HS30-H

First person seen in the video is my good friend Mr Hideki Matsui of NP35, who refurbed my KPGC10. He's ex Nissan Prince Tokyo Sports Corner, ex-NISMO, now independent but still closely linked to NISMO. He is local to Mount Asama, and this event is almost in his back yard. It's good that Nissan and NISMO still use this car occasionally, but in order to do so - and partly for public liability reasons - they had to make some changes to the car. It's a shame, but I guess inevitable. I preferred it as-was, but there you go...

At this point I think it best to refer you to the book I was talking about. Chief Engineer Hitoshi Uemura tells us how the '270KK'/'Maru Z'/S30-series Z project was conceived, planned and put into action. From the very beginning both domestic and export, RHD and LHD versions were part of the plan. Why do some people want to resist this as being fact? Yes they targeted the USA for profitable volume sales, but that fact does NOT trump all other concerns.

The 'Safari Tribute' car has apparently been at The Z Car Garage and is in the process of becoming less of a 'tribute' and more something else (I don't dare say 'replica') which is kind of ironic considering all the "it was never claimed to be a replica" type protestations. Here's a photo that has been posted of the new rear bumper bounce steps and exhaust system. Looks like the bump steps are pretty accurate 'tributes', but the exhaust hangers seem to have grown longer like Pinocchio's nose. What happened there? Contrast with my photo of the original car's hangers:

But this is a perfect example of their USA-centric way of thinking. They don't really consider anything outside their own bubble. Tell them that 'PS30-00019', 'S30-00019' and 'HS30-00019' have just as much right to be called '#19' as 'HLS30-00019' and they'll probably tell you 'that's different'... In many cases they simply don't even realise what they are saying.

You're just talking about sales though. It was always a given that 'sports cars' - as a sector - would sell well in the USA, and they de-contented them, piled them high and sold them cheap. All the other manufacturers were doing it too. Ask the likes of Porsche, ALFA Romeo, MG, Triumph, Jaguar and even the like of Maserati, Lamborghini and Ferrari where the biggest single market for sports cars was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. But volume sales-targetting is not the same thing as conceived for and designed for. Was the E-Type Jaguar "designed for" the USA? I don't think so. VW's Type 1, 2 and 3 sold like hot cakes in the USA, but I don't think anyone would say that they were ever "designed for" the USA in the way that we are always told - time and time again - that the 'Datsun 240Z' (they see that as Z Genesis) was "an American car, made in Japan". In the video, Randy Jaffe cites Carl Beck of zhome.com as one of the leading authorities on the "Zee car", but it is Beck who has been one of the leading proponents of that "American car, made in Japan" narrative. He seems to have taken Katayama's sales patter and NMC USA's advertising slogans as fact. We've reached the stage now where even Nissan Japan's press and promotions department believe what he comes out with, and zhome.com it is painted as the default English language history site for the cars. Jaffe also cites Beck as having "translated" a book on the Z's creation from Japanese to English. This is just too ironic. The book in question was originally written in Japanese by the S30-series Z's Chief Engineer Mr Hitoshi Uemura, and was called 'Fairlady Z Kaihatsu No Kiroku' ('Fairlady Z Development Record'). A gentleman called Mr Yuichiro Motomura - who used to work for Nissan - wanted to get the book published in an English language version, and performed most of the Japanese to English translation. He then worked with Beck to USA-ise it (effectively a bowdlerisation of the original) to the extent that much of Uemura's original intent is - literally - lost in translation. I could give you a couple of hundred examples, but take the title of the book as one: The original was 'Fairlady Z Development Record' (clearly meaning the whole S30-series Z family as seen at launch in 1969) but the Americanised version was 'Datsun 240Z Engineering Development'. So once again we see 'Datsun 240Z' being painted as Z Genesis. This goes right through the translated book, and where Uemura was talking about the whole Z range (domestic models as well as both LHD and RHD export models) the text is changed to make it read as though he's talking primarily about the USA market model. I talked to Uemura about this, and he was somewhat nonplussed by it. He said that as far as he was concerned he and his colleagues were designing and engineering a car to be sold all over the world, and had to take that into account whilst doing so. So the narrative is always "Designed for the USA", and yet the cars themselves tell us otherwise. Show me any compromise or shortcoming, and Design Concession' on - for example - an Australian market car? I don't see anything significant. Nissan went to great lengths to ensure that both LHD and RHD layouts worked very well, even if the drivetrain layout was - inevitably - biased to RHD. It worked because both LHD and RHD, domestic and export, were conceived, designed/styled, engineered and produced AT THE SAME TIME. Sales figures are another thing altogether. Jaffe tells us that the 510 and the 240Z "made Nissan". This is as good an example as any of the fact that these people just have no clue what they are talking about.

