Namerow

Interesting. I've had good luck removing frozen fasteners with vise-grips over the years. My theory is that it comes from the shock created when the pliers -- adjusted to a strong over-centre setting -- are clamped closed. You can almost hear the pliers ring when they go over-centre and lock. No penetrating oil required.

$143,000, even with silly wheels and tires! I'll bet Buzz and Todd never thought their ride was going to be worth that kind of money.

I can't recall: Did you do similar weight measurements for the 240Z? If so, what were the front and rear weights? And engine (or engine + transmission)?

These are fiddly devices and maybe not worth trying to fix by yourself. And the repaired unit might just reward you for your work by starting to leak instead of stick. Why not just call ZcarSource and ask them for their price without a core?

Further to Patcon's suggestion, you could also consider sliding a next-side-up extension tube over the end of the longitudinal floor runner of your frame rig and then using that as a reaction structure (i.e. put the bottle jack between the extension piece and the lever arm). Depends on how long the existing frame 'stub' is. I don't think I'd try this unless that stub is at least 18" long (which your pictures suggest to be the case). The reaction load (which would be tension, not compression) would be taken out of the vehicle structure through the front-most support point of your frame rig. Right now, I believe that is at either the front crossmember location -- which is a good distance back from the rad bulkhead. I'd like to see the reaction load being taken up further forward. Maybe you could rig up a chain, looped over the lower part of the rad bulkhead and then anchored to the top of the new extension tube by way of a couple of (sturdy) welded-on eye-bolts. Include turnbuckles in the two chain drops so that you can pre-tension the chain. While considering how this 'adjustment' might take, it may help to stare at the following two pictures for a few minutes while asking yourself, 'What panels deformed during the collision event?' and then, 'How can I un-do that deformation?'. The panel's main strength in the vertical bending plane comes from that long doubler panel (which has been removed by the owner in the top picture). It works with the main stamping to form a box section (which is sometimes referred to as the upper frame horn). However, notice how that box section is weakened near the front by the big hole punched in the main panel to form the fresh air inlet for the car's cabin ventilation system. I suspect that that's where the deformation happens in a front-end collision. In fact, in the lower picture it almost looks like the outer wall of the doubler plate has been kinked. For reference, I've added a third picture showing a pair of virgin OE doubler plates.

I'm astonished that you had enough room to stand far enough away from the target body panel to be able to swing the gun. If I had tried that in those close quarters, I probably would have tripped over the air hose, grabbed the plastic sheeting as I tried to keep my balance, and then dragged it all down onto the freshly-painted panel.

Nice to see that the X-Y laser gave you some encouraging measurements Re your plumb bob measurements, I think you should would be quite satisfied with a discrepancy of only 1mm in your LHS vs RHS measurements. I think that's probably within the manufacturer's original build tolerance (which, in the 1970's was probably on the order of 1.5 - 2 mm for this type of long, front-to-rear measurement). One question, though: Did you measure both longitudinal (front-right to rear-right / front-left to rear-left) and transverse (front-right to rear-left / front-left to rear-right)? If you only did the longitudinal measurements, then you still don't know whether the frame is lozenged (also referred to as 'diamonded', IIRC). The plumb laser will make these measurements more convenient and more accurate. Trying to hang a plumb bob string from the center of a bolt hole or bolt head is not that easy to do with accuracy (especially if you're lying on the garage floor). At the back of the car, you should be using the 'C' points (holes in the rear subframe, just behind where the interior floor pan kicks up) as your reference. At the front of the car, you should use two different sets of reference points: 1) the front (or rear) LHS and RHS crossmember mount holes in the frame rails, and; 2) the centres of the big holes at the top of the two front shock towers. (1) will tell you about the alignment of the lower structure and the lower front suspension pickup points. (2) will tell you about the alignment of the front suspension's upper pickup points. Re the front bumper mount holes, I suggest you wait for corroboration from at least one additional owner of a damage-free Z to feel confident that they're supposed to be 'level'. Although logic says that this should be the case, you just never know. You have a lot of prospective time and effort a stake, so best to not begin until you're as confident as possible about what is 'correct'. Also: I'm leery about the float-level measurement methods that I've seen so far. They measure relative to an inertial level, but you can't be sure whether both cars are sitting at the same pitch angle (aka 'rake angle') relative to inertial (or, for that matter, whether the floors underneath them are properly level). Ideally, 'level' for the bumper mount holes should be judged using a vehicle frame of reference. Your X-Y laser can do that, but the float level measurements may be suspect. Another thing: Note that the front and rear bolt holes are drilled pretty close to each other, which means that any errors made in sighting on the bolt hole centers (or the bottoms or tops of the bolt holes) will greatly exaggerate the measured front-to-rear angle. If I was doing this, I'd use a compass to draw a bolt-hole-sized circle on a piece of wide masking tape and then draw on crosshairs. Then I'd stick the tape on the body panel over one of the mount holes. Now repeat for the other three mount holes. One last idea (which you can take or leave): If you conclude that the bumper bolt holes really are out of whack, you might consider trying a bit of 'caveman' body alignment as a low-cost, low-impact first step. Take some of the square tubing you have left over from your frame rig construction project and cut a pair of 8-foot lengths. For both, drill a pair of correct-size holes at one end that are at the same spacing as the bumper-bolt holes. Bolt the legs in place on the bumper/hinge-mount body panel, one one the outside of the panel, the other on the inside, securing them in place with two pieces of threaded rod (or a pair of really long bolts). Now you have a hefty 8-ft lever that's solidly mounted to the bent panel. If the front bumper-mount hole is higher than the rear one, you'll need to push down on the end of the lever. In this case, I would suggest you build a solid side-to-side wood trestle to put under the front of the front frame rails, right behind the rad bulkhead. Also, put some counteracting weight in car's hatch area (sandbags, more left-over frame-rig tubing, a couple of willing bystanders, whatever falls readily to hand). Now push down on the end of your lever and see if you can get that sheet metal to shift. If the front bumper-mount hole is lower than the rear one, you have a slightly different proposition. In this case, you'll need to lift up on the lever and that wood-trestle support-behind-the-rad-bulkhead idea isn't going to happen. When you lift up on the end of your lever, you'll really just be trying to lift the whole front end of the car (and support frame) off the garage floor. I'm too lazy to do the math, but I expect you won't be able to put more than 100 lb of lift onto the end of your lever arm before the vehicle and support frame start to lift off the floor. Still, 100 lb of force on the end of an 8-ft lever might generate enough torque on the panel to shift the local sheet metal in the process. And if none of this works, you can always move on to Plan B (hammer, dolly, torch). Disclaimer: I haven't tried the lever idea, so I can't guarantee that it will work. Or be safe. Caveat emptor.

