Originally Posted by Dan S. W.
Canvasback, that is exactly what I have been looking at, early Z's. Unfortunately, they are unit-body cars that are incredibly prone to rusting. Other than that, hard to beat in aesthetics and relative handling characteristics. Much like an English SLE:)

LOL, all three of mine eventually just broke apart from rust. I owned them in the period 1976 through 1983 and for most of the time didn't have the cash to properly repair them from the ravages of rust. It's a bit shocking when you consider that they sold over 50,000 units a year of 240Z in North America and by the mid 1990's you hardly ever saw one. All gone to rust. I've owned and driven a bunch of interesting cars, but those early Z cars were in a class by themselves at the time.

In a way it reminds me of what Sir William Lyons was attempting to do with the Jaguar E-type in 1963. His stated goal was to outperform Ferrari in every way......looks and performance.....with a car costing 1/3 of the price. And he succeeded. Datsun/Nissan created a car that looked and performed like cars costing multiples of it's list price. But something had to give.

My son recently (last month) received a 1976 Triumph TR6 for his 18th birthday and high school graduation. That particular choice of car wasn't my idea. But as soon as I dug into it, I was reminded of what a pleasure it was to tinker with the 240Z and why I have a major distrust of any car maker who made a deal with the Prince of Darkness. laugh

As an aside, the 4 cars I've owned that stand head and shoulders about the rest for enjoyment of one sort or another were:
1971 Datsun 240Z 2.4 litre straight six
1967 Camaro RS/SS 350 Convertible
1972 de Tomaso Pantera 351 Cleveland
1963 Volvo 544 2 sedan with B18 engine