production number for 1969

[kats]

Hello everyone,

I would like to show a data which I got from the factory.
I hope this will help someone's knowlege and questions clear.

Unfortunatly it does not mention about HLS and HS seperatetly,
it says only"E" for export model means HLS and HS.
Also "D" for domestic model(JAPANESE)S30,PS30...

Here they are,
1969 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
"D" 1 1 2 6 9 48 214 688
"E" 1 0 2 1 2 52 388 97

Some notes:
On 10th Oct 1969, 2 silver 240z(HLS) arrived at NMC gardena california,for 3 months /16000miles road test. Actualy they were in each big wooden boxes!!They are preproduction #14 and #15.This means they are 14th and 15th build in the factory, they are not HLS30-00014 or 15.
I got these,so far.Factory said there is no person who knows much more details of production numbers currently.

I guess they are HLS30-00004 and 00005.
Reasons are,
#1 The factory said they made 3 prototypes for testing assembly line and seeing how workers build.They were not given serial numbers and they are the ones in May and Jun which you can see above.They called "KOJYOU SHISAKU"If I can transrate directly,"factory prototype"
Alan,you can help me please follow up!

So,HLS30-00001 and 00002 should be the ones produced in Jul.
They are called "SEISAN SHISAKU" transrate directly "production prototype"?
They are exactly same as 240Z,I mean everything(whole thing)same as 240Z which were sold to the public.
You can count 11 240Zs in Jul through Aug.Accordingly #14 and #15 must be produced in Sep,right?

One more interesting view I was told,
You can see the numbers in Dec is much less than in Nov.
The factory said that happend due to found ploblems in test driving,they slow down nearly stopped production.
Major ploblems are big road noise,viblation from rear axle,and
steering kicking back.Test crew reported that from U.S.A. and the factory in Japan tried to solve these ploblems.
Mid to late Dec,the factory managed to clear ploblems anyway(not perfect),they shipped corrected 240Z(with some development parts,not sure how many 240Zs) by air.
Then the factory went to full swing production,very busy.

I will add some sotry soon.
Best regards,
kats

[kats]

Hi,sorry for my poor writing.
I say again,
1969 [May D 1, E 1] [ Jun D 1, E 0] [Jul D 2, E 2] [Aug D 6, E 1]
[Sep D 9, E 2] [Oct D 48, E 52] [Nov D 214, E 388]
[Dec D 688, E 97]
D is domestic,E is export model.

And I forgot to mention one thing,why only export model's production number was descent in Dec,that is a difference of situation 240Z was drivien.At that time,in Japan there were so few people could drive sports car like 240Z.And they did not usualy drive long distance like americans do.So the factory decided to neglect those ploblems for domestic market models.They continued production for S30 and PS30(SB).

kats

[HS30-H]

Hi Kats,
Well done!
Its great to see new information about those early days of pre-production, and I for one certainly appreciate your efforts and the fact that you are sharing this new data.

I agree with your translations of "Kojyo Shisaku" and "Seisan Shisaku". In the business that I am involved with, we use virtually the same terms in English and Japanese. We usually translate "Kojyo" as "Factory" and "Seisan" as "Production" in my business, so I would think that you could possibly translate "Kojyo Shisaku" as "Pre-Production Prototype" and "Seisan Shisaku" as "Production Prototype".

Perfect translation between English and Japanese is not always possible!

At the very least, these figures show that the LHD cars were not produced "first", and that there were indeed RHD cars being pre-productionised at the same time. In fact, up to November 1969 more RHD prototypes had been made than LHD prototypes. That's nice to see, as it might help to get the message across with regard to the LHD cars NOT being the "First" as is sometimes claimed.

I had read in some Japanese magazine articles that the test crews in North America had come across problems that caused a hold-up in production. I had also heard that Domestic market cars had not been held up in the same way, and that the 'problems' were mainly caused by the crank vibrations on the L24 engines. Of course, the S30 and PS30 would not have suffered these, so maybe that influenced the decision to press on with Domestic production while Export production was held up? The driveshaft vibration problem was finally fixed much later with the repositioning of the diff. - so I wonder if this was too big a job to redesign in late November and December and they had to leave it until much later? Interesting.

Great data, Kats. This should give us good material to discuss for some time to come!

Here are some pics. of the North American test crews at work, which may be of interest to some:

Alan T.

[HS30-H]

..and another;

Alan T.

[Alfadog]

Great data, we could only wish for more of the same for the rest of the years!!! (how many numbers can you handle!?)

Those are some great pics Alan, I love the 2nd one, even if I dont know who most of those people are!!! It's the kind of picture I can imagine framed and hanging on my wall. Interesting lack of side badges and weird tyres! Which makes me think, have you got a shrine at your house Alan or just a really big hard drive?

[HS30-H]

Originally posted by Alfadog
....have you got a shrine at your house Alan or just a really big hard drive?

I afraid I'm only endowed with a very small Hard Drive ( hence the very long nose on the car........... ).

Its actually just a very large cupboard. The 'Wife' calls it something else.

That's great information from Kats isn't it? Its made my weekend start off with a high.

As Kats has shown, there IS more data to be got from its custodians at Nissan and I've never been happy to accept the nonsense figures and guesstimates that have been published before now. Nissan seem to be slowly stirring from their slumber and getting the message that tomorrow's PR might be helped somewhat if they took care of yesterday's heritage. I'm not sure if this is due to the fuss about the Z33 or the effects of a lot of interest and probing from people like Kats - but its certainly been more apparent that they are coming out of their shell a little. The news that they really ARE planning a proper museum in Japan has got to be good news for us all.

Hats off to Kats!

Alan T.

[Alfadog]

Originally posted by HS30-H
I afraid I'm only endowed with a very small Hard Drive ( hence the very long nose on the car........... ).

I thought I told you to stay well away of Rick, he's a bad influence !!!

(at least you dont have a Corvette... yet)

[Z Kid]

While you guys are discussing history, what do you think of this ebay statement.
Quote by guy selling the car
"The engine is the L24 2.4 liter with the E31 head. The engine is original but the numbers do not match, this is because Datsun (nissan) took about a year and a half to get things together due to how their factory was set up. If anywhere on the assembley line something didn't pass quality check the vehicle was sidelined and then the next car went through and got that vehicles engine. This made sure that none of the early 240z's had correct engine and frame matching numbers."


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6187

Its supposedly a genuine all original Z car, so it kind of fits in with the topic (not really but hey)

Is this really true??

[HS30-H]

Sounds like he's a little confused about what "matching numbers" means..............

Just like any other car manufacturer, Nissan did have the occasional car that didn't quite come up to standards. These cars would be sent to a special section that would usually fix the problems.

A car would have to be REALLY bad for the engine to be taken out and installed in another car, or for the engine not to be installed in the first place. In any case, if this happened the VIN tag on the car could be amended ( replaced ) or if no engine had been installed then the engine number would not be on the tag in the first place. So he's talking rubbish.

The engine number is not stamped on the actual "frame" ( body ) of the car - only the VIN number is actually stamped ( on the firewall ). If the engine number on this particular car does not match the engine number stamped on the tag, then its not the original engine.

There were some markets where the engine number was not on the tags either.............

Alan T.

[Alan Pugh]

Alan,
As far as I am aware the Australian cars did not have the engine numbers on the VIN tag, I know my 260 hasn't.

The only way to find out if the original engine is in the car would be the original bill of sale or if someone bothered to fill out the page in the owners hand book or you could try and trace the original registration papers.

Allthough all this proves I suppose is that the original engine block is in the car, nothing more.

Alan P.

[Alfadog]

Your 260 should, as far as I know all Aussie Z cars definitely had VIN and Engine No. stamped on their little metal tag...

[Carl Beck]

Hi Gang:
I'm joining this discussion a bit late... so I'm trying to catch up. I've coped Kats entire Post - so I can intersperse comments/questions.

Great info Kats - can you tell us who or what section at the factory supplied it? I assume you are talking to Nissan HQ - not the actual factory (yes/no?).


Kats> Hello everyone,
Kats> I would like to show a data which I got from the factory. I
Kats> hope this will help someone's knowlege and questions Kats> clear.

Kats> Unfortunatly it does not mention about HLS and HS
Kats> seperatetly, it says Kats> only"E" for export model
Kats> means HLS and HS.

I would not assume that it means "either" - No "Production" (meaning cars sold to the public) HS30 240-Z's were produced until very late Jan or Feb of 1970. I have never seen any pictures of "prototype" Right Hand Drive 240-Z's in any of the books written on the subject either. (has anyone got a reference to one?). I have seen Prototype "Fairlady Z's" in RHD of course... but no 240-Z's.

Kats> Also "D" for domestic model (JAPANESE)S30,PS30...

Kats> Here they are,
Kats> 1969 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Kats> "D" 1 1 2 6 9 48 214 688
Kats> "E" 1 0 2 1 2 52 388 97

Kats> Some notes:
Kats> On 10th Oct 1969, 2 silver 240z(HLS) arrived at NMC
Kats> gardena california,for 3 months /16000miles road test.
Kats> Actualy they were in each big wooden boxes!! They are
Kats> preproduction #14 and #15.

Kats> This means they are 14th and 15th build in the factory,
Kats> they are not HLS30-00014 or 15.

Rumor has it that several were sent to Canada also for pre-production Winter Testing. No verification of that yet.

Kats> I got these,so far. Factory said there is no person who
Kats> knows much more details of production numbers
Kats> currently.

It is sad Nissan didn't keep any of the production records either. I wonder who/why they found what they did?

Kats> I guess they are HLS30-00004 and 00005.
Kats> Reasons are, #1 The factory said they made 3
Kats> prototypes for testing assembly line and seeing how
Kats> workers build. They were not given serial numbers and
Kats> they are the ones in May and Jun which you can see
Kats> above. They called "KOJYOU SHISAKU" If I can transrate
Kats> directly,"factory prototype"
Kats> Alan, you can help me please follow up!

Kats> So,HLS30-00001 and 00002 should be the ones produced
Kats> in Jul. They are called "SEISAN SHISAKU" transrate
Kats> directly "production prototype"? They are exactly same
Kats> as 240Z, I mean everything (whole thing)same as 240Z
Kats> which were sold to the public.

OK - so you are saying you believe the VIN's/Chassis Numbers started at 01 with the production prototypes in July of 69... sounds reasonable to me.

Kats> You can count 11 240Zs in Jul through Aug.

NO - I count 3 240-Z's and 8 Fairlady Z's July through Aug.

Kats> Accordingly #14 and #15 must be produced in Sep,right?

No - HLS30 00004 and HLS30 00005 would have been produced in Sept. (right?).

Since HLS30 00006 and HLS30 00008 had a production date of Oct. 69 - that would seem to come out right as far as Datsun 240-Z's would go. (HLS30 00006, 00007 and 00008 were used on the Show Car Circuit - first shown at the New York Auto Show - 00006 was dented and sent to Bob Sharp Racing (it's still being raced in Vintage events here - likewise 00008 went to Speckman for race prep - and is still being raced in Vintage events here - none were sold to the public).

Your figures show 537 240-Z's produced in Oct. Nov. Dec. of 69. That would seem to agree with the usual "first 500 produced" claim. (we've documented the fact that cars past HLS30 00500 had 69 production dates attached).

Kats> One more interesting view I was told, You can see the
Kats> numbers in Dec is much less than in Nov. The factory said
Kats> that happend due to found ploblems in test driving,they
Kats> slow down nearly stopped production.

That's very interesting. Indeed, we have only found 4 cars still in existence with Dec. Production Dates. #87, 89, 496 and 587. You will notice they are quite far out of perfect sequence.

Kats> Major ploblems are big road noise,viblation from rear
Kats> axle,and steering kicking back. Test crew reported that
Kats> from U.S.A. and the factory in Japan tried to solve these
Kats> ploblems.

Interesting - my first Z was HLS30 001777. After I had it for about four months - the dealer installed a clamp with a rubber bumper on the steering rack - to reduce the steering kickback and front end shake (that what they told me at the time). Never noticed any vibration from the rear axle.

The real problem they had was the L24 had been designed for sedan use - then put in the Z. The L24 originally had a six counterweighted crankshaft. When subjected to the higher RPM's used in the 240-Z's they had very bad harmonic balance problems. They cracked flywheels and blew clutch pressure plates.

This was solved by going to an eight counterweighted crankshaft. The "fix" was introduced in the late Jan. 70 production cars (about the third week). (engine serial numbers L24- 03607 or newer received the newer cranks).

Kats> Mid to late Dec,the factory managed to clear ploblems
Kats> anyway(not perfect),they shipped corrected 240Z(with
Kats> some development parts, not sure how many 240Zs) by
Kats> air.

Another problem we had with the very early cars were the shocks leaked every 6K miles. The Datsun Dealer rebuilt the shocks free of charge duing the first 12 months on my Z - without regard to mileage... (I put 68K miles on that Z in 18 months - so I was way over 12K miles long before the year was up).

Kats> Then the factory went to full swing production,very busy.

Kats> I will add some so try soon.
Kats> Best regards,
Kats> kats

Great job Kats.. keep at it.

kind regards,
Carl

Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com
HLS30 00020
HLS30 00042
and others..

[Alan Pugh]

These aren't my plates they have come off the internet but you can clearly see the difference between the 2. My plate matches the 260 2+2 plate exactly other than actual VIN# obviously.

This is the 240
Alan.

[Alan Pugh]

This is the 260 2+2 plate, you will also notice the additional box in the bottom right hand corner of the plate.

The 240 plate is US and the 260 plate is AUS.

Alan.

[Carl Beck]

Allen T wrote:
AT> At the very least, these figures show that the LHD cars were not
AT> produced "first", and that there were indeed RHD cars being
AT> pre-productionised at the same time.

Hi Allen:
I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Kats numbers show 1 Domestic and 1 Export built in May (factory prototype). It also shows 2 Domestic and 2 Export in July - when Kats says the "pre-production" cars were started. That is no proof of which was "first".

Also important to note that the "RHD" cars were Fairlady Z's. The Z Cars for Export were Left Hand Drive models - No production Right Hand Drive 240-Z's were "produced" until very late Jan or Feb of 1970. There are no 1969 RHD 240-Z's.


AT> In fact, up to November 1969
AT> more RHD prototypes had been made than LHD prototypes. That's
AT> nice to see, as it might help to get the message across with regard
AT> to the LHD cars NOT being the "First" as is sometimes claimed.

"Pre-productionized", "prototyped"... we'll never know for sure - what matters is "Production" as in "sold to the public".

Given that the Fairlady Z was a RHD model - I don't believe that there was ever a question that they were both prototyped and produced at the same time as the LHD 240-Z. (who questioned that?). Both the Fairlady and Left Hand Drive Datsun 240-Z's were on display at the Tokyo Motor Show in 69. (NO RIGHT HAND DRIVE 240-Z's were there however - not in any coverage I've been able to find to date).

As I said in an earlier reply - if you or anyone have photographs of "prototype" RHD "240-Z's" I'd sure love to see them. All the images of any "prototypes" of a 240-Z that I have found are LHD models.

The "claim" of being "First" I believe applies correctly to the statements that follow:
1. The first 500 Datsun 240-Z's were produced in 1969 (might be a few more than 500 in fact;-).
2. No Right Hand Drive Datsun 240-Z's were "produced" in 1969.
3. The first Right Hand Drive (HS30) 240-Z was produced in late Jan or Feb of 1970. (HS30 00004 was the first one sold to the public as far as we know so far). Given that it's original engine was not produced until Jan of 1970 - the car could not have been built in 69. (the owner's research agrees with mine by the way - it was sent to Australia).


Allen also provided some interesting photo's - thanks. Can you tell us any more about "when" they were taken? Interesting that they seem to have snow tires on all four wheels - and the guys are dressed in winter coats in the one picture... were both pictures taken in Phoenix? (maybe they took them to the mountains?).

I have been told by a 25 year Datsun Parts Manager (1968 when he started to work for Datsun) - that the early 240-Z Parts Catalog stated that the rubber strips were added to the HLS30 Z's at HLS30 00013 - cars prior to that were fitted with the domestic front bumper (no rubber strips). So far no one has found a copy of the first few revisions of the 240-Z Parts Catalogs for me... Ron Johnson at Nissan Motorsports said he remembered that being the case - but couldn't find any documentation for me.

There is also a rumor/story that a few pre-production Z's were sent to Nissan Canada for winter testing - As HLS30 00009 thru 00015 are un-accounted for.... the pictured Z's could be any one of those I suppose..

Kind regards,
Carl

Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com
69, 70, 71, 72, 72 & 73 BRE Z
(yes it was actually titled and sold as a 1969 Datsun Cpe).

[Zedrally]

Well, you could knock me over with a feather duster!

Just as I wrote to Alfa about "rubbery " figures, the truth is about to emerge.

Excellent work Kats, we can only hope that more will be revealed.

[Carl Beck]

Z Kid Wrote:
ZK> ....sniped..."The engine is the L24 2.4 liter with the E31 head.
ZK> The engine is original but the numbers do not match, this is
ZK> because Datsun (nissan) took about a year and a half to get
ZK> things together due to how their factory was set up. If anywhere
ZK> on the assembley line something didn't pass quality check the
ZK> vehicle was sidelined and then the next car went through and
ZK> got that vehicles engine. This made sure that none of the
ZK> early 240z's had correct engine and frame matching numbers."
ZK> Is this really true??

Hi Z Kid (everyone)
Nope - complete nonsense as far as original engine serial numbers or "matching" numbers goes. Cars with quality problems were in fact pulled off the assembly line - the problems corrected off line - then they were put back into the line for completion (usually at a later date). So chassis serial numbers on the Z's do not track one for one with their Date Of Manufacture..

