LeonV

Thanks! It's a very clean Z. I had a chance to drive it and it's like I was back in the '70s driving a new 240Z!

More photos:

Just my luck, I have 3 240Z owners in my neighborhood (excluding myself)! Lucky for you guys, one of them is selling his 1971 240Z. I don't think it gets much exposure sitting on the classifieds site so I wanted to post here before we put it up on ebay or CL. It has a ton of (very interesting) history, and the accompanying paper trail! It's in amazing shape and is one of the best put-together Zs I've ever seen or had the chance to drive. PM me for owner contact info. On to the car! 1971 Datsun 240Z for Sale VIN HLS30-31136 165,000 documented miles This car is in excellent condition, very stock, and very hard to find these days! Green with butterscotch interior, except the seats are black (although they are 240Z seats). It has the original motor and I have all maintenance records dating back to 1973. The interior and exterior are very clean, there is no rust and car runs just as it did when it was new. Even all the original smog equipment is still there. This vehicle was originally purchased in San Diego and had basically four major owners including myself. I don’t know the original owner or purchase date, but it was sold to the 2nd owner, also of San Diego, on 9/1/73. In 1991 it was sold to 3rd owner living in Southern California. In 1997 this car was sold to a person who was buying classic 240Z cars on behalf of Nissan. You may remember Nissan was buying these, restoring them and selling at their dealerships in the late 1990s. This car was purchased with that intent, however, Nissan cancelled the restoration program shortly thereafter, leaving the buyer in a tough situation, (as he had no intention of keeping it) and had already started the restoration process (mostly paint and some window seals). On August 23, 1997 the buyer sold it to his friend also of Southern California, who did some minor restoration work and quickly sold it to me in September of 1997, as he also had no intention of keeping it. In looking at the maintenance records prior to my ownership, it had two major jobs done consisting of installing a 5 speed transmission and a valve job. Some of the more recent repairs/replacements I did during the last 10,000 miles included a new head gasket (minor leak, not blown), radiator, thermostat, spark pugs and wires, starter, alternator, battery, voltage regulator, SU carburetor cleaning and adjustment, choke cable, fuel pump, all new door and hatch gaskets, Polk speakers, fuel gauge, clock, radiator hoses, and belts. Oil change, new brake fluid, radiator flush done in January of 2012. The car runs great, basically the only deferred maintenance is the tires which are very old (although tread is good), the driver side window regulator needs an adjustment, lube, or a replacement, and recently I have discovered the driver door lock is a bit “fussy”. Sometimes it takes a several tries before the key can turn the lock, so the striker likely needs a minor adjustment. Most of the rubber bushings are original, although I noticed some have been replaced. Other than that, this car is in great shape. This is not your typical rough, rusty, squeaky, smelly 240Z. The interior is quiet and comfortable, the engine and transmission have no issues, and when you punch the throttle in 3rd gear at 4,000 RPM, the SU’s open up, the engine roars like a lion, and it goes! I took photos under the car, and there are no rust issues to deal with. The paint is in very good shape (10 years old) and the body has no rust. I am selling it due to a lack of time or interest to drive it. It has basically sat in my garage for the last 6 years. I have several other cars, and don’t find myself wanting to drive it as much as I did over 14 years ago when I bought it.

Did you check the flux capacitor yet???

Bad flux capacitor? Did you do what Steve directed you to in his first post?

I'm still unsure of how they did a "frame off" restoration... You can easily spend $60k on a total restoration, when you have some shop do all the work that is. Labor adds up. Although I completely agree that she should've taken the $45k, she's not going to get the money that she spent back. It's not a 250 GTO.

Yes, that's one way to do it. That would shift your cornering stiffness distribution to the rear, thus delaying full weight transfer at the front. That should make the car more neutral. When the inside front lifts, you're increasing understeer (unless you break the rears loose). You may be better off downsizing the front bar to somewhat decouple the left and right wheels, however that will likely dictate an increase in spring rate.

I'll second Ace Hardware. The one in Petaluma has a very nice selection of metric fasteners. I was also recommended Bowlin Equipment in Berkeley, apparently if they don't have it, it doesn't exist.

