Carl Beck

Hi Larry: Which "history" have you read a number of times? I believe that since 1995 at least, there has been a great effort to change or refute the early reports related to the design and development of the Datsun 240-Z. So I'll hope that early reported history doesn't stay the same... I hope that the article I pointed you too - does attempt to give credit to the other people in the Studio. As I recall, the B210 didn't come out until four years after the Z... circa 1974? That would have put it in the design cycle closer to 1970 when the final design of the Z had been done for a couple years. Also, according to several different reports - Nissan kept the various Design Studio's separate from one another. (Sports Cars vs Sedans). As you and I both know - the personnel assigned to any design team - determine to the largest extent, the success of failure of the project. Having Mr. Matsuo and his team in place, at the right time and gaining the right backing - was a one in a million shot for any automotive manufacturer. Chance or Destiny.. who knows.. but it happens only once in a while. Hummm.... it's still a little bit to early to tell. The 90 300ZX Twin Turbo was most certainly a Milestone Car - and it more or less set the stage for the Japanese Super Cars in the Sports Car market. The styling also appears to me at least to be close to timeess. (if you had never seen one before - it would look perfectly modern today.. some 16 years later. How strikingly different the Datsun 240-Z was from the Nissan 300ZX TT. Where the Datsun 240-Z was designed and built with a specific Market and Customer in mind, and the design requirements were derived from that Market and Customer... The Nissan 300ZX TT was intended to be a showcase for Nissan Motors Ltd. advancements in automotive design and technology. (as stated by Nissan Motors with the introduction of the 90 300ZX). In a few more years, we'll know if the 90+ 300ZX makes it to the "Classic" status or not. Right now however they can be a bargain.. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Larry: It is a shame that Mr. Matsuo left Nissan about 13 years before that. If you read the article I pointed you to - do you recognize any of the rest of the team? Humm..."but".... that sounds like you really don't think the books have done a good job of covering this. If so, I couldn't agree more. I too have an interest in the process of Design, be it applied to Styling or Engineering. I too have over 25 years experience working in a Design Engineering environment, and I too always found the story as laid out in the many books about the Z Car ... not really adding up... they all seemed to be missing important facts, dates, documentation etc. All seemed to require a leap of faith to get from the roadsters to the Z Car in any rational fashion. That is until I read the book that Mr. K and Mr. Matsuo co-authored. That finally answered a lot questions, contained a lot of missing documentation and laid out the process in a time line that was understandable. Who is "our", what company would that be? Are you referring to one of the Nissan Design Centers? As far as I can find - Teruo Uchino was the lead designer for the PL510/Bluebird. Mr. Teruo Uchino studied Industrial Design at Tokyo University then worked under Shiozo Sato (designed the Toyota S600 and Nissan Fairlady) and gained entrance to Nissan. Agree - prior to Nissan really establishing a strong in-house design capability, they did for the most part either produce the designs of other companies and/or hire outside designers. Nissan really started to build a solid in-house design department around 62/63... then they picked up some very talented people with the merger of Prince Motors into Nissan in 1966. Looking at the history of Nissan - you really see Mr. Ayukawa and a small group of his friends as being "Capitalists" and/or "Industrialists". Their main goal seems to have been to build a modern industrial base in Japan between 1910 and 1938. Ayukawa's foundation was the Foundry he built and his connections with Japan's leading bankers and businessmen. For that reason, Ayukawa seemed more interested in building production and manufacturing capabilities - than he was interested in designing a unique automobile. In his words, "why re-invent the wheel?". That is certainly true.. but if you find enough in print, from a variety of different sources, it can help to give you a better over-all understanding of what most likely happened. I'd love to hear more about your years with Nissan Design - would that have been here in the US? FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Mike: We had an IZCC club member in California that had about 100 or so hard copies printed about 10 or 12 years ago.. He sold them to the other members and on-line for about $25.00 originally. (it was Roger ???) FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Kats: The Blue Air Cleaner seems to have been on the Euro Spec. Left Hand Drive Series I Datsun 240-Z's. Your brochure shows and Automatic Transmission.. so that could be for cars produced after 06/70... The Belgium Brochure (marked Jan. 71) shows the Blue Air Cleaner as well - with a Red Series I car. FWIW, Carl B. Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Gee... looks a lot like the original 1970 C-Production Championship Poster... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Larry: Please see: <a href=http://zhome.com/History/DesignEvolution/DesignEvolutionZ.htm TARGET=NEW> Design Evolution of the Z</a>