It has actually changed a bit since the original builder sold it on Bring-A-Trailer in September last year. You can see that it was really only a skin job at that time. Any 'rallies' participated in will likely have been what we call over here the 'Natter and Noggin' type that are fairly simple, safe and fun navigationals. More of a social event than anything else. The comments in the auction listing (some of them mine... ) are possibly of interest to cynical old rivet counters: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1970-datsun-240z-61/

Next instalment MUST be the "Harkersooker" with the bonnet up, which will be another fudgefest where all concerned would like it to be a GT-R, but it isn't.

#defriended

And another thing. So many of these Americans talk about "Cad plating" when they are pointing into the engine bays of these cars. But Nissan wasn't using Cadmium on these cars. That's Zinc plating, either dull, bright or 'yellow'/'gold' passivated.

I sometimes wonder if these guys exist in their own little ecosystem of sycophants and mutual self-confirmation? There's been plenty of nonsense talked about Nissan USA's 'Vintage Z' project over the years, but also plenty of research and fact-finding (some very interesting conversations on the classiczcars forum too) and it seems as though people like Randy Jaffe don't really keep up to date with it all. He was talking about that Vintage Z "production schedule' spreadsheet as though it was drawn up before the fact, when it is much more likely to have been put together way after the fact in an attempt to get a handle on something that was a lot more chaotic than he makes it sound... Jaffe also stated the old saw of 'HLS30-00013' being "the lowest VIN number sold to the general public". More USA-centric nonsense. I think the Australian market car 'HS30-00004' would have something to say about that for a start, let alone quite a few 'S30' and 'PS30' prefixed cars in Japan. Oh, but they don't count, do they? I watched right to the end (should have hooked myself up to the blood pressure monitor...) and Jaffe started waxing lyrical about Mr K, and it being "his personal project" to produce the 240Z and all that jazz. Apparently Katayama virtually had to FORCE Nissan to make it. These guys really DO believe this stuff. It is bizarre. They see themselves as big Z 'collectors', enthusiasts and "dorks", but don't appear to be able to look at any of it without viewing it through the prism of the USA and the same old stories they've always been told; most of which was originally sales patter and advertising slogans.

Indeed. I got into a 'conversation' with the guy who originally built that car, and he proudly stated that he had got somebody to go to Zama and get measurements for the stickers and signwriting from the original car so that they could get them mm correct. When I pointed out that his car is really not much more than a paint and stickers job, he told me that I was a "rivet counter". Yes! Isn't that the whole f***ing point of all this?

Bonnet hinges WERE painted - body colour, after assembly on the car - and which rubbed off on the contacting points, pissing off many an owner when they started to go rusty.

I've taken the liberty of turning your image so that the script is the right way up, and adding a phonetic 'translation'. It's a single Kanji character and - as with almost all of these column support dash scribbles - it doesn't really make much sense on its own. It reads as 'Rui' (pronounced 'Rooey') and normally it would be coupled with another Kanji character in order to mean something more specific. On its own it means something along the lines of 'Sort' or 'Type', but is kind of incomplete. I would suggest it would normally be paired with the Kanji 'Shu' to form the word 'ShuRui', meaning a more specific or ordinal 'Type', but that would be to put words into its mouth. Like almost all of these we've seen, they obviously meant something only to the people who were writing and reading them, and we civilians were never expected to even see them, let alone understand what they did or didn't mean...

