Arne

The NW Datsuns' show in Canby is approaching, just over 5 weeks away. Are you and your Z ready? Who's planning on coming, and which car will you drive (if you have more than one)? In past years, many of us local and semi-local CZCC members and friends have gathered at 9:30ish on Sunday at the Southbound rest area on I-5 and caravanned the rest of the way in together. Last year I think we had eight 240Zs and two 280Zs (and one 350Z) for the last 10 miles or so. How many can we get this year? For any coming from points South, as in past years I plan to leave the Eugene/Springfield area at around 7:30 Sunday morning. Can probably arrange stops in Albany and Salem to link up with others on the way to the rest area. Sound off!

I'm not an A/C expert, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the shroud could be the problem. The opening in the shroud is larger than the pusher fan's diameter, so the pushed air shouldn't be restricted. Besides, the heat of the day is when you WANT the shroud to help keep the engine temp down. The fact that your engine doesn't run hot in the heat of the day tells me the shroud is doing what it is supposed to do. I'm thinking something else must still be wrong. Are you certain they got the correct amount of R12 in there?

The rail on my 7/71 car appears to be the same as the third one in your pictures.

I think the one with the loop at the back is the short rail for flat-top cabs - '73 and '74. I'll take a look at what is on my 7/71 car later tonight.

I would be interested to know if anyone with a '70-71 240Z still might have their original slave cylinder to check the bore size. After all these years its not likely that it might still be on the car and in functioning order, but perhaps someone may have kept one when the original was replaced? I'm still wondering about a running production change. On the other hand, even if there was a change from 5/8" to 11/16" at some point, you would think that the parts fiche/CD would at the very least list a 5/8" rebuild kit for the earliest cylinders, assuming that there were any such beasts. So maybe they were always 11/16" bore, and the '71 FSM (as well as the third party SM I have) was simply wrong. Although the 5/8" bore is mentioned in more than one place, I think.

My take after 25 years in tires and wheels. Not inferior, just different. Applied correctly to a properly cleaned surface by a technician who knows what he/she is doing, they will do a fine job. Many alloy wheels do not have a lip design that allows the use of clip weights. So you may not have a choice of what type is used. Turn it 180 degrees, not just 90. Chances are that if the assembly needs that much weight you were unlucky and matched the heaviest spots of both tire and wheel together. If so, turning the tire 180 will often make a significant difference. I don't know that I'd call it a problem, but yes, if the tire is the cause it will most generally get worse as it wears. Actually, if you marked the spot that wanted the weight prior to turning the tire, you can get a pretty accurate idea by comparing where the weight is needed after turning, especially if you did the 180 rather than 90. If the weight is still needed in the same general area as before, it is probably the wheel that has a heavy spot. If the need for weight follows the tire, it's the tire.

Is it just me? Does anyone else have a Factory Service Manual that claims the slave should be 5/8"? If so, what year was the manual published?

Which means you'd need a '77 or later round port head to use them with.

Looks like a round-port Pacesetter to me.

If you do, stop by in the Eugene-area on the way, I've got a bottle homebrew stout with your name on it. But you must pick it up in person...

If you keep it with stock suspension (not lowered), I'd think you should be OK with either 225/45-17 or 215/50-17. I don't think I'd go any wider than that. The only place I'd be too concerned is at the front valance (below the front bumper ends) when turning. Probably no issue at all if you use an air dam rather than the stock valance parts.

I didn't, I paid Scott to do it! On the red car he didn't drill at all, he used a grinder to grind through the spot welds without going all the way through the layer below. But he drilled all the way through the welds on the donor roof. (Note the holes in the picture below.) That way he said he could weld the holes in the new skin to solid metal underneath.

Ahh. That may be the last one in the States, which would explain the BIN price. I called my dealer, none left in any US warehouses.

Never thought about a new skin. Part number 73102-E4100, still shows as a good number from Courtesy and NissanParts.cc, albeit at $550 or more. Luckily the donor I had was totally straight.

