26th-Z

I think an old Z is an excellent car for a beginner. It is hardly 'fast' by today's standards, easy to work on, and still (forty years) sporty enough to satisfy the male ego. He'll learn how to use a clutch and shift which is becomming a dying art. He'll learn how to work on cars - it doesn't get much more basic than a Z. He'll also learn how easily the Z bodywork folds up giving him the proper lesson to not hit anything! If you're a really smart parent, you'll send the good natured lad off to driving school where he will learn how to drive properly, thus avoiding the safety of the car concern.

For what it's worth, I cleaned the paint off my old clips and while I was at it I performed the pinch-o-meter scale resistance test on each of the various clips I have to determine the level of pinch resistance each clip might have when it clamps the fender. For those of you not completely versed in the pinch-o-meter method of resistance testing, this is performed by engaging the test clip between thumb and forefinger whilst drinking a beer. Average ambient temperature of the clips should be 72 degrees F. Average resistance is determined over five squeezes. Comparative squeezing determines the bell curve in consideration of relativity. My old original clips were the stiffest measuring a 7.5 average. The reproduction solid clip was almost as stiff measuring 7.3. Surprisingly, the NOS clips I have were noticably softer averaging a 5.1 and the reproduction hollow clips were not much softer than that, averaging a 5.0.

I disagree and we have had this conversation ad-nauseum. Look this up in the archives. Having said that. Recognize that undercoating by the dealer was common in the 70's. Dealer applied undercoating when removed with mineral spirits will reveal the original paint. Nissan factory in Japan undercoating was very subtle and painted over when the car was produced. It looks more like a stone guard texture and is not uniform throughout the underside of the chassis.

We're talking about two different meanings to the word 'tow'. The owner's manual doesn't mean to flat-tow over any distance. It's pretty much assumed that no one would do anything like (that's why it's against the law) that and the tow hook is mounted on the frame for attachment. In other words, the bumper is not intended. Rope is pretty much what was used in 1970. And everyone who has ever flat-towed deserves a spanking!

The clips arrived in the afternoon mail yesterday and I dug out my stash of clips to compare. I have two sets of originals: one set from the car (with green overspray) and another new set I bought many years ago. I have been intrigued with the idea of making reproductions and I'm very happy to see people take on these sort of projects. The guy selling them on eBay sent me the set I ordered and another single clip made differently. The ones I bought are "hollow" and far more flexible than the solid version. The seller said he was concerned with how flexible the solid ones would be in cold weather. I don't know what material was used or how they were made, but the repros are a material more opaque than the originals. The clip and mounting riser dimensions are the same as original however the 'wings' are shorter. Otherwise, they look real close to original, fit just fine, and clip in place with only slightly less force than original. I give them two thumbs up and recommend them.

I'm shocked with the answers I'm seeing! You guys go right ahead and pull your cars from the bumpers. Just makes my (straight) car more valuable. Jack them up on the floor pans too! Ahhh...owner's manual has the answer - page 29.

When they arrive, I'll dig out my originals and write a full report!!!!With pictures!

Thanks, I just bought a set. Surprise me; postage was free.

Read all about it, Moonpup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftsman_(tools) Fastwoman has it correct.

Sears Craftsman Very well made tools - will last forever and replaceable if broken - nice close margins on the fit - reasonable price. Everything you need for basic / beginner working on cars. Save your money on a cheap tool box because you'll have more than one box in your lifetime and you will fill them up as you become more involved in this habit

There's no reason to flush the engine I'm hearing you describe. And I agree. You're just asking for trouble. Just change the oil and filter regularly and perhaps more frequently.

Arne, You should note the correlation between the 911 rear suspension and the S30. Nissan made several comparative studies of the 911 during development and testing of the S30. No doubt there is influence.

Early Z-cars with stock wheels and shock absorbers were notorious for wheel shimmy. That steering damper was put on some time ago to address the problem. But I notice that you have custom wheels and I'll bet your shocks have been replaced with something like a KYB gas shock. You no longer need the steering damper.

The Interpart front spook for the 240Z is either 2701083 for the "street" version of 2701053 for the "competition" version. I would assume that the competition version has the air ducts for the brakes. The Nissan front spook / spoiler is 983000-E8100 which is not a competition application. It is the neoprene one.

Those are pictures of Bill's car and a car belonging to Rich Lewis. You'll see both of them at the party. Here's a blurb from Hemmings; http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/12/17/garage-party/ CW-

My E46 (2001 330Ci) is the same way. Piece of junk. I'll never buy another BMW.

Yes, I have read; "An American Engineer in Japan". Very dry reading however good for understanding the development of Japanese industry, pre war.

