Carl Beck

If underhood heat is a problem for the carb.'s - - I would not have used a distribution block - that routes fuel to the individual carb.'s with no return. The fuel in the lines from the distrubution block, as well as the fuel in the floats has a good chance of picking up a lot of heat. I would have used a fuel pressure regulator - then pumped fuel to the rear carb and on through it - to the center and on through it, then to to front carb and through it to a return line. This effectively keeps the fuel in the lines and going to the carb.'s cooler. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Guys: The VIN's on the 260Z's did start at RLS30 000001. RLS30 000020 is the 1974 OMS Pace Car, that was awarded to Bobby Unser for wining the USAC California 500 in 1974. The Date Of Manufacture on that car is 07/73. According to the info published by Nissan production of the 260Z's started in 08/73... What is interesting so far is that the highest VIN we've found for 12/73 is RLS30 016942 and the lowest VIN found for 01/74 is RLS30 021428. So we have a gap there of about 5.5K units... It seems "possible" that the units produced in 74 used a VIN sequence that was restarted at RLS30 020001 for the production year 1974... but who knows? Between 01/74 and 08/74 we have VIN's running from 021428 to 045738.. about 24K units - divided by the eight months of production - and that averages about 3K units per month... All this is based of course on a very small sample of VIN's reported so far.. so we have a long way to go to fill in the gaps... Thanks for everyone's input so far... FWIW, Carl B.

If it checks out during a personal physical inspection - it's worth every penney.. five years from now you won't be able to touch it for less than $35K Anyone wanting an excellent example - and not wanting to spend $40K and three years doing a restoration themselves - this is the type of car to step up to.. if/when one comes on the open market. FWIW, Carl B.

Been with them for years - you can't do any better.. Carl B.

I would guess it would still be pretty close to the same. The reason is that the 240-Z still doesn't suffer from the accessory loss associated with the average new car. A/C, A/T, Larger Alternators, PS... Equipped with a modern engine management system and Fuel Injection to meet today's Emissions standards, the L24 would pick up some power, but then it would be lost to stricter emissions.. so it would be an even trade (I'd guess). Not too hard to get 150HP out of a 2.4L OHC engine design today.. Summary from my research on this subject: SAE Gross HP - any thing goes. Any grade of fuel, no accessory loss, no water nor oil pumps attached, One Run Wonders OK. Most of the engines used to hit their Peak HP ratings were junk after one run. They were also special built, set up loose etc. Very few of them would have ran over 1000 miles in actual use... But They Did Hit, at least once, the Numbers As Advertised. SAE HP - required a standard production engine be taken at random off the engine line, equipped with oil pump, water pump, fan, distributor, and generator/alternator. It also had to have standard exhaust manifold and header pipe in place. SAE Net HP - all the above, PLUS all standard accessories found on the average model the engine was installed in. It had to have a full exhaust system, standard air cleaner in place, coolant in circulation and be measured at standard operating temperatures as found in the average model it was installed in. In 1970/73 the L24 was rated and reported as "SAE HP".... NOT SAE NET and certainly NOT SAE GROSS. Today - most stock 240-Z's that have been put on chassis dyno's - in good operational condition will produce numbers between 108 and 120 HP at the rear wheels. Most stock 75-78 280Z's will produce 120 to 130 HP at the rear wheels. Converting Rear Wheel HP to Crankshaft HP ratings... the rule of thumb varies between a loss factor of 20 to 30%. L24's, 150HP x 0.8 = 120HP and/or 150x0.7=105HP. L28's 165HP x 0.8= 132 and/or 165HP x 0.7=115. (California Models with the L28's had lower reported HP numbers.. tuned for stricter emissions and some came with Cat's) So why didn't the HP Ratings on the L28 drop as greatly between reported SAE HP and SAE Net HP as most American Cars did - The Muscle Cars from 69/72 - dropped greatly in reported HP by 73/75 (some by as much as 30%!!), the L28's did not however drop from a reported 165HP to 108!. The reason is - the L24 and L28 between 70 and 78 on average all had the same lack of standard accessories. The average American car had to take the additional loss from PS, PB, A/C, larger Alternators etc; all of which were pretty much put on the average model sold. So we saw far greater HP number loss in the typical American Cars when they started using SAE Net... By 1980/82 more and more of the 280ZX's sold were equipped on-average with PS, A/C and larger Alternators... so they too lost a few more HP on the reported numbers. We also see large variations in reported HP numbers on the L28's - between California Models and the standard US spec. models - because California models had stricter emissions standards (engines de-tuned for emissions plus some models got Cat's earlier etc). Redesigned combustion chambers etc also account for some small HP loss in the 280ZX's as meeting emissions standards not performance was the main goal. - - - end summary - - the whole article, still in somewhat of a "draft form" is on the Z Car Home Page: <a href=http://zhome.com/Carl/SAEHPRatings.htm TARGET=NEW> Gross, SAE and SAE Net </a> FWIW, Carl B.

