Leaderboard

This past spring the heater core in my 77 was leaking, so I bought a NOS aftermarket heater core off ebay as a replacement. I pressure tested it on the bench before installation and everything looked fine, so I put it in. Unfortunately, joy was short lived and by the end of the summer, the new one that I just put in was leaking. Again. Direct drop in cores are getting hard to find, and are expensive, so I started messing around with alternatives. I've been reluctant to mention it because the project isn't done and until the T's are dotted and the I's are crossed, there's the chance that something will come up that kills the whole idea. However, I'm going to jump the gun a little and mention it here just in case other 260/280 owners are getting ready to drop cash on a new heater core. Heater core for a 91-02 Ford Escort SOHC (not the ZX2). The heater core is aluminum, and the one I got was Spectra Premium P/N 94741. So with the caveat that there is still the chance that I'll run into an insurmountable detail and this may not really work for some reason, here's a teaser of something I've been working on. The box is done and has been sitting on the bench for a couple of weeks. I'm going to pull my dash this off season to finish the work, but here is where I am right now. And I have no idea if this idea would even work for the 240's, but this is what I've got. Aluminum heater core for a Escort with a layer of foam around the outside for a snug fit: Build a little shelf for the Escort core to sit on. Since the Escort core is a little thinner, it allowed me to move the core up a little so it doesn't interfere with the floor duct control linkages at the bottom of the heater box (like the stock one does). Aluminum angle material screwed into place as a lower support shelf: Escort core in place before putting on the access panel cover. Can't see it in the pic, but it's resting on the new aluminum shelf on the far side: With access cover in place and tubes poking through new holes I cut in the cover. Tape over the original holes so air doesn't come out where it's not supposed to. There's also another support shelf on the inside of the cover as well and if you look carefully, you can see the heads of the screws that hold the shelf in place: I need to pull the dash to finish the project and figure out how to make the hoses work, but I'm confident I should be able to figure something out. I'll post more pics of that process when I get the dash pulled.

Just wanted to let everyone on the forum know that registration is now open for ZCON 2017 that is planned for Austin, TX next summer. There is a Super Early Bird special going on right now that will get you excellent pricing. This will expire on January 1, 2017 so if you are planning to come to this great event, now's the time to sign up and take advantage of the super pricing. All of the details on the schedule are also included. See zcon.org for registration and schedule information! Mike.

Finished it off today and took it for a drive. What a difference! The shift knob is now within easy reach to engage all gears. It was a PITA so it would be nice if MSA took notice and included a properly shaped rod in their short shift kit (specfically for the 280Z). The pics show the car in neutral with the knob 2.5" rearward and 0.5" left from the initial position, much like the stock shifter location. Even though the following before pics aren't exactly taken in the same angle, the difference is noticeable.

Ok, finally finished this project. Still interested? What do you think is a fair price? I can offer a 6 month guarantee from the time you get your car finished and running.

I'm sure I have one is someone else closer doesn't chime in. Being an avid water craft enthusiast, I love collecting boating accessories.

The gaps in marker delete patches are a little large but not awful. If you hold a piece of copper behind the gaps where they are too large the copper backer will help prevent blowing through but not stick to the welds. Also your feed looks a little fast or your heat looks a little low. You are getting a lot of pretty ridgy looking welds without some of the flow they should have...

Bad Dog make the connector part you are talking about. Not just the frame rail caps. It is the easiest option but does require a pre fab purchase... If you checked out my thread recently, (post 967) Grannyknot gave me some advice on building my own connecting plates between the front frame rails and the floor pain rails.... This might work for you too!

And drinking beer with the chili?