Some of my thoughts... 1. The 350-Z is styled, or more correctly "shaped" the way it is - because it is a shortened Infiniti G35. Just as AMC chopped 8 inches out of the Javelin - to create the AM-X. The Nissan 350-Z came about as a cost containment... not the "Clean Slate" design that Mr. Hanawa promised at the New York Out Show in 2000. Nissan simply could not, or was not willing, to develop a new chassis unique to the Z Car - once Carlos took over the helm at Nissan. 2. Prior to the 350-Z, although all previous generations of Z's shared many common components with the sedans in the line - the Z's all had their own unique chassis/floorpans. That is not the case with the 350-Z. 3. Let's keep a distinct difference in our minds between "Retro Styling" which is one art form of it's own and "Classic Sports Car Lines". Retro doesn't mean Classic and Classic doesn't meant Retro. 4. I agree that Austin, Jag and even Ferrari have returned in recent years to more "Classic" body lines. Typically longer hoods, smoothly flowing feminine body lines and tight rounded rear ends. 5. To the traditional Porsche fans - a Porsche was an air cooled, boxer type, rear engine car. The 928, 124, 944 failed in the market because they were not the cars that people, that wanted a Porsche, wanted in the first place. The 914 failed because it was market in Europe as a VW...and the PCA refused to recognize it as a Porsche, until the Factory threatened to withdraw support of the PCA... The Boxter made it big because it was the modern 550... Most manufacturers have tried "badge engineering" and it might work to a limited extent for a limited time... Likewise some retro designs sell well for a period.... But in the long run it is logical and visual evolution that keeps a Marque alive. The Prosche, the Corvette, the big Ferrari's... IMHO the new Mustang is not so much "retro" as it is a return to what should have evolved if Ford didn't get off track in the first place... I think most of us Classic Z Car Fans were hoping that Nissan would do the same... give us a modern 240-Z.... one with the Classic Lines we all love... The Lexas at Post #2 looks a lot like the Caddy Sports Car.. to me... (X-LR) That was a bold new design but still falling within the Classic Lines... even if maybe a little edgy... The Chrysler Cross Fire was also a Bold Design.. but needed about twice the HP offered. The Solstice and Saturn Sky .. could have been hits, if only GM had set up to mass produce them, and given them the HP advantage over their competition... Nissan needs to get Peter Brock to design the next generation Z for US.... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Bo: Amen... I was driving a 67 911S when I bought my first 240-Z in 1970. After you quit shaking and looking back on it - it was kind of funny the first time it happened to you... I'm pretty sure that the phrase; "keep the pedal to the metal" - originated with Porsche... Just too funny.... regards, Carl B.

Here is a thought... All you guys with Tie Down Hooks on your 240-Z's know one thing for sure... The Selling Dealer's service department didn't do it's job. They were supposed to be removed by the Dealers prior to Deliver of the car to it's first owner. Not really a part of the car - they were packing fixtures, much like the plastic wrap on the door panels or around the seatbelts... The Tow Hook on the other hand, was actually part of the car.. and was to be left in place for delivery to the end consumer. So if your 240-Z came from the Dealer without it's rear Tie Down Hooks... it was delivered as intended by the Factory. So.. for Pure Stock Class... if you leave the rear Tie Down Hooks in place for show - then IMHO you should also leave the plastic covers on the door panels, the seat belts wrapped/bagged, and the hubcaps boxed in the rear... along with the Pre-Delivery Inspect Report (not filled out of course)... FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Luke: In stock form - the 240-Z will exhibit a significant amount of body roll in harder or higher speed turns. This can be a little unsettling if your not totally at peace with the car. Nonetheless, if you have taken any number of drivers training courses, with good instructors and in the process developed a good feel for the 240-Z... you'd be amazed at what it's capable of even in pure stock form. (I've taken a few hot laps around Portland International Raceway with John Morton driving, in both pure stock 510's and 240-Z's..simply unbelievable, and we didn't leave the track nor rollover even once!) IMHO - the first thing you want to spend money on is great tires. Adding a larger front anti-sway bar, along with better shocks would be my second expenditure. This will greatly reduce body roll without adding a significant amount of harshness to a street driven car. For the use you describe for your Z - I'd stop there. At that point the normal body roll in cornering would be greatly reduced, and you'd still have a bit of understeer combined with some complaining from the tires as they reach their limit of adhesion. This is an important feedback loop... tires screaching tell you that you are most likely approaching your limit.... Adding a large rear anti-sway bar in addition to the above - will make the Z handle more in the neutral zone. The car will feel flatter in the corners, and you won't get so much complaining from the tires as you approach their limit. While this may seem like a good thing at first blush... I don't believe it is a good thing for the average driver on the highway. (I feel I'm an average driver). Pushed just a little harder with the front/rear anti-sway bars and stiffer shocks .. the handling will transition from neutral to over-steer somewhat unexpectedly, and you'll find yourself spinning off the corner. (As will lifting off the throttle suddenly when you enter a corner too hot ). Believe me when I say - you won't believe how suddenly nor unexpectedly this will happen as you pass the limits of tire adhesion to the road. (been there done that - a few times). The bottom line for me is - a little body roll and tire screeching are a good thing for most of us. As is a little understeer. If your going Road Racing.. and you are a competent driver...that's a whole different world. I'd recommend only upgrading the front anti-sway bar for street use and combine that with better shocks. FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

