Is a rusty but original '71 240Z worth $8700 these days? If so, I'm going to have to consider something else. What do you think? Is he nuts? Or am I nuts for wanting one?
1971 Datsun 240z - $8700 (Wichita, KS)
Is a rusty but original '71 240Z worth $8700 these days? If so, I'm going to have to consider something else. What do you think? Is he nuts? Or am I nuts for wanting one?
1971 Datsun 240z - $8700 (Wichita, KS)
That engine bay is remarkable, but I'm not paying that kind of money dor any car with nature made speed holes.
He's just jumping the gun a little, the 240Z will be the next air-cooled 911. Buy one while you can.
That's pretty clean for $8700... ten years ago.
I remember looking at collections of glass and plastic held together by a vaguely 240Z shaped lattice of rust with a VIN attached for $2k in the early 00s. And I mean "lattices"... one example we looked at had "fenders" that were HVAC ducting material riveted to what was left of the original outside of the car. Only $1500! And the engine was seized.
I think he's overshot by about 3k. Though, I'm by no means a classic Z pricing expert.
If it's truly an Auto then yes, he's a bit high. Now if it's a manual then I could see that price with some negotiation room provided it does run as good as the description says and the picture implies.
Manual cars would fetch that pretty easy now days.
I want one but prices have gotten... Dumb.
Prices have gotten dumb which is why Im gonna fix mine even though its a rust bucket.
All the 240Z's I was looking at in 1990 had Fred Flintstone floors and the head was in the hatch needing a head gasket so I bought a Datsun Roadster 1600 instead.
27 years later these Z's are getting $6500 and I'm still looking at $7500 - $10,000 roadsters.
And for $5-$6,000 I can get a really nice Miata - maybe even original paint and no rust.
But those Z's really light my fire........
Datsun310Guy wrote: All the 240Z's I was looking at in 1990 had Fred Flintstone floors and the head was in the hatch needing a head gasket so I bought a Datsun Roadster 1600 instead. 27 years later these Z's are getting $6500 and I'm still looking at $7500 - $10,000 roadsters. And for $5-$6,000 I can get a really nice Miata - maybe even original paint and no rust. But those Z's really light my fire........
I don't care what a nice miata costs, z cars are sexy(says miata hating z car owner)
Patrick wrote:Datsun310Guy wrote: All the 240Z's I was looking at in 1990 had Fred Flintstone floors and the head was in the hatch needing a head gasket so I bought a Datsun Roadster 1600 instead. 27 years later these Z's are getting $6500 and I'm still looking at $7500 - $10,000 roadsters. And for $5-$6,000 I can get a really nice Miata - maybe even original paint and no rust. But those Z's really light my fire........I don't care what a nice miata costs, z cars are sexy(says miata hating z car owner)
You sound like brother Dustin.
Areound here the z car is going for about 3-5k in scruffy, not that rusty, 280z manual trans flavor. Hell, i know of one that i drove 2 weeks ago (possible fly and drive candidate with rear brakes rebuilt) for 3k. No rust i could find.
In reply to Dusterbd13:
A 280z is NOT a 240z.
And a Miata will never be a Z.
SVreX wrote: In reply to Dusterbd13: A 280z is NOT a 240z.
Yep. And a 280ZX is right out.
I forget, was the 260Z a one year only deal and the chassis changeover happened midway, or did they make the 260Z for two years and the first year was 240Z chassis and the second year was 280Z? All I remember is that the 260Z was made on both chassis so there are early ones and late ones. (And all 260Zs had the same awful non-SU carbs that the '73 240Z had)
not sure, I know my father had an early 260 that was great fun to drive. Shame an unexpected flood tide killed it
Chassis wise the only difference between 240/260/280 was the bumpers and front turn signal location. Early 260's had 240ish bumpers and the 240Z turn signals. The bumpers were not exactly the same as a 240Z but were close. Late 260s were 280Z's without fuel injection. I had a 240Z and a couple of 260Z's in the early 90's. Then a 72 911. Sadly I sold all of them long before prices started up.
As an owner of a several s30's I can attest the 1974 was the only year for 260z. The L26 was a stroked L24. They also added more sound deadening in '75-'78 280z. The weight is negligible though. The power is what to be concerned with. As emissions at that time really choked the motors and Datsun had to resort to a larger bore and stroke to compensate. But that ended up being a blessing. You could take a L28 block (can't remember which casting- e88 or n42) and put a n42 head on it. Take the crank from a diesel L28 from a maxima and buy the flat top pistons from Nissan. And you end up with a 3.1L stroker. Port the head and throw in a Schneider cam. Run triple mikunis, and you'll sit right about 250hp and 275ft lbs. oh, and swap to electronic ignition from a ZX.
Trackmouse wrote: As an owner of a several s30's I can attest the 1974 was the only year for 260z. The L26 was a stroked L24. They also added more sound deadening in '75-'78 280z. The weight is negligible though. The power is what to be concerned with. As emissions at that time really choked the motors and Datsun had to resort to a larger bore and stroke to compensate. But that ended up being a blessing. You could take a L28 block (can't remember which casting- e88 or n42) and put a n42 head on it. Take the crank from a diesel L28 from a maxima and buy the flat top pistons from Nissan. And you end up with a 3.1L stroker. Port the head and throw in a Schneider cam. Run triple mikunis, and you'll sit right about 250hp and 275ft lbs. oh, and swap to electronic ignition from a ZX.
I can only get so e----
Let me see if I can find pictures of my dad's old '67 Fairlady roadster race car.
In reply to z31maniac:
Guh... glad I could....help?
This makes me feel good.
crankwalk wrote: This makes me feel good.
Kinda like the offhand comment a customer made about the SWB 911 that he bought for a pittance in the 80s when they were worthless...
parker wrote: Chassis wise the only difference between 240/260/280 was the bumpers and front turn signal location. Early 260's had 240ish bumpers and the 240Z turn signals. The bumpers were not exactly the same as a 240Z but were close. Late 260s were 280Z's without fuel injection. I had a 240Z and a couple of 260Z's in the early 90's. Then a 72 911. Sadly I sold all of them long before prices started up.
260zs also had flat top Hitachi carbs and they are terrible.
Mine had a 750 Street Avenger on a 383 Chevy. 
Knurled wrote: (And all 260Zs had the same awful non-SU carbs that the '73 240Z had)
My 73 has had 3 screw round top SU's since new. Many dealers got tired of people complaining and just put round tops on the cars at the dealer.
In reply to crankwalk:
I too have heard of this.
crankwalk wrote:parker wrote: Chassis wise the only difference between 240/260/280 was the bumpers and front turn signal location. Early 260's had 240ish bumpers and the 240Z turn signals. The bumpers were not exactly the same as a 240Z but were close. Late 260s were 280Z's without fuel injection. I had a 240Z and a couple of 260Z's in the early 90's. Then a 72 911. Sadly I sold all of them long before prices started up.260zs also had flat top Hitachi carbs and they are terrible. Mine had a 750 Street Avenger on a 383 Chevy.Knurled wrote: (And all 260Zs had the same awful non-SU carbs that the '73 240Z had)My 73 has had 3 screw round top SU's since new. Many dealers got tired of people complaining and just put round tops on the cars at the dealer.
Mine had triple Webers and a 2.8 engine
You'll need to log in to post.
