Differnce Between 240z's and 260z's
08-28-2003 | 07:13 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
I asked the same question, and BleachZee said:
More specifically, there are two different models. A regular 260Z is a sportier look, and only has 2 seats. Looks just like a 240Z.
Same with all the models up to the late 300ZX. All had a 2+2 body style and the regular 2-seater. The 350Z is not going to have a 2+2 model available... which I think is good.
Same with all the models up to the late 300ZX. All had a 2+2 body style and the regular 2-seater. The 350Z is not going to have a 2+2 model available... which I think is good.
08-28-2003 | 11:35 AM
#3
the Dude
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 381
From: Bay Area, California
260 was available with an optional 2+2, had a 2.6 liter engine with e88 head and flat top SU carbs, just like a '73 240z. It also had 280z taillights and 240z front turn signals, along with big ugly safety bumpers. dash was slightly different.
everything else is basically the same
everything else is basically the same
08-31-2003 | 11:27 AM
#6
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 87
From: GTA, Toronto, Ontario
Yup body styles are practically identical, all parts of 240z/260z/280z's are swappable (assuming all 2seaters).
The only major difference in the 260z's is that they had storage bins behind the seats (good for hiding random things from would-be burglars), and the front frame rails and firewall were slightly thicker (as part of the crash/safety conventions of the mid 70s).
Overall the 260z (1974+) was about 200lbs heavier then the early year 240z (1970, 71, 72); this is from the thicker sheet metal, and the addition of the r200 (i think it was standard on 260z???) rear end.
All in all, the 260z *should* make a better body for high horsepower engines due to the thicker frame/firewall (more torsional rigidity).
Also, 260z's are fairly rare, since they were only imported for 1 year (1974, 74.5), whereas 240z were imported for 8+ years, and the 280z for 3 years (1975-78)
The only major difference in the 260z's is that they had storage bins behind the seats (good for hiding random things from would-be burglars), and the front frame rails and firewall were slightly thicker (as part of the crash/safety conventions of the mid 70s).
Overall the 260z (1974+) was about 200lbs heavier then the early year 240z (1970, 71, 72); this is from the thicker sheet metal, and the addition of the r200 (i think it was standard on 260z???) rear end.
All in all, the 260z *should* make a better body for high horsepower engines due to the thicker frame/firewall (more torsional rigidity).
Also, 260z's are fairly rare, since they were only imported for 1 year (1974, 74.5), whereas 240z were imported for 8+ years, and the 280z for 3 years (1975-78)
08-31-2003 | 07:34 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Creator
260z's are fairly rare, since they were only imported for 1 year (1974, 74.5), whereas 240z were imported for 8+ years, and the 280z for 3 years (1975-78)
260z's are fairly rare, since they were only imported for 1 year (1974, 74.5), whereas 240z were imported for 8+ years, and the 280z for 3 years (1975-78)
09-14-2003 | 11:57 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
We got 260z's in australia until 1978... never saw 280z here.
weight/length..
(consults trusty hayes manual, diverts blame for inaccuracy...)
260z 2 seater is 4" longer than a 240 (bumpers?)
260z 2+2 is 15" longer than a 240 (and .8" wider)
they are all roughly the same height and the 2 seaters have the same wheelbase.
in manual spec, the weights are
240z - 2350lb
260z - 2499lb
2+2 - 2669lb
Interestingly the 2+2 has a much better right turn circle than left but the 2 seaters are the same.
The hayes manual shows a few different procedures and parts between the cars, but they are very similar. things like aircon, heater setup, carbs, gearbox etc etc all changed. Best 260's IMO are those with as many 240 bits you can bolt on.
weight/length..
(consults trusty hayes manual, diverts blame for inaccuracy...)
260z 2 seater is 4" longer than a 240 (bumpers?)
260z 2+2 is 15" longer than a 240 (and .8" wider)
they are all roughly the same height and the 2 seaters have the same wheelbase.
in manual spec, the weights are
240z - 2350lb
260z - 2499lb
2+2 - 2669lb
Interestingly the 2+2 has a much better right turn circle than left but the 2 seaters are the same.
The hayes manual shows a few different procedures and parts between the cars, but they are very similar. things like aircon, heater setup, carbs, gearbox etc etc all changed. Best 260's IMO are those with as many 240 bits you can bolt on.