There would be lots of differences between UK and AUS market models, even if some of them were fairly minor. Spring and damper rates for the 'proper' UK market cars is a fairly big one, but I don't think the glovebox notations would have dictated/informed production line processes and content. My take on them is that they were more to do with handling/logistics for finished or almost-finished cars rather than specifically dashboard and instrument specs and details. For example, factory code for the Fairlady 240ZG models was 'HS30-H' and I've taken the time to look under the dashes of ZGs in Japan whenever I have had the opportunity. All the genuine ones I've seen (spotted the odd 'oh dear me...' too) have 'H - H' under the glovebox, including both of my own 240ZGs. Obviously the first H refers to L24-engined variant, and the second H refers exclusively to ZGs. However, why would a ZG require a different dash notation than an 'HS30-D' coded Fairlady 240Z-L model which might have been right behind it on the production line? As both were Japanese 'Deluxe' content models made at the same time, they would have had IDENTICAL dash instrumentation and controls. Only possible difference would be factory aircon, which was an extra cost showroom ordering option. So the glovebox notations don't seem - as far as I can see - to have been a part of the *dash* build process...

Faint letter might well be 'Q'...? That would be correct for Aus market car. For comparison:

I feel it unwise to abbreviate the identification codes to an extent that confuses the sub-variants. For example '71A' units could be 4-speed (Warner synchro) or 5-speed (Servo synchro), and there are many 'B' box sub-variants that can be both Warner and Servo synchro type. The Japanese market B-types usually had flange type outputs too, so it becomes increasingly complicated. I don't know where the poor reputation for the FS5C71-A comes from, except to guess that it might be tainted by worn out examples long after the fact. Over here in the UK many a tired FS5C71-A was replaced with a newer FS5C71-B or FS5W71-B simply because they were plentiful from breakers. Gradually the easy way out became an 'upgrade' in local lore. About synchro types: If the Warner-patent type is "faster shifting" in comparison to the steel Servo-patent type, you'd have to wonder why Nissan chose to fit their Sports Option/Race Option 'Competition' versions of these transmissions with the steel Servo-patent type? The factory certainly never used Warner-patent servo transmissions in their Works race and rally Zs. Doesn't seem to add up, does it? "Serviceable"? Are you talking about blueprinting here? They worked perfectly well off-the-shelf (ie, new) and - as mentioned - they eventually wear out. I think this "monkey motion" term comes - along with a lot of other nonsense - from the USA. Perhaps an engineers opinion of a slightly fangled linkage arrangement, but there are design problems with the B-series 'boxes which don't seem to get mentioned because their reputation as 'the' upgrade in period was cemented long ago. I always take the all-pervasive American lore with a very large pinch of salt. I tip my hat to Australian lore, but hope it hasn't been tainted by USA Uber Alles syndrome. TLDR: FS5C71-C with the Kameari Engine Works 'Cross' (tr: 'Close') Gear Kit is a wonderful thing. Recommended.

If the car is a 1971 production year Australian market model then its original transmission would have been the FS5C71-A. Honestly, I'd go with that. They are lovely to use when in good nick, and the straight stick will fit your console and trans tunnel like it was made for it (er, it was....). The ratios are great with the 3.9:1 rear end, and you get the steel Servo-patent synchro shift into the bargain.

