1600 Or 2+2

[freshin_j]

If you had to pick a project and couldn't afford a 2 seater, would you pick a 2+2 or 1600? Feel free to say why as well.

[PB260Z]

Hi

 

For me it was no contest 2+2.

 

Why ? always wanted one.

Like the look, good sized engine, solid handling, room for kids.

 

Cheers

 

PB

[cracker]

You've asked this question on a zed forum... haha

[C.A.R.]

Is it school holidays already?

[Cozza]

If you are limited for money I'd pick the 1600.

From what I see of the market, there are more clean bodied (minimal rust) 1600's than there is S30's (2 seater or 2+2's) out there.

Also, heaps more 2nd hand panels about for 1600's and much cheaper.

But to be honest, if you have the finances just go for the model that you prefer, they really are a different beast. Either way, use the theory that the better the condition of the purchase is likely to be the cheapest long term project.

Even better, get one of each.

Good luck with your search.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cozza

[freshin_j]

Cracker - I asked on a Z forum because I'm leaning towards a 1600 and was seeing if someone could convince me otherwise.

 

Lurch - I don't understand this comment. Holidays have just finished if that helps.

 

Cozza - thanks for your detailed reply. You stated all the reasons I'm leaning towards the 1600.

[Hokin]

As Cozza said in Australia the amount of 2nd hand and also NOS\Remanufactured panels does appear to be stronger for the 1600.

 

However, someone once told me "if you can walk away from a car and never look back at it, you brought the wrong car".

[cracker]

Cracker - I asked on a Z forum because I'm leaning towards a 1600 and was seeing if someone could convince me otherwise.

 

Lurch - I don't understand this comment. Holidays have just finished if that helps.

 

Cozza - thanks for your detailed reply. You stated all the reasons I'm leaning towards the 1600.

 

I was joking. Of course the weight of opinion on this site will side with the 2+2 over the 1600. The 1600 was a great car in it's day and can be modified to be fun (very fun, even), but it will never be a sports car because ultimately it was sold as an affordable (though progressive) family car.

 

The 2+2 is a genuine sports coupe with a back seat, is less common and more desirable (generally speaking). It's more likely to appreciate in value and less likely to lose your interest over time. More expensive to restore and harder to find parts also, but you might appreciate the final product more as a result.

 

This site has so much info on zeds that it will give you more than enough information to make your own decision. Use the search function.

 

ps. I think Lurch was suggesting you asked a childish question.

[Cozza]

The 1600 was a great car in it's day and can be modified to be fun (very fun, even), but it will never be a sports car because ultimately it was sold as an affordable (though progressive) family car.

Really. 2.30's at Bathurst is reasonable in my book.

 

http://youtu.be/KJ0Efo2zcLA

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cozza

[cracker]

Really. 2.30's at Bathurst is reasonable in my book.

 

 

Can't argue with those times - but you can make a Commodore or econo-hatch go around that fast if you have the inclination and money. I'd still not consider either a sports car. Racing car, sure, but that's all subjective of course - I'm probably referring more to the intended purpose from factory, and as a result, the collectability/desirability. 

[freshin_j]

Thanks Cracker. So you say the 2+2 is a more desirable car. Even considering the racing history of a 1600.

 

Anyone actually use the back seat of a 2+2. I have a little one that might take a ride every once and a while.

 

Cracker - I knew lurch was eluding that it's a childish question but being a teacher I say there's no such thing.

 

Thanks for all the advice so far.

[1600dave]

Is the 2+2 more desirable though ? Sure, that's the response here, but its a bit of a one-sided sample. 

 

Appreciate in value ? 2+2 are starting to hit their stride, but still not in the same league as 2-seaters. 1600's are also appreciating, especially when considered as a percentage increase.

 

Sports car ? Agree, 1600 isn't a true sports car. They are "fun". Depends what you want. Some might even say the 2+2 isn't a "real" sports car like the 2-seaters (as evidenced by the considerable difference in price between the two).

 

Cost to restore / Maintain ? - 1600's are perhaps a little cheaper. There has recently become available a large range of reportedly decent quality aftermarket stuff (panels / bumpers / lights). They also share parts with a lot of other Datsuns which helps availability. Zeds have more "zed-only" parts. Cost of paint & panel, trim restoration, etc is pretty much the same for both.

 

Availability ? Personally, there seems to have been more zeds on the market recently than 1600's (perhaps due to people cashing in on the current market ??). There are very few good, clean, rust free examples of either, sadly. 

 

If I were given the choice between a 2+2 and a 1600, which would I pick ? The 2+2 ! But I have a pair of 1600's already. Would I give one of them up in a direct swap for a 2+2 ? Nope. Make of that what you like.

 

At the end of the day, it is difficult applying logic to the purchase of a classic car. Go with what interests you (or get one of each).

Edited February 4, 2016 by 1600dave

[Eggy]

Hi

long time reader but this will be my first post.

 

I've just finished grappling with the same question. I sold my 1200 wagon daily and considered a 1600 / early celica / 260 2+2

realistically I need to be able to carry my family of 4 so a 2 seater limits the use of the car.

 

For me it came down to wanting a drivers car:

base suspension  - sports car / standard car (240/260z is a factory sports car)

steering box / rack

IRS / fixed axle (Celica)

 

1600 requires engineering to get to a level that I want ( in Vic) similar to what I had done to the 1200

 

Having now driven a 260z I am vary happy with the base car that I will now finesse.

 

I've spent 6 months looking for a 2+2

and have finally just purchased a 2+2 about 2 weeks a go

[Cozza]

Can't argue with those times - but you can make a Commodore or econo-hatch go around that fast if you have the inclination and money. I'd still not consider either a sports car. Racing car, sure, but that's all subjective of course - I'm probably referring more to the intended purpose from factory, and as a result, the collectability/desirability.

Fair enough but, what if it was a 1600 SSS (Super Sport Sedan) would that change your mind

[CBR Jeff]

180B SSS. That's the next big thing.

[garvice]

I have both as projects. The 2+2 came first and i think still looks better. The 1600 was given to me add a shell but was full of unseen rust. When i started a few years back i was taken back at how little support or panels the was for the 1600 (coming from a z). But that has changed recently with more available now. If you're going to modify then the 1600 has a tiny engine bay and almost non existent tunnel so keep that in mind if you want to do anything other than a Nissan i4 engine.

[chris240]

I'd go for the Valiant.

[PB260Z]

I'd go for the Valiant.

[gav240z]

I predict a rush on 1965 Nissan Cedric's.

[HKSZ]

Got a modified 1600 for motorsport duties and a restored 2+2, has to be the 2+2 if not simple things like intermittant wipers, AC, it's the std 6cyl has a heap more power and torque over even a modded 4cyl.

Plus tonight the cute blonde at Hungry Jacks leaned out the window and told me she loves my car, I rest my case.

[Cozza]

Haha

Well that's settled that argument.