Namerow

Short answer: Yes. It sounds like you haven't tried dismounting the light housing yet. When you do, things will be obvious. The wiring connectors are located on the outside of the body, behind the light housing. The wiring exits from the interior through a grommet-equipped hole (with grommet) just to the left of the body centreline. You'll need to remove both the metal centre finisher panel on the outside and the big plastic trim panel on the inside. You might also need to pull the weatherstripping free along the back sill. Be gentle and patient when you set about trying to remove the interior plastic trim panel. There are molded lips along the top and bottom edges that are typically brittle with age and really easy to break off if you don't finesse things. IIRC, you need to tug the top edge free first and tilt the top inward by an inch of so. Then you need to coax either the left or right end out the corner a bit so as to free things up. Then remove at a slight angle. The panel won't pull straight forward. It also doesn't like to bend very much. Picture below (a little fuzzy) shows the panel during installation rather than removal, but should give you the idea.

Very nice write-up with some great parts-sleuthing. Thanks for posting. I've always had limited trust in adhesives (especially when they get exposed to solvents and oil or grease). Nevertheless, modern-day adhesives are becoming very sophisticated and the results can be quite impressive when you find the right adhesive and apply/employ it according to the manufacturer's instructions. Your 'hang' test demonstrates very promising results. Hopefully, the exposure to the lithium grease won't be an issue, longer-term. Grannyknot did a posting here a few years ago in which he showed how he had pressed out the roller shafts from the regulator arms and then successfully re-installed them after installing hard-plastic cone-faced tarp grommets as a substitute for the pooched soft-plastic originals. Your soft roller alternative looks like an improvement.

Re the snapped-off manifold fastener: You're looking at a steel fastener stuck in an aluminum head. The dissimilar-metal corrosion along the threads can be really difficult to break free. If you lead off by trying to get it out with a screw extractor, do not use a cheap one and do not get too aggressive. It's a lot easier to drill out the fastener for a helicoil if it doesn't have a snapped-off screw extractor stuck inside it. Some people swear by the use of a reverse-twist drill bit. Might be worth a try... if you can find a place nearby that sells them. Using heat from a bottle torch is a problem. Too much flame spread, not enough focused heat. An oxy-acetylene torch with a fine-tip flame might work, if you've got one. One heating option that probably will work (and makes it unnecessary to do any drilling) is to use a MIG to progressively build up an extension onto the top of the fastener (looks like you need at least 1/4" build-up here). Once you get it above the surface of the head, you should be able to tack a nut onto the welded-up extension. With all of the heating shock from the MIG work, you'll should then be able to twist out the fastener with a wrench. Notice that I used the word, 'should'.

I may have some welding ahead of me... but I have a problem. My house has antiquated electrical service and it looks like I will cost C$1500 - C$2000 to have an upgraded panel installed in the house, along with suitable wiring taken out to the garage (which, as luck would have it, is about an 80' cable run from the panel location at the other end of the house). I can buy a brand-new-with-warranty 6500W/8125W generator that's being clearanced by a well-known local retailer right now for C$850 tax-in, delivered. I figure I can probably sell it for $250 after I'm done with it, so my eventual net cost for a year's worth of 24x7x365 access to the generator would be about C$600. I have available to me right now a brand-new, store-brand, gas-ready 120V MIG welder that's rated as follows: X 20% 80% 100% U0 = 34V I2 80A 46A 35A U2 18V 16.3V 15.8V U1 = 120V I1max = 20A I1eff = 9A What are the thoughts of the CZCC welders' community, on: in general, on MIG welding with a portable generator? in particular, on the welder/generator combo that I'm considering?

Looks like it's seen a lot of snow and salt in its day (viz: remnants of a ski rack on the roof, super-size back-up light, along with what looks like it might have been a mount for a roof-mounted spotlight). Previous owner appears to have been 'active' -- pilot, skier, rallye competitor. Those fabric-covered hoses in the engine compartment look frighteningly original! And the dash looks uncracked. I wonder how long it's been off the road? My guesstimate: Buy it for $3K. DIY restore, plus bodyshop prime/prep/paint, plus new wheels/tires: another $15K - $25K. End value for re-sale: $20K for a low-ball restoration, $30K for a 'good' restoration. As 26th Z says, it's not a low enough VIN to carry much of a premium value. I suspect you have to get down into the double-digits for that to happen.

