Captain Obvious

Gotcha. Looking at the designs, I can come up with one quick reason the later version is probably better... On the spring version, every time you let up on the pedal, the springs will re-center the piston and the light will go out. This means that every time you hit the brakes, you will have to waste fluid volume to push the piston to end of travel before you build pressure in the good side of the system. This is probably the explanation for the horrible pedal feel. On the newer design, If I'm understanding the design correctly, the piston is centered hydraulically and will not re-center until the problem is resolved. In theory, this would result in one bad pedal push towards the floor, but after that, it should engage further up. All in theory, of course. However, all that said, I'm starting to agree with the above which questions the need at all. I mean... I don't need a bright red light on the dash to tell me that my brakes have failed. I'll have a brown stain on my seat that will make the situation perfectly clear. A bright red light might even be a distraction at a time when I should be concentrating on other things, like plotting my escape strategy from impending doom in front of me.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Unless I'm willing to put up, I should keep quiet. If that throttle plate doesn't work out, let me know and I'll try to make you one. I've never tried, but with an example in hand I think I could make that.

My car is not rusty, but it is painted. My only problem with the welded in stuff is I know I'll have to sacrifice paint. So, if one were to use a pair of these per side as lift points, how far fore and aft would one put them? Center them on the original jack notches? Put them as far fore and aft as possible? The farther apart they are, the more stable, but I don't wonder if the rockers are stronger at the notches. I also wouldn't want to interfere with the front fenders in the event that they ever had to come off.

Hahaha!! Chuck, I was waiting for that! I knew that would strike a chord with you!

I know I had checked out earlier, but I've still got an outstanding question that may clear this whole thing up... I understand that you didn't get any title with the purchase. So what documentation DO you have to prove that you even own the vehicle in the first place? A notarized bill of sale? A non-notarized bill of sale? Anything? And what information is on that documentation to indicate that it pertains to that specific car? Is there VIN listed on that documentation? If so, which VIN? The one from the firewall, or the one from everywhere else? The reason I ask is because if your documentation is notarized and includes the VIN from the firewall, then we're all going on about nothing. Take off the removable VIN tags and throw them out. Problem solved. If you're energetic, buy yourself some replacement nameplates that match the firewall. But if you don't have any documentation, or if that documentation isn't notarized and/or doesn't include the firewall VIN, then I believe the prospect of ever getting that car legitimately titled is doubtful. At least, I hope so. "Don't worry about the number engraved into the firewall of the car. For the title, we'll just use this other one stamped into this easily removable nameplate." Said no DMV official, ever.

The early design centers itself with springs. The later design centers itself hydraulically. I didn't know there was question about how the early design centered or I would have jumped in earlier. I'm no expert, but I could have helped there. One question though... My engineering sense tells me the springs in the early design should be different on the two sides because of the proportioning valve. Are the two springs identical, or is one of them wound with thicker wire or have one more turn or something?

Wait... That shiny throttle plate on the right side is the NEW one??? Color me not impressed in the workmanship! Make sure you get those brass burrs off the edges before they chew up your carb bores when they dig into the aluminum. And 240260280 mentioned the edge angle above, Is there even an angle cut on the edge, or is it straight cut? And what's with the scraping marks? It probably doesn't affect operation, but there's no reason a brand new part should be marked up like that! And then there's the oversized tri-lobular holes. Like they drilled them at the wrong speed with the wrong drill bit and didn't ream the final hole to size. Again doesn't affect operation, but it's just poor workmanship. Sorry to poo-poo your brand new part. I know it was cheap, but what the heck?? Maybe I should go into the carb business...

Problem with Zcon is those who drive to the event in a Z are limited in what they can bring and what they can take back because of space and how dirty / sloppy the parts are. Other problem is that I don't want to load up the car with a whole bunch of parts, only to bring the same parts home again. It would be great if there was a "needs" list or something. A thread started with the intention of arranging swap details? Like "I'm going to Zcon... Who needs what parts?" or something.

I understand completely. Most times I worry about me too. Thanks for the additional description. I guess the part I wasn't getting is that the solid bar stock is simply a spacer to fill the gap between the plate ans the floor. Got it.