10-12-2003 | 07:08 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
are you sure
Creator;
The only major difference in the 260z's is that they had storage bins behind the seats (good for hiding random things from would-be burglars),
I know that my 71 has these bins.
The 260 is not quite as good as far as carbs go. They used the flat top model that has a poor throttle response.
The only major difference in the 260z's is that they had storage bins behind the seats (good for hiding random things from would-be burglars),
I know that my 71 has these bins.
The 260 is not quite as good as far as carbs go. They used the flat top model that has a poor throttle response.
10-15-2003 | 10:02 PM
#13
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 646
Let me answer this one ..
Here is what I know ......
There are two versions of the US based
260. One was built along the 240 lines
with a step up between the 240's bumpers and the late 260's big bumpers.
They had the heavier impact absorbing
cylinders behind the bumpers. It has the 240 suspension under it and did not come in a 2 + 2 model. It is considered the 74'
260.
The late 260 was built until the fuel injected 280 could be released . For what I understand the injection wasn't ready yet and Nissan released the body of the
280 with the 260 motor and the smog flat tp carbs. This considered a 74 .5 260 and it did come in a 2+ 2 model. It also used the 280's suspension. It had the huge energy absorbing bumpers that the earlier 280's had.
I have the late 260 in my garage and also a 73' 240 .
Mike
Here is what I know ......
There are two versions of the US based
260. One was built along the 240 lines
with a step up between the 240's bumpers and the late 260's big bumpers.
They had the heavier impact absorbing
cylinders behind the bumpers. It has the 240 suspension under it and did not come in a 2 + 2 model. It is considered the 74'
260.
The late 260 was built until the fuel injected 280 could be released . For what I understand the injection wasn't ready yet and Nissan released the body of the
280 with the 260 motor and the smog flat tp carbs. This considered a 74 .5 260 and it did come in a 2+ 2 model. It also used the 280's suspension. It had the huge energy absorbing bumpers that the earlier 280's had.
I have the late 260 in my garage and also a 73' 240 .
Mike
10-16-2003 | 03:43 PM
#14
The Evil Twin
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 9,296
From: Seattle, WA
Hmmm... that quote from me looks more like some one asked about the difference between a 240Z and 260Z 2+2. Anyway... everyone else covered it much better than my above quoted self. 
Originally posted by Airpilot16
I asked the same question, and BleachZee said:
I asked the same question, and BleachZee said:
02-02-2004 | 11:25 PM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 40
From: Washington State
All 240Z built after 1970 had the storage bins on the rear deck behind the seats. The late 1969 - 1970 built (Series I) cars had plastic storage bins on the floor behind the seats. These cars also had the fresh air vents in the rear hatch, ashtray in front of the gear shift and several other small differences. These differences slowly transitioned into the newer (Series II) style in 1971, with some having a mixture of the early and later cars until they gelled into the 1972. The storage bins in the rear deck were continued on in the 260Z and 280Z in both 2 seater and 2+2. See http://www.zhome.com/ for more info on the differences in the cars as they evolved.
02-06-2004 | 08:37 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah, I have an early 260, and everything I've seen posted so far looks right to me. As far as the performance loss, lower compression had a lot to do with it, the other smog equip had little or no impact on power. They got a bad reputation because of the flat-top carbs, but mine came with carbs from an earlier Z so I never had to deal with them. Cam specs are a little different. Converting to the earlier specs wouldn't be too hard, but getting the right compression ratio would be tricky. You might need custom pistons, cause if you bolt on a 240 head, the chamber is going to be to small and you'll have very high compression, but a 280 head will give you lower compression. I think the 260 also had a larger exhaust valve, but the intake valve was the same size. The smaller bore probably prevented Datsun from increasing the size of the intake valve.
Thats the story as I know it, someone who knows heads can probably claify the whole thing.
One other thing I like about the 260 was the factory AC, which still works after an R134 conversion. Not the coldest in the world, but better than the old 2-80 system.
Thats the story as I know it, someone who knows heads can probably claify the whole thing.
One other thing I like about the 260 was the factory AC, which still works after an R134 conversion. Not the coldest in the world, but better than the old 2-80 system.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bookmarks
