deadflo

mark, thanks for your assistance. I actually was able to remove the outside bolts on the float chambers to remove the little screens while still on the car. the screens actually looked completely clean, but i did spray some carb cleaner into the intake to clean out the needle assembly. But after I put the bolts back on and tried to start it i had gas leaking out of both float chambers. Not sure why at this point... So I am getting gas to the carbs.Also I confirmed carbs were in balance two days ago before I tracked down the dirty gas filter.(before it really started bogging down)

Ed thanks for the advice on the screens inside the float chamber. I have an old set of SUs and looked at that screen on the tool bench. BUT any tips on how to pull it off the bowl that's on the car? I can pull the top of the chamber off and take it out that way, but I'm afraid I will bend the float itself trying to pry that bolt of that holds the screen. Also, does the bolt have to go back on with it's hole perfectly aligned to the fuel intake? it appears that's what those little brackets are for??? PS, I can now get the car to run, poorly, by starting it with the high idle screw turned in to run at about 2000 RPM. if you blip the throttle, it stumbles rather than accelrate smoothly. So anyway im getting gas, but not properly.

It's intersting to note that this vehicles engine number is higher than my US marketcar, HLS30 20390.

My 71 started bucking real bad on a weekend drive. I checked out all the ignition stuff, looked OK. Pulled the fuel filter and sure enough there was rust in the gas in the filter. Last fall i had leak in the top of gas tank repaired (welded). The guy who did the work said th rest of the tank looked clean and thought the tank had been taken care of by a P.O. The filter had been in about year (8 thousand miles). I put a new filter and she seemed to run OK. Note that I ran the car only occaisonally since the tank repair because I put her away for most of the winter (occaisonal drives when it was dry out). I ran it maybe 300 miles total, but never ran all the gas out before a fill up. I have a mechanic in town that I use sometimes who has owned three 240 Z's himself. He said the guy who fixed the tank likley filled it with water before he welded and it not be unusual to have some water left in there that may have caused some rust over the winter when it sat. He recommended adding ISO gas drier. I drove to town this week, put the additve in and topped her off. On the way back she started running like crap and eventualy I had to tow her back home. MY mechanic said some rust probabaly got through the filter and into the carbs. I pulled the tops off the float chambers and looked around but im really not sure what i should be looking for. Any suggestions?

Are there pictures of the plastic sheild guards in kats gallery somewhere? It seems to me my series one has a weird plasticky thing in the front corners under the seats...

OK, so I wonder which non-progressive springs are a bit stiffer than the ST's?, and would work well with the tockicos?

Are the ST springs only "slightly stiffer than stock"?? I'm hoping to upgrade my suspension before summer on the 71,but I want good performance. I want to go with Tockco shocks, maybe not the illuminas, but I have been hearing here that the tockico matching spings are progressive and Id like to steer clear of that. Im still trying to get feedback on a good combo for twisty two lane driving. i want performance with smooth ride secondary.

And still no reserve met. Remember this was on ebay a few weeks back and no one wanted it? check this out now, this guy should sell it to the highest bidder now! http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Datsun-Z-Series-seahawk-1978-DATSUN-280Z-SEAHAWK-LIMTED-SPECIAL-EDTION_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6187QQitemZ4609733591QQrdZ1

I want to upgrade my ancient performance spring strut package in my 71. I like the price of the Tockico spring/strut combo that is being sold on EBAY. But I have heard folks on this forum say the Tockico springs are progressive rate and maybe not the best for performance. I will be driving on backroads only, no autocross, but want good performance vs. smooth ride. I imagined the tockico package would be a good route because the pair were designed for each other. I have heard the Suspension Techniques are a good chice for springs. Would they be a good match for tockicos, wither the regular or adjutable Illuminas? Finally my old springs are yellow, I think they are suspension techniques anyway, but I beleive they are pretty old. You think I need to change them out to begin with.

