2005Stang032

Guys I need your advice!!! I can't stand driving my Auto 4-door 99Civic anymore, its a great first car but not a good car for a Auto-Psycho fanatic like me. I love the 1964-1970 Mustangs but gas nowadays kills. My dad owned a 1970's Datsun 240Z back in the day, and I think they are sweet cars, and they get 25-30 mpg. The 240Z its got rear-wheel drive and sweet looks. Heres a little writeup from edmunds.com

" There was nothing startling or especially original about the 1970 Datsun 240Z two-seat coupe. The MacPherson strut front suspension was taken straight out of Datsun's 1800 sedan and the rear suspension was a "Chapman strut" design, which was basically a MacPherson strut system for the hind end. The engine was the 510 sedan's 1.6-liter, OHC four with two more cylinders grafted on to make a surprisingly lusty 2.4-liter SOHC straight six (the bore and stroke dimensions were unchanged from the 510) with dual SU-like carbs. It was backed by a familiar four-speed manual transmission. There were disc brakes in the front, but the rear still used ho-hum drums and the structure itself was an ordinary unibody with a 90.7-inch wheelbase. Even the styling was derivative with Ferrari GTO-like proportions and a Jaguar E-Type-inspired nose capped by a delicate bumper and framed by headlights recessed into ice scoop buckets mounted in the front fenders. The interior was clean with its high-back bucket seats and instrumentation deeply tunneled into the dash, but again no great shakes innovationwise.

Though it lacked originality, the 240Z was immensely attractive and, with 150 horsepower pushing just 2,320 pounds, decently quick for the era. Sports Car Graphic stirred the four forward gears of the first 240Z to go from zero to 60 mph in just 8.2 seconds and complete the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 86.5 mph. And it only cost $3,500 — a screaming bargain. "We think Datsun has a real winner," wrote Road & Track at the time, daring to state the incredibly obvious."

Heres my questions:

>>I need reliable transportation for commuting to college, is an old Stang or 240Z
reliable?

>>Which is more expensive to restore, a Z or Stang?

>>My budget is limited to a possible max of 10,000 dollars, which to buy?

>>What type of miles per gallon does a 65 289(or 302) 4-speed fastback get?

I need advice, college starts in early Sept.!!!!

OOOH, Does anybody want to buy my Civic

scottie1113

You're looking at a car that is 30+ years old so you'll have to spend a few bucks to make sure everything works well if you're thinking of using it as a daily driver. If you don't mind doing a little maintenance--a lot more than what I'm sure your Civic needs, then either a Mustang or a Z would be fun to drive. I'd go for the Mustang, and not just because this is a Mustang site. If you figure out how many miles you drive in a year and then calculate your expenses for gas, I think you'll find that there's really not that big a difference between the two cars. You can easily find parts for the Mustang, you can get it fixed almost anywhere, and yes, it's a Mustang.

Look around when you're driving. You'll see a lot more older Mustangs than Z's, and there's a reason for that.

2005Stang032

Scott thanks for the advice!!!! Its a really tough decision

1999 Black 35th GT

My parents neighbor has a 240 Z. He loves it, but parts are very hard to come by. The Mustang would be a much better decision. The problem is though that you want an everyday driver.

Honestly I would look for a fox chassis Stang in good condition or possible a 94-98 SN95 for a daily driver. You don't want to have a classic and have the chance of dents and dings all over it.

I would save the money and when you can afford that second classic then go for it

Just my .02

2005Stang032

I am so impatient____I don't want to wait :bang: I can't drive rice anymore

Lalo

I love the Z!


Since parts are hard to come by, like Andy said, I would go with the Mustang also.

2005Stang032

Whattabout a 240Z propelled by Mustang power

Maybe a 289 or 302 or even a new 4.6 liter

1999 Black 35th GT

Its possible but it will require a lot of work to do it right. Suspension, motor mounts, chassis, rear end, transmission, and electrical work would all be required and lots of it.

scottie1113

Not to mention that the additional weight in the front end would make it understeer like a fat man. This is project best left not started.

THRUST_

I would say definitely the mustang, but is it possible to get a reliable fastback with a 289 and 4 spd for $10 000. I would like to know

2005Stang032

Thats a good question by Andy does anybody have an answer

And those who own 60's Mustangs what type of mpg do you get????

Fordracing200

60's cars are somewhat reliable, but carb's are tricky. If i were you i'd buy a nice Fox, because for 6k u could get a mint fox 5.0 and get 22mpg and it wouldnt need resto, or u could even get a 95 GT.

Galaxie

Since you live in the south it should be easy to find a rust-free car in good condition.

I too would go for an early Mustang... just keep in mind that you should be sure to know your stuff and make sure the car is thoroghly inspected for any hack bodywork, collision repair, leaking cowl, etc.

Parts are dime a dozen and you can get anything at a local parts store or through mail-order.

Keep in mind, this is a 30-40 year old car, so there will be plenty of electrical hiccups, plus you don't know when the carb/engine was rebuilt, so there is always a chance of a headache.

2005Stang032

Thanks for the tips guys There is a Blue 1967 Mustang Coupe down the road from me for sale......there asking 3,700 dollars. Maybe i should call about it

StevenJ

Listen to this guy. 5.0's are easy as heck to get parts for and the possibilities for them are endless! It's not a problem to find a decent 5.0 either. There's millions of them on Autotrader!

scottie1113

I have to disagree about the carbs. They're not tricky. Granted, it's been a few years since I owned a carbed car, but from Ford to Fiat, they weren't any big deal.

My first new car was a 1970 SS350 Camaro with a Rochester 4 barrell. I hardly ever touched it.

Man, you've got to call about the blue coupe. I prefer the fastback, but that price makes it impossible not to be interested.

hayburner

Well...EFI and overdrive will give you better milage. Nobody will come poking around your car as much if you get a Fox body(hint...chicks like convertibles,they will like to ride in yours).Still lots of fun to drive and less to worry about. You'll have lots of other things to think about for a few years.Work hard,play hard and get a cool car when you get out.

1999 Black 35th GT

I concur with Scottie...

My 1986 Mustang LX was a carb. and it ran great! Never had a problem with it, never finicky at all. It sat outside all of the time even in the dead of the winter. When I had a fire call, I pumped the gas twice real quick, turned the key and was off.

If you let a car sit for an extended period of time, yes the carburator will "gum up" over time, but as long as its run it'll never let you down. In fact carbed vehicles tend to be a bit easier to start learning to work on opposed to and EFI.

2005Stang032

Thanks for all your opinions You guys rock!!!!

Fordracing200

I meant that EFI is more reliable, and you don't have to adjust and tune them from time to time. and whoever it was who had that dispictable 70 SS should realize that since it is new he wont be having THAT MANY problems with it.