where to start?

[Threehz]

Well let's hope he looks past that memory haha..

If you have all the supplies: nice paint gun/guns, a really nice air compressor, and then things like DA sanders are very helpful.. Then painting is just a big commitment of time and work (LOTS OF PREP! You'll never want to sand anything ever again), not to mention you have to feel comfortable with your own painting skills. Oh and have an area to paint, to try painting a car outside you may aswell throw your money and time away, you need a proper painting enclosure even if it's a garage you clear out, ventilate and prep for painting..

Or you can have it done professionally, which I would say to have a decent paint job done costs anywhere from 1000 to 3000 dollars. Of course your car will be out of commission for a while (I've read posts where people's cars were gone for more then 6 months, I don't see why it would take that long though..)

All that being said, if you don't mind the color too much you can always ride with it until you are ready or able to get it repainted.

Also as a side note, a lot depends on the kind of paint job you want... If you want just the outside color changed that is one thing. I personally wouldn't get my car repainted a different color unless it was the WHOLE car. By that I mean everything would come out of the car, because not only would the engine bay have to get repainted to match but the interior paint as well. (of course it is possible to repaint only the visible interior paint I'm all about doing things in a complete manner)

[Jetaway]

Good, that confirms what I'm saying. By those numbers, the 260Z is actually quicker than the '73 240Z. It also confirms the power numbers, look at "note 1" for the 240Z and "note 2" for the 260Z. SAE gross for 240Z is 151hp, for the 260Z is 162hp. SAE gross for the 240Z is 129hp, and for the 260Z is 139hp. Thanks!

Well, thank you, but follow along with me here.

The 1970 -- 1971 British (its the 5-spd) and American 240Zs were rated at 151 HP.

The 1974 British 260Z was rated at 162 HP. These three figures are Gross Ratings. Or I should say I assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating, read on.

Note: The British Z was tested by "AC," which is not in the legend. It is clearly the Autocar review that I linked earlier.

The problem with comparing the American 1970 "gross" output to 1973's net output is you are not taking into account the much more restrictive exhaust emissions imposed in 1973 (and further toughened next in 1975).

The uncontrolled, or nearly so, British 1970 to 1974 gross to gross reflects the actual increase in power due to larger displacement. (7% for both)

In the November, 1972 Road & Track there is an interesting little item concerning the effect of American emission regulations on power. Mercedes shared with R&T the power curves of their, to be introduced in 1973, 4.5L engine. Now this was an engine that was at least partially designed with American emission regulations in mind. The European-spec produced 225 HP while the American 195 HP, roughly 13% less.

So let's apply that as an estimate to American 240Z: 151 * 0.87 = 131. If the best Mercedes could do was take a 13% hit to its American cars with a brand-new engine, I wouldn't expect Datsun to do any better with a basic engine design introduced in 1968 (in the 510).

The American 1973 240Z was rated at 129 HP, likely net.

The American 1974 260Z was rated at 139 HP, likely net.

129 vs. 131. Pretty close, I'd say. With the displacement increase and no change in emission standards from 1973 to 1974, the American 240 to 260 picks up 10 HP compared with 11 HP for the British version.

Makes sense to me.

Now about Net vs. Gross. I couldn't find the Road & Track, as I have absolutely no filing system, but I remember a discussion about the huge drop in advertised HP by American cars between 1970 and 1971, or 1971 and 1972. A part of it was due to a change from gross to net. Another part was due to a change in emission testing procedures from % pollutants (which effectively favored large-displacement engines over small-displacement engines) to pollutants per mile (a much more rational system). And yet another part was the Insurance industry drastically increasing premiums on high powered autos. And some was the very real fear by American manufacturers that maximum HP would be decided by legislative fiat.

Road & Track estimated the effect of the change from gross to net to be in the 10% range, which brought SAE net figures in line with the European DIN measure, a much more fully specified measure than the SAE gross measure. Internet sources note, correctly, that there is no direct correlation between SAE Gross and Net figures, but when they do hazard a guess, estimate the difference to be in the 20% -- 30% range. However, most of the analyses are based on American car manufacturers and the internet authors, at least most, seem unaware of the changing automobile environment. American manufacturers did an abrupt about face from claiming the absolute most HP they could squeeze out of an engine, often specially prepared and with no expectation that it would survive longer than the minimum test cycle for advertising to having compelling, very compelling, reasons to advertise the lowest possible outputs. In contrast, Road & Track tested as many, or more, imported cars as they did domestic and imported cars has no incentive whatsoever to maximize HP claims for advertising. (Go, ahead and just flat-out inflate the claimed HP of a 1969 Fiat 124 by 20%, that's 65 * .2 = 13. Boy, having 78 rather than 65 HP would move a lot more Fiats. Not. 13 HP is a mild misfire in one cylinder of an American V-8. Or a dirty air filter.) Because Road & Track routinely tested American and comparable-class imports, I'm very much inclined to believe that they had a much better handle on the effect of a change from Gross to Net ratings than does well-meaning, but not fully informed persons speculating about the effect 40 years later.

