KHGC110 240k GT

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

Originally Posted by Mr Camouflage

Not exactly. They had to identify the car and the adr's it complied to. Whatever the car was called got stamped on the compliance plate, regardless of what intake manifolds, or spring rates it had. If it was called a 240K SSS, or 240K XYZ that would have been stamped on the plate. There were no Legal rules at to what could be called a GT, Car companies can pretty much call a car whatever they want. They could have made a 120Y GT if they wanted.

What im interested in is what make a 240K GT different to a GL, not whether it had a little badge on it proclaiming it to be a GT. And is seems like your the right person to ask.

So, any pics of the intake manifold? how many turns on the springs? What other differences are there between a GL and a GT.

So the first batch of 240K's were GTs? Were they badged as GT's or GL's?
And they have 4 speed gearboxes?
That might explain why my shifter only goes up to the number 4.

Maybe this would be better starting a new thread on the 240K GT, and letting 240kconvertible have his thread back.

You're right, a new thread is much better idea!

In the case of Oz cars there wasn't a problem with the ID as each car had the option codes on the build plate.
Those determine what the car is from a legal standpoint
eg ALL Ford Falcon GT's are build code JG33 for a 4dr and JG66 for a 2dr, Chrysler had E38, E49 to id engines etc
The Japanese cars didn't have this level of detail in the ID plate so Freds C110 GT has the same code as Joes C110 hardtop (both are KHGC110). Thus the insistence from Federal Transport that the manufacturer ID it by description in the ADR plate.
Whether there was much (or any) difference between the physical cars wasn't in question since that was up to the manufacturer.
The legal eagle points out that this was the beginning of the 'truth in advertising' efforts in Oz.

Anyway, what we are really interested in is the first batch of cars.

Recollections of the dealers around at the time together with the published articles indicate that all the 2dr hardtops were GT's and the 4dr sedans didn't have anything other than 240k.
No-one seems to know exactly how many cars were in the first batch or whether there were even any 4drs in it!
I've searched high & low without success. Customs would have the info somewhere(!) but have no idea where and are not prepared to help. Nissan just don't even answer queries on anything earlier than about 2005.

One former dealer tells me that he saw the cars at Datsun Australia before release and can't recall any 4drs. He is of the opinion that there wasn't a lot of them as the major line was the 180B.

Published reports from the time only refer to the GT and give no indication of quantity or body types other than the tested 2dr.

A small clue has surfaced in that there were only three ships from Japan off-loading in Sydney and one more in Melbourne during the period the cars had to arrive.
The vessels are all pretty much the same size and stevedores familiar with transport then reckon there wouldn't have been more than about 80 cars as deck cargo and at most around 100 as hold cargo (in each vessel).
Since it's unlikely that the batch would have been split across ships (they were a 'toe in the water' after all) and the K is pretty much as big as the hold access could take on those early ships then we have a possibility that the first sanple batch was less than 80 even if all the deck space was used.
Compared to modern ships those things were toys!!

So we can only assume that what we have is a GT unless we are lucky enough to have the ADR plate tell us.
As there is at least one car I can document as having that plate with the description (see attached) then the probability is that Nissan DID use the description including GT on those cars.

It also helps that the first batch could not have been ADR plated later than March 73 as Nissan was by then already telling motoring writers that the cars were going to be GL's.

So if it's not a 2/73 or maybe 3/73 ADR plate then Nissan themselves were publicly stating that they were not GT's, they were GL's.

What physical differences were there?
All GT's seem to have had MPH speedos and imperial gauges, although early GL's also were Imperial
Intake manifold (see attached)
Electric fuel pimp on GT, mechanical on GL
Front springs (GT 6.75, GL 7.25 turns)
Rear springs (GT 7.75, GL 8.25 turns)
Dampers ('shock absorbers')
Badges (front, rear, sides and door trim)

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

Good that Steves hardtop went to a good home regardless of ID!

