Jetaway

By "popping" do you mean just a noise or a noise accompanied by the engine running rough / misfiring? If the former, it could be excess fuel igniting in the exhaust indicating you are running too rich. If the latter, could be running too lean. You mentioned rebalancing the carbs. Forgive me if this is obvious to you, but are you aware that setting up the carbs is a three-step process? Conceptually three steps, in practice, sometimes more. First: Balance airflow at idle. Second: Adjust fuel mixture at idle. Third: Balance airflow at 2000 rpm (or 2500 or 3000 rpm -- depending on your source). After which, if you have been eating your vegetables and being kind to small animals, when you return to idle the airflow will still be balanced. The only other thing I can come up with at the moment is that one of your new or rebuild pieces is defective. No clue as to which one, though. Chris

If it is as described, I don't think $7,000 is that out of line. Put a long day or two giving it a good cleaning, polishing and waxing, take as others have pointed out, more photos, photos with a cleaner backdrop than currently, and you may well get $7,000. Price it at $5,500 and I would be surprised if it wasn't sold within the month. Chris

Fellow Z'ers. Does the clutch release bearing setting need to be adjusted with clutch wear or does it only need to be checked and adjusted when a new clutch is installed? Chris

Don't know what year you have, but... Yes, mark all three shafts at both ends if possible. The two half-shafts (aka drive shafts) and the drive shaft (aka propeller shaft). Chris

PLASTI-DIP! Below is a link to a post of mine a couple of months back about favorite unconventional cosmetic usages. I used it on the panel and it works great. No glare, still as black as the day I painted it. http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?43443-Two-Favorite-Cosmetic-Uses Chris

Greetings, Does the clutch release bearing setting need to be adjusted with clutch wear or does it only need to be checked and adjusted when a new clutch is installed? Chris

A little too late now, I realize, but did you try this before replacing the U-Joints? If not, for all you know this problem, if it is indeed a problem is preexisting and located elsewhere. Are you sure there even really is a problem? Any system of rotating parts will have a harmonic at some point and having one at 50mph under a condition unlikely to be experienced, that is with no half-shafts, is as good as place as any and better than many to have it. Chris

That makes sense. I've been busy with big (mis)adventures on the underside of my Z. Finally got it though. I think. Chris

I went off what my Chilton's manual said by visually matching the type of connection to the half-shaft. Hayes refers to 240Z type and 260Z type transmissions at one point and R180 = 260Z and R200 = 240Z at another point and that manuals received R200s and automatics R180s. The FSM is silent on the R180 vs. R200 question. The illustrations in the 1972 FSM match up with what is installed on my 1972 so I assumed that it is the factory differential. Because it has a flange-type connection which two independent repair manuals identify as R200s, I made the big guess that 1972s had R200s. Could be wrong, of course. More generally, what's the difference between the two other than how it connects to the half-shaft? Chris

Didn't see your question answered: Yes, the master cylinder can be bled on the car. Actually make that the master cylinders. The front and back brake system hydraulics are completely physically separated from one another. The master cylinder needs two bleedings if both the front and rear brake lines have been disconnected for servicing. Chris

A most useful reference for the next time i dare go behind the panel. Loved the following from page 5. "Although replacement of the panel assembly is essentially reverse order of removal, the following procedure suggests certain random operations be performed which are found to be effective." In my experience and more than any for any other location, taking apart and putting back together the console does indeed involve "certain random operations." Best of luck, brave traveller! Chris

Mine is HLS30-49134, October 1971. Registered as a '72, has older style vertical defroster grid and non-retracting belts. Had newer style gas lid w/o latching knob. Chris

I don't know why, but I felt sad when I followed your link, Arne. Shouldn't, I've never met you, or saw the car in person, but nonetheless, I do. Hope you sent a couple pairs of Duofold's for the '71 to wear in Norway. So, have you picked out another project? Taking a break? Moving to aircraft? Chris

Thanks Jon, Your description of a normal differential matches what mine does. It's always a relief to not have to spend time and money.) Zedyone_ I believe automatics used the R180, manuals the R200 in 1972. For the next few years as well, maybe even until the ZX. Chris

