Namerow

Search this site for Grannyknot's write-up on refurbishing. These lift mechanisms are called 'regulators', so first go to GK's postings and then search on that word. The hard-plastic idler wheels can be replaced (with units from a cabinet drawer 'slide', IIRC). However, the mounting shaft takes a lot of load, so you'll need to either work towards a light interference fit (maybe assisted by some Loctite 'stud mount' anaerobic) or tack the end with a MIG weld. As for the spring: After the regulator is un-wound to the point where the gear rack comes loose from the pinion gear, the spring doesn't really have that much tension on it. Once the gear rack comes free of the pinion gear, the remaining spring tension will go to zero after the lever arm has rotated about another 30 degrees or so. At that point, you can just pluck the spring out of the slot in the centre shaft. When you're re-assembling, it's pretty easy to load the lever by hand so that the gear rack comes in contact with the pinion gear. At that point, you can just start turning the window crank handle to feed the gear rack back into full engagement. That said, it won't be easy finding a replacement spring all on its own. If anyone has a spare, they're probably not going to want to sell you just the spring.

PM sent.

There's one thing that still puzzles me in all of this: I owned my first Z (a 1972) from 1977 until 1981 and logged about 40 thousand miles of driving with it -- much of that at freeway speeds on regular trips between Toronto and Montreal (~ 300 miles, each way). I do not recall ever smelling exhaust fumes inside the car during those drives, nor feeling any effects while driving (which I surely would have over 4 hours of driving). The car was bone-stock and all-original (e.g. no weatherstrip replacement, no new taillight seals, no rear or front spoiler spoiler, no special exhaust tip, no replacement grommets, no caulking -- nothing). So I'm reasonably comfortable in saying that there was nothing in the design of the later-version cars (i.e. with the cabin air extractor vents located on the sail panels) that led to exhaust fumes being sucked into the cabin. Not, at least, when everything was left in original configuration and all of the grommets and seals and weatherstripping were in good shape and and the body seams were in proper alignment. In fact, I don't think that even the addition of an aftermarket exhaust system changed that, because I don't recall reading any warnings or tales of woe, back in the day, about exhaust fume issues showing up after an Abarth/ANSA/Stebro/etc. performance exhaust system had been added -- something which hundreds, if not thousands, of Z-owners did in the 1970's. I have a different opinion about the early-version cars with the cabin air extractor vents located on the hatch panel. I think that design may have been inherently weak, even when the cars were fairly new, because the open water-drainage tubes provided a secondary airflow exit (or entrance, depending on the circumstances) at an aerodynamically-undesirable location that also happened to be fully exposed to exhaust fumes caught in the 'bubble' that sets up behind the rear valence/trim panels when the car is in motion. Once the 'one-way' flaps and/or the hatch interior trim panel started to get tired, or the hatch interior trim panel was improperly installed, you had all the necessary ingredients for exhaust fumes being sucked back into the cabin -- esp. when the side windows were opened a bit and changed the pressure differential between the cabin interior and the location of the drain tube exits. I don't think this arrangement could be called a 'defect', because Nissan development engineers surely would have noticed the problem during the car's development. However, problems must have begun to be reported after the cars had been in owners' hands for a year or so. The change to the air extraction design was a costly move for Nissan and I don't think they would have taken it without figuring that they had no other choice. I wonder if anyone with 1970's driving experience with a Series 1 car would care to comment on whether they have any recollections of exhaust fumes coming up into the cabin?

Can I send you my parts?

Ditto on this comment, in case you missed it. This panel (plastic, not vinyl) tends to warp, opening up some pretty wide gaps along seams that are supposed to be sealed shut. It's also held in place by the usual push-pin plastic rivets and I've noticed from photos that some of these are often missing from owners' cars. Once gaps appear between the plastic panel and the inside sheet metal of the hatch, the factory's cabin-to-outside airflow scheme can be bypassed (including the one-way flaps located inside the ducts) and exhaust fumes can enter the cabin by entering the hatch cavity and then leaking past the plastic trim panel. In the factory scheme, the air extractor pathway is supposed to be the only route for air to flow from the hatch area of the cabin to the outside, and that pathway is supposed to be sealed off from the interior of the hatch.

