Captain Obvious

Thanks for the input guys. I made a set of wood blocks and told the guy who does my inspections that I would like him to use them, but I'm not sure he does. He doesn't like them and he thinks I'm being a neurotic worrywart about the car. It also takes extra time to get the wood blocks out and install on the car. Time is money, and he's a professional. I can take all the time I want in my own shop, but he's on the clock. Plus, if anything ever happened, it's a liability issue. Were these wood blocks OSHA approved? But before any of you suggest "Well then you just need to find another shop!", there are good points to the relationship I've fostered there and I would hate to see that relationship go away. @gnosez, Here's a pic of your second gen jack plates, but I'm not sure how they would be installed. Do you have a pic (from the underside) of these installed on a car: Also, other than cost, is there any reason these couldn't be applied in two locations on each side for use with a typical garage lift? By that, I mean, instead of being single point jack points, is it practical to do something like that in four locations to pick up the four arms from a lift? Also, what about years compatibility? I know much of the unseen sheet metal on the 77 and 78 cars is different than everything that came before. Have you tried these on the final years of first gen Z's?

I have to get my 77 inspected by the state annually, and whenever it goes up on the lift, the underside takes some damage. It's not all crushed in bad like many Z's out there (yet), but I would really like to prevent future damage if I can. Even the FSM indicates the use of the front frame rails on the floors as the "proper" lift point, but they clearly are not up to the task. They simply cannot take the load. So is there a different support option that is stronger than the frame rails? Is there a tested modification that can be made to prevent future damage? Is there some sort of option or product that can be installed to provide better or stronger lift points? Like welded in flat pads designed to be used as lift points? I've got about six months to come up with something before it has to go on the lift again.

In Indiana, if you want to get a title, you have to prove ownership. The easiest way to prove ownership is to provide a properly executed title (from the seller) when you request a new title. http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm However, if you cannot obtain a certificate of title from the seller of your vehicle, and the vehicle is valued at $5,000 or less, according to NADA average retail or clean retail value, you may apply for a certificate of title by completing an Affidavit of Ownership for a Vehicle – State Form 23037 - http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Affidavit_of_Ownership_Packet.pdf 1. An applicant who is unable to obtain a properly executed title for a vehicle may present the below form to obtain a certificate of title. 2. Please complete in blue or black ink or print form. 3. The retail value of the vehicle must meet the requirements as determined by the Bureau. 4. The purchaser must have a notarized Bill of Sale or a Bill of Sale signed under penalty of perjury which indicates the vehicle’s year, make, VIN, seller, purchaser, and purchase price. Sales tax will be assessed by the amount indicated on the Bill of Sale. 5. An unopened, unclaimed certified letter to the seller’s (and lien holder, if applicable) last known address requesting the title must be presented with this affidavit. A copy of the unopened letter should be included to confirm the request for the title to the vehicle in question. Do not open the original letter. 6. Include a lien release, if necessary. 7. A VIN inspection completed by law enforcement is required. 8. Include an Odometer Disclosure Statement, if applicable I wonder if the PO sent the required certified letters and has the unopened returned letter? The purchase happened a couple years ago, right? So you need either an old properly executed title, or you have to jump through hoops in order to prove ownership. And even if you DO get through those hoops, the vehicle still needs to be inspected for proper VIN information by an authorized BMV appointee. And then when it's found during the VIN inspection that the VIN has been been altered or defaced, you have to jump through even more hoops and apply for a special identification number (MVIN) before you can apply for a certificate of title or registration: http://www.in.gov/bmv/2473.htm and http://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Special_ID_Number_MVIN_Vehicle_App_Packet.pdf So I've looked at three states: In PA, you wouldn't be able to get it titled at all because you need a physical VIN tracing. In Nevada, you would have to get a "Rebuilt Title" because the cowl was replaced (at best). In Indiana, you would end up with a "Special Identification Number (MVIN)." title because the VIN had been altered or defaced. And that's even assuming you could properly even prove ownership of the vehicle in the first place. I didn't check all the states, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were states where this car was a non-problem, but so far in the three for three that I've looked at, that's not the case. Captain Out.

