Walter Moore

Indeed thankyou for that link. It is one that I had not found. I agree that pulling 30 year old seat belts out of a junk yard isn't a good idea. Now back in 1980 when my first car (a 72 model) didn't have seat belts I was able to get a nice set for it from a wrecking yard, but that was different in at least 2 ways. 1. The car was only 8 years old, so I knew that the wrecked car hadn't been in the junk yard for long. 2. That was before manditory seat belt laws, and less than 20% of the population EVER actually used a seat belt, so there was a 80% chance that the belts in the junk yard had never been used. :cheeky:

Indeed a seat belt is a very important safey device, but as with jayz240z, my car came without ANY seat belts. (It isn't the first car from that era that came into my possession without them.) I have still not aquired any belts for it, but then it doesn't run yet either. I still plan on buying standard aftermarket three point belt setups and trying to adapt them to the Z car's mounting locations. But if you know of a source who will make something better let me know. (The link you gave didn't actually look like they would do this, but I haven't called them either...)

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were comparing GVWR to GVWR... I am not sure exactly when all the U.S. safety requirements began to be required. It may be that '73 model cars sold in the U.S. (Which typically go on sale in September remember) may have been required to have safety features like side impact protection etc. If there were more stringent safety requirements for cars sold in the fall, given that the Z cars were built in Japan and shipped to North America on a slow boat, they certainly would have added them to cars built in May... U.S. car companies traditionally change over from one model year to the next over their extended July 4th holiday shutdown, then start producing the next year's model in late July or early August. After taking my '71 apart it is painfully clear that it doesn't meet anything close to the current safety requirements for side impact protection, and frankly of all the cars that I have owned it is the one I would least like to be in if it got hit by something big... (Like one of my other cars...) But then it is a sports car, not a tank.

GVWR lists the MAXIMUM that the vehicle will weigh with the maximum safe load of passengers and cargo. Is is required to be posted on cars sold in the U.S. at least so that you can be certain to buy tires that can support the weight safely. (And inflate them correctly, remember the Firestone tire / Ford Explorer crashes?) If I remember correctly 400LBS is just about what the glove box plackard lists as the maximum load capacity of the 240Z.

Indiana is one of those inconsistant states... It used to be mandatory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle here, until about 20 years ago. Then they repealed that law and replaced it a few years later with a mandatory seat belt law... We are also one of the very few states where you are NOT required to wear a seat belt in a truck. Which makes for some interesting situations, since most SUVs can be plated as either a car or a truck. If you are driving a SUV with a truck plate the police can't give you a ticket for not wearing your seat belt, but someone in an identical SUV that has a "car" plate on the back can be ticketed. I actually know people who will only drive trucks because they don't like seat belts. I must be in the minority however, because while I have never driven a car (or a truck..) without a seat belt holding me in place, I still think that my personal choices about my health and safety are none of the state's business. :rambo:

The difference between a FWD and a RWD when driving in the snow is that RWD cars SPIN into the ditch while FWD cars PLOW into the ditch. I have owned and driven both over the years, and other than which end of the car reaches the ditch first, and the ability of FWD cars to fool inexperienced drivers into THINKING that they have more control over where the car is going, there is no significant difference. All of the really great "snow" cars that I have ever owned were RWD. Those would be in order: 1976 Buick Electra limited (7.5L V8, 3 ton curb weight, Limited Slip Differential) 1987 Mercury Colony Park station wagon (5.0L V8, 3 ton curb weight, Limited Slip Differential) 1974 Volvo 164E (3.0L I6, 2 ton curb weight, standard differential) (If the Volvo had had a LSD it would have been #1... It snows a LOT in Sweden apparently... ) Having said that, the 240Z is a sports car, and ALL sports cars are worthless in the snow. (Including FWD sports car wantabes...I have had some of those as well)

Whenever I find that I have offended someone by being an arrogant American, I remember that all time classic comic book "It's a mad, mad world" which I read in my youth... In one of the "skits" an American is in a restaurant in Paris, and asks the waiter for advice on how large of a tip to leave. The waiter with a big smile kindly informs him "Do not worry sir. You are an American! Whatever you do, it will be wrong!" I crack myself up. But seriously. Americans in general are no more arrogant than anyone else. The Japanese, Koreans, French, and Dutch people that I have worked with are just as certain of their opinons as I am... but them most of them are engineers, and ALL good engineers are arrogant, it is an essential requirement of the profession. I know because I am one! :stupid:

A crack pipe... gee and I was worried about the roach clip that I found under the center console in my Z when I dissasembled the interior... :paranoid:

I am a electrical controls systems engineer. I currently work for a company that builds automatic balancing and gauging machines. (Tires, wheels, tire and wheel assemblies, electric motor armatures, crankshafts, etc...) almost entirely automotive related.

