240Z restorations, what's right and what's not

[HS30-H]

24 minutes ago, SpeedRoo said:

The BAT 240Z went for $165k plus fees. Who knows what one done right would go for, somewhere between this and the $310k Green one? Great to see a good 240Z holding their value.

I still think we are applying a slightly unfair level of scrutiny to it, and you yourself imply it was 'done wrong'. 

There's a big yawning gap between the new owner's comments on BaT and our nitpicking here. Where's the pragmatism?

Winning bidder said: "I am convinced there isn’t another one in the world in this condition! I’ve waited a long time for the right one and I know I’m getting the best one!".

I think BaT is something of an echo chamber in cases like this.

This is why I still feel a patinated and lived-in unrestored car pleases me more than the average 'restored' car, in the same way that a lived-in human face - without surgery, 'fillers' and veneers - makes me feel. 

Done right? Only the original cars were "done right". Anything else is just simulation.  

 

 

[HS30-H]

25 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

The stainless repros perform much better.

So I don't want them. I'd rather see a broken original.

[motorman7]

"ZCCA judges can tell it at one glance."

Kats, you give them too much credit. 

Most ZCCA judges are Z owners just like you and me and are occasionally incorrect in their assessment. I am sure a number of the ZCON participants here can point out quite a number of ZCCA judge errors. Unfortunately,  you usually don't find out until 4 months later when you get your official judging sheet.

[zed2]

All,

Your comments have been very enlightening.

Perhaps it is possible to create a sub group of members who would be interested in reviewing other member's cars (via photos) to provide feedback.  My personal goal is to have a mechanism in place to evaluate a 240Z, or a portion of a 240Z (engine, suspension, interior, etc.) before the car is subjected to 'uninformed" comments/criticisms.  

There appears to be several 240Z previously sold that proport to be "restored", "refurbished" or "renewed" that lack some readily available parts.  Had the sellers had their 240Zs reviewed by knowledgeable 240Z enthusiasts it is quite possible that their vehicle values would have been greater than they realized via a sale.  By extension, the rest of the community would benefit by increased values and offer greater reward for our 240Z ownership.

What are your thoughts on creating such a sub group of members?

Keith

 

[SpeedRoo]

22 minutes ago, zed2 said:

All,

Your comments have been very enlightening.

Perhaps it is possible to create a sub group of members who would be interested in reviewing other member's cars (via photos) to provide feedback.  My personal goal is to have a mechanism in place to evaluate a 240Z, or a portion of a 240Z (engine, suspension, interior, etc.) before the car is subjected to 'uninformed" comments/criticisms.  

There appears to be several 240Z previously sold that proport to be "restored", "refurbished" or "renewed" that lack some readily available parts.  Had the sellers had their 240Zs reviewed by knowledgeable 240Z enthusiasts it is quite possible that their vehicle values would have been greater than they realized via a sale.  By extension, the rest of the community would benefit by increased values and offer greater reward for our 240Z ownership.

What are your thoughts on creating such a sub group of members?

Keith

 

Excellent idea @zed2 that's what I had been trying to do with this thread. There's a wealth of knowledge on this forum and it would be great for newbies like me to be able to tap into it. Things changed so much in one year of production, let alone over the three the 240Z was in production for the USA.

[Zpenman]

Are the padded covers that covered the center consoles considered stock equipment on the earlier cars? The ones that were hinged on the back. It seems that I see a lot of restored cars with an open console and no cover. Forgive me if this is the wrong message topic. Thanks!

[DatsunZGuy]

5 minutes ago, Zpenman said:

Are the padded covers that covered the center consoles considered stock equipment on the earlier cars? The ones that were hinged on the back. It seems that I see a lot of restored cars with an open console and no cover. Forgive me if this is the wrong message topic. Thanks!

Not standard equipment, but period correct in terms of being available from aftermarket accessory companies like Amco.

[Zpenman]

Great, thanks. I've wondered about that for a long time now.

[AZ-240z]

On 12/5/2022 at 2:04 AM, kats said:

Hi Dan, I didn’t know that ! Need five screws on the scuff plate, I need to have them correctly on my cars.

Kats

Hi Kats.  You were my inspiration in my car’s restoration, so happy to be able to return the favor

in some small way.

Dan

[kats]

On 12/6/2022 at 5:10 AM, motorman7 said:

"ZCCA judges can tell it at one glance."

Kats, you give them too much credit. 

Most ZCCA judges are Z owners just like you and me and are occasionally incorrect in their assessment. I am sure a number of the ZCON participants here can point out quite a number of ZCCA judge errors. Unfortunately,  you usually don't find out until 4 months later when you get your official judging sheet.

Hi motorman7，it’s good to here from you, and thank you for telling me it.  I always respect judges, also every single owner who loves cars. Now I am planning to attend ZCON next year, I am really looking forward to see you again ! Not going to bring my Z though. 

Kats

[kats]

On 12/6/2022 at 1:24 AM, SpeedRoo said:

Which code on the window shows it as 1973 Kats?

Sorry I was mistaken the car, the picture of the door glass “April 1973 “ is for the 1973 240Z, so it is correct. 
I checked HLS30-01606, the car has correct glasses. Like most of other parts, the date is a little bit earlier than the door jam tag. 
Kats

[26th-Z]

On 12/5/2022 at 2:24 PM, HS30-H said:

So I don't want them. I'd rather see a broken original.

At least you'll know that the door isn't working properly.  Worn out, piece of junk...