That's why my car lost the cloth-covered coolant hoses that it still had when I bought it, as well as most of the suspension bushings. (The remaining bushings are still on my to-do list.)

That should work OK, except that Z stock lug studs aren't long enough to use a 10mm spacer (you won't find 9mm, but 10mm would work) and still have enough thread to bolt up the rim. You'd need to replace all the studs with longer ones. That's not too hard in the front, but requires you to pull apart the stub axles and wheel bearings in the rear. If you don't already need to replace the wheel bearings in back, you'll probably be better off using the +35 offset with 25mm bolt-on spacers instead. Those spacers will bolt onto your studs, and have their own studs to bolt the wheel onto. These spacers will be more money, but way less hassle than changing out the studs.

I've got mixed feelings about it at $19k. On the plus side, it appears to be a relatively low mileage and rust-free 240Z with original paint in good shape. On the other hand – as noted here – it is a non-stock '73 with an automatic, all items which tend to hold down values. Still, it might be difficult to refresh a worn car to this condition for much less. I bought my 240Z about 2 1/2 years ago. At that time it had 59,500 miles on it. It was very original for the most part, more so in many ways than the subject here. I did buy it very "right" due to the tired paint and sunroof, both remedied now. I have about $15k in mine now, but I doubt I could replace it for that unless I got really lucky (again). I guess that if a buyer wants (or doesn't mind having) an automatic, wants a car to drive a bit now and again, and isn't looking for 100% originality, this car might be a decent buy at $18-19k. But as is it might be a bit steep for a collector.

'72 and '73 used the same console, I believe. The '72 was definitely different from the '70-71.

On the earlier cars, both wires were black, and had the same bullet connectors, both male IIRC. I think this is still true on the later cars, as the transmission in my '71 was actually out of an '83, and the switch still plugged right in. Anyway, I believe you'll need to make a jumper wire, or modify/replace the connectors.

I'm still wondering about the disagreement between the original FSM and the '79 parts fiche/CD and other current parts lists. Were there any TSBs regarding clutch slave cylinders for 240Zs? Was the 5/8" bore the original size, and then there was a running change later to 11/16"?

The shim is needed to prevent the countershaft from walking forward and backwards under torque loads. The different thicknesses are to accommodate production differences. You want the shim to be a snug fit - it should take up all the play at the bearing, but not preload it. I'd fear that using a non-metal shim of some sort might cause problems eventually.

If you don't think that's the correct method, it's your right to believe that. But that method has worked well for everyone else in recent years, including myself. I guess you'll just have to leave it alone and not paint it then. Enjoy!

Nope. Nissan has no records, and there was no other formal indication on the car other than the decal. That said, for most years there's not too many color choices that can be confused for each other, so if you can find some original paint on the car somewhere it should be easy to figure out.

Mike, it depends. Not a definitive answer, I know. But it depends of what parts were damaged. If the damage was confined to just the bearings, it may be salvageable. But if the bearings spun on the shafts, or spun in the case, I'd consider it a lost cause. In any case, it will need to be disassembled to know for certain. Drop it by my place next time you come to Oregon and after a week or so I can tell you for certain.

Many of the parts being mentioned here are low-VIN parts, not Series 1 parts, strictly speaking. : Plastic clips for early inspection lids - Low-VIN only : Chromed plastic gas lid locks, not metal (early) - Low-VIN only : Gray dash components, not black - Low-VIN only : Dual hand/choke throttle levers - Low-VIN only : Clear hatch glass / no defrost lines - Lower-VIN only, before around #14xx : Unique gas lines/filler/no expansion tank - Low-VIN only : Less than 4 digit VIN'S (duh ) : Early console shape : Carpet stay at back of seats between tool boxes - Low-VIN only? : Was it metal headlight housings ? - "plastic" headlight buckets through '72, metal after that. : Steering wheels had solid spokes : Plastic covers screwed on under seats - Low-VIN only : Vinyl wrap for passenger side wire loom(2 snaps) : Early radios were unique : Early throttle/choke were cables ,not solid (Kats) - Low-VIN only