Clubbers, While I had my Z up on stands, I gave a push-pull to the half-shafts. The left (driver's) side seemed to have some play. I removed the half-shafts, expecting a worn U-joint but instead discovered that the source of the play was the differential itself. I don't have a micrometer and its unmeasurable with a ruler, but their definitely is some in-out movement, along with an accompanying clunk (faint) when I tug and push on the bracket that attaches to the half-shaft. It's a 1972 with the 4-spd stock differential, a R-200. Is this something to be concerned about? Or normal play in an unloaded condition? The right (passenger side) does not have any play. Chris

I think they are pre-77 cylinders, yes. They look like they were born with my '72 but I am beginning to put nothing past a determined P.O. Yes, they are pre-77s. I'm looking at my downloaded service manual right now. Yes, the drawing has the big end against the piston. When I dismantled them, the springs were as you remembered, and as I reinstalled. Weird, huh? I really don't see how you could hope to keep the spring from wandering around in the bore if it were installed per Service Manual. Chris

I guess I shouldn't rule out general physical decrepitness. I'll have an opportunity to try your tip of putting the anti-rattle springs on before the return springs. After 400 or so miles of driving, apparently my rebuilding failed on one of the cylinders. I don't understand why.The bore and piston were clean, no rust, and no scoring. I had the rebuild kit(s) for the early 240Zs (built before 7/72 -- maybe a month off on that, mine is from 10/71). How it managed to fail while backing out of my garage rather than at speed, I will never know. One possible thing, though it is a longshot. The Factory Manual, Chilton's and my primary reference, Autobook, shows the return spring inside the cylinder as having its larger end against the piston, smaller against the cylinder. But I know, on both of my cylinders, it was installed the other way because I had to jimmy it off the bolt-head like thing on the piston. The large end easily fits over this bolt-head like thing. But I'm not sure how it would make a whit of difference which way it is installed and that if it does matter,why did the cylinders work with the springs installed the "wrong" way? Chris

Fastwoman, I skipped over part of this thread because I got sorta busy doing my rear brakes;), so if it has been mentioned, forgive me. I had a friend over, 1/2 for material help, 1/2 for moral support while I did the brakes. Maybe the anti-rattle springs in your hardware kit won't be as stiff as the one's that I had, or perhaps your latter model has a different design, or perhaps you have a grip of steel, but we found them a bear to install. Both John and I are on the small side, but, I mean, hell, we aren't wimps, and more bad words, expressions of pain, along with a greatly disproportionate amount of time and plotting was spent getting the little buggers on than any other part of the operation. Five days later, I'm not convinced the dent in my thumb caused by compressing the spring in has come out completely. Slight exaggeration, but not that much. We got one on by brute strength, then took to jamming combinations of wood and steel behind the drum to hold in place the nail-like stud thing that secures the spring to the strut or the differential so all hands could be on deck. So to speak. If there is such a thing as an anti-rattle spring installer tool, I sincerely recommend you look into buying or renting one. Or, barring that, scope out what kind of clamp or spring compressor could be used and if you don't have one, buy one. Or, you know, find a true "son of the south.";) You'll probably want to reward him with some tea or lemonade afterwards. Best O' Luck! Chris