I remember watching Brad's 'Frisbee' compete at Mont-Tremblant (then also known as St-Jovite) in the revived Can-Am series of the mid/late-1970's. Radical-looking car for its day.

Apparently someone who knows these cars well, as indicated by his photos drawing attention to the original plastic latching clips on the inspection cover body panels of 3543.

I've struggled to find anything really, visibly wrong with the car. Nothing yet. The dash intrigues me. It looks great, but It has a couple of mods that would have been hard to accomplish without removing the dash: 1) there's a non-stock, #2 toggle switch installed (should be just one, with an unused detent for a fog lights switch that wasn't installed on USA or Canadian Z's); 2) the 90 psi oil pressure gauge is said (by others) to have not entered production until after January 1971. And yet... the car has the early-version speedometer (starts at '20' and has 10mph increments). If the car really does have 249,000 miles on it (and the two handwritten service notes suggest that it does), then I am hard-pressed to explain the great condition of the seats, seat covers, and the door cards -- not to mention the dash and the steering wheel. The only part of the interior that says, '249,000 miles' is the torn-up vinyl trim on the rear shock towers. Odd. The service records would tell the tale, but -- intriguingly -- none of the invoices that the seller has chosen to show in photos includes a statement of mileage. We do learn that the car received new front and rear bumpers (bought from a Nissan dealer in Puyallap, WA) in October 1997 for the not-inconsiderable sum of $1,400 (call that $2,000 in 2018 dollars). Why? Were the originals rusted out? Or damaged? Or just not pretty enough to go with a new paint job? Puzzling. Maybe the seller will reveal the odometer reading from one of the most recent dealer service invoices. A 149,000-mile Z is not uncommon and not necessarily a beater. A 249,000-mile Z is uncommon and would invite a lot of questions about how this car has managed to stay in such great shape sand with so many original parts. Anybody have any idea what that coolant bypass hose tapped into the thermostat housing might be for? And has anyone ever seen a theft-deterrent switch mounted to the starter motor like this car has?

This one interests me because its VIN is within 10 digits of my own car. The seat covers look original (they have the Butterscotch colour's characteristic dissimilar fading between the smooth side panels and the pebbled seating surface panels) and -- given the overall condition of the seats -- one would be inclined to believe the claim of only 57,000 miles. So does the clean appearance of the lower front bender mount area. However, the seller stated in a previous listing that the car had 249,000 miles. Which to believe? The earlier ad says: "Strong engine, no smoke. Repainted 15+ yrs ago,some rust in front of rear wheels only. Original color Palma green/butterscotch interior in good shape, no tears. Dash is not cracked. I am third owner/since 1983. Cast aluminum wheels/good tires. Rear end recently swapped to a rebuilt unit having stronger gears intended for racing(but never raced) so rear end is noisy but very reliable. Car never raced either. Originally purchased in Portland Oregon. No salt exposure. Comes with spare used (90,000 mi) engine with dual Webber carbs and tranny and two spare used rearends. Many spare original parts included." The no-crack dash is a bonus and should add $2K premium to the selling price. Door cards look in very nice condition. Headliner and sunvisors also look to be in remarkably good shape. Passenger-side floorboard looks like it's been caved in by a jacking 'error', but this can be easily remedied (with a big anvil - right, Chris?). Although it's a small detail, the mudflaps send the wrong signal to potential buyers.The fact that this car appears to be straight and 95% original should be a big bonus. It also looks like it's been very well cared for. What we can't see properly from the pictures is its rust quotient. Pictures of the bare floorboards, hatch sill area, and rear wheel arches/lips would help. The seller's earlier ad notes rust in the dogleg areas. The mention of racing intentions by a previous owner is worrisome. However, absent of any hidden surprises, if this car was listed on Bring A Trailer I think we'd probably see a $25K result. Maybe even $30K on the right day. The re-spray (even though in the original 907 colour) might hold down interest from collector-types. For those interested in such things, the engine number for this car (6582) is about 200 units later than the factory-installed engine in my car (6408).

