no radio or clock, etc. I think this is the same car used in the service manual and may be HLS30-00003. I think HLS30-00007 was also red and was used in the 1970 brochure you are referring to.

-Mike

That brochure is pretty interesting. 175 HP??? Quarter mile times of 15.8??? Whats that all about?

[deadflo]

Oh I just realized they show triple solex on the car in the brochure. Wonder if they intended to sell em that way in USA in 1970?

[sblake01]

They were selling the 2000 Roadster with the cam and solexes in the USA then.

[zcar70]

I think the attached brochure was the first in the US. It has a 1969 production date and shows a very early car without emblems, no radio or clock, etc.

-Mike

Got to be HLS30-00003. Note that the emblems on the brochure are airbrushed on, and poorly at that! Ahh, 1969 graphics technology!

Wouldn't it be great to fill in the blanks and find out what ever happened to HLS30-00001,2,3,4,5 and 9-12???

SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE must know!

:bulb:

Edited June 21, 2010 by zcar70