I guess it's time to get back into the muffler business!! Yea GAD!... you've got to be putting us on! $420.00... for a very simple pipe and muffler. Twenty years ago - I charged $115.00 for that job. You say it took them two days..... that is a 1/2 hour job. Here in Florida you must be given a written estimate if you ask for one, and they can not exceed that by more than 10% without your written permission ... did you ask for a written estimate? If not, that is most likely one reason you good taken to the cleaners.. There is nothing you can do now - except pay the bill. Then go home a write the Midas Home Office and ask them if they condone that type of business practice. If you have a local TV Stattion with a Consumer Protection Program .. copy the letter that you write to Midas to them as well... live an learn... When dealing shops you don't personally Know - always get a written estimate before work begins.. or go elsewhere.. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Mohammed: I can't be certain because the Factory Service Manuals that I have for 77/78 do not provide the Installed Height, nor the Load for the Front/Rear Springs on the 280Z. The Free Length of the OEM springs is longer in Front... but the Spring Rate is higher in the Rear. Number of Coils = 9.5 Front and 8.5 Rear Free Length = 15.98 in. Front and 15.43 Rear Spring Rate = 103 lbs/in. Front and 127.7 lbs/in. Rear For example - the 240-Z's had a 48/52 Front/Rear weight distribution per the Factory Service Manuals. 1166 lbs. on the front and 1270 lbs. on the rear. 48% Front and 52% rear. I wouldn't assume that the weight of the engine in front makes the front of the 280Z heavier than the rear. As I recall from different road test the front/rear weight distribution stayed about the same for the 240-Z, 260-Z and 280-Z's. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Greg: Did you find the Date of Manufacture on your Z? It 's on the drivers door jam. Also the original engine serial number - which is on the data tag under the hood.. thanks, Carl B.

AD no longer available... anyone know what happend? Carl B.

Hi Matt: Thanks for letting us know. You do have something rare - a Datsun 240-Z with a known owner history and a Father-in-law that would give you his 240-Z. He must think a lot of you... FWIW, Carl B.

Haven't seen one of those in years... that is the Deno or Pantera deck.. It did have the advantage of both hiding anything you were carrying, and cutting down on the hot air mass of the rear deck area. Also looks like the factory competition hood scoop... Two rare parts on one car.... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Jon: Think about that.......(hint - spring rates)... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Randy: With the older KYB gas pressure shocks, no one reported, nor did I notice any increase in ride height when they were installed. However it "seems" that the newer KYB GT-2's as well as the Tokico's do result in an increase in ride height if only the shocks are changed. The OEM front springs in the 240-Z are rated at about 83lbs/in.. and the load on the front strut is about 562lbs to 602lbs. So a high pressure gas shock that had a positive pressure of 83 lbs.. would unload the spring and lift the car 1 inch. If they are installed with aftermarket springs - that have a shorter Free Length to begin with, and which have a higher spring rate - the effect would not be as great. If the after-market springs have a spring rate of say 125 lbs./in. then lifting 83 lbs off the load, would result in about a 1/2 inch increase in ride height... ( but the shorter springs would hide that effect to an extent). The original gas filled shocks... used an inert gas (nitrogen) to reduce foaming in the oil in the shock when the shock was pumped rapidly. However they had a very low positive pressure. From what I've read and been told by people who are supposed to know - the new Gas Pressure Shocks do have a very high positive pressure. The Racing Shop that measured the spring rates for me (on the OEM and re-production springs), told me that the cars they more normally deal with - like Camero's/Firebirds.. high pressure shocks can have a positive pressure as high as 100 lbs. I guess we'll have to get a couple of the newer KYB's and Tokico's and actually measure the amount of upward force they produce. Then take the matter up with the manufacturers... FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Bo: Do you have the spec.'s on the Tokico springs? Free Length Number of coils Wire diameter What wheel/tire combo are you running? Would be interesting to see what it takes to drop the front end with their shocks. thanks, Carl B.

