Arne

Yeah, I figured there was a bit of tongue in that cheek. But I did want to make sure I didn't mis-speak TOO badly on this.And yes, the red 240Z was at the right price. The yellow one? Umm... not so much. I generally have to learn from my own mistakes. Luckily, I can afford them. But I'd like to help keep others from making the same ones I did.

Carl, I just reviewed what I wrote about that silver car in the other thread. And maybe I didn't express myself well. But what I meant to say was that I don't think the silver car is worth $15k either. But I don't think that will stop other people from bidding it up. It really wouldn't surprise me if it got close to $15, even with it's shortcomings. And it won't surprise me too much if this gold car meets reserve either, which is probably around $14k, judging from this ad.

I documented all of the differences I found in the tech article linked below. The differences are towards the bottom of the thread.http://classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21274

You know, Carl, I'm not afraid to say that my concepts of 240Z value have been scrambled recently, due in large part to the rash of value and collector type discussions going on here lately. And I'll also admit to being a bit naive about 240Z values outside the Pacific NW. So my pronouncements on that particular silver car may have been not so good. Your advice was better.But in the case of this gold car - it's very similar to what my yellow car was when it was original so I'm familiar with what it should be. It's being offered for sale 110 miles North of me, so I'm familiar with the local market. And I know what a low miles, original car is really like (thanks to my red car) and what it will still need to make it really ready to drive. Add this all up, and I'm comfortable on this one - I personally would not pay $10k for it. Obviously, someone else is willing. I hope they are happy with it if they win...

Not quite correct. I have identified several differences in the body shell that are present, depending on the build date. Automatic bodies typically do not have the clutch pedal stop welded to the floorboard. Many do not have the metal mount on the right side frame rail where the metal clutch fluid line connects to the hose. (Although I have seen one automatic built around this time time that did have this mount.) Automatic shells do have an extra mount welded in behind the dash for what we generally call the kick-down switch. And finally the automatic shells have four or six holes with captive nuts in the transmission tunnel for the shift selector assembly to bolt to.Also remember that both the dash and engine compartment wiring harnesses are different for automatics, as is the distributor. So converting to a manual in such a manner that no one could ever tell is far more difficult than it sounds. This though, is very true, at least in all the cars I have seen here in Oregon. The un-restored automatics seem to all have led a much easier life.

Update - A quick glance at the parts CD shows that none of the hard parts are the same between '70-72 and the '73 cars. That is true for both front and rear.

Been there, done that.I'd recommend against converting to a manual in that particular car. Not because it's difficult, because it's not. I did it on my yellow car, which is the same month production and only ~300 cars difference. With a bit of time and effort, the conversion can be done very well. But the only thing which can possibly make that car worth that price (even the $10k opening) is the fact that it is still original, or very close. While a four or five speed would make it a better driver (in the opinion of many, but not all), it definitely would not improve the value, and if not done absolutely meticulously, might actually reduce the value of the car. As has been pointed out recently to me (and I totally agree), the value driver on the cars built prior to 1/71 is numbers matching originality. Converting to a manual transmission is going to pollute the originality of the car. In the case of the car I converted, originality was no longer a factor, as the matching numbers engine was gone before I bought the car. So converting a car that can never be totally original again is not a big issue. Here again, we need to identify your goal. Are you looking for a car to restore and show? Or one to drive? If you want to restore a show car, this should be a good start. For a car that is restored to show, the automatic is not a liability, in fact it could be a good thing as it might set the car apart from the more common four speed examples. But if you are looking for a car to make a nice driver or weekend cruiser out of, it's the wrong car, unless you can live with the automatic. Otherwise I'd recommend starting with a car that is either already a four speed car, or a much less expensive automatic car that isn't so original. If you are looking to have a 240Z that is pretty much original and is a manual transmission, I'd wait for a similar car to this one, but not an automatic.

Well, I've got a red one, and a pale yellow one. Both are nice colors. Red can be striking when done well. Many modern yellows can be pretty vibrant as well, but I typically prefer the original pale yellow of the '70 & '71 cars (#919). As for blue, blue cars can be beautiful, but in my opinion a non-stock color doesn't look quite right on a vintage car that is otherwise stock appearing. Got a body kit? Then dark blue looks great. Got stock chrome bumpers and emblems? The car may still be attractive in that case, but to me an obviously modern color on an older car can sometimes detract from the overall impact of the car. Kind of sends a mixed message. Some colors are worse that way than others. Still, some modern colors look really good on a 240Z - take the metallic burgundy of the car in nwcubsman's avatar. I've seen that car in person, and it looks really good. See it here. In your position, of the three, I'd go with the yellow, simply because it is a less common color, yet so typical of the early 240Z. Of course, these are just my personal opinions. It's your car.

That car has been for sale locally in Portland for quite some time. My guess is that when inspected in person, people feel it is over-priced. And I may agree - for the BIN of $15000 it had better be REALLY good. But then, I haven't seen it in person. All that said, the pictures show it as a Series 1 car that appears to be in very similar condition to my Series 2. A car that needs perhaps a mild refresh to be really great, but would make a very nice driver as is. The automatic is a bit of a minus to many of us, but not to others. Seems nice - but $15k?? That might still be a stretch.

I think Carl nailed it. My '71 is in excellent condition. If it's been sitting more than 4-5 hours, it takes 5-10 seconds for it to fire. Seems to be totally normal to me.

The '73 bumper bar is a different part - thicker, heavier and reinforced. The bumper guards are not the same either, I think because the bumper is physically bigger. I'm pretty certain that you'll need to use the '70-72 bumper to accomplish this change.

