geezer

By comparing measurements of the rad core support, you should be able to easily determine if yours has been forced upwards or not. The measurement you took from the center valance to the corner of the hood is not very helpful. They are just sheet metal parts that are hung on the shell and measurements will vary from car to car. The rad core support was jig welded precisely in position as an integral part of the shell. This is a consistant, solid base point for measurements to solve your problem. In this pic, I came up with a measurement of 16 7/16". This part came from a '73 but is the same as yours when measured from the points shown in the pic. Hope this helps you to get a handle on the problem.

There is not one gauge wire that will do it all. It depends on the Amps needed to power each end device and the length of wire needed to connect them. Here is a handy chart to help you select the appropriate wire gauge. Wire is like everything else as far as getting what you pay for. You don't want to cheap out on wire. Do your research before taking on a task such as this. I would hate to see you destroy your existing harness unecessarily, removing connectors incorrectly or whatnot. Some may need to be reused, depending how faithful to original you plan on doing it. Look into incorporating relays into the circuits where it would be beneficial in order to reduce heat damage and the risk of fire. http://www.rbeelectronics.com/wtable.htm

R-Run

If the car was raised from the bottom of the radiator core support and was bent upward, or more likely run up a curb by a PO forcing it upward and possibly back a bit, the best way to fix it would be with a spreader bar or jack to carefully spread & force it back into position. The bracket may be fine where it is. Take a vertical measurement of your radiator core support from point A & point B of your choice and then let us know where you measured from and note the measurement. Then we can compare with our cars. This way we will be able to pinpoint where your problem is and come up with the correct dimensions you should have and the best way to correct it. That's what I would do.

Guess that doesn't qualify for another variance. You did say 240Z fuel rails. I'm going to see what info I can dig up on the top line. I don't know a lot about 260Zs but I suspect it is a vent line connected to a charcoal canister or something.

Don't know Mike. I carefully removed the insulation in one piece without damage or risk of an environmental disaster, bead blasted it and gave it a quick shot of high heat paint so it shows up in the pics. Sure appears to be a factory built piece and not an add on. I have two of these, which are identical and came from different sources, so I would think more will turn up.

OK, my curiosity is getting the better of me again. I am going to unwrap one of these to see what lies within. They do not appear to be modified, other than a bend in one line. Also, they are different than this illustration shown in this reference taken from the 1973 Mod Plus Program.

Thanks guys. So, neither is original to the engines mentioned, have been modified and are wrapped in asbestos. Excellent candidates for disposal. I do have pics of my 10/70 as I found it, with this fuel rail being used to feed triple webers. I just hadn't realized the fuel rail was not original to the car and that it had been modified. Just didn't pay much attention to it as it was immediately removed and I had no plans to reuse it anyhow. Thanks for the warning of the asbestos.

These two are still wrapped with insulation but seem to be different than the ones you have shown. They have 1 less bracket from what I can see. They are from engines L24-015980 & L24-022622. Was there an insulation kit for these fuel rails? Just wondering why both these engines had it, with both covered in the exact manner.

Looking in the FSM for 1970, (P/N 99999-20016 gold covers) the same 5/8" slave is shown. The change to 11/16", if not noted in the S30 Supplement Chassis Manual, with the relevent revisions through 1971, may have come about without the need to give notice to the Service Department. Maybe, because of the versatility gained with the adjustable pushrod and the relatively small increase in the bore diameter it went unannounced outside of the factory and only shows up in the Parts Fiche & Catalogs. I checked and there also is no mention of a slave bore diameter change in the 1972 240Z Intro TSB either, but that is not very comprehensive. I don't have any FSMs for other years. We need someone to check their S30 Supplement Chassis Manual and other year FSMs for the bore diameters shown for the clutch slave cylinder.

I looked for some explanation in the TSBs and didn't find any reference to the clutch slave cylinders. TS70-44 dated Oct 12/70, subject: 240-Z CLUTCH IMPROVEMENT, explains the 3 modifications made. These were changes made early on. There's nothing else in the TSBs that I could find other than TS75-021 early in '75 covering S30 Clutch Control System Disengagement. There may be something mentioned in the S30 Supplement Chassis Manual, issued Jan 5/72. It applies to 240-Z models through 1971, but if IIRC it is mainly focused on the dash and wiring. That's all I could come up with.

????...I am detecting hesitation in this statement? Don't rush into removing a perfectly good set of stripes, on other peoples opinions. I know I change my mind on what looks good on these cars constantly. That's the beauty of a Z. The classic, timeless styling is very forgiving on most modest modifications. Every couple of weeks I have a new favorite color also. Z's are like beautiful women. They are still appealing, no matter what they are wearing.

