Walter Moore

Yes, the late 60's and early 70's muscle cars were cool, they could pass anything except a gas station. 7 to 9 miles to the gallon of gas is pretty typical in those things. And they don't corner very well. :classic:

Did anyone else here post any information on Automobile Magazine's list of "The 100 coolest cars of all time"? I only ask be cause the 240Z made the list... at number 55. That is in the bottom half, and way below their opinon of the 63 Corvette and 911, but it did beat out the "Dukes of Hazzard's General Lee" 68 Charger :cheeky: I am not sure I would agree with the list, but at least they agree that the Z is "cool"

Apparently the seller can't count. There are 6 wires coming off of the distributor... Perhaps he means that only 4 of the cylinders work.

Do not take this post as a flame on anyone. I do not ever intentionally try to provoke people. (Is that spelled right? :stupid: ) Ask Vanessa Williams or Dr. Laura what's her name who owns the rights to photographs... (They learned the hard way.) The basic law in the U.S. at least is that the photographer owns ALL rights to the photographs that he(she) takes. This is particularly true of photographs taken in public places. (Like car shows.) The doctrine of fair use generally only covers casual or academic settings, and would never allow for a photograph to be "harvested" off of this or any other web site for use on another without the owners express permission. (excluding cases where the owner had expressly relinquished those rights of course.) You do not have to apply for a copyright for material that you have produced. It is yours plain and simple. Unless the posting agreement of this site explicitely permits the re-posting of these photographs everywhere then copying the photograph to other web sites is not an allowable act. I doubt that anyone is actually interested in enforcing it, but posting pages from a technical manual here without permission is essentially a copyright violation. It may be covered by fair use, but be aware that the whole issue of fair use is once again under attack in the U.S. because the movie industry and the music industry are rabidly trying to protect their questionable claims to the intelectual property they control.

Let's hope the "fat DMV lady" doesn't read this thread. :paranoid:

I really don't know when they first REQUIRED seat belts in cars in the U.S. I THINK that they were optional until the 1967 model year, but I could be wrong. I know that the first shoulder belts that I ever saw were in a 1971 model. (Maybe they were required for the 1970 model year?) The 1968 Ford Fairlane my parents had only had lap belts. The early shoulder belts were really uncomfortable, and they were separate from the lap belt. Normally they were also non-retractable. The first three point lap and shoulder belt fully retractable setup I ever saw was in a 1974 model. That was also the model year that the U.S. government snuck in some un-announced requirement that the car makers had to disable the ignition unless someone first sat in the drivers seat and then buckled the seat belt. :mad: That lasted all of about 6 months before Congress got the message that there was going to be a backlash at the polls and the requirement was suddenly repealed. I don't think the N.H.T.S.A. even existed in 74, wasn't that a Jimmy Carter era creation? Well whomever it was they got their hand slapped. :devious:

Cars manufactured before 1982 do not have what the U.S. DOT considers a true VIN, they have manufacturer's serial numbers. I have read that there is no reliable national database that can be used to trace stolen, or wrecked beyond repair, vehicles of this age. I did not spend a dime on my restoration project until I recieved a title for it in my name from the state BMV. The title that I recieved with mine was a 1984 duplicate title issued to replace a lost 1981 title. But it was at least an Indiana title so I didn't need to have the VIN plate inspected by a state offical. I have bought a lot of older cars, and very frequently I have discovered later that the person who "Sold" me the car was actually curb-stoning it. (That is they bought it but never titled it, or paid the sales/registration taxes on it...) That is a frequent enough occurance to explain Bill's mystery of the car from 95. I wouldn't even consider moving VIN plates from one Z car to another, because that serial number is on the car in 4 places. Not to mention that it is a felony in most states... Eventually it would catch up with you. What has to be done here (in Indiana) on a title mixup is to find the legal owner of the car (According to the state BMV) and try to beg them to sign the title over to you. There is a standard form available from the BMV that is a power of attorney certificate valid only for the transfer of a title. Once that form is signed and certified by a notary public, the license branch can request a duplicate title which is mailed to you, after which you take it, and your POA form back to the license branch and transfer the title into your name. In Indiana, the hard part is getting the owner of record to cooperate. There is no way to force them, and if they refuse you are simply out of luck. I know this because a car that I gave away to charity came back to me via the Indianapolis Police department.... along with an inquiry about whether or not it had been stolen. What a mess.