In Nevada, when you bring a vehicle in you have to go through a VIN inspection at the DMV. I suspect if they see a couple different VIN markings on the same car, there will be a problem. Also, they define a "Rebuilt vehicle" (NRS 482.098) in the following way: 1. A vehicle for which one or more of the following major components have been replaced: (a) Cowl assembly; (b) Rear clip assembly; (c) Roof assembly; (d) Floor pan assembly; (e) Conventional frame coupled with one additional major component; or (f) Complete front inner structure for a unibody. Note: The term "rebuilt" does not include a vehicle for which the only change is the installation of a truck cab assembly. And their definition of "cowl assembly" includes the firewall. So if you claim the firewall is from a different car and was replaced with one from a different car, then you are automatically in the "rebuilt vehicle" title category. That is from: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/vp064a.pdf

Here's some discussion on the matter: http://www.vintageautomotive.net/

Oops. double post

I consider a VIN stamped into a non-removable piece of metal (such as a firewall) to be a way more credible identification mark than one on a removable nameplate. In PA, when you bring a car in from another state, you are required to provide a pencil VIN tracing. The nameplate VIN would not hold water in that case. It would have to be done from the firewall or the dashboard. o, in PA, you would not be able to title that car unless it were titled with the firewall or dash VIN.

I can provide only a little bit of info (in an area that probably doesn't even help you). They added a seventh tumbler to the ignition locks somewhere along the way. I don't know about the early single sided keys, but the early two sided keys used locks with six tumblers. My guess is the change in July 73 is probably the addition of the seventh tumbler.

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Haha!! Gotcha! I was out of the first gen seat for a bunch of years, but now that I'm back, I'm lovin' it! Welcome back!

Welcome aboard! Seems you've got a penchant for the slightly unusual. I'd drive any of the cars in your stable! Duck Magnum! Duck!

Great story, and it's fantastic that you're back in the seat. I am a little confused by one thing though:

Continued confusion... This car turned up in May 2105 on both japanesenostalgoc and BAT for $25K: http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/kidney-anyone-1972-datsun-240z-pace-car/ https://bringatrailer.com/2015/05/01/1-of-50-1972-datsun-240z-commemorative-pace-cars/ They cited the same link about the restoration with the implication that these are all the same car: http://zhome.com/Racing/OMSDuplicates.htm I've completely lost how many times this thing has supposedly been painted. I've got no dog in this fight, and it's a good thing... I can't tell which one I should be rooting for! Captain Out.

zKars, Oh well then! That would be mighty definitive if it doesn't even fit over the stub axle shaft, wouldn't it!! I guess we'll have to wait for confirmation from Matthew to know for sure. Haha! I think I already said that?

I took a closer look at the cited web pages where the claims of the selling entity are supposedly supported, and it just gets fishier. First of all, none of these replica cars ever paced a lap. They are "replicas" of the pace car. The REAL pace car had performance and suspension mods that made it track worthy, but not legal to drive on the street. The story supposedly goes like this... They make one fast, but not street worthy. This is used as the pace car. They make a second one that LOOKS like the pace car, but it is street worthy to drive around town for photo-ops. From what I can tell, those two cars (even though they are very different) are both called "Official Pace Cars" Then there is some unexplained jump and picture to support the existence of fifty "replica" pace cars. These were probably normal 240Z's with a pace car looking paint job and maybe a plaque or tag somewhere indicating the status. So then there are the pics of the car in question on the website, and a couple pics of the "restoration". They show the car mostly maroon with some paint sanded off exposing what looks like some blue patches. Then they show it freshly painted the way it is currently in that for sale ad. Two things get me about this... First, adding to the concept of a poorly done "restoration", it isn't even painted correctly for a replica pace car. It's missing the blue downward stripes on the front fenders!!! Who "restores" a specialty car like that and forgets a huge paint detail like that??? And it's also missing the "OFFICIAL PACE CAR" wording on the rear hips. Then second, and even more troubling to me, is that the next pictures on that that same web page, they show what is propertied to be the same car and it DOES have the fender stripes and a big racing number "0" on the roof and the door. So which paint came first? The current one, or the one with the 0? What? They painted it AGAIN, and then a third time for the for sale ad? It's all just so fishy...

They didn't take all the riff-raff

That was my first thought as well. Last one of fifty produced, huh? Prove it. Unless you can produce definitive documentation to prove it IS in fact what they say it is, then it's just a 72 with a history of crappy paint jobs. The thing that really bothers me about a car and claim like that is... OK, so they think it's something really special. If it's really THAT special, wouldn't you take the time and put forth the effort and cost to put paint and other finishing touches on it that's commensurate to the uniqueness of the specimen? They say in the description: "only one of the 50 duplicate O.M.S. Pace Cars has been found, and the sole survivor is the car we have to offer you. The original owner tired of the graphics and painted it with a Jaguar Burgundy. The car was pulled out of storage and sold to a friend of the owner in 2007, who began its restoration. Photos show layers of paint being peeled away revealing the original O.M.S. Blue and White colors from 1972." If they peeled the paint away, then why is there still burgundy overspray in the engine compartment? You see it? Over near the blue overspray? There are several members of this forum who put their cars on a rotisserie and stripped to bare metal and did a real nice paint job. And that's just for their "driver" car. Not one of fifty of something supposedly this unique!