Welcome to the site. When you get a chance, put a few pics up and don't worry about us seeing any rust. Most of us have seen our fair share of it owning one of these cars! You have the good fortune of living in the same area as a few of our seasoned members also. Have fun navigating the site and getting tips on your restoration. Lots of info here. Must have been a nice toolbox!

Arne, I have the Dec/79 microfiche, which is the last revision for US/CAN. There are a total of 6 clutch master cylinders listed for the S30 as supercessions. All manufactured by Nabco. The first two ( 30610-E4100 ) & ( 30610-E4101 ) don't have "from or up to" dates associated with them but the third ( 30610-E4200 ) has an "up to" date of 08/74. None state a bore size. The only slave cylinder shown relevent to your car is made by Tokico, has a 11/16" bore with an "up to" date of 6/72. The part number is 30620-28513. From 7/72 - 6/75 a 3/4" bore is used, also made by Tokico ( 30620-S0100 ). "From" 07/75 part number 30620-U7000 with a 3/4" bore manufactured by Tokico is listed. From the S130 microfiche there are 3 other slaves listed, all from Nabco. None define a bore size, but the first is 30620-U7000 used "up to" 11/80. We already know from it's use in the S30 that it has a 3/4" bore. "From" 12/80 30620-U7001 is used and the last one listed has a "from" date of 01/82. It is part number 30620-P9500 (turbo). No bore size stated. John, hope this helps fill in some of the blanks. If you need any other part numbers/dates of the pushrods or anything else, give me a holler.

You could call your local NAPA and check for availability. It's been said they carry POR products. http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showpost.php?p=260078&postcount=5

I like the stripeless look on this car also. The car looks great with the headlight covers, aftermarket wheels and black paint, but for some reason, by adding the stripe the car then becomes too "busy". For me anyhow. Maybe for you too...thus the poll question?

We haven't heard from ZDemon in a year and a half now, who was researching the Zzaps for his own restoration. Chris, the ad in this thread I've linked to in post #2 seems to support the theory that the Zzap was available without at least the side stripe portion of the SAP (seems to be missing the passenger side mirror too). It would seem logical that any dealer applied "Appearance Package" could be completed to the customers preference, therefore possibly omiting the stripes. There are a few pics of a Zzap in the "zcar" link in post #2 also. I enjoy revisiting these threads and learning more about the Black Pearl & Zzap as much as you do. You may have missed this thread? http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32196&highlight=stripe+paint

All unibody designed vehicles came about for pretty much the same reasons. Two of the main benefits are reduced weight and ease of assembly in a mass production operation. A custom built roadster such as you depict, open wheeled or not, would typically be built using a "body on frame" configuration, just because it is the practical/easier method. Not many of us hobbiests have the tooling to create our own custom stampings. A unibody design consists of a great number of stampings being welded together to form the "unibody" which has been designed to accept the suspension/steering components. It is pretty common to see these suspension/steering components taken from a unibody designed vehicle being used in the construction of a tube chassis. Mounting points, clearance issues and maintaining the correct geometry of the components are key to the tube chassis design. Your post reminded me of this project for sale here locally. http://windsor.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-33-willys-W0QQAdIdZ87125467

I stopped in the Nissan dealership this week. They had a black 370Z with the persimmon orange interior trim. I found it to be somewhat luxurious and without driving it, I can not qualify an opinion, but it has the feel of what I would expect from a modern day sports car in this price range. As far as appearance, it is perhaps a look that grows on you? It has with me anyhow. I agree with the sentiment that they look much better in person. I didn't get the urge to buy it though.

Probably not...but we should warn him what to look out for:finger: HAPPY BIRTHDAY Dave!!

Your welcome. Good info to have, but I am of the belief that more times than not, the problem lies elsewhere and you shouldn't prematurely alter the float levels and complicate the issue.

This should help identify the carbs and get the float heights adjusted properly.

That's not a dumb question and there are many of us that are storing diffs & tranys that could use some guidance. I remember seeing pics of spalled bearings said to be caused by long term storage. It was clearly evident in the pics where there was an actual line defining the portion of the bearings that were above the oil level and had dried. This caused a "leading edge" to be formed on the bearings sufaces, that lead to failure. I suppose that a teardown, inspection and rebuild is the best course of action after long term storage, but in reality, this isn't always done. Rotating the entire assembly occasionally may help keep surfaces coated. I might be wrong but I don't see any benefit of changing the oil before storage. It is not like crankcase oil that becomes corrosive from the effects of combustion.

Did you try what Arne and beandip suggested? Did you try running it with the gas cap loose? If you did and it alleviated the problem while loose, try these simple tests. This is the best illustration of the evaporative emissions system that I have seen that makes it easy to understand. Curious to find if this is the problem.