They will sell me the bolt to attach the part that they can't get? That is very helpful... :laugh:

For what it is worth, the Haynes manual shows the item that I posted the picture of as the proportioning valve for the 240Z, and the one on the firewall as the valve for the 260Z and 280Z. I suppose that it is possible that early 73' 240Z's might have come with the former and later cars with the latter valve. I sincerely doubt that any cars had both valves, as that would cause all sorts of problems. Part of the confusion here is that all the Z cars 70 - 78 had the three port T connection, which looks a lot like the rear-mounted valve. In any case, it looks like 280Zgod and I are going to be looking for an alternative since both styles of proportioning valves are no longer available. As I posted somewhere... mayhaps in that other long thread... Motorsports and others who sell rear disk brake conversions also sell an adjustable model of proportioning valve. I am not sure if the adjustable unit will work with rear drum brakes. I guess I could try it and find out. It looks like it is intended to replace the firewall mounted unit, so if I decide to go that way I will have to re-bend some of the new pipes that I just finished. It is going to be quite a while before I get my Z back on the road anyway, so don't anyone hold their breath waiting for me to test on of these adjustable valves with the stock rear brakes.

I just Emailed both of them, and I told them that I heard about them here in the forums. It never hurts to let people know where to look for potential business.

Um... perhaps they don't expect people to fix 30+ year old cars... I am just trying to scrounge up enough information to plot a plan of action without their help.

If I did this correctly, the two pictures attached show the "Pressure Regulator Valve" for the rear brakes of my 71' 240Z. By the way, the Haynes manual uses the exact same term to describe the proportioning valve on the firewall of the 260/280. The more that I look at this thing the more that I wonder... It appears to be completely sealed. There is one port that connects to the brake failure switch / master cylinder (Inlet) and the outlet connects to the "T" fitting that splits the lines off to the two rear wheels. There is no way that a totally sealed unit like this, with no return path could really regulate a hydraulic circuit. At best it is a variable restriction in the line... perhaps just a surge suppressor? A device like this would keep the rear brakes from locking first, at least it would on drum brakes, since they are prone to locking on a sudden increase in wheel cylinder pressure. It might just give the front brakes a "Head start" in the braking process.

On my 71 there are 2 "items" in the right rear wheel well. One of them is a three way tube connector, what I would call a "T" fitting, and the other is called a "pressure regulator" by the Hanes manual. When I called the local Nissan dealer asking for a proportioning valve for my 240Z he came up with a part number... which is not available. It may be that the newer cars have a more sophisicated proportioning system, but this thing must be doing something... It appears to have some kind of spring loaded metering rod or something inside. If I don't need it, that is ok too, but I really doubt that.

Actually there is only one proportioning valve on the 280Z, just like there is only one on the 260 and 240. The confusion you have is that the master cylinder connects first to the brake failure switch, then the rear brakes connect to the proportioning valve. On a 240Z the proportioning valve is located behind the right rear wheel. On the 260Z and 280Z it is on the firewall. I have the valve from my 240Z here at my desk. The stupid thing leaks like a sieve, and I can't find another one. So far the best that I can find is an adjustable unit that Motorsports sells for their rear disk conversion kit. If I end up having to go that way I will mount it in the engine compartment so that I can tweek it until I get the balance right.

Actually, the porportioning valve on the 280 is on the firewall. There is a "T" in the brake line near the rear wheels, but the item that is broken on my 240 is the "other" brass object back by the right rear wheel. I gather from another active thread that the proportioning valve for the 280Z is NLA as well, so buying one of them isn't an easy out either... Besides, when did Nissan change to rear disk brakes? Was it on the 280Z, or the 280ZX?