The Z advert from 'Parker University Datsun' in Hamilton caught my eye. I've been living in nearby Burlington for the past 10 years and had never heard of this dealership, despite its location near the McMaster University campus (which I visit frequently on business). A quick check using Google Map shows that the site is now occupied by a Hebrew Memorial Chapel. It looks like it was a terrible location for a dealership -- well off the nearest main thoroughfare and well outside of the Hamilton city core. Probably one of those small entrepreneurial retailer operations that tended to pick up franchises from the likes of Fiat, Volvo, and BL back in the day. There's no such thing as a 'University Nissan' or 'Parker Nissan' in the Hamilton area these days, so I would guess that they got axed by Nissan Canada corporate in the 1980's when 'Datsun' transitioned to 'Nissan' and went up-market (or tried to). Even the Harvey's fast-food franchise is gone. For non-Canadians, Harvey's make the world's best, greasiest onion rings (along with a nuclear hamburger and a tasty-but-highly-synthetic milkshake).

I wonder if the clip-on design was chosen to provide a bit of compliance for positioning the finisher panels. Or maybe it was just a strategy for reducing assembly time. If time permits, please post a 'front' and 'back' picture of one of the clips. I can't see the detail for how the Clip clips onto the body bracket.

The door hinges use 3 bolts to mount at both the door interface and the A-post interface. However, the bolt pattern on the door mount is different from the bolt pattern on the A-post mount. Patcon has correctly directed his comment to member JLPurcell, who had a bunch of special shim plates laser-cut by a local fab shop and had extras left over for sale. It's not clear to me whether he had shims made for both bolt patterns vs. just one of the two. Make sure you get the right type (or just make your own -- not rocket science).

Another 'teachable moment'. Hope you'll find the time at some point to remove the rivets from one of the old hinges so that we can see how much (or how little) hole slop it took to generate the huge misalignment problem you were experiencing with the hood.

They are, indeed. Perhaps someone can post some pictures and, in doing so, clear up a few little mysteries for me: The pictures that I have of the door jamb details for early-year Z's indicate that it's the lower door hinge that's different, compared to the later-year Z's. However, the online parts manual that I use ('Old Car Parts Manual') shows that the lower hinge never changed, while the upper hinge did (in mid-1972). Comments? I have read somewhere that the hinges fitted to early-year Z's had no detents and swung freely. Is this true, or was there actually a detent for the fully-opened position? Was there ever a period of production where the updated hinge design was fitted to the driver's side only?

Any pictures for all of us 'visual learners'?

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree on this (important) point. Let's look at the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Hazardous Chemicals. The reference chemical I will use is 'isophorone diisocyanate', which is the isocyanate that appears on the label of the can of 'universal urethane hardener' (ProForm PF-598C) that I bought from an automotive paint supply specialist and have sitting in front of me. The NIOSH handbook spells our respirator requirements according the the parts-per-million concentration of the chemical in question within the working/exposure environment. Four ppm levels are provided: 0.05, 0.125, 0.25, and 1.0. The expectation would be that the respirator requirement would become more demanding as the ppm increases. For isopohorone diiisocyanate (see NIOSH handbook page 179), the respirator requirement at the lowest of the four specified ppm's is, 'Sa', meaning 'supplied-air respirator'. There is no mention of 'Ov', which stands for organic vapor cartridge. There is no doubt that this hardener contains VOC's (it says so right on the label), but isocyanates don't fall into that category. The best overview I've found on safety hazards and requirements for spraying 2K/2-pack/catalyzed paints is produced by the UK government's Health & Safety Executive. It's an easy-to-understand eight-page review of safety considerations specific to spraying automotive paints. I've attached it here for possible interest, along with the NIOSH handbook and a Dulux tech note. The latter includes a statement to the effect that, 'All paints are hazardous if misused or without the proper safety provisions'. I sure wish that making 2-pack paints safe was just a matter of buying the right filter for your face mask, but that does not appear to be the case. That said, the painter is perfectly free to do whatever they want and they may get away without suffering any ill effects. Or not. Safety in Isocyanate Paint Spraying - UK Govt HSE - 2014-02.pdf NIOSH Pocket Guide to Hazardous Chemicals - 2005-149.pdf Dulux Tech Note - Isocyanates.pdf