Wow... Remind me to never buy a vehicle from Indiana. So if you don't have a title, then what documentation do you have to prove that you even own the vehicle in the first place? A notarized bill of sale? A non-notarized bill of sale? And what information is on that documentation to indicate that the documentation pertains to that specific car? Is there VIN listed on that documentation? If so, which VIN? The one from the firewall, or the one from everywhere else?

Well there's still possibility #1 that one of the rear corners was put together wrong. If that were the case, I would assume it would pan out like this: They pressed the outer bearing onto the stub axle correctly. They also pressed the inner bearing into the knuckle correctly. But then they incorrectly put the distance piece AND a washer onto the stub axle before inserting it into the knuckle. If that's the case, when they tightened the nut, it would draw the stub axle into the knuckle until it bottomed out. That bottoming out is SUPPOSED to occur at the exact same position when the outer race of the outer bearing makes contact with the seating surface machined into the knuckle. But if they had a 1.0mm thick washer in place, the stub axle will bottom out against the inner bearing 1.0mm BEFORE the outer bearing is fully seated. Not the end of the world resulting in an immediate spectacular failure, but would probably result in a load on that outer bearing that it wasn't real happy about. Would also result in your wheel being 1.0mm farther out than the other side. Not that you would notice that with your eye though. As for measuring the distance between the seating surfaces... You could hold a short flat piece of something against one of the seating surfaces and then use a depth measuring tool from the other end to determine the distance? In other words, use one bearing surface as the seat for a depth measuring tool, and then use a temporary (hand held) anvil against the other surface as the stop for the depth measurement. I'm trying to come up with a direct (instead of calculated) measurement of the counterbores inside the knuckle. Using the still installed inner bearing is pretty good, but sometimes the inner and outer races are not ground to exactly the same width. Also, you will be pressing the inner race downward which takes up all available play. I would think this could explain your 52.69 measurement above. The one that gives you hope gives me hope as well and adds credence to the "installed incorrectly" theory. Let me know if that makes sense, and if not, I can whip up a sketch or something.

RIP. You know Bon and Malcolm are rockin' it right now.

Forgot... I don't remember how large the hole is in the rear knuckle. Too small to feed the jaws of the caliper in there and measure the distance between the two bearing seats directly?

I don't consider it academic at all. You say you took two of them apart and the washer was in a different place between the two sides. Now that you have measured the length of the distance piece and found them both the same, I consider only the following two possibilities: 1) One of those rear corners was assembled wrong. Very wrong. Or... 2) You were mistaken about the location of the washers upon disassembly, and they were both installed in the same relative position on both sides. Either both in series with the distance pieces, or both between the inboard bearing and the companion flange. I had originally considered a third possibility that one of the rear knuckles had been machined to have longer distance between the two bearings than the other, but the factory spread from distance pieces (from length "A" to length "C") is 0.2 mm, and there would never ever be a need for a 1.0mm thick washer in there. So unless some repair shop went in there and added metal to the bearing seating surface, I consider this possibility very unlikely. I think you still need to determine double dog sure where those washers go. And back to it being academic? It's not. If there IS a measurement mismatch, it's not as bad as you think. It would be a relatively simple procedure to machine replacement distance pieces of the proper length. In fact as a side note, I just went through this a few weeks ago with the cheap-o aftermarket lawn mower blade spindles I purchased. They were incorrect as purchased, and I had to adjust the lengths of the distance pieces between the two bearings. During the process, I accidently cut the second one a thousandth too short (crap!!!) and had to make a completely new replacement. BTW - I'm all in that the washers go between the inboard bearing and the companion flanges, but it's still prudent to wait for confirmation.

Yup. I made that knob. Top to bottom. The knobs I've made are a labor of love. Easy? No!! If I had a Kenmeri shift knob that I cold use as a pattern, I could probably copy it. But to be honest... If they are available already, then it's probably cheaper to just buy one.

I've also done some customization work to my 77. It's a "Stage 1".

Wow. Cheap! I was looking at that damage thinking about ways to fix it, but at that price, there's no way. Cool! Make sure you get the tapered edges facing the right way on the new one! You won't have tarnish marks to use as a guide like you probably had on the old one. Bet you can't wait to get those things back on the car and see how much better things work!