Well, now that you all have firmly established that the "pressure regulating valve" near the right rear wheel is indeed a "Proportioning valve", where can I get one? I just re-assembled the brake lines on my 240Z, and when I tried to bleed the rear brakes I discovered to my horror that the valve in question leaks. (Actually hemorrhage is a more accurate word...) Both the local Nissan dealer and Motorsports Auto inform me that these valves are N.L.A. Does anyone have a suggestion of a suitable substitute? I am afraid to by-pass the thing because I am sure Nissan wouldn't have wasted the money on it if it wasn't needed. (and I don't want the car to brake like my old Pinto, which always stopped sideways.) Motorsports has an adjustable pressure regulator that is used for disk brake conversions. Has anyone ever used one of those in a stock application? Junkyards are out of the question. There simply are no old Datsuns in any of the local junk yards here. Besides it looks like the valve I need was only used on the 70 - 73 model, very few of those ever made it this far into flyover country. Thanks for whatever help you can give.

So, 2Many... how does one go about matching the combustion chamber shape to the exaust setup? I only ask because... well read my signature line. :cheeky:

You know... The funny thing is that just this past Saturday some "Kid" (May have been 25 you know... ) pulled up in the alley behind the house and ask "Say does that little car you are working on there in the garage need a V8? I have a small block for sale. It is in a Malibu station wagon right now, but I need to sell it to pay for my new wheels and tires. It makes like 450HP, is a 350, bored .060 oversize...." Well you get the drift. Apparently he didn't notice the completely rebuilt and repainted L24 sitting on the engine stand right next to the car. Such a deal... but I had to turn him down. Can't blame him for trying.

I am just going from memory here, so someone correct me if I am wrong... What you have on the engine now is actually 2 separate pulleys. The front one is basically just held on by the mounting bold, and is powered for rotation by the heads of two socket-heat cap screws (Allen-bolts). Any standard wheel puller should just pop it straight off, but you may need to push against the original mounting bolt, because the hole in the first pulley is just large enough for the mounting bolt to pass through. The back pully is actually a harmonic balancer for the engine. It has a keyway in the balance pully and another in the crankshaft with a steel key between them to maintain angular alignment. To remove that thing you need to remove the two socket head cap screws, and use those tapped holes with an appropriate wheel puller. Any good auto parts store will have the tools that you need.

I don't have exact numbers, but I remember that when I lifted mine I discovered that it weights a lot more than I expected it would. Just a WAG... but I would say in the range of 50 - 75 lbs. Could be less, I am not all that strong.

Gosh! Has it really been four months since I started on the rear spindle pin project? I still haven't gotten the rear suspension back together, but that is because I have been working too much. I just wanted to post this "for the record". It turns out that the reason I could not get the spindle pins out of my struts was that somehow the pins had become swagged in place right where the lock bolts went through. They were not rusted in place as I suspected... I ended up cutting the pins with a sawsall, and taking the whole mess to a machine shop. The owner, a former co-worker who I trust, told me that he had to use a 30 ton press to get the old pins out of each strut, and it was a hard press at that. When it was done, you could see where the metal had sheared off of the old pin right at the lock bolt. (couldn't have been my fault on the right side, since I never even removed the outer nuts on that one.) Must have been a screw-up by a previous owner, or an inexperienced mechanic.

Amazing! A Z car that is actually in worse shape than mine was when I found it... :stupid:

First, I am not an attorney, and do not claim to know the laws in your state. Second, Everything that I am about to tell you is true in Indiana, but may or may not be true in Georgia. Consult a real attorney before you go to court. HERE (in Indiana...) the charge of driving without a license does NOT mean that you were driving without that little plastic laminated certificate issued by your state of residence on your person. It means that you were operating a motor vehicle without first having been issued a license at all (having an expired license is a separate offense...) If in point of fact you WERE issued a license, before the accident and bring it with you to court, in this state they would either dismiss the charge, or change it to some lesser offense. (a conviction for driving without a license will send your insurance rates out of sight.) The same is true (at least here in Indiana...) for the driving without insurance charge. If you actually did have insurance in force at the time of the accident, and can prove that, the court will dismiss the charge. Actually here you would not have recieved a ticket for failure to show proof of insurance. The officer would have handed you a form that has to be filled out by your insurance agent <and notorized> which form has to be recieved by the bureau of motor vehicles within 10 business days of the accident, or your license is automatically suspended. My wife has had to go through that little dance for accidents where she was in no way at fault. (we don't even get to plead with a judge about it.) As for the following too close charge... you already proved the man's point. Just my opinon.