I haven't forgotten about my "assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating" statement earlier. In either the same R&T or one of its era I remember that they concluded that JIN (Japanese standard) appeared roughly equal to the DIN standard. So effectively DIN = JIN = SAE NET.

We've all been assuming that the HP cited in publications was a "Gross" HP horsepower figure for the 1970 -- 1971 models. In fact, Road & Track implicitly acknowledged that in their test of the Z saying the 151 figure was probably overstated relative to European measures but then wrote that the quarter mile time was "in the ballpark for the calculated lb / bhp figure." I don't know what the 1970 and 1971 plaques have, but my 1972 has, in much smaller print than the rest of the type (S.A.E) following the 150 HP rating.

Now, let's assume the 1970 -- 1972 were "gross" figures and reduce it to net by knocking 10% of the figure for an output of 135 HP. Then to get to the smog-controlled 1973 model take another 13% off (135 * .87) to get a figure of 117 HP. Datsun claimed 129 HP. But if we assume the 1970 -- 1972 figures were NET figures we get the 131 HP estimate I got above based on the effect of smog controls. I'm thinking that somewhere along the line, a usually reliable source got it wrong and assumed that the claimed output of 151 HP was gross when, in fact, it was a figure comparable to SAE net figures. It happens.

Finally, let's go to the track:

The three American and one British Z 1970 -- 1971 models averaged 0 - 60 times of 8.0 seconds (7.8 to 8.7 seconds range). (Tossing the fastest and slowest gives essentially the same result.) Of the two, both American, that reported test weight, they were within 25 lbs of one another, let's say 2350 lbs.

Only one 1973 240Z was tested and it was an American model. 0 - 60 time was 10.1 seconds and weight up to 2450. Makes sense, power down to 129, picked up a 100lbs with the introduction of bumper impact standards.

The 260Z was tested by two American magazines and one British. The two American tests turned in 0 - 60 times of 10 and 10.2 seconds and both reported an additional 200 lbs test weight, mostly due to much more rigorous bumper standards over the 1973 240Z, and a cumulative 300 lbs. from the 1970 -- 1971 models.

Now think about this: If the early 240Z's HP were gross figures and taking what many will consider a minimum estimate of the Gross to Net reporting difference (Road & Tracks)

The British Z, picking up 100 lbs from the 1971 model to 2425 and the extra 10 HP from the displacement increase turned in a 0 - 60 of 8.2 seconds.

I'm sorry man, but I just don't buy your contention that 260s had more power than 240s. Not American-spec ones, other than the 1973 model. Non-American, sure, and I never thought that they would put out less power. Your location puts you in Bay Area, CA. You also wrote that your engine plaque says 162 HP, which matches the British version. If you have a non-American spec 260Z, you should have clued me in earlier as I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if one Californian is talking to another Californian about Z-cars, we're talking about American-spec models unless specifically noted otherwise.

There was a good reason why Datsun came out with the 280Z in America and only in America, namely that emission and safety regs had turned their GT road-burner into a (shrug), nothing special sporty-type car.

BTW: Regarding an earlier statement of yours, the 280Z's weighed in 200 lbs more than the 260s.

Chris

[truenorthstrong&Zee]

Slight,

I've been in your shoes.... I'm also from Saskatoon and good Zeds are nearly impossible to find in Canada. I had 4 before finally biting the bullet last year and having one shipped from California. It's not perfect but has very little rust and is 99% original. I have done a lot of mechanical work to get it registered in Sk. I probably have $10,000 into it but it runs like a dream. Rust is your enemy!!!! There are so many places rust can hide - you need to be very cautious. I have made some mistakes and paid for them:disappoin Good luck in your search. Maybe I'll run into sometime on the streets of S'toon.

[Jetaway]

hey guys, i just found this 260z in B.C. (closer to home hah)

http://bc.kijiji.ca/c-ViewAd?AdId=318262255&MessageId=MSG.VIEW_AD.REPLY_TO_AD_SENT&mpname=R2S&mpname=Activity-R2S&mpuid=1700142%3B122%3B318262255%3B-1178643037%3B%3B&secev=AQAAATLWh4wAAM0AAAACACIxMzJlMWJmNjAwOS5hMjBiMjZjLjNjOTkyLmZmZmMzNTNlAAAAABL4S%2B8BAAAAAgAAAAEkEBEAiLsNFckgHsHNxvR2%2FGmi4c0wRPE*

the fellow says there is no rust to be found;

- garage kept

- needs to move it out (family and no room)

- runs fine.... although it is a 4spd? what are your thoughts on that?