An original Australian market car would be more likely to have an FS5C71-B than an FS5W71-B, as the Servo-patent synchro type 'box was standard equipment in Australian market Zs, superseding the FS5C71-A in January 1972. The only way to tell for sure is to split the case and inspect the internals. Note that gear ratios between the Servo and Warner synchros are different too. It looks to me as though the still-attached propshaft stump is the front half of an earlier FS5C71-A propshaft which has been modified to fit the slip yoke output of a 'B' type 'box. What's the production date of your car? If it was built before January 1972 it would have had an FS5C71-A transmission with a flanged output and a matching flanged, two-piece propshaft with a sliding joint in the middle. It looks to me as though this type of flanged prop - with the output end modified by attaching a slip yoke to the U/J - is what is 'stuck' on the output end of your 'box. Some heat and a few carefully aimed whacks ought to free it. As mentioned before, the ratios are different (a useful mnemonic: 'C' type synchros = 'Close' gear ratios, 'W' type synchros = 'Wide' gear ratios) but the shift 'feel' is all about positivity of engagement. Generally speaking, the Porsche Servo-patent steel synchros were developed for sports cars where the driver was expected to be more positive/deliberate in changing gear, and the Servo-patent type allows for that (although they wear out faster than the softer Warner-patent type). The Warner-patent type was expected to be used more smoothly and sedately, and perhaps we could say it doesn't really like to be rushed. Personally, I like the Servo-patent synchro feel and enjoy that positive-engagement feel (it's as though the synchro 'sucks' the gears into engagement when pressing on) but with the caveat that the Servo type is at its best when it is 'run-in' after a few hundred miles, and after maybe something like 20k to 30k miles they start to wear noticeably and gradually become more baulky. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. This is particularly true with the FS5C71-A in my experience. Anecdote: The north American market cars were fitted with Warner synchro transmissions (Japan and the rest of the world got Servo synchros as stock equipment) because it was felt that the average buyer in the north American market was not sophisticated enough as a manual transmission sports car driver to enjoy the Servo type synchros and the more closely spaced gears that they were usually paired with. In which case I think it is a cool part of an Australian market car's identity, and cool to stick with Servo type synchro 'boxes where possible.

They are for the 'male' part of the dovetail guide - the factory called it a 'Down Guide' - which sides into the lower ('Dovetail') part of the catch which is mounted on the door jamb (the bit with the spring-loaded white nylon stopper). They were made from alloy, and tended to break off... That's the window down stopper. It should have a soft pad mounted on it, and it cushions the window and its mounting at its lowest wind-down point so that it doesn't stop with a bang. The rod should have a kink to it (and they are RH and LH specific), but that particular curve looks like somebody has either made a makeshift 'repair' or adapted another rod altogether.

Oh, lovely one! 'Austo 6'.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The owner/writer/publisher of 'zhome.com' knows full (damn) well that what he presents as 'fact' is in actually a totally bowdlerised version of events intended to paint the USA market cars as Genesis, but he does it anyway. And the fanbois positivelyLAP it up. Here: https://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/64874-240z-vin/?tab=comments#comment-612950

It's good to see this and very interesting, so thanks for posting. However, I'm constantly on guard against 'the usual suspects' who would seek to paint the S30-series Z as - and I quote - "An American car, made in Japan" and all that other USA-centric cobblers, and don't want to let them get away with using stuff like this press release as 'proof' of their own mistaken beliefs. The RHD export market was taken into account in the planning, styling, engineering, manufacturing and eventual marketing of the S30-series Z from the very beginning, and - obviously - Aus and NZ were an important part of that. An 'HS30' prefixed RHD Export specification factory pre-production car ('HS30-00001') was the FOURTH Primary Production Prototype of the S30-series range, and was made in July 1969. It was not any kind of 'afterthought' or compromise. It was a key part of the story. So don't let the buggers tell you otherwise.

Yes!

No. (ha ha!). Flippant answer, but I haven't seen anything I would consider a 100% perfect replica of either the early 'ribbed' 432-R/'PZR' spoiler or the smoother ABS type that superseded it (also seen as OEM fitment on UK and 'Euro' market cars). The 432-R/'PZR' type (see my photo above) had shockingly poor mountings. The mouldings themselves were lovely, pretty much hand made, but they were let down by having mounts which were just bits of bent steel with studs sticking out of them. Rubbish! The later type was a one-piece ABS moulding with the mounting studs incorporated into the moulding, which are MILES better. They also fit the tailgate better, having the correct curvature. Most of the USA-made replicas I've seen (although I'm sure I won't have seen all of them...) are fairly primitive. They can be made to work just fine, but they are noticeably different in comparison to the OEM types. Most recognisably they never seem to have the raised pedestal area on the RH side for the emblems to sit on. I've not looked for a rubber end seal profile that matches the OEM pieces. I've got some stashed away somewhere, so I'll have to dig them out.

Mostly from 'helpful souls' pushing the car around with it...