Nissan did not use the Chassis nor VIN number to identify the engine. The L24's were produced on one production line and they were numbered serially. L24-001, L24-002, L24-003 ect. The L24's were used in the Datsun 240-Z's as well as a couple of other Nissan/Datsun sedans.

Nissan put a "Data Tag" in the engine compartment of the Z. It had both the VIN of the car and the original engine serial number stamped on it. That Data Tag is the only way to know what engine serial number was originally installed in the car. The engine serial numbers of the L24's begin with "L24-" then that is followed by the serial number and it is unrelated to the VIN/Chassis number. (it's a Datsun not a Chevy).

Even though the engines were numbered serially as they were produced - lots (groupings) of them got shuffled around as they were delivered to the assembly line... so they were not put into the cars in perfect serial number order either.

So we have the VIN Tag - that is visible through the windshield. It has only the complete VIN on it. Then we have the Data Tag in the engine compartment. It has both the VIN and original engine serial number stamped into it. For the US and North American 240-Z's we also have a Data Tag on the drivers door jam - that lists the "Date Of Manufacture". All US models have to comply with Emissions and Safety regulation - based on their Date Of Manufacture (so the data tag is required here) That door jam data tag was not installed on the RHD Datsun 240-Z's, nor the Fairlady Z's.

Sorry to re-cover something that's already been discussed - but the discussion left me a little confused as terms were swapped around... Hope that clears this up a bit.

regards,
Carl B.

[Carl Beck]

Hello everyone:
I stated in a prior Post the following:

CB> Nissan put a "Data Tag" in the engine compartment of the Z.
CB> It had both the VIN of the car and the original engine serial
CB> number stamped on it. That Data Tag is the only way to know
CB> what engine serial number was originally installed in the car.
CB> The engine serial numbers of the L24's begin with "L24-" then
CB> that is followed by the serial number and it is unrelated to the
CB> VIN/Chassis number. (it's a Datsun not a Chevy).

I must have been falling asleep... that's not technically correct.
I should have said: "The Model Number Plate in the engine compartment
is one way to know what engine serial number was originally installed in the car.

The original engine serial number was also printed on the Monroney Sticker (Window Sticker) and the Dealer was supposed to transfer the engine number to the owners Warranty Booklet here in the US.

I'm sure most of you know this already but just wanted to make the terms/situation clear for anyone that didn't.

So:
A "VIN" (Vehicle Identification Number) is the Model Info + the Chassis Serial Number. The S30S/S30/PS30 ect. Domestic Fairlady Z's, the (HS30) RHD 240-Z's and the (HLS30) LHD 240-Z's all had separate Chassis Serial Number series. So S30 00016, HS30 00016 and HLS30 00016 would have all been produced at one time or another - so you need a complete VIN to tell them apart.

VIN Tag = VIN stamped in a metal strip, riveted to the dash and visible through the windshield. (required in the US - not in Japan)

Model Number Plate = aka "the engine compartment data tag" in the engine compartment has the Model info printed on it. The VIN and the original engine serial number stamped into it.

FWIW,
Carl B.

[HS30-H]

Hi Carl,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Beck
[B]Allen T wrote:
AT> At the very least, these figures show that the LHD cars were not
AT> produced "first", and that there were indeed RHD cars being
AT> pre-productionised at the same time.

Hi Allen:
I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Kats numbers show 1 Domestic and 1 Export built in May (factory prototype). It also shows 2 Domestic and 2 Export in July - when Kats says the "pre-production" cars were started. That is no proof of which was "first".

Also important to note that the "RHD" cars were Fairlady Z's. The Z Cars for Export were Left Hand Drive models - No production Right Hand Drive 240-Z's were "produced" until very late Jan or Feb of 1970. There are no 1969 RHD 240-Z's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl,
As far as I am concerned, "The True History Of The Z Car" includes ALL of the S30-series models, and should not concentrate on the USA / North American market HLS30 "240Z" model to the point where all other models are treated as a sideshow. I try as much as possible to align myself with the philosophy of Japanese S30-series Z enthusiasts, and see all of the first generation cars as a family. The basic model type designation of "S30" really ought to be used when discussing the family of cars that includes the S30, S30-S, PS30, PS30-SB, HLS30, HS30 & HS30-H etc. I think its wrong to think of the history of the Z car as being centred solely around the USA market cars. Unfortunately, just about every English-language resource on the early Z cars seems to mention the "240Z" as though it was a predecessor to all of the other models.

I can see you demonstrating this bias with your statements and questions above. The way you write about these cars seems to be completely biased towards one particular model and specification.

You seem to misunderstand what I wrote with regard to the LHD and RHD cars above in reply to the figures that Kats supplied. When I mention RHD cars I am of course talking about the Domestic market "Fairlady" models, as they are RHD are they not?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT> more RHD prototypes had been made than LHD prototypes. That's
AT> nice to see, as it might help to get the message across with regard
AT> to the LHD cars NOT being the "First" as is sometimes claimed.

"Pre-productionized", "prototyped"... we'll never know for sure - what matters is "Production" as in "sold to the public".

Given that the Fairlady Z was a RHD model - I don't believe that there was ever a question that they were both prototyped and produced at the same time as the LHD 240-Z. (who questioned that?). Both the Fairlady and Left Hand Drive Datsun 240-Z's were on display at the Tokyo Motor Show in 69. (NO RIGHT HAND DRIVE 240-Z's were there however - not in any coverage I've been able to find to date).

As I said in an earlier reply - if you or anyone have photographs of "prototype" RHD "240-Z's" I'd sure love to see them. All the images of any "prototypes" of a 240-Z that I have found are LHD models.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See - you keep doing it. You keep talking about the RHD "240Z" as though its some kind of alien creature from Mars. What is the point that you are trying to prove? I don't see any purpose in playing the HLS30 model off against the HS30 model in respect to whether it was on the show stand or not. You are missing the point. RHD ( Domestic ) cars were being shown at the same time as LHD ( Export ) cars.
In truth, the HS30 model was only a short step away from the Domestic RHD models - so most of its details could have been pre-productionised and trouble-shot on the Domestic model prototypes. I'm certainly NOT trying to prove that a RHD "240Z" HS30 model was in existence before or at the same time as any of the others. What I've been trying to get across to people is that the LHD models did NOT exist before the RHD models - and that they were planned and protoyped AT THE SAME TIME AS eachother.
I'm not talking about just HS30 and HLS30 models. I'm talking about LHD and RHD models.
I think you would have to admit that most English language resources ( including your own website ) concentrate on the North American / USA model HLS30 to such an extent that it makes all other models look like an afterthought. Its got to the stage where the "240Z" ( in both LHD and RHD forms ) is seen as the daddy of them all................

The story of the HLS30 "240Z" is a PART of the story of the S30-series Z. We should not and must not think of all the other models being a PART of the story of the HLS30 "240Z". That would be to put the cart before the horse...............

Respectfully,
Alan T.

[HS30-H]

Originally posted by Carl Beck

Allen also provided some interesting photo's - thanks. Can you tell us any more about "when" they were taken? Interesting that they seem to have snow tires on all four wheels - and the guys are dressed in winter coats in the one picture... were both pictures taken in Phoenix? (maybe they took them to the mountains?).

I have been told by a 25 year Datsun Parts Manager (1968 when he started to work for Datsun) - that the early 240-Z Parts Catalog stated that the rubber strips were added to the HLS30 Z's at HLS30 00013 - cars prior to that were fitted with the domestic front bumper (no rubber strips). So far no one has found a copy of the first few revisions of the 240-Z Parts Catalogs for me... Ron Johnson at Nissan Motorsports said he remembered that being the case - but couldn't find any documentation for me.

There is also a rumor/story that a few pre-production Z's were sent to Nissan Canada for winter testing - As HLS30 00009 thru 00015 are un-accounted for.... the pictured Z's could be any one of those I suppose..

Kind regards,
Carl

Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com
69, 70, 71, 72, 72 & 73 BRE Z
(yes it was actually titled and sold as a 1969 Datsun Cpe).

Here are a couple of photos of the testing trip that was undertaken. I am told that this was a three month exercise ( August, September & October of 1969 ) during which a route from the Canadian Rockies to Death Valley and back was traversed many times. They wanted to take in extremes of cold and heat whilst racking up some serious mileage on these cars, and reporting their findings back to the Factory. Naturally, making sure that the cars would survive these extremes without giving trouble would be a very important part of making sure of the model's success in that particular market ( the biggest potential market in the World ).

On the subject of rubber strips on the bumpers - don't forget that the Japanese Domestic market had more than one choice. The Fairlady Z was the base model with NO rubber trims on the bumpers, and the Fairlady Z-L was the higher grade model which DID have the rubber strips on the bumpers. The Fairlady Z 432 DID have the rubber strips, and the Fairlady Z 432-R did NOT have the rubber strips. Domestic models came both with and without rubbers strips on the bumpers.

Here's photo 1:

[HS30-H]

........and here's photo 2:

Alan T.

[halz]

lubbadubbabubbdubba...!

(just shaking my head to clear the strange sense of Deja Vu the last few posts have invoked!)

Congratulations and thanks to Kats for digging up some hard-won facts - its all grist for the mill.

I also have to side with Alan... D=Domestic=FairladyZ=RHD. From Kats' numbers, the first D and E cars were produced TOGETHER. Now, if only we could find out which one was in front on the production line..!

[Carl Beck]

Hi Allen (everyone):
I'm sure we will bore everyone to death with our differing perspectives - but I have to admit I'm enjoying this conversation. You are of course completely wrong and I know - of course - I won't change your bias;-) - -but what the heck, we might have some minor influence on one another {vbg :-}. Believe it or not it's a rainy day here in Clearwater...

Allen Replied:
AT> Carl,
AT> As far as I am concerned, "The True History Of The Z Car"
AT> includes ALL of the S30-series models, and should not
AT> concentrate on the USA / North American market HLS30
AT>"240Z" model to the point where all other models are
AT> treated as a sideshow.
AT> I try as much as possible to align myself with the
AT> philosophy of Japanese S30-series Z enthusiasts, and see
AT> all of the first generation cars as a family.

OK - I can see all the first generation Z's as a family. I'd also agree that a "complete" history of the Z Car would include all the first generation models.

AT> The basic model type designation of "S30" really ought to AT> be used when discussing the family of cars that includes AT> the S30, S30-S, PS30, PS30-SB, HLS30, HS30 & HS30-H
AT> etc.

Terms again... the "S30" is not a "model type designation"... it's a chassis type. You get "model type" when you add the letter codes - ie. S30S, PS30, HS30 etc. and a chassis serial number... S30 xxxxx.

I'll agree with that - if the discussion stays "general" enough that what is being said - equally applies to all of the models. However most discussions evolve around what is different between/among them - so in that case I think it's helpful to specify more clearly the model one is referring too.

>I think its wrong to think of the history of the Z car as being >centred solely around the USA market cars.

Interesting perspective but I have a hard time understanding how you arrive at that. Everything about the history of the Z Car seems to prove it was "centered" solely around the USA market.

Yes, granted that by installing a smaller engine, and offering a stripped model for less money (S30S) they could sell a few in Japan (and why not do that it didn't cost much).

AT> Unfortunately, just about every English-language resource
AT> on the early Z cars seems to mention the "240Z" as
AT> though it was a predecessor to all of the other models.

It is a documented fact Allen - the design requirements were gathered from the US market, the design and development of the Z was driven by the US market.

Do you not take Yutaka Katayama's word for it? (I'll supply the quotes if you like - but I'm sure you have his book and many others on the history of both the Z and Nissan).

Allen - one of the most significant "facts" about the Datsun 240-Z - that made it so different from all the other "import" Sports/GT's in the world that proceeded it - was the "FACT" that it was the first "American Sports/GT - designed and built in Japan".. That was a completely different approach to marketing exported automobiles and capturing export markets. Completely different than any other company had ever taken. Taking that approach pushed Nissan to it's Number 1 Sales position in Import Car Sales in the US. (the Z wasn't the first "car" to take that approach - the PL510 was, but the Z was the first Sports/GT).

Until the 240-Z was introduced - every other imported Sports/GT had been designed based mostly on it's home market - then a percentage of them were modified/ re-configured and "exported" to other countries.

In the case of the Datsun 240-Z - the exact opposite approach was taken. The fact is, all the other models exist only because they are variations provided for much smaller nitch markets.

AT> I can see you demonstrating this bias with your
AT> statements and questions above. The way you write
AT> about these cars seems to be completely biased towards
AT> one particular model and specification.

You might be right - but I don't think it's a bias - so much as the facts that Nissan and the people involved in the design, development and marketing of the Z presented. They are the one's that focused the Z on the US Market. They are the one's written about for their genius. (it's not my bias it's simply the facts of the matter).

I'll readily admit that living in the US - most of the data/ information of interest to me personally is focused on the Z's we have here and most of the data/info we can find here deals with them.

On the other hand - most of the books written about the Z were written by authors in the UK..

AT> You seem to misunderstand what I wrote with regard to
AT> the LHD and RHD cars above in reply to the figures that AT> Kats supplied. When I mention RHD cars I am of course
AT> talking about the Domestic market "Fairlady" models, as
AT> they are RHD are they not?

Yes - I was only trying to specify that you were talking about the Fairlady - and NOT including the RHD 240-Z's in your reference to the "RHD".

For a long time, and still today there is the undying myth that there are 1969 HS30 Z's in Australia. They are still advertised every once in a while for sale - and written about (AutoSpeed was the last example). I've tried hard to kill that myth;-)

AT> ...snipped...
AT> I'm certainly NOT trying to prove that a RHD
AT> "240Z" HS30 model was in existence before or at
AT> the same time as any of the others.

Oops..sorry - that is exactly what I thought you were trying to prove. (that myth again)

AT> What I've been trying to get across to people is
AT> that the LHD models did NOT exist before the RHD
AT> models - and that they were planned and protoyped AT
AT> THE SAME TIME AS each other.

OK - I think most people interested know that (yes/no?).

AT> I'm not talking about just HS30 and HLS30 models. I'm
AT> talking about LHD and RHD models.

Yes - and I was pointing out that it might helpful to be more specific when you refer to the "RHD models" - as it's an indirect reference - could be Fairlady's, could be RHD 240-Z's or it could be both. You have now clarified that - by saying that you intended the reference to not be both, but rather the RHD's your were referring to was the Fairlady. (that was important to me because of the "myth" cited above;-)

Discussion continued in next frame - due to size limit...cjb

[Carl Beck]

Continued from previous frame..

AT> I think you would have to admit that most English
AT> language resources ( including your own website )
AT> concentrate on the North American / USA model HLS30
AT> to such an extent that it makes all other models look like
AT> an afterthought. Its got to the stage where the "240Z"
AT> ( in both LHD and RHD forms ) is seen as the daddy of
AT> them all................

Yes, I freely admit that. The history of the design and development, production and sales of the LHD Z - shows clearly that the "240-Z" is the "Daddy". I don't believe that's a personal "bias" - just a presentation of the facts. (I don't know why that would bother you so much).

There is no question that Mr. Matsuo and his design team wanted to sell their creation in their home market. Likewise the Management at Nissan HQ in Japan must have felt the same way.. Japanese Ego/Bias... sure we can allow that.

In the grand scheme of things however - if Nissan never sold anything other than the Datsun 240-Z it would still have been a smash hit in the sales numbers, still a smash hit for profit... the extra 10% for nitch markets - for Japanese Ego - was just gravy to the profit line - but certainly not significant, nor critical to the success of the Z Car.

BTW - it's not "my website". The Z Car Home Page is the Web Site of the Internet Z Car Club.

I have lots and lots of researched history related to the LHD 240-Z's published there only because I've taken the time to write and publish it. It's a main interest of mine. I been driving them since March of 1970, worked for Datsun in 72/73 etc.

I can assure you (ask you - encourage you) that if you want to spend the time we'll gladly accept contributions of data, information and articles etc. related to your main interest in the Fairlady Z's.

With over 13,500 members world wide - and a very heavily used web site - I'm sure everyone would enjoy knowing more about the various models in the first generation of Z Cars.

AT> The story of the HLS30 "240Z" is a PART of the story of
AT> the S30-series Z. We should not and must not think of all
AT> the other models being a PART of the story of the HLS30
AT> "240Z". That would be to put the cart before the
AT> horse...............


Here I would have to respectfully disagree Alan. The "horse" is and always was the HLS30 - the Datsun 240-Z.

The "Story" of the Z Car would have to contain many chapters - one would be about how Nissan captured a strategic export market, another about how Nissan took over the "affordable" Sports/GT Market in the US. The story of the Z Car is about a single model changing the perceptions of millions of consumers related to the quality and value of "Japanese" Automobiles.

That is why the "Datsun 240-Z" is recognized today by Automotive Historians as one of the 10 most important automobiles in US Automotive History. That "story" is why Mr. Katayama was inducted into the US Automotive Hall Of Fame in Dearborn, Michigan (the heart of FORD Country no less!!).

I will agree with you that most of the Books written in English - also missed what I consider the "real story" of the Z Car - as they focused mostly on providing data and information about the specific models and model changes, supported by some limited background info/history about Nissan and the Fairlady line - while missing the fact that the real significance of the Z Car was the monumental change in the Automotive Industry that the 240-Z initiated in the US market.

Yes, the total story of the Z would have to include a short chapter about all the various minor incarnations for nitch markets. However if you think they are "as important", "as significant" as the HLS30 - - then I have to believe you have missed the real "Story Of The Z Car".