Slight,

Wish my interior was that original and nice. Looks promising, though even though he says no rust, it looks recently repainted to me, and generally that means something is being hidden. Paint is very bright and where are the badges?

I wouldn't worry about the 4-spd. I have a 5-spd in mine, with the original 4-spd rear end. Almost doggy off the line, but because I use it regularly for a 150 mile work commute, I'm happy trading stop-light go for better mileage and less engine wear.

You are probably less interested in freeway mileage and more interested in hustling from a stop than I am (I at my age now, at your age, I was very interested in hustling from a stop).

Chris

[LeonV]

BTW, I had a typo in my last post. I meant to say the 240Z made 151hp net and 129hp gross, and the 260Z had 162hp gross and 139hp net. This is what the Zhome article reflects.

Well, thank you, but follow along with me here.

The 1970 -- 1971 British (its the 5-spd) and American 240Zs were rated at 151 HP.

The 1974 British 260Z was rated at 162 HP. These three figures are Gross Ratings. Or I should say I assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating, read on.

Note: The British Z was tested by "AC," which is not in the legend. It is clearly the Autocar review that I linked earlier.

The problem with comparing the American 1970 "gross" output to 1973's net output is you are not taking into account the much more restrictive exhaust emissions imposed in 1973 (and further toughened next in 1975).

The uncontrolled, or nearly so, British 1970 to 1974 gross to gross reflects the actual increase in power due to larger displacement. (7% for both)

In the November, 1972 Road & Track there is an interesting little item concerning the effect of American emission regulations on power. Mercedes shared with R&T the power curves of their, to be introduced in 1973, 4.5L engine. Now this was an engine that was at least partially designed with American emission regulations in mind. The European-spec produced 225 HP while the American 195 HP, roughly 13% less.

So let's apply that as an estimate to American 240Z: 151 * 0.87 = 131. If the best Mercedes could do was take a 13% hit to its American cars with a brand-new engine, I wouldn't expect Datsun to do any better with a basic engine design introduced in 1968 (in the 510).

The American 1973 240Z was rated at 129 HP, likely net.

The American 1974 260Z was rated at 139 HP, likely net.

129 vs. 131. Pretty close, I'd say. With the displacement increase and no change in emission standards from 1973 to 1974, the American 240 to 260 picks up 10 HP compared with 11 HP for the British version.

Makes sense to me.

Now about Net vs. Gross. I couldn't find the Road & Track, as I have absolutely no filing system, but I remember a discussion about the huge drop in advertised HP by American cars between 1970 and 1971, or 1971 and 1972. A part of it was due to a change from gross to net. Another part was due to a change in emission testing procedures from % pollutants (which effectively favored large-displacement engines over small-displacement engines) to pollutants per mile (a much more rational system). And yet another part was the Insurance industry drastically increasing premiums on high powered autos. And some was the very real fear by American manufacturers that maximum HP would be decided by legislative fiat.

Road & Track estimated the effect of the change from gross to net to be in the 10% range, which brought SAE net figures in line with the European DIN measure, a much more fully specified measure than the SAE gross measure. Internet sources note, correctly, that there is no direct correlation between SAE Gross and Net figures, but when they do hazard a guess, estimate the difference to be in the 20% -- 30% range. However, most of the analyses are based on American car manufacturers and the internet authors, at least most, seem unaware of the changing automobile environment. American manufacturers did an abrupt about face from claiming the absolute most HP they could squeeze out of an engine, often specially prepared and with no expectation that it would survive longer than the minimum test cycle for advertising to having compelling, very compelling, reasons to advertise the lowest possible outputs. In contrast, Road & Track tested as many, or more, imported cars as they did domestic and imported cars has no incentive whatsoever to maximize HP claims for advertising. (Go, ahead and just flat-out inflate the claimed HP of a 1969 Fiat 124 by 20%, that's 65 * .2 = 13. Boy, having 78 rather than 65 HP would move a lot more Fiats. Not. 13 HP is a mild misfire in one cylinder of an American V-8. Or a dirty air filter.) Because Road & Track routinely tested American and comparable-class imports, I'm very much inclined to believe that they had a much better handle on the effect of a change from Gross to Net ratings than does well-meaning, but not fully informed persons speculating about the effect 40 years later.

