Finally found a 69 240z, #51 Time to finish a 30 year multiple owner restoration.

[Zed Head]

Was it even an auction?  Looks like it was a set price.

"

11/22/2013 Update: This 240Z has sold in less than 24 hours. Thanks for all the interest! We look forward to following the restoration!

From 11/21/2013:

This 1969 Datsun 240Z (chassis HLS30 00051) was built in October of 1969 and is the 18th earliest surviving 240Z in the world according to the Z Car Registry. Many of the very early cars were designated to be either factory test cars, press cars, or race cars from new, and most of these no longer exist. Car #13 was the first car sold to the public. This one will require a full restoration. There has been plenty of talk about where the Japanese collector car market is headed, and the earliest examples will be the most coveted of the 240Z street cars. The seller purchased a complete Series 1 parts car that is also included as shown below. The entire package shown is now available in Santa Barbara, California for $15k."

Edited April 20 by Zed Head
+ an

[dspillman]

Yes, it does appear to have been a “buy now”….on bring a trailer…. I havnt seen that before…. But may have been 10 years ago….    But mentions in later in comments it had been on eBay for 3 years at $10,000 and no takers….

Edited April 20 by dspillman

[dspillman]

Quick Sunday post to hopefully legitimize and  state with pictures of “matching numbers” or as I would say “all original 240z”……
 

Vin..00051   October 69 car
  Block L-24  2239
  Engine casting # 9828B    

Deciphered  as block born on date of August 28th 1969. Which is in line with what to be expected.

    I mention this because of some discussion over the years, on BAT, and on this site about this car being a legit matching numbers car.   I can understand the concern and the reasons for the discussion.   Posting this combination of pictures to hopefully dispel any conflicting thoughts…zz

      I do welcome any thoughts about this car in anyway shape or form.

       

 

Edited April 21 by dspillman

[dspillman]

Hoping the body panels would surprise me with no “hard” body work… not to be. 
    Driver side over quarter window where roof joint is cut out and repair will be needed. Good news is no evidence of previous repairs here…. At least no filler is present.

     Passenger side shows better…. But with a couple of bubbles , we all know better.

 My early disassembly had me leaning towards not blasting, or dipping, but now this difficult to repair are I think requires to dig a couple layers deeper to expose….stuff.  Layers of untreated , un painted metal from the factory can only result in rust

[dspillman]

More rust then anticipated under battery tray…

[grannyknot]

That rust hole in your pic of the D/S roof is just above where the roof panel and the C pillar were joined, it was soldered together with lead. Some have said over the years that it was done that way to allow some flex in that join, others have said that it was just the technology of the day, they both sound plausible to me.

It is a complicated joint and difficult to open up to remove the rust.  I had one of my Z's dipped because of the same kind of rust and all the leaded joints came back empty. The place I used baked the car in and oven at 600-800F to burn off all the coatings before it went into the acid tank.  I'm still looking for the photos of that car when it came back, I'll keep hunting for them. 

Dipping has some definite advantages but the place I used didn't neutralize the metal very well and I was fighting flash rusting for weeks before I could get get primer on it.

[Mark Maras]

2 hours ago, grannyknot said:

That rust hole in your pic of the D/S roof is just above where the roof panel and the C pillar were joined, it was soldered together with lead. Some have said over the years that it was done that way to allow some flex in that join, others have said that it was just the technology of the day, they both sound plausible to me.

 

 At the Atlanta Z-CON, Charles and I talked with Matsuo-San when that question came up. As I recall he said that joint was intended to flex. The consequence of a stiff C-pillar was the A-pillar flexing instead with the possibility of a windshield popping out. @Patcon What do you remember of this conversation?

[Patcon]

Yes, that is what Matsuo San told us at the car show.

[Namerow]

And yet...  Hard for me to believe that a broad-surface soldered joint like this one would offer structural flexibility sufficient to absorb the amount of distortion that would cause the windshield to pop out of its frame (which, we should remember, is lined with a compliant rubber seal).  Not disputing Mr. Matsuo's claim, but I wonder whether the flexibility that he spoke of had more to do with positioning flexibility (compared to spot welding) for the two parts during and just after the joining process*, rather than after the car hit the road.

Put another way, just how much would that joint need to 'give' in order to prevent the amount of windshield frame distortion needed to make the windshield pop out: 1/16"?  Is that soldered joint really capable of absorbing 1/16" of relative shear without breaking? 

[Captain Obvious]

11 hours ago, Namerow said:

 Not disputing Mr. Matsuo's claim, but I wonder whether the flexibility that he spoke of had more to do with positioning flexibility (compared to spot welding) for the two parts during and just after the joining process

Agreed. I wasn't there when they designed it, but I don't see that soldered joint as "flexible".

I'm thinking they needed to join two major assemblies in an area that is extremely visible. An area where spot welds would have been unsightly. Maybe they thought the solder joint would not only be strong enough, but it would be much easier to hide? Maybe they just couldn't come up with a way to do a spot weld there because of access? 

But who am I to say? I wasn't even there. 

[HS30-H]

3 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

I'm thinking they needed to join two major assemblies in an area that is extremely visible. An area where spot welds would have been unsightly. Maybe they thought the solder joint would not only be strong enough, but it would be much easier to hide? Maybe they just couldn't come up with a way to do a spot weld there because of access? 

The lead-loading is cosmetic. It covers what would otherwise be unsightly joints and is intended to be (slightly) resistant to flexing, but it is not the fixing method of the panels.

[Zed Head]

On 4/21/2024 at 3:28 PM, Mark Maras said:

Charles and I talked with Matsuo-San when that question came up. As I recall he said that joint was intended to flex. The consequence of a stiff C-pillar was the A-pillar flexing instead with the possibility of a windshield popping out.

More context might help here.  Were you looking at the area of the joint on a real car?  Why was Mr. Matsuo there?  How many people were involved in the discussion?  Who asked the question, and why?  Was the part about the windshield popping out secondary conjecture from somebody else or words straight from Mr. Matsuo?

Sorry, that's just how my brain works.  More questions.