Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*260Z\s+Roadster\s+\-\s+why\s+not\s+a\s+240\s+or\s+280\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*260Z\s+Roadster\s+\-\s+why\s+not\s+a\s+240\s+or\s+280\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: 260Z Roadster - why not a 240 or 280? (score: 1): Author: Andy Klink <colonel_klink510@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT); Please excuse my Z ignorance, but why all this talk of 260Z coversions and not 240 or the more available 280? Is it a body style thing? Rarity of the 260? Just curious. Thanks == Andy Klink Gresham,; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-10/msg00090.html (7,248 bytes)
2. RE: 260Z Roadster - why not a 240 or 280? (score: 1): Author: "Laury, Victor" <LauryV@MTA.NET>; Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:50:47 -0700; Andy, Rob's in England. Unlike the U.S., they got the 260's all the way until the ZX. And, over there, the 260's did not have the drawbacks the U.S. Models had. So, in that case, the 260 was an inpr; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-10/msg00091.html (7,763 bytes)
3. Re: 260Z Roadster - why not a 240 or 280? (score: 1): Author: Alex Avery <aavery@rica.net>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:19:34 -0400; For conversion purposes, the 280 would be the best, as it's chassis is the strongest initially. But they'll all work more or less equally well. As to UK 260s being better than our 280s, well, after r; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-10/msg00093.html (8,315 bytes)
4. Re: 260Z Roadster - why not a 240 or 280? (score: 1): Author: Michael Poorboy <bitterrootprop@nidlink.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:31:16 -0700; Andy and Victor, I have seen a few of the conversions and the late 260 and 280 US models are the better choice. Victor is correct that the other markets had the 260 for years after our one year only; /html/datsun-roadsters/2001-10/msg00094.html (9,355 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]