Some news! I started with some more body work and welded the first time on the body! At first I was really intimidated as a welding beginner to weld on thin sheet metal, hearing all those stories about warpage and burning through! Of course they do happen if you’re not careful, but after some practice on scrap metal I got the hang of it! I’m by no means a professional welder, but pretty much all of my welds will be grounded down, so they only have to be strong, not look good! Even though every now an then some pretty once even came along!:) First task was the rusty metal under the hatch sheet metal. Sadly I did not take pictures in between, but this was what i begun with: And what I ended up with, already grounded down! The next task was the battery tray! Even though mine was in quite good shape, minus one rust spot, it had to go anyway since I’m relocating the battery under the passenger seat in my quest to clean up the engine bay and make it oh so pretty!:) Still “in”: And out it goes! So if anyone’s interested, the battery tray’s for sale as is (Europe!)! Maybe I’ll restore it later down the line, really come to like welding, and make some more profit out of it. To still be able to work inside the garage, where it was at most one or two degrees above freezing, I planned to weld in this new piece. But since my zinc spray decided to not work, albeit being completely full and unused had to postponed it. Definitely want something between metals when I put two on top of each other. Either zinc spray, or this red weld through primer. Haven’t had much luck finding some in Germany though yet. Today I beared the cold outside for some hours, shove the body out of the garage and further CSD-stripped the left rear where some body damage was fixed before with filler, and also some unrepaired damages. Got rid of almost all of the fillered areas, so I can see the damaged area, and try my best with hammer and dolly soon! I also stripped all the areas where I needed to weld, being the chrome trim holes, as well as around the side marker holes to delete them! And plug welded them shut! Actually pretty easy with a short rotating motion. To delete the side marker holes I purchased the delete plates from Skillard over Zcardepot, after a friend recommended them. To be utterly honest I’m not impressed by them at all! The gap around is huge(!) for being a CNC cut item and one corner even had quite the indent. The picture beyond doesn’t even do it justice, it looks even worse in reality:/. A lot of bridging the gap will be involved. I hope they already fixed it! And am curious how the delete plates will perform on the front fenders! Anyways, “butt welded” the plate in, again, not pretty but sufficient strong! Have to grind it down to properly weld the last gaps shut, as I wasn’t able to get in between the buildup properly. But that’s a task for the future, I got dark and more importantly utterly cold to keep on working! Once again, let’s see how fast I get the bodywork done!:) One last question though: I will be keeping the original frame rails, since they are in well enough shape still (minus some wrong jack up action, but not structurally critical), but I would like to extend them, maybe even connect them all the way back! What’s the best way without purchasing prefabbed frame rails, and not having a metal brake? Have a happy holiday all you guys!:)

Here's a picture at Summit Point, WV. The #6 240Z on the right is currently mine. It's currently a yellow #0 240Z. Chuck

