inline6

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

inline6 last won the day on November 22 2019

inline6 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

3 Followers

About inline6

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact

  • Map Location
    Marietta, GA
  • Occupation
    Internet Marketing

My Cars

  • About my Cars
    12/70 240z track/street car.

Social Sites

  • Website
    http://members.tripod.com/Trueweb/Zcar

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh man... the latest pictures of the carpet, aftermarket floor mat, and jute padding are gold. More pics saved to hard drive.
  2. So, I just got back from the local auto body supply place - they carry various brands including BASF/Limco/Glasurit. I asked for Nissan 901 silver, and the guy looked up the code and found nothing available from Glasurit in the 55 Line, and nothing in the other BASF products. I found this online tool, and I get only 90 Line, which is water based. https://coloronline.glasurit.com/index.php?language=8 I think that is incompatible with all my Glasurit stuff... which I have on hand. I've got a lot of money invested in Glasurit primers, and clear coat (I did some work on my BMW M3 as well). So, this is kind of upsetting. Now, I find it hard to believe that I can't get to a Glasurit version of 901. Any ideas? I searched and found these somewhat related threads: I also could take the tool doors to the auto body supply place and have them scan it with their Glasurit scanner, but the comment in the one thread says that silver (on the tool doors) isn't the same as what was used on the outside of the car, and that seems like it should be unnecessary. Anyone have experience with taking a code in one manufacturer's paint and crossing it with another manufacturer? My other Z is a really pretty silver, and looks like the one in the image for the link to the thread above to me, but it is a Toyota (1987 Supra) in Glasurit that I asked for over the counter in 1994. Here is a pic: Garrett
  3. Also, you should remove the chunks of body filler, or seam sealer or whatever it is (like above outer corner of right hinge) so that the hinges can be moved as needed. It looks like on the right one, that blob is keeping the hinge from moving up, which it sounds like it needs to, in order to make the panel sit level with the body on that side. Left one doesn't appear to be "clean" of residual stuff either, so that could be limiting it's movement. Inspect your weather strips and the flanges they are attached to. It could be that the flange the main seal is on is bent upward a bit in the left corner. That right hinge has an R on it, correct? Can't tell from the pic. The hinges are pretty beefy, so I doubt they are bent... or the issue. The mounting flanges on the hatch don't move around easily either. Doubt that is the problem. So, how is the fit at the bottom of the hatch? Left side to quarter panel, right side to quarter panel, and rear bottom edge from side to side? If the left front corner is elevated, the left rear should be elevated also.
  4. Yeah, need pics of the hatch to hinge attachment areas, and pics of the hinges with left and right marked. Also, pic with hatch adjusted as well as you can currently, with back edge at proper height would be helpful to determine how far out the whole thing is. Need to see gaps on all four sides...
  5. Nice! Looks like very nice quality - both of them.
  6. Interesting... Different than now. Thanks for that.
  7. I find this rather interesting... and I am thinking about how to proceed. It seems that the panel gaps around the doors for this car are not ideal. This is likely a 240z thing or more precisely a 240z of my 240z's vintage thing... but I think the panel gaps here need to be worked a bit to be improved. Front of passenger door, bottom door gap line: At the front, bottom corner, the door panel edge rises upward a bit, increasing the gap distance between the door and the rocker: Passenger side, where the quarter panel dog leg attaches to the rocker, the distance across the gap to the bottom edge of the door is noticeably narrower than the distance across the gap from the rocker panel to the door bottom edge. Also, the door gap is inconsistent along this radius at the bottom, back part of the door to the quarter panel. Driver side, where the quarter panel dog leg attaches to the rocker, the distance across the gap to the bottom edge of the door is noticeably narrower than the distance across the gap from the rocker panel to the door bottom edge. Also, the door gap is inconsistent along this radius at the bottom, back part of the door to the quarter panel. Front of driver door, bottom door gap line: At the front, bottom corner, the door panel edge rises upward a bit, increasing the gap distance between the door and the rocker: I believe I have a bit more door alignment to do with the driver side door, so that the gap distance for the front of the door is the same as the gap distance on the bottom of the door. However, I also think I will be adding a bit of weld bead to the bottom front edge of both doors and shaping the added metal to eliminate this issue. For the quarter panel areas, I've already started doing minor surgery in the corner of the dog legs to improve door gap in that radius. This is visible in recent posts of the passenger side work.
  8. I hear ya, but something has changed then, right? I mean, now, a new car doesn't take as long to get to the dealerships, but it could sit for months without selling. A new car made in 5/2019 that sits on the lot and doesn't sell until yesterday, is still a 2019 model. Period. Was it really different back then, such that when it sold, that is the year the car became? Doesn't make sense to me. I snagged a bunch of pictures of the paint marks in particular. The car I am currently restoring isn't as early a VIN, but hey, these are some great reference pics.
  9. Never have understood the some cars with date stamps prior to 9/1970 are 71's. Can someone explain it? 5/1970 is a 1970 car... it's gotta be. Interesting how they used eBay to drum up buzz for the Bring a Trailer auction. Violates their rules for sure and I'm sure will be taken down. What a reference for paint markings! Really astounding - this car. Never seen anything like it.
  10. Thanks! Best I could do with the Mig and grinding. Maybe I'll be able to do this kind of thing better with the Tig in the future. And here is where having the car on a rotisserie is so nice! Still body filler art involved with making things straight. Much work work to do... Sighting down the body line, it is pretty straight. Next up (second pic) is to fix the floor panel where it wraps around and didn't get welded to the inner rocker right: More body filler work is ongoing. I hope to put a bit more epoxy primer on the body of the car tonight.
  11. Work to straighten out the misaligned rocker panel (at the factory) has begun. In addition to the problem I already showed pictures of, the top of the rocker panel had some misalignment as well. The outer panel was noticeably low along the top edge, but only for the center portion of the rocker panel. This caused a dip in the top surface that the aluminum threshold goes over top of: You can even see where the spot welder completely missed in attempting to join the inner and outer panels. Seems the workers at the factory had to adjust the welder downward to hit the outer panel, and even then, they could only pick up the top edge. I didn't show how I corrected it, but I just drilled out the spot welds, then used the stud welder to put some pins on the weld flange, and then used a crow bar and piece of plate to protect the top surface of the rocker, while prying up on the pins. This allowed me to put enough lifting force on the weld flange to raise the low area of the rocker. I then welded, with my Mig, the holes left from cutting out the factory spot welds, and ground everything flat again with the surface of the outer panel's weld flange: It's not perfect, but it is much better. Metal work like this is a big time suck. Lots of tedious grinding of welds. I finished them off with my hand held belt sander. I hope to experiment with the spot welder I bought on this flange, but the electrodes may be too large in diameter to align well on this flange. We'll see. Next up was the part where the quarter panel folds over the rocker at the back. Interesting to see what is inside. After a light dressing with wire brush... and the outer panel piece receiving some attention in the glass bead cabinet: The sandblaster was again employed to remove corrosion and get to nice metal. Got several pictures while this area was seeing the light of day: Close ups showing pitting (light pitting, in my opinion): My first 240z was missing the entire dog leg corner (inner and outer). So nice to see this area in such nice condition. Pic showing up inside (bare metal from the factory and the seam sealer they used in the wheel arch). A few more minutes in the glass bead cabinet with the panel. The dark corner (upper left in pic) was pitted too much, so I made a section to replace that. Taping for application of weld thru primer. I've never used it before. It is kind of transparent (has been applied in second pic): Tape removed and outer panel tacking in progress with new fabricated piece also (bottom left) As the welding occurs, the panel wants to move around. I used the stud welder to yank on low areas, trying to keep alignment as best as I can as welding continues: Alignment is not bad. Lots of time involved with keeping alignment, tacking, and eventually grinding. I easily have more than 30 hours of time with fixing the rocker and removing and reapplying this panel. The end result of the main effort, to straighten the bottom of the rocker panel/quarter panel along the bottom of the car is "better". Sometimes I can't get things good enough to my liking. I've ground the welds in the last picture down and filled small voids etc. More pics will follow, but it's time to get out there and work on the car again. 🙂
  12. View Advert 240Z hood, right fender, metal headlight housings All parts are OEM and in very good condition with no rust. If you would like more pictures, I can get them for you. Hood: very straight, stored indoors since the mid 90's : --> $300: Fender: (from AZ/CO area) pics of the fender after sandblasting the lower corner. One or two pin holes and some very minor rust pitting, but otherwise this is very nice. A fender like this saves you lots of time on body work prep instead of one you have to section in new metal, do metal work, etc. --> $250 plus shipping Headlight housings (metal, both left and right from AZ/CO area), all threads are in excellent condition - nice - rust free: --> $80 each Advertiser inline6 Date 01/03/2020 Price $0.01 Category Parts for Sale  
  13. Time Left: 2 months and 11 days

