aarc240

NormanV - check your strut diameters and lengths. The standard 240z has smaller strut tubes at 50mm OD so everything is different including the coilover tubes and dampers. On top of that, the rear struts are shorter by about 41mm. If you have a source (like a rusted out 280z) you can change to the larger struts but you MUST shorten the rear tubes to at least the 240z length.

Don't overlook the fusible links and their mounting block. I got to look at an early '76 after the owner had torn his hair out for weeks because one headlight was dull. They'd tried everything, new lights, fuses, even the column switch. The clue he missed was to sit a good voltmeter on the output of the column switch and then use the beam change switch. I could see the voltage sag on switch to high beam and then slowly rise to about 10V. Select low beam and voltage would immediately come back to about 11.8V even though the battery was showing 12.4V. Pulled the fusible links, dismounted the block and gave the block a brief wash in mild muriatic acid, a water rinse and a mild soap solution rinse. Nice bright terminals in there after that so clean the links the same way, stuffed silicon grease into the contacts and reassembled. All fixed, lights working real good. The owner reckons they're brighter than they have been for years!!

Your bro sure does have the right idea! I got a 240z, a 260z, a 350z and a 370z, all new Only problem is they're each about two inches long and come in bubble packs

Hi Everyone, I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends and colleagues, but it is difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my lawyer yesterday, and on her advice I wish to say the following: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday practised with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practise religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2012, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee . By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. Best Regards (without prejudice), Name withheld (Privacy Act)

Why not use the MS2/Extra config in the interim? see http://www.msextra.com/doc/ms2extra/MS2-Extra_Ignition.htm#msd Unless you are already using pin 36 on the v3 main board for something else this will work fine.

Lurch, have you investigated the box from the RB30? It appears to be pretty much identical to the RB20 box, may be a viable option here in Oz.

Yes, I have that but to most people it's meaningless. Regrettably, this isn't an option in Australia where full cages are outlawed on the street. A half cage is accepted and does help somewhat. Re the "Works" cars and the myths pertaining to them, by 1972 that is exactly what they were, myths. The lightweight panels and thicker frame rails had been banned and to stay competitive the customer cars were JDM HS30L versions with some extra stiffening and a lot of extra welding. In international (ie WRC) rallying the Ford Escort in particular headed in a very different direction by construction and sale of sufficient homologation specials to kill these Japanese upstarts. Way back in '72 I had one of those 'customer cars' bought & supplied for competition use and it really wasn't anything special, just a gutted 240Z with Fairlady badges! Hey, I was 23 then also, but the Pinto was a new-ish model and came with an asthmatic 4 cylinder! Of course, if you were really insane there was supposedly a V6. Thankfully, Ford never produced a right hand drive version so we were never saddled with the things here. Back to the real subject, the only area of the body that is inadequate is that joint 7 simply because there isn't enough attached material within the joint. I'm still pondering that and will have to wait on a couple of 2+2 turrets now undergoing accelerated corrosion testing. They have been treated with two different corrosion proofing regimes so hopefully one will show that it is possible to "shake proof" that part of the body. It's a very different aim to stopping the torque twist imposed by say a 500hp V8.

Thanks for posting that link, it's provided confirmation of a couple of theories I've had for a while. It highlights why the shape of the Z has a significant impact on the structural rigidity of the car. The joints shown in that paper which affect the Z are 1, 3, 5/6 and 7. Joint 8 isn't a problem due to the large load bearing area created at the rear of the hollow beam along the top of the inner fender. Joints 1 & 3 are similarly relatively bulky with attendant stiffness. Joints 5 & 6 are actually combined at the top of the rear pillar and along the side of the hatch so there's a lot of support there too. All of these benefit from a dose of "spot weld fever" to such an extent that the torsional beam strength of the body is measurably increased. Supporting our lightened 240 on three corners and loading the fourth confirmed my belief at the time of build. Prior to extra spot welding, either unsupported rear corner deflected 7mm with 250kg load and either front corner an average of 9mm. There was a small amount of radial twist measurable diagonally through the cabin space but this didn't exceed 2mm in any direction. Interestingly, while there was a small amount of rotation in the door openings, at no time did it become enough to prevent hanging and closing the doors which tells me that the sill rail beam is pretty sturdy. For an un-modified body that's actually pretty darn good compared to many "modern" cars! After hours of spot welding (about 6 altogether) the same tests were carried out. The rear deflection came down to less than 2mm and the front to less than 5mm. To my mind that was a good result for the effort expended. That leaves joint 7 and this IS a problem area as can be testified by anyone who loses a windshield during a gravel rally or trial. The entire front of the roof shakes sideways as well as exhibiting vertical vibration sufficiently to require the side windows be wound down so they don't get smashed too! The extra spot welds obviously do help but equally obvious is that the windscreen is a structural necessity which is not too surprising given the cross sectional area of the A pillars. So, it would seem that more research into corrosion proofing joint 7 internally is in order so that a HD foam can be used to stiffen the joint. A trials car is particularly prone to moisture in the roof structure due to damp and muddy gear, hot floor, demister going flat out and freezing cold outside so it's a good test bed. edit: You're right that there's no FIA rule, and equally correct that OEM's are using it for crush reasons.

On my MS3 install I've used a cut down Datsun four cylinder distributor body. A steel plate mounted to the top supports a standard Ford CAS which detects a single steel post wheel attached to the original Datsun lower distributor shaft. A VR interface from Jean Bellenger translates that signal for the MS3. Unfortunately I didn't think to take photos while doing that one! btw, for CAS I'm using a Ford sensor with a custom 36-1 wheel 180mm in diameter mounted to the back of the harmonic damper.

A bit of "real world" experience. I have a 'special' built on a 1937 English Ford chassis that utilises the best high density foam infill I can get hold of. Because of the design, this car has largish side pods made of thin gauge aluminum attached to a light tube steel structure. The side pods are epoxied and riveted at all joints and at the attachment areas so there is absolutely no ingress of moisture. This is one case where foam filling DOES make a very significant difference to stiffness without adding a risk of moisture retention. On the other hand, our 240z navigation trials car doesn't use foam fill inside any of the factory cavities. Instead, after rebuilding the body shell the original factory panel joints throughout were reworked with a spot welder so that the spot welds have gaps no wider than the diameter of the spot welds themselves. Sure, a similar result could be achieved with a MIG or TIG, but at the expense of added weight. Finally all 'closed' members were thoroughly soaked inside with a phosphoric acid & PVA mixture which not only kills all surface rust but also leaves a moisture resistant skin. Why do one car one way and the other a totally different way? I made up some test box sections from wrecked 2+2's and loaded them until they collapsed. The ones with foam fill were significantly better than the factory stock ones. The "spot welder gone mad" examples were nearly as good. So, why add a potential problem with foam in there when it wasn't really needed? btw, the trials car has a one piece aluminum under tray with HD foam between it and the floor, but that was made by oiling the floor so the foam would release. The floor continues to be oiled with a 140 weight to prevent rust. There are places for HD foam, they're just not inside steel sections unless corrosion protection can be guaranteed.

Rigez, you'll need to be very specific on the model/year/variant for the parts you need. I've got both 240 and 260's (the 280Z didn't exist in Oz) but have avoided the middle group - early 260Z. Almost nothing is compatible between the 240 and late 260! The later 260Z (1975 on) is relatively plentiful in 2+2 form - that came about because the 2+2 qualified as a sedan for company tax purposes so plenty got bought for the "little lady" who wasn't necessarily "her indoors".