gilltech

Yep, in other words you need to have that saddle shaped bracket that holds the two front ends of the console apart. If you've got that, then you're good to go as per Sydney Mike's pictures.

Any joy on the console switches? Not exactly the same as yours perhaps but my '74 only has the Hazard switch at centre lower, left of that is the rear Demister switch, & in upper left above that is the blue Demister light. The other three positions have blanks in them. Pretty plain jane. There are redundant plugs in the loom beneath for other items for better equipped markets, such as fog lamps, park lamps or whatever. [And FWIW some markets added little warning lights in the heater control panel, seatbelt & temp I think?].

Really? Well there you go, I never knew that, unless it's just the early ones which are metal? They talk about re-chroming them on-line. Sorry, I see now they're secured differently from the 260, they use a speed nut & two push clips on the inside of the lens from what I can see on-line.

You mean the trim around the taillights? They're not stainless steel, they're chrome plated plastic, well, on my 260 they are anyway, I presume the 240 are similarly constructed. The garnish on mine is secured from the back with small screws in the corners.

Yes.....you could see the family resemblance right through..... Mind you, those early Jap cars were a breath of fresh air to the typical NZ motoring scene full of dated looking English cars, & everything worked & stayed working, they were reliable & didn't break down every time it rained..... The main design criticism I've always had were the hubcaps - every last one was a nasty cheap looking piece of stamped metal, whoever designed them & approved them for production needed sacking..... My mate's 160J SSS went very well indeed, as did my 120Y SSS. But thin...just as well we didn't hit anything... I didn't much like the 180Bs & SSSs & 200Bs I drove, 2 or 4-door, too 'floaty'; I preferred the bigger Mitsubishis - esp the GSR, 2000GTO etc.

In NZ the 140Js that came in fully assembled were standard spec 4-doors, I never saw a SSS, did you have them here? But a number of 160J SSS 2-doors came in, 5-speeds, & they used to go pretty well - same styling as the 140J except 2-door; a bit smaller, so lighter & quicker than the 2-door 180B SSS. They were closest I think to the original 1600 SSS flavor that was so popular for competition over there. I presume it was much the same here in Australia. That 120Y, 140J, 160J, 180B high-waistline styling with all the contorted swage lines must have put metal stamping machines to the test!?!

The Jap-assembled 2-door 180B SSS's we got new in NZ weren't much over the standard 4-door 180B quite frankly, I didn't think they really lived up to the SSS badge of the earlier series cars like the 1200 SSS & 1600 SSS. In NZ the 180B to get was the locally assembled SSS, which was based on the locally assembled 4-door. Bit of a sleeper, big pair of twin-choke side-draught carbs & a few other mods, quicker than the 2-door.

You say broken, then you say loose piece; it's not clear, is the end part detached or just loose but still in place?

Well compared to the '60s/70s Mustangs I know, IMO the S30 bodyshell was a closer fit, closer tolerances, smaller panel gaps etc. Neater detailing overall. But I think the '70s-era 911s were quite a bit better again in that respect. There's always been lots of talk about the Japanese manufacturers in the early days copying those of other countries & not being innovative. But I think that a bit unfair. They were innovative in many ways & IMO were much quicker to see the advantages of better quality control than many existing manufacturers.

Note the door mirrors on that B210 (120Y). My mum had one from new in NZ in mid-70's & it had the big chrome fender mirrors very similar in style to the later Z mirrors that we all keep looking for. Hers didn't have those ugly bumpers & hubcaps either. Poor Yanks.

I didn't think Aus & NZ cars had them? Strange, you'd think for Aus it would be essential... 280ZXs did, maybe fit a 280zx rad & shroud? I tried a 280ZX shroud on my 260 rad though but the fixing points don't line up.

Ditto with 240s & 260s sold new in NZ. Many owners removed the mirrors - which on our 260s were quite bulky things - & had the holes in the guards filled in. Very hard to find such mirrors today for a concours restoration.

Those look rather different to my 260 2-seater - mine just have the vertical projecting bolts (with the plastic spacers) without those formed feet. I didn't realize the 2+2 seats are different, not to mention the floor frame.

The console attaches to the bracket - which itself screws down onto the tunnel - at the front on each side with a single roundhead screw with captive washer. At back there are three countersunk screws in the coin tray, they screw down into captive nuts in a rear bracket welded to the tunnel. That's it. [bTW I lay washers on top of the rear bracket before dropping the console into place, to relieve lengthwise tension as the console squashes down against the vinyl padding over the tunnel]. Is it soft upholstery glue? Maybe try turps, but test on the underside first, don't go too heavy with whatever you use, I wouldn't like to say how resilient that plastic is against chemicals, I think it would soften if kept saturated with anything too long. Try & remove as much as you can by hand first.