    • FOR SALE
    • USED

    All parts are OEM and in very good condition with no rust. If you would like more pictures, I can get them for you. Hood: very straight, stored indoors since the mid 90's (Still Available): --> $300: Fender: (from AZ/CO area) pics of the fender after sandblasting the lower corner. One or two pin holes and some very minor rust pitting, but otherwise this is very nice. A fender like this saves you lots of time on body work prep instead of one you have to section in new metal, do metal work, etc. --> $250 plus shipping ****SOLD Headlight housings (metal, both left and right from AZ/CO area), all threads are in excellent condition - nice - rust free: --> $80 each **** SOLD

    $0.01

    Marietta, Georgia - US

  14. Bump: Hood sourced from VA in the 90's is still available: $300 Headlight housings (metal) are reduced to $80 each Fender still available: $250 Ask questions if you like and I can provide more pics as necessary.
  15. I got the head gasket - 11044-27LX1. I measured it in several places and it is mostly .057 to .058". I found one spot in the gasket only area that was .056". Across firing rings bridging 2 cylinders (measured between several sets of cylinders), I get about .059". 1.42 mm thickness was claimed in the eBay listing, and that is close to .056". So, if this gasket doesn't compress more than .009" upon installation... (.056" minus .025" (pop up) = .031", minus .022" (min. piston to head) = .009" allowable crush) then this should work.