Bambikiller240

Hey, That's no fair. You reduced the size of the pic so small that I can't steal it and put it in my "Hot Photo's" calendar. :mad: As for your proctologist..........perhaps his flashlight needs new batteries? If AA's don't work for him, maybe he should try "D" cells? OUCH! Couldn't resist.

It's an F1 car with Carbon Fibre Rotors and Pads. It is fairly normal to see that "glow" on hard braking. Only becomes a problem if it stays that way for a long time. Go Takuma in GP of China tonight!

As a former coin collector (numismatist) for many years I must point out: The Composition of the Cent Following is a brief chronology of the metal composition of the cent coin (penny): The composition was pure copper from 1793 to 1837. From 1837 to 1857, the cent was made of bronze (95 percent copper, and five percent tin and zinc). From 1857, the cent was 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel, giving the coin a whitish appearance. The cent was again bronze (95 percent copper, and five percent tin and zinc) from 1864 to 1962. (Note: In 1943, the coin's composition was changed to zinc-coated steel. This change was only for the year 1943 and was due to the critical use of copper for the war effort. However, a limited number of copper pennies were minted that year. You can read more about the rare, collectible 1943 copper penny in "What's So Special about the 1943 Copper Penny.") In 1962, the cent's tin content, which was quite small, was removed. That made the metal composition of the cent 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc. The alloy remained 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc until 1982, when the composition was changed to 97.5 percent zinc and 2.5 percent copper (copper-plated zinc). Cents of both compositions appeared in that year. Stolen from

I would NEVER, EVER buy a classic car with a sunroof that wasn't part of the car when it rolled out the factory doors. And even then, I'd think really, really hard before shelling out money.

These are my 3 most recent Desktp images.

HeHeHe, Yep, Marc (280z) took that one. That is Ben and I (in Ben's car) on our way back from the Summit of Mt. Hamilton (San Jose,CA USA) this past April.

I think it's going to have to come from someone who sells/services those carbs. You might try a google search. www.google.com

Got any pictures of the process, Chris?

the current progran has (had) a rolling 30 year requirement for vehicle to be "in" the smog check program, after which they became exempt from testing. Now it will be simply that 1975 and earlier model year cars are exempt.

Looks like it did.

How about just posting to this thread so the rest of us can learn the outcome of your installation?

Everyone has an opinion and this one is mine. If Burt Diamond's '71 240Z can't draw a "Buy It Now" bid for $26,200, a 280Z stands little chance of selling at $25,950, and on the off chance it does, it will be an anomalie not likely to repeated any time in the foreseeable future. (I'm not being critical of DatsunZGuy for posting this)

Your car is safe Ben. AB 2683 SUMMARY: Repeals the "30-year rolling exemption" that applies to the Smog Check and Smog Check II programs. Specifically, this bill : 1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that vehicles of the 1975 model year and older shall be permanently exempted from smog check requirements and that the Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Consumer Affairs be afforded adequate time to implement this bill's requirements. 2)Repeals the exemption for vehicles 30 years old or older from vehicle maintenance and inspection programs, effective April 1, 2005. 3)Provides an exemption from those programs for vehicles that were manufactured prior to the 1976 model year, effective April 1, 2005.

I got a set of regular GE Halogen lamps in the same wattage as stock. Also have a set of H4 lamps (uninstalled) that are 60/55 watt which a friend uses in a completely stock Z (no electrical upgrades or relays) without problems.

I'm guessing that this is a joke since it doesn't work that way. Every time "I" or "you" come back to this thread it counts as another "view", and not everyone who "views" the thread "posts" to it even once.

Dear P.T. Barnum: It appears that you were correct.

Is it a JPEG that you are trying to upload? EDIT: Also, per Ed's post below, max picture size is 1024 X 768 (pixels)

Mike: you might want to take a look at the "LINKS" section as things are a little screwy in there. I couldn't find the "Downloads" section (where the various Wiring Diagrams and Paint Code files are located) Also: The Irfanview Graphics editor post is in the "Technical Zcar Documents" section The Zcar CD Demo is in the "Wallpaper" section The Z Club Logo files are in the "Graphics Programs" section The "Internet Z Club Logo's" section is empty The "Zcar Microfiche CD" section is also empty There may be other anomalies, but I didn't check them all.

