What's wrong with the 280's?

[Carl Beck]

Taking a quick look though an extensive collection of Engine Data Tags (hundreds of them in the collection from Mr. Lowell Wade)

The L24 was rated at 151/150

The L26 was rated at 162 HP

The L28E in the 280Z Federal Models was rated at 170HP

The L28E in the 280ZX was rated at 132HP

The L28ET in the 280ZX Turbo was rated at 180HP (as I recall - I don't have an engine data plate for the 280ZX Turbo's that shows the factory rated HP)

If you have an engine data plate for an L28 in a 280Z - that shows something other than 170HP, it most likely is from the "California" model. In which case you should have a "CAT HOT" warning light in the center console. If you have a picture of that data plate, I'd like to see it.

The bottom line is - that until the 82 280ZX Turbo with the 5spd. came out - none of the North American 260Z's, 280Z's nor 280ZX's were as fast in the 1/4 mile, nor would any of them beat the 240-Z on a road course.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[sblake01]

My car is a California car and the tag says 170HP. The warning light says 'FLOOR TEMP' and it's located to the left above the center vent.

[Carl Beck]

What's wrong with the 280Z?

If you use the baseline of the 240-Z as your personal benchmark of how to get things RIGHT.. then want is WRONG with the 280Z would be:

1. design & styling changes, not to refine or improve the base car - but design changes mandated by government bureaucrats, to pacify tree huggers and safety nuts, neither of which had a clue as to what they were talking about when making their demands for change.

a) over size and worthless bumpers

a heavier subframe to carry "a)" which added more weight

c) stop gap emission control solutions - forced on the manufacturers before quality R & D could be done, and good engineering implemented. This was simply a mess for the consumer.

2. design changes, not to refine or improve the base car - but design changes sought by the customers, that wanted more luxury, a quite car with better heat and sound insulation for better A/C. All of which took some of the original "light" personality away...

If you happen to be one of the customers mentioned in #2 above - then NOTHING is wrong other than the junk the Government mandated.

3. future resale value, the 280-Z's will always be considered second choice by the collectors and will not hold the higher values of the 240-Z's over time.

4. Complexity of repair and maintenance over the long haul. As time passes it will be ever more difficult to deal with the computer and sensor problems, the corrosion on critical electrical connections, and find new Fuel Injectors...

I'm sure there are others I've overlooked. As everyone has said, there is really nothing wrong with the 280Z's... really, as long as you don't hold them up against a like condition 240-Z. The 280Z is really a very nice car... But it's kind of like being Nicole Kidman's sister....and never quite being Nicole .. but there really isn't anything wrong with Nicole's sister....

FWIW,

Carl B.

[Carl Beck]

My car is a California car and the tag says 170HP. The warning light says 'FLOOR TEMP' and it's located to the left above the center vent.

Hi Stephen:

Thanks - now we need someone to check a 76 and 77... see if there is any difference there.

Does your data tag list the original engine serial number or just say L28?

FWIW,

Carl B.

[rdefabri]

Carl,

Agree with you on most points, but I always like the FI of the 280Z, FWIW. Maybe it's an assumption that it's "maintenance free" (it's not), but SUs always scared me (go figure, with a 240 and an XKE, I now have 5 to deal with)...

I also liked the subtle interior improvements, but hated the "heightened" rear deck in the 1977/1978 models.

Given the weight difference, it's no wonder a 240Z takes anything short of a 280ZX Turbo. The 280 engine definitely had the oomph, just lugging more fat killed it.

BTW - the 280ZX Turbo is 180HP - I didn't own one, but recall the Car and Driver Road Test (I have it somewhere) that documented it.

[sblake01]

1 and 2 sound like some fact and a lot of opinion. 3 is for the most part true. 4, well, they're really not all that complex though most people, especially on this site seem to think so. Even those who own them. That's the opinion I get from reading the posts on EFI problems on this site. I have given aswers to problems people have posted here on EFI problems only to watch the thread turn into some perverse form of rocket science only to end up being solved by what I suggested in the first place. 'Aging man with aging car' comes to mind. And he never did what I suggested. I even sent him the part...free! These cars aren't that complicated. Not to me. I have compiled enough EFI parts to keep both my 78 280Z and my 79 810 running for as long as it would matter to me.

Also, FWIW & JMO

[sblake01]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks - now we need someone to check a 76 and 77... see if there is any difference there.

Does your data tag list the original engine serial number or just say L28?

FWIW,

Carl B.

It just says L28.

[gnosez]

Being old enough to have owned and driven dozens of 2 seater sports cars from England, Italy, France, Japan, and Germany (Fiat, MG, Spitfire, TRs, BMW, Porsche, Jags,1600, Healeys, etc.) I would say that the 240 is much closer to the experience one would get from one of the cars mentioned above.

It was not considered a "true" sports car back when they were new, but they were reliable and could be driven at night and in the rain (even both). Plus they were cheap comparatively speaking and mods were plentiful (triples carbs, diffs, shocks, FG fenders, spoilers, etc.).

That said for a long trip a 280 is much more comfortable to be in all day but for those who like the fell of the car to be transmitted up ones' backside and through one's fingers, a 240 is to me the way to go.

[Hrududu]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks - now we need someone to check a 76 and 77... see if there is any difference there.

Does your data tag list the original engine serial number or just say L28?