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-04-2006

Steves car is a GL. It's a 1/74 complianced car, compliance plate says GL. Looks like someone spent a bit of money on it in the past repainting it (original colour is metallic blue). Thats probably when it aquired its GT interior badges and shifter knob, probably from a deceased '73 GT.

Wheels Magazine of March 1973 has a 240K GT on the cover and a road test article. The 240K has GT badges, and is the same colour as the one in your photos. It also has a factory metal sunroof.

The specs list a mecahnical fuel pump (and it can be seen in the engine bay photos, so if there was an electric pump was it a dual pump system?), and a 4 speed gearbox.

I've heard from Lachlan, that production of the 240K sedan didn't start untill late 73 or early 74, which would explain why there weren't any 4 doors in the first load of K's to be sent here.

Wheels magazine says the 240K was a replacement for the 240C hardtop (In the Australia Market place), which implies to me that the 240C sedan was sold concurrently, untill it was replaced with the 260C, and I guess, the 240K sedan filled the 2.4 liter medium sedan void it left.

As for the GT's badged as GL's. That how I interpreted what was written in the Wheels article. "Badges on the car say 240K GT, but Nissan insists the car be sold in Australia as a GL". I guess the wording in the article is slightly inaccurate. Maybe "Future importations of 240K's will be GL's" would have been more correct.

It seems that the European market were sent the 240K's badged as GT's. I've seen alot of literature on ebay uk about the 240K GT and seen a few of them for sale on ebay over there too.

Attached is a photo of one of them (74 GT auto) from the www.datman.co.uk website (http://www.datman.co.uk/datsunworld/c110/c110.htm).

And Finally, regarding the boats that shipped the Datsuns to Australia. There was a 260C or 280C for sale on ebay Australia, Somewhere in the car the person had found a piece of paper that named the car transporter ship that the car was shipped over on. They put the name of the boat in the listing. I cant remember the name at the moment, but I did a google search, and found out that the ship from the 70's is still around today, sailing under a different name though, but still transporting cars.

**Mat Big Hat** · 10-04-2006

i was told by errol smith (aka datrats) that gt was a loaded acronym in the day and that's why the cars were rebadged gl

whether it was the insurance commission or the government itself who insisted the cars be badged gl, the fact remains that apparently no other export market felt the need to make the car appear less sporty

whatever the case, the 6cyl is not a gl in any way, shape or form except for the badges

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

Originally Posted by Mat Big Hat

i was told by errol smith (aka datrats) that gt was a loaded acronym in the day and that's why the cars were rebadged gl

whether it was the insurance commission or the government itself who insisted the cars be badged gl, the fact remains that apparently no other export market felt the need to make the car appear less sporty

whatever the case, the 6cyl is not a gl in any way, shape or form except for the badges

'GT' was only loaded as far as the insurance companies in Oz were concerned (and one Evan Green) but the car makers of the day didn't have the balls or brains to clobber the insurance industry here.
Rebadging had nothing to do with the govt, just the car makers folding to the desires of a rapacious insurance industry.

Regardless of what we think, it's not a GT simply because the factory said it wasn't.
But then ours isn't a GL and neither yours nor ours are Skylines!!

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

Another interesting bit of trivia to confuse the issue!
The L24 fitted to all 240K's sold in Oz are rated at 130hp at 5600rpm, exactly the same as the same engine in 240c, Cedric etc in all market areas.
The first batch had that odd manifold but has exactly the same rating on the ID plate.
Given the difference in velocity of the gas flow between the two manifolds there has to be a difference in either power band, peak power point or power output or some combination of those. It has much the same effect as mild porting and I don't think anyone believes that won't help.
So one or the other is inaccurate but which?

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

You're comment about the European (and British) markets is very true.
I can find nothing to indicate that there was anything other than the GT badge beimg marketed there.
Unfortunately it is a bit too far to be able to physically check out those cars and see just what was installed on them.
It would be very interesting to see if they had that manifold!

