gotta sell my 69 fairlady

[Carl Beck]

Chris wrote:

>Congratulations Stephan! You just got bullshitted! Took it hook line and sinker!

When my good friend Chris accuses me of bullshitting about this subject, I am more that shocked! I thought that he and I agreed that the BS was mostly on the other side of this discussion.

Having discussed this subject at length, researched much of what I've reported here and shared that freely with Chris... I simply do not understand how he can make that comment.

We can all argue about the absolute accuracy of any documents, documented production numbers vs. actual findings etc etc... This isn't about being American vs the rest of the world (although Alan alway seems to want to paint it that way). The story of the Z Car is about the success of the automotive design path taken by Mr. K and Mr. Matsuo. That design path was to design for specific customers in specific customer markets.

Chris, do you seriously belive that the Z Car was designed "for a world market" in 1967?

Do you seriously believe that Nissan Motors Ltd. designed and build sports cars for their domestic market in 1970 and just got lucky that they sold a few in America?

Do you seriously believe that this dispute is for bragging rights... rather than a dispute about what the true significance of the Z Car is in term of automotive history?

Yes my opinions as express here and everywhere are mine, but the are supported by almost every written source of information I can find.

What information have you found, that you have failed to share with me, that now leads you to make a statement like that?

FWIW,

Carl

[Carl Beck]

Yes, it didn't go un-noticed.

Last year there were rurmurs regarding 003 being re-discovered in Western Australia, despite numerous e-mails, I haven't been able to un-cover anymore information about it.

Just one further point about 004.

This was recalled to me by the owners son over a few ales several years ago!

The owner at the time [Harry Corbitt] contacted Carl Beck [& Carl can verfiy this] about it's probable build date.

In the absence of absolute proof, it was agreed that it was most probable that 004 was built in 1970.

However, that was based on the available data of the time [when was that Carl?].

With new emerging data that has come forward in this thread, it could challenge that belief and may place the build date of 004 in the year 1969.

If only Kats had access to export data from that era!

MOM

HI Mike:

Mr. Corbitt and I exchanged thoughts on this subject in Feb of 1999. His son was helpful in getting digital images of the data plates and the car to me.

I had written one of the Magazines in Australia as a result of an article they published about HS30 00004 in which they repeated the commonly held belief that HS30 cars with VINs below chassis numbers 00500 were 1969 Production Year cars.

This and previous articles like it, lead to several people, who were selling Right Hand Drive 240-Z's, making the statement that their car as a 1969 production year car. Cars with VIN's higher than HS30 00100 were commonly advertised as being 1969 Production year vehicles.

As I researched this subject, collected information from the various owners and their cars it became apparent to me that the HLS and HS models had separate chassis serial number series assigned to them. We found many cases where both HS and HLS cars had the same chassis numbers. HLS30 00016 and HS30 00016 etc.

At any rate, my intention was to dispel the myth that the first 500 HS30 series cars were 1969 production year vehicles. It was not only incorrect, it lead some owners of 1971 Model Year cars to believe that their cars were built in 1969.

Mr. Corbitt wrote the following:

......."So much of what you set out in your Email made sense. 04 was first registered

in Australian in April 1970 and was used by Nissan, initially for evaluation and then as

a "draw" car from about October; no-one got a test drive. I first saw the car then and ordered mine, delivered February 1971, which was when the first shipment of cars arrived in Australia. I was fortunate enough to remember 04s registration number and approached the then owner around 1985 re buying it."..........

Based not on an absence of absolute proof, but rather on a preponderance of the evidence, and lacking any conflicting evidence; that being based on the original engine serial number, the arrival date in Australia and the cars configuration we agreed that it was "most likely" built in Jan or Feb of 1970.

Is it possible that HS30 00004 was built in 1969? Yes, anything was possible, but the preponderance of the evidence would tend to it being a 1970 production year car.

The fact that one or even two HS30 cars might have been actually produced in 1969 is fine me. I'll gladly state that one or two of them were built in 1969 if and when, we can find a actual car that supports that fact.

My main goal was simply to dispel the original myth or confusion, mostly found in Australia, that lead many to believe than any HS30 model with a chassis number below 00500 was a 1969 production year car.

If HS30 00003 is out there, and we can verify that, I'll be happy to report it was ""possible"" that HS30 00003 was built in 1969... it really doesn't change the main objective of dispelling the Myth, as it related to the first 500 HS30's or the second 499 or the third 498...

