HS30-H

Did he hurt his finger with the hacksaw...?

Some of it is just general knowledge that comes from tracking the movements and fates of the cars involved. There were not any works 240Zs taking part in the 1970 Southern Cross, or the 1971 Southern Cross come to that... Apart from that, it's perhaps about being more familiar with individual cars through researching the what, where and who over the years.

Watch out, Gav. There's are LOADS of miscaptions/mistakes on the autopics stuff that have been uncorrected for ages. Wrong years, wrong events (the above photo is captioned wrong year and wrong event...!) and sometimes wrong crew/car. User beware...

For me, the big picture is probably different than what it is for you. For better or worse (OK, definitely for the worse...) I have invested a lot of time, effort and emotion into trying to get the record straight about these cars. It's because I care about them, but - more personally - I have come to know some of the people who were responsible for creating them, racing them and rallying them. I kind of feel duty-bound to stick up for them and their work. That has included working with journalists (both before and after the event) to supply them with accurate data, background info and history. They often get it wrong because they base their work on rogue information, the type that is propagated both directly and indirectly by those who say "who cares?". That seems a shame to me. I know that people like you take the p*ss out of me, but I'd rather try and try my best than not try. It seems to me that if we are going to care about something (and form clubs and forums dedicated to the cars) then we really ought to make the effort to do it properly. Thanks for the advice.

Like so many other people, you don't appear to have fully grasped the back story here. He HAS been approached politely and respectfully, has had some pretty indisputable facts given to him and has been offered the chance of back-up research before he adds his voice-overs, but it all just bounces off him. He deletes certain comments from videos and leaves all the out of context stuff there to stoke up his followers and channel subscribers. That's the whole reason why we've ended up being painted as 'Trolls' and 'Haters'. There simply isn't any chance of a meaningful exchange of reasoned views and hard data. A perfect example of this was from the start of his vid on the modified 432 that he thought was a 432-R, and I first started commenting on that video the best part of three years ago. At the start of the video he shows some photos of a green LHD 240Z, and the engine bay of a green 432. He says he's been contacted by a guy in the USA who has this car - an LHD 432 - and he's swallowed the story whole. Anybody can see - with only the most basic evidence - that they are two different cars! When that was pointed out to him he took it as some kind of personal attack and ended up deleting half the conversation. The whole video is still up, intact and unedited. Honestly I used to feel embarrassed for him, but he's his own worst enemy.

It disappeared for awhile and has now reappeared. He's done a bit more 'housework', deleting certain stuff like he's done in the past, mucking up the continuity and context of the comments. Of course, he's on Twitter and Facebook too. On Facebook he's being quite jocular about panel thicknesses, and one of his followers has suggested buying "the trolls/haters" a micrometer. I think it's Daniel who needs it, seeing as he's the one who brought that particular topic up...

So, how do you feel about the (umpteen) other people commenting on the Wasabi Cars vids, and what they are saying to - for example - Gav? I don't see anybody - let alone the Wasabi Cars character - admonishing them for the bile they are spewing. One of these character witnesses reckons I was probably raped by my father. If that kind of thing was posted on something that you had content control over, would you delete it? I think I would, no matter who it was aimed at.

Must mean Lurch then.

It's another reason why I have no sympathy for the guy. He's quite happy to have reams of offensive and personal comments aimed at "Trolls" and "Haters" underneath his videos alongside the fawning praise, but deletes a lot of what he sees as negative views on his video content, hence making many of the subsequent comments meaningless. Did you see the comment asking Lurch to put a bullet in his own head? OK, some of us might feel that way sometimes, but the guy didn't even say please...

That was one of the comments which confused me the most. I really don't get it. I'll ask him about it.

daretobedifferent: I'm standing by my comment. It's (another) shonky Wasabi Cars video and it's full of mistakes (again). What part of that is wrong? If the guy went back and edited his videos a bit after certain details were called to his attention then it might not be so bad. But he doesn't, does he? We can all make mistakes, but the key is to learn from them and get better at it.

I don't like Justin Bieber much either. Does this mean I have to take my top off and sing other people's songs to pre-pubescent girls?

Others would know better than me, but for operations like 'WasabiCars' isn't all traffic - good or bad - a revenue raiser for him? Essentially - one way or another - he makes money from his YouTube channel, does he not? YouTube comments sections are cesspits at the best of times (so more fool me for diving in...) but I don't get all the "hater" and "troll" comments. One of them is from 'Babalouie' from JNC (wow!). If anybody cares enough about the cars to watch the vids then surely they care enough to want accurate data about them too? I don't get it? Here's a link to one of his previous efforts (read all the comments for context) : Edit regarding the above video: The car is a 'normal' 432 that's been modified to look a bit like a 432-R. It's not a real 432-R...

Curiouser and curiouser. Now he's gone to the effort of making an 8 minute video retort against "F*ckwits". He can't even read out the comments properly. It just doesn't do to let too much sunshine in on magic, does it?

