HLS30-OOO13 Has Been Found!

[26th-Z]

i know very little of the S30 design history, and what country it was marketed at specifically,but i think the position of the handbrake gives alot away.Corresct me if im wrong?What side of the road do the Japanese drive on?Ive not been there so do not know.

The Japanese drive on the left hand side of the road. Japanese cars are right hand drive. Kiwi, I DO know a lot about the S30 design history and I think the S30 was NOT marketed to a specific country. I think that the developing U.S. market under the leadership of Yutaka Katayama was a heavy influence but I don't believe that any direct influence from the U.S. market came until very late in the design program, perhaps begining in late 1967. I think the issue is increadibly obvious; the car was engineered for both left and right hand drive, it accomodates components for racing purposes, it accomodates three different engines, and all the Americans got was one version. And a stripped down version at that! The S30 design was heavily engineered and arguably the pinnacle of what Nissan technology had to offer at the time. I don't know why the argument even exists.

[doradox]

Americans got was one version. And a stripped down version at that!

Could you elaborate on the stripped down part?

Steve

[zpizzaman20]

When did the US get a 5 speed in an HLS-30?

[sblake01]

When did the US get a 5 speed in an HLS-30?

1977. I know that's not really what you mean.......

[NissanMaster]

Great ID plate pics! I heard rumor of #13 at the Cleveland Convention but to now see it is incredible!!! This is amazing

[geezer]

Could you elaborate on the stripped down part?

Steve

I don't want to divert this thread any more than needed and listing all the standard equipment or available optional equipment in other markets would certainly do that. I just had this argument recently, when I was told..."but you could order that from the Competition catalog if you wanted it". Yes, but only after paying for a lesser part to begin with when originally purchasing the car and having the added expense of swapping out components. It is painfully obvious that we in the North American market didn't get what other markets did, when you leaf through the S30-PS30 parts catalog. Not everything is shown there either but enough to enlighten us somewhat.

This did not make anyone love their Zs any less. "You don't miss what you never had" is a fitting statement.

Nissan was progressively developing new components and testing via their own engineers, racing programs or customer response. I think it just was not feasible or possible to supply the immense North American appetite that surely would have been wetted by offering these parts as standard or optional equipment, not to mention complicating the logistics that were already stretched beyond Nissan's expectations. It is always a racing program or a limited market that is primarily used for evaluating parts. Then it is up to the bean counters to steer the board of directors toward profitability and that can wipe out years of research & development in an instant.

Edited September 5, 2009 by geezer

[doradox]

I don't want to divert this thread any more than needed and listing all the standard equipment or available optional equipment in other markets would certainly do that. I just had this argument recently, when I was told..."but you could order that from the Competition catalog if you wanted it". Yes, but only after paying for a lesser part to begin with when originally purchasing the car and having the added expense of swapping out components. It is painfully obvious that we in the North American market didn't get what other markets did, when you leaf through the S30-PS30 parts catalog. Not everything is shown there either but enough to enlighten us somewhat.

This did not make anyone love their Zs any less. "You don't miss what you never had" is a fitting statement.

Nissan was progressively developing new components and testing via their own engineers, racing programs or customer response. I think it just was not feasible or possible to supply the immense North American appetite that surely would have been wetted by offering these parts as standard or optional equipment, not to mention complicating the logistics that were already stretched beyond Nissan's expectations. It is always a racing program or a limited market that is primarily used for evaluating parts. Then it is up to the bean counters to steer the board of directors toward profitability and that can wipe out years of research & develpment in an instant.

I think maybe the definition of "lesser part" is in the eye of the beholder with respect to performance "upgrades". I'm pretty sure I would have been much less likely to have ever owned a Z if they had instead been exported to NA with the 2.0 liter 6 (L20A?)though.

The PS-30 was certainly an exceptional example of the Z but not really produced in substantial numbers, was it? Just enough to go racing? Virtually no one could get one of those.

I am not trying to argue any point, just wanted to know what "stripped down" really meant and what version Z was being held up as the "standard" from which all others were judged.

