home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!godzilla.quotron.com!conrad
- From: conrad@Quotron.COM (Conrad Frank)
- Subject: Re: 240Z-280Z Problems
- Message-ID: <conrad.721662003@duke>
- Sender: usenet@godzilla.quotron.com (usenet user)
- Organization: Quotron System, Inc.
- References: <403@rd1.interlan.com> <uznerk.721626396@mcl>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:40:03 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- uznerk@mcl.ucsb.edu (Andrew Krenz) writes:
-
- >In <403@rd1.interlan.com> tavernin@rm1.interlan.com (Victor Tavernini) writes:
-
- >>I'm thinking of buying a 240Z, 260Z, or 280Z and was wondering if any
- >>specific model/year had any serious problems ... besides rust :-)
-
- >>Thanks,
-
- >>Victor Tavernini
- >>Racal-Datacom, Inc.
-
-
- >I don't own a Z now but I used to. Anyway, here goes:
- >The early 240's were probably the best there ever were. '70 and '71
- >specifically. Don't get a '72 because they had a lot more smog equipment
- >on them and they're not as powerful.
-
- Excuse me, but I own a '72, and they have very little smog equipment. I think
- that you may be refering to the '73, which was the first year to use emmision
- control carbs, and EGR. The '74 260Z shares the same equipment as the '73 240Z.
- The '72 has an air pump, PCV valve, vapor recovery system, and a deceleration
- valve. That is all. The '72 is better than the earlier Z's in that the diff is
- shifted further rear-ward, allowing the half-shafts to be straight, reducing
- wear on the u-joints.
-
- Yes, I am biased toward the '72, but the above statements are correct, and most
- of the books that I have read on the history of the Z indicate that the '72 was/is the best of the early Zs.
-
-
-