I had a 280ZX. It was crap. (1980 10th Anniversary model with an auto, ugh). I'd try another, with the stick, and especially if it was a turbo. Then I'd cry myself to sleep every night for buying the ugly Z instead of a 240.
I had a 280ZX. It was crap. (1980 10th Anniversary model with an auto, ugh). I'd try another, with the stick, and especially if it was a turbo. Then I'd cry myself to sleep every night for buying the ugly Z instead of a 240.
In reply to Geekspeed:
I don't have a build thread on Mosquito Control, there wasn't much to build. It was already gutted out when I got it, some kid was planning to make it a "drift car". The only non stock bits on this car are the rear springs, and air intake. It a 1986 N/A. I do have a complete low mileage VG30ET (85 turbo) waiting to get swapped in when the VG30E finally croaks, but it just won't die.
I bought the car running for $500, and spent another $400 in parts to win the 2011 Fl region SCCA RallyX points in S/R. At the moment, it's leading 2 rallycross classes for the 2012 season, and I have a grand whopping total of $1100 as of today.
They do have a tendency to "hobby horse", due to soft rear springs. Great for drag racing, but for handling they tend to unload the front wheels and cause understeer. A good set of stiffer springs and good shocks/struts do wonders.
If you want power, get a turbo. The N/A cars do not respond well to modifications. For a turbo car, get an adjustable boost controller, european market cams, and a good exhaust. 300hp is a reasonable target without too much money or grief. To go over 300hp, you'll need a bigger turbo, improved fuel system, etc.
It's popular now to swap in a Pathfinder VG33, which of coarse takes you from a 3.0 to a 3.3. It's more or less a bolt in.
One drawback is that 95% of the turbo cars have t tops, hideous digital guages, and umpteen unneeded heavy power/luxo options.
Instead of holding out for a "slickroof" (what Nissan calls the non t-tops cars) turbo, it might be more realistic to find a clean, low option slickroof, and then find a turbo parts car to make your own light, solid roof turbo.
One thing that has helped with my racing is the parts cars I have bought. If you look hard, you can find Z31 parts cars for $300-400, strip the parts you need, and drag to hulk to the scrap yard to get your $300 bucks back. This has allowed me to get a great stock of spares, including transmissions, engines, suspension, etc, etc, etc, which has really saved my bacon when the race car tears up.
Nissan took a lot of lessons learned from the S30 and applied them to the S130. The G nose of the 240/260/280 was integrated, and the overall aero was cleaned up. Check out the cool little lip at the top of the hatch on the 280ZX for proof of the small details that were taken care of. It was good car that ended up saddled with a lot of luxury items but remember, the buying public wanted all that stuff and Nissan was only too happy to oblige.
jimbob_racing wrote: Nissan took a lot of lessons learned from the S30 and applied them to the S130. The G nose of the 240/260/280 was integrated, and the overall aero was cleaned up. Check out the cool little lip at the top of the hatch on the 280ZX for proof of the small details that were taken care of. It was good car that ended up saddled with a lot of luxury items but remember, the buying public wanted all that stuff and Nissan was only too happy to oblige.
According to wikipedia, the drop was 0.467 to 0.385, which is huge, but it still sucks. My Volvo brick had a better Cd than that.
the OP's hate of T tops kinda knocks the turbo's out of the equation, I don't believe either the z31 or the s130 were available in the us without the t bar roof
that being said, get the turbo, either one will do, add and intercooler and turn up the boost and go roast some tires, they share a semitrailiang arm suspension taht kinda sucks but otherwise both and well ballanced cars and fun to drive albe it not as tossable as a miata
a couple of people called the z31 hard to work on and someone else suggested the z32....these statements could not be more contradictory, the z31 isn't too bad once you find your way around it, the z32 requires engine removal for many tasks, the only thing easier to do in a z32 is radiator replacement
evildky wrote: the only thing easier to do in a z32 is radiator replacement
Ugh.. thanks for the memory. I spent an afternoon with my father replacing the radiator in his 300ZX... never saw a radiator that laid down before.. and slid out from under the bumper when it finally came out
Hey, doesn't the E30 have semi-trailing arm suspension? Is the one on the Z-cars that inferior to the BMW?