Hi DaveN: I believe that Dave's article referenced - addresses your concerns. It reduces the number of vapor lines in the cabin from 5 to 1. It retains the vent line to the engine compartment so air is replaced in the tank as gas is drawn out. It eliminates leaking/cracked vapor canisters and the usually cracked plastic connector from the filler. Arne: There may or may not be issues with the use of copper for fuel lines - but it's limited exposure and use for a vent line is unlikely to present any problems. Nonetheless if anyone can find handy replacements other than copper - I can't see how it would hurt. Jack seems to have found an OEM replacement with a molded in 180 degree turn.. so that only leaves the possible replacement of the plastic connector between it and the filler neck. Jack: Not a bad idea to replace the fuel filler neck - but if you take the old one out, and find it's still good, hang on to it - - they are getting expensive and sooner or later they well be NLA... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi louisf: Yes, it is more than likely that there is a formula to follow - I don't know what it is. So the process is always a trail and error procedure, unless you are installing all new OEM Parts (like a 280ZX Clutch Assembly, Throw-out Bearing Collar and Throw-out Bearing). There are actually three or four different lengths of the Throw-out Bearing Collars, so if you are using used parts... mixed/matched of unknown origin.. you are back to trail and error... Just to add a bit of trivia: Nissan mechanics actually had a special tool - a base plate to which the Clutch Assembly was bolted, then it was possible to get an accurate measurement of the installed Pressure Plate height... and from that one could derive the correct Throw-out Bearing Collar length. As I recall one could also measure the pressure it took to compress the clutch fingers, to see if the Pressure Plate was within spec.'s If you are going to pull the tranny again - be sure to check the clutch assembly itself. We are all guessing it's the Throw-out Bearing Collar length, based on your initial description of the process, the parts involved and the symptoms..... but it is still possible your clutch just went out - or you have a rear main seal leaking oil on the clutch disc etc... good luck, Carl B.

Hi Jack: Dogma240- aka Dave wrote a good article about how to eliminate the evaporative emissions controls. In the menu at the left - hit the hyper-link that says "Fourms" THEN: -Publication Forums - - Technical Articles - - - Articles From Our Members - - - - Treating inside/outside of gas tank with POR-15 and removing evaporation tank Or the direct URL.... <a href=http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19034 TARGET=NEW> Dave's Article </a> The information you want is somewhat intermixed with the entire fuel tank refresh.. but pay close attention to Post #14.... that 180 degree turn, held open with rigid tubing is very important....{1/4" copper elbows fit just fine inside the 5/8's fuel line)...If you use just fuel line, it will kink and shut off the vent... At Post #11 Dave used a threaded nut to cap off one of the vents... I used a 1/4" copper pipe cap and JB Weld... worked great.. hope that helps, Carl B.

Can the old Profile System be put back on-line? The new and improved system contains even less data...and it isn't looking like EVERYONE is going to re-enter the most basic information for themselves. Carl B.

Thanks.... every data point helps... Carl B.

Anyone in North America have a 260Z built between 11 / 73 and 01 / 74? If so, I would appreciate knowing the VIN and Date Of Manufacture. Trying to get a statistical sample, or find the Highest VIN RLS30 with a 12/73 build date - either of which could be indicative of the number of RLS30's built in Calendar Year 1973 thanks, Carl B.

Hi Louisf: You can try that if you have an old/extra slave rod... but it may not work. You can only pull the clutch fork back so far... and if the Throw-out Bearing Collar in there is too long - the throw-out bearing still won't completely release from the pressure plate fingers... good luck, Carl B.