Steve

[sblake01]

I am not trying to argue any point, just wanted to know what "stripped down" really meant and what version Z was being held up as the "standard" from which all others were judged.

Evidentally, judging from this very interesting but not at all conclusive thread, that would depend entirely on who is telling the story.

[geezer]

Evidentally, judging from this very interesting but not at all conclusive thread, that would depend entirely on who is telling the story.

Yes, Stephen, you and I are old enough that we both drove a 1970 240Z in 1970 and speaking for myself, I can tell you I was in love with the 240Z and was also totally oblivious to what was available in other markets around the world. I was always a "car guy" and fairly knowledgeable but mostly about cars that were on our streets, in our showrooms here or perhaps snipets from magazines. I was totally immersed in "American Iron". It has only been a few years now that I have learned about and gained any knowledge of the worldwide perspective of the S30. It is totally up to each individual what you take an interest in and want to learn more about. I am in agreement with you doradox (Steve) that in hindsight looking at what was available elsewhere in limited numbers would have only been a pipedream and given the choice, would also opt for the L24 over the L20A. But some of us still say in reference to some of these parts..."damn, how come we never got that"?! Other markets were what they were and just interesting to me as an aspect of the marque I wish to learn all I can about. No argument from me. It's just a hobby, but I understand the importance of getting it right in print for future hobbyists.

Edit: Just want to add that this question is one which should not even be considered.

"what version Z was being held up as the "standard" from which all others were judged".

Each model has their own identity and should be viewed for what they are...in my opinion. Comparisons are fair, but being "judged"?

Edited September 7, 2009 by geezer
spelling correction

[J Shara]

I as well think the car should be put on display, unrestored

Edited September 6, 2009 by J Shara

[HS30-H]

Alan, if you have questions or comments about the post on ctzcc.com why not post them there so the person that posted can address them directly?

Well Mike, as you know I joined up to the ctzcc.com forum and got into a little debate. Carl Beck also joined up there, and I see that you and 26th-Z did too.

Unfortunately it seems that forum administrator Frank Thomas has decided that the sound of one hand clapping is preferable to any kind of reasoned discussion, and has 'taken his ball home', so to speak. He has deleted two long and detailed responses that I made to posts by Carl Beck and himself, citing "caustic and abrasive" language ( huh? ) as the reason for deleting them. He has also deleted some of the follow-up posts I made which - I think - politely questioned why he had deleted the whole of my own posts, but had removed offensive remarks from his own post.

If anybody was following the discussion, and would like to see what was deleted, I am posting it here. I don't think there is anything "caustic or abrasive" or even excessively confrontational in what I wrote, and I think I made some fairly on-topic responses to what Carl Beck and Frank T had written ( and which are still up on the original thread at ctzcc.com ). Some of the data that was posted was clearly wrong, and I think it is worthy of debate.

If you're really not interested in this, then please ignore. At least you will have been allowed to make your own mind up from the data and opinion presented, which seems to be anathema to some....

Cheers,

Alan T.

[HS30-H]

from the ctzcc.com thread here: http://forums.ctzcc.com/viewtopic.php?t=4114&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

For the benifit of the people following the thread - I will answer a couple that I feel are related to the subject of discussion and/or where I have introduced an error.

So you want to set the agenda of the discussion, and only answer what it suits you to answer? What is the "subject of discussion"? The answer - of course - is that it all is.....

Yes - my original statement is incorrect - I should have said "Nissan's Management had expected the Z to sell at about the same level as the Roadsters which averaged around 4,000 per Year... between 1958 and 1970"

I was actually referring to Mr. Matsuo's statement about his disagreement with the decision by Nissan Management to use Nissan Shatai for production of the Z's in the first place.

You were actually using the production figures of the SP/SR Roadsters to illustrate a point in relation to the production capacity of Nissan Shatai's Hiratsuka plant. I notice you now rewind and bring the 'average' down by including the figures from 1958 ( a whole different world to the 65~70 period you initially quoted! ), but the real question is just what the figure of "21,000" means here:

Nissan Shatai was able to produce something over 21,000 of them during the 1970 Model Year....