That's a superb result, Chris. You have really modest facilities compared with a lot of guys who display their results on the internet, so this is really a great testimony to your skills, ingenuity, and persistence. A great illustration of why this site and its contributors are really exceptional in a world of contracted-out, done-by-others restorations.

I think that you've made the correct decision. There was something wrong with that car. I also think that there's been collision damage. Rust repair for Z's is not easy, but there is a lot of great guidance available for DIY-ers. Conversely, you may observe that there is virtually zero guidance available online -- on this site, or anywhere else -- for home garage correction of collision damage. Worse still, it can take some careful inspection to spot collision damage.

As you continue on this (unwanted) parted of your Z restoration, I think you will be well served by acquiring a couple of laser levels. These have become less expensive since they were first introduced to the D-I-Y community and can be really helpful for checking and restoring panel and fixture alignments. One of the big challenges for these types of alignment measurements is, 'Aligned (or level) relative to what?' For example, the fact that the RHS bumper mount holes are level (as in, inertial level c/o a torpedo level) doesn't tell you whether they're at the same elevation (as in, height above the floor) as the LHS holes. As an another example, ask yourself, 'How do I make measurements relative to the centerline of the car?' I suggest the you buy a 'plumb' laser and a 'crosshair' laser. The plumb laser will let you check whether you car's main structure is straight (use the reference points and dimensions shown in the frame diagram in the 'Body' section of the FSM). The crosshair level will let you check alignments for various surfaces and reference points (e.g. bumper bolt holes) relative to a consistent inertial reference. It will also let you be sure that the whole car is sitting level, left-to-right (front-to-rear can be done, too, but not so conveniently). The combination of both laser types will be useful when you do your frame rail replacements. Of course, you can do all of this work without the lasers. The lasers just make it easier and reduce the amount of guesswork.

It looks like the owner, John Gubrud, sold the dealership to another local businessman, Don Gordon, 1985. By then, it would have become a Nissan franchise. Somewhere along the way, the business also picked up a Suzuki franchise. There doesn't seem to be a Nissan franchise in Mt Vernon any more, but there is a Nissan-Suzuki dealer called KARmart not far away, in Burlington, so the guy who bought Gordon's business probably decided to re-locate it there. The only likely property that I can see in the vicinity of 1575 Memorial Highway in Mt Vernon is a boat sales & service operation on the river just to the north of the new highway. It seems that Mr. Gubrud was a boater, so it wouldn't be surprising if he sold his old car dealership property to a fellow boater-business person who re-purposed it into a boat sales/service business. The Datsun showroom and service buildings are probably long gone. I visited Mt Vernon a couple of times back in the 1980's, when my company was doing business with the PACCAR test centre. Nice countryside. One of the members of the founding family of PACCAR, Pat Piggot, was prominent in the west coast sportscar racing scene back in the late 1950's and early 1960's. He was killed in a race at Riverside in 1962. I see you got popped for speeding in Moose Jaw during your cross-Canada journey back in the 1970's. The Trans-Canada Highway can get pretty straight and endless after four or five hours, can't it? 'Time to let the car stretch its legs a bit'.

Agreed. That was a fun read (even for those of us who didn't grow up in the Fraser Valley). Nice to a mention of my old racing acquaintance from Kelowna, Keis Neirop (1983 Sebring winner and also responsible for the only all-wood 240Z rotisserie that I've ever seen). I poked around on the internet this morning and tracked down the location of the old Chilliwak Datsun dealership. As someone else on the linked thread pointed out, it's now only a shadow of its old self, reincarnated as 'Campus Auto Sales' and 'Classic Cars'. You can clearly identify the original showroom building by its roofline (looks like a little mini-racecar in the display area), with the service department entry to the left. The building behind the trophy girl with the big 'Datsun' logo would be the long wall on the right, now painted red.

