Hi all, I'm looking for a 300zx 2+2 body shell.

Don't care about rusty sills etc. Don't need anything left attached like fuel tank or glass, doors, targas or anything else, just need the boot lid left on it and the rear centre panel with a key to unlock/lock it. Just basically want the body and chassis with the boot lid and that's it..

Don't want to pay a fortune as it's for a project I'm working on, so basically if you're breaking a Z and want to get shot of the chassis/body then give me a shout and hopefully I'll cart off the carcass..

All will be revealed as to why I want this when the project is complete..

Cheers..

Ah it's going to be a Jacuzzi isn't it

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96685[/ATTACH]

 

So gay

There's an NA slicktop on facebook. I'll tag you

There's an NA slicktop on facebook. I'll tag you

I posted it 2 up :thumbup1:

Sorry

Be a waste to turn a slick top into a jacuzzi or a trailer or something. Deserves to be used. If it was for a stillen recreation, those were 2+2 shells.

Thanks for the heads up guys, but firstly I wouldn't do it to a slicktop due to the fact there's not many left and it wouldn't be strong enough. the 2+2 chassis is built a bit stronger cos of the targas as far as I'm aware.. I'm gonna need as much strength as possible in the framework.

 

Thanks for letting me know though..

 

I've been looking in to transport costs and it ain't cheap! :shock:

Strong chassis you say?

A MonsterZ?

Thanks for the heads up guys, but firstly I wouldn't do it to a slicktop due to the fact there's not many left and it wouldn't be strong enough. the 2+2 chassis is built a bit stronger cos of the targas as far as I'm aware.. I'm gonna need as much strength as possible in the framework.

 

Thanks for letting me know though..

 

I've been looking in to transport costs and it ain't cheap! :shock:

There are no underbody chassis stiffenning changes between Targa and slicktop (ie. Nissan made no improvements to body stiffness with the targas or 2+2), so chopping of the top will make no difference, other than the SWB chassis is inherently stiffer than the 2+2 chassis due to length.

 

Although as you've said, would be blasphomy to cut up a rare Slicktop shell when the 2+2 shells are more readily available.

 

All sounds very Interesting though. :thumbup:

There are no underbody chassis stiffenning changes between Targa and slicktop (ie. Nissan made no improvements to body stiffness with the targas or 2+2), so chopping of the top will make no difference, other than the SWB chassis is inherently stiffer than the 2+2 chassis due to length.

 

Although as you've said, would be blasphomy to cut up a rare Slicktop shell when the 2+2 shells are more readily available.

 

All sounds very Interesting though. :thumbup:

 

That's come as a complete surprise to me.. I would have thought that the 2+2 needed chassis strengthening due to the targas taking half the roof stiffness away..

 

I'm quite shocked actually..

 

Thanks for putting me straight yowser..

 

As I said previously, I'm not looking to butcher something as rare as the slicktop.. I'm more looking to make use of the cast offs of a breaker car that's likely to be towed for scrap.

I doubt the Targas do tbh, it's not like a convertible where the B and C pillar are often absent. You still have a B and C which are joined by a thick central brace. The difference between this brace piece and a tradional roof frame are probably pretty marginal. Don't forget the "roof itself is just a skin of metal.

Then we have the probability that the shell was designed as a targa car, a pretty solid chassis for its time. The slick top /vert is the conversion from the standard shell. The extra 120mm of length is as Dave said likely a larger factor in chassis flex. From memory it's the flex across the C pillar area in the z chassis that suffers most.

As I said earlier the race car, stillen was actually based around a 2+2 chassis as far as I'm aware. It's been said the SWB is more twitchy and the LWB is actually a more compliant chassis. It is however more flexible and heavier.

As I said earlier the race car, stillen was actually based around a 2+2 chassis as far as I'm aware

 

If you mean this car:

 

 

then the chassis looks like this:

 

If you mean this car:

 

 

then the chassis looks like this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96730[/ATTACH]

 

It looks like a supercharged vg30, its probably just a really big manifold though

It looks like a supercharged vg30, its probably just a really big manifold though

 

The specs:

 

J

If you mean this car:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96729[/ATTACH]

 

then the chassis looks like this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96730[/ATTACH]

 

That's the one. It's not really a 300zx at all is it. I wonder if it's wheelbase is what's 2+2, maybe that's the basis of what's doing the rounds. I.e where this "information" has its basis. The shell, let's call it what it is body cover haha certainly has a 2+2 roof line.

The specs:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96732[/ATTACH]

 

There's the information. Wheel base 101.2" that's a 2+2s length the 2+0 is 96.5". So there we go, the stillen "******* 300zx" is actually a 2+2 wheelbase.

Interestingly the spec States it's a 2.76L twin turbo with an aluminium block. I wonder how many of those still exist.

There's the information. Wheel base 101.2" that's a 2+2s length the 2+0 is 96.5". So there we go, the stillen "******* 300zx" is actually a 2+2 wheelbase.

Interestingly the spec States it's a 2.76L twin turbo with an aluminium block. I wonder how many of those still exist.

 

Two GTO cars were built to that spec. Raced as numbers 75 and 76.

 

Cheers for that Andrew, interesting stuff.

There's the information. Wheel base 101.2" that's a 2+2s length the 2+0 is 96.5". So there we go, the stillen "******* 300zx" is actually a 2+2 wheelbase.

Interestingly the spec States it's a 2.76L twin turbo with an aluminium block. I wonder how many of those still exist.

 

Its a bit longer than the 2+2 wheelbase. I bet they are running much wider Front and Rear tracks though - and its the Wheelbase vs Track ratio thats important

This so needs to happen

[ATTACH=CONFIG]96683[/ATTACH]

 

I want this so bad

I want this so bad

*looks to his left at a snooker table*

*remembers that car in his shed*

 

Nonono, what could go wrong.

Its a bit longer than the 2+2 wheelbase. I bet they are running much wider Front and Rear tracks though - and its the Wheelbase vs Track ratio thats important

 

Everything I can find says the 2+2 wheelbase for the Z32 is 101.2" long and 70.9" wide. Making them the same length but the stillen car just over 8" wider in track.

Everything I can find says the 2+2 wheelbase for the Z32 is 101.2" long and 70.9" wide. Making them the same length but the stillen car just over 8" wider in track.

 

I had it in my head it was 99"...but whats a couple of inches between friends ;)

I don't have a copy of the IMSA rule book for the '89 season, however as before the cars were required to visually

resemble the production cars (and in fact use elements from the production cars). The rules for the '87 season

stated that wheelbase had to be based on a production car and it is reasonable to assume that the wheelbase

rule was carried on. Hence for all the space frame wizardry of the 300ZX GTO cars the wheelbase is exactly the

same as the 2+2's.

Erm... :offtopic:

lol

Don't forget the roof itself is just a skin of metal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque

 

Not saying this is relevant to the zeds construction, but still...