Carl Beck

There were about 120 "clunkers" that I parked mine beside - trust me, you wouldn't have paid $500.00 for any of them.. $9000.00??? I think your friend at Midnight needs to watch what he's smoking ;-) If the car was worth $9000.00 the dealer would simply put it on the Used Car Lot and not sold it to the Government for $4,500.00 there isn't a Dealer left in business at this point that is that stupid. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Jon: Actually - they are allowed to resell any of the parts off the clunkers - Except the engine or complete drive train. They{either the Dealer or Recyclers} can sell drive train parts if not attached to the engine. You can download the specific rules and regulations from the CARS.gov web site - just look at the "Dealer" info. It's about 134 page PDF document. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Jon: The owner is Randy Jaffe and I do not believe he is a member here. Randy lived/worked in the Atlanta area for 30+ years. Over the past 10 years I've helped him find the best examples of the Z Cars from 69 though 83. He found and bought his own 300ZX's ;-) At any rate he had one of the finest collections of super low mileage, very original and or pure stock Z's I've ever seen. I think at one time he had over 25, that included 7 of the Vintage Z's. {in addition to some pretty nice collector Porsche's as well}. Life changes - and he is now relocating to Florida, so he has liquidated his auto collection in Atlanta. He hung on to this 10th AE because it has always been one of his favorites, but it's time to move on... He's a stand up guy, and a friend of mine. He has always done exactly what he said he would do, and was never petty about buying any of the cars he wanted. Will he get that kind of money in todays market ? More than likely... true #1 cars are still very hard to find and it seems that there are always Collectors willing and able to pick up a Jewel. Is that actually the First 10th AE Produced? Depends on how you look at it. Of the first group of 10th AE's completed with all the additional/special trim items and paint - Yes it is #1 of 3000. Is it the first chassis serial number to come off the line - NO. Just like the L24's in the 240Z's, the 280ZX chassis used for the 10th AE's got mixed around along the way. Charlie's 10th AE in Canada is equally impressive. His has the Dealer Installed body side molding and a couple more miles - but it too is priced about right. If they don't sell now - they will next year. FWIW, Carl

Hi Roman: Your 240-Z would be a 1971 Model Year, here in the States we refer to them as Series II. It would have had a Date of Manufacture of 05/71. Your Engine would have been produced in 12/72, for the 1973 Model Year. Looking at the pictures - I can't really tell you much. - While the engine block may be from a 1973 240Z, the valve cover is from a Series I car circa 1970. Looks like the S.U. Carb.'s are also from a 70-72 240Z. - Between the #1 and #2 Spark Plugs - cast into the head below them - there is a letter and number - is is E88 or E31? If it is E88 it is most likely the 73 head, if it is E31 it is most likely the 71 Head. - That is a non-stock radiator - after market type - but should be fine - The car has the 70/71 Metal Fan Blade - it would be a good idea to change it out for the newer and lighter weight plastic fan blade. The metal blades are heavy, wear the water pump bushings out and can come off - flying though the radiator or hood. If you can't change it - keep constant attention checking often for any signs of play or movement within the bushing. When worn the fan blade will move up/down when you lift it. - Steering wheel is from a 70 Model year car - brake master cylinder looks like an after market replacement We'll know more as you Post more pictures Welcome to the Group - tell us more about how you came to buy a 240Z, where it came from etc. FWIW, Carl B. Clearwater/ St. Petersburg Florida