For Series 1/'early' (take your pick) cars with the extractor vents located on the trailing edge of the hatch panel, there's one aspect of the exhaust fumes suck-back problem that I've never heard mentioned before and which might be fundamental to the design. I'm talking the drain tubes that allow rain/wash water to drain out of the two air plenum chambers (located inside the hatch cavity). Those drain tubes exit on the underside of the hatch, outboard of the weatherstrip and are therefore nicely exposed to the ambient air (and exhaust fumes) at the rear of the car. Since the air flow and air pressure back there is, shall we say, 'variable' and because the 'one-way' airflow control flaps (the ones that control airflow from the cabin into the plenums) are less than perfect -- even when new, I suspect -- there are all the ingredients in place to allow backflow into the cabin. The triggers for that backflow would be: 1) amount of side window opening; 2) air speed over the rear deck, and; c) airflow/air pressure serendipity in the region just under the hatch lip. I can't think of any easy design solution (putting one-way flaps inside the round drain tubes would be a challenge).

If you think the discussion here is getting getting too pedantic, wander over the Ferrarichat.com and see how the big boys duke it out over faked and transplanted VIN's and chassis numbers. In F-car-land, certain practitioners have been accused of building complete cars around 3 square inches of metal with a frame number stamping... and then selling the results for a lot more than any S30 Datsun is ever going to raise. The debate over there often centres around whether certain well-known names in the biz were or were not actually criminals.

At what point of opening the door did you notice the drop issue? Or was it, instead, something you noticed when you were trying to close the door? (e.g. door latch wouldn't line up with the striker plate and/or the stopper ramp) Also: How many miles are on the odometer of your car? (trying to get a sense of how much use the vehicle has to see before this kind of hinge-wear problem becomes an issue needing attention) And: It appears from your photos and comments that the pin wear problem was largely restricted to the lower hinge (the one with the spring). Since the upper and lower hinges should see approx. the same loadings as they take up the wright of the door, it appears that the excessive wear in the lower hinge's pin could be related to the transverse load that the spring being applies to the top of the pin. Either that, or Nissan decided to use extra-crappy steel for the lower pin. What are your thoughts on this, having taken the door off and disassembled both hinges so that they were lying there on the bench for you to stare at? Also: Has anyone with an early Z (no spring/detent in the door hinges) noticed this kind of pin wear in the lower hinge?

Well, it was a different time and place back then, wasn't it? The concept of safety systems and warning lights was brand new (how many warning lights were there on the dash panel of a 55 Chevy?). We'd all been reading about Mercury and Gemini capsules and Mission Control and supersonic aircraft and James Bond, and it seemed like there could be no such thing as too many warning lights. Or buzzers. Or digital warning messages ('Your door is ajar.') Of course, we're much smarter now.

I think that skinny little strip of channel steel is best referred to as a 'stiffener' rather than a 'beam' . (although it did meet the FMVSS requirement!)

I don't think the PN change in 10-71 has to do with the addition of side impact bars. The 1970 FSM mentions a feature that I think refers to the side impact bars ("The door main unit is rigidly constructed, the outer panel is provided with two stiffeners, and thus, together with the highly rigid inside panel shape, the strength, rigidity, and safety of the rider compartment is highly improved.") and that language is repeated verbatim in the 1971, 1972 and 1973 FSM's. Curious that the FSM describes these two stiffeners ads being attached to the outer panel when, in fact, they're really attached to the inner panel (albeit, located right up against the outer panel. For reference, have a look at these photos posted recently by a CZCC member (Patcon, I think)... x FWIW, the US federal safety standard mandating side impact protection (FMVSS 214) came into effect in November 1970. It appears that the auto manufacturers had been advised well ahead that this was coming, because a quick check of in-period write-ups on US domestic models like the Chevy Camaro and Ford Mustang shows that the feature was introduced on their 1970 models. My April 1970 production 240Z has these beams. Hard to say, though, whether they were fitted to all Z's, right from the start, or introduced as a running change sometime before April 1970. Maybe someone with a very early car can chime in on this.

I hope you're right, Jim. The only early front diff mount I've seen advertised was on a Japanese website back in July and the asking price was a cool 28,000 Yen ($300+). p.s. It's ok to call it a 'Series 1' car. You're with friends here.

The mounts are quite different in shape and I've seen no one claim that the later mount (easily available) can be used in place of the earlier mount (NLA). Here are some pictures (posted by someone, somewhere -- apologies for not knowing who to credit)...

ZH wins the debate. I forgot all about those springs. And they weren't a later add-on. Here are pictures of the internals as they came out of the unit installed in my April 1970 Z...

Nice. I'd thought about the possibility of carving a control knob (I need a mirror-image version for the hand-throttle lever on my car). Thanks for demonstrating that it can be done. With a finish coat of gloss black epoxy paint, it might be pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing made of plastic. Probably stronger, too . Not so sure that I have the engraving skills to carve in a logo, though. Winter project.