Geekspeed wrote: Hey, doesn't the E30 have semi-trailing arm suspension? Is the one on the Z-cars that inferior to the BMW?
Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's equal. The Porsche Cayman S uses a front MacPherson strut and so does our 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix GT and I guarantee you the Porsche turns in, corners, and rides better...
Again, this thread proves that I am weird.
I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me.
I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...
ScottRA21 wrote: Again, this thread proves that I am weird. I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me. I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...
you sure you are thinking of the right car? The 280 was not that different looking from the 240 and 260.. it is the 300 that was squared off with angles
my ideal (affordable) non-s30 z car is a z31 turbo (88 or 89)
I like em.
I would rather not have any sort of zx though. I am very fond of the s30=]
no bias here though
Of the two, I'd go with a slicktop ZX and turbo it. 
300ZX's just don't do it for me (even though that is a GREAT motor).
mad_machine wrote:ScottRA21 wrote: Again, this thread proves that I am weird. I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me. I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...you sure you are thinking of the right car? The 280 was not that different looking from the 240 and 260.. it is the 300 that was squared off with angles
Most of my problem is with disruption between the front, and the back of the car. Front looks similar to the S30s, but the back just doesn't "fit" the front to me. 70's up front, 80's in the back. One of my other issues with it, is the G-nose being part of it. I absolutely loathe the G-nose on the S30, so building it into the 280ZX just doesn't help anything in my eyes. I know it helps the aerodynamics a lot, but I still find it hideous.
Edit: After looking through some more S130's, I am noticing that it's the 2+2s that are my main problem. I think most of the ZX's I have ever seen in life have been 2+2 and those hunchback monstrosities are vulgar.
The 300ZX just feels overall like a much more cohesive design to me. It is just 80's through and through.
ScottRA21 wrote:mad_machine wrote:Most of my problem is with disruption between the front, and the back of the car. Front looks similar to the S30s, but the back just doesn't "fit" the front to me. 70's up front, 80's in the back. One of my other issues with it, is the G-nose being part of it. I absolutely loathe the G-nose on the S30, so building it into the 280ZX just doesn't help anything in my eyes. I know it helps the aerodynamics a lot, but I still find it hideous. Edit: After looking through some more S130's, I am noticing that it's the 2+2s that are my main problem. I think most of the ZX's I have ever seen in life have been 2+2 and those hunchback monstrosities are vulgar. The 300ZX just feels overall like a much more cohesive design to me. It is just 80's through and through.ScottRA21 wrote: Again, this thread proves that I am weird. I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me. I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...you sure you are thinking of the right car? The 280 was not that different looking from the 240 and 260.. it is the 300 that was squared off with angles
They made Z31 2+2s also, so watch out!
Well, this would be a good 300zx, but the guy's asking price is astronomical.
http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/cto/2972007176.html
Geekspeed wrote: Well, this would be a good 300zx, but the guy's asking price is astronomical. http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/cto/2972007176.html
Yea, $3k for that is just crazy.
ScottRA21 wrote:mad_machine wrote:Most of my problem is with disruption between the front, and the back of the car. Front looks similar to the S30s, but the back just doesn't "fit" the front to me. 70's up front, 80's in the back. One of my other issues with it, is the G-nose being part of it. I absolutely loathe the G-nose on the S30, so building it into the 280ZX just doesn't help anything in my eyes. I know it helps the aerodynamics a lot, but I still find it hideous. Edit: After looking through some more S130's, I am noticing that it's the 2+2s that are my main problem. I think most of the ZX's I have ever seen in life have been 2+2 and those hunchback monstrosities are vulgar. The 300ZX just feels overall like a much more cohesive design to me. It is just 80's through and through.ScottRA21 wrote: Again, this thread proves that I am weird. I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me. I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...you sure you are thinking of the right car? The 280 was not that different looking from the 240 and 260.. it is the 300 that was squared off with angles
Aye.. the 2+2 is an ugly beast.. the standard 2 seater 280 is not that different looking than the 240 and 260..