Thanks for the input guys. I made a set of wood blocks and told the guy who does my inspections that I would like him to use them, but I'm not sure he does. He doesn't like them and he thinks I'm being a neurotic worrywart about the car. It also takes extra time to get the wood blocks out and install on the car. Time is money, and he's a professional. I can take all the time I want in my own shop, but he's on the clock. Plus, if anything ever happened, it's a liability issue. Were these wood blocks OSHA approved? But before any of you suggest "Well then you just need to find another shop!", there are good points to the relationship I've fostered there and I would hate to see that relationship go away. @gnosez, Here's a pic of your second gen jack plates, but I'm not sure how they would be installed. Do you have a pic (from the underside) of these installed on a car: Also, other than cost, is there any reason these couldn't be applied in two locations on each side for use with a typical garage lift? By that, I mean, instead of being single point jack points, is it practical to do something like that in four locations to pick up the four arms from a lift? Also, what about years compatibility? I know much of the unseen sheet metal on the 77 and 78 cars is different than everything that came before. Have you tried these on the final years of first gen Z's?

I have to get my 77 inspected by the state annually, and whenever it goes up on the lift, the underside takes some damage. It's not all crushed in bad like many Z's out there (yet), but I would really like to prevent future damage if I can. Even the FSM indicates the use of the front frame rails on the floors as the "proper" lift point, but they clearly are not up to the task. They simply cannot take the load. So is there a different support option that is stronger than the frame rails? Is there a tested modification that can be made to prevent future damage? Is there some sort of option or product that can be installed to provide better or stronger lift points? Like welded in flat pads designed to be used as lift points? I've got about six months to come up with something before it has to go on the lift again.

In Indiana, if you want to get a title, you have to prove ownership. The easiest way to prove ownership is to provide a properly executed title (from the seller) when you request a new title. http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm However, if you cannot obtain a certificate of title from the seller of your vehicle, and the vehicle is valued at $5,000 or less, according to NADA average retail or clean retail value, you may apply for a certificate of title by completing an Affidavit of Ownership for a Vehicle – State Form 23037 - http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Affidavit_of_Ownership_Packet.pdf 1. An applicant who is unable to obtain a properly executed title for a vehicle may present the below form to obtain a certificate of title. 2. Please complete in blue or black ink or print form. 3. The retail value of the vehicle must meet the requirements as determined by the Bureau. 4. The purchaser must have a notarized Bill of Sale or a Bill of Sale signed under penalty of perjury which indicates the vehicle’s year, make, VIN, seller, purchaser, and purchase price. Sales tax will be assessed by the amount indicated on the Bill of Sale. 5. An unopened, unclaimed certified letter to the seller’s (and lien holder, if applicable) last known address requesting the title must be presented with this affidavit. A copy of the unopened letter should be included to confirm the request for the title to the vehicle in question. Do not open the original letter. 6. Include a lien release, if necessary. 7. A VIN inspection completed by law enforcement is required. 8. Include an Odometer Disclosure Statement, if applicable I wonder if the PO sent the required certified letters and has the unopened returned letter? The purchase happened a couple years ago, right? So you need either an old properly executed title, or you have to jump through hoops in order to prove ownership. And even if you DO get through those hoops, the vehicle still needs to be inspected for proper VIN information by an authorized BMV appointee. And then when it's found during the VIN inspection that the VIN has been been altered or defaced, you have to jump through even more hoops and apply for a special identification number (MVIN) before you can apply for a certificate of title or registration: http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm and http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Special_ID_Number_MVIN_Vehicle_App_Packet.pdf So I've looked at three states: In PA, you wouldn't be able to get it titled at all because you need a physical VIN tracing. In Nevada, you would have to get a "Rebuilt Title" because the cowl was replaced (at best). In Indiana, you would end up with a "Special Identification Number (MVIN)." title because the VIN had been altered or defaced. And that's even assuming you could properly even prove ownership of the vehicle in the first place. I didn't check all the states, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were states where this car was a non-problem, but so far in the three for three that I've looked at, that's not the case. Captain Out.

