- 14,244
- 5,474
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
yes, I've been saying this.
these are also appreciated.
-smile
these are also appreciated.
-smile
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between the 240, 260, and 280Zs???
Originally Posted by Control Are
Here are two pics that I took at some vintage import show in LB a few years ago
Nissans always use numbers for the engine displacement. 260 was 2.6L, 280 2.8L and 300 was 3.0L. I may be wrong, but all the cars featured theL-series engine( i know the 280 had the L2 which was an inline six engine, and only the 280z was available with a turbo...The main differences is the bodyand engine, obviously..The weird thing about the 240 Z is its very, VERY common to see 350 engine in them. Alot of people use American engines for there 240zdrag cars...here is an example(from a car show)Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between the 240, 260, and 280Zs???
I was curious too... Googled it...Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between the 240, 260, and 280Zs???
Good question. I'm ready to learn.
Model run..
'70-'73 240. '74, early and late 260. '75-'78 280
Exterior. As mentioned, body line wise, '70-'78 were pretty similar. The creases, roof, fender, and hood lines were all the same. Exterior differences were the bumpers of course, taillights changed at the introduction of the 260. The front lower valence on the late 260 and all 280's is lower, (to accommodate the larger radiator and open up the radiator opening to compensate for the larger bumper), and the late 260 and all 280's also have the front turn signals in the grill just under the hood instead of the below the bumper in the valence corners as on the 240 and early 260. The very early 240 had the interior vent outlets on the bottom of the rear hatch, late 240 and all subsequent 260 and 280 cars that interior outlet vent was on the "C" pillar behind the badge just behind the quarter light.
Interior. In general terms there were two distinct interior designs. The 240 was one, and then the 260/280 was the other. The 240 didn't have to many interior changes through its production. The 260 interior was totally revamped. The 280 retained the 260 interior. In '76, the shoulder belt mount point went from the "C" pillar to the strut tower, (seat belt doesn't dig into your neck as much on the '76+ cars). Also, in '76, the AMP gauge became the Volt gauge with a fiber optic charge light. In '77 the only significant interior changes were the font style of the gauges and the doors received a total redesign internally, which relocated the window crank and the door lock switch. The door changes in '77, (which carried over to the '7, made for much heavier doors, but the window regulators were much smoother and the actual door striker design was totally different than the earlier '70-'76 doors. Doors for the '77-'78 will not interchange with the earlier doors due to the different striker design. In '78, the speedo received KMH in small blue print. Either in '77 or '78, under dash foot well lighting was also added. In '77, the Z received larger capacity fuel tank which encroached on the spare tire well necessitating the space saver spare, (the 240, 260 and '75-76 280 received a full size spare tire), and also the '77-78 rear hatch area now has a raised false floor which was to accommodate the larger fuel tank and that little deflated spare. Depending on which manufacturing plant the '77/78 was manufactured in dictated how the that false floor in the hatch area finished out to the rear. Some were flat level all the way back, others kicked up at 45 degrees to the hatch.
Structural. There were subtle structural differences as well. The late 260 and 280, the trans tunnel was widened substantially at the bottom. For some guys doing V-8 conversions, that is a big plus for exhaust routing. The T/C rod mounts were beefier as well as portions of the frame rails on the late 260 and 280 vs the 240 shell. As mentioned above, the late 260 and 280 had a larger radiator opening and as such, the lower core support dropped.
Suspension. Functionally and in basic design, they were all similar. The 280 strut tubes were a little thicker, the 280 had a little more caster, it has been said that the 280 rear control arms are a little heaver gauge material. The front cross member of the 280 is a little beefier as well. Brakes were the same, though the later 280 had anchored dual piston wheel cylinders in the drums vs the earlier sliding single piston wheel cylinder. The 260 received slower steering rack and pinion and the pinion housing was cast iron vs the 240's aluminum. (The rack and pinion may have been and early to late 260 change, someone else here would know for sure).
Power train. The 240 had the 2.4 liter 6 cylinder, 260 had the 2.6 etc. '70-'72 had the desirable SU carbs. '73 240 and the 260 received some heavily smogged carbs that people complain about. The 280 received the virtually maintenance free EFI. Electronic ignition was first used on the 260 and carried through the 280 series. 5 speeds became available in '77. In regards to the engine and trans, due to the cars age and all the previous owners, it could have any engine and trans and any induction system as they all readily interchange.
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between the 240, 260, and 280Zs???
think i'm to blame for that, posting the 72 gt-rOriginally Posted by Mangudai954
Originally Posted by hella handsome
s14 is my favorite
Different lineage.
Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG