OK – I talked once more with him on the phone and got him to commit to a solid $600.  He did say to me:  “… or best offer”, so perhaps he might go lower.  But he’ll definitely let it go at $600.  I think it’s probably a decent deal.  For a Mustang it’d definitely be a really good buy, but like I say - I don’t know Zs. 

 So that’s it guys.  I’m done with this.  I’ll check the forum here for the next week or so and if anyone really wants this car for what he’s asking for (or reasonably close) and is serious about trailoring it out (its in Paradise, CA 95969) – I’ll then give you the guy’s phone number and you can talk to him directly and make arrangements.

 Again, thanks for everyone’s inputs.  I love restoring cars (especially classic Mustangs) and I just didn’t want to see this car junked without giving some Z folks a chance at it first.  

There's room in a Mustang for the Nissan L6.  The turbo engines can make a lot of power.

OK, you might want to check that:  My ’70 Mustang's fully rollerized stroked Cleveland lifts its valves .576” for 284° duration, squeezing to 10.3:1 compression and sucks its nourishment thru a 770 cfm Holly 4 barrel all culminating to a healthy 520 horses and 535 lbs of torque pushing a 3300 lb Mach 1 via a 5 speed that launches to 60 in just under 5 seconds, having a .63 OD that actually could push the car to 194 mph (body can’t handle it, though) …….. all which pretty much blows any Z engine out the window.   I know that hurts, but that's why I work on classic Mustangs.  Plus – no smog!   …but yes, its mileage sucks!

 

Edited April 19, 20177 yr by 280ZX-Boy

Don't want to start a pissing match but there are a number of classic Z's that are just as quick. Big Phils from hybrid Z comes to mind. I think he's making about 472 Hp in a car that weights 1400#'s less. Can't hardly keep it in a straight line even with limited slip.

On a different note... I do like your car, 69 is my favorite year. I was working on 73' for my son until he lost interest. Sold it in pieces...

7 hours ago, 280ZX-Boy said:

OK, you might want to check that: 

….. all which pretty much blows any Z engine out the window.  

Check what?  I don't even know what that means.

There's always a bigger engine, or a bigger turbo, or bigger blower, or some combination out there.  If your Mustang had one of the Ford six cylinder engines in it, then a rational discussion could be had.  2.8 liters = 171 CI.  I'm sure there's a Chevy guy out there with a 502 that would claim window-blowing properties for his big block over your Ford.

No interest in getting puffed up over engine numbers.  The old Datsun engine in an old Mustang would just be an interesting project.

Edited April 19, 20177 yr by Zed Head
Bad conversion math

Didn't mean to upset you.  Thought your were trying to make an actual comparison between the engine outputs.  My bad.  However, I had no idea some Zs put out 472 hp in a car weighing less than 1400.  Yikes - that thing has gotta move!  But most classic 'Stangs do move along pretty good too, and those are cars that are about a half a century old using old technology.  Each class of car has their own respectability and associated pride.  Sorry if I got too high up on my high horse.

Edited April 20, 20177 yr by 280ZX-Boy

I love cars. The badge is the last thing I look at....

I think we all appreciate that you came here to try and see if the car could be put to use by keeping another Z alive. A classic Mustang is a glorious machine(as long as its not a Mustang II). I appreciate them a great deal, however they aren't my bag. But I sure would do a lot to make sure an abandoned one got to the right people. I hope it works out.

The first car I ever restored was a 1966 Mustang coupe, midnight blue, lost my shirt when I sold it but it was fun.

I think I still like the looks of the old original Zs the best (whatever year that lime green one is on the trailer – 240Z?).  As for the Mustang II, although they improved some handling issues with it, the Mustang community in general doesn’t really consider it a real Mustang.  I think it was originally an upgraded Pinto but somebody slipped it in as a Mustang and the budget department rushed it through on a Superbowl weekend before anyone realized what had happened …… or something like that.  There are hundreds of explanations including that an AMC Matador humped a Falcon.

 I’ll keep checking here to see if anyone bites.

Love your Mustang. Loks clean and neatly done. I would only have to hint it to the wife and she would be down at the car yard trading the Zed in for a mustang. She doesn't realy like the Zeds. I can't understand why. Either car, I would still be in the garage playing with it.

On ‎19‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 10:05 AM, 280ZX-Boy said:

OK, you might want to check that:  My ’70 Mustang's fully rollerized stroked Cleveland lifts its valves .576” for 284° duration, squeezing to 10.3:1 compression and sucks its nourishment thru a 770 cfm Holly 4 barrel all culminating to a healthy 520 horses and 535 lbs of torque pushing a 3300 lb Mach 1 via a 5 speed that launches to 60 in just under 5 seconds, having a .63 OD that actually could push the car to 194 mph (body can’t handle it, though) …….. all which pretty much blows any Z engine out the window.   I know that hurts, but that's why I work on classic Mustangs.  Plus – no smog!   …but yes, its mileage sucks!

 

 Nice mustang. I also have a 70 fastback, currently also building a 500hp + 4V Cleveland, but I'm using a upgraded AOD wide ratio that can handle up to 750hp. Will be a fun ride like yours.  Still I love my 240Z ! It's stock, but that;s the beauty of it, I don't feel the need to put triples or camming the L24, just enjoy it stock, it's a different story I feel with the V8's.. it's a muscle car !