Right. I forgot to mention that we were using a late model console in our installation. We were able to get a good price for the early console on eBay so that was an added bonus ($$$).

You can use Microsoft Paint (MS Paint) to resize photo's. Do a search using "resize" and you should find a thread called "What's the max pic size" that has a link to a simple program (Microsoft Power Toys for Windows XP) to resize photo's you can even resize multiple images at one shot. (Only works if you have Windows XP) Last you can download IrfanView at http://www.irfanview.com/

I installed a late model 4 speed gearbox into a early 71 chassis a while back. All I did (there maybe a reason you don't want to do this) was to enlarge the hole in the trans tunnel to match the hole Nissan used in late model chassis. Then you just use the late shifter, and rubber boots. If you want to do this, let me know as I saved the pattern I used to modify the trans tunnel.

Before buying parts, you might want to check to be sure the problem isn't a vacuum hose that leads from the intake manifold to the Master Vac. If you end up needing the Master Vac, MSA will sell you one on an exchange basis, so make sure that if you have the new part installed by a shop, that they give you all of the old parts so you can return them to MSA for the core charge credit.

Sorry, but that is ridicules. GM would not design a car to fit one size of people. Certainly there is a reason; it could be anything from ergonomics, to simplicity of assembly procedures, to availability of a usable part from another product line, to some combination of the above, or some other completely different reason; but you aren't going to find the answer here. I doubt that all people in OZ have such short arms (not true) that having the brake lever as close as possible is a mandatory design constraint anymore than all people in the US having long arms (again, not true) makes brake lever positioning farther away a mandatory thing. Ask GM why they did it. You're much more likely to get the real reason from them, than from any one here. Asking the people of this site (or expecting to get the correct answer from them) a "Why" question like this is likely to be an excercise in futility. We were fortunate that kats or Alan T had contact with Matsuo to get an answer regarding the S30 brake lever placement. The likelyhood that anyone here works in, or has access to the GM Design Studio is slim to none. Perhaps the query should be addressed to GM if you really want an answer that has any validity. "No Why-ning" idea is an interesting idea, but "Why" questions are good, so long as people get the answer and move on. Continuing to pound on the question with "Ya, But's", and "Well, What if's", etc. in the attempt to get the answer that they really want to hear is what makes me :sick: GunnerRob's idea is interesting, but probably only a fortuitous side benefit of the brake lever placement on those cars. Lastly, if your asking about why GM did something, it's OFF TOPIC on a Datsun/Nissan site!

It is not like the US has the market cornered...... www.show.scot.nhs.uk/SEHD/publications/sh5/sh5v1b.pdf

And for God's sake, don't keep putting words in my mouth! All I did was ask you a question Alan P. Since I don't give a $hit about American cars and American car companies, I was not aware that the "new" (to us) GTO was sold previously in OZ by the subsidiary of General Motors (Holden). The point I was trying to make was that the position the handbrake (or any other part) is due to the designer's, & manufacturer's desire for it to be there. PERIOD!! As the photo in Alfadogs first post to this thread illustrates, where the steering wheel is located DOES NOT automatically dictate where the handbrake will be. My statement was/is not insular. I couldn't care less where the car was designed, or why the handbrake is where it is. So long as it can be reached comfortably it isn't a big deal. The difference in locations cannot be more than a few inches/centimeters. If those few inches/centimeters are a burden for anyone, then IMO that person doesn't belong behind the steering wheel (no matter which side of the car the wheel or handbrake is located). Isn't the handbrake on a 350Z on the LEFT side of the trans tunnel? Does that mean it was designed in the USA? This obsession with "WHY?" over, and over, and over; months (a year now?) after we learned of Matsuo's desires, and Nissan decision to do it differently that I find amazing. It's over. We know. WE GET IT! What else about this NIT is there to pick over? The difference in location is a matter of a few inches/cm's. IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL! NOTE: I've editted my post to remove information that was in error.