The vast majority of your interest in this subject may be in the various deviations of the design - I can fully respect that - but to make the argument that 10% is equal to 90% doesn't hold water in the first place - and it clouds the real story of the Z Car IMHO.

BTW - if you would like to take this off-line - so we don't bore "halz" to death - feel free to e-mail me directly.

kind regards,
Carl B.

[Bambikiller240]

Please don't take the discussion "off-line", we won't fall asleep. Delving into this can be enlightening for all so long as it stays a respectful and doesn't become personal. (and I'm sure neither of you would do that)

Share what you can with us. Thanks to both Alan T. and Carl B. for sharing information with the club!

[HS30-H]

Wow Carl,
The weather in Clearwater must be really bad. You've written the first chapter of War & Peace...............

First of all - can I ask you to do me a favour? Take note of how to spell my name? Its A L A N - Alan. If you can't remember it - just take a quick peek at the bottom of my posts. Thank you.

Well - after all that, it seems almost futile to resist. Perhaps I should simply cave in and concede to your totally perverse point of view. I've got to hand it to you, you certainly know how to put 'spin' on an argument. You seem to have missed your vocation, as you would have been a very successful politician ( and that is not necessarily a compliment these days ).

If I use your style of quoting in great chunks then this post will end up overflowing before I've even added to it. I'll have to try to get away with quoting parts and hope that anybody who is following will refer back to the original text for context.

I'm glad that you finally got the message about the HS30, and the fact that I have been trying to make people aware of RHD prototype development and production as NOT being behind the LHD model. I am surprised that you acknowledged the fact, as I see nothing to that effect in your writing on the subject ( yes - on zhome.com - which seems to contain articles that are almost exclusively written by yourself ). Maybe you will update soon?

Here's a good quote from your post; " you are of course completely wrong....". Now I certainly have an opinion about this matter as a whole, but its not SOLELY my opinion. I share it with other people, and many of these people are Z enthusiasts. It will not surprise you to know ( as I am sure that you have already guessed ) that the majority of these people are Japanese. Here's a good point to drop in another quote from your posts; they may be exercising their "Japanese Ego / Bias"!

I truly think that you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope, Carl. What you are writing, and the style in which you write it, is totally a restrospective view of the situation. Any attempt to poke holes in this perspective is going to be about as futile as arguing with the kind of person who posits that the earth is flat and the Moon is made of cheese. Your opinion is so entrenched, and your defences built so high, that any attack will simply bounce off. You seem also to have plenty of acolytes who wait with eager anticipation at your every utterance, and when I challenge any opinion you hold I take on these people too. Its a tough match, but you might like to reflect that just because you are using high sales figures and market share as your weapons it does not automatically follow that 'he who sells most wins'.

So here I stand, faced with your Big Mac philospohy ( we sold billions of them - so they must be the best! ) armed only with the sad prospect of an English Cream Tea, wondering just what part of your defences would be the soft underbelly, and the first point to attack. Did St George have this kind of quandary when he faced The Dragon?, did David think at all before aiming at Goliath? We will probably never know.

So what can I do, except swing and hope for the best? Here it is; your stance is TOTALLY wrong! You are saying that what sold most must be king. But take yourself back to the 1968 and 1969 period when NISSAN were putting the final touches to their new creation. They were sure as hell HOPING that the thing would sell well in the Export market. They were sure as hell hoping that the thing would sell well in the largest export market in the World. However - it was certainly NOT a foregone conclusion, and it would have to rely on a lot of factors that were outside their control. One of these would be good timing, and sure enough they found that they had timed their new product very well.

Isn't that the point that you are missing? What if the Z had gone down in the US market like a lead balloon? Would you judge it a failure? You probably would, as you seem to be judging success or failure on your Big Mac Principle of who sells ( most ) wins.......

You call the non-US market 'nitch' markets ( niche? ). If that is the case, then EVERY product ever made for the Export market will have been aimed at the USA. Its just the single biggest market in the whole World. It makes sense to hope that a product will do well in the USA. We hear it here in the UK particularly with respect to the music business; bands want to "break America" because they know it will make them more money than almost all of their other markets combined. This will keep their record companies happy and allow them the time and artistic freedom to go on and make the music that they want to. There is only one World, and the late Twentieth Century and early part of the Twenty First has been shaped this way; America is King. However, its seems quite clear to many minds outside ( and some inside ) America that tuning your product to the American market does not leave it very pure.................... I wonder if some of these people feel like Robert Johnson at the crossroads - when he sold his soul to the Devil?

You call the Japanese domestic model S30S ( Fairlady Z ) a "stripped out model" - but you seem to conveniently forget about the Fairlady Z-L. This was - in all respects apart from its 2 litre engine - of EQUAL or SUPERIOR spec. to the USA model HLS30. How on earth can you posit that the USA-market model HLS30 was in any way superior to the RHD cars EXCEPT in its engine spec.? You are ignoring the fact that these models were arguably better at being "sports" cars than the USA models. Nissan ( probably at Katayama's behest ) gave you a four-speed and matching diff ratio, softer springs and dampers and no rear anti-roll bar. This was a car MADE for the USA? I don't think so. The USA-market HLS30 was a spec. that was aimed at a certain market, but you can't say that the layout of the car made any sense in LHD form. The layout of the engine and trans forced the controls of the driver's side to avoid the induction and exhaust manifolds. Sorry - but that's a fact that was forced on the designers because they had to work with what was available to them.

I posit that if the S30-series Z car was, as you quoted, "An American Sports Car - made in Japan" - then they would have made a better job of the LHD version. You can think about that every time you go to use your E-brake.

Alan T.

[HS30-H]

..........continued

And what of other manufacturers who hoped to do well in the US market? We had a good parallel with Japan here in the UK during the Fifties and Sixties ( being both RHD native markets who needed to sell abroad to expand ). There was slogan in the factories at that time; "Export or Die!". I give you the example of the Austin A90 Atlantic, a car that was most certainly "aimed" at the US Export market. Austin took a car to Indianapolis and broke a huge number of AAA records by running the thing virually non-stop for days and nights on end - and all in a bid to break the US market. The design was conceived as a car "for" the US market, using an engine, transmission and final drive that were plucked from other domestic models. The styling of the car was what the Austin designers thought America would want. Was it a success? NO! It was widely thought of as neither fish nor fowl..........

Wait another few years and enter the MG sports car series. The T series found a few buyers but America was not really cracked big until the MGA and the MG Roadster. The Triumph sports car range TR2/3/4 etc went over very well in the US compared to the domestic ( UK ) market. Like Japan, Britain was still getting back on its feet after very literally having its back broken in the war. These kinds of cars were a luxury to us, but the US market lapped them up. But were these cars designed "for" the USA? Well, not really. The LHD models have always been regarded as compromises in the same way that a right hand drive Alfa Romeo or a right hand drive Fiat might be; the layout just does not work as well when its switched. They might badge them specially for the US market ( calling the Triumph a "TR250" for example ) and give them a few special doo-dads that they thought you would want - but they were not conceived / designed "for" the US market.

You seem to say, however that the S30-series Z WAS. I think you are mixing Mr Katayama's PR speak with reality. The HLS30 model was aimed at the US export market - but the basic layout of the car DOES NOT show any evidence of having been made PRIMARILY for the LHD market. If you think it has - then please point these details out to me and argue them through. I see no evidence to support your theory that this is so.

Just because the car sold so well in the US ( taking advantage of a good exchange rate and an easy passage across the Pacific ) does NOT change what the Factory were thinking and hoping for the car when it was designed. The shell was quite clearly designed with some dual-use possibility, but STILL bears all the evidence of the RHD version being prime. Most of the pre-production prototypes and mock-ups that I have seen pictures of are RHD. Isn't that a bit strange for a car that was and "America Sports Car"? Do you think this is Japanese Ego / Bias at work again?

There is a certain amount ( not inconsiderable, actually ) of futility in my trying to get you to see the Japanese point of view. Remember - its not just MY opinion that I am putting forward here. There will be a certain amount of flexibility, but basically I think most Japanese people who are interested in the history of this car and have studied it carefully, or who were involved in its inception and manufacture, will be most surprised that anyone could think the way that you do.

Alan T.

[sjcurtis]

Thanks to KATS for the original post. It is good to see that in the life of the S30 significant information can still be found by the dedicated investigator.
I have enjoyed the good level of banter, mixed with the uncovering of fact that this post has produced.
Great Photos.

I am confused in a few areas but I guess the first question must be ( to anyone).

1. In the context of this thread does E mean HLS30. and
2. Does the HLS30 designation cover all of the LH Drive S30 build.
Regards
Steve

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by sjcurtis

1. In the context of this thread does E mean HLS30.

My understanding of the discussion is that (E) includes both HLS30 and HS30 for EXPORT (i.e. not for the Japanese domestic Market. )

Someone correct me if I'm out to lunch here.

[Carl Beck]

Hi Carl:
As the thread started with Kat's original post - it covered 1969 production. In that context "E" applied to the HLS30's - If we were talking about 1970 production then "E" would cover both HLS and HS models.

Or said another way - as only the HLS30's were built for export in 1969 the numbers represented by "E" apply to the HLS30's only.

regards,
Carl

[Carl Beck]

HI Steve:
Oops.. sorry I missed answering your second question.

I'd have to say "yes". As the "H" stands for the L24 engine - The "HLS30" designation would cover all the left hand drive units exported.

regards,
Carl B.

Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com

[Carl Beck]

Hi A l a n:
I am sorry about the mistake on your name.. I usually try to be very careful about that.

Alan Wrote:
AT> Wow Carl,
AT> The weather in Clearwater must be really bad.
AT> You've written the first chapter of War & Peace.......

As this is a private (members only) forum - I'll have to admit that we have now had rain for the past five days. (something that the Tampa Bay Tourists Bureau would not like to have too broadly published!!). It's so rare that if the Sun doesn't shine all day the Newspapers are FREE!! But don't let that keep you from planning a vacation in Florida ;-)

AT> You seem to have missed your vocation, as you would
AT> have been a very successful politician ( and that is not
AT> necessarily a compliment these days ).

That's a truly funny thought. The last politician we had that was an Engineer was President Jimmy Carter - a heck of a nice guy, but a true failure as President. The last State Governor I recall that was an Engineer was in Washington State (Dixie Lee...) again a true failure as a leader...

The truth is, one of my undergraduate Majors was Industrial Organization and Management (aka Operations Research). One of my undergraduate Minors was Journalism. I should have gone on to Law School - I could have made more money as a politician ;-)

AT> ....interesting comments snipped... (I may come back to some of them later..cjb)
AT> There is a certain amount ( not inconsiderable, actually ) of
AT> futility in my trying to get you to see the Japanese point of
AT> view. Remember - its not just MY opinion that I am putting
AT> forward here.

It may not be your opinion alone. That is why I'm taking the time to to publicly disagree. I do not believe that is the Japanese point of view at all.

AT> There will be a certain amount of flexibility, but
AT> basically I think most Japanese people who are interested in
AT> the history of this car and have studied it carefully, or who
AT> were involved in its inception and manufacture, will be most
AT> surprised that anyone could think the way that you do.

My guess is that you greatly underestimate the industrial education and intellect of the "average" Japanese citizen. They recognize "competitive success" in the marketplace when they accomplish it.

It is my believe that they take far greater pride in the success of their strategic management and marketing approach in the automotive field - than you might credit them with. I believe that most Japanese Z Car Fans - would quickly admit that the Z represents a huge product success as well as an original design and marketing approach - that scored a "WIN" in the competitive markets of the US... to a far greater extent than they think of the Z as a "Sports Car For Japan that happened to sell well in the US".

I believe that most will tell you that the Z was not really well suited for use in Japan and that accounted for its limited sales there. (Remember that Japan has half the population of the US and in 1970 they were not a poor people, nor a poor country - they were an emerging industrial and economic giant)

I'd suggest that anyone interested in this discussion - research/ study Dr. W. Edward Deming, then read a few books on Total Quality Management (read the Japanese authors like Masaaki Imai's "KIAZEN").

I'd also suggest reading "The Origins of Competitive Strength - Fifty Years of the Auto Industry in Japan and the US", written by Mr. Akira Kawahara, as well as David Halberstam's "The Reckoning".

I think you are in grave error when you attribute "PR speak" to Mr. Katayama when he introduced the Datsun 240-Z to the Nissan Employees - I can only feel sorry that you don't know him.

I do and I can assure you that if nothing else - he has always been a man of honest words (even when it didn't help his career at Nissan HQ).

Mr. K said:
"The 240Z represents the imaginative spirit of Nissan, and was designed to please a demanding taste that is strictly American. It meets all the requirements of sports-minded drivers, fulfilling their desire for superb styling, power and safety, and provides them with the most thrilling and enjoyable ride available in any car.

Our new product reflects the rapid advancement of our company. We have studied the memorable artistry of the European coachmakers and engine builders and combined our knowledge with Japanese craftsmanship. The result is an exotic, high-performance car exclusively for America. It will be the beginning of a new romance for the true car lovers who believe that motoring is more than just a commute."

I think you will find that the Datsun 240-Z sold in great numbers because it was a total quality design, carried through production with great design integrity - it was a success in the eyes of it's customers long before it sold in great numbers.

Said in another way - it sold in great numbers because it was a customer driven quality success - it wasn't declared a "success" after it sold in great numbers.

FWIW,
Carl B.

[Carl Beck]

A l a n Wrote:
AT> You call the Japanese domestic model S30S ( Fairlady Z )
AT> a "stripped out model" - but you seem to conveniently forget
AT> about the Fairlady Z-L.

Hi Alan:
I call it like it is. The S30S was stripped of many otherwise standard features to lower its cost in the Japanese market.

I most certainly did not forget the Fairlady Z-L. However now that you mention it I will point out that it too was a compromise of the original design which offered lower performance. I hardly see how that would be "an improvement".

The S30 chassis was designed for the torque and hp of the 2.4L engine. Substituting the 2.0L was a compromise not driven by customer defined product quality - but rather to accommodate then current Japanese restrictions on the displacement of gas engines. What Sports/GT owner "wants" less power?

The 2.4L engine was on the other hand - driven by Mr. Katayama insisting that the US market demanded larger more powerful engines. He got his wish first in the PL 510 with the L16 and then with the 240-Z's L24.

If we must rate the to engines as either superior or inferior - then yes, we would have to conclude that the Fairlady Z got the inferior engine. It has less torque, less horsepower and it puts out significantly more greenhouse gases that pollute the atmosphere than the US spec. L24. (with no offsetting weight savings from using a smaller displacement).

AT> This was - in all respects apart from its 2 litre engine - of EQUAL or SUPERIOR spec. AT> to the USA model HLS30.

Come on Alan - the heart of any sports car is its engine! The 2.4L in-line six with 150HP (SAE) was one of the major factors that sat the Datsun 240-Z apart from it's competition.

- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the East African Safari Rally with.
- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the C-Production Championships with.

AT> How on earth can you posit that the USA-market model HLS30 was
AT> in any way superior to the RHD cars EXCEPT in its engine spec.?

In the first place - I never said that the 240-Z was "superior" (although it was - more power and less pollution). Also which RHD car are you referring to in this case - S30, HS30, S30S, PS30....???

What I said was the 240-Z was specifically designed for the US market - and every other variation was simply a side benefit to Nissan of no where near the significance in the overall scheme of things.

AT> You are ignoring the fact that these models were arguably better
AT> at being "sports" cars than the USA models.

I think your being silly now... Besides, the Z is a "Sports/GT". The "GT" part is as important, if not more so, in the US market than the "sports" part. Remember, the Z was designed based on US customer defined quality.

AT> Nissan ( probably at Katayama's behest ) gave you a four-speed
AT> and matching diff ratio,

If you don't have enough torque - you have to add gears to the tranny and teeth to the ring and pinion. Additional moving parts reduces reliability and increases cost. Do you really think lower rear end ratio's and a five speed is "better"? It's not - its a compromise for loss of torque in the Fairlady and it was simply a local market preference in the HS30's. There was no customer demand for five speed transmissions here in the US in 1970.

There is no question that Nissan gave the US customers what they wanted. If they wanted a five speed - it was easy to order it over the Parts Counter and simple to install.

I'd guess that at least 90% of the 240-Z's sold in the US - stayed with the 4spd. until they were driven into the ground by their owners. No doubt when the new "B" style 5spd. came out in the 280Z here - and it was time to replace the worn out transmissions on the then old 240-Z's - many of us opted to install the over-drive 5spd.

AT> softer springs and dampers and no rear anti-roll bar. This was a
AT> car MADE for the USA? I don't think so.

If you don't think so - you don't really know anything about this market. It was made to suit American Consumers - driving under normal American driving conditions. "Market specific" design and engineering at its best.

We have excellent high speed freeways, excellent secondary roads and streets. We like a softer and more comfortable ride quality in our GT's.

In 1970 if you wanted a harsh, jerky ride - you bought an MG:-)

AT> The USA-market HLS30 was a spec. that was aimed at a certain market,
AT> but you can't say that the layout of the car made any sense in LHD form.

"the layout of the car" - what in the world are you talking about?

Let me guess ;-)
When you pull up to the gas pumps at your local petro station - do you like having to open the drivers door against the pump island and squeezing out between the car and pump island? (we have our gas filler on the right side of the car - where the gas pumps are - and we have plenty of room to get in and out of the car on the left. I suppose you could pull up with the pumps on the Left - but then you'd have to pull the gas hose across the car to reach the filler. I would think that if the car was designed as a RHD model - it would have been a better design to put the gas filler neck on the Left side of the car.