While in general we agree - - Let me give you a somewhat different perspective on that sentence. I have no interest in defending the extremely poor management of both the Corporation nor the Unions involved - just the image of what GM really has been to America. I suggest that GM is not a "parasitic corporation" at all. Rather GM was the goose that laid the Golden Eggs for hundreds of thousands of people, and did so for more than eight decades. The ripple effect or multiplier effect of GM's Capital Investments and Payrolls on our GDP since the 1920's has never been calculated - - but I believe that if it were it would amount to Zillions of dollars.Yes way past Trillions No - GM is not a "parasitic corporation". GM is a once noble Host that has been bled dry, made anemic and which now requires serious surgery and lots of medication if we hope to save it. I agree that it is questionable that we should spend In sworn testimony before the U.S. Congress {keep in mind that the Fed's love prosecuting witnesses for perjury and the punishments are sever} the President of the United Auto Workers reminded the Committee that while the cost of labor per vehicle at GM/Ford averaged 11% of the vehicle - the cost of Government was 18%. That 18% cost included Local City and County Property Taxes, State Property and Intangible Taxes, Utility Taxes, State Workmen's Compensation Taxes as well as Federal Income and Social Security Taxes. It also included the government mandates such as EPA, OSHA and Equal Employment Opportunity Acts. That 18% did NOT include all the direct and hidden taxes on every item purchased from suppliers and their workers, nor every tax imposed on the Transporters nor New Car Dealerships. In a creditable study done five years earlier (he didn't say who did the study, or if he did I missed it) - it was stated that if there were no government taxes and no government imposed mandates on an automobile in the U.S. - the cost to the end consumer would be 48% of the MSRP today. If you really want to know how the Golden Goose was killed in the US - and why it is flourishing in places like China, Mexico, India, South America etc - - - Don't be blinded by the propaganda related to the "cost of labor" or "greedy management" - Major Corporations go where the total costs of operation are the lowest, it isn't the "cheap labor" we hear so much about - it's the cost of maintaining a greatly bloated Government, and never ending entitlements used to buy elections here. Like I said - there is no question that Decades of Bad Management and Corrupt Labor Unions played their part - - but actually a very small part by comparison. What is both sad and unexpected is the fact that major corporation from around the world get a better deal in a Communist Country, than they get in a Democratic one. {at least until that country gains its own internal growth engine} FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Coop: Yea...Stretching the "Rules" always adds more interest and fun to the competition. Racing is as much a mental challenge as much as it is a physical one - right? I enjoyed greatly knowing the entire Jaremko family and I've always been proud to call Paul my friend. We had a lot of great times together.. FWIW, Carl B.

10/71 Build date with a 48xxx VIN makes it a 1972 Model Year. Matching numbers means that the original engine serial number stamped on the engine block 'matches" the engine number stamped in the Data Tag under the hood. Orange with White interior was first offered for the 72 Model Year - most people think it is one of the BEST combinations to own. If it sat outside al this time - Given it's original acrylic enamel paint - chances are a good buffing will remove what is left of the enamel skin coat - meaning it will shine for about two weeks before it goes dull again. Might as well plan on doing a complete repaint in the original color. FWIW Carl B.

Walter - the latest... U.S. Won't Suspend Auto "Clunkers" Program: Official By REUTERS Published: July 30, 2009 Filed at 11:03 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will not suspend its $1 billion "cash for clunkers" auto sales incentive even though confirmed sales and pending transactions neared the limit of 250,000 vehicles much sooner than expected, an Obama administration official said on Thursday night. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/...ers-sales.html Reply With Quote

Tom Barber disagrees completely...with Mr. Bruce Augenstein. I watched the debate via 40 or so e-mails between the two... it got nasty to say the least. Nonetheless in the interests of hearing both sides: See: http://wotid.com/dyno/content/view/18/37/ FWIW, Carl B.

Which price ranage is that? I like the direction of the styling displayed in the Genesis.. but have no idea what it would weigh. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Guy: Here for example is the "peanut head" W53 from an L16. The valves seem to be set quite a bit deeper in the head. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Chris: If matching numbers didn't mean anything to you, and having driven the car you were happy with it - what does it matter if its an L24 or L28 block? It's still the same car... Looked at another way - you can start saving your money for a rebuild on a spare L28.. and when its done drop it into your car - should be a noticeable performance difference!! I have to admit that it is kind of strange to put an L24 in a "280Z" body... but what the heck - it made for a great deal - right? Don't let it bother you - we all make the same kind of mistakes. Sometimes they turn out being good things in the end. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Guy / Brandon: Wow - great pictures. Quite a difference from the E31/E88 chamber design. The quench area is quite flat compared to the more hemispherical design of the earlier heads. Looks like some very fine work there. Very interesting.. I'm going to steal some pictures from you guys for my image files.. This time I'll remember to put names on them... Early E88 on the Left and late {73/74} on the Right thanks, Carl B.

