Namerow

I've dealt with these folks for 'Continental'-brand cloth-braided coolant hose (full range of sizes available)... Bel-Metric - Tyngsboro, MA https://www.belmetric.com/braided-metric-hose-oem-c-14_138/?zenid=l8q6rc5k16gtctsfllf89onb23 Priced per meter (i.e. if you order 1.3 meters, you pay for 2 meters) The molded radiator and master-vac hoses are always going to be a challenge, unfortunately. They are available but, as Patcon notes, they are expen$ive (esp. the rad hoses). You might be able to fake the master-vac hoses by bending and fitting metal-tube inserts inside the rubber hose (my notes say that the fittings are 10mm OD, so a properly clamped 9mm hose should work, maybe with a bit of sealant for insurance).

And adjusting the hub position to help correct the early design's leading-diff/trailing-hub situation would have made the tire sit even further forward inside the wheel opening. I've heard it explained (source?) that the S30's differential was pushed forward late in the design cycle when Nissan's engineers became concerned over meeting the new US FMVSS requirement for rear impact. The explanation was that they wanted to move the differential further way from the front of the fuel tank to reduce the liklihood that it would puncture the tank when the rear of the car folded up. I don't think this was guess work. They must have observed a potential problem or else they wouldn't have taken such an unnatural design path. There was a lot of confusion and uncertainty within the industry over what form the actual FMVSS rear impact standard would take when made into law (impact speed and fixed vs. moving barrier were still being debated). I wonder if Nissan decided to take an extra-conservative route to begin with and then relaxed the design back to 'normal' when they felt more comfortable? It's all very curious. A lot of parts had to be changed, at enormous expense, and giving back the crash safety margin in the process. This would not have been done unless Nissan felt there was a major problem with offset design. And yet modern-day owners of Z's with the offset design never seem to complain about the expected issues (which are: 1) drivetrain resonance at cruising speed, and; 2) premature halfshaft U-joint wear).

Thanks for taking the time to do this. A very nice tutorial.

Out of curiosity, are those butt welds throughout, or do I see a few plug welds in certain places? If you did use plug welds for this repair, what's the rationale?

A master class in fabrication. If we put you and Disepyon together, we'd have a source for truly rust-free Z frames. You do the front, he does the centre, you split to chores for the rear.

For me, 'unique' isn't the word that came to mind.

When time permits, can you post a couple of photos of your laser, along with the mftr/specs and any comments you have about its use. Also: I have the opportunity to buy a Stanley 'Cubix Crossliner' this weekend for $40. It's marked down from $120, so it seems like a great buy. Or it could be just $40 wasted. I don't know much about these systems and I haven't done any online research yet. The Stanley unit is described as: Stanley Cubix Cross Line Laser features a quick link bracket and mounting system Accuracy: +/-5/16” Self Leveling Cross Lines: projects bright horizontal and vertical lines onto flat surfaces for common leveling and alignment applications Compact and lightweight design Locking pendulum for setting angled lines and to help prevent damage to internal components Range: 40' (12 m) I'm not liking that accuracy spec too much, but maybe that's +/- 5/16" when the beam(s) get projected out to the extreme of the 40-foot range? If so, it would be +/- 1/16" at 10 ft. Also, it seems that 'accuracy' may not be the issue for the type of auto restoration work being discussed here and that, instead, it's more a question of offering the capability to throw 2 perpendicular lines with independent positioning adjustment, together with a decent, adjustable-and-stable platform. Your comments appreciated.