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

I saw that listing in the specs of the mechanical fuel pump, but our car was fitted with electric pump and a blanking plate where the mechanical pump would normally be.
I'll try to locate a better version of the 4th image which showed the Mitsubishi Electric pump as installed at the top of the right hand suspension tower.
Funny thing that all the cars I have seen have the wiring there from the factory for the electric pump
It's documented in the wiring diagrams and the Mitsubishi Electric pump is the only thing I have seen that fits those two captive nuts and flats at the top of the right tower perfectly. Also happens to be the only place the wiring reaches the pump 'pigtail' without fouling on something.

**aarc240** · 10-04-2006

Originally Posted by Mat Big Hat

i've heard similar stories why the badging was changed to gl. they make sense in that a gl in the jdm and other export market denotes swb. except for badging, the aussie gl is a gt, if in limited trim. even if the aussie gt intake was different, wouldn't it be due to a change in vendor or design rather than the difference between performance and luxury? or are you saying the early gt badged cars came with dual hitachi's? that in itself doesn't make it more of a gt than the single carb version. in fact, nissan labled all the 6cyl c110's and 610's gt.

Sorry, I completely missed this one!

Manifolds weren't vendor controlled - Nissan cast and machined them in house (and still does). Why would a manifold change for other than performance or drivability when the existing one was adequate for several years?
The carb is the same unit as all other L24 single carb engines although the one from our engine has slight differences in jets etc presumably because the manifold changes the air/fuel ratios a little.

Nissan labled all 6cyl C110's and 610's gt??
Ummmm - what about all those 6cyl C110's marketed in Australia that were not only badged but ADR plated as GL's? I don't think they are a figment of everyones imagination and there were thousands of them.

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-05-2006

Originally Posted by aarc240

Why would a manifold change for other than performance or drivability when the existing one was adequate for several years?

To save money perhaps? The "GT" manifold looks to have longer runners, so probably contains more metal than the smaller later manifold.

Make a 100 thousand of them, you'd save a bit of money.

Would be a weight saving also.

I wonder what spec the euros GT's were.

If we comparing our GL's to the 1973 GT, it might not be such a good benchmark, since car manufacturers are continually changing the specs of cars as they develop. The 240Z had 2 different heads, for example.

If we compare an aussie 1974 GL to a 1974 european delivered GT we could work out if Nissan changed the spec of the GT.

Now we need some UK 240K GT owners to speak up.

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-05-2006

Or maybe some NZ owners. They got GT's too I believe.

**aarc240** · 10-05-2006

Originally Posted by Mr Camouflage

To save money perhaps? The "GT" manifold looks to have longer runners, so probably contains more metal than the smaller later manifold.

Make a 100 thousand of them, you'd save a bit of money.

Would be a weight saving also.

I wonder what spec the euros GT's were.

If we comparing our GL's to the 1973 GT, it might not be such a good benchmark, since car manufacturers are continually changing the specs of cars as they develop. The 240Z had 2 different heads, for example.

If we compare an aussie 1974 GL to a 1974 european delivered GT we could work out if Nissan changed the spec of the GT.

Now we need some UK 240K GT owners to speak up.

Tool up for a different manifold...
wooden plugs for the castings, new fixtures for the different shape for machining, reset all the machine tools for the new design, document it, produce both the production parts and the spares parts, inventory it, manage fitting a different engine into the production cycle, document THAT, inventory the revised engine assembly etc etc
then throw it all away after a few months ....... and SAVE money ??

Actually the GT manifold is slightly lighter than the usual L24 unit (a whole 7 grams).

Maybe Nissan did 'develop' the product by switching back to a lower performance part that was already in the parts bin for the previous six years.
More likely that is wishful thinking.

Unless you also compare a Euro 73 GT to an Oz 73 GT to confirm that they started from the same point then a comparison of 74's won't mean anything.

Yep, the 240z sure did have two different heads. The L24 has had at least 5 different heads that I know of.

