Arne

I beg to differ. That may be the case for 280Zs and 260Zs, but not for 240Zs. The owner's manual for my '71 240Z says to use "a proper grade of gasoline of above 95 octane..."Granted, that was not the same 95 that we see now as AKI or (MON+RON)/2, but I still believe that the old 95 is probably more than today's 89. I know that my late '71 will ping on today's 92 AKI if the timing is advanced much past stock, and even at stock timing on 89 AKI. Yes, there could be some carbon build up, but that doesn't change the fact that I need premium fuel. The reason doesn't matter. If you need it, you need it.

The two spare wires (green and black) are the wires Nissan supplied for an electric fuel pump. They are not used on pre-'73 US 240Z unless an electric pump has been added.

And are you still running Datsun four lug hubs? If so, Mustangs haven't used the Datsun lug spacing since 1968. If you plan to convert to five lug, you'll be fine there, assuming the Mustang wheels you are looking at are five lug. But if they are the four lug pattern used from '74 through whenever they changed back to five lug, that's a different pattern.

Over the years, I seem to average a loss of about $1000 per year of ownership on my project cars and toys. Pretty cheap hobby when looked at that way.

Read this thread. It covers this topic thoroughly. http://classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22619

Sad, but true. I've been there, and they're right. Which is exactly why I bought my red Z even though I had already began restoring my yellow one. I'm driving and enjoying the red one now. (Drove it to work today, in fact.) The yellow one would not be ready for driving regularly for at least another 6 months to a year. And yes, I've still got plenty of tinkering, maintenance and replacement to do on the red one. Keeps me out of trouble. Of course, that doesn't mean I've learned anything from all this. I'm also laying plans to complete the yellow car anyway...

Dave speaks the truth, I agree with his post 100%. While driving lights will definitely light up the road in a straight line, best bang for the buck are good quality E-code headlights. I've been using E-code lights exclusively (mostly H4, a few dual H1) in every vehicle I've owned since 1976. In the 7" round size the Zs use, I have personal experience with Marchal, Cibié (pre-Z-Beam, Z-beam and BOBI), Bosch, Hella, Carello, Lucas, Wipac, Stanley and Neolite. While the Marchal and Cibié were both quite good, all of the best I've ever used (in any size/shape) have been Hella. Good range, and the most even, shadow-free pattern. So if improved lighting is the goal, I recommend Hella. In my experience, Hellas have lasted longer than Cibiés as well. I've had several sets of old Cibiés where the reflectors rusted. Never have had that problem with a Hella. Hellas are also easier to find here in the USA these days.

Welcome to our site! This is one of the largest repositories of Z-car knowledge available anywhere, with over 13,000 registered users, but more importantly over 200,000 posts in over 24,000 threads. So in general, almost any question that you, as a new owner or owner to be might ask has already been addressed here. Most of them not once, but dozens of times. Your questions regarding differences between years, and also with retrofitting 240Z bumpers to a 280Z are examples of topics that have been discussed almost to death here.Your best bet on these basics is to learn to use the excellent search feature here. Try searching with several different combinations of words and phrases, the amount of data you can find that way boggles the mind. There are several reasons why you may get better results from a search than from a new post. For example, many of the long-time members get tired of answering the same questions over and over, so they may simply blow right past your questions. Also, many of the questions posted by new members concern items that are static. In other words, the answers to these questions don't change, they are still the same now as they were 5 or even 10 years ago. Your question on retrofitting bumpers is an excellent example of a static topic, as are putting 280Z engines in early cars, swapping to a 5 speed transmission, how to tune the early SU carbs, etc. The answers to these questions never change, so using a search there gives the advantage of seeing posts from many more people, rather than the few who might answer your question directly. Simple economics. Supply and demand. The 240Zs are the oldest, and many have died from accidents and rust. So they are somewhat rare, yet are still in demand. So they are more expensive.

By this time, your carbs undoubtedly need the throttle shaft bushings dealt with. No rebuild kit covers that, you can't do it your self. If you truly want the carbs to run right, you're going to have to bite the bullet and send them off for rebuilding. Not cheap, but rebuild kits aren't going to help much at all.

When I installed the KYBs with factory stock springs, the ride height increased about 1/4 to 3/8". I figured I can live with that.

Later 240Zs changed the location on the balance tube that the hose connects to, so it takes a different hose. Might be able to use the early hose if you move the fitting.

Is this what you are talking about? If so, it definitely was not always fitted, none of my cars have it. http://classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25827&highlight=plates+differential

No. Heater hose won't work. You need an internally reinforced hose to prevent collapse.

Well, I suspect if you measure how wide a 240Z is...

Good point, Doug. I sold my fully restored '67 roadster for $9k, but that was 10 years ago. They go for much more these days.

