Walter Moore

As long as we are showing pictures: http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=23210&what=allfields&name=Walter%20Moore

I switched to 15" wheels because 14s seem to be hard to find. I just put 195/65 15s on the car. The local Goodyear store had Assurance triple treads in stock in that size. They are H rated, but they are "touring" tires, not strictly performance tires. I don't know how they work on the Z, but they transformed my pickup truck from a skid-a-matic into a decent handling vehicle. I hope to have the Z on the road within a couple of weeks. I will know more then.

I used dual electric fans because nearly every single electric fan I found was too deep. The fans that I used are "Imperial" brand, but many others would work (perhaps better) I was trying to get maximum coverage of the radiator. The best I could get was one 10" fan and one 12" fan. A single 14" fan only draws air through 47% of the surface area of the radiator on a 240Z. My solution, with two fans draws air through about 58%. With a fan shroud (Which the 240Z lacked but the 280Z has) the engine fan could in theory draw air through nearly 100% of the radiator. To use electric fans you would need: 1 or 2 Fans(s) depending upon your preference. 1 relay (30 amps preferably because fans draw a lot of power) 1 temperature switch 1 in-line fuse (20A at least depending upon the draw of the fan(s)) At least with the higher output alternator of the 280Z you might not have to upgrade the electrical system as much to power it. Or the other option... rebuild the fan clutch.

He He... "Original Mint Vehicle Complete Body Restoration" That is a classic statement. He seems to have put a lot of work into it. It is a nice (very nice) restoration, however it isn't original...

I am pretty sure that I threw one of those covers away...

Sorry about that Carl... I checked the parts CD and you appear to be correct. Which puzzles me a lot... I suffer from American-car-tus. I know that starting with the 1975 model year all the cars that belonged to my friends and family had a converter. (and the fuel restriction in the tank.) but except for my mom's 79' Honda (which had a converter also) those were all American cars. I confess that I have always assumed that all cars were that way. By the time that I was on my own looking at new cars at the dealer lots it was the early 80's and by then all cars (Datsuns included) had converters. (The emission rules were tightened in 81 as I recall.) I am more than a little puzzled at how Nissan managed to meet the 1975 air pollution standards without a converter, when every other brand that I know of (Including VW, Volvo, etc) used them in that era. We had a 74' Datsun at one point (In the 80's) which didn't have a converter, but none of the 74 models I have seen from any maker had one either... I just assumed that 1975 was a bright line for converter vs not. I learn new things all the time.

I stuck an after-market reservoir from Advance Auto (I think) on mine, just below the ignition coil. It sits down by the frame rail. All that I intended mine for was to keep the anti-freeze from puddling on the floor and poisoning the cats. My daughters love the cats... I on the other hand just love my children.

TomoHawk, if your 78 doesn't have the fuel nozzle restriction it means someone removed it at some point, because all cars sold in the U.S. from the 1975 model year on required unleaded gas and the small fuel nozzle restriction was required. Back on the subject of the thread, I just put fuel in my car's tank a week or so back so I could finally start the thing. 5 gallons (U.S.) just barely moved the gauge off of the Empty mark. I haven't actually driven the car anywhere yet because I haven't put on the real tires and wheels. (I just let the neighbors listen to the engine idle...)

I have never seen one.

I have my original 71 hood, but I suspect that it isn't early enough for this discussion. Am I correct in that assumption? (Besides being rusted out, it is bent as well. But I will take pictures if you want.)

Be careful to measure the seat height. The 240 is a really short car, and most seats will sit too high, leaving your head touching the head liner.

It might just be too lean... but I am no expert on the SU.

A few years back there was a push here in Indiana to require 2 plates. It ended when in a newspaper interview the head of the Indiana State Police quipped that "I have never seen someone flee from the the police in reverse." Some of the small towns that make a lot of money from speeding tickets were lobbying for the change I think. It hasn't come back, but greed knows no bounds, so I expect the suggestion will return again someday.

On my 71 the P.O. had installed a later transmission and just broke out the front edge of the console. It looked horrible so I "fixed" it with black painted sheet metal, then when I re-installed it in the car I found out the hard way why the console was broken. I have bent and bent my sheet metal patch, but I still fear that I will have trouble keeping it in 3rd gear. Only time will tell in my case, but I agree with Curtis240Z that you would be better off to cut the forward vertical wall pretty much the whole way to the top.

Replated? You lucky man, mine were so perforated with rust that I had to replace them. My son and I spend hours hand bending every line. What a pain. Good luck getting them back in place.

There are also several brands of variable frequency inverter motor drives that will produce three phase output power from a single phase input voltage source, but an inverter large enough to power a welder would be very expensive.

See these threads for this same car: http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7140&highlight=2761 http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6494&highlight=2761&page=2 Same Nissan serial number (Too early to be a true VIN number.) Interesting comments in those threads... seems to have started a flame war way back when.

I remember that stupid regulation... cars sold in the U.S. during the first half of 1974 (including my Dad's AMC Matador) were REQUIRED to have an interlock to prevent the car from starting until the seat belts were fastened. It was really ugly because the regulations required that the car had to detect, and prevent people from just leaving the seat belts engaged all the time. The systems HAD to require a sequence to start the car: 1. Sit in the seat. 2. Fasten the belts. 3. Start the car. Any deviation from that pattern, and the car would not start. It only lasted 6 months because 1974 was an election year, and in those days 90% of Americans refused to wear seat belts. Now we are so wimpy that we actually ALLOW the state governments to FINE people who refuse to wear their seat belts. (Instead of just issuing them Darwin awards after they crash like we should...) Yet another sign that the end is near...

The date code would look strange to the average American, because we write the date month-day-year, and it would seem to indicate September 3, 2007. In fact however the rest of the world writes the date day-month-year, which shows that the dyno reading was taken on March 9, 2007. Is that what you thought was weird?

You could buy the "Euro-Style Balance Tube Polished and Plated" from http://www.ztherapy.com/ But that runs $160. I was going to make a snide remark, but then I realized that my 71 never had EGR, so my experiences didn't apply.

"...heavy brass hammer." Always wear safety glasses when abusing tools! I use a plain old claw hammer myself, unless more force is required, in which case I switch to a sledge hammer. But then I am from Indiana...

It is common in areas where there is no mandatory emission testing for people to remove the emission control stuff in an attempt to improve performance. I suspect that it does improve the performance somewhat, if done correctly, but remember that it is still illegal. There has been talk from time to time about setting up remote air pollution monitors along interstate entrance ramps, sort of like photo radar traps, to catch people with seriously excessive emissions. I know that putting all that stuff back on would be expensive, and a hassle.

My copy arrived early this week. It will be my last copy. If I had realized it was a quarterly magazine when I initially sighed up I wouldn't have bothered. It is a nice magazine I guess, but by the time I get it I have usually already read most of the information somewhere else.

On some newer cars with computer controlled ignition and knock sensors premium fuel MAY improve performance. This is due to the computer retarding the ignition when it detects engine knock, normally before the driver notices. Typically cars that require premium will say so in the owners manual. On cars the age of most original Z cars, premium fuel is only required if you notice one of the following symptoms: 1. Knocking or pinging under heavy acceleration. 2. Engine run-on. (only happens on cars with carbs...) At one time I had a Chevy with the dreaded "electronic quadrajet". That car would NOT shut off when the engine was hot unless we used premium gas. The stupid thing would actually idle (sort of) in DRIVE for several minutes with the ignition off if the tank contained either regular or plus octane fuel. Short answer, if you need premium in an older car, it will be obvious.

Oh, no!!! Hide this thread from "You know who"... He used the "F" word again.