**aarc240** · 10-05-2006

Maybe it wasn't too clear..
the ONLY L series engines I have ever seen that manifold on or have ever seen documented as having that manifold were the L24's fitted in the 240K GT as delivered in Australia in early 1973.
The Skyline FSM shows different manifolds ranging from the basic L24 unit through twin side draft Hitachi but not that particular one we saw here.
The 240K GL FSM shows the basic L24 manifold only.

I too would love to get feedback from Europe, Britain and NZ.

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-05-2006

Originally Posted by aarc240

Unless you also compare a Euro 73 GT to an Oz 73 GT to confirm that they started from the same point then a comparison of 74's won't mean anything.

So if a euro GT, badged as a GT wasnt the same as the aussie GT then are you saying its not a GT? I really dont get what you mean by that comment. Nissan sent different spec cars to different markets. If the GT to the UK didnt have the 'GT' manifold and springs, because Nissan badged it as a GT then it should still be considered a 240K GT.

But what I was getting at was that Nissan may have change the spec of the 1974 GT. Since we never had any in Aus we have nothing to compare a GL spec car to, apart from the 73.

If the Aus spec 74 GL is exactly the same as a Euro spec 74 GT then our GL's could be considered GT's badged as GL's, Regardless of what springs or manifolds they have.

The USA got a downgraded version of the 240Z, but it was still a 240Z.

So does anyone know the spec of a 74 240K GT and are they different to the 73.

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-05-2006

Found a German 240K GT sedan article, but its in German.

http://www.datsun.de/html/body_testberichte.html

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-05-2006

This looks like the GT manifold. See how it sits the air cleaner further away from the rocker cover. This is from 1974 adverising material

http://www.datsun.de/assets/images/D...GT_1974_05.jpg

This 240K GT looks like the GL intake manifold, Notice how the aircleaner sits closer to the rocker cover. This is from the German article, and appears to be a later 240K, judging by the latter style steering wheel.

http://www.datsun.de/assets/images/T...240K-GT_03.jpg

So it appears to me that Nissan stopped using the 'GT' manifold at some point on the GT.

source.
http://www.datsun.de/html/body_datsun_240_kgt.html

**aarc240** · 10-05-2006

Right on the first one, you can see the swept curve in the front runners and the angle of geparture of those from the central chamber.

Wrong on the second pic, it's also a GT manifold.
Have a look at an L24 basic manifold and you will see that the front runners depart the central chamber directly forward parallel to the head.
Have a closer look at the pic and it is obvious that the front runner departs at an angle pointing towards the front centreline of the engine.
Compare it to the first and you can see that the angle is pretty much identical, allowing for different camera perspective.

Also the centre runners ARE longer than the basic L24 manifold in the pic.

Print it then accurately measure both the diameter of the radiator hose and the length of the centre runner.
Measure a real hose.
Divide the measured runner length by the measured (pic) hose diameter and multiply by the real hose diameter to get a very close approximation of the real runner length (this is a standard basic engineering technique called 'scaling').
The result is a figure some 15mm LONGER than the centre runner length of a basic L24 manifold as fitted to a GL.

Given the two clues above it's pretty safe to conclude that the second pic is also of a 'GT' manifold.

Why would Nissan drop the GT manifold here?
I would think the amount of resistance to the idea that a GL is not a GT would wise people up.
If you had a GT in England and saw advertising from Oz for a GL you would quite reasonably assume it was a down spec car.
If you then discovered it had exactly the same fit-out including performance parts then you would be pissed off (and rightly so).

I wouldn't fret over it though, after all who else in the world has a 6 cylinder 240K GL? Ours is a common ol' GT as marketed in several countries.