In a more general sense - I like left hand drive cars. I like using my right hand to work all the controls that are normally centered in any car... radio, heater, AC, GPS, Cell Phone, shift lever.. I guess one can get used to using one's left hand for all that - but most people in the world are right handed and their left hand isn't as precise. Give any design Engineer a choice of where to put controls for good human factors considerations and you will find that they always put them on the "right". That's one reason that Command Pilots fly in the Left Seat no matter what country they are from.

I really can't think of anything related to the "layout" of the 240-Z that I would change.

AT> The layout of the engine and trans forced the controls of the driver's
AT> side to avoid the induction and exhaust manifolds. Sorry - but that's a
AT> fact that was forced on the designers because they had to work with
AT> what was available to them.

Completely irrelevant and an incorrect assumption. There is plenty of room
for the steering mechanism (if that is what you mean). Even room for a Turbo set up!!


AT> I posit that if the S30-series Z car was, as you quoted,
AT> "An American Sports Car - made in Japan" - then they would
AT> have made a better job of the LHD version. You can think about
AT> that every time you go to use your E-brake.

That's just too funny Alan;-) Think about that for a minute. In an "emergency" if you had to stop your Z with only a hand actuated mechanical brake - which hand would you rather grab that brake handle with? - Your stronger Right Hand - or your weaker Left Hand? If I was designing a RHD car - I'd put that e-brake handle on the right side of the drivers seat.

In a non emergency - just sitting, and later releasing, the "parking brake" - do you really prefer to use your weak arm?

Your cruising along in your GT - do you really like having that e-brake handle obstructing your reach for all the controls in the center of the car? - Do you really like having it rub your left leg as you drive hundreds or thousands of miles?

In the LHD 240-Z's that e-brake handle is exactly where I would have put it - I most certainly would not want it on the right side of the center console either.

Sorry Alan - your observations about the layout of the HLS30 are simply too far fetched to make any sense to me.

Now lets get serious about the design criteria.
1. The design team on Project Z - used US spec, human factors. A human considerably larger than the Japanese spec. As an example -the Silvia was a complete FLOP in the US because the Goertz design - was based on the human factors of the typical Japanese and the car therefore provided too little leg and head room for Americans.

2. The 2.4L in-line six - Mr. Matsuo has stated that for the Japanese market he would have used a 2.0L four cylinder (from the Fairlady 2000). The Z is a six cylinder because it was designed to meet the needs the US market.

3. The 240-Z was engineered to meet the US Safety and Emissions Standards. They "drove" many design and engineering considerations.

The Fairlady Z's are interesting and they allowed Nissan to sell a few more cars in their home market - but your assertion that they were "as important", "as significant" or evenly weighted in the design consideration of the Z - are simply - well - your opinion. However I would suggest that your opinion is not based on any real facts nor sound logic.

Lets get real Alan. It's not about a US ("devil") vs the world. It's not about the Japanese putting the British Sports Cars out of business. It's not about the 240-Z being "superior" to the home market "Fairlady". It most certainly isn't about any Japanese owners thinking their "Fairlady Z" is the "original" or that it is "superior" to the product designed for the US.

It was all about Nissan vs Toyota - Nissan vs GM - Nissan vs Ford etc. It was all about building and selling cars that the target customers wanted to buy. It was all about "customer driven quality definitions".

I doubt that anyone over 25 years old in Japan really feels that by building and selling products aimed specifically at the US market - they are selling out to the US devil ;-)

FWIW,
Carl B.

[kats]

Hello everyone,

I am very exciting about this thread.Thank you Alan and Carl,you
are making this topics very very hot.
I must reply for many things,let me tell all of you anything in my mind,maybe out of sequence or does not make sence because my poor english,please be patiant.

I got the data of S30's production number from NISSAN SHATAI.This company has been making cars for NISSAN for long time.Not every cars of NISSAN but the Z,they made.
The word"SHATAI" can be divided into"SHA"means car and "TAI"means body.So you can imagine what this company produce.Alan and Carl know about this company very well, do not you?

Why I got this is I am preparing for writing an article about S30 for japanese magazine,will be issued next year.I am not a jornalist, my job is completely defferent.I am just a man loves S30 so much.I have been wanted correct data of production numbers especialy S30's early days.So I thought again and again.
Carl,I knew there are no nice(interesting) official data from NISSAN.Because I have been reading again and again about your information on your web.And I still appreciate with your kindness about answerd for my question which I made before.

First I visited an office of Mr.YOSHIHIKO MATSUO needless to say he is known as S30's chief designer.His office is in TOKYO not a big room but a very nice place to visit.I have been keeping in touch with him since 2000 LAS VEGAS Z car convention.

I was very very surprised he stocks so many photos of S30's styling study cray models and drawings.What a lucky man I am,I did not count them but roughly there are over 100 positive photo films in his room.
He said,"I have been loving cameras,ofcource during developing S30's styling as well.I took so many photos because I was so confident about this car would be a mile stone not only for NISSAN but also for the world.At that time I did not want to feel sad when the time comes then hey,what a stupid if there woud be no photos proving my hard work."

I am sorry for deviating from the topic,but I want to say and make sure to everyone in the world that Mr.MATSUO is a real chief designer of S30. We should never mention about Mr.Albreht Georlz.He did nothing about S30's styling.Yes he taught how to develop car styling for NISSAN's young car designer,but he did not teach nor suggest nor instruct "how to make S30".These are proved by many many photos in Mr.MATSUO's room.In these photos,there are some designers I can see.Always Mr.MATSUO and other crew there,but never seen Mr.Albreht Georlz,it is clear that he did not touch any cray models nor even draw any styling pictures.Mr.MATSUO said Mr.Albreht Georlz had left well before when Mr.MATSUO and other crew had started S30's styling study and there were no message(instruction) from Mr.Albreht Georlz about S30's styling.

I want to put some prototype photos which I got from him,but I have to get a permition from him first.They are very very interesting and lots of ones never seen in some books before.I must say those positive films which Mr.MATSUO holds are color,not monoclo which we can see in some books.You will see how the S30 was developed and what things were defferent from actual sold model.The highlight is a prototype S30 which is silver,exterior panels are made of plastic, no engine and drive train but it got completely interior parts.As I see it,everything has already fixed(I mean body panel's shape and interior parts)except engine and drivetrain and exterior badges. Mr.MATSUO said this was built in april 1968 this is very important because most of parts were already manufacured such as seat belts,seat trims,dash,shift knob and so on.Even I can see hub caps they got "D" on its center.At that time the name of car was not fixed yet but hub caps was decided already,this is interesting.But you know,the car seen on ROAD and TRACK dated Jan 1970 issued did not got "D" on hub caps.There must be another story.That silver prototype is right hand drive, only got C-piller emblem but defferent design.DATSUN logo on the steering hone pad,there are two switches for parking and fog lamps.You will see 4 very small extra tyres under floor pans for moving this prototype.

Bytheway,Mr.MATSUO told me steering wheel is made of wood and plastic.I saw this topic on the web before,"real wood or plastic?"He said this technology was a very special of another japanese company,they use real wood over the metal core and pooring lickid plastic then pressed with very strong forece.So the steering wheel is made of real wood,but same time made of plastic.


Let me resume own navigation,I am telling about production numbers for 1969.Mr.MATSUO told me if I wanted to know about it,you could ask NISSAN SHATAI.I made an appointment early this month then I met Mr.HITOSHI UEMURA and EIJI OSAWA at NISSAN SHATAI office in KANAGAWA prefecture,
They are the crew who tested two silver 240Z in the U.S. and CANADA.They gave me a data of production numbers of S30 AND, they showed me a 30 minutes long video of test driving over there in OCT through DEC 1969.Actualy Mr.OSAWA was taking a 8mm video camera it was his duty also he took photos during operation.They also showed me so many photos almost same scene on the video.Alan put some photos here,they are exactly the ones which Mr.OSAWA took.Those photos and videos are very beautiful color films.I was so much impressed about them.Just so beautiful.The video did not got voice,I guess in 1969 standard?
The video starts from a map of U.S. then titled "test driving 270 in north american".You may know 270 is a code number for the S30 in the factory,we still can see this number on the back of exterior badge.I did not make confirm about this to anybody,I will ask Mr.MATSUO or someone soon.Please stay tune.

And mentioned about crew members,then listed two 240Z...... "SEISAN SHISAKU #14 HL270 U" and "SEISAN SHISAKU #15 HL270 UA". I told about SEISAN SHISAKU is production prototype.This #14 and #15 does not mean HLS30 00014 nor 00015.Carl,you are right, I was mistaking about counting.There are 11 S30s in JUL through AUG 1969.Not 11 240Zs.According to the data,I think SEISAN SHISAKU #14 and #"15 must be HLS30-00004 and 00005 produced in SEP 1969.

Now I am staying an hotel for my job,tomorrow I will be at home, I can put a photo of actual data seat.This is can be seen because I already got permition from them.

Continue about the video,then I saw the big track carrying two wood compartments,a lift loader put them land on the ground,5 or 6 people get togetherd and breaking box,I saw Mr. UEMURA and Mr.OSAWA and Mr.KATAYAMA!! he must be 60 years old at that time. While they were breaking box,the new and very clean,beautiful silver 240Z come out!!This is the most exciting moment while I was watching the VIDIO.
Two silver 240Zs and one red 510 were running from L.A. to Bakersfield first(I feel some destiny because I was living there in 1994 through 1996).There are good up slope between L.A. for testing,NISSAN's test crew always thought the car which they made must can climb this up hill easily.It is a kind of goal for them long time ago.They tested in the U.S. before the Z.Then they went to death valley for Hight temp.operation.Then they went to newolrinse,back to L.A. then sanfrancisco then into CANADA.They showed me a hand drawing of 240Z's tracking route on the map,I will put this also tomorrow.

That is all for today,I have to sleep.
Good night,
kats

[Bambikiller240]

kats:

Thank You So Much for all of the information that you are giving to us!! I look forward any additional information you are able to get permission to post, and to the continuation of this thread by all who have information to share.

PS: I KNEW the steering wheel had to be made of "wood AND plastic" (having broken one in an accident and observing the interior structure). It looked like wood that had been soaked to the core with resin or plastic. You could see the wood fibre, splinters, etc.; but it was not "plain, untreated" wood internally.

[HS30-H]

Kats,
You are doing a wonderful job. Everybody will be happy that you are sharing this with us, thank you!
It was really sad that NISSAN SHATAI became a victim of Nissan's financial troubles and the subsequent restructuring of the company. I felt sorry that all that history was going to waste......
Keep up the good work!

At this point I would like to put something on the record. I was fascinated and pleased to see the first post from Kats, and in fact Kats mentioned me by name in his post ( as I'm sure he knew I would be drawn to it like a magnet! ). When I made my first post in reply I expressed my pleasure that the figures demonstrated that RHD cars were being prototyped and pre-productioned AT THE SAME TIME as the LHD ( Export ) models. Many times in the past I have tried to get this point across to people who thought that this was not the case. There seems to be a widely held, but nonetheless mistaken belief that the RHD models were some sort of afterthought, and that as the car was ".....made for the USA market..." it must automatically follow that all the designs and prototypes for the car must have concentrated on the LHD model. Indeed, many seem to express great surprise when they see any pictures of the RHD prototypes and pre-production mules. Kats has supplied figures from Nissan Shatai that show the number of RHD models made in 1969, and to many this will be a big surprise.

It is to my great regret that the thread subsequently turned into an extremely wordy battle between myself and Carl Beck. When I look back at the whole thread now, it looks kind of polluted. These battles of ego and wit can get ugly, and I think the thread that Kats started should really deserve better. I'm sorry about that, but for my part I must say that I can't leave the RHD ( mostly Japanese domestic market ) models to be fobbed off as some kind of unworthy runts of the litter. That's why my claws come out, and I perhaps overstate my case a little. This does not mean my opinions are ALL incorrect ( IMHO ) but it does mean that things can get a little heated.

Some of you might detect a little hostility towards Carl Beck on my part and I have to apologise for that ( if you didn't notice, well that's good! ). However, this seed was planted quite some time ago when I contacted Carl to ask his opinion on some matters - Carl is undoubtedly one of the foremost authorities on the HLS30 model that was sold to the US market. I'm sorry to say that I came away from my correspondence with Carl feeling somewhat insulted by his replies to my honest queries and nonplussed at his attitude regarding the non-HLS30 models and all the Japanese Domestic models in particular. This was a great disappointment, and I'm afraid it tends to colour my correspondence with him......................

There is however some common ground. Carl has been one of the most vocal debunkers of what he calls "The Goertz Myth", and three cheers to him for that. This is something that I have been trying to convince people of since my first trip to Japan in the mid-Eighties. I was 'educated' about who actually designed the car very quickly by my Japanese friends, and I learned all about Matsuo san and his team. Its still hard to get people to believe it, but Goertz has been a total cad. I really hope that more and more people will gradually get the message about Matsuo san and his team, and Carl's writing on the subject ( at www.zhome.com ) will be instrumental in that process.

Just wanted to put that on record ( FWIW).

Sorry for helping to mess up your nice thread Kats....
Alan T.

[Alfadog]

BRAIN OVERLOAD!

There is sooo much new precious information in this topic, I'm going to have to read it over again to make sure I remember it all, you are a very determined man Kats, and I think you have a bit of luck going for you too!!! You must be so proud and honoured to have met all of those men!

Thank you so incredibly much for your input, I for one am infatuated with history and history of the Z car is even more exciting! What the best part about this is that the information is so hard to come by, that even after 30 years NEW information is coming out (for example the steering wheel! Do you know how many people have been confused by this?!).

Thank you again kats

[Zedrally]

Wow again,
Georlz de-bunked!.
Steering Wheel is wood!

The only other good news I would like to hear is about the metal G-Nose!

Keep it coming guys.

MN

PS. Don't worry about offending anyone with differing views, everyone is probably wrong anyway!

[Zedrally]

Oh, I forgot to add:
Remnants of 68 zed found by Redex Round Australia crews in Aussie outback.

[Carl Beck]

Hello Alan (everyone):
When I said I was enjoying the dialog I sincerely meant it. Wordy exchanges don't bother me ;-) and I enjoy a good exchange (this is a hobby after all;-)

I'm sorry your first contact with me was not as pleasant as it should have been Alan. I am all to often bluntly honest at the expense of tact, but I never intend to be personally offensive in that regard.

As I recall - you wrote me bitching about there not being enough information on ZHome about the Fairlady Z. Not your exact words - but that was my take on the situation and I most likely was more than a little defense;-). (feel free to correct me if my recall is incorrect -I'll go back and re-read your e-mail message.).

I get about ten e-mails per month from people bitching about my not having done enough free work to satisfy their needs/desires - so over the past ten years I've gotten a little thick skinned and maybe too snippy.

There is another old saying however - "no offense intended then none taken". I've taken our exchange here with good humor and tried to keep it that way. Heated exchanges don't bother me and they usually revel more information than less.

If you've read the articles I've written on ZHome - you know that I believe most books written about the Z Cars to date - good as they are - have missed what I refer to as "The Real Story Of The Z Car".

They have covered the available data and information about the car, some of the history of Nissan, some of the history of the previous Nissan Sports Cars... and that seems to have been their purpose. For the most part they meet their purpose and I'm not knocking them in that regard. On a much higher level however, I believe they all missed "the Real Story of the Z Car". They have missed the "Forest" for the "Trees".

In a very brief summary - my contention is that the real story of the Z Car is about industrial development in Japan post WWII. It's about industrial competition at it's best and the consumer products that come out of that competition. The real story of the Z Car is about excellence in design and engineering in the "Deming Award" sense of the term.

The Real Z Car Story is intertwined with corporate in fighting, outstanding Leadership, and yes - even very stupid decisions along the way. The real story of the Z Car is also intertwined with Japan moving from enemy of the US - to becoming a benefactor of arguably the best friend they have ever had.

In that context - the main theme is about designing the Datsun 240-Z for the US market and it's American customers.

Your position would argue that Nissan designed a "dual use" or "multiple use" automobile - one intended from the beginning for "world sales". You suggest that the success of the Datsun 240-Z in American, may have been just blind luck, good timing, cheap price... ie an unexpected benefit to Nissan. You infer that sales success in the marketplace does not mean it was a good product. (your Mac argument;-). You say the home market S30S and S30 were the main design and argue the LHD models weren't even laid out well nor properly equipped.

Your position is clearly that "all the S30's" were originally intended to be produced and therefore they should all have equal time, equal written coverage. That they are therefore all equally as important as one another. (your horse before the cart)

I argue soundly against that position - not because I feel the Fairlady is inferior but because your position is diametrically opposed to what I believe is the true story of the Z Car. You are telling people we should count and compare trees - when I'm trying to tell people the forest is what should be the focus today.

There are already lots of books listing and describing the trees IMHO. It's the forest that will preserve long term - the history of the Z and the men who delivered it.

The real story of the Z Car - is carried by the Datsun 240-Z - as specified, as designed, as built for the American market. Diverting the focus from that truth undermines building a public comprehension of the tremendous accomplishment of both Japan and Nissan; not to mention the individuals involved.

If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view their Fairlady's as "the original intent". If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view their Fairlady Z as a "Japanese Icon" to the extent that a Samurai Sword is. If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view America as simply a large market into which they sell products to the suckers (or devil). Then that would be a very sad commentary on them indeed.