FWIW,

Carl

Carl Beck

Clearwater,FL USA

http://ZHome.com

[26th-Z]

Oh geez! I knew this was going to happen. I let my big fat fingers fall across the keyboard and now I'm in hot water. I'm caught on my normal perch; sitting on the fence watching passionate debate and admiring each presentation with the thought that we are getting far too anal. This is just like the good 'ol days in SCCA racing. We used to call it "bench racing".

Carl, we are pretty much reading the same information. You want to know what I REALLY think?

I think Nissan decided in the early '60s to look at exporting cars to compete in and increase it's automotive market share. I think Goertz was brought in for that reason - the Nissan design house began to broaden its focus - reflected in changes in hiring practices. For instance, Matsuo did not attend the design university Nissan historically hired from. I think that the initial concepts begun in the fall of 1965 were more in-house study than export oriented, but by the time the design studios converged in the fall of 1966, the project was export oriented. The S30 chassis is far too symetrical for me to believe that the Z was focused to one specific sales market. Too much effort has gone into the design of mirror image parts so as to economically produce quatities of either side drive. There may be a bias to right-hand drive, but that would be logical and there is hardly any evidence of it. The reverse image chassis design scheme is far too dominant. Actually, the S30 chassis tub is quite sophisticated for not only its structural rigidity, but the ability to economically produce any model version. Clearly, the Z car is export oriented to both left and right hand drive markets - which includes the home Japanese market.

Now, bring in Katayama san. The success story of the Z car is clearly here in America and squarely in the lap of Mr. K. The bragging rights thing should be a nonsequitur and I wasn't involved in that statement. The vast majority of units were sold in America. There is no reason to belabor the point. I do not think Nissan had any idea the Z would be so popular, however. I think Mr. K and Matsuo san had high expectations and I am happy to see they were confident, but the guys back in Japan were clearly caught flat footed. They couldn't meet the demand for HLS30s.

In the begining, there were six? build configurations of the S30. The S30, S30-S, HLS30, HS30, PS30, and PS30-SB. That doesn't indicate an American export focus to me. That indicates to me that I have two Japanese cars that were built to be exported to the United States. Now, it just so happens that the HLS30 comprises the vast majority of the six models built. I think Katayama had something to do with that more than luck. I also think that Katayama had something to do with the build specification for the HLS30. I find it in many ways unique compared to the other model build specifications and options.

And this is what is going to bring me back to the topic! I think that in order to fully understand the American Datsun 240 Z, one must at least be cognizant of what was not exported to America. The Fairlady Z in question offers a unique opportunity to see a car we did not get. Its an early one, too! Cars out of market are always valuable in the collector world because we are striving for "unique" in our collections.

So much for my thoughts and "bullshit". I don't want to hear any crappy remarks. Thats what I think and I am happy to sit here and watch the show. :knockedou

[Bambikiller240]

Fancy footwork but IMO it doesn't address what you meant with the "You just got bullshitted! Took it hook line and sinker!" statement.

[hls30.com]

Chris,

I pass the bullseye to you!

Will

[sblake01]

I understood why Chris made the statement to me. I reacted to part of the story without reading through the whole thing. I'm okay with that. Had I read the whole thread, I never would have made the statement that lead to Carl's response (#121) But there is a lot of opinion and speculation here and I don't really have anything else to add since I've read the same info that everyone else has. Everyone has their own take on it. Now, how much for the 69 Fairlady?

[EScanlon]

Couldnt be bothered reading all the crap since my last post, but i might just say, that ......snip.

So you felt that YOUR crap was OK?

If you want to argue...., umm, discuss it any further, do it in the post that is about that topic, not in a post thats about someone wanting to sell his car.

I seem to recall that the poster hadn't complained. So you felt you had to start an argument?

Where's a moderator when you need one?

Think a WWF style cage match is in order.

.

Nah, one of us would do the Indiana Jones equalizer trick. If you feel that a moderator is required, then report the post and post your reason. You might be advised that "Because I said so." does NOT work worth a damn. Neither do threats.

Was there an election for KING and you won? Since there wasn't, either join in INTELLIGENTLY or shut up and learn. If you don't want to read more, then DON'T.

Not trying to crunch your ego, but do we REALLY need your permission?

E

[Carl Beck]

Chris wrote of his Beliefs:

>..snipped..

