Arne

Hmmph. My FSM never mentions the heater at all. No pictures, no description, and it doesn't even show in the wiring diagram. I don't know what complexity the A/C adds, but pulling the heater box requires dropping the blower box, pulling some ducting and about 6 bolts that hold the heater box to the firewall. Then the heater box can be slid out to the right side into the passenger footwell. Good thought on cutting the clamp. There's plenty of room in my car to get the Dremel in there, but again the A/C may mess up that plan too. I found that most (if not all) of the foam seals on the heater box are badly deteriorated from age. You amy want to consider pulling the heater box for that reason anyway.

I just pulled the heater box out of my '71 last week. Granted I don't have A/C, so my access is better. But if I'm envisioning this correctly, the hose in question comes through the firewall and turns 90 degrees and onto the heater core nipple. And the hose clamp screw will need to be accessed from the top? So here are my thoughts, none of which are guaranteed, as I don't have A/C, and don't have my car or heater box here at work to look at. First, is there room to get a stubby or right angle Phillips in there? I use these to get to a lot of this kind of stuff. Once you get it loosened just a bit, you should be able to spin the clamp to give normal access. Another option might be to attempt to grab the threaded end of the screw with a vice-grips and loosen it that way. As with the angled Phillips, once you get it loosened just a bit you should be able to spin the clamp. (You are planning to replace the clamps anyway, aren't you?) And lastly, if the above don't work, you might consider cutting the hose off with a knife and removing the heater box itself. Sounds drastic, yes. But less drastic than pulling the dash and windshield.

I've got Toyo Proxes 4s on my BMW as well. Very nice tires.

I recognize the tire from its tread pattern. The old one was a Sears/Michelin, and I guarantee to you that they were NOT 175/65-14, as there was no such thing as a 65 series tire back when those were made. That tread design was current when I first got into the tire business in '75. It was the Sears version of the Michelin ZX, and for the most part the Sears version was only available in 80 series sizes. (The Michelin ZX and later XZX were both available in 70 series, but no 65 series at all.) The size on that tire would have been "175SR14" and would be dimensionally the same as a 175/80-14.

Factory size on the 240Z (and 260Z too) was 175-14, not 175/65-14. When there is no aspect ratio listed, the implied ratio is 80%. So in those charts, you'd want to use 175/80-14 to get the factory sizes.

205/60-14 are considerably shorter than the 195/70-14. A typical 195/70-14 has an overall diameter of 24.8" for about 838 revs per mile. By contrast, a 205/60-14 runs about 23.7" in diameter, or about 876 revs per mile. That's about a 9% difference in rpm, so that's how far off your speedo will be. (It will be reading faster than actual speed.) Proper size 14" 60 series to maintain speedo accuracy is 225/60-14. Something else to consider is that having different widths front and rear will alter the handling balance of the car. If nothing else is changed to compensate, narrower tires on the front will make the car understeer more.

FZ3 6JJ X 14 10'FZ3' is some code or identifier from the wheel manufacturer. Might be a date code, style number, or some other type of production indicator. Could be a Nissan number, or from the actual supplier to Nissan. '6' is the rim width in inches, measured at the bead seats, not at the outside lip. 'JJ' is a standard code for the bead contour. It describes the drop center of the rim, as well as the size and shape of the safety humps that prevent the tire from dismounting if it goes flat. Both 'J' and 'JJ' are common. 'X' is a separator, width from diameter. '14' is the rim diameter in inches, measured at the bead seats again, not the outer lip. '10' should be the wheel offset in mm. You'll often see this with a suffix of 'e' or 'et' on wheels made in Europe, or made more recently. The 'e' and 'et' is apparently an abbreviation for 'offset' in German, I believe.

"Bondo buggy!" I love it!

I sold tires for a living for over 20 years. So I can honestly say there isn't a concrete answer to that question. One may be better than the other for my car and type of driving, but the other may be better for you. It depends on which one best meets your needs and expectations.

Those two are the standard Koni red inserts, that can only be adjusted while they are out of the strut housing. But they should fit fine without modifications. Although I haven't installed a set myself yet, so I can't confirm that.