Hi louisf: You have several things out of wack in your thinking ... which may be leading to your confusion. 1. Eric, on the site you reference - states that the data isn't 100% reliable... that is true. So there is no reason to believe that the 4 speed and 5 speed use different throw-out bearing collar lengths. The truth is - all the transmissions that I have measured - Type A, Type B, Four Speed or Five Speed have the same transmission input shaft length. So you have a fixed amount of space for any combination of Clutch Disc, Pressure Plate, Throw-out Bearing, Throw-out Bearing Collar - to fit onto. 2. The 280Z Clutch Assemblies as well as the later 280ZX Clutch Assemblies are NOT the "same". Just because you can use a newer design part (Clutch Assembly) to replace an older and no longer available part - it doesn't follow that they are the "same". It only means that the newer part can preform the same function, fit in the same manor and have somewhat the same form. So don't think of them as being "the same" - think of one as being a "replacement" for the other. 3. The height {distance measured from the flywheel to the top of the Pressure Plate Fingers} or call it the thickness of the various Pressure Plates used - determines the length of the Throw-out Bearing Collar that has to be used. The thickness or height of the Pressure Plate depends on when it was originally produced, who produced it and to which specification (240Z, 260Z, 280Z or 280ZX) it was produced. Because the 280ZX Clutch Assembly will fit, preform the same function and attaches in the same manor as the original 240. 260 or 280Z units, the 280ZX Assembly is considered "a replacement" for all of them. If you order three Pressure Plates, from three different sources - but all for a 280Z - you have a good chance of winding up with two or all three being different thicknesses. - you have about the same chance of them all being the same, yet different than your OEM Pressure Plate. For a time - some manufacturers offered two different "thicknesses" of Pressure Plates... and it was up to you as to which one you wanted to order; but for the most part that is a thing of the past now. In effect - the original 240-Z Pressure Plates were the thickest... and require the shortest Throw-out Bearing Collar, they also had the lowest clamping force. The newest 280ZX Pressure Plates were the thinnest and require the longest Throw-out Bearing Collars. Over the years, all the manufacturers consolidated the various Pressure Plates into one spec.. to be used as a "replacement part" for all the others. The real kick in the butt is the fact that different manufactures used different spec.'s... some used the 280ZX spec. and some seem to have stuck with the 280Z spec. The two are very close, but not identical. 4. If the throw-out bearing collar is slightly too long - it will retain light pressure on the Pressure Plate Fingers (via the throw-out bearing) .. and wear the clutch out pre-maturely. If the throw-out bearing collar is longer still - it will not allow the clutch to fully engage. On the other hand - if the throw-out bearing collar is too short - the clutch will not disengage completely and you can't shift gears with the engine running. Looking at your description - my guess would be that you need to next shorter Throw-Out Bearing Collar. Which is more than likely the 280ZX Throw-out Bearing Collar. Unless you are the original owner of the car - and you have done all the clutch replacements in the past you really have no idea of which clutch assembly was in the car, nor which Throw-out Bearing Collar was used... When swapping only the transmissions - a good rule of thumb is to use the Throw-out Bearing Collar that was used with the CLUTCH in the car (not the one that came with the new transmission). If you change both the transmissions and the Clutch Assemblies at the same time - - - you have to pay very close attention to the height of the old clutch vs. the height of the new replacement. Then you have to use a Throw-Out Bearing Collar that matches the needs of the new Clutch Assembly. Hope I phrased all that correctly..... FWIW, Carl B.

Have you been under the car, and inspected the entire exhaust system for leaks? That should be done carefully every year at least. FWIW, Carl B.

HLS30 141309 would be 240Z built 01/73 nice job...

On 26-07-05, the Z Car Club of England you wrote: Hi Alan: In an attempt to arrive at the number of JDM Nissan Fairlady 240-Z's produced and sold in Japan, I subtracted the beginning of each range, from the end of each range, for each calendar year for the JDM. 1971 10436 - 10001 =435 1972 012045 - 010437 = 1608 and 100800-100001= 788 1973 101537-100801 = 736 103263-102001 = 1261 Total = 4828 units produced, if all assigned VIN's from each block of reported numbers were used. I was originally under the impression that you were saying all of the above units were the JDM Nissan Fairlady 240-Z's, and thus 4828 of them were sold in Japan. However checking the VIN's from Australia and GB I see cars with VIN's in the above ranges. So the above ranges must represent something other than, or more inclusive than. just the JDM HS units, yet the ranges are not nearly broad enough to cover the HS Export units. Have you found any farther information related to the production numbers or VIN's related to the JDM HS series cars 71-73? Or was I misunderstanding what you were trying to indicate with the VIN ranges you quoted? thanks, Carl

I didn't see it mentioned... but installing new hatch seals won't necessarily result in a seal being formed between the hatch lid and the body of the car. You have to assure that the hatch is properly adjusted so that it does in fact compress the rubber seals on all surfaces. I usually put a dollar bill between the hatch seals and the hatch lid ... close the hatch lid - then pull on the dollar bill to see if it's held firmly in place, or if it isn't. If it isn't, you can still get exhaust gases sucked in through the gap... even if it is water tight... FWIW, Carl B.