1952 Datsun produced their first sports car, the DC-3 "Datsun 20" RHD. They made 70, sold only 30, then converted the remaining 40 back to trucks.Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1952. 1959-60 Datsun produced their second sports car, the SP211 "Datsun 1000" RHD. They made only 20. Again Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1959. 1960-61 Datsun produced their third sports car, the SPL212 "Datsun 1200" LHD They made 228. Nissan skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1961 Datsun produced their fourth sports car, the SPL213 "Datsun Fairlady" LHD They made 217. Nissan again skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1962 Datsun produced their fifth sports car, the SPL310/SP310 "Datsun 1500/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. They made 6460. ~4160 (64%) for USA market. 1965 Datsun produced their sixth sports car, the SPL311/SP311 "Datsun 1600/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. An iteration of the SLP-310. They made 27,400. ~26,430 (96%) for USA market . The first successful sports car sales!!! 1965 Detroit officials were called to testify on automobile safety before the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization chaired by Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff. 1966 Changes in USA safety regulations make continued production of convertibles more challenging. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave regulators until January 31, 1967 to develop federal motor vehicle safety standards that were practical, stated in objective terms, and met the need for motor vehicle safety. 1966 August. All Datsun 240Z sketches and clay models from designers up to August 1966 were convertibles. Model "A11" had an optional hard top affixed similar to the one used by designers to retrofit to the SPL310 (Figure 2 below). It is clear the direction of design changed at this point. In Q3/Q4 of 1966, Datsun designers made their first 240z model with a full hard top. It was design model "C3. Oct. 11, 1967 Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the National Traffic Safety Bureau (NTSB) issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on 47 issues, including roof intrusion, seeking public comment. 1967 Datsun produced their seventh sports car, the SRL311/SPR311 "Datsun 2000/Fairlady" LHD/RHD It was again an iteration of the SPL-310. They made 14,990. ~12,880 (86%) for USA market. Figure 1. Datsun Production Sports Cars Preceding the 240z After a testing of the waters for selling sports cars in Japan in 1952 and again in 1959, it was clear that the domestic market was not ready for sports cars. Datsun immediately re-focused on the USA market for selling sports cars. For the next two model years from 1960 to 1962 they produced only LHD models and only for the US market. Although the market and production numbers were small. Nissan management had chosen to go after the USA sports car market early on. Unfavourable post-war trade barriers with many other countries may have also shaped Nissan's export focus on the USA at this very early point. Countries in Europe traditionally manufactured small cars where as in the USA cars were typically large. Having small Japanese cars enter the market in the USA presented nearly zero competition with the large car manufacturers however, in Europe small Japanese imports would have competed directly with all manufactures so protectionist tariffs were maintained against Japan. In 1962, Datsun re-designed/styled the convertible. This new design (SPL-310 Datsun 1500) remained relatively unchanged until all convertible production ended in 1970. In 1965 and 1966, production numbers were up, and sales in the USA were growing exponentially however, changes in the safety requirements for automobile design in the USA were well underway. In 1965, preliminary documents from the USA Govt. the creation of new Govt. automotive safety agencies, and discussions throughout the industry & media pointed to significant safety challenges to come for manufacturers of convertibles. At this time, manufacturers had no details regarding the extent of the new rules to come so it was anyone's guess as to how difficult it would eventually become to produce a convertible that would meet the impending new requirements. The fact that new roll-over tests were required made convertibles seem vulnerable to failing this test. Immediately after the US Govt. began the process to increase safety requirements, Nissan management began to re-risk and focus on developing a new enclosed coupe. Up to that point, all Datsun sports cars were convertibles*. To continue expanding into the USA market without risk, it was clear that a convertible was not the way. A coupe would guarantee a path through the impending stricter safety requirements. In fact, Datsun did not significantly change the design of their 1500 sports car beyond that point in time apart from some engine changes and safety compliance changes. It was clear they were done with it apart from churning out more as it was most profitable to continue an existing product. Almost immediately after the new regulations warning, contingency stop-gap tests occurred (in case the safety requirements changes came earlier). One such test in August of 1966 was the fitting of a large hard-top roof to their popular SPL-310 convertible. Figure 2. Datsun SP-310 Testing Optional Hard Top August 1966 Figure 3. Datsun 240z Convertible Prototype Model "A11" with Optional Hard Top ~July, 1966 It should be noted that during the design and development of the 240z, the designers and engineers at Nissan had to keep abreast of the evolving USA safety standards. As mentioned by Mr. Takeshi Kume Tamura, the Chief designer of the 240z during its final stages prior to going to a prototype: "During this time, design changes occurred such as significant changes to size of the complete body, modifications to the fenders, due to the change of the wheel, and changes to the design to match American safety standards". By the end of the 60's Datsun had produced ~ 50,000 convertible sports cars . The expected stringent safety restrictions did not materialize however Datsun had moved away from the convertible and completely stopped convertible production in 1970. Of all Datsun Sports Cars produced prior to the 240Z, approximately 44,000 (88%) were LHD sold in the USA market. Whereas sales in the USA market grew substantially for Nissan throughout the 60's, domestic sales did not significantly change. Nissan management would have observed this pattern as it evolved through out all of the 60's. From the graph below, it is clear to see that domestic sales of Datsun sports cars (convertible and S30) did not show significant growth for the convertibles or even later with the S30. On the other hand, the convertible grew in the USA market and the 240z design exploded in the USA market. Prior to the 240z, the convertible sport cars growth was only in the USA. 1969-1970 production crossover from the convertible to 240z is easy to see. One product ramped up and one ramped down, This was partly due to sharing of some production facilities. Production for both convertibles and the 240z confirm Nissan's management made a wise decision to go after the USA sports car market. Low sales in the domestic market did not warrant the need for so many iterations of the S30 platform however the iterations were done and they seem to be more for the requirements of automobile racing that Nissan was involved in since Mr. K's stimulus in the 1950's. Rally racing, the avid road racing scene in Japan, and the success of road racing