From: miller@FS1.cam.nist.gov (Bruce R. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: 240Z-280Z Problems
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:28:39 GMT
Organization: NIST - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory


Hmm, just gotta clear up some misconceptions/typos/whatever...
BTW: I'm responding about US Z's:  Europe had a different lineup (no
280Z's if I'm not mistaken).  and Japan...well...

In article <1duo8rINNdmr@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>, Paul K Johnson writes:
> The quickest were the '73, '77, and '78.  

This is a joke, right?

In article <BxM7Mu.Dxn@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>, Erik van Bronkhorst
> 73 was the smog-dog year for the 240.  It is also the last year they were
> made.  The 260 was made in 74 with the same engine (+200cc whooopeee) as
> the 73 (smog-dog carbs).  The 75 260 had fuel injection.  Neither worked
> very well.  In 76 the first 280 came out with a brand new injection system,
> engine, and rear suspension.  Performance buffs prefer the lateral or
> "Chapman" rear struts of the 240 (&260) to the semi-trailing arms of
> the 280s.  All 280s including ZX have the same dumb semi-trailing rear

I dont believe there were any 260's with fuel injection.  The 280Z came
out in 75 with fuel injection (and a buncha extra pounds).  If there was a
`new' injection system, I'd assume it came out after 76, because 75 & 76
share shop manuals. I'm also under the impression that the (rear)
Chapman struts were used throughout the "Z" series: the trailing arm
business appeared with the first "ZX" (79?) --- in any case, the 75, 76
certainly have struts. 

> According to all published test results I have seen
> the Datsun Z cars *decreased* in acceleration linearly with time from their
> inception until the first 280ZX Turbo appeared.  In other words, any stock
> 240 is quicker than any stock 260 or 280.  The ZX Turbo broke the cycle
> beating the early 240 by a tick.

Likewise, although I believe there was a slight blip when the 280Z
(easily) recovered some performance over the 260Z -- but not quite back
to the 240Z.  It seems that there was a quasi-continuous evolution from
"Sports car with GT aspirations" to a "GT car with sports car
aspirations".  The car generally got slower and cushier as time went on.
Where the ideal point is depends on your tastes.  

> True.  240s don't *make* any power below 3000 anyway so if you know how
> to drive this should not be a problem.  They need all the octane you can find.  
> They can be a bitch to get started on cold mornings, this is the one nice
> feature of the 280.  With their FI they start right up and you can actually
> drive them without having to warm up for 5 minutes.  Plus the 240 takes 

Even the 280 could use a bit more on the low end :>  It is interesting
that the 280Z has decent performance, _and_ low compression-- I've used
`regular' in my '75 for years and never a ping.

In article <uznerk.721626396@mcl>, Andrew Krenz writes:
> before they went to the ZX body.  Anyway, the first 280's (I believe they
> came out in '75) had their share of fuel injection glitches.  Most of
> the bugs were worked out by '78 and my car never had any problems.  
> ...
> Keep in mind that the 280 is really a wholly differenet car.  The engine is
> bigger, but the car itself is actually about 300 pounds heavier.  The non-
> assisted steering is a pain in the ass in parking lots.  Also, don't
> expect good gas mileage.  My car's original owner (my neighbor) kept
> gas mileage records ever since 1980.  The car typically got 12-13 mpg

I've never had any problems with my '75's injection system.  The
steering is a little tough in parking lots, but you dont need popeye
arms to cope with it.  And that mileage is outrageous!  I've gotten
consistently 22-23 mpg in city/highway mix.

bruce
miller@cam.nist.gov