I don't have an SLR, but in my experience I love the large LCD. (I have a Sony DSC-V3, with a 2.1" LCD.)

So if I'm not driving my Z this year, what else other than the swap meet is worthwhile on Saturday?

I'm not surprised that those of you with modern lowering springs haven't noticed this gas-strut effect. Those springs were likely designed after gas shocks became common, and so the spring rates have probably been adjusted to take that into account. So far the complaints have all (to my knowledge) come from people using factory springs - which had their spring rates determined assuming non-gas struts. So the only people who are really having this problem are those of us who would rather not lower our Zs. Unfortunately, instead we get to have them lifted!

I'm currently shooting for both days. Saturday for the swap meet, Sunday to look at other cars.

Who all can I expect to meet at Canby in a week and a half?

Here's another one, but no where near as nice. May be too far gone. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Datsun-Z-Series-HL53-1970-Datsun-240Z_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6187QQitemZ4645635257QQrdZ1

Just to clarify my three top choices: the Hellas have the best low beam, a broad spread with very few shadows. The Cibies have the best high beam range, but the low beams possess more shadows than the Hellas. The Bosch are midway between the other two - low beam has fewer shadows than Cibie, but more than Hella. High beam not quite as good as Cibie. Now, a few other thoughts. One is that ANY H4 headlight will be a massive improvement over a sealed beam - especially when used with relays. Even cheap Taiwanese lights are a vast improvement. So you can't go too far wrong as far as output goes. Good name brand lights will generally have a better pattern, and the quality and durability of the lenses and reflectors is generally much better. In some brands the reflectors will tarnish or corrode after a short time, but I've had a set of Hellas last over 10 years and still look perfect. (Actually, one of the worst I've used for reflector durability were Cibies, but that set was decades ago.) Also, don't get too excited about higher output bulbs, even if you are using relays to power them. About the max output that a 7" headlight will support is 80 watts. Go much over that and the lamp doesn't have enough air volume to dissipate the heat fast enough, and bulb life suffers badly. And the difference in actual light on the road between 55/60 watts and 80 watts is not very big. (Trust me, I've tried.) Lastly, for the conditions that most of us drive under, low beam performance is much more important than high beam. That's why I prefer the Hellas over the Cibies, even though the Cibies have a little better high beam range. Unlike when I was young in Southern Oregon and all the roads were empty at night, these days there's too much oncoming traffic to use the high beams much. So I recommend paying more attention to the low beams instead.

I have used E-code H4 headlights exclusively in every vehicle I have owned since 1976. I have personal experience with Cibie, Hella, Bosch, Marchal, Stanley, Wipac and Lucas in the 7" round size that our Z's use. Of those, my favorite is Hella, with both Bosch and Cibie close seconds. The best ones have a sharply defined low-beam cutoff, and a broad pattern with minimal shadows.

Well, I see your point, Loren. But I too am old enough to have driven Z's when they were still fairly new, and add that to my 20+ years in tires, and it is my opinion that the narrow tires and wheels weren't the problem. The problem was aerodynamics. Too much airflow under the car. You mentioned two of the fixes - a front spoiler and/or lowering the car. The euro springs I will be using when I rebuild the suspension are also reputed to address this problem because they slightly lower the front of the car, without lowering the rear. Similarly, the 260Z came with the same skinny tires on 5" wheels but contemporary magazine tests swore it was a massive improvement in stability due to the slightly nose-down attitude of the car compared to the 240Z. But perhaps you are right. If I try it and hate it, what am I out? A set of tires. Because I can always pull them back off later.

I don't thin the Euro springs are available anywhere for your 280Z, only for 240Zs.

Gear reduction starters look considerably different. The first 3 pictures are all gear reduction, the fourth is a normal starter.

I was thinking the very same thing...

Not quite true. I have no ballast resistor in my 240Z ('71 with ZX dizzy), and my tach works just fine, thank you. But the first question above is very relevant. What type of ignition do you have on your car?