Thanks for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard reference. I looked it up. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN108 If we are to confine our discussion to the original "60's Flashback" premise, the FMVSS requirements for design included such items as seat belts, steering column design, interior padding and control accessibility, rear view mirrors, tire performance, wheel performance, hydraulic brake design, anti- theft (steering column lock), glass / glazing design, and headlight covers. I don’t see anything relating to the chassis / suspension design we have been talking about. The FMVSS addressed only safety items at the time. The first of the HLS30s imported into North America were certified to meet Federal requirements NTMVS 15 U.S.C. 1401 and 1407. As an illustration, a convertible model S30 was designed, built and tested even though American legislation for roll-over protection and roof crush design was pending. I still don’t think a FMVSS argument can be made for the thought that the S30 was aimed primarily at the US market.

Always enjoy Bill's party. Always very nice cars. Great crowd. See you there!

Yes, but then, it's not all about you. What is relevant to this discussion is the understanding that the car was NOT designed for one specific market. Flash back to the 60s and what could have come to North America as part of the design range of S30 features is the relevancy. On the other hand the requirements might have been easier. So what are you saying? The relevant facts are that the chassis was designed for a range of suspension bits just as it was designed for a range of engines and transmissions. The chassis was tested under a range of conditions including crash testing and wind tunnel testing. Information I have gathered lately surprises me with how comprehensively the suspension and chassis were tested prior to production. So when one looks at the North American configuration and compares it to the range of available components designed into the S30, it is fairly easy to say; dumbed down.

Well my appologies to anyone offended by my "dumbed down" comment. Looking across the board at all the various models / configurations of the S30 introduced by January 1970, I have to say that the model arriving in North America was so very similar to the base / minimal configuration with very few ammenities. I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation of that. I don't think anyone (in North America) knows. Obviously the arrangement with what Nissan wanted to export and what Mr. Katayama wanted to import would be an interesting read. And I think the 'dealer add-on' story plays into those facts.

The clock is a good illustration, however within the electrical system, I think there are plenty more. As I recall our past discussions on this site, the fog lights, parking lights, and door lights have electrical leads in all wiring harnesses across all markets. Those features were not available in the North American market yet they were part of the original design / engineering. I can think of a couple of other engineering features common to every chassis to accomodate features not sent to North America. My point being that the S30 was thoroughly engineered, probably in a far more sophisticated manner than we realize. I hold this as strong evidence of what Nissan intentions were with the new sports car rather than the accepted thought that the 240Z was built for American shores. I also hold the sophisticated level of engineering as an example of how cutting edge the S30 was for its period. Even in the dumbed down version exported to North America!

Perhaps it's time to discuss what version of the S30 came to North American shores and why. Sooo many comments have been made about what was part of the design and development. I read a comment about wishing for a sporty suspension. In the mid / late sixties, coil-over front and IRS rear was cutting edge for the most expensive sports cars, unheard of in the lower priced market. The suspension is a key point in the success of the S30. The L24 engine delivered plenty of sufficient torque for a four-speed gearing. For the market that the 240Z would compete in, a four-speed was top of the line. Most five-speeds of the time were overdrive units meant for high speed cruising that the lower gears could not provide (because of the torque of the engine and weight of the car). The L24 and four-speed combination provided competitive acceleration and 120 mph top speed - not bad for $3,500. The rust and metal issues we complain about were common to most every car of the period. It was the way steel was made at the time. But the unique unbody construction was not so common. What became of the chassis performance was top of the line for the price range and weight. The version of the S30 that came to North America did not have many of the options and upgrades that we see available in Japanese and other foreign markets for what seem to be two obvious reasons. One, Nissan was unsure of how well the Z-car would sell in America. The corporate dispute over this issue is well documented. Secondly, the price target for the American market was set low. Probably as "insurance" for high sales figures. This was demonstrated almost immediately by the number of manditory dealer options sold for an elevated price. I think the 'stripped down' configuration of the HLS30 was initially a mis-guessed marketing / sales compromise. Even though the model was modestly configured, it was more than adequate to compete in its sales class, insuring high sales volume and profit. Datsun in America didn't have a big options marketing strategy at the time. I recall that customer satisfaction was high for the configuration of Datsun cars sold in America. They seemed to come with everything one needed for the economical price. Datsuns also had a reputation for endurance at the time. Even though I understand the complaints about the electrics, there are 40 year old spark plug wires still in service. Compared to the sports cars that the 240Z competed with, the electrics were more than satisfactory. Nissan products do not have the "prince of darkness" reputation enjoyed by other manufacturers. Frankly, I think it is strong testiment to the initial design and engineering that so many HLS30s still exist and continue to provide excellent service.

Opinion, of course, but if a car has been repainted, in the strictest sense originality is no longer part of the conversation. Arne's mention of the Gold Medallion leads me to another thought. (And I'm assuming you are talking about the ZCCA Gold Medallion) You shouldn't get dinked for a re-paint unless it is a bad quality paint job. There are too many precedents.

PPG provided the painting technology for the Vintage Z program, Rick. I suspect your best bet is with them. I like Tower Paint as a supplier / helpful resource myself. http://www.apstowerpaint.com/index.php Chris