No, I hate RTV. I use Permatex Form-a-Gasket on both sides of the gasket, then install.

Well put, Carl. A very good analysis of what we seem to be hearing. And I'll go on record right here to say that I personally am firmly in the "enthusiast" camp. I don't really resent the "collector" crowd, because it is their passion that is driving the market, and their needs that will ensure that the parts I need to maintain and drive my car are still available. I will say that I don't really understand the "collector" group entirely - I can't imagine owning a fine, restored sports car and not wanting to take it for a weekend cruise.So yeah, I'm still an enthusiast, even though I will go far out of my way to keep my red 240Z either stock, or at least within easy reach of stock. I just like my car that way, and enjoy driving it pretty much as it was built.

Very clean! Not sure that I personally care for the taillights, but that's just me. Nice work!

I can see both sides of this argument - assuming the cars do in fact check out to be un-rusted. The first car - I personally wouldn't pay $15k for it, but that's because I know (first hand) that even better cars are available for less. But if the body and paint was done right, the simple fact that it's not stock in numerous ways should not (and probably won't) keep the value down all that far. There are still a great many people who really aren't concerned about total or absolute originality, and will pay a good amount for a clean, good running 240Z that is basically ready to drive. These people are the people who would buy my yellow car, if it were done. I understand them, because that's really what my original intent was when I bought my first 240Z. Clean, stock looking at a casual glance, and a great driver. That's all I was really after. On the other hand, cars like the second one are ideal for someone who is interested in true 'restoration'. Shoot, other than being a Series 2, my red car is probably a good candidate for that as well, save for the sunroof. All original, 60k miles, all it really needs is a high-quality refresh, not the full-bore job. And eventually I'll do just that. But for now, it's a really great $7500 driver. And there's the point for both cars. I've seen enough by now to figure that the $7-8k price range seems to be the sweet spot right now. I don't think I personally would be willing to pay much more than that for the first one, and less than that for the second. There are still good cars at fair prices out there, but for the most part, you aren't going to find them on eBay...

Yes. I've always done it that way, and Redline states their products are fully compatible with fossil-oil. No flush is needed.One thing to bear in mind, though. There are numerous tales of older cars developing leaks after switching to synthetic gear oils - normally at the output seal, or sometimes the shift selector seals. This is apparently because the synthetic cleans built up sludge out, and the old, worn seals can no longer keep the oil in. If you haven't replaced the output seal recently, you may want to consider doing that at the same time. Possibly the speedo-drive o-rings also.

True. They also contain perfumes, fillers, dyes and such that either have no use for this application, or that might be detrimental. Why try to press something into use far outside its designer's intentions when properly designed solutions already exist? Makes no sense!Let's see, the vinyl and rubber dressing I use from Griot's Garage works fine on my tires and bumper rubber, so maybe I should use it as a hand lotion??

That's why I'd use Sil-Glide. Won't wash off, won't melt, won't hurt rubber. Why mess around with trying to adapt some household product when specialized automotive products already exist? Skin lotions??

Hard to find here in the States.

If this happens when the revs are high, it is a symptom of something else that isn't quite right - too much drag in the aforementioned needle bearings. If the problem goes away (or is noticeably less) when the idle speed is around 800 RPM, and you don't notice any odd noises as described above, then I'd recommend a gear lube change. Ideally to a synthetic with lots of detergent qualities. I generally use Redline MT-90 in mine.

Gary, that generally indicates that the clutch is not fully engaging with the pedal down. Since it was evident when the car was fully warmed up, I'd check for air in the clutch hydraulics. The other (more serious) possibility is that the needle bearings between the transmission input shaft and the mainshaft are dragging when they get warm. The would require you to tear down the transmission and replace the bearings. I should think that this problem might make a bit of noise in any gear other than 4th gear - the noise would be worst in first and reverse and get progressively quieter in each gear up from there to 4th. If you have a five speed, fifth would sound similar to third.

Consider using SIL-Glide, a high-temp silicone based paste lube, often used for brake sliders. It is specifically designed NOT to deteriorate rubber.

Nate, I assume (from your only other post here) that you may be installing this alternator into a '73 240Z w/L28 ET. If so, my experience has been that the later 280ZX alternators have extra terminals that aren't used when putting them in the early 240Zs. The alternator I have in my yellow '71 is a little different looking than yours, but still has an un-used terminal pair on the back. I have the ones you list connected, and ignored the extras. Works fine, with the external regulator jumpered out of the circuit, and the diode (needed for early 240Zs, not certain about the '73) added.

Self-adhesive foam weatherstripping, as designed for house doors and windows. Works well, easy to find, affordable, easy to work with.

While I understand the sentiment, Tomo, I don't agree with you. Not for the stock class. Cars in the stock class are supposed to be stock. Many of them are not driven at all, other than off the trailer. If you are required to have certain equipment added to your car by law because of a disablity of some sort, to me that makes the car a daily driver anyway, and no longer stock. Shoot, for my red '71 I've got steel wheels, D caps, AM radio, cloth-covered hoses, dated plug wires, Koito headlights, metal fan, all of it. But it'd never fly in stock class due to the sunroof which the previous owners swear was installed by the dealer before it was sold. Oh well. Worse, I'm driving it. It turned over 60,000 miles a few weeks ago. I put 240 miles on it just last weekend. It gets driven in the rain now and then. Heavens!! I'm wearing it out!! Which - in my opinion - is exactly as it should be.