home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!oasys!dtnet7-95.dt.navy.mil!paraska
- From: paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Paraska)
- Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
- Subject: Re: 240Z-280Z Problems
- Message-ID: <paraska.25.721919252@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 13:07:32 GMT
- References: <403@rd1.interlan.com> <BxKyAD.Fu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <BxM7Mu.Dxn@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>
- Sender: news@oasys.dt.navy.mil
- Organization: David Taylor Model Basin
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <BxM7Mu.Dxn@avalon.nwc.navy.mil> erik@peewee.nwc.navy.mil (Erik van Bronkhorst
- Code 3814 Phone 939-1421) writes:
- >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 susp.
-
- Erik, you're mistaken on one point. All 240/260/280 _Z_'s had the Chapman
- strut rear suspension. The 280ZX, which debuted in 1979, started with the
- semi-trailing arm stuff. I know because I just got a rear control arm from
- a 77 280Z to put in my 240Z. The design is the same.
-
- On the carb thing: Many people with 73 240Z's and 74 260Z's installed the
- 72 SU carbs - with great results. One thing to consider is that the 73 240Z
- got heavier, i.e., a 72 is preferable. The 71 is good too, but the rear
- diff should be relocated to the "new" 72-on position.
-
- Pete (paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
-
- P.S. anyone wnating to talk with other Z-car people should subscribe to the
- z-car list. Lots of good info there!
- |////////////////////////////////////////////////|
- | Pete Paraska (paraska@oasys.dt.navy.mil) |
- | David Taylor Model Basin, CARDEROCKDIV |
- |\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|
-