Randalla

I did and they were identical???

Steven, I have one installed in my 71 but it looks like mounts have been fabricated to attach to the floor pan. I also have another rear sway bar I'd like to install on my 72 so let me know what you learn about the brackets and mounting points. The rear bar on my 71 with poly end links makes a huge difference in body roll. You will appreciate the difference it makes on your car. I prefer the look of Blue's install to the one on my 71.

Thanks Steven. Problem solved, but I'm not sure I learned anything in the process. I still don't know how simply changing out steering and suspension parts, while taking all the regular precautions to make sure everything was reassembled properly, resulted in the toe being so far out of spec. Since the car came from the factory with no camber adjustment at all it just does not make sense to me that in order to get the toe in set properly, the A-arm camber adjusters had to be adjusted to the max setting.

I've got a 1971 240-Z that has a brand new speedo cable installed but I am getting an up/down jumping of the needle at almost any speed. The jump is about 5-8 mph so it's difficult to know how fast you are actually going, plus it's irritating. Is this an electrical or a mechanical issue? Is there a quick fix for it short of a speed rebuild? I also have a speedo issue on my 1972 240-Z. The regular odometer records mileage accurately but the trip odometer gets stuck and actually stops recording mileage after a while after I zero it out. The point at which it stops working seems to change with each tank of gas, not a particular number. I'm guessing it may be a lubrication or cleaning issue. Any other ideas???

I see K&N makes a filter to fit the standard 240-Z air box and was wondering if anyone is running one and if there is any perceived difference in how it flows vs. the standard filter (the metal one with the holes in it). The K&N is approaching $50 and the OEM type filter retails for about $10. Since the filter is inside the air box there's no eye candy to offset the additional cost. So....any difference in performance at all???

I should have made it clear in my previous post that the camber kit was the one to offset the control arm bushings rather than the strut tower camber kit.

Well, turns out my car has aftermarket camber adjusters on it and once the alignment shop realized that they were able to use the additional adjustment to align the toe in/out properly. I'm still mystified how simply replacing tie rod ends, while counting turns off and on, could have produced a condition that was so far out of spec. Apparently installing camber adjusters "in the day" was common practice when upgrading suspension for performance (there are no factory adjustment otherwise). My car seems to have factory suspension however, so no one noticed the adjusters upon initial visual inspection. Thanks for the help.

I'm having measurements taken today to try to narrow down the possibilities. I vaguely recall that the steering knuckles had an R or L stamped on them to indicate orientation. Anyone else remember? At this point I agree that having the steering knuckles reversed is the only possibility I can think of.

Have now measured three different tie rods from different makers and they only vary by 1/8" in total length so I am pretty sure at this point that the parts are correct and not the problem. Took pics today of a friends car and compared my install with his and nothing stands out as being different. Are there any ways to get more adjustment, short of turning the tie rods on or off? I can't for the life of me see what's wrong. Can the inner tie rods be turned in or out to gain any adjustment? I've been told they are fixed. Still scratching my head as are two techs and another friend and 240-Z owner.

I recently rebuilt the front end on my 1971 240-Z (bushings, ball joints, tie rod ends, rack boots, etc.). I purchased a set of tie rod ends from Rock Auto and installed them with the rest of the new parts. I counted the turns coming off and replicated that in reverse when installing the new tie rods. After lowing the car off the jack stands I noticed the ties were severely towed out. It was vary obvious to the eye. My assumption at that point was that the tie rods may have been a slightly different length so counting the turns may not have provided a "close" measurement. Next step was taking the car to my local alignment shop to have them set it to spec. Later in the day I got a call telling me they had bottomed out the tie rod ends on the rack and the car still has way too much toe out (still very apparent to the eye). My next step was to measure the exterior length of the tie rod end and compare it with another tie rod of a different brand. I also measure the depth of the threaded hole to see if there was more or less adjustment on one or the other. The difference is minimal, certainly not enough to compensate for the toe out condition. So....now I am second guessing my install and wondering what I could have done wrong. Has anyone had similar issues? Is it possible to install the steering knuckles backwards to cause this condition? Is there adjustment on the inner tie rods that may have changed while threading the outer tie rods off/on. I'm stumped at this point.

Thanks for the advice Bruce. I actually think the biggest issue was the needles being buried too high in the pistons. All three items have to be synced together, so adjusting everything in order (needles then floats then jets) got it done. Thanks again!

Nearly have the rich mixture thing under control. Dropping the needles down, readjusting the floats (a little lower) and dropping the jets to 2 1/4 turns seems to have put me in a good spot. Will know better after checking mileage and inspecting plugs after a few hundred miles.

Well I checked the needles and there are no identifying marks to tell me what the profile is. I decided to lower the needles in their seats to line up the needle shoulders flush with the bottom of the piston. They were flush with the slot in the bottom of the piston. This should have the effect of leaning out the carbs slightly (dropped the needles a little less then 1/16th of an inch.). Also will try dropping the floats and jets tomorrow to see if the changes help at all.

I am running the stock air box, good question though as when I began running ITG's on my 1972 Z it required a substantial adjustment of the mixture. Bruce, thanks for the follow-up. I'll check to see what needles I've got later this afternoon and see if that might indeed be the culprit. I'm only at about 2000 feet here in AZ so no problem there. Re: the lower float and nozzle settings, since they are directly related to one another, as Gary points out, not sure how that might lean things out. Correct me if I'm wrong but lowering the float would result in it shutting off fuel sooner thereby creating a leaner condition. On the other hand, lowering the jet richens mixture. Seems like doing both leaves me where I was, in theory, because one move would counteract the other. Am I wrong?

Hi guys, Been on this site for a long time but just making my first post. I have owned 8 240-Z's all with the original L-24, till now. One of my current cars is a 1971 240 Z with an N-47 head that I converted to four screw SU's. The car runs terrific with great power but I believe it's running too rich because I smell fuel and fuel economy is in the 17 mpg range. I'm running an electric fuel pump (3 1/2 pounds pressure) and currently have the jets screwed out only one full turn (spec is 2 1/2). Timing is set to factory spec and the floats in each carb are at spec as well. At this point I'm leaning toward changing the needles out (SM or N-54) to see if that makes any difference. I'm not yet sure if the needles are stock or have been modified in any way. Any other ideas on what to check to obtain a leaner run condition without adversely affecting performance? Oh, also currently running the standard spec NGK plugs but considering a hotter range NGK plug as well.