Bambikiller240

So Mike, How do we get the electrical diagram of the 72 240Z? I'd like to get one if I can. Carl

If you encounter the advert for this company again, PLEASE post the contact information about them to the site. There are lots of us who might be interested in a stainless replacement tank for our cars. You'd be doing the company AND all of us a huge favor if you can help us connect. Thanks,Carl

I still cannot see the pictures. I've refreshed the page, right clicked on the button(s) and selected "Show Picture" but still nothing. Anyone else having a problem seeing the wheel pictures from steve, or is it just me?

Great analogies. Something that all of us can relate to.

Stryder: All 240Z's manufactured for the US market from 8/72 on came from the factory with flat-top carbs. They were standard from the 1973 models(from VIN# HLS30-120000 on) until fuel injection was introduced in the 280Z's. A very few customers who complained of drivability problems were able to convince dealers to (illegally) replace them with Round Tops, but the vast majority of 240Z's manufactured from 8/72 on that have Round Tops, have had them installed by owners. There are two two types of E88 cylinder heads used on 240Z's. The early (72) model had a small combustion chamber design similar to the E31 heads. The later (73) E88 head was a lower compression design. The only way to tell which kind of E88 you have is to remove it and examine the chambers. Since your car has had the carbs changed, it is possible that the head was changed to the earlier model as well. Quoted from ZHome.com: "The E31 head was used on the 1970 and 1971 Model Year Z's. There are at least two E88 heads. One was used on the 1972 Model Year Z's and the other was used on the 1973 240Z and the 1974 260Z. For performance applications the 1972 E88 is considered a better design, thus yeilding better flow than the later E88's. You can spot the E31 and early E88 heads because they have a distinct notched area just to one side of the spark plug hole. The later E88's lack this notched area and are smooth on both sides."

Steve: Pictures are NOT showing up. Carl

Or SOUTH Carolina either!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like a fun car to drive, but it's REAR Engine? Wow, I can definitely understand the need to place a sandbag (or a Mother-in law!) up front for ballast. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's THAT ugly, of course I liked the Datsun 510's too.

Can someone "edumacate" this West Coast guy? Who is Rock Vest? I thought I had read of, or knew of all the great Z gurus, but I've never heard that name before. I guess I didn't/don't. Please shed some light over here in the hinterlands! Carl

Hi Burt! I set the idle on my car to the 800-900 rpm range, and have not noticed any heating issues. Since more rpms does indicate more firings per cylinder I suppose the car does use SLIGHTLY more gas at idle than if a lower idle rpm is set, but my car doesn't remain at idle long enough for this difference to be noticable in terms of gas mileage. I haven't noticed any downside in my experience. It'll be interesting to hear what others say about this Carl P.S. Money Order is at the Post Office (please let me know when you receive it, if you can) Thanks again!

Thanks for the response, Enrique. No, I didn't think you were saying that I was wrong. I was just curious as to where you were coming from in the Z scheme of things. Perhaps I should have clarified a bit more. Yes, I do prefer the urethane bushings, as I do like the car to handle, and respond a bit more quickly than the stock rubber bushings allow. I'd NEVER go to the solid aluminum/delrin bushings that some use (I've gotten fairly soft in the rear as I've aged) but I don't mind the slight difference noticed when changing from rubber to urethane. I do drive the car quickly on windy roads, and enjoy the sensations of a sports car handling the turns more precisely. The KYB struts are, to most people; far too soft for great handling (much softer than Tokiko Illuminas, Koni's, or Bilsteins), but I'm satisfied with them for my purposes. My car seldom sees 100 mph, but it does get there on occasion. The engine I aquired for refreshing, came with the early E88 cylinder head and is a correct head for a 72 (my car came from the factory with an early E88) and I've paid Dave Rebello to just do a stock rebuild, nothing fancy. My request to them was to make sure everything was as close to "perfect" valvetrain geometry as possible without doing a full ITS racing ($$) optimization. I took the work to them because I wanted it done right, not for high HP. The ony "change" was to replace the orignial soft valve seats with ones designed to handle modern no lead gasoline. I do expect that the driving of my car will require a bit more maintainance than if I drove it less robustly, but I actually enjoy working on the car (half the fun of a Z car, IMHO) so that isn't an issue to me. I have the louvers too, and I do not intend to run my car into the ground, or some unyielding substance. My meeting with Bambi was not a result of aggressive driving, and was actually the impetus for replacing the stock rubber brake hoses with stainless braided hoses to gain quicker braking response to unexpected situations. I expect to have my car for a long time just as you do and my changes to the car are meant to ensure that I can drive it the way I enjoy driving, for a long time to come. I don't think your approach is wrong either. Talk to you later! Carl

Hi Enrique: So how do you differ on the rest of my post? I'm merely describing what I've done to the car. Do you not consider rebuiding the systems as "optimizing"? Curious I am.