I enjoy playing with numbers sometimes (and I know this will drive @Captain Obvious crazy), so: At 510 lb, the entire S30 unibody would crush down into a block of steel that measures only 12" x 12" x 12" . (Which reminds me of the scene from the old James Bond movie, Goldfinger, where the crushed remains of an early-60's Lincoln Continental (an early American unibody) are dropped into the bed of a waiting Ford Ranchero pickup for 'disposal'. That block was probably about 3 cu.ft. but it included all of the bodywork, interior and glass too.) The S30 unibody weighs a bit less than 5 of Grannyknot's anvils. The S30 has plan-view measurements of about 162" L x 64" W. If the entire unibody was fabricated from 20-gauge sheet (0.036"), you'd need a single sheet measuring about 350 SF. If you wanted to make your own from 4' x 10' sheets of 20-gauge, you'd need 9 sheets. But then, allowing for scrappage from the cut patterns, you probably need to actually buy about 30 sheets. A 4' x 10' sheet of 20-gauge hot rolled steel sheet currently costs about $90, so that means your bill out the door of the metal supply shop would be about $2700. You could probably recover half of that by selling the scrap to a recycler. So let's call it $2000 for the material needed to make your own S30 unibody. Freight, taxes, and labour costs extra, of course. If you started with a single 348-SF sheet of 20-gauge that was 64" wide (same as the length of of S30) and laid it crosswise and centred under the car, it would extend two car widths on either side of the car outline.

I agree with your premise. I know you're busy with the real work right now, but later, when time permits, please consider creating a set of drawings for your jig. It would make a great addition to the restoration resources that this great site makes available to others. BTW, you have a real talent for visualizing sheet metal repairs. The fab part is half of it, but the 'vision' part (i.e 'How do I translate this into cuts and bends and welds) is equally important.

For added obfuscation, look up the 'balk' in the baseball rulebook.

I mentioned this recently in another thread, but no one came through to confirm/deny or expand on it: There were reports some years ago that a section of a Z front fender has a contour that replicates the under-battery section of the inner fender. Unfortunately, I don't recall that suggestion being accompanied by pictures to show how it was done (or whether it was done). Even if true, Z front fenders don't grow on trees these days, so it would probably amount to a difficult or expensive solution (or both). However... The general concept is interesting. Perhaps a re-pop or scrap front fender from a more pedestrian donor vehicle would serve equally well? It would need to be a vehicle (car or pickup truck) with a similar, rounded styling. However, I think you'd only be able to size up the feasibility of this approach by cutting out the Z inner fender repair area and then eye-balling the shape, hoping that it would ring a bell: 'You know, that looks a lot like the crown of the front fender from a 1986 Ford Taurus'. A DIY alternative would be to take a fibreglass cast from the repair area and then do some tree-stump/sandbag tin bashing, using the cast as a shape reference.

From long ago, I remember someone mentioning a specific combination of socket-wrench extensions and U-joints that would allow getting at the mirror fasteners. Maybe someone with a better memory than me can tell us the secret formula.

Whoever wrote this manual back in the day had a nice understanding of the Z's prospective corrosion spots. There are some places missed, though: lower boxed section at the rear of the front frame rails (behind the T/C rod bracket) underfloor reinforcement rails underside of hatch floor, where the floor meets the rear valence panel inner cavity beneath the rear hatch sill plate full perimeter of the hatch cavity (not just the trailing edge) windshield posts front cowl (esp. along all the seams) In the 1970's, it seems, many of the popular aftermarket rustproofing solutions were flawed by design. Ziebart (a wax-type treatment) was considered the gold standard, but the material apparently dried out and cracked after several years, creating thousands of crevasses and concealed ledges for salt water to lodge in. As a result, the 'rust preventative' became a rust accelerator. IIRC, there was a successful class-action suit and the company went out of business. Another name in the day was 'Bondeco'. They seem to have disappeared, too. Maybe for the same reason (modern wax-type treatments (e.g. WaxOyl) use better formulations and don't seem to suffer from the same problem). Also in the 1970's, old-timers swore by the effectiveness of oil-spraying. Unfortunately, most of the shops that did this were kind of 'rural' and they used old crankcase oil. Not the sort of thing to be spraying onto your brand-new sportscar! We now have RustChek and the like, which use a clean, thin, perfumed oil that does a nice job of creeping into seams. I have a 2006-vintage car that I bought new and had sprayed once shortly after purchase. It's still solid and rust-free (although at least half of the credit for that probably goes to manufacturers' increased use of galvanized sheet metal).

Forget about the Zamboni. Look at the size of that 'backyard' rink! Gretzky would be proud!

I've had my Haynes 240Z manual since the early 1980's, I think. Dog-eared, grease-smeared, binding disintegrated, but still a great resource. I think I got my money's worth.