FWIW,

Carl B.

My 77 also has the plate that states 170hp.

[280z1975]

What's wrong with the 280Z?

If you use the baseline of the 240-Z as your personal benchmark of how to get things RIGHT.. then want is WRONG with the 280Z would be:

1. design & styling changes, not to refine or improve the base car - but design changes mandated by government bureaucrats, to pacify tree huggers and safety nuts, neither of which had a clue as to what they were talking about when making their demands for change.

a) over size and worthless bumpers

a heavier subframe to carry "a)" which added more weight

c) stop gap emission control solutions - forced on the manufacturers before quality R & D could be done, and good engineering implemented. This was simply a mess for the consumer.

I agree on the safety changes, but the oversized bumpers being worthless. I have to disagree. When I had a neighbor of mine back up into my car because "I didn't realize your hood was that long" it saved me from having to deal with getting my car repaired. Those '5mph' bumpers are really '5mph' bumpers :lick:

That being said ... now that i have the car in the garage I will be replacing them with 240z fiberglass bumpers in the future (eliminating about 100 lbs from the car).

The heavy subframe has some advantages (mainly to the V8 upgrade guys over at HybridZ) and the emission control solutions I agree are not good, but then again mine has none on the car so I don't have to worry about that.

3. future resale value, the 280-Z's will always be considered second choice by the collectors and will not hold the higher values of the 240-Z's over time.

This is true, but this can be said of ANY car series. The first ones will always be the most sought after. For some the "collector" value is important, but for others, it's the car, their car that is important.

4. Complexity of repair and maintenance over the long haul. As time passes it will be ever more difficult to deal with the computer and sensor problems, the corrosion on critical electrical connections, and find new Fuel Injectors...

The electrical system is a problem for both the 240's and the 280's ... the 280's just have more electrical lines and more room for problems. I don't think the fuel injectors will be that much of an issue in time, but if they do I one can always switch to a carb system.

I'm sure there are others I've overlooked. As everyone has said, there is really nothing wrong with the 280Z's... really, as long as you don't hold them up against a like condition 240-Z. The 280Z is really a very nice car... But it's kind of like being Nicole Kidman's sister....and never quite being Nicole .. but there really isn't anything wrong with Nicole's sister....

FWIW,

Carl B.

I think we forgot to mention the red-headed step sister of Nicole, the 260'z. It had more power, less weight and was the arguably the best of both worlds (larger carb engine, less weight and no emissions equipment, with the small bumpers).

[Carl Beck]

It's really not accurate to lump all the 240Z together because there was a number of changes just ot the 240Z that affected overall engine output.

That is correct - there was a 1 HP difference in the ratings.

Don't for get that the 1970 came with the E31 head and 9.13:1 compression through 8/71 and that is where the 151hp number comes from. The E88 head was introduced in 9/71 which lowered the compression to 8.76:1. At some point Datsun also added the smog pump and other emission related devices which of course affected overall engine output as a result.

If by "smog pump" you mean the Air Pump for the fresh air injection system - that was standard equipment on all US Spec. 240Z's right from the begining.

While the E31 had a slightly higher compression ratio - the E88 had improved breathing due to redesigned intake and exhaust runners. So the net effect was an all but equal offset in stock configurations.

The power robbing additions continued in 1972 and 1973 with the final insult being that of the hideous flat top hitachi carbs on the 1973 240Z.

If there were any power robbing additions - it would have been the increased curb weight for 72 and again for 73. As both engines were still rated at 150HP. The flat tops only robbed power when the fuel system vapor locked, or the heat sink caused the float bowls to boil. In effect the flat tops had a bad effect on over-all drive-ability, but no effect on the rated HP.

So, saying that all 240Z's have 151hp simply isn't accurate, even if you swap out the flat tops on the 73, you still have the lower compression E88 head, and the small valve version at that.

Saying that all 240-Z's in the U.S have 151 or 150 is accurate to within six tenths of one percent - I don't thing anyone worries too much about 1 HP out of 150...

By the way - the Bob Sharp and BRE teams switched to the E88 when it came out - because it had better flow (at least that is what they told me at the time). It's easy to adjust the compression by milling the head, or decking the block. It's much harder to improve the flow of a head once it's cast with its intake and exhaust runners defined. The E88's also corrected the tendency of the E31's to crack aound the exhaust valves.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[xray]

This is true, but this can be said of ANY car series. The first ones will always be the most sought after.

Sorry if this is nit-pickingor getting off topic...1963-1968 Corvettes, 1968-1972 Mustangs, 1969 Camaros immediately come to mind as examples which far outpace the first iteration in collector value. Why? Their refinements were desired by the public. More power, more power, more power is what the public (and the PR guy) wanted and got. 280Z got a little more power, but only to tote around all that extra baggage. Aesthetic improvements helped, too, for those above-mentioned models but sadly that front bumper on the 280Z was clearly a stop-gap modification that didn't get reasonably well-designed until the 1979 280ZX.

Unfortunately, the path of the sportscar seems always to get heavier and consequently slower as manufacturers try to widen the appeal of their product. (Current exceptions include MKIV Supra, FD RX-7, C6 vette, 911 etc. ) Musclecars never got into that because the domestic manufacturers started with a small(ish) standard coupe and shoehorned a big displacement engine into it.

Steve