It actually doesn't have anything to do with alignment or geometry. It's dependent upon the lateral force generated, and the "axle's" cornering stiffness. When the inside wheel lifts, that means that all the weight has been transferred and there will be no additional lateral force generated at that end.

Basically, yes. They're hinged in a way, one side is cut and the other isn't in order to get the bushings in and out. I don't remember the exact geometry of removing the rack with the engine in, but I can tell you that it is possible! You will have to get creative with angles, and twist, etc.

I was lazy and didn't jack the engine up when doing rack bushings. It took some work but I got it out and back in. I don't know if I saved any time, but it required no engine movement.

If it's a stock F54/P90 then it's the turbo long-block, meaning dished pistons. EDIT: This also means it's pretty low compression for an NA engine, at about 7.4:1.

Beautiful! Don't forget to do the final torquing of suspension fasteners with the car on the ground and at full road weight.

Late, but as promised:

Not a great place to be for those spectators and corner workers!

I'm not aware of the use for the second port at the rear. I don't think it was used, not on US 240Zs anyway, but my memory is fuzzy as I haven't run SUs in a while.

Does the Healey have manual brakes? The Z needs a fitting near the back for the big brake booster hose.

Oh boy, if I had a penny for every time I heard those words... Could you then please explain how tire width affects ride quality? Could you show any testing to prove so? You really think that a lowered car should bottom out? That is exactly what you're saying. When your suspension bottoms out, your spring rate becomes that of your chassis (gets very stiff, very fast). This creates a harsh ride. This is what you said earlier: If you bottom out, your ride will be harsh, no matter what. If you have shocks with too much compression damping, your ride will be harsh. If you've lowered your car enough to leave only and inch or two of bump travel, then you will be bottoming out a lot. Changing tire width will absolutely not help this. Changing sidewall height will make the ride softer, at the expense of handling (repeating myself here). If you don't mean to imply that he's going to have trouble, then why mention it at all? Also, where are you getting this extra 4+ inches of track? Track width stays exactly the same, given that you're using wheels with the same offset and just changing tires. You can say that the steering will get heavier, but it sure won't "be heavy like an old truck" unless your old truck's steering felt like a Z-car's. Going to 225mm wide tires is not going to make the huge difference that you make it out to be. The effect is minor, especially considering that the OP is choosing between a 215 and 225... The steering will be noticeably heavier if your new tires are "stickier" than the old ones (as is often the case when upgrading to a larger tire). I know you want to start an argument, but I'm just clearing up the facts for the OP so that he can make a wise decision. Pete, your steering effort and ride will be largely unchanged since your keeping sidewall height close to equal (staying with 14" wheels). Your decision to not go with staggered sizes is a good one with regard to handling, and if you're running the stock front valence then I think anything wider than a 205 is going to start getting close. A 215 should fit up front, but see if the tire shop can put on one tire to test fit and turn the steering through its range of motion. You should do this with the suspension compressed as well, but the initial test should give you a rough idea.

I had no trouble with my steering running a 225/60-14 up front, when compared to 205mm or 195mm wide tires. It's not going to make your steering "heavy like an old truck". A harsh ride, when attributed to tires, would be mostly due to the sidewall height/stiffness (not width) of the tires. With regard to street tires, a 70 series will be softer than a 60 series, which is softer than a 50 series, etc. Yes, 195/70-14 will make it ride better, but corner worse due to more sidewall flex. This is the reason for your harsh ride, you're bottoming out your suspension! At that point, your ride will be harsh no matter what tires you use. If you don't like the ride and are bottoming out, it's time to do something about your suspension.

Sounds to me like your pedal got caught on the floormat.

Mike, you have to take into account that you are using a Xenon air dam, just as I am. I've had no issues with rubbing either, but I haven't tried a stock front valence.

Absolutely fantastic work, Tom! That is going to be a stunning 260Z, great job!

I forgot to mention, this is with the car lowered by about 1.5 inches.

I'll link this thread just for reference. I don't think it has spring lengths posted, but it's a nice comparison.

I had 14X6 mags with 225s and then switched to 16X7 Panas with 225s. Front and rear fit without rubbing in both cases. Take note, however, that I'm using a Xenon air dam up front and not the stock valence. I believe that's where the rubbing issue tends to be.