Leon, I don't think I could have avoided seeing the engine bay of an early 260Z, but having no particular reason to check out the plate, don't remember the ratings. Yes, I can now tell you which emission controls dropped power. Or, more precisely, how the standards changed. If you are interested, I can send you a copy of an EPA document I found. My "history" doesn't have it, so I must have hit it (it's a pdf file) from some external link. 1968 through 1972 had Carbon Monoxide (CO) limits of 87 and unburned hydrocarbon limits (THC) of 8.8 grams per mile (maximum after 50,000 miles of use). The EPA sheet states that test procedures were so different before 1973 that comparisons cannot be made with post 1973 standards. I have Road & Tracks from that time that speculate that the smaller problem that American cars had with handling these very early (1968-1972) standards in the area of drivability compared with imports (mainly European) was that the much larger American engines effectively diluted the exhaust. The testing procedure at that time was based on % content and did not take into account that over the course of a mile, for example, a 350 cubic inch domestic pumped a much larger quantity of exhaust than a 120 cube (2 liter) import. The testing procedure changed in 1973 to grams per mile, which is still the measuring stick in use today. Not only did a change to a more rigorous testing procedure occur in 1973 but allowable levels dropped to 39 gms/mile for CO and 3.4 THC. This drop from 87 to 39 and 8.8 to 3.4 were by far the largest mandated gross reductions in emissions and are comparable to further reductions in percentage terms. Manufacturers used a variety of strategies to meet the 1973 standards. All, or nearly all, relied on running very lean mixtures. Quite often in order to meet the 50,000 mile requirement fuel-air mixtures were set and locked at the factory. This produced a very hot running engine that burned or converted THC and CO's. The hot burn was incompatible with low levels of Oxides of Nitrogen, which led to the modern catalytic converter era when NOX came under stricter control in 1977. Which, seemingly paradoxically, allowed engine designers to richen up air-fuel mixtures, at least a little, in order to get back drivability. Again, relying on old Road & Track's reviews of the 1973s and 1974s every one either mentioned a litany of emission-related drivability problems such as poor cold starting, poor hot starting, rough idle, bogging of the line or "lean surge," where the engine would suddenly accelerate _or_ expressed admiration for those cars that only exhibited one or two of these symptoms. The only cars that escaped these problems were those equipped with electronic fuel injection, fairly exotic stuff at the time, and, I believe, used on only a handful of European imports, usually mid to high makes. (My parents had a 1973 Volvo with fuel injection, which I think was new for that model year.) I couldn't find a Road & Track review that directly compared a 1970 -- 1972 model with a 1973 model of the same displacement. Bummer. But a happy coincidence saved my day. Yesterday, visiting O'Reilly's to pick up some tire shine, Ron was unpacking magazine for display. I asked him if their was a Hemming's in there. Indeed there was and he was happy to dig it out for me, because among other virtues I provided, the damn thing is a pain in the keister to put in their little magazine rack. The Buyer's Guide for the November issue is: 1971 -- 1973 Mustangs. Score! In late 1970 or early in 1971 GM announced, and the rest of the domestics quickly followed suit, that: 1) 1972 models would be rated using SAE net horsepower and; 2) the recommended (i.e., required for warranty) gasoline for all GMs would be unleaded 91 octane. Neither were required by regulation. The first, I speculate, was due to Insurance Companies all but killing the pony car market with premium increases and the very real fear that the FTC would step in and specify rating procedures. Remember, people, the early 1970s was the very beginning of "truth in advertising" regulations. The famous, at least among audiophile, FTC Rule 19 was drafted and came into effect in this era. The Buyer's Guide for the 71 -- 73 Mustangs thus gives us: 1) Gross, uncontrolled (or close to) emissions horsepower ratings; 2) Net, same emissions standards HP ratings, and; 3) Net, tighter emission horsepower ratings. Engine 1971 72 73 250 1bbl. L-6 145 98 88 302 2bbl. V-8 210 140 135 351 2bbl. V-8 240 164 156 351 4bbl. V-8 285 248 154 (Yes, I know. I double-checked. Perhaps Hemming's made an error, perhaps 4bbl's were just more of a b*&)% to adapt to emission control in the very, very early days of controls.) To make it back to our point of contention. And maybe remind anyone else, what it is. Basically, I think that the American 1970 -- 1972 240Zs had more power than the 1974 -- 1975 260Zs. Along the way, I began to question the common belief that the 240Zs 150 HP was a gross measure and have come to believe it was a net, or a rating method very close to that produced by SAE net figures. American pre-emission era: The 1970 (American), 1971 (England) , and, according to my engine plate, 1972 240Z, produced 150 HP. Emission controls introduced in U.S. The 1973 (American) 240Z produced 129 HP. The 1974 (American, R&T and Car&Driver) 260Z produced 139 HP. Comparison to pre-emission control U.S. The 1974 (England) 260Z produced 162 HP, an increase right in line with the displacement increase. Going back to the Mustangs, the % decrease in HP from uncontrolled gross (1971) to controlled net (1973) was: 39% -- 36% -- 35% -- 46% Toss the 46% from the 351 4bbl, which had 10.6-1 compression in 1971 and we have a consistent 37% plus minus 2% decrease from 1971 to 1973. Apply that to the 1971 to 1973 240Z and we get: 150 * .63 = 94.5 HP That makes absolutely no sense at all. What does make sense is that the 1970 -- 1972 240Zs made 150 net HP and the 1973 took the same % hit as did Mercedes did with the American vs. Euro-spec models producing an estimated 131 HP vs. the reported, by car publications, 129 net HP. The next year, with the same U.S. emission standards, the 260Z was introduced, with a 7% displacement increase over the 240Zs. The English model's HP increased 7%, let's assume the same applied to the American. 129 * 1.07 = 138 vs. a reported 139 HP. Unlike assuming the 240Zs HP ratings were gross, this makes sense and fits in with contemporary reports and performance testing. Unless, somehow, alone among every car manufacturer in the world, and I mean alone among _every_ manufacturer -- GM, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, BMW, Fiat, Volkswagen, Chrysler, British Leyland, every one of them and more -- Datsun/Nissan somehow managed to meet 1973 emission standards with no loss of specific output. Then the 240Zs 150 HP as gross makes sense. But they didn't. Like every other manufacturer they struggled with controlling emissions and like many, if not most, of the non-U.S. manufacturers they resorted to increasing displacement to get back the lost power. In the case of Datsun Z's, the first increase wasn't enough, not with the added burden of crash standards which disproportionately increased the weight of light weight cars such as the Z. Which is why the 260s didn't' even make a full two-year run, being replaced mid-year by the 280Z. Leon, I believe you when you say that your early 260Zs engine plate states 162 HP. I have no explanation just as I would have no explanation for how an emission-controlled American model had exactly the same specific output of an uncontrolled English model. I owned quite a few vehicles of that era when I was younger, and maybe my memory is going, but I don't recall ever seeing a plate that listed the engine's output. I'm not even sure that a plate listing the VIN and the engine serial number, both individually required by law, was a legal requirement, much less one with a power rating being required. If I had to hazard a guess, such a plate listing VIN, engine, and output was required by some country and with the s*&! hitting the fan in the automotive world, whether or not the plate was changed for exports to a country that didn't require one and had no legal consequences for misstating a HP rating (at the time), just wasn't anyone's responsibility. So, as had been done the 4 years before, on went the plate which, 4 decades later, has caused a great deal of confusion. Chris