I want to upgrade my ancient performance spring strut package in my 71. I like the price of the Tockico spring/strut combo that is being sold on EBAY. But I have heard folks on this forum say the Tockico springs are progressive rate and maybe not the best for performance. I will be driving on backroads only, no autocross, but want good performance vs. smooth ride. I imagined the tockico package would be a good route because the pair were designed for each other. I have heard the Suspension Techniques are a good chice for springs. Would they be a good match for tockicos, wither the regular or adjutable Illuminas? Finally my old springs are yellow, I think they are suspension techniques anyway, but I beleive they are pretty old. You think I need to change them out to begin with.

26th, Do you know any more about the years those logos were produced? It's interesting that DAT would stand for "durable,attractive and Trustworthy" in English.

I have been tempted to go for the Tockico strut/spring combo that you see on Ebay. BUT if the springs are really progressive im not so sure. What is everyones opinion about the Suspension techniques springs? I see Shox.com has a set for 179 dollars. Would that make a good combo with the Non-illumina Tockico struts?

I have Haggerty on my 71.They told me I could not drive it to work which is no big deal for me. BUT, they told me that they did not restrict you from leaving the vehicle in a parking lot if you went into a store, or for that matter if you were buying gas and had to go inside to pee. They did require to have a daily driver that was newer than a certain age. Although my daily driver when I signed up was a 79 ZX, they waived me because I also have a Dodge van (although its an 82.)

It's a pretty well known car. Z author Ben Millspaugh did a full article on it's restoration in his book "Z car Legend in it's own time" back in the early 90's. It was featured in the original Z car magazine as well. I think the owner has been trying to sell it for a few years now.

Sorry I cant be more helpful. BUT since I have wondered forome time whcih aftermarket springs my Z has, Im guessing you may have given me some info. My springs are also yellow. Is there a way to definitely determine if they are BRE? I have thought they must be worn out by now, and had intended to replace them eventually.I know the strut inserts are bad.Do most folks agree the springs should be changed out after so long?

This link has info on the L-6 cylinder heads. http://www.geocities.com/zgarage2001/z.html Again it seems to indicate the N-47 head was used on the ZX from 79 to 81, then they used the p-79 and p-90's. Anybody else know about the P-81 Carl referred to?

Carl, What is a P-81 head?Never heard of it. My 79 ZX (N-47 head)was made in June of that year, pretty late in the production run, whcih started Nov 78. I thought the heads stayed the same until the flat top pistons of 1981.

Besides owning a 71 series one 240Z, I have driven a 79 ZX as my daily driver since 1990. In that role it has been the most reliable car I've ever owned. I am 49 years old and have had a fair number of cars, including a 66 Impala SS, with 396, 69 Pontiac Lemans, 71 VW Beetle, 72 VW Bus, 71 Corolla and Corona, Some real POS 80's cars (Escort and Cavalier), 88 Accord, 94 previa. The ZX has been a fun cruiser, that DOES get compliments for it's looks(a great deal of people don't know the difference between a ZX and an S30). It is fun to drive on back roads, maybe not as much a handler as the 240-Z but still FUN. It is NOT heaver than a 280-Z. Road and Track reported it weighed LESS than a 78 Z by about fifty pounds. The oft quoted lower power output is based on the fact the under hood label finally began to quote the net vs gross power output in 79. The engine is the same as a 280-Z. Too many people seem to to just repeat the old misinformation, much of which was written by some auto journalists who drove the car once in 1979 when it was released.Some probably had driven a 240-Z once a few years before. Obviously if you had a 240-Z in 1979, you would thinkof the new ZX as a soft, fat car. It is softer. Its just as fat as a 280-Z. If you bought a 280-ZX new in 79 and had never driven a 240-Z you might think of the older car as a tinny, loud, car ,not as plush, and not as well put together as the newer car. I know alot of women (like my wife) prefer the ZX as a more substantial car. I love em both.