Indeed thankyou for that link. It is one that I had not found. I agree that pulling 30 year old seat belts out of a junk yard isn't a good idea. Now back in 1980 when my first car (a 72 model) didn't have seat belts I was able to get a nice set for it from a wrecking yard, but that was different in at least 2 ways. 1. The car was only 8 years old, so I knew that the wrecked car hadn't been in the junk yard for long. 2. That was before manditory seat belt laws, and less than 20% of the population EVER actually used a seat belt, so there was a 80% chance that the belts in the junk yard had never been used. :cheeky:

Indeed a seat belt is a very important safey device, but as with jayz240z, my car came without ANY seat belts. (It isn't the first car from that era that came into my possession without them.) I have still not aquired any belts for it, but then it doesn't run yet either. I still plan on buying standard aftermarket three point belt setups and trying to adapt them to the Z car's mounting locations. But if you know of a source who will make something better let me know. (The link you gave didn't actually look like they would do this, but I haven't called them either...)

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were comparing GVWR to GVWR... I am not sure exactly when all the U.S. safety requirements began to be required. It may be that '73 model cars sold in the U.S. (Which typically go on sale in September remember) may have been required to have safety features like side impact protection etc. If there were more stringent safety requirements for cars sold in the fall, given that the Z cars were built in Japan and shipped to North America on a slow boat, they certainly would have added them to cars built in May... U.S. car companies traditionally change over from one model year to the next over their extended July 4th holiday shutdown, then start producing the next year's model in late July or early August. After taking my '71 apart it is painfully clear that it doesn't meet anything close to the current safety requirements for side impact protection, and frankly of all the cars that I have owned it is the one I would least like to be in if it got hit by something big... (Like one of my other cars...) But then it is a sports car, not a tank.

GVWR lists the MAXIMUM that the vehicle will weigh with the maximum safe load of passengers and cargo. Is is required to be posted on cars sold in the U.S. at least so that you can be certain to buy tires that can support the weight safely. (And inflate them correctly, remember the Firestone tire / Ford Explorer crashes?) If I remember correctly 400LBS is just about what the glove box plackard lists as the maximum load capacity of the 240Z.

Indiana is one of those inconsistant states... It used to be mandatory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle here, until about 20 years ago. Then they repealed that law and replaced it a few years later with a mandatory seat belt law... We are also one of the very few states where you are NOT required to wear a seat belt in a truck. Which makes for some interesting situations, since most SUVs can be plated as either a car or a truck. If you are driving a SUV with a truck plate the police can't give you a ticket for not wearing your seat belt, but someone in an identical SUV that has a "car" plate on the back can be ticketed. I actually know people who will only drive trucks because they don't like seat belts. I must be in the minority however, because while I have never driven a car (or a truck..) without a seat belt holding me in place, I still think that my personal choices about my health and safety are none of the state's business. :rambo:

The difference between a FWD and a RWD when driving in the snow is that RWD cars SPIN into the ditch while FWD cars PLOW into the ditch. I have owned and driven both over the years, and other than which end of the car reaches the ditch first, and the ability of FWD cars to fool inexperienced drivers into THINKING that they have more control over where the car is going, there is no significant difference. All of the really great "snow" cars that I have ever owned were RWD. Those would be in order: 1976 Buick Electra limited (7.5L V8, 3 ton curb weight, Limited Slip Differential) 1987 Mercury Colony Park station wagon (5.0L V8, 3 ton curb weight, Limited Slip Differential) 1974 Volvo 164E (3.0L I6, 2 ton curb weight, standard differential) (If the Volvo had had a LSD it would have been #1... It snows a LOT in Sweden apparently... ) Having said that, the 240Z is a sports car, and ALL sports cars are worthless in the snow. (Including FWD sports car wantabes...I have had some of those as well)

Whenever I find that I have offended someone by being an arrogant American, I remember that all time classic comic book "It's a mad, mad world" which I read in my youth... In one of the "skits" an American is in a restaurant in Paris, and asks the waiter for advice on how large of a tip to leave. The waiter with a big smile kindly informs him "Do not worry sir. You are an American! Whatever you do, it will be wrong!" I crack myself up. But seriously. Americans in general are no more arrogant than anyone else. The Japanese, Koreans, French, and Dutch people that I have worked with are just as certain of their opinons as I am... but them most of them are engineers, and ALL good engineers are arrogant, it is an essential requirement of the profession. I know because I am one! :stupid:

A crack pipe... gee and I was worried about the roach clip that I found under the center console in my Z when I dissasembled the interior... :paranoid:

I am a electrical controls systems engineer. I currently work for a company that builds automatic balancing and gauging machines. (Tires, wheels, tire and wheel assemblies, electric motor armatures, crankshafts, etc...) almost entirely automotive related.

