where to start?

[Slight]

very helpful! thanks!

i'll probably take a closer look in the near future with a mechanic; i'll probably buy it just to get my hands dirty and try and get the motor going heh..

on a totally different note.. a friend told me to look into getting a Z from Washington area..

what do you think of this one?

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/2633823518.html

I was thinking.. dang, i could snatch that up and just re do it the way i want.. price seems pretty decent, and it would have the efi... (although auto =O )

good deal??

[Jetaway]

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.

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).

Leon,

I don't think I could have avoided seeing the engine bay of an early 260Z, but having no particular reason to check out the plate, don't remember the ratings.

Yes, I can now tell you which emission controls dropped power. Or, more precisely, how the standards changed.

If you are interested, I can send you a copy of an EPA document I found. My "history" doesn't have it, so I must have hit it (it's a pdf file) from some external link.

1968 through 1972 had Carbon Monoxide (CO) limits of 87 and unburned hydrocarbon limits (THC) of 8.8 grams per mile (maximum after 50,000 miles of use). The EPA sheet states that test procedures were so different before 1973 that comparisons cannot be made with post 1973 standards. I have Road & Tracks from that time that speculate that the smaller problem that American cars had with handling these very early (1968-1972) standards in the area of drivability compared with imports (mainly European) was that the much larger American engines effectively diluted the exhaust. The testing procedure at that time was based on % content and did not take into account that over the course of a mile, for example, a 350 cubic inch domestic pumped a much larger quantity of exhaust than a 120 cube (2 liter) import. The testing procedure changed in 1973 to grams per mile, which is still the measuring stick in use today. Not only did a change to a more rigorous testing procedure occur in 1973 but allowable levels dropped to 39 gms/mile for CO and 3.4 THC. This drop from 87 to 39 and 8.8 to 3.4 were by far the largest mandated gross reductions in emissions and are comparable to further reductions in percentage terms.

Manufacturers used a variety of strategies to meet the 1973 standards. All, or nearly all, relied on running very lean mixtures. Quite often in order to meet the 50,000 mile requirement fuel-air mixtures were set and locked at the factory. This produced a very hot running engine that burned or converted THC and CO's. The hot burn was incompatible with low levels of Oxides of Nitrogen, which led to the modern catalytic converter era when NOX came under stricter control in 1977. Which, seemingly paradoxically, allowed engine designers to richen up air-fuel mixtures, at least a little, in order to get back drivability.

Again, relying on old Road & Track's reviews of the 1973s and 1974s every one either mentioned a litany of emission-related drivability problems such as poor cold starting, poor hot starting, rough idle, bogging of the line or "lean surge," where the engine would suddenly accelerate _or_ expressed admiration for those cars that only exhibited one or two of these symptoms. The only cars that escaped these problems were those equipped with electronic fuel injection, fairly exotic stuff at the time, and, I believe, used on only a handful of European imports, usually mid to high makes. (My parents had a 1973 Volvo with fuel injection, which I think was new for that model year.)

I couldn't find a Road & Track review that directly compared a 1970 -- 1972 model with a 1973 model of the same displacement. Bummer. But a happy coincidence saved my day. Yesterday, visiting O'Reilly's to pick up some tire shine, Ron was unpacking magazine for display. I asked him if their was a Hemming's in there. Indeed there was and he was happy to dig it out for me, because among other virtues I provided, the damn thing is a pain in the keister to put in their little magazine rack. The Buyer's Guide for the November issue is: 1971 -- 1973 Mustangs.

Score!

In late 1970 or early in 1971 GM announced, and the rest of the domestics quickly followed suit, that: 1) 1972 models would be rated using SAE net horsepower and; 2) the recommended (i.e., required for warranty) gasoline for all GMs would be unleaded 91 octane. Neither were required by regulation. The first, I speculate, was due to Insurance Companies all but killing the pony car market with premium increases and the very real fear that the FTC would step in and specify rating procedures. Remember, people, the early 1970s was the very beginning of "truth in advertising" regulations. The famous, at least among audiophile, FTC Rule 19 was drafted and came into effect in this era.

The Buyer's Guide for the 71 -- 73 Mustangs thus gives us: 1) Gross, uncontrolled (or close to) emissions horsepower ratings; 2) Net, same emissions standards HP ratings, and; 3) Net, tighter emission horsepower ratings.

Engine 1971 72 73

250 1bbl. L-6 145 98 88

302 2bbl. V-8 210 140 135

351 2bbl. V-8 240 164 156

351 4bbl. V-8 285 248 154 (Yes, I know. I double-checked. Perhaps Hemming's made an error, perhaps 4bbl's were just more of a b*&)% to adapt to emission control in the very, very early days of controls.)

To make it back to our point of contention.

And maybe remind anyone else, what it is.

Basically, I think that the American 1970 -- 1972 240Zs had more power than the 1974 -- 1975 260Zs.

Along the way, I began to question the common belief that the 240Zs 150 HP was a gross measure and have come to believe it was a net, or a rating method very close to that produced by SAE net figures.