**Mat Big Hat** · 10-06-2006

i reply despite the wise adage that states that winning an argument on the internet is like being in the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded

your ridicule of my statement about a change in intake manifold vendor reveals your willfull or congenital ignorance of anything that challenges your agenda that your gt badge car is something more than it is: a misbadged aussie gl

it's badge engineering plain and simple, and if the same scenario happened today, nissan australia would've already recalled the early cars to install the correct badging

seriously, we're not talking about a kiwi 1200 sss where nissan nz decided to badge a few homologated cars as sss when nissan never badged any sunny chassis sss, only bluebird and violet models

you're not selling your findings to a few teens at a car meet, you're publishing them on a world forum, so unless you want to come off sounding like a madman, you'd better know and respect the basic guidelines in the jdm and other export markets, that gl = 4cyl and gt = 6cyl

**aarc240** · 10-06-2006

Ridicule? Sorry if that's what you assume is the case when I pointed out that Nissan made the manifolds and still does.

Um, recall and rebadge? Not likely unless they wanted to get into all sorts of fun with law suits.
I doubt there are too many mugs out there who would happily accept ANY manufacturer telling them "so sorry old boy, we really didn't sell you an XYZ Super Wazoo for lots of money, we really sold you an XYZ Wazoo that isn't kitted out as well and we are going to take the Super off it whether you agree, like it, or anything else"
The software industry might get away with that sort of garbage but try it an a man's car and see what happens. He OWNS that thing and by golly, it better be exactly what he thought he was getting or someones gonna lose his cojones real quick.

I agree that in JDM and other markets where the 240K was sold the 6 cylinder is a GT. There is even that distinction clearly made on the front cover of the Factory Service Manual (quote "Datsun 240K GT 180K 160K")

In the Australian market the majority of these cars were 6 cylinder GL and it was Nissan's choice to do so. Again that is clearly stated on the front of the FSM "Datsun 240K GL"

Interesting the statement that the 4 cylinder was a GL in other markets. The factory manual doesn't mention it.
In fact according to the FSM 'Model Variation' table there isn't any such thing as a 4 cylinder hardtop either.
As that FSM was published in June 1974 there may well have been changes after that (and AFTER Nissan started badging sixes as GL's in Australia)

I would be interested to see proof of '240K GL' badges from any source that refutes the information shown in the parts list at Section 353-1 and 353-2 where NISSAN states "FOR AUSTRALIA" over each image of a 240K GL badge and alongside the listing for each of those badges.

Like it or not, there ARE differences in the GL and GT variants. We own one of each in hardtop and a GL 4dr.
The GL hardtop doesn't perform as well as the GT hardtop but that can be mostly attributed to the diff ratio.
For some reason known only to Nissan the GT got a 3.9 ratio where the GL has the 3.545 which the FSM's say BOTH sholud have had.

Is the GT better than the GL? No, they are just different.

**g72s20** · 10-09-2006

http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/s...ghlight=badged
I still maintain the decision (or change in direction) to go with "GL" badges("G" in Skyline code means 6 cylinder) in lieu of "GT",was a product of a combination of events, fuel crisis, the aftermath and fallout of the "Bathurst super cars" scare (if you do your homework you'll discover Evan Green was simply the original messenger there...not an instigator by any means. "MILTON MORRIS" NSW Transport Minister (May, 1965-January, 1975) was the real culprit!) June 25th 1972 musta been a slow news day...Greens' story on the "160mph factory supercars!" got the headline that day, and infamy followed. Anyway, have a read of the other thread, and dig up the magazines of the time, there was definitely some back pedalling going on...interesting parts variation though...heh! this'll never be over

**Mr Camouflage** · 10-09-2006

My research is leading me down the same path. That the Aussie GL is the same as the euro GT. I have been in contact with the owner of an original 1974 240K GT from the UK. It has its original engine, and is fitted with the same manifold as the Aussie GL. I've looked through the japanese engine manuals, and it seems to me that the Manifold that was on the first batch of GT's that was sent to Australia was discontinued in Feb 1973, and replaced with the standard manifold for 3/1973, though I dont have an Aussie Service manual so I cant do any more investigating at the moment.

**aarc240** · 10-09-2006