You're much nicer than I am then! Democracy is all very well and these days everyone is a 'winner' and all that, but the plain truth is that this field is a meritocracy. It's not really art. He has an obligation to get things right, and if he keeps making mistakes then not only does he need to have them pointed out to him, but so does everybody who views his work and is under the mistaken impression that he knows what he's talking about. Last time I got into a 'conversation' with him it was because he was mistaking a 'normal' 432 for a genuine 432-R, and he just didn't seem to 'get' the points being made. It was like it went in one ear and out the other. We can all get things wrong from time to time, but this character seems to make the same blunders time after time and brushes off any questioning/correction. Now there's even a guy on the YouTube comments backing up his claim that 432s had thinner gauge panels than other models, and that it wasn't just the 432-R that had them. It's like dealing with the Flat Earth Society or something. It'll drive me to drink, I tell you.

He's an idiot. A well-meaning idiot perhaps, but still an idiot. He's repeating mistakes that he's been corrected on many times in the past, and coming up with new ones to boot. I can't understand how someone can get so up close and personal with the cars in question for such a long time and still not get it. In this video he's getting data for the 432 mixed up with data for the 432-R. No standard production 432s were "picked off the production line" (that was the race cars/rally cars) and it was the 432-Rs that had the thinner gauge steel body pressings, not the normal 432s. He also doesn't seem to get the simple fact that all the 'early' (roughly pre-jan/Feb '71) bodyshells - regardless of denomination - had solid rear quarters and vented tailgates, and not just the 432s. This is pretty basic stuff. And what's this "Gee Nose, Zee Nose" stuff and the bizarre end credits ditty? Is he on meds?

They are not 'sports option' mirrors, they are 'GL' model sport mirrors. They came on four door and two door coupe B10 models from 69-8 up. The later 'GX' model mirrors from 70-4 up had a metal-coloured (chrome?) rim around the actual mirror holder. The stalk slopes back towards the 'screen noticeably. Different stalk casting to the S30 type. From the factory parts list for the B10 models: 96301-H0400 ASS'Y - BACK MIRROR - outside - LH - Black - GL 96302-H0400 ASS'Y - BACK MIRROR - outside - RH - Black - GL

Completely different part numbers. Sorry, but pretty much all possibilities on this subject have been investigated. If there was any exact like-for-like swap then Japanese enthusiasts would have been on top of it years ago.

Your "HS30103679" tagline and sig could do with correcting while we are on the subject...

Radio was - technically - an extra-cost option on 'Standard' models. I would not find it surprising if the majority of buyers chose to pay the extra, or if cars that left the factory without, eventually ended up with, a radio. Same situation with the clocks, actually. Technically the clock was an extra-cost option on the Std models, but - as shown by the rarity of the clock aperture blanking plates - it's something that the majority of owners and/or dealers chose to pay for. Dealers might have had spare radios and clocks knocking about too, especially if someone upgraded over a stock unit. Anything's possible. Especially by late 1973... Radio/audio is one of those things that's so personal it's hard to pin down a lot of the time. In identifying/understanding cars like the one in question, for me it's more about the weight of evidence from a number of details rather than just one.

The seat upholstery (vertical) is correct for a late (post August) 1973 S30-S Fairlady Z, as are the door panels. The gear knob is an aftermarket item. The original would have been a wooden version with the 4-speed shift pattern on the top.

Not the clearest image (sorry) but this is roughly what your engine bay tag would originally have looked like: Note that Japanese tags don't show the individual engine block number. You can buy an accurate replica tag from REVIVE JALOPY in Japan. They will stamp it up with the correct numbers for you too.

The cheapest, no-frills, S30-S 'Standard' (factory parlance: "Z-Std") got the 4-speed as standard equipment (either 'A' type or 'B' type, depending on production date). It also came with bare steel wheels (no hubcaps), plain chrome bumpers without the rubber trim, no clock, no radio, no passenger footrest, rubber mats instead of carpets, no HRW and - depending on date of production - a few other cost-saving measures. Judging on what I've read of this car so far, I'd say it does indeed look to be a 'Standard' model. It would have had the 'F4W71-B' transmission and a 3.7:1 ratio R180 diff as stock equipment.

If that's the original engine and transmission then I'd say the car is almost certainly a no-frills 'S30-S' 'Fairlady Z' model, and the chassis number is actually 'S30-103679' rather than 'HS30-103679'. 'S30-103679' is a late 1973 production chassis number.

If the chassis number is indeed 'HS30-103679' as quoted, then the car is actually a 'Fairlady 240Z' or 'Fairlady 240Z-L' rather than a 'Fairlady Z' or 'Fairlady Z-L', and came from the factory with an L24 engine rather than an L20A. The chassis number certainly puts it right at the end of 1973 production, too. In fact the chassis number is higher than the range of chassis numbers with the 'HS30' prefix recorded by the licensing authorities in Japan, which makes me wonder whether it really was originally built as a Japanese market model. Are you 100% sure of that? 'S30-103679' (no 'H' prefix) would also have been built (late) in 1973.