Hi Bob: Maybe the seller didn't lie. Could be he was simply using a different context in making his remarks, as opposed to the context in which you took it. Rare - well compared to the number of Red Mustangs sold in 1970... A Safari Gold 240-Z was a rare color. Rare - true, go to a Z Car Show and Safari Gold Z's aren't really all that common today... all to many have been repainted Red or Silver... In the context of the color mix of 240-Z's received by the Dealers in 1970 - Safari Gold was among, if not the, most common color. The thing is - when people see a "mustard" colored 240-Z with it's 30 year old, badly faded paint they go ... uck... In turn they don't repaint the car that mustard color... On the other hand when they see a fully restored Safari Gold car at a car show - with it's bright and shinny Safari Gold color - they usually like it a lot. Looks "Period Correct"... When people make very general statements... like "its a rare color"... you always have to ask them for further elaboration on that statement. Just a thought.... FWIW, Carl B.

Oops...for got the Picture... Carl

Hello Mohammed: I do not have any specifications for the aftermarket "ST" springs, so I can not answer your question directly. I can however tell you that the OEM/Stock springs for the 240 have: Front Springs 10 Coils Rear Springs 10.65 Coils Right Front Spring Free Length = 15.2 inches (386mm) Left Front Spring Free Length = 14.7 inches (373.5mm) Rear Springs Free Length = 14.5 inch (369mm) So the free length of the OEM/Stock Front Springs is longer than the rear. The Rear Springs have more coils, in a shorter distance... so their spring rate is greater than the front. The Spring Rates for the OEM/Stock Springs are: Front = 83 lbs/in. (1.48 kg/mm) Rear = 103.6 lbs/in. (1.85 kg/mm) I agree with John - almost everyone I've heard from reports that the new gas shocks, being sold for the 240-Z's will raise the ride height of the car between .75 and 1.25 inches. I believe that this is an issue we need to take up with KYB and others... Looking at the picture you provided - the front of the car looks about right to me - but the rear is sagging. With a stock 240-Z, with stock wheels/tires - you can normally place three to four of your fingers, with your hand held vertically - between the top of the tire and the wheel arch. Stock Ride Height for the 240-Z, if you measure from the bottom of the rocker panel to the pavement - is 8.00 to 8.25 inches. Measured at the notch in the pinch weld seam, where the car's jack is supposed to be placed... Note - measure to the bottom or underside of the rocker panel... not to the pinch weld seam that sticks down below the bottom of the rocker panel. Wheel/tire size can increase or decrease ride height... so you have to take the effect of larger or smaller diameter tires/wheels into account - when using the 8 / 8.25 inch measurement. Remember that the 240-Z's were Sports/GT's... with all independent suspension. Lots of ground clearance, lots of spring/shock travel. In stock form they aren't supposed to be sitting on the ground.. Note Picture of Stock 240-Z below - see the ground clearance in front.... see the tire/wheel arch clearance in the front. FWIW, Carl

Hi Arne: You are too kind, and too humble (quality traits I've never developed;-) - I'm sure you know as much about these cars as any of us. For that matter I'm sure there are several guys here that have extensive knowledge and hands on experience. We may all know some aspects of these cars better than most others, but it's the combined knowledge base that matters most..... 36 years and I still don't understand the electrical system (what were they thinking!?) I just happen to have been lucky enough to have lived with the 240-Z's since they arrived here in the US. Lucky enough to have worked for a Datsun Dealer in the early 70's.... and smart enough to realize the Datsun 240-Z was the best Sports/GT I could ever hope to own. The only down side to that is that it makes me an old fart... I think the main thing is that many of us are willing to share what we know, learn what we didn't know and discuss everything that's questionable... and do it time after time as new people come into the Z Car Community ;-) FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Greg: (everyone).. Joining this thread a little late... You'll have to let me know the build date and the original engine serial number - so I can get it in my data base. I too lived in Ohio - Ashland/Mansfield area - and I helped build Mid-Ohio! The Mid Ohio Sports Car Club was the first Club I joined in ah...1962... Are you sure the BRE Car you saw was a replica? I know that the Mason's run the Vintage Races at Mid-Ohio in their BRE #3 240-Z. Good to see you here, and hope you'll have a great time restoring #379. So far we have located 139 1969 Production Datsun 240-Z's... #378 was at the Z Barn in Knoxville. FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Unbelieveable...what is the matter with these people? I would have snatched that one up in a heart beat.. (if I could have gotten someone over there to look it over first ;-) That car would easily sell for $5,500.00 here in Florida... maybe more... FWIW Carl B.