...so once again, I ask you exactly what this figure of "21,000" represents? You connected it to 'Model Year' - but how can that include domestic and export markets outside north America? If you don't state whether this is TOTAL production for any stated period of time, then how on earth is it relevant to the subject of production capacity?

In 1970 a Datsun 240Z had an MSRP of $3526.00. As I recall the Datsun Dealers had about 15% profit at that MSRP. Meaning that Nissan Motors USA sold them to the Dealers for about $3066.00 leaving the Dealerships a gross profit of $460.00 per unit.

Nissan had to absorb the cost of shipping from Japan from that $3066.00 as well as many other overhead items associated with selling into a remote market.

So quite the contrary - Z's sold for about the same price here in the US and Canada as they did in Japan as far as Nissan was concerned. That is the major reason that the Z Car was specifically designed for America.

This is missing the point. None of the above takes into account what Nissan Shatai were making out of all this, and the sticky mess that grew out of it - let alone factoring in what Nissan's true costs were for its north American operations. Ironically enough, one of the main reasons that we have had such a struggle to get accurate production data about the early Z - and all the associated history that goes with that - is precisely because of the baggage that went with all this. All we hear is that Nissan made buckets of cash out of the Z, when the real bottom line was a rather more complex and messy conundrum that didn't pan out until a few years later.

Australia- - - 2358 - - - - 1.38%

G.B. - - - - -- 1929 - - - - 1.13%

Germany - - - - 112 - - - -0.066%

Holland - - - -- -232- - - - 0.136%

France - - - - - 672 - - - - 0.395%

= = = = = = = = = = = = 3.12% (5305 units -rounded to 3%)

No question that one or two percent were possibly scattered around the world for the then struggling Datsun Dealers to display as an "Image Car" for the Datsun Brand.

Oh dear, here we go again - quoting figures that completely ignore the Japanese market. This - once again - is a perfect example of the way that you approach all of this. Why are you specifically talking about the 'Datsun 240Z" when the full story needs to include models that simply didn't wear the same emblems?

And if you are insisting on including only HS30 and HLS30 prefixed models, then where do my two 'HS30' prefixed Fairlady 240ZGs fit into the figures? The production figures for the domestic market models are hugely bigger than the combined totals of the export markets you quoted above, but you insist on ignoring them. Why? Is it because they don't fit the 'Datsun 240Z' pigeonhole that you want to isolate from the term 'S30-Series'?

So - straight question - are my two Fairlady 240ZGs something so completely different from those RHD export market cars ( for Australia and UK ) that you quoted above, that they can't be included in sales figures, let alone production figures? Do you even know how many 'HS30' prefixed cars were made for the Japanese market? If you know, why discount them? If you don't know, then why don't you know? To purposely ignore a decent percentage of production quantity seems, well - just bizarre. ALL of our cars are the product of the same design and engineering team, working for the same company, and made in the same factory, in Japan.

That is the major reason that the Z Car was specifically designed for America.

I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out, but this "designed for America" mantra does not tell us the full story about the actual 'design'. Most of the occasions when "designed for" is being used, the term "sales targetted" would be much more appropriate. In an engineering design sense, it is patently clear from looking at the product itself that it was not designed solely "for America". Nobody disputes that the great majority of cars produced went to the north American market ( as was planned and expected! ) but if anyone disputes the fact that their own car ( regardless of RHD or LHD, Domestic or Export spec ) displays clear evidence of design for multi variant adaptation, let alone natural design concession biased toward the origin of the mechanicals, then they obviously can't have a full understanding of the car or the circumstances surrounding its creation.

Alan T.

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

Can anyone tell me what exactly can be described as "caustic", "abrasive" or needlessly confrontational in the above? I'd love to know, for future reference if nothing else. Have people forgotten what a written discussion looks like?

Carl, I invite you to continue the discussion here.

Alan T.