American pre-emission era:

The 1970 (American), 1971 (England) , and, according to my engine plate, 1972 240Z, produced 150 HP.

Emission controls introduced in U.S.

The 1973 (American) 240Z produced 129 HP.

The 1974 (American, R&T and Car&Driver) 260Z produced 139 HP.

Comparison to pre-emission control U.S.

The 1974 (England) 260Z produced 162 HP, an increase right in line with the displacement increase.

Going back to the Mustangs, the % decrease in HP from uncontrolled gross (1971) to controlled net (1973) was:

39% -- 36% -- 35% -- 46%

Toss the 46% from the 351 4bbl, which had 10.6-1 compression in 1971 and we have a consistent 37% plus minus 2%

decrease from 1971 to 1973. Apply that to the 1971 to 1973 240Z and we get:

150 * .63 = 94.5 HP

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

What does make sense is that the 1970 -- 1972 240Zs made 150 net HP and the 1973 took the same % hit as did Mercedes did with the American vs. Euro-spec models producing an estimated 131 HP vs. the reported, by car publications, 129 net HP.

The next year, with the same U.S. emission standards, the 260Z was introduced, with a 7% displacement increase over the 240Zs. The English model's HP increased 7%, let's assume the same applied to the American.

129 * 1.07 = 138 vs. a reported 139 HP.

Unlike assuming the 240Zs HP ratings were gross, this makes sense and fits in with contemporary reports and performance testing.

Unless, somehow, alone among every car manufacturer in the world, and I mean alone among _every_ manufacturer -- GM, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, BMW, Fiat, Volkswagen, Chrysler, British Leyland, every one of them and more -- Datsun/Nissan somehow managed to meet 1973 emission standards with no loss of specific output. Then the 240Zs 150 HP as gross makes sense. But they didn't. Like every other manufacturer they struggled with controlling emissions and like many, if not most, of the non-U.S. manufacturers they resorted to increasing displacement to get back the lost power. In the case of Datsun Z's, the first increase wasn't enough, not with the added burden of crash standards which disproportionately increased the weight of light weight cars such as the Z. Which is why the 260s didn't' even make a full two-year run, being replaced mid-year by the 280Z.

Leon, I believe you when you say that your early 260Zs engine plate states 162 HP. I have no explanation just as I would have no explanation for how an emission-controlled American model had exactly the same specific output of an uncontrolled English model. I owned quite a few vehicles of that era when I was younger, and maybe my memory is going, but I don't recall ever seeing a plate that listed the engine's output. I'm not even sure that a plate listing the VIN and the engine serial number, both individually required by law, was a legal requirement, much less one with a power rating being required. If I had to hazard a guess, such a plate listing VIN, engine, and output was required by some country and with the s*&! hitting the fan in the automotive world, whether or not the plate was changed for exports to a country that didn't require one and had no legal consequences for misstating a HP rating (at the time), just wasn't anyone's responsibility. So, as had been done the 4 years before, on went the plate which, 4 decades later, has caused a great deal of confusion.

Chris

[Threehz]

Wow.

Anyhow Slight, that one does look VERY nice! However when he said it was an automatic I got a little sad, good thing is you can easily swap out the auto tranny for a stick. Then I read sun-roof..... If you are ok with a sunroof then I'd say this seems like quite a good deal. I personally can't stand sun-roof or convertible Z mods but that's just me. Removing them is possible but it does require quite a bit of work.

I'd actually say if the sun-roof thing doesn't bother you too much or at all, you can always remove it someday, and I'd say this looks like the best Z discussed on this thread. Is your friend able to go check out the Z for you?

[Healey Z]

Slight,

I have a personal rule. Never buy a car that I cannot drive. If I cannot verify a system is good, I pretty much assume there is a high probability of it being bad.

There are so many systems in the car that have to work correctly in order for the car to run. Lets pick one: fuel. I throw out these numbers off the top of my head for reference, just to illustrate. If the car has been sitting and the gas tank is rusted, say $300. The fuel pump bad? $50, chances of the dual SU's being serviceable? $650 to rebuild, or spend a $200 on some used ones that may or may not give you problems still. The point is that you have a lot of other systems; drive train, brakes, cooling, electrical that can be expensive and time consuming to make operational.

I would rather pay $3K for a car that I can drive (which are available in the states) than get a rusted, unknown project car for free. Best of luck, you are doing the right thing by exploring a lot of options and asking a lot of questions. Perhaps my first post which says you should go see ten of them before buying one, is a bit old school and you can visit them virtually to get an idea of what you would be getting.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Healey Z

[Slight]

definitely a good point Healey, I've been learning a lot; and as far as that gold z is..

the first thing that went through my head was potential.

i thought, okay yeah.. it has a short list of... not my favourite things..

-automatic

-gold colour

-tan interior

-sun roof...

but all those things are changeable. not to mention at that price i could afford it very well. to be honest i'm not all that picky about these aspects as much as i know i would change them if I bought the car. (and at the very least i'd leave the sun roof)

I sent the fellow an email; but i do have to wonder...