My hope is that the Japanese owners of Z Cars see the Z for what it truly represents; "The First American Sports/GT designed and built entirely in Japan". A car that changed the automotive world. If they are driving a Z - they are in effect driving a domestically produced "foreign car". If they are driving a Z they are driving a First Place trophy representing a WIN - in the automotive marketing competition.

Kind regards and if you get to Clearwater - you'll be welcome in my home Alan.

Carl B.

[Alfadog]

Mate, like Alan said, this is kats' topic, if you want to continue can you just please start a new thread? I really enjoy listening in to your two (very different) views on the matter but I dont think this is the right place.

[HS30-H]

I'm going to ask Kats to make a NEW thread when he posts his next instalment of the latest news of the 1969 activities.

I can't think of any way to repair this thread whilst still leaving the verbal tennis game complete - so I am forced to continue. I just hope that Kats does not mind. I must make my attempt to answer properly, otherwise it might seem like a submission.
--------------------


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Beck
[B]A l a n Wrote:
AT> You call the Japanese domestic model S30S ( Fairlady Z )
AT> a "stripped out model" - but you seem to conveniently forget
AT> about the Fairlady Z-L.

Hi Alan:
I call it like it is. The S30S was stripped of many otherwise standard features to lower its cost in the Japanese market.
--------------
Hi Carl,
There's the evidence of your perpective again. You say "stripped of many otherwise standard features", but the base model Fairlady Z never had them in the first place. To follow your thinking through to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the HLS30 for the US market was "stripped" of its 5-speed transmission and rear anti-roll bar for the US market. You'll never agree with that. The Fairlady Z and Fairlady Z-L were DESIGNED to have the features that they did and did not have.
---------------
C>
I most certainly did not forget the Fairlady Z-L. However now that you mention it I will point out that it too was a compromise of the original design which offered lower performance. I hardly see how that would be "an improvement".
---------------
But Carl - What WAS the "original" design? You obviously think it was the US market version of the HLS30 ( as opposed to the five-speed equipped HLS30 models that were offered to some other LHD markets ). I would have thought that the figures quoted in the first post on this thread would help to point out that RHD models were being developed AT THE SAME TIME AS the LHD models ( you accepted this fact ). How does this make either one of them first? I know you will argue that it was the CONCEPT of making a Sports / GT that might sell well in the biggest single market in the World that drove the project - but the evidence does not point to this being the SINGLE target of the project.
-----------------
C>
The S30 chassis was designed for the torque and hp of the 2.4L engine. Substituting the 2.0L was a compromise not driven by customer defined product quality - but rather to accommodate then current Japanese restrictions on the displacement of gas engines. What Sports/GT owner "wants" less power?
------------------
Hold on there. Don't conveniently leave out the model that had more power than the HLS30. The PS30 Fairlady 432 and PS30-SB Fairlady 432-R were BOTH on the stand at the launch of the Z car, along with the Fairlady Z and Fairlady Z-L. Japan had a choice of FOUR model specs. to choose from at launch, and more than that from October '71. This must have been that "Japanese Ego" at work. I fire your question back at you; what Sports / GT owner wants less power, fewer and more widely spaced gears, no LSD and less sporting springing / damping? I guess you will write off the 432 with a flip comment or damn it with faint praise - but unless you have driven one I doubt that you would truly understand what a great little package it made.
-----------------------
C>
The 2.4L engine was on the other hand - driven by Mr. Katayama insisting that the US market demanded larger more powerful engines. He got his wish first in the PL 510 with the L16 and then with the 240-Z's L24.

If we must rate the to engines as either superior or inferior - then yes, we would have to conclude that the Fairlady Z got the inferior engine. It has less torque, less horsepower and it puts out significantly more greenhouse gases that pollute the atmosphere than the US spec. L24. (with no offsetting weight savings from using a smaller displacement).
----------------------
As you stated above and is well known, it was the Japanese taxation laws that restricted the capacity to 2 litres initially - but only as far as late '71. Contrary to popular belief, there WERE cars in Japan that had capacities greater than 2 litres. They were however in a more expensive taxation bracket. There were good reasons for this legislation, which I am sure you know about.
-----------------------
AT> This was - in all respects apart from its 2 litre engine - of EQUAL or SUPERIOR spec. AT> to the USA model HLS30.
C>
Come on Alan - the heart of any sports car is its engine! The 2.4L in-line six with 150HP (SAE) was one of the major factors that sat the Datsun 240-Z apart from it's competition.
------------------------
See above with regard to the S20 engine in the 432 and 432-R. I agree that the L24 was and is a great package, but the L20 was really not as bad as you seem to make out. Again, don't forget the five-speeds. I would argue that the 'heart' of the car needs to be part of a good drivetrain. I'm sorry but I feel the five speed suited the package more, and I still do not understand why the US market did not receive it as standard.
-------------------------
C>
- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the East African Safari Rally with.
- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the C-Production Championships with.
--------------------------
Absolutely. In the case of the Safari win, the car that won the '71 event was an HS30, and was homologated with the 5-speed transmission. Good job too.
Nissan was winning domestic races with the Z before both of the above achievements, which should not be written off either.
---------------------------
AT> How on earth can you posit that the USA-market model HLS30 was
AT> in any way superior to the RHD cars EXCEPT in its engine spec.?

In the first place - I never said that the 240-Z was "superior" (although it was - more power and less pollution). Also which RHD car are you referring to in this case - S30, HS30, S30S, PS30....???

What I said was the 240-Z was specifically designed for the US market - and every other variation was simply a side benefit to Nissan of no where near the significance in the overall scheme of things.
----------------------------
The USA market model "240-Z" ( HLS30 ) was specifically designed for the US market. The whole S30 chassis / model type was not.
-----------------------------
AT> You are ignoring the fact that these models were arguably better
AT> at being "sports" cars than the USA models.

I think your being silly now... Besides, the Z is a "Sports/GT". The "GT" part is as important, if not more so, in the US market than the "sports" part. Remember, the Z was designed based on US customer defined quality.
--------------------------------
My eye immediately falls on that last sentence. When you write "Z", you show your bias again. The domestic models were also "Z" cars, and were designed and prototyped alongside the US market model. There were major differences ( even in the bodyshell ) between the domestic models and the US market model, so to broadly use the "Z" letter in this way is perhaps not entirely correct - is it?
---------------------------------

[HS30-H]

AT> Nissan ( probably at Katayama's behest ) gave you a four-speed
AT> and matching diff ratio,

C>
If you don't have enough torque - you have to add gears to the tranny and teeth to the
ring and pinion. Additional moving parts reduces reliability and increases cost. Do you really think lower rear end ratio's and a five speed is "better"? It's not - its a compromise for loss of torque in the Fairlady and it was simply a local market preference in the HS30's. There was no customer demand for five speed transmissions here in the US in 1970.
----------------------
You can't have it both ways! To write off the 5-speed as both a compensation for lack of torque and a "local market preference" sounds silly. I will resist the temptation to make an obvious joke about the perceived sophistication of the US market and their lack of demand for a 5-speed. Now I need to go and look for special US market Porsches, Alfas and Lancias etc that were presumably fitted with 4-speeds. Presumably these cars would also have been less powerful in their own domestic markets, and that would be why they had 5-speeds in the first place?
-----------------------
C>
There is no question that Nissan gave the US customers what they wanted. If they wanted a five speed - it was easy to order it over the Parts Counter and simple to install.

I'd guess that at least 90% of the 240-Z's sold in the US - stayed with the 4spd. until they were driven into the ground by their owners. No doubt when the new "B" style 5spd. came out in the 280Z here - and it was time to replace the worn out transmissions on the then old 240-Z's - many of us opted to install the over-drive 5spd.
-------------------------
Might have been nice of they could have had more than one spec. to choose from though wouldn't it? Not forgetting the Auto of course. So what was it that changed the US markets' lack of demand for a 5-speed? There sure seem to be enough people that want them for retrofit these days. Sorry - I think its more evidence that the US market got one spec. and one spec. only just because it would save money and keep that sticker price down.
--------------------------

AT> softer springs and dampers and no rear anti-roll bar. This was a
AT> car MADE for the USA? I don't think so.

C>
If you don't think so - you don't really know anything about this market. It was made to suit American Consumers - driving under normal American driving conditions. "Market specific" design and engineering at its best.
We have excellent high speed freeways, excellent secondary roads and streets. We like a softer and more comfortable ride quality in our GT's.
In 1970 if you wanted a harsh, jerky ride - you bought an MG:-)
----------------------------
Again, the US market model was made to suit American Consumers. That is my point. But other markets got a different spec. Considering your previous statements about the majority of Z car production going to the US market, it would be rather surprising that Nissan went to the lengths of making the domestic and non-US market specs so different from the US spec. Would this be that "Japanese Ego" at work again?
Forget about dissing the British "sports car" to me - you are preaching to the converted. Poking fun at my domestic product is water off a duck's back. I've owned 'em and I've driven 'em. If you don't like them then that's something we have in common.........
----------------------
AT> The USA-market HLS30 was a spec. that was aimed at a certain market,
AT> but you can't say that the layout of the car made any sense in LHD form.

C>
"the layout of the car" - what in the world are you talking about?

Let me guess ;-)
When you pull up to the gas pumps at your local petro station - do you like having to open the drivers door against the pump island and squeezing out between the car and pump island? (we have our gas filler on the right side of the car - where the gas pumps are - and we have plenty of room to get in and out of the car on the left. I suppose you could pull up with the pumps on the Left - but then you'd have to pull the gas hose across the car to reach the filler. I would think that if the car was designed as a RHD model - it would have been a better design to put the gas filler neck on the Left side of the car.
--------------------
Giggles. I'm just thinking of the Japanese pump hoses that retract into the air, and the lack of self-serve pumps. When I used to buy petrol in Japan I never used to get out of the car, and the attandants used to bring the hose down from 'on high' - a really neat arrangement. I'm also thinking of the length of our hoses here in the UK ( don't go there! ). Despite being such a small little island, we still seem to manage to have enough space to park close enough to the pumps to get the hose in without stretching too much, and far away enough from the pump to open the door.
Careful Carl, that last sentence might get taken out of context as a CJB quote: ".........the car was designed as a RHD model.........".

No, the "duality" of the bodyshell is of prime interest to me. We've had discussions on this site before now about this ( don't know if you ever saw them? ) and the general concensus was that a fair amount of duality was built into the basic body design to allow it to be both LHD and RHD up to a point. Maybe this point was before all the pressings were put together into a fully-formed shell - but the evidence of duality is there nonetheless. This was most interestingly contrasted in the Hand Brake / E-Brake / Parking Brake location - which never moved from the right side of the tunnel.
No, I would have thought the fuel filler position was dictated by the location of the exhaust pipe for safety reasons, and by the offset of the tank to that side? I see this as a foregone conclusion considering that the L-series engine and the S20 engine both have the exhaust manifold on the left side of the cars they are used in.
--------------------
C>In a more general sense - I like left hand drive cars. I like using my right hand to work all the controls that are normally centered in any car... radio, heater, AC, GPS, Cell Phone, shift lever.. I guess one can get used to using one's left hand for all that - but most people in the world are right handed and their left hand isn't as precise. Give any design Engineer a choice of where to put controls for good human factors considerations and you will find that they always put them on the "right". That's one reason that Command Pilots fly in the Left Seat no matter what country they are from.
I really can't think of anything related to the "layout" of the 240-Z that I would change.
---------------------
Carl, you just damned ALL of us RHD market drivers. We have to use our 'wrong' hand to do everything! That's why we are inferior to the rest of the world, I suppose!
I thought you were an engineer? Surely an engineer would look at the layout of the LHD Z with a half tank of 'gas' and just the driver on board ( presumably the majority of time this would be the case ) and conclude that a little weight redistribution would not go amiss? You know - move the inlet and exhaust manifolds to the other side of the engine bay and stuff like that. No? Oh well.
Carl, have you actually driven an early Z car in RHD form?
---------------------
AT> The layout of the engine and trans forced the controls of the driver's
AT> side to avoid the induction and exhaust manifolds. Sorry - but that's a
AT> fact that was forced on the designers because they had to work with
AT> what was available to them.

C>
Completely irrelevant and an incorrect assumption. There is plenty of room
for the steering mechanism (if that is what you mean). Even room for a Turbo set up!!
---------------------
I'll tell you what I see as relevant from my statement. The L-series engine was configured in one particular way - with the manifolds on one side of the engine. So was the S20 engine. Your perspective probably means that you see this as being evidence that the L-series engine was configured to be used mainly for LHD Export applications. I would not agree.
----------------------

[HS30-H]

AT> I posit that if the S30-series Z car was, as you quoted,
AT> "An American Sports Car - made in Japan" - then they would
AT> have made a better job of the LHD version. You can think about
AT> that every time you go to use your E-brake.

C>
That's just too funny Alan;-) Think about that for a minute. In an "emergency" if you had to stop your Z with only a hand actuated mechanical brake - which hand would you rather grab that brake handle with? - Your stronger Right Hand - or your weaker Left Hand? If I was designing a RHD car - I'd put that e-brake handle on the right side of the drivers seat.
In a non emergency - just sitting, and later releasing, the "parking brake" - do you really prefer to use your weak arm?
Your cruising along in your GT - do you really like having that e-brake handle obstructing your reach for all the controls in the center of the car? - Do you really like having it rub your left leg as you drive hundreds or thousands of miles?
In the LHD 240-Z's that e-brake handle is exactly where I would have put it - I most certainly would not want it on the right side of the center console either.
Sorry Alan - your observations about the layout of the HLS30 are simply too far fetched to make any sense to me.
--------------------
Why do Americans call it the "Emergency Brake"? Where I come from, we call it the Hand Brake. I don't think we think of it as anything other than a parking brake. In Japan they call them the "Side Brake". In both cases, I don't think anybody expects to use it "in an emergency"! Spirited drivers ( especially rally drivers ) make great use of them - but not usually in an emergency. I think the "E-Brake" term is colouring your perception of what this control is designed to do.
If you have not read it, then I would recommend that you search out the thread we had going here a few months back on this very subject. I noticed lots of comments about Hand Brake handles ( I'll use the English term ) rubbing or interfering with legs. Visions of splayed-leg driving styles and extremely chunky thighs came to mind. Anyone who has driven a RHD Z just knows that this is not an issue. I've driven both RHD and LHD configuration of Z - so I do have personal experience to call on.
I also have to point out that when I'm driving my RHD cars I usually drive them with the Hand Brake 'off' ( ie - down ). If you think that the handle might get in way of the normal ergonomic operation of the car then I would have to say that yours must be faulty. Either that or you are a VERY big man indeed!
You say that if you were designing an RHD car you'd put the handle on the RIGHT side of the driver's seat? I say that would be a health hazard when getting in and out ( or at the very least 'stimulating' if you were not careful! ) and a nightmare for cable and linkage mounting. If you like this kind of thing, then I can recommend a Bentley "R" type or Wolseley 6/90 - both of which had gearlevers on the right side of their RHD seats and created a few falsettos amongst their owners!
-----------------
Carl>
Now lets get serious about the design criteria.
1. The design team on Project Z - used US spec, human factors. A human considerably larger than the Japanese spec. As an example -the Silvia was a complete FLOP in the US because the Goertz design - was based on the human factors of the typical Japanese and the car therefore provided too little leg and head room for Americans.
-------------------
The CSP 311 was a sales 'flop' for a lot more reasons than that one. Save me the reply to this one, and I do know a fair bit about the car and what the Americans said about it. You might like to consider that it was a flop in Japan too - but obviously not because it was considered too small inside for Japanese drivers.
-------------------
C>
2. The 2.4L in-line six - Mr. Matsuo has stated that for the Japanese market he would have used a 2.0L four cylinder (from the Fairlady 2000). The Z is a six cylinder because it was designed to meet the needs the US market.
-------------------
What about all the other domestic six-cylinder models? Prince brought plenty of six-cylinder designs with them and the C10 Skyline ( always thought of as the 'brother' to the S30-series Z in Japan ) had a big range of engines that included more sixes than fours. The C10 was never seriously targeted at the Export market, so why did it have a six? The truth is that Nissan's engines were growing anyway. This was a time of great change in Japan ( and at Nissan ) and I challenge you to think a little more of what the Japanese market was starting to demand, and not JUST what they thought the US market and other export markets wanted.
------------------------
C>
3. The 240-Z was engineered to meet the US Safety and Emissions Standards. They "drove" many design and engineering considerations.
------------------------
I agree, but mainly in respect to the US-market "240-Z". Many other design and engineering considerations applied to the other models, and some overlapped.
-------------------------
C>
The Fairlady Z's are interesting and they allowed Nissan to sell a few more cars in their home market - but your assertion that they were "as important", "as significant" or evenly weighted in the design consideration of the Z - are simply - well - your opinion. However I would suggest that your opinion is not based on any real facts nor sound logic.
-------------------------
Again you are looking at things in hindsight. Your beliefs seem to hinge on the fact that the US-market car was a huge sales and marketing success. But what if the Z had flopped in the US for some particular reason? ( go on - try to imagine it ). Imagine if another foreign car maker had trumped Nissan and made a better and cheaper car that sold like hot cakes. Would you judge the car in the same way? You might say yes - but I think a really big part of your position and philosophy about these cars comes from the fact that they were seen as being successful. I guess that looking at things from where you experienced them makes this inevitable, but I do invite you to step outside that view and look at this from another perspective. Stop the clock at the Tokyo Motor Show stand in late '69 and judge the cars on the stand. I see a family of cars, and each one of them has good points and bad points. I know which ones I prefer, but I also appreciate why the ones that I do not prefer came out the way they did. Forget about your story of what the HLS30 achieved in the US market ( even though it deserves a book on the subject ) and just think of what was there. Anything else at that time was just a question mark. We know how it turned out, but I think you are using the result as too much of the story of how the cars were born. The S30-series Z is a family of cars, and not just one market-specific model.
------------------
C>
Lets get real Alan. It's not about a US ("devil") vs the world. It's not about the Japanese putting the British Sports Cars out of business. It's not about the 240-Z being "superior" to the home market "Fairlady". It most certainly isn't about any Japanese owners thinking their "Fairlady Z" is the "original" or that it is "superior" to the product designed for the US.
It was all about Nissan vs Toyota - Nissan vs GM - Nissan vs Ford etc. It was all about building and selling cars that the target customers wanted to buy. It was all about "customer driven quality definitions".
I doubt that anyone over 25 years old in Japan really feels that by building and selling products aimed specifically at the US market - they are selling out to the US devil ;-)
FWIW,
Carl B. [/B][/QUOTE]
------------------
Well, you seem to have taken a lot of notice of one remark - and I would guess that it might have touched a raw nerve in the US vs the rest of the world zeitgeist that seems to prevail in much of the USA at the moment. The point I was trying to make with the Robert Johnson story was that anybody hoping to gain success in a particular field might be forced to make a compromise, or water down their ideal a little in order to gain that success. In relation to the design of the S30-series Z car, I meant this to be taken that the original ideals or dreams of the designers might have been compromised slightly by the perceived needs or standards of its biggest ( potential ) market JUST AS WELL AS their obvious intention to make and market RHD versions that included a high-performance version and a race homologation special based on it.