Slight, I've purposively been the voice of reason (read NO ) in your car quest. But I gotta admit, I'd be very tempted, especially on a student's income to pick that car up. One thing you must do, and I think most would agree with me, is squirt some oil in the cylinders, leave the plugs out, put a big old wrench on the crankshaft and try to turn the sucker. If it won't budge, actually if it doesn't eventually turn somewhat freely eventually, there be problems there. Likely big problems. Big enough that you'd spend more money fixing them than finding a running car. But if it does turn: Don't even try to drive it home. Tow it, or better, trailer it. You can find a thread on what you need to do to bring a car back from a quarter-century coma, but the short story is that you should drain and change every fluid you can think of. Then think if you've overlooked anything. Then do a bunch of other stuff (find the thread). Then once you have it motive, change the oil, tranny oil / fluid, and differential oil again within 500 miles. Yes, most parts are swappable between 240s, 260s, and 280Zs. Not all though. I would think most of the engine bay parts are swappable, but probably not the one you want to swap. That somehow seems to happen a lot. Dash? Probably, though it was the site of year to year changes that while usually few in number, added up over the years. Since you are a student, I wouldn't spend much on cosmetic improvements. If everything to get and keep it running goes improbably well, buy a Z in better condition once you have a job and you'll have a parts car, that you know inside and out that can provide, on a moment's notice, hard-to-find or expensive-as-heck but absolutely critical parts. Best O' Luck! Chris

Blue, Makes perfect sense to me, thanks. Oh -- already taken care of your last suggestion, but how do I explain the "funny" taste in her baster? Chris

