Conserv

Mac, While VIN 1660001 (November 29, 1967) came with the square-cutout trim rings, VIN 1660002 (December 12, 1967) came with the later style slotted trim rings common to most early 2002’s. These are the first and second photos respectively. This makes me suspect that the square-cutout trim rings were on their way out by December 1967. But my ‘67 1600-2 (April 1967) came to me with the four-slotted trim rings you’ve shown. So I’ve guessed that these square-cutout trim rings were very short-lived, perhaps mid-1967 to December 1967. I know I had a set at one time, which is why I recall how cheesy and flimsy they were. At least a few made it here. I noticed recently that VIN 1560270 (September 10, 1967), now parted, had a set of the square-cutout trim rings. That’s the third photo below. Best regards, Steve

Here are the rare square-cutout trim rings: first, a set on eBay and, second, installed on the first 2002, VIN 1660001, manufactured November 29, 1967. Reynolds HD aluminum foil puts them to shame... 😉 This style might have both arrived and disappeared within the 1967 calendar year... fortunately! 🙄 Regards, Steve

I love it! Happy Birthday, Orange Car! Best regards, Steve

Fletcher, If you want to operate fog lights from that position, you generally replace the dummy switch with a rear defroster switch and knob. 😉 Regards, Steve

Thank you, Lorin, My concern, however, was with larger, say 14” or 15” rims, or with rims having dramatically different lug patterns, e.g., 4 x 114, 5 x 120, etc. And I know absolutely nothing about Campy’s for 1970’s Datsuns (or were they Nissans in 1970’s Japan?). Best regards, Steve

Ryan, My 5 1/2” x 13” Campy’s (a.k.a., Ragno’s) take a center cap 56 mm. in diameter. Not every Campy, however, takes a 56 mm. center cap. I’m not even certain if all Ragno’s take 56 mm. center caps. Center caps and circlips are being repro’d, but not in the stunning 240Z (a.k.a., S30Z) style shown in the Japanese listing. I believe Trieu has a matching set; perhaps he can confirm the diameter. As to circlips, I’ve previously found them by Googling. Best regards, Steve

There’s lots of discussion of this topic on the forum. The conclusion I read — disregarding all those “modern” members who desire a lighter, smaller, relocated, or higher-technology solution to their battery needs — is: Type 47 — all 12-volt U.S.-spec cars, but for 1972 and 1973 tii’s Type 26R — all 1972 and 1973 U.S.-spec tii’s (but... you’re still likely to have “lower ledge” issues, although maybe a 26RC works, maybe) And, since the Type 26 is smaller than the Type 47, it probably works — excepting that damned “ledge issue” — in all 12-volt U.S. cars. Regards, Steve

Wait. We’ve had this discussion before but I’ve apparently forgotten much of what I thought I had learned! 😯 Alpina rear disk brakes used 914/6 rear calipers with solid disks and 914/6 GT calipers with ventilated disks. The difference between the 914/6 and 914/6 GT calipers is simply a set of spacers. But I forget the difference between a standard 914 and a 914/6. Are the calipers shown 914/6, or are they 914? Thanks and regards, Steve

+1 I don’t know if the “turbo solution” has now become the common upgrade to gain ventilated front disks on an ‘02. For years, the “early e21” or the “Volvo calipers” solutions were quite commonplace. Here’s a well-worn article on the e21 upgrade. Regards, Steve

Although I have zero facts to support my theory, I suspect there are, at least, two sides to this story. We heard, only in the most vague terms — and please allow me to emphasize “vague” — one side of that story. Hold my beer, please! 😉 First, no one who believes they unambiguously own a car says, “I’m looking for the current owner of my old car.” Second, the original poster’s unwillingness or inability to answer the question, “How long has the car been with this other party?” suggests a long, long time, e.g., 10 years, whatever. Recall that the “other party” retired and closed shop in 2016, later — it appeared — the other party’s father passed away, and then the car “might have been” sold by a brother of the other party, perhaps to settle an estate or clear a house. There’s been a lot of water over that dam since the poster last drove his car. Third, the poster’s hesitancy to report the car as stolen to either the police or his insurance company gives me pause: his ownership claim is likely, at best, ambiguous. Fourth, why was the car in the possession of this “other party”? I suspect the car went to the other party to have work done, or perhaps for storage. The other party, ten years down the road, may well have been owed money for said work, repairs, towing, or storage, and obtained a mechanics lien on the car, eventually selling the car — legally — to satisfy the lien. There you have it: my complete explanation, prepared without the benefit of any verified facts! 😯😉😋 Regards, Steve

+1 I’m sorry for my utter lack of empathy, but the more you discuss the car, the fuzzier the story grows! Are we talking 2 years or 10 years? I’m still not grasping why you haven’t filed a police report and an insurance claim. Your reliance on some stranger as a “witness” seems of little or no value as evidence of ownership. Do you own the car, and can you prove it with documentation? Did you entrust it to someone, with an expectation of getting it back? If so, could that person claim ownership rights through a mechanics lien? Stated differently, did you owe money with respect to the car to the person who was storing or working on the car? My advice? Either report it to the police or simply walk away. A statute of limitations determines whether someone can be prosecuted for a crime, it does not deny the existence of a crime or deny a rightful owner recovery of his property. Regards, Steve