>In the begining, there were six? build configurations of the S30. The S30,

>S30-S, HLS30, HS30, PS30, and PS30-SB. That doesn't indicate an American

>export focus to me.

Hi Chris (everyone):

As you have shared your beliefs with us, I like to do the same before leaving this hijacked thread.

I have to base my conclusions, and to an extent my beliefs on the best available evidence; that being what Mr. Matsuo wrote, and which is supported in several other sources. Based on that, it would seem to me at least, that you are confusing the "beginning" with the end of the design cycle.

In the "beginning" there was a 1600 roadster sized, 2.0L 4 cylinder powered, convertible. If we are to believe that the Z Car began with Mr. Matsuo and not Mr. Goertz.... ie. that the "beginning" was Mr. Matsuo's roadster, not Mr. Goertz's or Yamaha's fastback coupe.

Mr. Matsuo tells us that his beginning concept evolved over time into a car that was aimed at compliance with a whole raft of US Safety requirements. Becoming next a fastback coupe that Mr. K said he thought would be best for the US market.. , which in turn evolved into a body widened, made longer, made higher to accommodate the L24 that only Mr. K insisted on.

When the question of having a 2.0L engine for Japan was raised, management directed the use of the S20 from Prince Motors. Which, according to Mr. Matsuo; "incidentally" resulted in the Z432 (or PS30/PS30-SB). At exactly what point in time the JDM was equipped with the L20 I do not know, but given Mr. Matsuo's account we would have to reason that it was some time after the management directive to use the S20, because at that point the question of a 2.0L engine for Japan was still at question (no L20 2.0L engine = no S30-S, S30)

At the end of the preliminary design cycle, there was one body shell, the one who's size and shape was driven by the American Market and Mr. K. Upon that core body shell all other configurations are based.

There is no question that during the various design concepts, alternatives and prototype stages from 1965 to 1968, both Right and Left Hand Drive configurations were mocked up and presented to Nissan Management. This would seem to have been standard practice, as all the roadsters before it were. Likewise the Z car was seen by Nissan Management primarily as an export model, as all the roadsters before it were. The sale of those model variations however represented sales in addition to the primary target market.

Chris wrote:

>....snipped.....

>I think that in order to fully understand the American Datsun 240 Z, one must

>at least be cognizant of what was not exported to America.

I believe that to fully understand the reason for the success of the Datsun 240-Z, one must be cognizant of what the formula for it's astounding success, as well as it's unique place in history, were.

Why it was so completely "different in concept" than all other imported sports cars of the era in the USA. What exactly it is about the Datsun 240-Z that made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

There were several sports cars in the same price range offered in the primary marketplace at the time. All better known Brands to the American public, all having larger sports car market shares in America than Datsun, all with similar technologies.

To fully understand the Japanese Domestic Models, one must at least be cognizant of what drove the design of such a large Sports/GT coming from Japan, during an era of relatively small Japanese automobiles and very small sports car sales in Japan.

If your impressions are correct, then Matsuo and Katayama just got lucky. That may be possible, but none of the surrounding information, nor the actual production and sales figures would seem to support such a position.

If my impressions are correct Katayama's marketing approach of designing cars to target specific export customers expectations of quality; combined with Matsuo's ability to iterate, evolve and continually incorporate new design requirements into his designs, resulted in the marketing success they forecast and twice the sales promised.

As for bragging rights, the rights are Katayama's, Matsuo's and Nissan's. They got it right, by solid market research and skilled design - not by luck. Katayama and Matsuo got the concept of a Sports/GT for America right - when the rest of the sports car manufacturers selling to that same customer base held fast to their traditional concepts of what a sports car was, and completely failed to grasp the basic concept of the Z Car... until most of them went out of the sports car business.

The "whole concept" is physically represented by the U.S. spec. Datsun 240-Z, aimed squarely at the American market, the addition of all the other model variations account for the sum of the parts. IMHO if you miss the conceptual reality, you miss the real story of the Z Car.

It would seem with the benefit of hindsight, that the British and Italian competitors missed the real story, and failed to offer anything competitive. Also interesting to see that the Porsche 911, which offered about the same Size and Power continued on successfully for decades here in America. (even in a much higher price range).

I'll close my saying that I personally believe that the important part of this discussion, for those following along, is grasping an understanding of the whole concept; seeing the Forest, while the BS being thrown around are the arguments about the specific hue, intensity and saturation of the color of the individual leaves.