A promotional claim that epoxy paints are low-VOC and chromate-free is disingenuous. They may be good for the environment, but they may prove to be very bad for you. Even the 'best' of filter-type full-coverage masks will not protect you from isocyanates. They are not particulates and they apparently cannot be trapped or absorbed or neutralized by a filter. To make matters worse, they are also absorbed through the skin. For proper safety protection, you need a full suit and mask-and-pumped-air system... which will set you back about $1,000. So why are catalyzed (aka '2K','two-pack', etc) paints apparently being used by so many hobbyists without any ill effects? It appears to be a combination of two factors: personal physiology, and extent of exposure. For some people, even a one-time exposure can lead to significant long-term health problems. For others, they may simply find that they can no longer tolerate future exposure because it's not worth the symptoms they experience. For others still, the symptoms seem to be minimal (or at least temporary... or maybe just postponed until they get older). You will hear and read many reports from people who say that they've used catalyzed paints for years with no ill effects. Those would be the people who fit into category #3. The problem is that you will not know which of the three categories you fit into until after the fact. This video, produced by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, may be of interest... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRstojCeyEQ Isocyanate-based paint hardener is sold at the retail level everywhere and with minimal safety warnings. I've experienced the chest-tightening symptoms and I will now only use the stuff in an open-air environment (i.e. outdoors, or with the garage door open). Others will disagree and say I'm being too cautious. I suggest you try a limited exposure to start.

Someone will post a link soon, I'm sure (there is at least one definitive CZCC thread on this topic). BUT... As part of your upgrade, make sure you do some maintenance too. The primary cause of slow wipers and motor failure lies in the cowl-mounted bushings for the wiper arm drive spindles. Over the years, they goop up with a metallic residue that causes binding. Clean the bushings and the drive spindles thoroughly and then add new grease (pref. synthetic). Makes a big difference.

Overall, I think it was a brilliant design... for its time. Some of its shortcomings got remedied by Nissan relatively quickly (e.g. the angled halfshafts). Others stayed pretty much untouched (you can make up your own list ). Of course, that's part of the reason why most of us enjoy owning these cars.

David Halberstram's book, 'The Reckoning' provides a fascinating comparison of the histories of Nissan Corp. vs. Ford Motor Corp., using them as proxies for the Japanese vs. the US auto industries.

Here are a couple of pix that I have on file that show the placement of the 'vent' holes in the later-design hatch side panels (I'm pretty sure that the panels for the Series 1 design did not have these holes). I don't have a precise measurement (and I'm too lazy to go out to the garage to make one), but the holes appear to be about 2/3 the diameter of the holes used for the plastic rivets... In the 1980's, I worked as a project engineer for a company that designed and built wind tunnels (not model-scale -- the real ones) for the automotive and aerospace industries. We worked with Porsche, Honda, Volvo, Ford, Hyundai and others (even Williams GP Engineering, but that's another story). It was clear that the auto manufacturers at that time were only just beginning to pay proper attention to locating and sizing the cabin extractor vents for effective HVAC performance. The Z was designed in the late 1960's and the extractor vent positioning appears to have been based on educated guesswork rather than wind tunnel testing (although Nissan did own a wind tunnel at the time). Even when working as designed, the Series 1's extractor vent system can be best described as an intriguing but complicated failure. The re-location of the vents in the C-pillars got rid of the exhaust fume problem and the water drainage requirement (along with a lot of parts and assembly steps), but the revised design doesn't provide enough outlet area to be very effective. So I wouldn't be too concerned about venting the plastic interior trim panels because it's not going to make much difference.

The Appliance 'mesh' wheel was inspired by the wheels that the Chaparral team developed (apparently in-house) for their Chaparral 2 sports racer circa 1965. According to team owner Jim Hall, they had their wheels manufactured by a local alloy casting operation. The Appliance wheels were pretty popular with Z owners for a while (late 1970's). They haven't aged as well as the 'slotted mag' design, IMO.

A step in the right direction, although only after the fact. Working against its impact is the probability that most drivers get behind the wheel with some offsetting assumptions: 1) they have good or superior skills compared to other drivers; 2) accidents only happen to other people, and; 3) accidents are always the fault of the other driver. Exactly how does a police officer decide -- without witnesses who are ready to testify -- that there is enough evidence to warrant pressing charges over illegal cellphone use? I wonder what % of 'distracted driving' cases actually result in convictions? (as opposed to charges being laid but not sticking)? Much of the growing appeal of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle technology lies in the promise of 'drivers' being able to text, read emails, and watch videos while sitting behind the wheel. Not that there's anything wrong with that as an outcome (if it works). The problem we have at the moment is that a lot of people aren't prepared to wait until that technology is in place!

Very nicely done - both words and pix.

Peter DeLorenzo's overview in Autoextremist.com makes for interesting reading.