roadsters in the USA during the 1960's were the prime drivers for small quantities of variants to the standard model sold in Japan. The basic models sold in Japan and the USA came with L engines (2.0 litre for the domestic market and 2.4 litre for the USA). Nissan's determination for the 240z to succeed in the USA market is exemplified by the additional pre-release road testing they did in North America above and beyond the their standard product development and certification testing done in Japan. Nissan's sports car sales success to this day is traceable to the fact they had chosen to go after the USA sports car market at an early stage rather than most other manufacturers in Europe who focused on local markets first. This ultimately shaped Nissan's continued success where as many others failed to make a sports car for the USA market like the 240z. Nissan successfully designed for, and successfully sold in the largest sports car market place in the world... the USA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Service Administration (GSA) Published the following 17 new standards on June 30,1965. More were to come. Anchorage for seat belt assemblies. Padded dash and visors. Recessed dash instruments and control devices. Impact-absorbing steering wheel and column displacement. Safety door latches and hinges. Anchorage of seats. Four-way flasher. Safety glass. Dual operation of braking system. Standard bumper heights. Standard gear quadrant, P-R-N-D-L, automatic transmission. Sweep design of windshield wipers-washers. Glare reduction surfaces. Exhaust emission control system. Tire and safety rim. Backup lights. Outside rear view mirror. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES: 31 (March 8, 1966): 4091, GSA proposes safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (July 15, 1966): 9631, GSA final rule, safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (December 3, 1966): 15212, NPRM for the initial FMVSS. 32 (February 3, 1967): 2414, final rule for the initial FMVSS, including FMVSS Nos. 103, 105, 108, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 301. [Notable technologies are seat belts; energy absorbing steering assemblies; door locks, latches, and hinges; occupant protection in interior impact; dual cylinders / Front disc brakes; and trailer conspicuity tape.] 32 (October 13, 1967): 14278, ANPRM to consider regulations to limit roof crush and intrusion. 32 (December 16, 1967): 18033, final rule extending FMVSS No. 108 to cars and LTVs. 32 (December 28, 1967): 20865, NPRM to establish FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (February 14, 1968): 2945, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (August 16, 1968): 11652, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 212 for passenger cars. [Adhesive windshield bonding] 33 (October 5, 1968): 14971, ANPRM announcing the intention to regulate side door strength. 33 (December 11, 1968): 18386, first NPRM proposing FMVSS No. 214. 34 (January 24, 1969): 1150, final rule extending FMVSS No. 206 to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles. 34 (July 2, 1969): 11148, initial ANPRM to consider air bags or other automatic protection. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Below the next few photos are Roof Crush Testing and Policy Development in the USA that Nissan would have been aware of with their Eastern USA Vice President's Mr. Soichi Kowazoe's Liasons with DC (It is interesting how this timeline fits with 240z prototyping and affected roof height changes during the 240z development process): Measuring Roof Height as per FMVSS 208 & 216 (Passenger Restraining in Crash/Roll Over and Roof Crush) FMVSS 208 Roll Over Testing 240z with DOHC Engine. (Note Split Exhaust) FYI: Prototype "CA-4" 240z with Split Exhaust In 1962 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was formed in order to develop test procedures for evaluating vehicle structural integrity under various types of impacts. (Deadly By Design reference 14) The subcommittee's members included representatives from General Motors (and Fisher Body - a division of General Motors), Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, Kaiser Jeep Corporation, International Harvester Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc. and American Motors Corporation. (DBD - 15) In June 1963 the subcommittee developed and approved the SAE Recommended Practice, "Roll-Over Tests Without Collision - SAE J857." (DBD - 16) On October 6, 1966 the Secretary of Commerce announced the development of initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. (DBD - 34) The Static Crusher was then being developed at Fisher Body by James Augustitis, an associate senior research engineer. (DBD - 35) Fisher Body was responsible for building the vehicle bodies for General Motors. In August of 1967 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee developed and approved SAE Recommended Practice, "Inverted Vehicle Drop Test Procedures - SAE J996." (DBD - 36) By mid August the subcommittee's work on test procedures was nearing completion. Members used the top drop test procedures as a means for obtaining values for drop height and encroachment distance. The procedure was designed to be a repeatable and reliable test methodology. It was concluded that initially vehicles should be dropped from 2 feet. (DBD - 37) Only a week or so after the subcommittee's Inverted Drop Test - SAEJ996 was approved, and the recommended drop height of 2 feet was initially established, Fisher Body dropped two 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtops from 6 inches which resulted in 8 inches of dynamic intrusion.(DBD - 38) Fisher Body tested the same 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtop with the static crusher and the vehicle's roof withstood 6000 pounds withjust 3 inches of crush. (DBD - 39) Immediately after General Motors' vehicles failed the two drop tests on September 6 and 7, Ed Klove of Fisher Body prepared a proposal of a Roof Crush Test Procedure. (DBD - 40) P.O. Johnson of Fisher Body (and also a subcommittee member) presented Klove's proposal to the SAE Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee on September 29, 1967. Klove's proposal stated its advantages: "more impressive numbers are obtained - three inches crush for 6000 lb. load. (A six inch vehicle drop height allowing eight inches crush is not impressive)." (DBD - 41) Fisher Body now realized that all their vehicles would not even meet a drop height of 6 inches. (DBD - 42) Klove's proposal dared to pose the question, "Who can say that it does not provide as good a measure of vehicle safety as does an inverted drop test?" (DBD - 43) It was Klove's idea to suggest this test procedure as an alternative method of showing compliance.(DBD - 44) Fisher Body's nickname for the Static Crusher was "GOLDFINGER." (DBD - 45) On December 8, 1971, NHTSA adopted General Motors' proposal (one that GM's vehicles could already pass) (DBD - 47) and announced that FMVSS 216 was being created as a temporary alternative to FMVSS 208 rollover testing. (DBD - 60) The December 11, 1971 NHTSA News Release read: "The new standard is intended as an alternative to Standard No. 208 rollover test, and will become effective on August 15, 1973. End of the line for Goertz at Nissan: Oct 1964 Tokyo Motor Show (CSP-311 Silva Coupe) Note earliest 240z sketches were ~ 1 year later. * apart from the CSP-311 Silva coupe that was more of an experiment. It was difficult to produce (only 554) and sold poorly like the DC-3. It was a good learning experience for Nissan as to how not to design a coupe.