Looks like a factory power-antenna-delete panel to me. Must have been required for some market or some spec. Just because a radio with power antenna was listed as standard equipment on a 240Z (well, AFAIK it was) doesn't mean that suited all situations. I've seen similar oddball things with other cars, just because they shouldn't be required in theory according to the specs doesn't mean they don't exist because just occasionally such things turn up to confound the experts. I think you have a very rare factory part there. Where did you get it from, Japan?

How are you proposing to deal with a lack of spring capture at one or both ends? That was the problem I had at the front.

Datsun260z, my apologies, I was wrong in saying that there is no date given on my owners manual, after comparing it to another it is indeed there in a corner on the back, in my case so badly faded that it is barely discernible at all. States month & year. Whereas the American handbooks I have here, LHD for various markets, denote their respective year in large numerals on their front covers. Good hunting! Someone is bound to have one tucked away somewhere.

I tried a set of their lowered versions (30mm lower?) & the fronts weren't captive, & the rears were only just which is why I'm sure they are intended for the 2+2 with it's taller struts which many Aus aftermarket parts suppliers seem to think is the only type of 260Z. Too short, too stiff, & because of the latter the ride height at front ended up slightly higher than before, & left the back noticeably higher. No good, I put the originals back on, I don't want a car that rides like a skateboard.

The 260's rear strut tower design changed at least twice after the early ones in '74 so maybe 3 x different heights. 2+2 different again of course.

Haven't noticed any difference, the A arms of a 2+2 I had here until recently looked identical to those on my 2-seater. 2+2 struts are definitely taller though, designed for a different back end able to seat additional passengers. Unless you want additional ground clearance!!! then 2+2 rear struts are only suitable for 2+2s, unless you modify them I suppose.

Yes the 2+2 rear struts are much taller than the 2-seater 260 (or 240) struts. Your 240 spring rate would be less than the 2-seat 260 - the latter being a slightly heavier car - but after 40+ years some of it comes down to the relative condition of the springs, sag etc. Give it a try, but might be a touch soft perhaps. Personally I prefer to have the front slightly downward raked, rather than have the car sit level at rest, to offset the frontal lift the Zed is prevalent to at speed. I have fitted the front struts & springs out of a later 260 (my 260 2-seat is very early, like a 240), which are shorter than the originals, so the front's dropped about 15mm IIRC - it's been many years so don't quote me, got it written down somewhere. Spring-wise I had the front springs re-set to 20mm shorter, & trimmed the rears a 1/2 coil which both shortened them & stiffened them slightly (it was all calculated). That worked fine for me, end result was just the right sensible amount IMO & in any case my driveway at the time had a tricky transition where it met the road & at worst case I had just 10mm clearance to the exhaust. I haven't ever played mix-n-match with the different strut cap heights. Others on this forum have & could help.

Not a simple answer. The spring rates are different from one year to the next, as the cars progressively got heavier. And the strut design was changed several times. In a given year there were different spring rates installed depending on market, model & specification such as 'sports' or not, A/C or not, etc.

That's a common American expression they use for their own cars, we get that with our Mustangs for example. It can refer to a significant mid-production-year change in specifications that won't wait until the next year's models.

I have one with my '74 2-seat, & the handbook covers both 2-seat & 2+2 versions. Same as the one in the image posted above. There's no 'year' date on it. Interestingly, it also covers both RHD and LHD versions. Whereas both the American market '73 240Z and '74 260Z handbooks I have - ex a USA supplier many years ago - are LHD specific, and the content differs in other respects too, & the year is denoted on the cover. So you'll want to track down a 'local' market handbook. Despite being kept in a dark glovebox for the 30+ yrs I've owned it the cover on mine has faded very badly, unlike the one in the image posted above. So you might have to keep your eyes doubly peeled to recognize one.

I really don't think an inertia seat belt system would have been 'standard' on a Zed of that vintage, AFAIK. I think they came along mid-260s era. eg. my '74 still has a lap belt with clip-on/detachable shoulder belt, with metal buckle (with Z logo) that sits against the hip, no stalk. Sounds like your car has been retrofitted with an inertia style, but whether done prior to later fitting the roll bar, or done along with the roll bar at the same time, do you know? And an extra bolt fitting added to the sill towards the rear to take the housing. And IIRC the 3 x original seatbelt bolts (2 x floor & 1 x roof) are all the same, high tensile fine thread. Best check with whoever is going to sign off on your car what sort of seatbelt they will accept, the original fixed style or an inertia style.