In Nevada, when you bring a vehicle in you have to go through a VIN inspection at the DMV. I suspect if they see a couple different VIN markings on the same car, there will be a problem. Also, they define a "Rebuilt vehicle" (NRS 482.098) in the following way: 1. A vehicle for which one or more of the following major components have been replaced: (a) Cowl assembly; (b) Rear clip assembly; (c) Roof assembly; (d) Floor pan assembly; (e) Conventional frame coupled with one additional major component; or (f) Complete front inner structure for a unibody. Note: The term "rebuilt" does not include a vehicle for which the only change is the installation of a truck cab assembly. And their definition of "cowl assembly" includes the firewall. So if you claim the firewall is from a different car and was replaced with one from a different car, then you are automatically in the "rebuilt vehicle" title category. That is from: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/vp064a.pdf

Here's some discussion on the matter: http://www.vintageautomotive.net/

Oops. double post

I consider a VIN stamped into a non-removable piece of metal (such as a firewall) to be a way more credible identification mark than one on a removable nameplate. In PA, when you bring a car in from another state, you are required to provide a pencil VIN tracing. The nameplate VIN would not hold water in that case. It would have to be done from the firewall or the dashboard. o, in PA, you would not be able to title that car unless it were titled with the firewall or dash VIN.

I can provide only a little bit of info (in an area that probably doesn't even help you). They added a seventh tumbler to the ignition locks somewhere along the way. I don't know about the early single sided keys, but the early two sided keys used locks with six tumblers. My guess is the change in July 73 is probably the addition of the seventh tumbler.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Haha!! Gotcha! I was out of the first gen seat for a bunch of years, but now that I'm back, I'm lovin' it! Welcome back!

Welcome aboard! Seems you've got a penchant for the slightly unusual. I'd drive any of the cars in your stable! Duck Magnum! Duck!

Great story, and it's fantastic that you're back in the seat. I am a little confused by one thing though:

Continued confusion... This car turned up in May 2105 on both japanesenostalgoc and BAT for $25K: http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/kidney-anyone-1972-datsun-240z-pace-car/ https://bringatrailer.com/2015/05/01/1-of-50-1972-datsun-240z-commemorative-pace-cars/ They cited the same link about the restoration with the implication that these are all the same car: http://zhome.com/Racing/OMSDuplicates.htm I've completely lost how many times this thing has supposedly been painted. I've got no dog in this fight, and it's a good thing... I can't tell which one I should be rooting for! Captain Out.

zKars, Oh well then! That would be mighty definitive if it doesn't even fit over the stub axle shaft, wouldn't it!! I guess we'll have to wait for confirmation from Matthew to know for sure. Haha! I think I already said that?

I took a closer look at the cited web pages where the claims of the selling entity are supposedly supported, and it just gets fishier. First of all, none of these replica cars ever paced a lap. They are "replicas" of the pace car. The REAL pace car had performance and suspension mods that made it track worthy, but not legal to drive on the street. The story supposedly goes like this... They make one fast, but not street worthy. This is used as the pace car. They make a second one that LOOKS like the pace car, but it is street worthy to drive around town for photo-ops. From what I can tell, those two cars (even though they are very different) are both called "Official Pace Cars" Then there is some unexplained jump and picture to support the existence of fifty "replica" pace cars. These were probably normal 240Z's with a pace car looking paint job and maybe a plaque or tag somewhere indicating the status. So then there are the pics of the car in question on the website, and a couple pics of the "restoration". They show the car mostly maroon with some paint sanded off exposing what looks like some blue patches. Then they show it freshly painted the way it is currently in that for sale ad. Two things get me about this... First, adding to the concept of a poorly done "restoration", it isn't even painted correctly for a replica pace car. It's missing the blue downward stripes on the front fenders!!! Who "restores" a specialty car like that and forgets a huge paint detail like that??? And it's also missing the "OFFICIAL PACE CAR" wording on the rear hips. Then second, and even more troubling to me, is that the next pictures on that that same web page, they show what is propertied to be the same car and it DOES have the fender stripes and a big racing number "0" on the roof and the door. So which paint came first? The current one, or the one with the 0? What? They painted it AGAIN, and then a third time for the for sale ad? It's all just so fishy...

They didn't take all the riff-raff