Need assurance

[Alphabettispaghetti]

Are they euro springs/struts? Full of fuel etc etc?

 

[Paul Henley]

Are they euro springs/struts? Full of fuel etc etc?

Hi Franky,
Yes, the original standard springs/struts fitted to the car when new (uk car), less than quarter of a tank full.

 

[uk66fastback]

The front looks high but not overly so, looking again - but the back looks VERY high ...

 

[johnymd]

Car looks great and I do like the factory black steels. I used my silver car with the factory steels for a while and also the hubcaps for a short time. I preferred mine without the hubcaps. When you look at the sales material from back in the 70's, your car probably does look standard. The problem is we are so used to seeing them with old springs or been lowered slightly that it looks odd IMO to be this high off the ground. I prefer the lowered look but this is just my preference.

Colour looks really good. Doesn't look like a factory colour so any idea what it is?

 

[Rob Gaskin]

This was mine. If you haven't changed anything from standard could you have put the front springs on the rear?

 

[Paul Henley]

Hi All

"Your ride height is too high even higher than the standard ride height."

"The front looks high but not overly so, looking again - but the back looks VERY high ..."

"When you look at the sales material from back in the 70's, your car probably does look standard. The problem is we are so used to seeing them with old springs or been lowered slightly that it looks odd IMO to be this high off the ground."

"If you haven't changed anything from standard could you have put the front springs on the rear?"

Thanks for the replies guys, certainly gave food for thought..
I did a bit of digging on the net to identify the factory standard heights and found the attached drawing. This says the highest point of the car (roof line) is 1283mm. So I placed a straight edge on the roof with a spirit level and measured the drop on my car (couple of pics attached) and it was 1275mm (8mm less). So seems to be in the right ball park.


The drawing also has some height sizes against the rear lights.(718mm and 647mm) so I put the tape against my rear lights and took the sizes (as per pic). Although the drawing isn't clear, the measurement I took of my rear lights again seem to be in the right ball park.


Next I measured the centre of the headlight (using the adjustment slot in the headlight cowl as a guide) the drawing gives a measurement of 624mm, my measurement came in at about the same. (as per the pic).

I also found this quote " I contacted Motorsport And they told me the stock ride height as measured from the top of the bumper is:

Front: 479mm (18.9") and Rear: 516 (20.3")"

So I measured the bumper heights, mine are roughly the same (as in the pics)

So in summary, I think the heights are correct for a standard 240z (unless of course someone can persuade me other wise, I'd rather be proved wrong and change it then leave it incorrect), it doesn't look as nice as the lowered versions but I always wanted a near standard car.

"Colour looks really good. Doesn't look like a factory colour so any idea what it is?"

The colour is BMW Space Grey Johny.

Thanks again all.

 

[Albrecht]

I did a bit of digging on the net to identify the factory standard heights and found the attached drawing. This says the highest point of the car (roof line) is 1283mm. So I placed a straight edge on the roof with a spirit level and measured the drop on my car (couple of pics attached) and it was 1275mm (8mm less). So seems to be in the right ball park.


The drawing also has some height sizes against the rear lights.(718mm and 647mm) so I put the tape against my rear lights and took the sizes (as per pic). Although the drawing isn't clear, the measurement I took of my rear lights again seem to be in the right ball park.


Next I measured the centre of the headlight (using the adjustment slot in the headlight cowl as a guide) the drawing gives a measurement of 624mm, my measurement came in at about the same. (as per the pic).

I also found this quote " I contacted Motorsport And they told me the stock ride height as measured from the top of the bumper is:

Front: 479mm (18.9") and Rear: 516 (20.3")"

So I measured the bumper heights, mine are roughly the same (as in the pics)

So in summary, I think the heights are correct for a standard 240z (unless of course someone can persuade me other wise, I'd rather be proved wrong and change it then leave it incorrect), it doesn't look as nice as the lowered versions but I always wanted a near standard car.

That drawing, and the other data, pertains to the North American market cars.

 

[Paul Henley]

That drawing, and the other data, pertains to the North American market cars.

Yes but I believe the dimensions for a euro car won’t be a million miles away (my car was 8mm lower in overall height) Do you have the actual Euro car figures available? Thanks Paul

 

[Paul Henley]

Had a look around the net and found an interesting article here

http://www.jdmjunkies.ch/wordpress/...mate-guide-to-factory-suspension-and-options/

This suggests that the height of a UK Z was also 1283mm...

 

[Albrecht]

Had a look around the net and found an interesting article here

http://www.jdmjunkies.ch/wordpress/...mate-guide-to-factory-suspension-and-options/

This suggests that the height of a UK Z was also 1283mm...

I was in the middle of writing out a lengthy reply to your other post, but I just canned it.

By all means go with the 'jdmjunkies' site if you wish. There's so much wrong there that it's too much to shake a stick at. It's a triumph of right-click-and-save social media "research". I give up.

