Namerow

I don't like the look of the bends (kinks) in the hot-cold control cable at the end where it ties into the inside end of the control lever. That typically indicates that the water control valve is (or was) partly seized. The cable bends when the driver (or passenger) pushes too hard on the outside end of the control lever in an attempt to get more heat. Once the control cable deforms, it tends to bow out whenever it encounters too much resistance. When it bows out, the fore-aft motion of the cable becomes compromised. You will never be able to restore the shape integrity of the control cable by trying the straighten out the bends. I recommend that you replace it. If you can't find an OE replacement, you can make one using tempered steel wire (aka 'piano wire'). The step at the end that fits into the control lever can be easily formed in a bench vise. Early Z's (until ~ July 1972) used 1.0mm wire, with straight-end finishes that were secured with pinch screws. After that, the system was redesigned with 1.2mm wire and looped ends that fit over pegs. I suspect that your car's system uses the 1.0mm wire. Make sure that your water control valve is free over its full design range-of-motion (I suspect that it isn't). Try soaking the control valve in a household de-liming chemical (e.g. 'C-L-R') for 2 or 3 days. A more reliable strategy will be replacing the valve with a new one ($$$).

FWIW, hardware supplier Bel-Metric markets name-brand (Continental) braided rubber hose in a large range of sizes. They sell it by the yard/meter. In most cases, this is all you'll need. In one or two special cases (brake mastervac hoses, rear emissions hose), you'll need to figure out how the replicate some tight-radius bends that were molded into the shape of the OE hoses.

I did a lot of experimenting with the wiper linkage several years ago to see if I could discover the purpose of the spring and the eccentric bushing (aka 'cam'). I made a bench test rig so that I could exercise the entire system manually. I also installed the linkage and motor in the car so that I could watch what it did (especially when powered to the 'OFF' setting). I concluded that: The joint in question does not provide any 'clutch' action. That is to say, there's nothing that engages and disengages. The eccentric bush ('cam') is used to provide some compliance in the linkage, without having to resort to designed-in free play. Without some compliance, those long, stamped-steel connector links could bow under compression or get over-pulled under tension. The spring is used to take up 'slop' (excess free play) in the linkage, so as to mitigate chatter or rattle. Unfortunately, the spring's engagement tang is usually discovered to be broken off... and a broken spring serves zero purpose. Since the wipers seem to function just fine even though the spring is broken, one has to question whether the spring really provides the intended benefit. The spring has nothing to do with the so-called 'auto-rise' function. In fact, I'm pretty sure that 'auto-rise' was just Nissan's way of saying the the wiper motor parks the blades a bit higher than their lowest sweep point when in wipe mode. I could find no evidence that the wiper blades would park low and then magically rise by a few mm's. That would be a great party trick, if it actually happened ('Watch this!'). Instead, they just park at a slightly high position. It is possible to make your own replacement spring. However, if you use tempered wire with the same wire diameter as the OE spring and use the same coil diameter and number of wraps, I think you may find that the resulting spring is much too stiff. I just used regular wire and the resulting spring seemed to function very nicely, once installed.

As measured from my 5/70 Z: 310mm

Way back when I was in high school in the late 1960's, my parents owned a Volvo 142S that would do the same thing. It's known as 'dieseling', 'run-on', 'auto-ignition', or 'after-run'. Our Volvo's engine (a 1.8L four, with twin SU's and a remarkably high 10.5:1 compression ratio) would run happily in reverse for 15 seconds or more after the ignition was turned off. Sometimes it would run smoothly, other times it felt like it was going to shake itself to bits. The only way to get it to stop was to put the car in gear, apply the brakes, and then let out the clutch until the engine bogged. Dieseling occurs when there's an ultra-hot spot somewhere on the surface of the combustion chamber (or chambers). They act like rogue spark plugs and can usually be traced to red-hot carbon deposits (common in older, carbureted engines b/c they run relatively rich, burn dirtier, and accumulate carbon quickly). Under these circumstances, it seems that even a half-millimeter throttle plate gap will allow enough airflow to let the engine keep turning. It's been suggested that worn throttle shaft bushings contribute to this. Don't ask me how an engine decides to run in reverse at the start of this process. Maybe your 510's engine has got carboned up during your start-up testing?

I've said this before and I'll say it again here: The Z's styling is fragile and does not tolerate 'improvements'. Whether it's deleting the bumpers, putting in Miata seats, or (as in this case) removing the swage line from the side panels, it just doesn't work. Like the Chevrolet Corvette, the Z's biggest problem was its affordability. Both designs became inexpensive design canvases, left wide-open to low-buck 'interpretations'.

An innovative solution to achieving infinitely-adjustable ride height and spring stiffness without the messiness of cutting or welding.

Nor did the Z's roll-over test!

Too bad the wind tunnel wool-tuft footage didn't show what was happening over the rear of the car!

