260Z Truth

[v12horse]

Hmm, as far as power figures I thought the California export 260z had somwhere around 139bhp and where ever else it was exported, including the rest of the US it had 162bhp. Am I mistaken? When I first got my 260z in 1999 it had webers. Not side drafts, but two with cannon manifolds. I then put round tops on it and it has been great ever since.

I really love my 260z, the bumpers are a little bigger than the 240, but they still look good. I have an early model.

This is a question that I have been thinking about for a long time. Why does the 260 get such a bad rap?? The 73 240 and the early 260 are very similar, but the 73 240 does not get as bad of a rap.

Personally, I would think that the 280 would have worse of a reputation than the 260 because it was heavier and farther away from what the 240z was than the 260, but that is not the case. Why is that? And I am not trying to bag the 280, I like it too.

P.S. The webers are for sale, if anyone wants to make an offer or wants a photo I can supply that. Just drop me a pm.

Cheers,

Ben

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by v12horse

Why does the 260 get such a bad rap?? The 73 240 and the early 260 are very similar, but the 73 240 does not get as bad of a rap.

Personally, I would think that the 280 would have worse of a reputation than the 260 because it was heavier and farther away from what the 240z was than the 260, but that is not the case. Why is that? And I am not trying to bag the 280, I like it too.

Cheers,

Ben

Maybe because it is perceived (by some folks) as a failed model due to it only existing (in the USA) for 1 year.

Lack of Flat top carbs, and the addition of EFI *may* be things that the 280Z can count as "improvements" over the 260 (and 73-240Z)

[Mr Camouflage]

The weight differance between a 260z and a 280z is so small its hardly worth talking about. THe Ll26 and L28 block are the same, except the 280 has a larger bore, so it would probably weigh less.

The reason the 260z gets the bad rap it the power rating.

139BHP comared to the 240z 151BHP.

The 240z was lighter because it didnt have air conditioning.

So you go from a light car with 151bhp

To a heavier car with 139BHP. wich doesnt to much for the power to weight ratio, and was seen as a backwards step.

The 280z was released to compensate the the 260z deficiencies.

Similar (if not the same ) weight, and lots more power. (Cant remember the power rating of the L28, wasnt it around 175bhp?)

This was in the US only.

Australian 260z had the higher power L26, so we didnt need the increased displacemnet of the L28 to make up for the added weight.

[Victor Laury]

Don't forget, you guys down-under didn't get the giant nasty bumpers! Face it, your 260Z WAS a truly improved model to the 240Z. Ours, (US spec) was a sad state of affairs, as the Feds gobbed one after another requirement upon the poor fairlady's back!

[Sean Dezart]

Hang on, I remember reading somewhere that the 151 bhp of the 240 was measured differently than that of the 260 at 160 ish (not 139 ). Therefore the 240 had around 135 bhp. The UK 280 (ZX not Z) had 145 ish bhp !

And into the pot with all these weights must go 4 and 5 speed gearboxs with different diff ratios:

US 3.3 /3.5

UK 3.9

UK 260 3.7

UK 280ZX 3.5

It's clear that not every model was an improvement of a deterioration over the previous one - it depended upon your country and the current laws ! Nissan did try and keep the Z sensation' going but it can't have been easy.

Can we agree that car laws re emissions/security etc now are more stable if still somewhat different depending upon location ?

[v12horse]

I am almost sure that the 260z outside of cali had 162bhp.

[symon]

Hi V12 Horse,

I can prove that at least my european spec 1976 260Z has 162hp stamped on the chassis plate. I was trying to set up the Hitachi Flat top ( heap of rubbish ) carbs at the local rolling road & car car showed 159 hp at the flywheel when I gave up trying to make the b******y thing work. I´ll be fitted some 240Z carbs next week so I´ll let you know what the motor produces once I´ve been down to the rollers.

[Sean Dezart]

After 28 years service, your engine gave only 3 bhp less at the flywheel than the factory spec. and you call the carbs useless - you're a hard man Symon ! You sure about the print-out ?

240Z carbs may be easier to tune but for 3 bhp, hardly worth the trouble.

[symon]

Hi Sean,

Yes not bad engine performance but the carbs are ´orrible to ajust. I been looking at the 240Z carbs & I think I can fit SU HIF type dashpots, piston, floating type needles, etc. I´m fairly confident that, with a some twiddling with carbs, dizzy, spark plugs, valve clearance settings, etc that I´ll be able to get another 15 bhp. So I thinks that it´s probably worth it with a much cleaner pickup at lower speed. I show you soon !

[Gav240z]

Originally posted by Mr Camouflage

The weight differance between a 260z and a 280z is so small its hardly worth talking about. THe Ll26 and L28 block are the same, except the 280 has a larger bore, so it would probably weigh less.

The reason the 260z gets the bad rap it the power rating.

139BHP comared to the 240z 151BHP.

The 240z was lighter because it didnt have air conditioning.

So you go from a light car with 151bhp

To a heavier car with 139BHP. wich doesnt to much for the power to weight ratio, and was seen as a backwards step.

The 280z was released to compensate the the 260z deficiencies.

Similar (if not the same ) weight, and lots more power. (Cant remember the power rating of the L28, wasnt it around 175bhp?)

This was in the US only.

Australian 260z had the higher power L26, so we didnt need the increased displacemnet of the L28 to make up for the added weight.

That's not entirely true the 260z had thricker and bigger chassis rails. The doors were reinforced with more steel making the cars slightly heavier.

I admit it's not a huge difference but it is some. It is also a known fact that the early 1970 mdl 240z AUS spec ones anyway are most sort after for racing and rally because they are the lightest of the bunch.

Also mistakenly known as the 1969 mdl's in Australia. Which there were none of.

[orange260z]

I'll chime in here- i have an early 73, as well as a late 74 260. Both had flat-tops when i got them. Both have clean round top SU's now:love:

The 73 ran, but not terribly well- the carbs were dirty & out of tune. Never have had a vapor lock problem with either, but then i live in cool NY...

The 260 actually ran very well when i got it, in spite of the tuna cans. But, just one look in the engine bay is enough for me. The older carbs just look so much cleaner, less plumbing, less to go wrong, simple to work on and tune. Why would i keep that mess i had?

I did run the 260 quite awhile with it's original carbs, and all was fine- but the minute i found a bargain on a set of SU's- i bought them, cleaned/refreshed them- and never looked back. The tuna cans now have a lovely home in the upstairs of my barn:D

Jeremiah,

I recently bought an early '74 260, and it has the flat-top carbs. The car is running ok, but not great. I have two sets of round-top carbs, but am not sure of which year... so I'm having trouble getting the rebuild kits. I think they are early RTs, because they don't seem to have any water passages. What other parts do I need to install these in my car? I have an air cleaner to fit them, but no spare manifolds, fule rails, etc. I may not even have the throttle linkage...

any advice would be appreciated.

cheers,

Ayan

[Bambikiller240]

www.ZTherapy.com