Slight, Wish my interior was that original and nice. Looks promising, though even though he says no rust, it looks recently repainted to me, and generally that means something is being hidden. Paint is very bright and where are the badges? I wouldn't worry about the 4-spd. I have a 5-spd in mine, with the original 4-spd rear end. Almost doggy off the line, but because I use it regularly for a 150 mile work commute, I'm happy trading stop-light go for better mileage and less engine wear. You are probably less interested in freeway mileage and more interested in hustling from a stop than I am (I at my age now, at your age, I was very interested in hustling from a stop). Chris

Folks, Maybe an obvious to everyone but me question, but how does one drain all the brake fluid out of the lines? I'll be starting on the rears (1972 240Z) Thursday or Friday. I'm planning on rebuilding the wheel cylinders and if need be, I'll replace them. The brake fluid in the rear reservoir is very dark and almost crusty looking compared with the fresh fluid in the front reservoir. One way or the other the wheel cylinders will be cleaned of the old fluid so I figure this is as good as time as any to get the lines as clean (i.e., removing old brake fluid) as possible. Can I just disconnect both brake lines, run tubing to an appropriate container and push the brake pedal until nothing comes out? Or should I use the bleeder screws on the "old" cylinders and bleed away while not refilling the reservoir? Whichever method above is correct, should I, instead of just letting the master cylinder run dry, keep it topped off with fresh fluid until new-looking fluid comes out the other end? Chris

