Arne

I'd say yes, but that's just my opinion. Then again, I never particularly cared for that style wheel back in the late '70s and '80s when I was selling them new, either. Wheels should be purchased by what makes you happy, not how many people do or don't have them. If you love 'em, get 'em. But if it's going to bother you every time you go to a show and see the same style on someone else's car, you may want to look into other options.

Played "musical ignition parts" today - see page 4 of this thread for details.

Test #4 Changes from Baseline: All changes from Test #3 Re-installed Pertronix Ignitor. Timing set to 5° BTDC as before. Pertronix dwell angle checked at 35°, non-adjustable. Results and notes: Car runs cleanly throughout rev range again. No change from the results of Tests #2 & 3. Note that the only difference between this latest test and the test run w/Pertronix immediately after the arrival of the Crane coil (where the car ran bad enough that I actually pulled over and bypassed the resistor just to get home) is that the condenser at the coil is disconnected. I hear no radio interference, the motor runs great, and all seems good. Now we'll have to see if it holds up this time. But I'm optimistic about this for the first time in a long while.

Test #3 Changes from Baseline: All changes from Test #2 Replaced original resistor with the new one that shipped with the Crane PS20 coil Results and notes: Car runs cleanly throughout rev range again. No change from the results of Test #2.

Test #2 Changes from Baseline: Crane PS20 (1.4Ω) from Test #1 Installed fresh points and condenser at dizzy Dwell angle 40° Disconnected condenser at coil Results and notes: Car runs fine throughout the rev range again. Car would not even start with the coil condenser connected to negative terminal, but started immediately when I disconnected it. I wonder if the correct connection to suppress interference may be to the positive terminal of the coil. Connecting it to the negative terminal may have been a stopgap to compensate for a bad condenser at the dizzy? Hmmm. I wonder if that condenser at the coil may have been the root cause of all my issues. I'm not going to jump the gun, will continue to step through this sytematically.

Test #1 Changes from Baseline: Replaced original coil with Crane PS20 (1.4Ω) Results and notes: With no changes other than the (presumably higher output) coil, the car runs as before until over 5000 RPM, where the spark appears to begin to break up and miss. Car will not run well at all if the condenser at the coil is disconnected. Hard to start, very bad idle, won't rev. Since I believe this condenser was intended only for radio noise suppression, this seems wrong to me.

Time for systematic testing. Baseline config: Points (~12k miles) Condenser at dizzy (unknown age) Cap and rotor (~12k miles) Wires (~1k miles) NGK BP6ES-8 plugs, ~3k miles, great shape, 0.8mm gap (.032") Original coil Original resistor connected Original condensor at coil connected to negative terminal on coil Timing 5° BTDC (factory spec) Dwell angle 38° (factory spec 36-41°) Results and notes: In this config, the car runs fine throughout the rev range.

1.) I don't think trying yet a third type of EI is worth pursuing at this point. Both the Pertronix and ZX ignitions are well-known quantities and work fine on many (most?) 240Zs. Trying something else without discovering the root issue seems like a waste of time and money to me. 2.) My '71 FSM shows a single condenser connected to the points as well. But I can find no documentation on the OTHER condenser mounted with the coil. Since the car does not even want to run at all without the one at the coil, and both condensers appear to be original to the car (and therefore ~40 years old), I think it'd be prudent to replace them. If I could only find the one by the coil listed somewhere.... I still have to assume that I'm missing something here, something quite basic. So I'm going to leave the Crane coil in place for now and replace all the rest of the points ignition parts. I need to start fresh.

I've always heard it was the battery, alternator and starter all on the right side that required the longer RF spring, not the weight of the driver. The passengers sit far enough towards the rear wheels that I suspect their weight has more effect on the rear corners than the front.

Again, I agree. But in that case, shut it off. Don't leave it up with badly outdated data. That just makes your company look incompetent. Better to have nothing, than to have something that reflects poorly on the company.

Sounds like the clutch to me.

The Crane PS20 does not.Did your reading confirm whether the negative or positive side?

My car has the same three, but the one at the coil has always been on the negative side to the best of my knowledge. It has the exact same label as yours, Dan. As I said, it doesn't like to run w/o it.

I just pressed mine on, too. No glue on those. How close are you getting, Tom? I keep waiting for you to drive it up here to Eugene so I can see it! Speaking of, and totally off-topic - is there a big Z show coming up in Medford soon?

I find no mention of it in the FSM, but it does appear to be in the parts drawing, but has no separate number listed.I tried disconnecting it, but the car was obviously not at all happy without it, missing and coughing badly even at idle.

Yes, the US 240Z does have combined lights, which added all sorts of complexity to the circuits. I actually changed mine. The top lights are now brake only, while the lower are combined.

Don't get me wrong, I agree as well. Makes far more sense for them to sell retail only over the phone. Thing is, I've dealt with them as well, and was told the exact same thing, "we're in the process of updating." And that was in 2005....

Well, apparently the condenser/capacitor/whatever that connects to the negative terminal of the coil is a required part. The car will barely run w/o it. And since it is original, I'd like to replace it. It does not show separately in the factory parts book, appears to come only as part of the "Ignition coil assy." Any ideas on where to source the correct part?

It's the first picture I'm looking at. The non-backlit panel is fully textured. The one in the picture looks to be glossy around the sliders and the fan switch. Whether it's a '73 backlit or not, it is NOT the same as any of the early cars I've had.

Definitely a Series 1, then. But with the wrong hazard switch, back-lit heater panel and finned center vent, I'm willing to bet that's not the original dash either. Probably came from the same '73 240Z as the console did.

I'm working on building a rear muffler with a similar look, that could be built with off-the-shelf parts. Will post details if it turns out as good as I hope.

Hmmm. That's a thought. I normally have not been hooking up the condenser on the dizzy when I try the Pertronix in it, but I have been connecting the condenser on the coil, in all cases. I seldom use the radio, perhaps I should try the Crane coil without?

Heater panel looks in the pictures as if it might be backlit, which would indicate a '73. I wonder if the entire dash and console from a '73 got transplanted?

I don't think it's just being cheap. Seems to also be a style-over-function thing. Plenty of expensive cars recently (think BMW, Audi and Benz) have been going all red, and not just here in the US. Amber rear lights seem to be hard to blend in stylistically, so for a while it was clear lenses with amber bulbs, and now red lenses, or even more odd, clear lenses with red LEDs. As confirmation of the style thing, I have heard that some years of VW Passats with red LED read signals can actually have the control module re-coded to make them flash amber with no other changes. So the red was an intentional decision on VW's part. No idea why.

A lame excuse. Any high school kid could update that site in a couple of hours. It doesn't take 8 years if they were at all paying attention.