They will sell me the bolt to attach the part that they can't get? That is very helpful... :laugh:

For what it is worth, the Haynes manual shows the item that I posted the picture of as the proportioning valve for the 240Z, and the one on the firewall as the valve for the 260Z and 280Z. I suppose that it is possible that early 73' 240Z's might have come with the former and later cars with the latter valve. I sincerely doubt that any cars had both valves, as that would cause all sorts of problems. Part of the confusion here is that all the Z cars 70 - 78 had the three port T connection, which looks a lot like the rear-mounted valve. In any case, it looks like 280Zgod and I are going to be looking for an alternative since both styles of proportioning valves are no longer available. As I posted somewhere... mayhaps in that other long thread... Motorsports and others who sell rear disk brake conversions also sell an adjustable model of proportioning valve. I am not sure if the adjustable unit will work with rear drum brakes. I guess I could try it and find out. It looks like it is intended to replace the firewall mounted unit, so if I decide to go that way I will have to re-bend some of the new pipes that I just finished. It is going to be quite a while before I get my Z back on the road anyway, so don't anyone hold their breath waiting for me to test on of these adjustable valves with the stock rear brakes.

I just Emailed both of them, and I told them that I heard about them here in the forums. It never hurts to let people know where to look for potential business.

Um... perhaps they don't expect people to fix 30+ year old cars... I am just trying to scrounge up enough information to plot a plan of action without their help.

If I did this correctly, the two pictures attached show the "Pressure Regulator Valve" for the rear brakes of my 71' 240Z. By the way, the Haynes manual uses the exact same term to describe the proportioning valve on the firewall of the 260/280. The more that I look at this thing the more that I wonder... It appears to be completely sealed. There is one port that connects to the brake failure switch / master cylinder (Inlet) and the outlet connects to the "T" fitting that splits the lines off to the two rear wheels. There is no way that a totally sealed unit like this, with no return path could really regulate a hydraulic circuit. At best it is a variable restriction in the line... perhaps just a surge suppressor? A device like this would keep the rear brakes from locking first, at least it would on drum brakes, since they are prone to locking on a sudden increase in wheel cylinder pressure. It might just give the front brakes a "Head start" in the braking process.

On my 71 there are 2 "items" in the right rear wheel well. One of them is a three way tube connector, what I would call a "T" fitting, and the other is called a "pressure regulator" by the Hanes manual. When I called the local Nissan dealer asking for a proportioning valve for my 240Z he came up with a part number... which is not available. It may be that the newer cars have a more sophisicated proportioning system, but this thing must be doing something... It appears to have some kind of spring loaded metering rod or something inside. If I don't need it, that is ok too, but I really doubt that.

Actually there is only one proportioning valve on the 280Z, just like there is only one on the 260 and 240. The confusion you have is that the master cylinder connects first to the brake failure switch, then the rear brakes connect to the proportioning valve. On a 240Z the proportioning valve is located behind the right rear wheel. On the 260Z and 280Z it is on the firewall. I have the valve from my 240Z here at my desk. The stupid thing leaks like a sieve, and I can't find another one. So far the best that I can find is an adjustable unit that Motorsports sells for their rear disk conversion kit. If I end up having to go that way I will mount it in the engine compartment so that I can tweek it until I get the balance right.

Actually, the porportioning valve on the 280 is on the firewall. There is a "T" in the brake line near the rear wheels, but the item that is broken on my 240 is the "other" brass object back by the right rear wheel. I gather from another active thread that the proportioning valve for the 280Z is NLA as well, so buying one of them isn't an easy out either... Besides, when did Nissan change to rear disk brakes? Was it on the 280Z, or the 280ZX?

Well, now that you all have firmly established that the "pressure regulating valve" near the right rear wheel is indeed a "Proportioning valve", where can I get one? I just re-assembled the brake lines on my 240Z, and when I tried to bleed the rear brakes I discovered to my horror that the valve in question leaks. (Actually hemorrhage is a more accurate word...) Both the local Nissan dealer and Motorsports Auto inform me that these valves are N.L.A. Does anyone have a suggestion of a suitable substitute? I am afraid to by-pass the thing because I am sure Nissan wouldn't have wasted the money on it if it wasn't needed. (and I don't want the car to brake like my old Pinto, which always stopped sideways.) Motorsports has an adjustable pressure regulator that is used for disk brake conversions. Has anyone ever used one of those in a stock application? Junkyards are out of the question. There simply are no old Datsuns in any of the local junk yards here. Besides it looks like the valve I need was only used on the 70 - 73 model, very few of those ever made it this far into flyover country. Thanks for whatever help you can give.