Carl Beck

Most likely mentioning what you already know - but just to recap... Yes - it sounds like "C" is what is called the 280Z stub axle. Perhaps it is the larger companion flange that is "stronger" - rather than the stub axle itself. Spacers are stamped "A", "B" and "C" - and they are about 0.020" longer than each other. I believe that was a way to adjust for the casting and machining tolerances, of the bearing seats within the strut housings. So in effect - whatever size spacer was used by the factory with a specific strut housing - it should be kept the same size - so that the end play comes out correctly when the axle and assembly are torqued down. So far I haven't found any documentation related to the specific distance between the inner and outer bearing seats within the strut housings. {sure would be helpful to know what that should be}. If your stub axle "A" had no washers on each end of the spacer - then it was either a early 240Z stub axle that was assembled incorrectly - - - OR - - - it was the later {after 08/73} axle that required no washers. Given that the bearing seats within the strut housing are fixed in place - It is a mystery to me as to how the space previously occupied by the washers, was filled when not using them. Unless much longer spacers were used - - but that doesn't seem to be the case. In 1973 Nissan added a copper washer, under the washer/lock-nut that is torqued down on the axle. The service bulletin said that was to eliminate noise... Nonetheless- I'd say that your axle "C" with a good nut would be the way to go... FWIW, Carl B.

Great story - there are few things in life that are quite as enjoyable as a road trip with your son in an early Z. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Coop: Do they both have the same number of splines? Will the same companion flange fit on either one? Carl B.

Garrett Air Research T03 - made in Japan under license. FWIW, Carl B.

Just goes to show you - mileage is just one consideration related to value. With rusted out floorpans and in the underbody - $3,500.00 isn't a bad price - IF everything else was as it should be in a sub 40K mile car. "Usually" but not always - the sad thing is that everything else is most likely in far less condition than it should be... but you never know. Take the car completely apart - have proper metal work and a high quality paint job done - and that will run between $12K and $15K. Then put everything back together cleaning/detailing as you go. For less than $20K and a year or two of work - you might wind up with a car just as good as the one that sold for $15K. CONDITION of everything - accounts for about 90% of the market value - and Location perhaps another 10%... Before the financial melt-down - a #2 condition 10th AE would have been closer to $25K - $15K today is a good buy. FWIW, Carl B.

"FULL editor" - - where is he going find something with that label? Just hit the "Post Reply" buttom just below the last Post. Or as E suggests - hit the "Go Advanced" button even farther down on the page. FWIW, Carl B

Looks like a very clean, low VIN Series I example. I wonder if your clients knew that they gave you a $5,000.00 to $6,000.00 Gift? At the very least they should never have to pay to have their dog cared for again.! The wheels alone are worth a grand! Simply amazing... a car you can enjoy for the next 40 years! Make sure you have it properly insured and keep it in a secure storage when not driven - too many of them are getting stolen these days. Good luck with it... Carl B.

Hi Eric: The wheels on the car "LOOK" like American Racing "Libre" style. I say they "look" like them - but you will have to pull them off to be sure. Different manufacturers and distributors also sold "copies". If they are real American Racing - they will have "American Racing Equipment" cast into them on the back side of the wheels. If they are near perfect - with NO curb rash and with perfect lug nut holes - you can expect to get $75.00 to $85.00 each. About half that if they are damaged. If they are other copies - maybe $45.00 to $55.00 each. They use to be worth more -but now you can buy new reproductions for about $200.00 each - and now you can get them in 15" or 16" sizes. The "240Z" rubber floor mats - usually sell for $75.00 to $125.00 depending on the actual condition of the rubber. They can get quite brittle if they haven't been well cared for - so $75.00. If they are still soft and pliable, no cracks or tears - $125.00 You might price them a bit lower for a quick, hassle free sale here or on one of the other Z Car sites mentioned - putting them on E-Bay might yield the highest price, but then you have to put-up with the Public. FWIW, Carl B.

Posting Pictures here is very straight forward and easy. If you scroll down below the "text box" like the one you entered your original Post in - - you will see that the next block is titled "Additional Options".... in the section titled "Attach Files" - you hit the button that says "Manage Attachments"... You will then be presented with a dialog box - that allows you to search the files on your computer and select the one's you want to include in your Post... The most common format for digital images is .jpg but the site accepts others as well. Give it a try - if your picture is too large - you'll get a dialog box telling you... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Matt: Sorry - I do not have 15744 in my data base. I'll keep an eye out for it. FWIW, Carl B.