The last one I ordered from Courtesy Nissan - they had in stock and I had it in a couple days.. <a href=http://courtesyparts.com/ TARGET=NEW> Courtesy Parts Dept.</a> They may still have one... FWIW, Carl B.

Speaking of "green"...I ordered a new hard line for the clutch hydralic system for my 73 240-Z. The Nissan replacement part was coated with a green coating of some kind. Not the usually Yellow Cad plating... I checked with another owner of a 73 and he said he got the same part... with the same green a year or two earlier... Just though it was odd... anyone else have any experiences like that with any other parts? Carl B.

Yes Alan, but a few of the Nissans were not Datsuns...

Flat... hummm Well actually it is not flat... it curves over the body line of the Z - righ tto left. Front to Rear of course it follows the body line, so it sits at the angle it's supposed to. There are too flat spots if you will, in which studs are mounted - these go though the deck lid - and are secured by nuts from the underside. Nonetheless - it's fiberglass - and you can easily cut/mold it any way you want... FWIW, Carl B.

I can see how that statement might be misleading to someone... To the best of my knowledge no NISSAN 240Z'S {aka Nissan Fairlady 240Z} were restored/refreshed/remanufactured etc - there were about 38 DATSUN 240-Z's completed under the Vintage Z Program however. Carl B.

Hi DaveN: An additional data point or two... Did you know George Panko II and/or Rick Morgan? Rick is said to have purchased #13 out of South Carolina in 76.. But have never been able to track him down.. FWIW, Carl B.

HI Dave: Welcome to the group. Would you happen to have any pictures of the VIN on the Dash, or the Door Jam data plate, or the Engine compartment Data Plate showing s/n 00013? A copy of the original title...maybe? The name of the collector that purchased it maybe? If it was rescued from a Salvage Yard in NJ - did it have to be retitled with a NJ Salvage Title? Hope you will forgive me, but so far I've heard from at least three different people who claim to have had HLS30 00013, but so far nothing but stories. I don't doubt anyone's word - just their memories. A couple times we tracked the cars down to find HLS30 10013 and HLS30 1000013. I'd really be interested in finding some verfication that the car was actually sold to the public. At present the lowest VIN sold to the public here in North America has been HLS30 00016 located in Lutz, Florida. Any input appreciated. Carl B.

Ah... time for my Firestone Forever Battery story.... Back in 1975 I was working for a Firestone Dealer (another long story)... and I needed a new battery for the Z. So I bought a Firestone Forever... the best they offered at the time... My employee price was around $24.00 then...(for a 69.97 battery). Since that time, Firestone had replaced that battery free of charge about every 4 years....As I added more cars to the collection I tired of finding them with dead batteries every time I decided to drive one.. so around 1995, I bought several Battery Minder's.... smart trickle chargers... and hooked them all up when the cars were parked in the garage.. When kept on the Battery Minders... the Firestone Forever's lasted an average of 6.5 years... as are most of the batteries in the other cars now.. I had to have the Firestone Forever replaced a couple years ago.... So I took the battery into the local Firestone Store, the counterman looked up the new replacement battery, then went and got one out of stock. Sitting it on the counter, he said "that will be $79.95 plus $5.59 sales tax and $5.00 Battery disposal fee - $90.54." I said, "no, that is a Forever Replacement and it is free". I then dug out my paperwork to show him the words "Forever" on the invoices and guarantee. The counterman said he had never seen anything like that... so he went to get the Store Manager. The Store Manager knew what it was - but said he hadn't see one in years... So he started looking through the computer screens, to see if he could find the proper codes to charge the battery out of stock to... Finally he found them.. still on-line, still being honored... I wonder what will happen the next time I have to replace it... At any rate, if your car sits for prolonged periods I'd highly recommend hooking the battery up to a good smart trickle charger... the car will start when you are ready and the battery will last for many additional years... There are many others and you can shop the web for the best pricing, but I've been very happy with <a href=http://www.thebatteryminder.com/ TARGET=NEW> the BatteryMINDer </a> Check Standard Battery Chargers - 12V-1.33A BatteryMINDer They do more than just trickle charge.. and won't overcharge. No need to remove the battery if the car is garage kept, just plug in the trickle charger. Of course none of this negates the requirement for clean, tight battery terminals... I switched to Gold Plated terminals years ago - and have not had a problem since... FWIW, Carl B.