- how much does upholstery cost? (ball park figure?)

- and how would i go about removing the sun roof? (generally speaking)

- and what would be the best swap for going stick?

thanks again for all your input!

it's very encouraging.

on a side note:

I found this thread and I thought it was pretty cool.. do you think something like adding flares is doable by a body shop? where would one get that done?

http://www.vadriven.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323880

[Threehz]

As far as removing the sun-roof, I'm pretty sure you have to cut it out, and then weld a piece of sheet metal, or cut out that section from another Z and weld it in. Then you'll have to repaint the area of course, but if you want to get the whole car repainted of course that would be the time to do it.

Best tranny swap is relative to what you want. I'd say one of the most popular is the T-5 swap, however those are a little harder to find, probably in part now due to it's popularity. I've heard the 4-speed from a 280 isn't much different from the later 5-speeds, but I would prefer the 5th for going on trips, etc..

The JDM front mirrors are pretty easy to install, bolt on. The wheel flares involve minor cutting and then bolting on, should be an easy task for any competent body shop. BRE rear spoiler and front spoiler (air dam) are both very easy installs from what I know. You can get ALL of these mods at MSA, except maybe the mirrors? I'm not sure about the mirrors, I wouldn't doubt it but I'm sure they aren't too hard to get a hold of.

Wicked car btw, I love the JDM look and I'm planning on taking mine down that route (at first I wasn't too fond of the flares but now I love em).

[Slight]

cool, i guess those would be bridges to cross at a later time.

yeah, definitely dig the jdm look..

here are a few pictures of that 280z..

tell me what you think?

as far the rust goes on this car, what kind of costs would i incur?

[Slight]

so lately i've been drooling over cars on Speedhunters.com and on various forums..

i guess i have been trying to decide what kind of style and aspects i'd like to put into a z..

i like idea of a more aggressive stance and look, paint that has a bit more texture and roughness to it..( even as far as rivets in the body along the panels.)

but at the same time i love the classic lines.. jdm looks... wood grain steering wheel..etc.

i'm not sure what kind of powerplant i'd settle with on a z... maybe keeping with the oldschool theme and have carbs? or totally overhauled and end up with a rb25det?

here's a few pictures that i dig...

maybe this would be my goal in the end? to create a z that takes on a dirty, aggressive stance and appearance... but still adheres to a more pure classic heart?

thoughts?

http://500px.com/photo/1021870

http://jumbosandbox.blogspot.com/

http://speedhunters.com/archive/2008/09/23/car-feature-gt-gt-rwb-nakai-porsche-930.aspx

[Threehz]

Make it your own man, I'm sure some people won't like it, but I bet twice as many will, and more importantly you'll love it. It's hard to choose what path to take exactly, I personally am taking my current Z one direction, but I plan on getting a second one someday to go all out with. Throw the RB25 in an early Z body, tune it to a pin and turn it into one mean as hell road monster.

Personally I like how the dirty aggressive Z style you're going for looks but I wouldn't do my Z like that. I like a car that looks hella clean, but packs a punch with a fist of nails.

You definitely want to get a pretty solid idea of how you want your Z to be, then lay it out in steps. Let's assume you get a Z in good shape, running, needs little body work and is relatively stock. All the flaring and body work will add up pretty fast. Engine swap is easy from an L to an L, but if you want to throw an RB in there, that's a much bigger overhall, and not cheap either. Another thing to consider is, if you find a stock Z, don't just rush in and mod it out to all hell right away. Take some time, enjoy the original Z for what it is while you have it that way. Originally when I got my Z I wanted to throw all kinds of mods on it but then I realized, how can I ever get a real feel for my Z if I don't let it show me what it can do stock and how it acts. Then each upgrade and change you'll really feel and appreciate that much more. Just my opinion but I think many will agree.

[Slight]

Very good points, totally agree.. its like anything in life, of you just start off with the top, it's awfully hard to appreciate what you have.. Let alone understand.

Hm.. do you think like that gold z would be a good template to go off of?

I know first things first I'd want to address the rust, and probably interior colour.

and obviously making sure she's mechanically up to par.

I think the fellow mentioned the two things that needed to be finished were : new shocks and rear carpet..

[Slight]

on a totally different point... i'm wondering if anyone happens to know what the costs of importing a 240z into Canada would be?

i found a bit... i'm wondering if the car would fall under emission laws of some sort? hmm

http://www.importcartocanada.info/guides-tips/step-by-step-guide-to-importing-a-car-into-canada-from-the-us/

[Threehz]

I think that Z looks pretty good as long as that rust along the bottom sides isn't too bad and isn't eating at the rails. I don't know if interior color would be my first change but if it's that important to you if you go look in the interior section on these forums I saw a post about painting/dying vinyl and such and there seemed to be a good product for doing a restore/dye of all kinds of different materials and that seems like it would be an easy way to change the color. FWIW