I haven't forgotten about my "assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating" statement earlier. In either the same R&T or one of its era I remember that they concluded that JIN (Japanese standard) appeared roughly equal to the DIN standard. So effectively DIN = JIN = SAE NET.

We've all been assuming that the HP cited in publications was a "Gross" HP horsepower figure for the 1970 -- 1971 models. In fact, Road & Track implicitly acknowledged that in their test of the Z saying the 151 figure was probably overstated relative to European measures but then wrote that the quarter mile time was "in the ballpark for the calculated lb / bhp figure." I don't know what the 1970 and 1971 plaques have, but my 1972 has, in much smaller print than the rest of the type (S.A.E) following the 150 HP rating.

Now, let's assume the 1970 -- 1972 were "gross" figures and reduce it to net by knocking 10% of the figure for an output of 135 HP. Then to get to the smog-controlled 1973 model take another 13% off (135 * .87) to get a figure of 117 HP. Datsun claimed 129 HP. But if we assume the 1970 -- 1972 figures were NET figures we get the 131 HP estimate I got above based on the effect of smog controls. I'm thinking that somewhere along the line, a usually reliable source got it wrong and assumed that the claimed output of 151 HP was gross when, in fact, it was a figure comparable to SAE net figures. It happens.

Finally, let's go to the track:

The three American and one British Z 1970 -- 1971 models averaged 0 - 60 times of 8.0 seconds (7.8 to 8.7 seconds range). (Tossing the fastest and slowest gives essentially the same result.) Of the two, both American, that reported test weight, they were within 25 lbs of one another, let's say 2350 lbs.

Only one 1973 240Z was tested and it was an American model. 0 - 60 time was 10.1 seconds and weight up to 2450. Makes sense, power down to 129, picked up a 100lbs with the introduction of bumper impact standards.

The 260Z was tested by two American magazines and one British. The two American tests turned in 0 - 60 times of 10 and 10.2 seconds and both reported an additional 200 lbs test weight, mostly due to much more rigorous bumper standards over the 1973 240Z, and a cumulative 300 lbs. from the 1970 -- 1971 models.

Now think about this: If the early 240Z's HP were gross figures and taking what many will consider a minimum estimate of the Gross to Net reporting difference (Road & Tracks)

The British Z, picking up 100 lbs from the 1971 model to 2425 and the extra 10 HP from the displacement increase turned in a 0 - 60 of 8.2 seconds.

I'm sorry man, but I just don't buy your contention that 260s had more power than 240s. Not American-spec ones, other than the 1973 model. Non-American, sure, and I never thought that they would put out less power. Your location puts you in Bay Area, CA. You also wrote that your engine plaque says 162 HP, which matches the British version. If you have a non-American spec 260Z, you should have clued me in earlier as I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if one Californian is talking to another Californian about Z-cars, we're talking about American-spec models unless specifically noted otherwise.

There was a good reason why Datsun came out with the 280Z in America and only in America, namely that emission and safety regs had turned their GT road-burner into a (shrug), nothing special sporty-type car.

BTW: Regarding an earlier statement of yours, the 280Z's weighed in 200 lbs more than the 260s.

Chris

Chris, you're waaay over-analyzing this. My 260Z is an original California car. It is not right-hand drive. I have the original owner's information and even the original license plate frame from San Jose Datsun. I have both a '71 240Z and '74 260Z with identical ID plates besides the different VIN & engine numbers and power numbers.

Have you seen the engine bay of another early 260Z? With similar induction and exhaust systems, and an increase in displacement, how can power not increase? Can you tell me what emissions controls dropped power? Compression ratio slightly dropped, bit that small of a drop in compression does not make a big difference (maybe 1%). This is logic, along with tangible proof. I am not lying to you, the 260Z had more power than the 240Z. It did weigh more, thus the acceleration wasn't as good as an early Z. The '73 Z gained weight over the earlier ones by way of extra wiring, beefier bumpers, and added steel (e.g. door bars inside the frames).

Edited October 9, 2011 by LeonV

[Slight]

hehe, that was a lot of information X.X but interesting.. -chris/leonV

yeah, I believe the owner has the badges... I will have to ask him about the paint but i believe it is either stock or the first owner painted it.

tomorrow i'm off to check out a z that's been sitting for 25 years heh.. just for kicks =)

[Threehz]

Hey a sleeper is no bad thing, might turn out to be perfect, just remember that there is a LOT you have to do before starting her up. Hope it turns out well!