Looks kinda interesting, but the rear quarter panels need a bit of work IMO. From the side view, it looks as if someone kicked it in the arse, though from a rear view I like it more. Maybe the could add about 6 inches to the length at the rear so it doesn't drop vertically so quick (a bit more 240-like). Then they just have to keep it from being 3000 lbs, and/or underpowered.

I'll start by saying that I prefer my 240Z to be close to stock, but "optimized" to get the best out of the stock components. Bambikiller's still got a bent up front end, but the suspension has been completely rebuilt w/ KYB's, new ball-joints, and tie-rods, and urethane bushings throughout two years ago. The fuel system (lined tank, new vent lines, and pump) was done a year ago, with 3 core radiator added as well. I rebuilt the brakes completely this past summer, and POR'd one floorpan. The other floorpan is scheduled for Spring. The engine is still original but I have a low mileage 240 motor that I'm refreshing (w/ a Rebello built "stock" early E88 head), ZTherapy carbs are ready to go with the motor as well. The interior is original, and needs a bit of work, but isn't too bad for 32 years old. I have a lot of work I still want to do to Bambikiller, but Go is more of a priority than Show for me. I have collected 99% of the body stuff to make her like I want her (Thanks for the Hood, Royce and recently some bumper parts from Burt). Give me a few years, and it will ALL come together the way I want her.

One other thing to keep in mind: A stock 240Z Alternator doesn't put out a great deal of AMPs, so keeping up with the current demand will be difficult unless you replace it with a later (internally regulated) Alternator, which will require wiring modifications to do. Even with a higher capacity Alternator, the lights MAY be brighter, but you will be drawing significantly more current thrugh the wiring than it was ever designed to handle. People have burnt the wiring ( and in some cases the CAR ) severely when running high current through the stock wiring of Z cars. If you are going to use lamps that draw high current in your Z be forewarned, you could be getting yourself into something that could destroy the wiring and your car. If you really need 85W to 100W lights, do yourself (or your car) a favor and put in relays and an upgraded Alternator. I haven't experienced this meltdown personally, as I use 55W Cibie Z beams in my car, but I've seen it (or the result of it) at least a dozen times over the years on cars owned by friends and aquaintances.

Here's one place with information on wiring upgrades for the 240Z. This is from Pete Paraska, one of our members who has a sweet V8 240Z http://mywebpages.comcast.net/pparaska/Headlight_Relay_pg1.htm

Any 240Z or Early 260Z Seat (at least.....and maybe even 280Z seats too) should fit in any 240Z. I have personally used 73 seats in a 71, I currently have a 71 seat in my 72, and I have a set of 73 seats that will eventually be in my 72. The 73 seats have been in the 72 for a few days, but are not in it currently. No modicfications were required for any of the seats I've had in my 240Z's. Now, there are differences in the seats. 70/71 seats did not have the recline mechanism like late 72 and 73 seats do. They had a dial that could adjust the angle of the back a small amount, but could not "recline" the seatback to a great degree. The 73 240Z seats also had springs in the seat cushion, rather than the rubberized straps that the earlier seats used to support your arse. These "sprung" seats are much more comfortable than the earlier ones, but are still not great seats......just the best that Datsun (Nissan) offered for the 240Z.

The 240Z gas tanks have been unavailable from the factory for some time now. MSA sometimes can find decent used ones through their contacts at boneyards local to them. Here's another place to check into for major repairs or rebuilding of your gas tank. http://www.gas-tank.com/ Good Luck!

There were/are emission controls including fuel tank venting system, a PCV valve, a "smog pump", and the dreaded Flat-Top carbs on late 1972 - 73 240Z's. The 73's also had the charcoal canister added, which I believe was part of the fuel/venting system. The "redline" on the tachometer was set at 5,00 RPM for the 73's (not sure about the late 72's) vs the 7,000 RPM redline on earlier motors. "Smog Control" systems have been on 240Z's since 1970, but they got more and more restrictive/sophisticated as the years went by. On a street only motor (with round top carbs replacing the flat-tops), I doubt you could tell the HP difference between a 70/71 motor and a late 72/73 motor. 70 - 72's had the thin bumpers that bend like they are made of nothing. These are the ones most people like (visually) and a good example of why the "crashworthy" bumpers became required by law. 73's had the 2.5 mph bumpers as standard equipment. 74's had the 5 mph bumpers standard.

...........................and in English too!!!!!!!!!! A fine example of K.I.S.S.

I KNEW that I recognized that writing style from somewhere! Guess I've let the cat out of the bag on myself as well. :stupid:

turbo240: Sounds fine to me! Is a 50 - 50 split on the money OK with you? Where do I/we sign?

With all of these very descriptive phrases, I'm guessing that you write for a Travel magazine, or read too many comicbooks, or porn books! I like the idea behind the story ( I can relate to it very much ), but with all of the extra descriptive "gobble-de-gunk".... well they detract from the reality of the story.

Ouch! I wondered what that pain above my eyes was. :stupid: "Tanks" (speel check still not working ) Carl

Kinda figured that, was just wondering what language you were responding in!!!! Was that Ebonics? Vulcan? or.........?