The whole concept of the Datsun 240-Z for America, is what put Mr. K in the Automobile Hall of Fame, and it is what makes the Datsun 240-Z one of the ten most important cars in US Automotive History.

FWIW,

Carl

[HS30-H]

Hi Chris (everyone):

As you have shared your beliefs with us, I like to do the same before leaving this hijacked thread.

@ Beck. Everybody else has beliefs, but only Beck has the facts.

I have to base my conclusions, and to an extent my beliefs on the best available evidence; that being what Mr. Matsuo wrote, and which is supported in several other sources. Based on that, it would seem to me at least, that you are confusing the "beginning" with the end of the design cycle.

So Carl, you get to decide exactly where the "beginning" and the "end" are, right?

You might like to be a little more circumspect about reading a translation ( it ain't that simple you know ) of a ghost-written text compiled from a few interviews with Matsuo san. Lots of room for interpretation and misunderstanding there - which is just what you have done:

..... which in turn evolved into a body widened, made longer, made higher to accommodate the L24 that only Mr. K insisted on.

When the question of having a 2.0L engine for Japan was raised, management directed the use of the S20 from Prince Motors. Which, according to Mr. Matsuo; "incidentally" resulted in the Z432 (or PS30/PS30-SB). At exactly what point in time the JDM was equipped with the L20 I do not know, but given Mr. Matsuo's account we would have to reason that it was some time after the management directive to use the S20, because at that point the question of a 2.0L engine for Japan was still at question (no L20 2.0L engine = no S30-S, S30)

Rubbish. You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

The L20 was specified for the car BEFORE the S20. Indeed, Katayama wanted a bigger capacity for the Export market version - and hence the L24 was also specified. There was NO POINT at which just the S20 and L24 were on the drawing board. This is just you misinterpreting what has been written because of your perspective. Matsuo was not saying that the S20 came before the L20 - quite the opposite.

Matsuo quite clearly relates the story that the insistence of his superiors to use the S20 engine in a special version of the car came after they were already a fair way down the road with the L20 and L24 engined designs. If you are trying to re-write history by suggesting that the L24 engine came before the L20 in the S30-series Z design process then all must be made aware that you are distorting the story.

In fact, you had better go and look into your S20 engine history a little more closely before writing stuff like this. You might find that the S20 didn't exist until well after the L20 was specified for the car.

You also need to be a little careful about your L24 design history. No more of this nonsense about it being a Bluebird four-banger with a couple of extra cylinders tacked on please. The L20 six quite clearly came first. This is FACT. Not my fact - just historical truth.

All of this demonstrates the truth of what Christopher writes: namely, that to truly understand the export cars you have to understand the domestic cars. Of course, if you think the domestics are an "irrelevance" then you are going to be missing half the story.

At the end of the preliminary design cycle, there was one body shell, the one who's size and shape was driven by the American Market and Mr. K. Upon that core body shell all other configurations are based.

You seem to love representing a subjective view as reality. Its really only your reality though. You flit between the "preliminary" and "final" designs, attaching your own interpretations of what they represent. You present your beliefs as fact - but the truth is that they are open to different interpretations even amongst the major players in the process ( let alone you and me - who are nobodies in this story, and don't you forget it ).

Chris wrote:

>....snipped.....

>I think that in order to fully understand the American Datsun 240 Z, one must

>at least be cognizant of what was not exported to America.

If your impressions are correct, then Matsuo and Katayama just got lucky. That may be possible, but none of the surrounding information, nor the actual production and sales figures would seem to support such a position.

I don't remember anybody saying that they "just" got lucky. That's a gross distortion you are giving to the suggestion ( justified, I believe ) that at least a little bit of luck was involved in the timing. Had the product come to market slightly earlier or slightly later than it did, then it would not have done so well. Matsuo himself has acknowledged this, and I remember him saying that he would not really have wanted to design what became the S130, as times had changed and things were becoming a lot harder.