 

[Paul Henley]

I was in the middle of writing out a lengthy reply to your other post, but I just canned it.

By all means go with the 'jdmjunkies' site if you wish. There's so much wrong there that it's too much to shake a stick at. It's a triumph of right-click-and-save social media "research". I give up.

Bit disappointed in your response, it was simply an article found on the web, unfortunately I don't know jdmjunkies and I'm not qualified in either knowledge or experience to comment on the accuracy of what they've written.

"By all means go with the 'jdmjunkies' site if you wish"

I'm not "going" with anything, just looking for information.

 

[Rob Gaskin]

Paul, you have a lovely car and obviously you are careful about what you do to it.

Looking at your pictures the rear looks too high and it spoils the appearance IMO. However as John Palmer says these can be high in promotional pics (more than we are used to these days).

Is the line along the doors horizontal i.e. have you put a spirit level on it.

I think you should lower the rear by about an inch.

Strangely it doesn't look so high in the garage.

 

[Albrecht]

Bit disappointed in your response, it was simply an article found on the web, unfortunately I don't know jdmjunkies and I'm not qualified in either knowledge or experience to comment on the accuracy of what they've written.

My apologies, but I just find it so frustrating to see your very first call of reference was to USA-centric data. Nissan spent a lot of time testing these cars in mainland Europe and coming up with damper and spring rates to suit the market, as well as some aero tweaks. It's a shame that we often overlook it.

I was trying to find some UK-specific data for you today, but in the meantime you found the jdmjunkies site, which is - in my opinion - a somewhat unfiltered source with little evidence of peer group critique.

As far as I'm aware, Nissan themselves never published *reliably* UK market (HS30U and HS30QU model) specific ride height data, and I think the jdmjunkies site ride height data on 'our' model of 240Z is not necessarily reliable. It's really hard to put up some defence against what looks like accurate data, but might not be...

I think it's the sill pinch-seam to ground measurement that's the easiest to measure and the most reliable reference. It should be pretty much parallel too. But in any case, all the Nissan factory figures are calculated with full profile (around 80 series) tyres and if you aren't using them then the figures you get could be quite a few mm out, and that makes a visible difference to the Mark 1 Eyeball.

My general rule of thumb is that if it works right, and it looks right, then it very probably is right. Your car looks great, but - as has been noted by others - looks a little high at the back in the photos. Factory stock stance on these cars used to be noticeably 'nose high' after the springs had settled a little, so if it's looking a little nose-low it's possible that something is not quite right and it might be worth double-checking.

 

[Paul Henley]

Hi Rob, thanks for the response. I hadn't thought of that, so nipped into the garage to take some snaps. I was struggling to hold the spirit level accurately along the middle line of the door and take a pic, so placed the level on the step into the car (assumed this would serve the same purpose). The pics capture that there is a slight rise to the rear of the car, but I can't tell if that would be significant across the length of the car or even if it should rise at all or by how much. I agree the pics inside the garage don't look as bad as those taken out. What I'm trying to establish is if I've reassembled something incorrectly. The car has the original struts and springs with new inserts, rubbers etc throughout. I don't think I've done anything wrong, but that's not to say I haven't done something silly, anything is possible (even getting the front/rear springs the wrong way round). I was wondering if the car would "settle down" once it's been driven, currently I've only driven it to the bottom of the drive and back. Maybe the weight of a full tank and 2 occupants might help? Personally I think it would look nicer lower, but I'd prefer it was just "as it should be", only I'm struggling to establish what that is and under what conditions. I'm assuming the only way to lower it would be to shorten the height of the springs but then again if I've done the job right I shouldn't need to? Maybe I need to check the basics first, whip the wheels off and establish the right springs are fitted in the right way round... I've added some pics of the struts being built up and associated parts.
Thanks again
Paul

 

[Paul Henley]

Albrecht thanks for your response and thanks for taking the time out of your day to source any reliably sourced info. If I've measured right the sill seam sits approx 230mm off the ground.
Time for bed, no doubt when I wake at 4 in the morning no doubt it'll return to be the first thought in my head for the following 2 hours before I get up for work.

Thanks again

Paul

 

[Rob Gaskin]

Wow, your car really is amazing. Your ride height is a minor issue!

 

[Alphabettispaghetti]

if its a couple of degree off level there, it'll be enough at the rear to have a visible rise. As you've said, you should have a drive to see if it settles down though, it should a bit. Fill it all the way up with fuel and have a look.

I wouldn't cut springs down, you can get them made to the length you 'd like.

 

[Rob Gaskin]

Just a thought - do you have standard rear 'top mounts' i.e. not late 260Z?

 

[Paul Henley]

Hi Rob, they are the original top mounts, I think the only new parts in the suspension are the rubber “doughnuts “ which I believe are the correct Nissan part and the inserts which again I believe are correct for the car

 

[Paul Henley]

Just another thought, is there a difference between rear and top mounts? Could I have them the wrong way round?