I am looking at another parts car right now, haven't quite come to terms with the seller yet. But it has a good original style 240Z radiator, as well as an R200 and all the necessary bits there for. Should know if I get it by this weekend.

The MGB GT V8 was never offered in the US. The MGC (both roadster and GT) was only made in '68 and '69, with virtually all US models being '69s.

Yeah, BTDT. MG never used the 'Mark" terms on the Bs. But in general, a '67 would be considered the last year of the first iteration. It should have no smog gear, no side markers or reflectors, no synchromesh on first gear, and an unpadded metal dash. The '67s were the only metal-dash year (in the US) with a pull-type headlight switch, '63-66 had a toggle switch visually identical to the wiper and heater blower switches. Back when I was doing MGBs, in the US the pre-68s were considered the best and most collectible years. The later cars had a better transmission, but MG didn't deal with emissions and safety requirements well at all. $9500 doesn't sound bad at all, assuming - just like with 240Zs - that there's no rust...

Yes, both.

My red car came with polished stainless mudguards when I bought it. Maybe they were added late in the car's life, but they didn't seem to prevent any paint damage down there - my car has plenty. So I removed them, and I prefer the look of the car without.

Poor Douglas Kott. Raked over the coals for using copy that was probably handed to him by Nissan's media flacks.Actually, Kott wrote two articles for R&T on the 240Z in the late '90s. The first one was in the Feb. 1997 issue, and was a Salon article about a yellow Series 1 that was refurbished by Pierre' Z. (Don't ask me to point out all the non-original parts visible in he pictures, there's a pile of them. Still a nice car, though.) In that article, Kott mentions Pierre's involvement in the program near the end. "...in fact, Nissan has appointed his firm as one of the shops to restore early Z-cars that will be sold through Nissan dealerships." A totally accurate statement, other than possibly the strict use of the word 'restore' - some would prefer the word 'refurbish'. The second article is the above mentioned profile on the program cars. Besides the article's title ("Datsun 240Z, Factory Resurrected"), in the last paragraph he refers to the cars as " factory-refurbished". In that same paragraph he calls them "factory-authorized" which is pretty much correct. The rest of the article makes no claims about the the factory-ness of the program. And since he probably got most of that wording from the Nissan flacks, I don't think I'll hold it against him.

I replaced my front diff mount two days ago. My clunk is greatly reduced, but not eliminated. I have good mustache bar bushings, new diff and tranny mounts, and all 6 u-joints are new as well. I believe that the remaining clunk is in the rear control arm bushings, especially at the spindle pins. Those will be my next replacements. Certainly excess lash could be part of the issue, but I'd make certain that all the rubber is fresh before I went to that.

Yes. That's how they are on both my cars.

Dan, the ride height was unchanged over stock. The overall effect on the ride was MUCH stiffer. Not harsh, but was VERY firm. On fairly smooth roads they were fine. Push the car a bit hard and the handling was great. Very controlled. But on roads with lots of frequent small bumps - like poorly patched asphalt, or concrete with lots of poor expansion joints - they quickly got bouncy.As a best guess, I'd say the Mulhollands were apparently designed for a much higher spring rate than stock, as they have a whole lot of rebound damping. So if you hit one bump, no big deal - the struts were just a touch slow returning to their normal loaded extension. But hit several small bumps in a row - first bump the shock compresses a bit, then before it can rebound you his another bump and it compresses a bit more, and then you hit another... A 240Z doesn't have much strut travel. With the weight of the driver in the car there's only about 1 3/4" before it hits the bump stops. So it wouldn't take too many bumps in a short time to effectively bottom out the strut and then you're riding on the bump stops. I've experienced this before on off-road bikes and ATVs when people crank up the adjustable rebound to far and then ride on a washboard road. In the bike world this is so common they have a term for it - they call it "packing" - as in, "I cranked in too much rebound and the rear shock packed down on that last trail." I'd never experienced this in a car before, and although I can't say for certain that was the issue, it sure felt the same. On the other hand, I bought the Mulhollands on a whim, they seemed to be a cool vintage alternative. I didn't know it when I did so, but my red car ALREADY HAD Mulhollands in it when I bought it. No idea how old, or how many miles on them. But the old ones were not as bouncy as the new ones I put in. I did have a bad (seized) front strut that I knew about, which was why I planned to replace them. But the rears were still fine, and have either worn or broken in enough that they were totally useable with the stock springs. Now that they are all out of the car at once, the new rear Mulhollands are MUCH more difficult to extend by hand than the old ones. So I'm guessing that eventually they will calm down enough to work OK with the stock springs. I just don't have any idea how long that might take. This has turned out to be a rather long answer. So short version - if your roads there are nice and smooth, you'll probably be fairly happy with then in the beginning, and more so as they wear and break in. If you have lots of small, frequent bumps in the roads there, you may not be as happy.

Two hours for spring changes. Changing the struts too adds another 30-45 minutes.