Arne

Certainly one of you guys who has installed this would like to write a review for the new Reviews section of the site? I'd do it myself, but that might not be fair...

My experiences with Monza are about 20 years old, and on water-cooled VWs. In that case, they fit acceptably well, looked nice, sounded good although a bit loud (I had an extra glass-pack welded in to quiet it), but didn't last long. In its defense, those old Sciroccos seemed to have something in their exhaust that rusted mufflers internally. In 15 years of Scirocco ownership, I never got more than 3 years out of an aftermarket muffler. When I get to that point, I'll take my 240Z to the local hot rodder's muffler shop, tell them what I'm after, and let them build it.

You must not have searched hard enough. This has been discussed here many times before. About once every 4-6 months in fact. I'm doing it next month. Here is one post (of many) on the subject: http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6735

Gary, I'm not sure about your area, but here in Eugene there are several shops that will rebuild your alternator for you, for a pretty reasonable price as well. I personally would have it done, not attempt to do it myself. Especially on a unit that is as hard to find as that 70 amp alternator now appears to be.

Makes sense. Early cars got a 40 amp unit with a 45 amp ammeter. Later cars got the 45 amp unit with a 60 amp ammeter? These days even a 60 amp doesn't sound like much, but compared to stock...Russell - PM sent.

Before you can really take advantage of Dave's harnesses, you will need to correct the issues with your car's existing wiring. You didn't mention what year your car is, but I suspect the simplest solution will be to find replacement harness sections to replace the damaged sections. I recently had to do that to my 240Z. Here is the thread: http://classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19793

Ahhh! So you are reusing the existing bulb harness that is in the car! Then the differences I was talking about are immaterial. Your LED housings will in fact work in any year 240Z.

The actual connectors and terminals from the socket wiring to the rear harness are different as well. Not interchangeable, I'm sorry to say.

I don't know where the split is, but the taillight harness connectors are different between early and late 240Zs. I know because the wiring that came with my spare set of taillights (out of a '73) is different than what is in my early '71 (10/70). The early car uses the full-size 1/4" blade terminals, the '73 lights use the small mini-blades. I also noted that in the '73 wiring, the inner top bulb in the red is only wired as a tail light, not as a brake/turn. This is different from my Series I where all three bulbs in the red are used as brake/turn, and both upper bulbs are used as tail lights as well.

Thanks, JZM. Don't know if it's going to come down or not yet. If it does, I'll contact you.

I too would be interested in a repro.

Seems to me I recall the L20 pin height spec listed separately in my factory manual (has both L24 and L20 in the engine section). I'll try to remember to look that up when I get home this evening.

As I understand it, the L20 is a smaller bore and stroke than the L24, so pistons and rods are not interchangeable.

I bought a blanking plug from MSA for the parking light switch hole, it wasn't very expensive. It fits fine, but doesn't appear to mount correctly with the parts I have. I'm sure I can get it to work, I'll just have to get creative.

The 240Z alternator was rated at 40 amps, so the 60 amp unit is a 50% increase. Still significant. I don't know if the extra output of the 70 amp unit (assuming you could find one) would be all that necessary for most people. I'm using the 60 amp one.

More - Bryan Little's Z webpage states that the manual cars had the '8.5' marking, and that the automatics had a '9' marking. Not much difference, so I don't think I'd worry much about which I got.

Somewhere down the road I'm going to need to get one for my car. And while mine is a late series I, I will use any style I can find that's intact! (And affordable! )

The difference between manual and automatic transmission ZX distributors is in the mechanical advance curve. There is apparently a small difference in the weight of the centrifugal weights, and maybe in the springs as well. I haven't been able to confirm which is better, and it is not easy to determine whether a particular ZX distributor was from a manual or automatic without disassembling it. So I don't think I'd worry about that part too much.

Yeah, I guess I should be more careful about how I shoot off my mouth. I probably have more experience in this kind of stuff than others do, and things that make total sense to me may not to others. I edited my previous post to make bold the call to label if in doubt. And even that is probably too weak. You should label. I got away with out labeling, but maybe I got lucky. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

I spent more than 20 years in the tire industry, and I don't quite agree with some of the above statements.1.) H-rated tires are not all better quality than lesser rated tires. Far from it. There are plenty of very high quality S and T-rated tires, and plenty of H-rated that are not so great. In fact the compromises that are brought on by the desire to achieve a particular speed rating may actually reduce some aspect of the tire's performance when compared to a similar tire designed as a complete package, rather than to artificially meet one particular test. An H-rating by itself is not a good indicator of quality. 2.) Neither are stiffer sidewalls any kind of quality indicator. That is just one of many design features that may be spec'd by the committee designing the tire. In fact, stiff sidewalls can be counter productive for a high-speed tire. They may retain more heat at speed than a similar rated tire with a different sidewall design. Or not, depending on the rest of the tire's design. But again, by itself it is not a reliable indicator of quality, or even handling capability. 3.) But personal experiences of tires that you have been pleased with in the past are VERY valid. If you liked a particular H-rated tire in the past, there's really no real reason not to use the same make and model in a T-rated version, if such a tire exists. I suspect you'll find very little - if any - difference.

I just did mine last month, and that's the way I recall it too. I didn't label anything, and had no problems identifying where it went. Of course, the early 240Zs are a much simpler car than the later cars, and it may be that the later cars are different, so if in doubt - label it all.

No current personal experience with Sumitomo, sorry. How wide are your rims? If they are 5.5" you might consider going with 195/65-14 instead. That size is within a fraction of the same diameter, a touch wider, and shows six H-rated choices at the Tire Rack. The Yokohama Avid H4S is one of them.

I didn't find that taking it out was all that difficult, at least not in my early 240Z. Took me maybe 45 minutes or so? But putting it back in was time consuming, somewhere between 2 and 3 hours to get it all lined up and connected.

From something I saw in a different thread, I believe blue_leaf is in Australia. I don't know when (or if?) the strut tubes changed for the Oz market.

The MSD coil is not required, but it is a highly regarded coil. Regardless of what brand you choose, you do need to use a coil for electronic ignition, not a points-type coil. I have a similar setup to Dave's, my dizzy is from an '83 which came with the wrong ignitor module, but I bought a used E12-80 ignitor and swapped it on. For now, I have a cheap aftermarket coil that was intended for a '79 ZX. ($15 brand new.) Seems to work fine. With that distributor and a decent coil, you should easily be able to open the plug gap much wider. The ZXs that came with that combination called for .045" gap. I've got mine gapped wide like that and it seems to work great.