List the VIN here - and I'll see if I have it in my data base. A couple years ago - I found a friends 71 that he bought new. He has it back now... There are a few others here that have found their original 240Z's as well. FWIW, Carl B.

Thank-you John, that is very helpful. Carl B.

I have a couple questions about swapping stub axles. 1. The OP said he has a 260Z - looking at the parts catalogs - it seems that the 260Z and 280Z got the same stub axles to begin with - after 08/73 {yes/no??} 2. The original 240Z stub axles - mounted in the strut housing - with a spacer {size A, B, C} and washers at each end of the spacer - between the inner and outer bearings. It seems that the 260Z and 280Z stub axles still use the spacer {A, B, C} but without the washers on each end. So the question is - if you swap to the 280Z stub axles into the strut housings machined for the 240Z set up - do you have to use the washers or not?? Put another way - is there a difference in the machining or build of the strut housing - where the stub axles mount - between the 240Z and 280Z struts? {not talking about strut tube thickness}. I'm trying to rebuild a set of 73 rear struts - the previous shop took the stub axles out - and it seems they lost the washers that go on each side of the spacer. Looks like I could just get a set of 280Z stub axles and use them without the washers. {the washers are NLA}. FWIW, Carl B.

If I were in the market for a 280Z - - I'd buy the best, low mileage, well cared for example I could find in the Western and Southwestern states. I'd gladly pay $12K+ for the right car. The right car would be one that is currently owned by its original owner, has less than 75K miles and is ready to drive across America. Why? Because any 280Z you start with - that is $2K or $6K - - - will need at least $6K worth of repairs or maintenance items PLUS a lot of personal time and hard work. After that it will need fresh bodywork and a decent paint job. By then you'll have way over $12K in it. Even then, it will not be as nice a car as you could have bought for $12K to begin with. Take the $6K you have and take out a personal loan for the balance - Yes, you'd have a monthly payment for a while - but during that time you'd have a 280Z to drive and enjoy - rather than a project sitting in your garage sucking up three times the money you ever dreamed of spending.. There are still a lot of very nice 280Z's out there - and they are very reasonably priced at this point. Buy something that is ready to enjoy - skip the headaches at this point. Just my opinion.. FWIW, Carl B.

Wrong...Don Kearney "used to" live here in Clearwater. He moved South decades ago oops... memory fart... So no input from that FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Everyone: I know a few of the guys that are listed in the 75 Champion Spark Plug - Road Race of Champions I posted at #88 above, and located a couple of the guys that were driving the 911's - So I thought I'd drop them a line.... Dennis Aase responded today - he started racing his Porsche in SCCA B-Production, in 1969 running a mechanically fuel injected 911S. He raced that car to and including the Run-Off's at Atlanta in 73 as a C-Production 2.4 Liter. Dennis said that Porsche increased the displacement to 2.7 liter in 74, but because Porsche Motorsports Director Joseph Hoppin refused to inform the SCCA of the displacement increase, {because Hoppin was having a dispute with the SCCA over the 917 in Cam-Am} Porsche was forced to use the 2.4 liter until 75 or 76. In an earlier discussion, about a year ago - we learned that some C-Production Z's {regardless of how they were listed ie as a 240Z or 280Z } - did keep running the L24's in C-Production, because if they ran the L28 they had to carry additional weight. Don Kearney finished 4th that year and he is here in Clearwater. He is listed as running a Datsun 280Z - but I know his car was always a 240Z body - I'll call him Monday to see if he was running the L24 or L28 that year, and see if he can shed any additional light on the subject. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Alan: See - edits above... Actually I am still trying to find answers to some of your earlier questions related to the actual engine sizes that were allowed for the Porsches in C-Production. It seems that cars listed as 911, 911T and 911S - were all allowed the same equipment in racing form.. Still don't know if the Porsche's were allowed the 2.4L after it came out late 72... Have a Marry Christmas.. Carl