Well, thank you, but follow along with me here. The 1970 -- 1971 British (its the 5-spd) and American 240Zs were rated at 151 HP. The 1974 British 260Z was rated at 162 HP. These three figures are Gross Ratings. Or I should say I assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating, read on. Note: The British Z was tested by "AC," which is not in the legend. It is clearly the Autocar review that I linked earlier. The problem with comparing the American 1970 "gross" output to 1973's net output is you are not taking into account the much more restrictive exhaust emissions imposed in 1973 (and further toughened next in 1975). The uncontrolled, or nearly so, British 1970 to 1974 gross to gross reflects the actual increase in power due to larger displacement. (7% for both) In the November, 1972 Road & Track there is an interesting little item concerning the effect of American emission regulations on power. Mercedes shared with R&T the power curves of their, to be introduced in 1973, 4.5L engine. Now this was an engine that was at least partially designed with American emission regulations in mind. The European-spec produced 225 HP while the American 195 HP, roughly 13% less. So let's apply that as an estimate to American 240Z: 151 * 0.87 = 131. If the best Mercedes could do was take a 13% hit to its American cars with a brand-new engine, I wouldn't expect Datsun to do any better with a basic engine design introduced in 1968 (in the 510). The American 1973 240Z was rated at 129 HP, likely net. The American 1974 260Z was rated at 139 HP, likely net. 129 vs. 131. Pretty close, I'd say. With the displacement increase and no change in emission standards from 1973 to 1974, the American 240 to 260 picks up 10 HP compared with 11 HP for the British version. Makes sense to me. Now about Net vs. Gross. I couldn't find the Road & Track, as I have absolutely no filing system, but I remember a discussion about the huge drop in advertised HP by American cars between 1970 and 1971, or 1971 and 1972. A part of it was due to a change from gross to net. Another part was due to a change in emission testing procedures from % pollutants (which effectively favored large-displacement engines over small-displacement engines) to pollutants per mile (a much more rational system). And yet another part was the Insurance industry drastically increasing premiums on high powered autos. And some was the very real fear by American manufacturers that maximum HP would be decided by legislative fiat. Road & Track estimated the effect of the change from gross to net to be in the 10% range, which brought SAE net figures in line with the European DIN measure, a much more fully specified measure than the SAE gross measure. Internet sources note, correctly, that there is no direct correlation between SAE Gross and Net figures, but when they do hazard a guess, estimate the difference to be in the 20% -- 30% range. However, most of the analyses are based on American car manufacturers and the internet authors, at least most, seem unaware of the changing automobile environment. American manufacturers did an abrupt about face from claiming the absolute most HP they could squeeze out of an engine, often specially prepared and with no expectation that it would survive longer than the minimum test cycle for advertising to having compelling, very compelling, reasons to advertise the lowest possible outputs. In contrast, Road & Track tested as many, or more, imported cars as they did domestic and imported cars has no incentive whatsoever to maximize HP claims for advertising. (Go, ahead and just flat-out inflate the claimed HP of a 1969 Fiat 124 by 20%, that's 65 * .2 = 13. Boy, having 78 rather than 65 HP would move a lot more Fiats. Not. 13 HP is a mild misfire in one cylinder of an American V-8. Or a dirty air filter.) Because Road & Track routinely tested American and comparable-class imports, I'm very much inclined to believe that they had a much better handle on the effect of a change from Gross to Net ratings than does well-meaning, but not fully informed persons speculating about the effect 40 years later. I haven't forgotten about my "assume the American 151 HP was a gross rating" statement earlier. In either the same R&T or one of its era I remember that they concluded that JIN (Japanese standard) appeared roughly equal to the DIN standard. So effectively DIN = JIN = SAE NET. We've all been assuming that the HP cited in publications was a "Gross" HP horsepower figure for the 1970 -- 1971 models. In fact, Road & Track implicitly acknowledged that in their test of the Z saying the 151 figure was probably overstated relative to European measures but then wrote that the quarter mile time was "in the ballpark for the calculated lb / bhp figure." I don't know what the 1970 and 1971 plaques have, but my 1972 has, in much smaller print than the rest of the type (S.A.E) following the 150 HP rating. Now, let's assume the 1970 -- 1972 were "gross" figures and reduce it to net by knocking 10% of the figure for an output of 135 HP. Then to get to the smog-controlled 1973 model take another 13% off (135 * .87) to get a figure of 117 HP. Datsun claimed 129 HP. But if we assume the 1970 -- 1972 figures were NET figures we get the 131 HP estimate I got above based on the effect of smog controls. I'm thinking that somewhere along the line, a usually reliable source got it wrong and assumed that the claimed output of 151 HP was gross when, in fact, it was a figure comparable to SAE net figures. It happens. Finally, let's go to the track: The three American and one British Z 1970 -- 1971 models averaged 0 - 60 times of 8.0 seconds (7.8 to 8.7 seconds range). (Tossing the fastest and slowest gives essentially the same result.) Of the two, both American, that reported test weight, they were within 25 lbs of one another, let's say 2350 lbs. Only one 1973 240Z was tested and it was an American model. 0 - 60 time was 10.1 seconds and weight up to 2450. Makes sense, power down to 129, picked up a 100lbs with the introduction of bumper impact standards. The 260Z was tested by two American magazines and one British. The two American tests turned in 0 - 60 times of 10 and 10.2 seconds and both reported an additional 200 lbs test weight, mostly due to much more rigorous bumper standards over the 1973 240Z, and a cumulative 300 lbs. from the 1970 -- 1971 models. Now think about this: If the early 240Z's HP were gross figures and taking what many will consider a minimum estimate of the Gross to Net reporting difference (Road & Tracks) The British Z, picking up 100 lbs from the 1971 model to 2425 and the extra 10 HP from the displacement increase turned in a 0 - 60 of 8.2 seconds. I'm sorry man, but I just don't buy your contention that 260s had more power than 240s. Not American-spec ones, other than the 1973 model. Non-American, sure, and I never thought that they would put out less power. Your location puts you in Bay Area, CA. You also wrote that your engine plaque says 162 HP, which matches the British version. If you have a non-American spec 260Z, you should have clued me in earlier as I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that if one Californian is talking to another Californian about Z-cars, we're talking about American-spec models unless specifically noted otherwise. There was a good reason why Datsun came out with the 280Z in America and only in America, namely that emission and safety regs had turned their GT road-burner into a (shrug), nothing special sporty-type car. BTW: Regarding an earlier statement of yours, the 280Z's weighed in 200 lbs more than the 260s. Chris

Thanks for the endorsement of Rock Auto. I won't be using them this time because the local dealer's drums are IKUTA's while Rock Auto's are Centric. Deservedly or not, IKUTA's are considered to be of better quality than Centric. For future repairs, Rock Auto will be one of my essential "go to" sites. Chris