Too bad all the Rebels bought up all the good ones. 
<--- Doesn't get it ^^^
I don't get it either, but it IS a gratuitous Star Wars reference, so I shall allow it.
mad_machine wrote:ScottRA21 wrote:Aye.. the 2+2 is an ugly beast.. the standard 2 seater 280 is not that different looking than the 240 and 260..mad_machine wrote:Most of my problem is with disruption between the front, and the back of the car. Front looks similar to the S30s, but the back just doesn't "fit" the front to me. 70's up front, 80's in the back. One of my other issues with it, is the G-nose being part of it. I absolutely loathe the G-nose on the S30, so building it into the 280ZX just doesn't help anything in my eyes. I know it helps the aerodynamics a lot, but I still find it hideous. Edit: After looking through some more S130's, I am noticing that it's the 2+2s that are my main problem. I think most of the ZX's I have ever seen in life have been 2+2 and those hunchback monstrosities are vulgar. The 300ZX just feels overall like a much more cohesive design to me. It is just 80's through and through.ScottRA21 wrote: Again, this thread proves that I am weird. I really find the 280ZX to be the ugliest Z car made. The "240 with angles" look just doesn't look right to me. I'd take the 300ZX over the 280 pretty much any day. Now that I've said that...off to go drool over craigslist...you sure you are thinking of the right car? The 280 was not that different looking from the 240 and 260.. it is the 300 that was squared off with angles
just to clarify S30 = 70-73 240z, 74 260z, 75-78 280z all the same basic sheet metal, 74 and up available in 2+2 configuration
S130 = 79-83 280zx T tops became an option,81 introduced the turbo, 2+2 available, this was the only generation of Z car to offer a turbo motor and 2+2 seating in the US, this is the car with the semitrailing arm suspension
Z31 = 84-89 300zx pop up headlights and a V6 motor replaced the inline 6 of earlier models, pretty much the same semi-trailign arm suspension as the S130, a 2+2 was available as was a turbo but you couldn't get both inside the US
Z32 90-96 300zx, engineering for engineering's sake, ABS, Air bags, COP ignition, available all wheel steering, multi link IRS, avaiklable as a twin turbo or a 2+2 but again not both inside the US
evildky wrote: just to clarify S30 = 70-73 240z, 74 260z, 75-78 280z all the same basic sheet metal, 74 and up available in 2+2 configuration S130 = 79-83 280zx T tops became an option,81 introduced the turbo, 2+2 available, this was the only generation of Z car to offer a turbo motor and 2+2 seating in the US, this is the car with the semitrailing arm suspension Z31 = 84-89 300zx pop up headlights and a V6 motor replaced the inline 6 of earlier models, pretty much the same semi-trailign arm suspension as the S130, a 2+2 was available as was a turbo but you couldn't get both inside the US Z32 90-96 300zx, engineering for engineering's sake, ABS, Air bags, COP ignition, available all wheel steering, multi link IRS, avaiklable as a twin turbo or a 2+2 but again not both inside the US
240/260/280Z = Gorgeous:
240z + G nose = Hideous:
280zx = Meh
280zx 2+2 = Fugly
300zx Z31 = Fine by me
I'm weird. I know.
My idea of a sexy Z31--
UNF. Z31s are hawt.
All of the 2+2s are ugly, including the S30s. And I don't care for the body kit or headlight covers on that ZX, so here's a stock one:
It's surprisingly difficult to find a picture of a stock 280ZX on the internet.
You'll need to log in to post.