Here is one of the biggest problems that I have with your position. You seem to believe that the US market HLS30 was in no way compromised by Nissan's intention to make these RHD models. However, by the same token you seem to believe that these RHD models were compromised because the whole design was geared towards the US market model. Sorry, but if you think this way then I think you do not have enough information and experience of the RHD models.
-----------------

[HS30-H]

I certainly wasn't trying to make anything like an anti-US stance on this - so I'm sorry you seem to have taken it that way.

Ultimately, I would like to see more recognition of the domestic and non-US Export models of S30-series Z car outside Japan. I see very little about those cars on zhome.com ( I note that its called "zhome" and not "HLS30home" or "US-market Datsun 240-Zhome" - so I would hope for a little more mention of other Z models there ).

I've been trying to make the effort here on classiczcars.com ( p****** in the wind, it could be said ) and for the most part the ( mainly US-based ) members and visitors to the site SEEM to be both interested and surprised to hear many details about the non-US market cars. Especially the fact that RHD cars were designed and prototyped at the same time as the US-market model. Still, that's just my perception of their interest - so who knows, maybe this also is a figment of my imagination.

Respectfully,
Alan T.

[kats]

Hello,
I have got a permition from Mr.Matsuo to post some photos.
Mr.Matsuo does not have a computer in his office,so he asked
me please say hello to everyone seeing this web.

I am sorry for bad quality of this photo because I can only use home video camera.

First,a lady with a Z prototype which is made of plastic.Please note different door jam mechanism and C-piller emblem.They(design team)wanted to emphasise this car is very gentle for ladies getting into/out of the cockpit even she is wearing beautiful skirt.Mr.Matsuo told she is also a member of design team.

I said this photo was taken in Apr 1968 in this thread,but this is not correct.
Mr. Matsuo said,"I do not remember exactly but this photo was taken in summer 1969.This car called DESIGN PROTOTYPE not only for developing styling but also for displaying and explaining to excutives of NISSAN to obtain their approval .The design team made these models from early 1968.Already those models had got complete interior parts.This could be a 4th or 5th model.Mr.Matsuo said this car might build in early 1969.

[kats]

Explain soon.

[kats]

continue

[kats]

that is all for 1969

[dohc]

Hi All,

I'd just like to add a couple of lines to thank Kats for the great info and pics (bring 'em on) that he is bringing to this site. It's great!

I'd also like to add my support for Alan in the massive argument that has ensued from the first post. I've driven enough old japanese cars (Isuzu Bellets and the like) and world cars (the Gemini or Impluse in the States) to know design concession when I see them.

The hand brake is the glaring example in the Zed, and I just want to say that if I did have to use it in an emergency I know which hand I want on the wheel, and it ain't my left (Same goes for hard driving now that I think about it)

Thanks for the spirited argument (discussion?) as I'm learning heaps.

Cheers,
Ross.

BTW: I've seen clay mockups of three possible body designs for the Zed and they are ALL RHD. I'll find the pics and scan them to add some wood to the fire

[lordbiotree]

I'll have to give it to Kats. I think your a very great man. You have gone out of your way to give us information without a fee. Most of us here in the states haven't seen before. You'll Always be rembered.

As for Alan and Carl, All I have too say is both of you make very good points which I (most of us) have never really paid attention too.

I think this thread should be saved and not forgotten. It should be put in it's own folder. If you have to search to find it then it'll only be accessible to people who know what there looking for. As for me I'm saving it for future reference.

Just some Food-for-thought.
-Brandon

[lordbiotree]

One more thing. Isn't that a RHD prototype? There doesnt Look to be much of a difference in the body designs.

[kats]

Hello everyone,

I am so glad that many people enjoy these rare photos.But not so great quality makes some one irritate,does not it?

Alan,do not worry!!I always enjoy your posting here so please do not say apologize for it!! We all are loving Z,so we all are here,right? I know when you are talking about RHD or LHD,you become a bit obstinate(is this word suitable?)man.But is it bad thing?I do not think so.We know it is welcomed to post any kind of opinion of the Z that is related and oriented from one's true heart.(except for comercial).I can see Carl also welcomes your opinion and that argument sometimes gives us good ideas for
someone.This is great,is not it ?

Alan, I think we are always surprsing your magnificent knowlege about the Z and your HOT heart for the Z.And I agree with your many opinions posted here so far.But some opinions are different from mine.I can not list them up all because there are so many points. I can say,your effort for telling about RHD and Japanese market Z certainly inspires for a lot of people in the U.S.A.

I remenber when I met you first at FUJI speedway in 2001.I was surprised you talked perfect japanese and same time I was surprised you said you could not write nor read!!This is strange for me.Do you all know japanese people must study english from elementaly school but most of us can not speak.This is a big ploblem in Japan anyway.

During driving back home from FUJI speedway,we talk a lot.And find we are very very similler eachother but aiming completely oposite situation about Z.
I love Z so much,Alan you love Z so much,I want Japanese people to know what DATSUN 240Z(U.S. model) look like and how 240Z have been loved in the U.S.Then you want people in the U.S. to know what RHD Z look like and how RHD Z have been loved in Japan (and U.K and Australia).I always think why Japanese people do not look DATSUN 240Z,and always they are talking about Fairlady Z.Alan always think why people in the U.S. do not look RHD Z,and always talking about DATSUN 240Z.I want put some different views to Japanese people,Alan want to put some different view to people in the U.S....... We immediatly respected our different situation eachother and still this have been continued.What a interesting story,I think so by myself.

Today I post here is a photo of prototype Z's interior.This Z is the
one which I posted before"a lady with a Z".
Please note glossy steering column cover,a fog lamp switch above a hazard switch.How many people are able to find the steering wheel is different from DATSUN 240Z?This steering wheel is just same as Japanese(not sure for all RHD,tell us Alan!)Z.The difference is,a horn pad's position.This photo shows the horn pad is positiond just same surface of steering wheel.You already know DATSUN 240Z's horn pad is far inside from a steering wheel.The steering wheel's spokes have different angle between DATSUN 240Z and Fairlady Z.

And the hand is Mr.Matsuo's.He said light/wiper combo switch was a very special featuring of Z.And he said no car had equipped like this comfortable switch before the Z.Mr.Matsuo had been planing this switch for long time and he had tryed to persuade parts manufacure to make this switch.But first they did not say yes, even they said to Mr.Matsuo"Are you serious?you are crazy"because it was so difficult to combine light and wiper switch in a same piece.Mr.Matsuo kept negotiating,and finaly the manufacture managed to make this switch.

One more thing,you can see the watch on Mr.Matsuo's left hand.
This is a special order made of Citizen(Japanese manufacture).
They made only one for Mr.Matsuo and he was inspired by this watch to design Z's watch which is equipped only for Fairlady Z,
a watch which got stop watch mechanism.He also did his best to persuade manufacture to make the special watch for Z.

See you soon,

kats

[HS30-H]

Fantastic new information, Kats - thank you!

I don't want to dwell on it too much - but thank you sincerely for your encouragement to me. You do a very good and important job of raising awareness of the Export models in Japan, and I have great respect for that. We are both trying to achieve a balanced perspective, I think. It pains me when people call the RHD cars ( and the Domestic models in particular ) "irrelevant", as its clear that just as much effort went into them as the LHD models.

Those photos of production charts that you supplied for 1969 ( Japanese calendar year Showa 44 ) are things of wonder to me. Its so good to have an official document to back up those figures from Nissan Shatai that were in your first post. I think that the figures speak for themselves.

Regarding the Steering Wheel and Horn Pad question, I have never had the opportunity to compare the differences side-by-side in my hands. However, I believe that ALL ( RHD or LHD ) Export steering wheels were the same, and changed at the same time too. I always believed that the Japanese domestic model difference was for ergonomic reasons ( reach ) and wondered about safety too. I always point out the extra seat brackets on the Domestic bodyshells ( not fitted to Export models ) that allowed the seat runners to be unbolted from the floor and repositioned further forward - essentially allowing a very short driver ( especially Japanese ladies ) to reach the pedals and other controls safely and comfortably. I think this is part of the same thinking.

Matsuo san's combined rotary column switch / stalk is a thing of wonder too. One of the things that hit me when I first drove a Z was just how clever and convenient this was to use. I also saw and used the equivalent on many more modern Nissan models when I was living in Japan. Its a shame Matsuo san could not patent it. When I was living there, I also noted the regulation about switching from dipped headlamps down to sidelights when waiting at traffic signals or an intersection ( in order to avoid blinding oncoming traffic ) and I always thought this was a great idea. The rotary switch makes this operation just a finger-flick away. Excellent idea and excellent engineering. They last a long time too!

Matsuo san's Citizen watch is a lovely story too. It is so typical of a man like Matsuo to appreciate the fine things, and to be inspired by good design and engineering and apply that inspiration to his own designs.

The mystery lady with the prototype car photo is fascinating. I'm not sure if the photo is distorted, but the quarter window shape looks different from the final design, and possibly the windscreen rake also? There were a lot more of these clays and plastic prototypes than the previously published photos normally show. I am very very glad that Matsuo san has kept them, along with his original sketches for the body shapes. One day we will be able to give the team that designed, engineered and built the S30-series Z its true acclaim, and Matsuo san's collection will be valuable evidence for this.

This is all very inspiring Kats. Sincerely - thank you.

Alan T

[daddz]

"kats":
Many thanks for the information that you have been able to provide with regard to the S30 series (not that you haven't heard this before) as it has been sorely missed for many years in the United States.
My first question is with regard to the last of the S30 production, namely the 1977 and 1978 models; is there any record of "special" models such as the "Black Pearl" from '78 or the "ZAP" edition of 1977? While I appreciate the early S30 I continue to have an affinity for the '77 and '78 models and yet there seems to be so little information available for these cars in terms of production data and specification (i.e. the number of '78's painted Wine Red Metallic #611).
Alan:
Thanks for the crusade to help us Yanks understand that the S30 was built and designed in Japan regardless of where it was "planned" to be sold. Not to bring a new argument but, with regard to Albrecht Goertz, it is hard to dismiss his influence on another fine and yet under-appreciated car, the Toyota 2000GT, which has at least a common familial tie to Nissan by way of Yamaha. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Again, thanks to kats for all of his efforts for the S30 and thank goodness for Matsuo-san for keeping such fine records and photos.

[ZSource]

For those of you who might be interested in a rare Japan domestic market Fairlady Z that appears to have been built in December 1969 (s30-000669), follow this link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6187
The car is in San Diego. I have no personal interest in this auction.

[v12horse]

This thread has been of great interest to me. I started reading it earlier today during a study break. While I was studying I was catching myself thinking about the contents of this thread. I then quickly went back to o-chem. I just finished reading everything after many study breaks.

Kats, you provided some great information on production dates and some very intriguing facts on the Z car. I am trying expand my knowledge on the Z car, and especially the Japanese versions. Thanks to people like you and Alan, and many others, this is possible.

Was the clock that you mentioned that was inspired by Matsuo's watch the "Calender Clock?" If it is the one I am thinking of it is very much like a watch due to the date display that a watch has. This is interesting to me because I bought a calender clock (Rally clock) for my 260z. It is a beautiful piece.

Alan, you are not wasting your time by posting pictures or articles on the site about the Japanese versions because many of us are really interested in them, and it is hard to come by information on the Fairlady's.

Eventhough I have been inactive on the forum for a few months due to my studies, threads like this keep me coming to this forum. The knowledge that members of this forum have is mindblowing to a Z fan such as I. I hope someday to take all of this information that I am learning about the Z car and use it as some do. I will stop babbling away. Thanks everyone on this thread for great insight.
Regards,
Ben

[kats]

Hello,every one

I am so sorry for this late replying.

"daddz"
I am sorry I do not have good information about late year Z like 77-78. I have been focusing on only earliest Z so far.
From 73late to78,these year's exported models are mistery for japanese people. When Z got big bumpers and bigger engine 2.6L and 2.8L,in Japan, engine was still 2.0L and same narrow bumpers.

I have to mention one thing,Mr.Matsuo had already left
NISSAN in summer 1973.Why?He did great great job did not he?
I do not know and Mr.Matsuo does not say much about it.
There must be some reason,and I guess NISSAN was not clever.

So maybe you know,2+2 was finished it's design in 1969.It was Mr.Matsuo's design and his team made many plastic design prototype for 2+2.This is a famous episode,when Mr.K saw 2+2 prototype's photo in 1969,he was surprised that Mr.Matsuo was thinking far ahead.Mr.K said to Mr.Matsuo"2+2 is great,but I want 240Z immediately!!"Because Mr.K was wishing he could start to sell 240Z in the U.S. some around OCT but he knew it was impossible.

On the other hand,Mr.Matsuo did not touch anything about bigger bumper nor many design changed in late 1973.
Even Mr.Matsuo said he did not design emblem with air out let
started from early 197‚P.At that time,"parts grope"had started
and they did actual design to meet various regulation changing.

He closed his S30 design team in late 1969.So I think Mr.Matsuo's work effected mainly 1969-1970 Z.But Mr.Matsuo said "I did ZG nose assembly,early 1971 I made ZG nose prototype and I equipped them and I tested in TOMEI highway in japan"

I think ZG is last Mr.Matsuo's design?

And I will start a new thread for some photo.

kats

[240 in OZ]

Kats

Please provide us with direction to the new thread when you start it via this one.

Thanks

[Carl Beck]

Kats Wrote:
K>I have to mention one thing,Mr.Matsuo had already left
K> NISSAN in summer 1973.Why?He did great great job did not
K> he? I do not know and Mr.Matsuo does not say much about it.
K> There must be some reason,and I guess NISSAN was not
K> clever.

Hi Kats (everyone)
Mr. Matsuo wrote a couple of comments about that.. in the Book "Fairlady Story Datsun SP/SR & Z".

Mr. Matsuo said; "After the Z, I was involved with the styling of the Laurel, the 230 Cedric and the hardtop version of the Gloria. The latter line of vehicles had almost disappeared, but I suggested basing it on a modified Cedric chassis. They were all well-received, but in the end, I still got into trouble as my boss said the Gloria now looked better than the company flagship Cedric.

With my habit of disregarding company lines of command and constantly going straight to the top, my superiors decided to move me sideways to head the interior development section. My father died during this period and I couldn't help feeling I had let him down.

Thinking about the future, I concluded the company didn't put enough emphasis on styling. They seemed to forget that no matter how strong the business is, if the vehicle isn't attractive, it simply won't sell. As I fought the system, my passion was fast starting to dwindle, but I decided I still wanted to make a difference regarding Japanese car design. In the summer of 1973 I left Nissan to set up my own consultancy."

Mr. Matsuo adds in an Epilogue:
"On reflection, I am sad to think of the way Nissan treated Mr. Katayama. Normally, the prepare a special job for their top executives to see them into their retirement, but nothing was done for him, even though the company's success in America was due entirely to his work.

I was also disappointed when my boss - the very man who was initially against the Plan A theme (the Z car..cjb)..stepped up to receive the annual President's Prize (the highest award in Nissan) for the Z Car; I wasn't even invited to the ceremony."

Mr. Matsuo concludes by saying;
"I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the thousands of owners in America (and other export markets) who bought the Z during a period when Japanese vehicles were still being looked down upon. May your enjoyment of the Z-car continue for many years to come."

FWIW,
Carl B.

[lordbiotree]

WOW, That is the most informative article I've read.

shows the difference between Nissan and Mr. Matsuo.
-Brandon

[LEE240ZPERTH]

I for one have found this post to be quite addictive so thanks to all who have contributed.

I have a couple of comments which are quite insignificant considering the amount of information that has been provided during the course of the many threads to this post, but I'll make them anyway.

Firstly I have never seen the Handbrake (E brake) as anything but a brake to be applied when parked or as an aide for hillstart's.

I have been driving 240 Zeds (RHD) for many years and despite my being somewhat larger than I would like to be, I have never had a problem with the positioning of the handbrake or even thought about it until seeing Carl's comments.

