Jump to content

wanted


Linton

Recommended Posts

FWIW. From what I've observed on my own car, the early 260 2-seater side panels are pretty much the same as for the 240Z, but one side has an extra cut-out & shaping for the 2nd hatch gas strut bracket which the 240 didn't have. Also, I'm not certain about the similarity, or not, of shaping around the gas tank filler/vent pipe area on the RH panel.

Later 260Z 2-seater side panels of course have a taller cut-out at the front to suit the taller rear strut housing.

The 260 panels do seem more robust than the 240 ones IMO, thicker plastic, and more texture. And venting / speaker patterns of holes where applicable (front & rear).

If you strike out on a set of 260 panels but can find a good 240 set I think you could make them work without too much trouble. Or maybe take base moulds off them. 

The 260 2-seater taillight cover panel is more problematic, different to the 240 due to having separate back-up lights (larger inspection panels), and to the 260 2+2 panel which is slightly longer and taller. I don't know if the latter can be modified, but I'm sure someone will have tried as they are the easiest to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmmm yes that's interesting comments, talking to rob at the z factory he mentioned that the car may have been a 240 at production as it is quite an early one 74 chassis 898 but upgraded to a 260z, I havent heard that comment before but I also have done no research on it. I do have a +2 tail light cover and side panels so I can have a play with that. I did try it, but wasn't even close Robs "comment" was based on the chassis rail being about 1/2 inch in depth and very short , I have no cars to compare it with down here..

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 260 is even earlier, #115, one of a number in that number range sold new in NZ in '74, I've owned it since '84. These 'early' 260s have some commonality with the last of the 240s and yet differ in many details (bumpers etc) from '74 US-spec cars - plus their early-'74 cars differ in some respects from their late-'74 cars - so perhaps that's where that 240-to-260 upgrade idea has originated, I've heard it before. In fact my car is a bit of an orphan, caught between the two with its own specific parts & running changes made as the Z series developed. But I don't think it would be much different to the later '74 & '75 cars sold in this part of the world. Albeit there are differences under the bonnet between NZ-spec and Aus-spec cars too.

Compared to a 240, my 260 has so many differences in the metalwork, such as the taillight panel, the inner door skins (window winders are different), fixing brackets for interior trim & dash & console, has a pair of hatch struts, bracketry in the engine bay, etc. The floor structure & suspension appears the same as a 240 (51mm struts) but then it has the bigger R200 diff. It just wouldn't be practical to 'upgrade' a 240 to a 260. And certainly mine has had no such alterations.

Although I have collected a lot of spare Z parts over many years I don't have any spare interior door or rear trims. I have seen NOS and repro 240 rear trim panels advertised at times and have been somewhat tempted as I think push come to shove they could be adapted to fit my car were I to somehow damage mine but haven't taken it any further. Were I to stupidly break a panel I would probably just get it plastic welded.

My 2c worth anyway.

 

Edited by gilltech
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the 240-to-260-upgrade which I regard as a myth, IMO for the Z assembly plant to decide whether an upcoming Z body shell was destined to become a HS30, or RS30, they would have to make the call very early before the taillight panel and door shells were installed. Never mind all the accessory attachment brackets. And for which market? And all before the VIN was stamped into the firewall.

I've seen a 240Z where someone had fitted a complete 260Z dashboard. It was an insecure mess as it wasn't a simple bolt-in job although to be fair one could be forgiven for perhaps just assuming it would be. Added to that, many of the wiring loom connectors at the dash area differ between 240 & 260, so that part wasn't a simple plug'n'play either.

Yes my car unfortunately has the short shallow rather weak under-floor stiffener rails as per the 240. Which have had to be repaired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gilltech said:

Further to the 240-to-260-upgrade which I regard as a myth, IMO for the Z assembly plant to decide whether an upcoming Z body shell was destined to become a HS30, or RS30, they would have to make the call very early before the taillight panel and door shells were installed. Never mind all the accessory attachment brackets. And for which market? And all before the VIN was stamped into the firewall.

 

Over here in the UK I have often heard people saying "...the factory used up all the old 240Z parts on the early 260Zs...", and some people actually seem to believe it. Its bizarre.

I think that's simply a failure of comprehension. One of the biggest problems is the whole idea of the terms '240Z' and '260Z' in the first place. What do they actually mean? What spring rates does a '240Z' have? Does it have a rear anti roll bar? What's the diff ratio? What's the output of the engine? What side is the steering wheel on? Of course, the answer is .....it depends.

To get our heads around all this I think it helps to remember that there were numerous rolling detail changes to these cars by date anyway, and then you have to throw market and sub variant into the mix. It gets complicated!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, HS30-H said:

One of the biggest problems is the whole idea of the terms '240Z' and '260Z

The attached file shows the contents of the Nissan Service Bulletin (Nov 1973, Vol.197) and implies Nissan saw the 260Z as just a modified 240Z and this Bulletin outlines the changes Nissan had made by November 1973, no doubt others would have followed.

Dat260ZModsServiceBulletinVol197Nov1973.pdf

Edited by AndBir
wording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Over here in the UK I have often heard people saying "...the factory used up all the old 240Z parts on the early 260Zs...", and some people actually seem to believe it. Its bizarre.

It is bizarre.

Hey Linton, sorry if this got a bit off track. Do you know when your car was first registered, new in Australia?

Edited by gilltech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AndBir said:

The attached file shows the contents of the Nissan Service Bulletin (Nov 1973, Vol.197) and implies Nissan saw the 260Z as just a modified 240Z... .67 MB · 6 downloads

My point is that there were hundreds - if not thousands - of incremental detail changes on these cars during production, and between different model/market variants.

Exact model/market variant and production date are still the key factors in identifying the content of an individual car. The terms '240Z' and '260Z' don't cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Also the right factory literature documents all these changes and dates and part no.s.

You just have to know how to read and interpret the data.

Defining any of this as 240z or 260z is wrong anyway. Since it's better to think of the entire range as being an S30z series and then looking at the evolutionary changes based on dates and markets.

EG: Our late model 260z's share a lot in common with North American 280z's. Not because they used 280z parts to make our 260z's but because the entire range had changes made in specific dates and to comply with local laws and regulations. Eg: North American cars had catalytic converters. Our cars have the cut out in the trans tunnel to accommodate 1, but never had them fitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. All an S30 evolutionary process. Some parts were carried over for several years, others were short term.

Factory literature is useful to a point but it can still get tricky if one's project car is likely on the cusp of a change-over period and/or one doesn't have much if any history on the car.

Buying Z parts from anywhere, new or second hand, it's a case of buying 'like for like' via visual identification. Not hard if you have the original part to go by. Difficult if one has an incomplete project car, or missing parts, which is where one needs help from others with same-year / same-market cars to compare to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...