Hi Arne / Kurt / Steve: I don't know if you or anyone has been watching Hyundai in general - or not. The Genesis Coupe is most certainly a step in the right direction for them. The 3.8 Track model at $30K is certainly getting closer to what I want - - - but still too far above $20K. Is the Genesis going to get a 2.0L turbo - or is that the Kia Koup? Since Kia was merged into / absorbed by - Hyundai in 1998/2000 - there has been some significant management changes and overall direction of the combined corporation. Somewhat like Nissan. Tom Kearns took on the responsibility of Chief Designer at Kia Motors America in 2005. Prior to working for Kia Tom worked for G.M. where he oversaw the development of the Cadilliac CTS. Since joining Kia his group has created some of the best looking Kia Concept cars including the original SOUL Concept {by Mike Torpey}, the award winning KUE Crossover and the stunning Kia KOUP Concept. Mike Torpey talking about his design. http://www.kiasoul.com/#/design and click on the button at the bottom that says "design". I find it very interesting that Hyundai/Kia putting the "individuals" that design their cars in public view. Good to see talent recognized. In 2006, Dr. Peter Schreyer took over as the new Kia Global Design Director. He left the VW/Audi Group after establishing Audi's unique styling across its entire product line. The Kia Forte Koup should be available soon with the 2.4L 173HP engine {or a possible 2.0L Turbo at close to 290HP}. The Kia Forte Koup doesn't have the high end performance of cars in the $30K to $40K range yet - but at $19K it's closer to building truly "affordable" fun than most. Give me 173HP in a 2400lb sports coupe at $19K - with great styling and design - I'll buy. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Guys/Gals: In 1970 my first Datsun was a 240-Z that I paid full MSRP of $3526.00 plus shipping, rear window defroster and tinted glass. Oh yes, and the Dealer already had slotted mag.'s on it... But we'll stick to just the MSRP for now. What cost $3526.00 in 1970 dollars - would today cost $19,337.66 adjusted for general inflation effecting the U.S. Dollar. A BMW 2002Ti in 1975 had an MSRP of around $5K as I recall - adjusted for inflation that's $19,795.11 in 2008 dollars. I guess this story is a little bit about the tremendous advancements that have been made in the design, development and manufacturing of automobiles in the past 40 years. {gee has it been that long?} Now don't go off on a tangent of trivia or fine detail at this point - I am speaking about more broad general concepts here. { agreed that nothing every has been or ever will be the Datsun 240-Z, and that I am comparing a Sports/GT or Sports Sedan of the 70's to cheap sedans of today } Over the past few weeks - - I looked at and drove; a) Honda FIT, b)Toyota Matrix, c) Nissan Cube, d) Pontiac Vibe {same as the Toyota Matrix - only with a $3,000.00 factory rebate}, Suzuki SX-4 Crossover, e) Scion x-Box and f) Kia SOUL. All in more or less the $16K to $20K range with various rebates on some. What simply amazed me - granted I haven't looked at new small cars for a long time - is that if you equipped them all with about the same standard equipment and options - in the $18K range - the amount of automobile you can buy today for more or less the same money as in 1970/75 - amazes me. I'm sure it has do to many factors including improved mass production processes and machines; as well as global competition in the market place. In effect the efficient use of capital and ever increasing productivity. The list of what is now considered "Standard Equipment" on almost everyone of these "cheap" cars is amazing to me at least. Skipping a hundred small design details that add to the ease of use, I'll list a few of the major Equipment items - from memory... STANDARD EQUIPMENT on models in the $18K range Automatic Transmission (4 or 5 spd A/T) Air Conditioning Cruise Control AM/FM/CD Stereo Power Windows Power Door Locks Power Steering Power Brakes 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS !! 16" Mag Wheels 1.8L to 2.4L OHC or DOHC with Fuel Injection Steering Wheel controls for Phone, Radio, Cruise Bluetooth enabled hands free phone {in the radio} UBS and iPhone ports 12v Power Ports Air BAGS - air bags - air bags everywhere 4 or 5 Star Safety Ratings 2009/2010 EPA and Safety Standards Met Average Fuel Economy of at least 26 mpg {most with 30+ highway ratings} Factory Warranties - between 3yr/36,000miles and 5yr/100,000 miles Every one of them have BRAKES to dream of. They all handled very well and at 70 mph were dead silent on the Freeway { relatively speaking - hey I'm talking about "cheap" cars here }. OK - so most of the standard equipment isn't "necessary" - if you don't want it - then the base price of some of them is a low as $13K brand new and even then they are far from what was considered "stripped" in the 70's. Bottom line - we seem to have had a 100% or 200% improvement in productivity between 1970 and 2009/10, given the current crop of "economy" cars. I find it amazing... but then maybe because I haven't really been watching the market closely over the years and all this comes as a surprise to me. Makes one wonder - what kind of Sports/GT could be produced today - if you stripped it down to the basics and spent the money on power and performance - - for $18K. FWIW, Carl B.

