LeonV

Don't need it. I removed all of mine and have no warm-up issues. The exhaust manifold warms up the carbs before the coolant even has a chance to. I don't remember the sizes, but they are very likely all BSPT fittings, not NPT. Good luck finding that at home depot! You may be able to get away with using NPT and teflon tape, but it's much more preferable to use the proper fittings. You can find them online at sites like McMaster Carr, or possibly at a specialty hardware store.

Secondly, read up on how breaker point ignition systems work. I don't get how you can try to solve something without first understanding how it works. We've pointed you in the direction you need to head to, but the work must be done by you. Otherwise, you're just going to have others solve your problems for you without you learning a whole lot about what is actually going on (this is how a lot of "internet myths" begin, BTW). Asking a well-researched and thought out question is great, so read up on the fundamentals of what you're working on as you will learn a lot more than by just staring at the engine and guessing how things work.

Have you done this yet?

I thought I had deja vu for a second there. You asked that exact question earlier in the thread and we answered it.

The FSM is not just good for the wiring diagrams, but also for everything else concerning the Z. Don't know what's stock? Check the FSM. Don't know what point gap is? Check the FSM. Googling terms you don't know (like point gap) will help.

Did you download the FSM yet? It's all in there. Get the '72 FSM from Xenon's site that you've been linked to and is in Steve's signature. Everything should be similar, if not identical, to a stock '71, especially reguarding the ignition system.

First thing that came to my mind is your points aren't opening. As others have suggested, check point gap.

Ground the wire coming off the thermal transmitter on the thermostat housing. The gauge should go all the way to the right. If it does, you have a connection problem at the transmitter. If the gauge doesn't move, the problems lies somewhere between the gauge and transmitter, likely at a connector. EDIT: Make sure key is IGN ON. EDIT 2: Careful. If you have a points distributor, disconnect power from it or make sure the points are open so you don't fry them.

Yes, the mix up may come from the fact that combustion chamber temps reach a maximum just above stoichiometric and exhaust temps are a max below stoich. There you go, that's 4 paths of conductive heat transfer right from your engine to the fuel lines. No amount of heat shielding will stop that. Hopefully, eliminating the stock rail and routing your lines in a way to limit heat transfer into them will alleviate if not fully cure your vapor locking problems. Out of curiousity, did you try running the car with the hood propped open to vent heat?

And congratualtions on the finish and award. Sounds like hell, errr fun!

Glowing exhaust means it's rich. If you're burning fuel inside your manifold, it will literally get red hot! As far as the vapor lock issues, try to insulate all fuel lines, and don't mount the fuel lines to anything attached to the engine. The original fuel rail will conduct heat from the engine to your fuel lines if you're still using it.

Around here that's a $500 parts car, with the "new" parts included.

BTW, I had a typo in my last post. I meant to say the 240Z made 151hp net and 129hp gross, and the 260Z had 162hp gross and 139hp net. This is what the Zhome article reflects. Chris, you're waaay over-analyzing this. My 260Z is an original California car. It is not right-hand drive. I have the original owner's information and even the original license plate frame from San Jose Datsun. I have both a '71 240Z and '74 260Z with identical ID plates besides the different VIN & engine numbers and power numbers. Have you seen the engine bay of another early 260Z? With similar induction and exhaust systems, and an increase in displacement, how can power not increase? Can you tell me what emissions controls dropped power? Compression ratio slightly dropped, bit that small of a drop in compression does not make a big difference (maybe 1%). This is logic, along with tangible proof. I am not lying to you, the 260Z had more power than the 240Z. It did weigh more, thus the acceleration wasn't as good as an early Z. The '73 Z gained weight over the earlier ones by way of extra wiring, beefier bumpers, and added steel (e.g. door bars inside the frames).

I've used Rockauto a ton of times without a problem. They have very fast shipping, parts are usually at my doorstep within three days.

No wiseguys, eh? nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! But seriously, take a look at the SU carb section of the forum and search this site and google as well. SU functionality, syncing procedure, vacuum leak testing, etc. is all available online.

That too! Coincidentally, both are on my list for the next daily-driver.

Good, that confirms what I'm saying. By those numbers, the 260Z is actually quicker than the '73 240Z. It also confirms the power numbers, look at "note 1" for the 240Z and "note 2" for the 260Z. SAE gross for 240Z is 151hp, for the 260Z is 162hp. SAE gross for the 240Z is 129hp, and for the 260Z is 139hp. Thanks!

I have 240Z and 260Z bumpers on hand, along with mounting brackets. I guess I'll just have to weigh them and see... It's not like it's hard to convert to 240Z bumpers, which would essentially nullify any difference between the early 260Z and later 240Z.

There already is a modern-day 240Z, and it's called the Honda S2000. Just my 2 cents...

Anyone thinking "yes" is either insane or a masochist. All new hardlines would be a huge undertaking relative to a typical brake job, and would only make sense if you've got the bottom of the car taken apart and in the air. If it's never been dry, you're fine. Flush the brake fluid to make sure it's nice and clean and you'll be good to go.

Yup, fuel consumption won't change much given the same style of driving. People probably tend to drive the cars harder with the lower gears, giving the perception that fuel mileage has drastically changed.

The 110 Red is can be better described as persimmon. My 110 Red 260Z looks more orange than red, but it has been repainted. Like I said, check the car out in person if you have doubts on the color. Of course, a complete inspection is necessary to deem the car worthy of the asking price as well.

Looks like the color of my 260Z (110 Red). From the pictures, it looks like a close match. I love the color, maybe you'll like it better in person. It's a nice Z, especially interior wise, but I wouldn't trust the mileage claim unless it can be verified. You can find one in similar shape for less, especially if you're not too fond of the color. It all depends on what kind of Z you're looking for, prisine low-mileage or just a nice driver. BTW, I'm in San Bruno as well!

There are three reasons, the first two of which are twice as important as the third. Firstly, holding load constant, pumping losses are reduced as EGR is introduced. Higher exhaust pressure increases intake pressure, therefore you achieve a better cylinder fill. Second, there is less heat transfer to engine walls (lower adiabatic flame temperature) which reduces heat losses. The third has to do with the chemical reaction during combustion being more efficient (decreasing degree of dissociation). Referenced from Heywood's Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals.

Not true. The way power was measured changed. Power in the 260Z was up over the 240Z, contrary to popular belief. FWIW, the ID plate in the engine compartment of my early 260Z lists the L26 at 162hp. There is an early and a late 260. I doubt the early one "picked up a couple 100 pounds" not sure on the late one as I think it was a 280Z chassis (beefier) with 260Z running gear. The only changes I see from my 240Z to my early 260Z that noticeably affect weight are a larger amount of wiring and slightly sturdier bumpers with shocks. I just don't think that adds up to 200lb.