Carl, you always overstate the case of the 'opposition' to your views - to the point where it sounds stupid to try and reply to your 'defence', which itself is always vastly overstated and full of hyperbole. I don't remember anybody seriously stating as 'fact' that the HLS30-U was a 'version' of the domestic market models, and if they did it was probably just a little bit of chain-pulling aimed at winding you up. There is plenty of evidence ( even if you choose to ignore it ) that BOTH domestic and export and versions of the S30-series Z were designed, productionised and produced AT THE SAME TIME. That would be enough for most people to believe that the domestic models were an important part of the design process, and the fact that - being a Japanese-built car - the S30-series Z would have some natural bias and design concession in favour of an RHD configuration, even if it was a case of force majeure! You only have to look at the layout of the engine, transmission and final drive ( and the domino effect this had on exhaust system location, fuel tank location and a whole raft of other design details ) to understand this.

I believe that the 'truth' is far more subtle and subjective than you ( or myself even ) try to portray, but if you ignore the domestic ( and the export RHD ) models then you have no chance of putting it all into perspective, let alone making your own take on the 'truth' reflect what really happened.

So much for "The True History Of The Z Car", huh?

Alan T.

[Kathy & Rick]

Hi, Everybody!

My first entry on this network is to agree with my friend Carl Beck. I'm practically a charter member among Z owners and still have my 1970 #06289. At that time muscle cars were about the only ones with 4-speeds or an A/T that could take the torque of a 426 Hemi. Other than little economy cars. 5-speeds came in some of the hot little European numbers like my Dad's Alfa Giulietta Spyder. Little old ladies, 90-somethings, millionaires, yuppies, and lazy folk accounted for most of the A/T crowd.

The guys with Z cars who wanted a 5-speed usually got one out of an SRL-511 roadster and did the conversion..

I couldn't find one in good enough condition, so I bit the bullet and spent several months pay on a Competition Department 5-speed. I went ahead w/an 800kg clutch, roller bearing pilot bushing, and R200 (3.90 limited slip) as long as it was apart. 5th gear is a 0.854:1 ratio, which gives me about the same final drive ratio as the original (1.00 4th gear thru a 3.36 differential).

This setup gave me the same 25 or so MPG on the hwy, with a lot more dig off the line, a better choice of RPM/torque selection for various situations, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN SHIFTING MY OWN GEARS!!!!!!!

I was in Sales with Bob Sharp at the time the 280-Z came out. The 75's and 76's had 4-speeds and the 77's were the first ones w/5-speeds.

Rick (of Rick and Kathy)

[sblake01]

No offense, Rick, but did you read this entire thread before you decided to revive it after it's, what, 4 1/2 year sluimber? If so, why?

Edited September 7, 2009 by sblake01

[geezer]

Hi, Everybody!

My first entry on this network is to agree with my friend Carl Beck. I'm practically a charter member among Z owners and still have my 1970 #06289. At that time muscle cars were about the only ones with 4-speeds or an A/T that could take the torque of a 426 Hemi. Other than little economy cars. 5-speeds came in some of the hot little European numbers like my Dad's Alfa Giulietta Spyder. Little old ladies, 90-somethings, millionaires, yuppies, and lazy folk accounted for most of the A/T crowd.

The guys with Z cars who wanted a 5-speed usually got one out of an SRL-511 roadster and did the conversion..

I couldn't find one in good enough condition, so I bit the bullet and spent several months pay on a Competition Department 5-speed. I went ahead w/an 800kg clutch, roller bearing pilot bushing, and R200 (3.90 limited slip) as long as it was apart. 5th gear is a 0.854:1 ratio, which gives me about the same final drive ratio as the original (1.00 4th gear thru a 3.36 differential).

This setup gave me the same 25 or so MPG on the hwy, with a lot more dig off the line, a better choice of RPM/torque selection for various situations, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN SHIFTING MY OWN GEARS!!!!!!!

I was in Sales with Bob Sharp at the time the 280-Z came out. The 75's and 76's had 4-speeds and the 77's were the first ones w/5-speeds.

Rick (of Rick and Kathy)

Welcome Rick and greetings to Kathy as well. I am aware this is your first post on this site and you are unfamiliar with the layout but you will learn your way around in no time. I am really interested to hear anything you would care to share with us. I know you have a few stories to tell that I, or any of us wouldn't want to miss hearing. I would suggest introducing yourself as a new member in your own thread. I'm pleased you are here to join in with us and am looking forward to some great discussions.

Edit: Rick, it occurred to me you might not know how to start your thread. Just look at the top of the page for "FORUMS" and from the drop down menu select "INTRODUCE YOURSELF".

Edited September 7, 2009 by geezer