$1,895.00 brand new for the PL510...and now what? $85,000.00 for the GT-R? Wow - that's progress!! Great photo... FWIW, Carl B.

If you started it up without first cleaning the gas tank and lines - you'll suck varnish into the fuel rail and carb.'s as well. If you didn't clean the carb's and float bowls everything in them will be "sticky" as well. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Darren: I think you will enjoy the 240Z as much or perhaps more than any other Z you've had. The 240Z's have their own unique personality - that makes them a joy to drive. Wecome to the group here - FWIW, Carl B.

I should think that any woodworker with a small lathe could easily turn the wood in the newer knobs down to the exact same diameter as the earlier knobs... then you'd just refinish the wood. Yes/No??? FWIW, Carl B.

Nissan as well as almost every other manufacturer - supplies "replacement parts" such that owners can keep their cars operational for extended life cycles. Manufacturers do NOT supply parts with the intention of providing exact replicas of the original part. Why? - because in the manufacturing process, original dies and molds simply wear out. Over time "improvements" are made that either reduce the costs of manufacturing, or increase the quality of the part. As mentioned, different vendors with different dies/molds etc can supply the parts to Nissan as well over the years. If the form, fit and function of a part produced later, is the same as the part produced earlier - and both come from the vehicles manufacturer - then the newer part is considered to be an OEM "replacement part". Appearance is similar, but need not be identical as far as the replacement part supply is concerned. If you want an exact duplicate of any part - you have to find someone that has the exact part as New Old Stock. Only the original, exact part should be labeled NOS and the original Part Number should be given. The rear hatch seal supplied by Nissan for a 280Z is NOT NOS for a 240Z - it is however an OEM replacement part for the 240Z. Because of massive misuse - the term New Old Stock has become almost useless today. FWIW, Carl B.

The stock air cleaner is about 3", the stock air filter is about 2 1/2" and the stock air horns are about 1 1/2" tall - so the HS6 ram pipe should be about perfect at 1 1/2" height. At $32.00 each that is IMHO a very reasonable price... FWIW, Carl B.

You need to put an Ohm Meter on each individual wire and check to see what resistence readings you get. Could be a lose/bad connection on one end or the other of the wires. Just a thought FWIW, Carl B.

I don't actually recall BRE selling one exactly like the one you have pictured. I have a BRE Spook for the 280Z... and anything is for sale if the price is right. FWIW, Carl B.

hi Bruce: APT is very neat business - thanks I like their Ram Pipes and at 1 1/2" tall they should fit neatly inside his 3" tall air filters. http://www.aptfast.com/Images_Parts/SU/RP-HS4.jpg APT uses "HS2", "HS4", "HS6" SU's in their part descriptions. Do you know what/which or how that translates to the SU's on our Z's? I'm guessing that for the OEM SU's on the Z's it would be HS4? http://www.aptfast.com/APT_Parts/SU_Parts/a_SU_components.htm thanks, Carl B.

On dyno tuning runs at Sunbelt - they found that removing the stock air cleaner top and filter, yet leaving the stock air cleaner base in place with the air horns - yielded about 10 hp. I would suggest that you find at least the base of the stock round top SU air cleaner - and take the air horns off of it - then added them to your custom air cleaners. You can lose that 10hp without the airhorns - and that can translate to reduced fuel efficiency as well. An alternative is to measure the diameter/length of the stock air horns on a stock air cleaner base - and then look for aftermarket air horns that you can modify to use. FWIW, Carl B.