OK, I'll ask first. Who is the trophy girl in the first picture?

Actually, I have seen those Nissan OE snubbers. I bought them from MSA back in the mid-1980's. They were installed on struts that got stored and I didn't get around to using them until 30 years later. When I checked them out, they looked perfect but crumbled to the touch. So much for open-cell, natural rubber suspension bushings. The sad part is that today's no-cell neoprene bushings are not the answer for a lot of owners (unless you are dedicated to track days, autocrosses, or live in a part of the world were roads aren't exposed to frost-heave).

At $55, this looks like a practical alternative to rebuilding your OE Harada (finicky work that may generate indifferent results if the internal plastic bits and the mast tubes aren't in A-1 condition).

Re-shaping those bent sections back to the correct, radiused contour might be a challenge. I'm concerned that the metal won't move much in response to hammer-and-dolly treatment. @ConVerTT did some significant work on this area of his Z and would probably be well qualified to advise.

Sorry about that. I've edited my post.

The Specs tables in the FSM's seem to say that the 280Z got a 15.8:1 rack for the first two years (MY 75-76) before changing back to a ratio similar to that of the 240-260 MY's (18:1 for the MY77 280Z vs. 17.8:1 for the NA-spec 240Z/260Z). This makes no sense, for a couple of reasons: A 15.8 rack (just like the Euro-spec 240Z) is faster but requires more driver effort than a 17.8 rack. Not good for us slow-driving, parallel-parking North Americans. But then the 280Z comes along and it's designed as safer and more luxurious (and heavier) than the 240Z, so as to further cater to the North American mass market. The (numerical) steering ratio for the 280Z should have gone up, not down. And that's exactly what the FSM spec chart says happened -- but not until MY 77 (and not by very much). However... If you look again in the 75 FSM, you'll see that the introductory text at the start of the 'Steering' section says that the ratio is 18:1. That makes more sense. I wonder if the FSM editor forgot to update the Specs table at the end of the section? And then forgot to do it again for the 76 FSM. Of course, this doesn't explain the differences in rack travel measured by cygnusx1 on hybridz for his 240Z vs 280Z racks. At 1.5" (76 280Z) vs. 1.81" (72 240Z), his measurements were definitely consistent with a slower rack in the 280Z (i.e. more wheel twirls per inch of output), but they also suggest a difference in ratios of 20%, which means that the 280Z ratio should be 17.8 x 1.2 = 20.6:1. That's a lot more than 18:1.

That's an interesting approach, now that I think about it. I suppose one could rig up a remote device to drop an open flame into the tank's filler neck while standing a safe distance away. Maybe one of those birthday cake sparkler sticks suspended from overhead on a string?

There are no 100% answers to this question. Lots of anecdotal evidence, but no robust guidelines. Statistical populations of three. A classic example of 'YRMD' (your results may differ). All I can say is that if it all goes wrong for you, your last thought will be, 'F__'. Your wife may have a different comment .

My big fear is that you will soon lose interest in 'all things Datsun' and move on new challenges. The next logical step for someone with your skills is a late-60's Alfa GTV, isn't it? Or -- sharp intake of breath -- a Jag E-Type.

That's a good point. Any uncracked OE dash that's being offered (for big $$$) is probably a hand grenade. Unless you plan to install said uncracked dash in a trailer queen that's garage-stored, it's just another piece of 1970's-tech plastic and foam waiting for exposure to the real world to do its thing. I don't think any of us really know why they cracked. Was it sunlight? High under-glass temps? Air pollution chemicals? Combination of all htree? Or maybe it was just over-exposure to ArmorAll! Probably only a chemical engineer who specializes in polymers knows the correct answer. I restored my cracked 1970 240Z dash. It was a lot of work. Six years later, it's still ok but it has only a facsimile of the OE dashpad's 'haircell' look and feel. If the Hung Vu repro pad had been available six years ago, I would have taken that route. The 'Just Dashes' option was high quality but just too expensive for my budget.

The dash from my 5/70 (mid-3000's) has the same armature structure as CTZ's #6521.

I remember my experiences with my 240Z in the 1970's as my daily driver in a high-density NA city (Toronto). That flywheel was definitely designed by Nissan engineers from a 'mass marketing' perspective. That is, enough mass/momentum to save buyers who were new to the game of low-torque cars with manual transmissions. I hated it and, IMO, they over-did it. However, the sales numbers speak for themselves, don't they?

Sounds like somebody at MSA/Z-Store goofed. Their listing does indeed say, $79 'and sold by the pair', but when they buy from Palco they might get a 25% discount at best, so $112.50. Hard to believe that Palco would sell them to MSA at a 50% discount, and then allow MSA undercut them in the retail market by such a huge margin (or any margin, for that matter). I think we may see the MSA price change to $149 pretty soon.