Captain Obvious

And about the fresh/recirc control cable... Don't worry about it because you don't have one. The vacuum control actuator "takes care of that for you". They always switch over to recirc when you hit A/C. One of the flaws (IMHO) in the system, but that's how it works. There is no provision for you to switch over to recirc unless you turn the A/C on.

Man I hate when that happens. So here's a pic of the temp control lever. It's on the underside (the radio side) of the assembly. That might be why you can't find it. I don't have a good pic of it in-situ, but here's the lever solo. The cable connection point is one of the small holes at the top in the pic: And here's a pic of the whole airbox assy. The temp cable is the one that comes out at the 6:00 position. The jacket is supposed to be held in place by one of those ubiquitous cable clamp thingies:

Grand Master Granny

That's what I mostly do. But why stop at three?

Actually, this might answer the question... I found this pic that indicates the flow direction through the temp control valve is actually opposite of what I said above. Shows what I know, right? : So carry on and don't panic?

At quick glance, I think the way you had it first may be correct? Based on the design, the inlet leg on the temp control valve should be the straight leg, and the outlet side should be the one that comes off sticking out the side. And on the engine... The connection pushing water into the core is the one at the back of the head, and the connection returning to the water pump is the longer hose running near the oil filter. So with that in mind, you ought to be able to determine which hose goes where? a) Head outlet to vacuum cokk inlet. b) Vacuum cokk outlet to temp valve inlet. c) Temp valve outlet to heater core inlet. d) Heater core outlet back to water pump.

Nevermind... I think I see your plastic spacer stuck inside the rubber insulator mount:

One more idea. Kinda far fetched, but since we're throwing stuff out there... There is supposed to be a spacer between the upper spring perch and the rubber insulator mount. On the front they use a bearing there so the front strut can spin when you turn the steering wheel. On the rear (since the rear doesn't have to spin) they use a hard plastic spacer instead. I only bring this up because I don't see the spacer in your pics. Maybe it's stuck inside the rubber mount, or maybe someone lost it along the way? Here's a pic of the upper insulator mounts and their respective bearings/spacers. Rear pair on top and front pair on bottom: Good luck with the continued hunt for the noise.

And forgot... Looking at the different heights of those insulators, it's easy to imagine that there may be a difference in the length of the necked down portion of the insert shaft to accommodate the difference.

Gotcha, and hope you figure out what's going on. As for the insulators, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between early and late. The difference is significant. Here's a pic I hoovered off the internets of the two side by side: The one you showed above appears to be the early shorter version. And that would make sense for an early 260.

Cool. Good to confirm that your vacuum advance isn't doing anything at idle and that it does work when you rev the engine. Sounds perfect. As for the stalling on throttle release... Long standing automotive issue. First thing I would do is check the mixtures. I've seen that dying at idle and a hunting idle when the carbs are running rich.

It is my understanding that the diameter of the strut tubes got bigger in the later years. From 50mm to 55mm OD and a corresponding increase in the ID as well. The length may have changed as well, but I don't know for sure. So if the ID of the strut tubes increased, I expect that KYB increased the diameter of the insert. They also changed the height of the rear insulator mount that goes at the top of the strut assembly. The later mounts are taller than the earlier mounts. The mount in your pic appears to be the earlier shorter version. So I don't know if it's possible to even fit the wrong insert... I suspect (because of the diameter change) that it's impossible to stuff a newer design insert into an older design housing, but the converse may be possible. It may be possible to fit an older design insert into a newer larger housing. Than about the top insulators... I know the overall height changed, but I don't know if that height change resulted in a change in length of the necked down portion of the insert chromed rod. I can theorize that the taller insulator used a longer non-threaded portion of the shaft, while the shorter insulator needs a shorter non-threaded portion. All that said... Here's my thoughts. If they fit a smaller diameter insert into a larger tube, it may be knocking around inside there. And if there is some sort of mismatch on the rear insulator mount, the threaded portion of the insert shaft may not be long enough. You may be bottoming out the nut on the threads before you get to the shoulder. In other words... The nut will get tight, but only because it's binding on the threads instead of tightening up against the shoulder like it should. Bottom line? Make sure all the parts are matched for the car. An early thin bumper 260 should have the smaller strut tube and the shorter insulator on top of the strut assembly. And I'm a little confused by this part - "I pulled one of the rear struts out and disassembled it to look for damage or perhaps a missing part or incorrect assembly. Apparently the correct part number for this car is 361001 (the 20mm version), but I don't know if that is what's on the car or not." If you took a strut assembly apart, then why don't know if the insert is the right one or not? Isn't it as simple as looking at the part number on the side of the insert?