For those following the thread and wanting to know the procedure to use to make the joining sections between front frame rails and floor pan rail, this is the info from Chris (grannyknot). Get yourself one of those big family sized boxes of breakfast cereal, the box is what you want, the card board is perfect for templates, the first template you want to make all your mistakes on so fold it, cut it, tape it back together until you have the basic shape of the piece that will join the T/C box to the rail, transfer that on to a fresh piece of cardboard and make all the final adjustment it until it fits perfectly(you may or may not be able to use that template for the other side but just focus on one side at a time) Lay that template out on the sheet metal that you will make the final piece from, those rails were made out of 18ga I believe by Nissan so take the opportunity to go a little thicker, I use 12-13ga, cut the piece out with a thin cut off wheel attached to your right angle grinder then transfer the lines for the folds onto the metal piece. Now if you don't have a sheetmetal break for bending you can get excellent results by using that same thin cutoff blade and carefully run the angle grinder up those foldlines, not too deep, about 1mm, that will ensure that the metal folds perfectly on those lines and give you a clean bend. After you have fitted the piece so that it fits perfectly and just before welding it in place you are going to run a stitch weld up those folds on the inside, that will give you the strongest dam corner you could want and you should be able to use that area as a jacking point in the future. Thanks Chris!!

Yes I want max value same as you would. Do I know about the car, yes, have I kept it up in condition yes and do I appreciate the Z name yes. But when life bites you (kids college) you have to make choices.

Wise for who? Why get involved? Edit - of course, I'm involved now too. But now we have another "tainted" Z. Best to just let these things play out. The guy that's selling will be gone. The guy that's buying will still be here. Kind of screws things up for everybody involved.