There were many good points raised in the many threads of this post but one has stuck in my mind, Carl's comment that the 240 Zed was an American Sports/GT car made in Japan seems to me to be a little arrogant, surely the correct statement should be that the 240 Z (S30) was a Japanese car made in Japan with the HLS30 simply an American specification, a variant of the S30 series of cars.

I would also suggest that on the "evidence" the original design s looks to have been based on the RHD form, this is not to suggest that the Nissan marketing team were not planning a major offensive on the American consumer at exactly the same time with the LHD form the first to be exported on mass.

The information from Katz show's that both RHD and LHD were in focus at the same time but the overall layout does seem to point to the initial design thought being based on the RHD car, Carl's arguments against Alan's comments on this, to me, do not hold water, hence my aforementioned comment regards the Handbrake.

Whilst the largest potential market for a great value, well equiped fantastic looking sports tourer was indeed the US, I would suggest that the S30 series of cars were designed ultimately for sales in all markets, hence the number of varients.

Afterall if Australia had in excess of 200 or so million people in 1969 all of the information today would be on the HS30 and it's sales into Australia!?

Just my thought's

Regards

Lee

[Carl Beck]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEE240ZPERTH
[B]I for one have found this post to be quite addictive so thanks to all who have contributed.
.......snipped..cjb
There were many good points raised in the many threads of this post but one has stuck in my mind, Carl's comment that the 240 Zed was an American Sports/GT car made in Japan seems to me to be a little arrogant, surely the correct statement should be that the 240 Z (S30) was a Japanese car made in Japan with the HLS30 simply an American specification, a variant of the S30 series of cars.
....snipped..cjb
END QUOTE -=


Hi Lee (everyone):

I believe that you are allowing a mistaken perception on your part of "American arrogance" on my part - to mislead you in this discussion.

While I am very willing to admit to a certain amount of arrogance - in this particular case it is actually praise that I argue for. Praise for a Japanese Designer named Mr. Matsuo and a Japanese Manager named Yutaka Katayama.

Your perception seems to support the mistaken belief that a Japanese Designer was not capable of designing a product for any market other than Japan. That somehow the Japanese are too... well .. "Japanese" to ever sit cultural ideology aside. You would seem to side with Alan in the mistaken belief that it was just good timing, just luck, just the result of a huge rich market - that lead to the sales of 85% of the Z Cars produced coming to America. Additionally, that no one expected the Z Car to sell in the huge numbers it did (it was just a pleasent surprise for Nissan that the Z in America outsold the Fairlady Z in Japan).

That rational would seem be in line with most of the books written about the Z Car, by English authors. They too seem willing, without much serious research, nor investigative reporting to verify factual information; most, all but rush to attribute the original design of the Z to an American Citizen - one Albright Goertz.

They seem to believe, as you do, that Nissan had to hire someone outside of Japan to design a car for the American market. Clearly that is what Mr. Goertz has lead them to believe, or at least report in their books. According to Mr. Goertz he was really hired by Nissan because they wanted to design a car for sale in America.

The facts on the other hand, are clearly outlined by Mr. Katayama and Mr. Matsuo in the book they authored in Japan - "FAIRLADY STORY - Datsun SP/SR & Z". The Design and Production of the Sports/GT that we know as the Z Car - were driven by American requirements. That however is only a simple fact. The real story of the Z Car goes much deeper and is much more significant.

My fear is that with your perspectives - you really miss the real story of the Z Car and it's significance in the history of the automobile.

If you read the above referenced book (Fairlady Story)- you will see that Mr. Matsuo clearly states that his original concept (his Plan A) was for a roadster, with a four cylinder engine. He wanted it to be a world class sports car for Nissan. He then steps you though the design as it evolved "driven" by requirements from America and Mr. K.

The resulting Sports/GT - a six cylinder, coupe that we know as the Z Car today, is quite different than even Mr. Matsuo had envisioned at the beginning.

To argue that the Z Car was designed by the Japanese for the Japanese, with the hope of selling a few in the export markets - is to greatly reduce the significant accomplishments of both Mr. Katayama and Mr. Matsuo.

In The Words Of The Chief Of Design:
Let’s take a look at the Design Process and Drivers - as outlined by Mr. Matsuo, the Chief of Design on the Datsun 240-Z Design Team, in the book “FAIRLADY STORY Datsun SP/SR & Z” by Yutaka Katayama and Yoshihiko Matsuo, as published in Japan by MIKI Press.

Mr. Matsuo states (relating to export markets)
"35 years ago Nissan products were not highly regarded, they sold because they were cheap."

When he became the head of the Sports Car Design Section, he wanted to produce an original sports car that could embody the spirit of the best the U.S. and Europe had to offer and ultimately see it compete on equal terms.

"When Mr. Katayama came back from America Mr. K. said we could go on making cheap economy cars forever, but by doing so, we would never be able to move forward in the export markets."

When the new sports car project first started Mr. Matsuo felt that this couldn’t simply be a full model change based on the Fairlady roadster. He was conscious of the fact that there were new safety regulations to consider (again referring to the US), and this latest car had to be both more comfortable and considerably more practical than its predecessors.

Mr. Matsuo said that the car had to be a high volume seller, at least 3000 units per month. (compared to 400 units per month for the Fairlady roadster in 1965).

Mr. Matsuo’s superiors thought it was a foolish plan – only Mr. K would listen to him and it was Mr. K’s support (for the US Customer) that kept the project rolling.

We can see clearly from the above that the American Market was starting to drive the design. Nonetheless at that point at the beginning of 1965, Mr. Matsuo had his own ideas of what the car should be. His original concept (Plan A) was that of a smaller roadster with a four-cylinder engine.

As it became clear that American requirements were driving the design, Mr. Matsuo’s original concept was allowed to evolve accordingly. He reports that:

1. Mr. K’s requirement for a 2.4L engine caused the car to be made wider and increased the height and length of the hood.
2. The US Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (MVSS) directed it be a coupe instead of a roadster.
3. The MVSS cited SAE standards stated that the headlights should be 60 cm off the ground - this drove the use of the sugar scoop headlight treatment. Headlight covers were illegal in the US at the time, but were retained as an option for Japan.

Mr. Matsuo wrote: “In final prototype, with full interior, was completed in the Spring of 1968. It was duly wheeled into the display hall and seeing it sitting there, low and wide, I thought how much better it looked than the original Plan A model.” “I had every confidence it was going to sell well.”


Mr. Matsuo’s final comment in that book (which he and Mr. K Authored) is:

Quote – I’d like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the thousands of owners in America (and other foreign markets) who bought the Z during a period when Japanese vehicles were still looked down upon. May your enjoyment of the Z-Car continue for many years to come. – END QUOTE.

I believe that Mr. Matsuo proved 1) that a Japanese Designer was fully capable of designing a car for any target market in the world, 2) that Mr. Goertz's theory that only a single designer can produce a unified design was wrong (Mr. Matsuo lead a team of designers), and 3) that TQM was the pathway to success for any product.

The position that you presently hold - would negate all of that and flies in the face of very significant factual history related to the Z Car. It isn't arrogant to say that the Datsun 240-Z is an "American Sports/GT" - it's recognition of very accomplished design. One that should have been recognized with a Deming Prize.

FWIW,
Carl

Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com

[HS30-H]

Tee hee. This thread is still a smouldering ember it seems.

Carl, I think you do seem to go much too far over the top in your defence. Some of the statements that you put forth, and attribute to the non-believers like me, go quite a lot beyond what people really think and believe.

I think ( and I speak mainly for myself here of course ) that the main thing that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge is that the S30-series Z was quite obviously designed to cater for both RHD and LHD versions. Now, notice that I wrote "S30-series Z" and NOT "240Z". I think when talking and writing about the first generation of Z cars - in all forms and variations - we ALL ought to follow the cues of the manufacturer, and say "S30-series Z". To say or write "240Z" when referring to a whole family of cars simply causes confusion, and is the root cause of a lot of misunderstandings about these cars.

As for believing that the enormous success of the Z in the USA market was any kind of an accident or pure good fortune ( you quote "luck" ) , well - I don't think I've ever said that ( unless you have taken something out of context ) and of course it would be wrong to believe that. I don't think anybody disputes that Nissan hoped to sell a huge proportion of their product to the largest single export market in the World. I would think it was a relief rather than a "surprise" that the car did so well. You seem to forget that at no stage until the car actually started selling like hot cakes in the USA was this success ever a 'done deal' or a foregone conclusion..........

And who said a Japanese designer would not be capable of designing a product for any other market than Japan? You are just putting words into other peoples mouths.

You might like to try and read between the lines a little too. In order to challenge your entrenched position that the USA-market specific HLS30 model was in some way the Big Mac of the Z range and that somehow all other models and variants are "niche market" models, it becomes necessary to throw a bit of rhetoric your way. You seem to over-react to this sometimes. For my own part, I would like to see you ( as something of an oracle when it comes to these cars - at least as far as the World Wide Web is concerned ) in some way acknowledge that the RHD and LHD versions were conceived, designed, developed and productionised at the same time.

You will remember ( about 5 pages or so ago ) that this thread started with Kats posting some absolutely fascinating new information from Nissan Shatai and Matsuo san with regard to the 1969 production numbers. Your own first post in reply immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion with regard to my own posted reply to Kats. You seemed to pounce immediately on the perceived threat of somebody claiming that an HS30 model might have been produced in 1969 ( which is something that we can argue about as much as we like and get nowhere, and until we get better info is just conjecture anyway ). For me it was significant that indisputable proof had been produced that RHD models were produced at the same time as LHD models. I think you immediately overlooked this, and jumped on my imaginary claim - did you not? That's how it looked to me and a few other people, anyway. To me that kind of summed up your approach.

You have now started getting your critical teeth into the books ( which you say were written by "English authors" - but I would possibly advise you to say 'British' ) who promoted the idea that Goertz "created" the S30-series Z car. In answer to this I say two things. First of all, the greatest blame for this has to go to Goertz himself for shameless self-promotion and the spread of doubt, lies and myths that were never properly quashed as they should have been by Nissan USA. I think you and I both agree that Goertz is the cowboy with the black hat in this particular western.
Secondly, I think its possibly a little rich of you to accuse these authors of a 'lack of research' on their subjects. In many cases they were repeating information that they had taken in good faith with regard to what you call "The Goertz Myth" from figures who really should have known better. In fact, USA-based authors were never immune to this failing either. Your friend Ben Millspaugh dedicated sections of his book "Z Car - A Legend In Its Own Time" to several people who have been, and still are, die-hard Goertz fans; namely, Lynne Godber, Mike Feeney, Steve Burns and Jon Newlyn. Don't you think that, in the light of your comments, its somewhat ironic that Ben Millspaugh gave such a lot of space in his book to these British people?

I am a member of The Classic Z Register here in the UK - a club dedicated to the first generation of Z cars, which was formed as a breakaway group from the Z Club of GB precisely because some members felt that the early ( pre S130 ) cars deserved their own club. The Chairman ( now honorary president ) is Lynne Godber, and the current Chairman is Mr Jon Newlyn. Both of these people are STILL Goertz-promoters, and indeed Goertz is listed as an "Honourary Member" of the Register. I have protested about this many times, but my protests fall on stony ground. Once set in stone, these legends are difficult to dispel aren't they?

Anyway, with regard to mistakes and poor research - nobody is immune. The Millspaugh book has its own fair share of mistakes, as does your recommended-reading for today - "Fairlady Z Story" by Katayama and Matsuo..................

This book, published by MIKI PRESS of Japan ( ISBN4 - 89522-244-6 in case anyone wants to order one ) is in Japanese. It contains some selected headings and picture captions in English, and some editions carried a partial translation into English that was in the form of a flyer insert. I think your edition possibly carried one of the English translation flyers by my friend Mr Brian Long ( one of those English authors that you don't seem to rate very highly ) and his wife Miho. Am I correct? Or possibly you have had your own translation performed on it?

Anyway, the first thing I would like to point out is the title of the book. It is called "FAIRLADY Z STORY" and subtitled "Datsun SP / SR & Z". Notice that it is not titled "240Z Story" or "HLS30 Story"..........

Then go on to the Contents page, and notice the translated heading of Chapter 1; "Birth of Datsun 240Z" by Yutaka Katayama. This is significant. Then look down to the Japanese heading of Chapter 3 and its English translation below; "How I developed Datsun 240Z styling" by Yoshihiko Matsuo. This too is significant.

Why is it significant? Look at the Japanese title of Chapter 3 ( and I Romanise this Japanese heading ): "Shodai Z design kaihatsu shuki" - or "Original Z design essay" ( my translation ). Notice how the Japanese title of Matsuo's chapter does not specifically mention the "Datsun 240Z" in the Japanese version - but that Miki Press have decided to translate this into English as "How I developed Datsun 240Z styling" - which is not a literal translation at all. I think you can see what I am driving at - and this is something that is clear whenever Matsuo is interviewed in Japanese with regard to the Z - namely that Matsuo usually refers to the S30-series Z as a whole range when discussing its design. Contrast this with Katayama - who usually does exactly as you do - referring to the "Datsun 240Z" specifically. I think there is a big difference in approach between the two of them, and I can see why each takes the approach that he does. I see this as Katayama's Americanised approach and Matsuo's Japanese approach.

More specifically though, I'd like you to take a little pinch of salt when it comes to reading the English translations for the headings and picture captions in this book. I can assure you that they are not all literal translations from Japanese into English ( if such a thing is even possible ). Note too that there are a great many mistakes in the picture captions in both Japanese and English. This is a most regrettable thing in such an otherwise excellent book. We should probably remember that Matsuo and Katayama's contributions were certainly edited and subbed by the staff of Miki Press, and that they certainly did not caption the pictures themselves. The idea of the English captions is certainly meant to appeal to foreign markets for the book ( a translated version of which was apparently at least mooted by Miki Press ) and guess where the biggest market for an English-language book on the Z car would be? Katayama and Matsuo's views are still slightly different ( understandably ) and its plain that Matsuo still defers to the feelings of his former superior out of respect and politeness as much as anything else.

I quite agree with your last statement and its three points though. How on earth can you accuse anybody here ( I presume you mean me? ) of holding a position that negates all of those three points? Not true at all. I have nothing but respect and admiration for these people.

continued next post:

[HS30-H]

continued:

To those of us outside the USA who read that "American Sports / GT - Made in Japan" quote, it can indeed look somewhat arrogant. It fails to take into account the fact that Matsuo and his team were working under some constrictions, and implies that they had embarked on the design of a vehicle that was aimed specifically at the USA market AND NO OTHER. That last bit is important. Whatever you want to believe, its clear that just as much effort went into OTHER non USA-market specific variants / models and that a great deal of time was spent in making this more of a World Car ( rather than just a USA specific model ). Its also clear that Matsuo and his team were obliged to use certain components and layouts that in turn dictated other details and functions of the car ( unless you think that the L-series engine and its transmissions were also designed SPECIFICALLY for the USA market - which is patently not so ). They were also clearly just as influenced by the needs pertaining to an RHD layout as they were to an LHD layout ( and in some areas were forced to make 'design concesssions' because of this ). Here is quite clearly the design and development of a vehicle aimed at more than one market, and to take on several different forms. These facts seem to horrify you. Why is that?

Pretty much all of us agree and cheer on a great number of your points Carl. They are usually very well laid out and eloquently expressed. It looks nice on the page - apart from your daffy comments about the anti-matter that is the RHD car, which I presume was only half serious, and recommend that you don't repeat too often as it will look ever more daft the more often it is repeated Its just the last bit of spin that you put on the ball that makes it a no-ball. I think you have to try to see the way the rest of the World sees the Z now, as well as taking into account the other iterations of the first-generation Z car ( remember - its the "S30-series" right? ) and the fact that just as much effort went into both LHD and RHD versions.

I'm not really looking forward to your response, as it will doubtless run to several thousand words just like mine and will probably try to pick me up on every last point without ever giving an inch or making any concession. I'm sure that this game of squash would eventually run the thread into the ground and get nowhere into the bargain.

Alan T.

[sjcurtis]

I just want to jump in here for my 2c. The information that KATS has so graciously shared with us is ground breaking stuff. Yes these discussions are great reading when you get input from ALAN and CARL, two people I think we all have great respect for, both are very well read and have established set positions that are hard to dispute (sometimes).
S30 build on the production line in more than one guises from the start. My point here is the marketing strategy was brilliant, ramp up all production on all lines. Release the HLS 30 to the American Masses on ship and a prayer. Creating a good home market product and a growing sales position. Hold an ace up the sleeve ( the export HS30 SPORT ). Yes I say from my exulted position above my sunlight soapbox, " If the HLS 30 had fizzled on the dock in San Fransico Nissan would still have created history with the High Spec Export HS30 SPORT ". This was NISSANS black powder that it was keeping dry. An S30 sibling still under raps with the best export pedigree yet to be tried. I now climb down of the sunlight and hide under my box.
G'DAY
Steve

[mperdue]

Are there any solid production numbers for the '71 model? The reason I ask is from looking at texasz's car, it's a '71 but it's number 8000 or something like that. zhome production numbers say something around 10500 '70's were sold. So I'm wondering how could texasz's car have been built before ~2000 other '70 models but get labeled a '71? COuld it have been issued a number and then sat around the factory for several months before being completed or repaired? The production date is 8/70 - I guess that's when it was finished right?
Michael

[Alfadog]

I found this document in my pile of stuff a little while ago... maybe it will help you?

I dont know where it comes from though??? Nissan???

[Carl Beck]

Hi mperdue:
See: http://ZHome.com/History/1970or1971.html

[sjcurtis]

For all the boys in OZ that want a low production number, I just found this in the Melbourne trading post. Has anyone got a look at this car, or possibly taken pics.