So Alan Johnson wasn't really driving a 911 in C-Production in 68? Nor Milt Mitner in 69 ? See 1970 ARRC Entry List below - 911's were entered, but didn't make the cut. See 1975 Champion Spark Plug Road Race of Champions C-Production results. It looks like 911's were both entered and ran against 240Z's in the same SCCA C-Production class.. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Guys: Interesting discussion. A little history... 356 and 911 Porsches had been racing in SCCA's C-Production Class and were wining Championships each year at the SCCA's American Road Race Of Champions {ARRC} in the C-Production Class 1966 thru 1969. The reason it was called the ARRC - is because SCCA Divisional and Regional Champions and as I recall the first runner-ups from across the nation - were invited to the ARRC at the end of the season, to determine what was in effect the National Champions in the various SCCA Classes. There may have been two or three drivers from each division invited... it was a long time ago.. NP Northern Pacific SP Southern Pacific RM Rocky Mountain SW South West MW Mid-West C Central GL Great Lakes NE North East SW South East Porsche drivers dominated the ARRC C-Production Class in 1966, 67, 68 and 69. As you can see from the results from the various years {URL below} - 356's, 911's, 911T's and 911S's were all in the running across the US. They competed against the Triumph TR 4/6, Lotus Elan, Alfa TZ and Datsun 2000's during those years. See: http://zhome.com/ARRC1966:1973.jpg All attempts to level the playing field in terms of equipment within each SCCA Competition Classes were made; because the SCCA was all about the club racers aka DRIVERS. The SCCA had always been filled with Engineers and they came up with all manor of "equalizing formulas" so that no marque or specific model, held any real advantage over any other in any competition class. At least that was the Goal. {forumlas and rules were always argued and politic'ed about - usually changed year by year to some extent} Of course the various Manufacturers had other desires. By 1970 SCCA's C-Production Class was all-but an all-out war between the Manufactures. It was GREAT RACING if you were a spectator, but not so much if you were a competitor not heavily supported by a manufacturer or their distributors. Why then were the Porsche 914/6's representing Porsche at the 1970 ARRC? Because drivers driving them had won the most Regional Championships or accumulated the most points - beating the local 911's and all others for top regional honors. Many if not most, would argue that was because Porsche-Audi of North America funded and fielded teams of 914/6's - MONEY!!! The end result was the 914/6's were the fastest Porsches in that class going into the 1970 ARRC. See: http://classicmotorsports.net/articles/porsche-914/ Scroll down to "Competition History" The "Ad People" were just as busy at Porsche-Audi USA as our friends at Datsun - just not as successful. Anyway I look at it - for Datsun to take the top three positions on the podium first time out with the 240Z was an amazing accomplishment. Followed for many years there after as well. FWIW, Carl B.

Wow!!.. that must mean that the Collectors in N.Y. are reporting far high purchase prices. {of course many #1/#2 examples are sold at $18K to $25K+} See Attached; FWIW, Carl B.

Insurance companies here in Florida - get their "average sales price" from the State of Florida Sales Tax records. We all know how accurate they are .... almost every 240Z sold here is sold with a reported sale price of either $100.00 or $500.00. So if you get lowballed - you'll have some idea where they are getting their numbers. Second source is NADA's Classic/Collector Car Price Guide - You should look that up and print a copy out for your adjustor. Keep in mind - if you have a injury and thus medical claims - - - -getting you to sign a Medical Waver will be the Adjustors primary objective. Under NO circumstances should you ever tell anyone that you are "OK", or that you weren't hurt. Under NO circumstances should you agree to sign off on a Medical Waver BEFORE you have a check for your car. Personal Injury is the ONLY thing that gives you any leverage with insurance Claims Adjustors - and Personal Injury is the ONLY thing that Lawyers will get involved with - - - You said you were hurt - stay that way and keep going for medical treatment.. until they come up with a figure for your car and they agree to pay the medical bills.... FWIW, Carl B.

Note Also: The "how to" originally Posted - is done on a 260/280 rear axle. If you are doing a 240Z - there are washers{shims} on each end of the "spacer" between the bearings. Part Number 43211-N3400 which are NLA. These washers {shims} "MAY" have been eliminated in production even before 8/73. You'll know when you take the assembly apart. If they are present - keep the washers and spacers together as a set, for each axle. FWIW, Carl B.

I like this definition - to define Classic Cars. CLASSIC: Of lasting and timeless beauty. Think Venus de Milo. We don't know if a car is a Classic until at least two decades have passed to see if it will pass the Test Of Time. If the car is still considered to be a beautiful automobile by 94% of the automobile enthusiasts - it is most likely going to be considered a true Classic Car by all serious Collectors. Milestone Automobile: One that revolutionizes peoples thinking in terms of Style, Performance and/or Technology. The automobile that can be pointed to as a benchmark of change that was carried forward into the future. Just a thought.. Carl B.

I need to get a new air galley - but have been unable to find one. FWIW, Carl B.