Not so sure about that. Obviously the movable valve/plunger/whatever will shift off its normal, centred position if hydraulic pressure drops on the left or the right side. And once it shifts off centre, it stays there. So let's say you fix the problem you had in the front or rear brake circuit. Now when you step on the brake pedal, the valve/plunger once again sees equal pressure on both sides -- so it won't move from its new, off-centre position. I'm inclined to agree with Grannyknot that it needs to be manually re-centred. Can't verify from actual experience, but, hydraulically speaking, that's the way I see it. Unless someone can come up with an alternative explanation. A couple of other comments: I disassembled the switch from my 4-70 car and it was kind of gummed up. But probably not so much that it wouldn't have shifted had I lost pressure in one of the brake circuits so that the valve/plunger was exposed to full pressure from one side only. That's a lot of force. I think the factory didn'y want anyone messing around with this switch because an internal leak caused by a botched service job could result in the front and rear brake circuits becoming connected, thereby negating the safety function of the dual-circuit braking system.

Re door panel assemblies: No, sorry. You're looking at the wrong diagram. See items 1 & 2 on this diagram... http://www.carpartsmanual.com/datsun/Z-1969-1978/body-240z/door-panel-glass-hinge

I have a few questions that I'm hoping some of our CZCC veterans can answer: Door Panels: The parts manual shows a change made to the Door Panel Assemblies (lhs and rhs) starting in 71-10. Can anyone comment on the design change(s) made? (Note that the upper/lower Hinges are not considered to be part of the Door Panel Assemblies) Door Hinges: The parts manual shows a change made, starting in 72-07. Oddly, though, the change is noted only for the upper hinges. The lower hinges are shown as staying unchanged. This seems odd, because I believe that the design change included adding a revised travel limiter link with a detent, so that the doors would have two opening positions: fully-opened, and half-opened. The travel-limiter link, however, is part of the lower hinge. And the Nissan 'updates' document that Carl Beck posted a couple of days ago indicated that the detent feature was added to the driver's door only. Is there a mistake in the parts manual, or am I missing something? Lock Cylinders and Keys: At some point in its development, the S30's locking system switched from a 2-key set-up to a single-key arrangement (I thought this took place as part of the launch of 1972 models, but maybe it was actually when the 'early-to-late' transition happened during MY-71). In any case, it would seem that the design of the lock cylinders would have been revised as part of this change. However, the parts manuals shows no changes to the parts numbers for the door and tailgate lock cylinders over the complete span of the 240 model. The steering column lock assembly (c/w lock cylinder), on the other hand, shows a change in 70-10 (why?) and then nothing until 73-07. Can anyone explain how all of this works?

Mr. Neyerlin at zparts.com has some nicely done 'parts chronology' posts in the 'Blog' section of his website. The piece that 7tooZ has noted suggests that there may have been four choke knob designs within the 240Z model range (plus the fifth design for the 260Z).

I forgot to mention at the time when this topic first appeared that it seems to my eye that there were two early choke knob designs. The earliest is the very curvaceous, asymmetric version that Steve (nix240) reproduces so nicely. The one that the other Steve (sdyck, aka 'Steve from Calgary) had break on his car does not look the same. Instead, it's kind of halfway between the early-early, no-hard-corners style vs. the quite angular version that showed up in MY-72 and is now the only version that's conveniently available. Notice too how Steve-from-Calgary's broken item has a head that looks quite symmetric. All the other versions are visibly asymmetric. 3 choke knob designs in the course of just three years, then? And then a 4th version added when the 260Z arrived.

Same goes for me.

I wonder if the original owners of both your cars simply bought aftermarket A/R bars from the same mail order operation. You've reminded me of the two big sportscar accessory shops in Toronto back in the 1970's. One was called Piranha Motorsports . The other was R&R, or something like that. Both benefited from large sums of hard-earned money I pushed across their counters.

Topic: Relevance and usage of 'Series 1' vs. 'Series 2' vs. 'Series 3' definitions --- Jaguar E-Type vs. Nissan/Datsun S30. Discuss.

Ha! Zkars has opened an entirely new can of worms, that being the really early Series 1 cars. Shall we call them the Series 0.5 cars? They deserve entirely separate consideration. New levels of minutia beckon (and I have a list).

I am an incurable keeper of notes and lists. When I bought my 70 Z a few years back and starting researching my 'refresh-toration' project, I started to keep track of all the big and little and obscure changes that I found others had discovered over the years. The list I've ended up with is longer than what I've seen others publish. But I think everything on my list is verifiable. And I may have missed several items, too. Do the differences really matter? Let the market speak, I say.