MELBOURNE TRADING POST 7/12/03

DATSUN 240Z, AUST. delivery Build No. 91, only 300 1969mdls built worldwide, good condition, stored since 1995, paintwork average, body & interior orig, ready to RWCert. Vin.HS30-00091, $12,000. (0417) 786815 Pearcedale.

cheers
Steve

[Gav240z]

Steve even though it's a low numbered Z it's come to my attention that none of our Aus Spec Z's were 1969 mdl's. Infact the lowest number Z in Aus is HS30 0004. This was a 70mdl I thought I should point out.

[sjcurtis]

Hi Gav,

[sjcurtis]

Yeah I know some clutse has five thumbs.

Gav,
thanks for the info I had no idea that the early series export model HS30 did not get sold here until mid 1970.
I have seen a single serial HS30 in SYD in the mid 90s but the history was not traceable and the condition was not good either.

This guy must have a good story to advertise it fo sale as what he is saying. Someone in Melbourne needs to see the car and check the documentation. I wish I was in Melb so I could go round and get some pics of it.
Thanks again Gav.

cheers
Steve

[Gav240z]

I get it someone in Melbourne now who would that be .

Depending if I get time I might check it out, I was alerted to the fact that there was no 69 mdl 240z's in Australia officially imported by another member in this forum, and it's a common misconception by us Ozzies that we got ones before 1970.
I've heard it in a number of places.

The number 4 car was used to test drives by the press for the release of the car back in 1970 and was in the possession of lindsy drife last time I saw the car nice car indeed.
http://www.zspares.com.au I think is his website.



Looks to be down at the moment.

[Carl Beck]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sjcurtis
[B]Yeah I know some clutse has five thumbs.

Gav,
....snipped..cjb.......
This guy must have a good story to advertise it fo sale as what he is saying. Someone in Melbourne needs to see the car and check the documentation. I wish I was in Melb so I could go round and get some pics of it.
Thanks again Gav.
-- - - -End Quote - --

Hi Gav.
Hi Gang:
The key to establishing the build date on the Right Hand Drive 240-Z's is their original engine serial number. One can not build a car before it's engine is produced. Nissan only had one L24 production line. The engine serial numbers are - well - serial.

If you get the original engine serial number from HS30 00090 off the engine data plate - don't take it off the engine as one never knows if it's been changed - I'll bet it's something close to L24 07xxx or L24 08xxx. If so that would give it a date of manufacture of 07/ or 08/70.

For example we know that HS30 00131 had engine serial number L24-015467 - which would put it in the 10/70 build date area. That compares to the US model
HLS30 10908 - with L24 014145 which has a build date of 10/70.

According to Nissan Australia 319 Z's were produced in 1970 - which were exported to Australia. So far that would seem to be supported by our records.

The HS series - Late Model 1971 240-Z's (what we call Series II ) VIN started at HS30 00500 - at this point it looks like they were produced from 02/71 forward.
HS30 00501 has L24-027759 - which would put it right in the 02/71 Build Date range.

If you (or anyone) would like to add to our data base - send me the VIN/Original Engine Serial Number from the data tag in the engine compartment - and owner info for your HS30 series Z. Likewise the same info from your HLS30 Series Z plus the Date of Manufacture from the data tag on the Drivers Door Jam.

e-mail it to: beck@becksystems.com

FWIW,
Carl


Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://Zhome.com

[Carl Beck]

Originally posted by Gav240z
I get it someone in Melbourne now who would that be .

Depending if I get time I might check it out, I was alerted to the fact that there was no 69 mdl 240z's in Australia officially imported by another member in this forum, and it's a common misconception by us Ozzies that we got ones before 1970.
I've heard it in a number of places.

The number 4 car was used to test drives by the press for the release of the car back in 1970 and was in the possession of lindsy drife last time I saw the car nice car indeed.
http://www.zspares.com.au I think is his website.



Looks to be down at the moment.

Hi Gav240z (everyone)
The last time I heard from the owner of HS30 00004 it was Harry Corbett - that was: 2/21/99 - If ownership has changed I'd like to up-date our records. Also "AutoSpeed" had a write-up on the car (or another low VIN) as I recall - in which they refered to it as a 1969 Datsun 240-Z. I wrote the editors and ask them to help us correct that misunderstanding.

Mr. Corbett also agreed that the car most likely didn't reach Australia untill around May of 1970 and that it most likely had a build date of late 01 or 02 1970.

If you get a chance to look at HS30 00090 please let me know what the original engine serial number is. Or if the seller has an e-mail address it would be good to have that.

thanks,
Carl


Carl Beck
Clearwater,FL USA
http://ZHome.com

[kats]

Hi, everyone

I have forgotten to attach this "1970 production number".
I am sorry this photo is not great quality also.

My 240Z is HLS30-02156,dated march/1970 on the plaque.
I count numbers using these data from 1969-1970,I can see my 240Z is roughly made in the early march 1970.

Let me say a little what I got from Mr.MATSUO recently.

A wheel cap for earliest S30 was based on SKYLINE(C10)'s one.You know export one got "D" on center,while japanese one got silver hexagonal mark.Mr.Matsuo said this is a result of "reducing cost"which were notorious syndrome inside of NISSAN in those 1960's.SKYLINE(C10) was not exported, so most of people out side of JAPAN do not know what it looks like.Yes,I can say they are almost same design.

Notorious "reducing cost" effected many other parts of S30.
About front radiator grill,the one which is put for exported model
is what Mr.MATSUO wanted to design.Not japanese mesh one.
But actual production grill is a little bit different from Mr.MATSUO'S original intended design.He wanted to extend a grill below a front bumper.Can you see what I am trying to say?

When I saw a 240Z first(maby fairlady also)I thought something uneasy about front grill because it was seen only avove front bumper.I think there must be a lot of people who think same
as me.
Mr.MATSUO said, "My boss said under portion of grill below a front bumper can not be seen,we reduce cost,so cut them half!!"

See you soon,

kats

[kats]

#2 for 1970 production number

[kats]

That is all for 1970.

The datas which I posted so far is what I got from NISSAN SYATAI.I am sorry I do not have other year's data.These are all
which I have.

kats

[Gav240z]

Originally posted by kats
Hi, everyone

I have forgotten to attach this "1970 production number".
I am sorry this photo is not great quality also.

My 240Z is HLS30-02156,dated march/1970 on the plaque.
I count numbers using these data from 1969-1970,I can see my 240Z is roughly made in the early march 1970.

Let me say a little what I got from Mr.MATSUO recently.

A wheel cap for earliest S30 was based on SKYLINE(C10)'s one.You know export one got "D" on center,while japanese one got silver hexagonal mark.Mr.Matsuo said this is a result of "reducing cost"which were notorious syndrome inside of NISSAN in those 1960's.SKYLINE(C10) was not exported, so most of people out side of JAPAN do not know what it looks like.Yes,I can say they are almost same design.

Notorious "reducing cost" effected many other parts of S30.
About front radiator grill,the one which is put for exported model
is what Mr.MATSUO wanted to design.Not japanese mesh one.
But actual production grill is a little bit different from Mr.MATSUO'S original intended design.He wanted to extend a grill below a front bumper.Can you see what I am trying to say?

When I saw a 240Z first(maby fairlady also)I thought something uneasy about front grill because it was seen only avove front bumper.I think there must be a lot of people who think same
as me.
Mr.MATSUO said, "My boss said under portion of grill below a front bumper can not be seen,we reduce cost,so cut them half!!"

See you soon,

kats

Hi Kats yes I agree the grille on the Z is a bit strange, Personally I prefer the Mesh grille to the bar type.
Some people have extended the grille themselves with a bit of welding and creativity.

[Zedrally]

Originally posted by Gav240z


The number 4 car was used to test drives by the press for the release of the car back in 1970 and was in the possession of lindsy drife last time I saw the car nice car indeed.
http://www.zspares.com.au I think is his website.



Looks to be down at the moment.

Hi Gav/Carl,
Just to clear up a mis-conception.
004 was on display for sale at Zed Spares [Hi Lindsey & Trent ]!
It was at that time I believe, still in possession [owned] by/of the Corbett family, Harry's son Trent had custody of 004.
It was officially on the market and I believe it was sold back to Japan, don't however quote me on this as it's un-substantiated.
I will try to get over to see Lindsey soon [get the stubbies in the fridge if you're reading this, LD]
and I'll post more info for you.

[lordbiotree]

Can someone post a Mesh type grill? I've never seen a jap-spec grill up close before. Is it like honey comb?
-Brandon

[HS30-H]

Diamond-shaped mesh in a square-tube frame.

This grille was fitted to most of the Japanese domestic-market models. You might sometimes hear it referred to as the "432" grille, but that's not strictly accurate as the 432 got the same grille as the Fairlady Z and Fairlady Z-L. It was the 432-R grille that was slightly different.

Not a particularly clear scan, but its an "official" Nissan side-by-side comparison and it might help:

Alan T.

[sjcurtis]

Just a side track,
I have just viewed the attachment supplied by ( HS30H )a front on view of S30 diamond mesh grill on the right and along side on the left hand side is a clearly marked representation of the HS30 grill. For my 2c is the reference data primary (OEM documentation or secondary (Non OEM), as the picture clearly shows wing mirrors on the HS30 picture.
This would represent proof that this is correct fitment for the HS30, maybe not in all but in some markets ( Hong Kong and Singapore or Malaysia maybe). At least it provides leverage on the local registration people here if it is primary documentation.
just curious.
cheers
Steve

[HS30-H]

Hi Steve,
The pic. is from an official Nissan publication; its the model information booklet publication no.221 ( the 4th one for the S30-series Z range ) and it was published in October 1971. These booklets were internal publications at Nissan, and not for the general public.

This booklet introduced the new features and changes related with the release of the HS30 series in Japan ( Fairlady 240Z, Fairlady 240Z-L, Fairlady 240ZG etc ) as well as the changes that related to the S30 and PS30 models that were happening at the same time.

As for proving that items like the Japanese-market wing mirrors and the headlamp covers were original factory-approved fitments, don't forget that from October 1971 Japan got the HS30 models too and therefore proving fitment of parts on these cars would I should think be pretty easy. After all - there's plenty of proof in the original sales brochures and parts list books. If I can help anyone I would be happy to try and provide copies of this documentation to assist a claim or bid for legal use of certain parts.

Cheers,
Alan T.

Here's a scan of the front cover of the official Z-4 booklet:

[sjcurtis]

Thanks Alan,
for the clarification on the wing mirrors. This information should be very useful to the Australian members of the site, wanting to utilize these superbly fashioned items as part of their S30 package. I guess it is now up to the individuals to take up your offer of assistance.
Thanks again
Steve
apologies: back to the thread topic

[dohc]

Hey Kats,

Thanks again for this invaluable information and please don't be sorry that you 'only' have the data for '69 and '70! It's more than we've seen before!

Cheers,
Ross.

[kats]

Hello,
I am very exited right now.The reason is today I have got a very important data relating 1969 very very early cars.
But I am hesitating to show the actual photo of the data seat and I can't say where I have got this right now.This time it is a little bit delicate thing to show.

And I need to amend my post the very first one.Please review the first page, I said "Factory prototype-KOJYO SHISAKU" was not given the VIN number.But it was not true.These cars were given VIN number,so you can see 3 cars were built from May to Jun 1969,they are S30-00001 and HLS30-00001 and PS30-00001.

Here is some questions for you,
#1 which car was built early between them?What was a seaquence for them?
#2 Which car was built early between HS30-00001 and HLS30-00003?

Thank you,

kats

[HS30-H]

And I need to amend my post the very first one.Please review the first page, I said "Factory prototype-KOJYO SHISAKU" was not given the VIN number.But it was not true.These cars were given VIN number,so you can see 3 cars were built from May to Jun 1969,they are S30-00001 and HLS30-00001 and PS30-00001.

Hello Kats,
If the 'Kojyo Shisaku' cars were given full VIN and body serial numbers, then it will have a knock-on effect for the numbers that we discussed previously.

I'm immediately thinking about the cars sent over for the 'North American' testing. This new information will affect the 'HLS30' serial numbers that we guessed for them, won't it?

#1 which car was built early between them?What was a seaquence for them?
#2 Which car was built early between HS30-00001 and HLS30-00003?

If your new information has the answers to these questions, then I for one am very interested to hear it.

It would be nice to hear of any possible reasons for the order sequence too..............

Alan T.

[daddz]

Hello Kats,
If the 'Kojyo Shisaku' cars were given full VIN and body serial numbers, then it will have a knock-on effect for the numbers that we discussed previously.

I'm immediately thinking about the cars sent over for the 'North American' testing. This new information will affect the 'HLS30' serial numbers that we guessed for them, won't it?



If your new information has the answers to these questions, then I for one am very interested to hear it.

It would be nice to hear of any possible reasons for the order sequence too..............

Alan T.

I wonder if we can interpolate why the sequence was produced in a certain way if possible. I recently had a discussion with a fellow Z owner and we discussed why Nissan would have not produced more 'mules' for longer periods of testing before releasing the car to the public in turn letting the owners become the test pilots? Both of us came to the conclusion that Toyota would probably not have done a similar thing nor Honda for that matter.

All of this opens up some room for the collectors of early S30 cars but again makes restoring one of these cars such a headache as it can be difficult to determine what would have been installed at the factory at any given time.

The date coding discussion we have going will at least help future generations in their efforts to preserve these cars?

[26th-Z]

I am reading this conversation with great delight.

[Zedrally]

Would these vehicles built before June 1968 be regarded as 68 models?

If so then this will have large implications in HRC categories (at least in Australia asthe 240 could then be recognised in HRC1!

Eyes are glued to the screen........

MOM

[mdbrandy]

I sure hope kats works out the "delicacy" of his information. I would love to see it!

Zedrally - where did 1968 come into the picture? kats mentions May 1969...

[Zedrally]

I thought the production year was from July?

[sjcurtis]

Kats,
thank's you, for sharing this information. I too hope you can find a way to show us a representation of the detail if at all possible. As to production, it is really does throw a spot light on what vins went to the test program.

thank's again

Steve

[kats]

Hi everyone,
Alan,thank you for re-engaging!!That is right,the two test cars(round trip in the U.S.) should be re-check their vin number.Let's see how they will be later.

Now I feel most of people don't need these kind of information(about prototype cars) including me,because I do not have any prototype car nor 1969 car.This is not my business so I should be relax, just enjoy to see and imagine from the data how the cars were built in early days.I am curious how many people think this topic is attractive.For me,I do not need it,but I am very very interested in it.

I need to exprain my thoughts with more detailed.I mean,I said "sequence" for S30-00001 HLS30-00001 PS30-00001.During long-life discussion,I became to think The VIN is VIN. VIN does not much exactly sequence which car is first and which car is next when cars roll-out from the factory.I can say everybody agree with it.

But,this time it is a slightly different.Like these prototype,there was a sequence.The data sheet which I have got yesterday is telling it.

Here is some questions for you,
#1 which car was built early between them?What was a seaquence for them?

The answer is ,No.1 is S30-00001 No.2 is HLS30-00001 No.3 is PS30-00001.
The data sheet which I have posted its picture before assits this sequence so you can review my old post.

#2 Which car was built early between HS30-00001 and HLS30-00003?

The answer is,HS30-00001 was earlier than HLS30-00003.Why I asked this,I just want to tell all of you HS30-00001 was made in JUL 1969　to cross-reff with my old data. Is not this great,is it!Alan!! HLS30-00002 was also made in JUL but it is earlier than HS30-00001.HLS30-00003 was made in AUG 1969.

Please tell me how everybody thinks about posting a picture of the data sheet.Of cource I wish nobody in Japan(except me) see this thread.If I post a picture,I can show you actual facts but it does have a risk of ALL-ENGINE SHUT DOWN all lights are gone, get into the darkness then we may never get futher information from the factory.

If I do not post a picture,you will get frustrated and very hard to imagine due to my poor english explanation.But we are very for sure to get futher much more detailed information from the factory.I have a positive reason for this because there is a few words about REGULAR PRODUCTION CAR in the data sheet.It is very very short,only a few words but it does say

"Regular production car's VIN will succeed production prototype and is going to be managed collectively by section 2010"

I believe there must be "regular production car's VIN data sheet"
in some place. We have got at least two data sheet so far,it is natural to expect we can get more for sure.

Thank you,

kats

[daddz]

kats,
I would suggest that for purposes of obtaining additional information that the data sheet you now possess not be published until you can obtain the regular production information. I think we can all agree to take your word with regard to what you have so far.

[MikeW]

Kats,

As far as I am concerned due to your personal contacts and investigations you have provided valuable information to the Z car community. I don't see how anyone could disagree or question your findings. If for whatever reason the source of your latest data would prefer that it not be published then I think you are right to respect that wish. Perhaps there is a good explanation for that wish and you could, for instance, get permission to publish the data with parts of it redacted. I would prefer that you don't do anything that would get your information source cut off.

[kats]

Thank you very much Bob,Mike.
I need good advices just like yours.I keep them in my mind.

And I want to make sure for all of you this,I did not invade into the factory nor steal the data sheet.This is true!!I said I am hegitating to show and I can not say where I have got.But it does not mean I stole There is a complicated reason for this.

kats

[26th-Z]

Yes, we all have things we would rather not publish on the internet. I believe it is called "collector's private stock". But we can talk about them and that is what makes this discussion fun.

I must say how relieved I am to hear that an S30 was constructed before an HLS30.