You could run the "pull the hose off and look for differences" now. That way, you would know if it really mattered before you threw another variable into the mix. In other words... When your car won't start after the points conversion (because of some detail somewhere), you may know if it could potentially have anything to do with the vacuum advance system. Or not.

Thanks for the summary. From the context, I figured it was something like that, but I'm surprised it spun up and got out of hand that quickly. I usually check the forum at once or twice a day and I completely missed the whole thing. In any event, I'm hoping that all parties involved get the satisfaction they are looking for. I'll stop bumping this thread and let it go back to sleep.

Cool. Hope everything works out as expected. So out of curiosity... It seems you've got an L28 in your 240Z. Are you running carbs or the L28 fuel injection system?

Well I'm no expert on the subject, but my answer is "In theory, it shouldn't matter whether the vacuum advance line is connected or not." Why? Because the source for the vacuum advance is a ported vacuum source that should provide no vacuum at idle. So, if your car is tuned and idling properly and your throttle butterfly is where it belongs when your engine is idling, then you should have no advance at idle. And because of that, it shouldn't matter whether that hose is connected or not. However, if your car is out of tune in some way and you need to have the throttle open further than normal just to get the engine to idle, then all bets are off. So, here's a way to check... Put the timing light on it at idle with the vacuum line connected. Then disconnect the line and see what happens. There should be no change in engine RPM and no change in timing advance.

Wow. I'm completely lost... What did I miss? I mean, I can piece together the whole ZMEFLY / Burgess scam thing, but what does this have to do with Datsun Spirit? Seems there was a controversial thread deleted before I even got the chance to get involved? I feel left out!

Excellent. Thanks for the closure write-up, and hoping the replacement AFM gets rid of the lean boot. At least you found something tangible! Let's hope that was it!

@Mike

That sounds so much like the setup for a joke....

Thanks Steve. I think that's the same thing I have. I'll check tomorrow in the daylight if I get a chance.

Can you snap a pic of this? I didn't get into details before, but I think I've got the same issue and I believe that's where the majority of my wind noise comes from. If it weren't for the fact that the window fits fine, I would have guessed that my stainless frame was bent out of shape. But if that were the case, the window would bind or something (and mine doesn't).

I did not. I left a small amount of extra length so the two ends are butted together and just friction holds them together. There is not much of a gap, but it's still noisy.

Haha! I bet the insides look pretty much normal, but would sure be fun to poke around. Somebody (I think it was ZH?) posted a very crusty rusty relay at one point... Don't remember if it was an ignition relay or a seat belt relay, but it said "NFG" on the outside and looked like a boat anchor on the inside. Great pic.

So where are you going to put the split seam (the cut ends) of the weatherstripping? I'm currently running the Kia weatherstripping and I put the seam in the square corner at the upper back of the window. I figured I didn't want the seam down at the bottom because that's where water ingress could be more of an issue. So I put it up high and tried to hide it in the corner by cutting 45 degree bevels on the ends. After having it like that for a couple years, I'm not sure that was the best decision.... My Z is a fair weather driver (so it doesn't see much water) and I get a lot of wind noise from the door when I'm on the highway. I wonder if some of that noise would be lower if I had put the seam down at the bottom. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter. And I'm glad to hear you're doing OK. I'm not sure I would be if I did what you did.