[Slight]

I got to look at the old 240 today, and well aside from sitting there for 25 years.. it's in pretty decent condition..

a pretty regular amount of rust..

but the good-

- engine had no damage in the "accident" he just hit a curb and as a student.. didn't fix it, so it just sat..

-Engine has 116k miles

- interior is pretty decent,

Completely stock..

uncracked dash.

Some shreds in the headliner.. seats are toast.. fabric wise

I don't know.. i was surprised at the condition.. I was thinking it'd be a good parts car..

he'd let it go for $800 maybe even less..

I'd just have to figure a place to put it.

is it worth it? are most parts swappable between a 73 240.. and 74 260?

Ie. dash, engine? ,

[Jetaway]

Slight,

I've purposively been the voice of reason (read NO ) in your car quest. But I gotta admit, I'd be very tempted, especially on a student's income to pick that car up. One thing you must do, and I think most would agree with me, is squirt some oil in the cylinders, leave the plugs out, put a big old wrench on the crankshaft and try to turn the sucker. If it won't budge, actually if it doesn't eventually turn somewhat freely eventually, there be problems there. Likely big problems. Big enough that you'd spend more money fixing them than finding a running car. But if it does turn:

Don't even try to drive it home. Tow it, or better, trailer it. You can find a thread on what you need to do to bring a car back from a quarter-century coma, but the short story is that you should drain and change every fluid you can think of. Then think if you've overlooked anything. Then do a bunch of other stuff (find the thread). Then once you have it motive, change the oil, tranny oil / fluid, and differential oil again within 500 miles.

Yes, most parts are swappable between 240s, 260s, and 280Zs. Not all though. I would think most of the engine bay parts are swappable, but probably not the one you want to swap. That somehow seems to happen a lot. Dash? Probably, though it was the site of year to year changes that while usually few in number, added up over the years.

Since you are a student, I wouldn't spend much on cosmetic improvements. If everything to get and keep it running goes improbably well, buy a Z in better condition once you have a job and you'll have a parts car, that you know inside and out that can provide, on a moment's notice, hard-to-find or expensive-as-heck but absolutely critical parts.

Best O' Luck!

Chris

[Threehz]

I'd agree with Jetaway, but I would want to know more first.

What kind of accident did it get in, what is damaged?

How much rust is a regular amount of rust? (Of course if it is just a parts car then that isn't the biggest issue)

I'd say lube up the cylinders and let them sit and soak a while, then try and manually crank it like Jetaway said. My car had been sitting for eight years and when I was removing the clutch the second I tried to turn a flywheel bolt the engine cranked like it was brand new. I didn't even mean to crank it but it sure gave me some relief.

Compatibility wise I read that the 74 is pretty much a continuation of the 73 and that most things should be interchangeable. Drive-train is of course interchangable, don't know if you would want to throw a l24 in to replace an l26 though.

IMHO I would rather go for a parts car that is the same year or newer then my car, for instance if I had a 74 260 I would want a 74, 75 260, or some 280, or zx. Then you are upgrading or at least keeping the same parts wise.

But it may be a score. I would say if you leave the body out of it, for just the parts (including interior) I would say 600 is the most I would pay.

just my 2C

[Slight]

when i first was going to see it i was thinking of it as just a parts car, but the idea of restoring it is kind of tempting (as much as i wouldn't trust myself to actually finish it..) I think i'd be better off to buy it, take what little parts i need, and resell..

- rust: as far as i could see... there was surface rust, the lower panels by the door were rusted through.. the guy had gone to the trouble of getting fiber glass rearpanels put in.. and re doing the paint work.. (before the accident)

- as far as the accident, he said he hit a curb with it... so there was potential for damage to the frame? but he said most likely just the front passenger side wheel and area.. i'm not really sure how extensive it was..

the fellow is a bit eccentric, he just didn't have money at the time for fixing it, so it sat. and he always had the intention of fixing it... so no one bought it.

so i'm thinking this would be a pretty cool car to tow off to a friends farm and take apart and practice on, learn how to take apart an engine.. put the proper fluids as you guys say.

in the very least... the parts in the car would probably pay for itself if i bought it..

[Threehz]

Depending on the shape of the body, it could be totally worth it to completely restore it, however that would completely depend on the shape of the body. If the body is straight and it isn't rusted in crucial areas then restoring this could definitely be an option as well.

Definitely wouldn't be a bad idea to have a practice/parts car ESPECIALLY if you have the space, that is probably the biggest issue with a parts car. If I had the space I would have wayyy too many projects going..

I'd say best case is, use the parts you need, get the engine in running condition, and if possible restore the body, then you either have a nice 240 body which is sweet to make into whatever style Z you want, or sell.