Really pleased to hear that you're making progress. For the rest of us: If you're healthy, thank your lucky stars. And think about it every day. It's a blessing, but it has no guarantee period. Looking forward to a long history of future contributions from DutchZcarGuy. Not to mention those from another longtime CZCC friend, 240260280Z (aka Phil from AtlanticZCar).

Yes. The clamping force is strong and the squeegee strip doesn't move. My kit provided 10 clips per side -- more than enough for good retention along the length of the strip. I suppose that you could use glue as an augmenter, but I'd suggest that you try the clips-only arrangement first. I did this installation almost 10 years ago. At that time, there weren't many options. IIRC, you could buy the chrome trim trips complete with squeegee strips, but the chrome strips were cheapy repros with an incorrect shape (completely straight and lacking the subtle curves of the OE chrome strips). Only one vendor -- now long gone -- offered the squeegee strips as a stand-alone product. The kits offered by Motorsport Auto and Vintage Rubber didn't appear until several years later.

Great sleuthing!

This topic was recently discussed in Patcon's 'Lily' build thread. I mentioned there that I'd bought a kit several years ago that included a set of spring-steel clips to take the place of the OE staples for securing the rubber squeeqee strip to the back of the chrome door finisher strip. The vendor that I bought the kit from is long gone and I have no idea where he sourced the clips (I suspect they're upholstery clips). The pix below might bring forward someone who recognizes them or knows of a supplier that might be able to help. The kit came with 20 clips (10 clips per side). The clips are formed in a skinny 'U' shape (12mm wide x 10mm deep) that slides over the rubber and chrome strips and sandwiches them together. The upper and lower legs of the 'U' each have a pair of inward-facing teeth at the tip. On the outside face, both legs have a bent-up tab that provides a place to push with a flat-blade screwdriver to force the clip into place.

Examples, please.

Coming soon. Try googling, 'humanoid robot'.

Maybe it's just me, but I always enjoy seeing an owner make a part rather than buying a new one.

Please explain.

Lots to like about this car. The driver's-side seat cover looks OE, but it may not be the original cover. If it is the original cover, it's in remarkably good condition -- esp. on the outboard side bolsters. Light use? Small driver?

If you enter, 'Hatch Vent Clip' in the search bar in the top tight corner of your screen, you will extensive discussion on this topic.

Another example of the countless indignities inflicted on the original Z's design by backyard hacks over the decades. Only the Chevrolet Corvette has seen this amount of design injustice.

Here's a second (or third?) voice on this Z restorer's diliema... When I did this job about 10 years ago, I was fortunate enough to find a vendor called 'SoCalZ' (or something like that -- this was back in the days when Black Dragon and Motorsports Auto dominated the Z afterparts community). Somehow, SoCalZ had managed to acquire a roll of perfectly-profiled rubber trim strip, complete with flocking. They offered a kit that came complete with hardware where installation was done using trim clips. No need for staples, rivets, or glue. Sheer genius. They worked perfectly. I've tried to generate a photo but, alas, my new Android cellphone defeats my understanding of how to transfer photos to my laptop. Even if i could, it would take an internet master to find a vendor for those clips.

Yellow (or, at least, the right yellow) always looks great on a Z.

At this point in time, the old-tech 'yellow' incandescent headlights are coming to be viewed as evidence that you're driving a beater. Within the next two or three years, they'll have disappeared from the mainstream automotive landscape. Personally, I find them kind of charming -- just like the Z's low-watt, green-tinged gauge lighting (and the way that E-Type Jags now look kind of tippy on their narrow-track chassis). I guess it depends on what you want out of your Z. Me? I'm looking for memories.

I started with this question: "For an Illumina-brand shock absorber fitted to the rear suspension of a 1972 Datsun 240Z, to what torque value should the securing nut be tightened?" The response focused on the torque spec for the gland nut. So I then asked: "What about the top securing nut?" The response was: "The top nut (on the piston rod) is not torqued to the gland‑nut spec. Tokico’s general guidance for piston‑rod nuts on Illuminas was: Piston‑rod top nut: 14–22 ft‑lb (typical Tokico spec)This is a general Tokico value, not 240Z‑specific. Tokico did not publish a 240Z‑specific number, but this range matches their published specs for Illumina and HP-series inserts across multiple chassis." We're in the early days of these AI-driven 'answer machines', of course, so all answers need to be treated with a degree of suspicion. Personally, I like Google Gemini's answer (25 - 32 ft-lb) better. In the end, though, recommended assembly torques for threaded fasteners are all about putting enough load across the threaded surface to keep the torqued fastener from backing off under the planned duty cycle. Using a 'nylok-type nut kind of overrides this calculation -- or, more accurately, means that the required tightening torque can be less than it would be otherwise.

My investigation (using Microsoft's AI-driven 'Co-Pilot') delivered this result: Tokico Illumina piston‑rod nut torque👉 14–22 ft‑lb"This range appears consistently across Tokico documentation for Illumina and HP‑series inserts used in multiple vehicles. Illumina shocks for the 240Z use the same shaft/nut interface, so this is the correct spec."