Jump to content
We Need Your Help! ×

IGNORED

JDM Headlight cover difference.


esprist

Recommended Posts

Carl,

Look up Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

1968...

Thanks Chris - I was focused on looking for something earlier than that, but it makes perfect sense that Nissan would have been fully aware of any draft standards prior to any finished regulation.

FWIW,

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn, that is the hole pattern I expected to see on your 240Z-L but I never expected them to be stainless. Just another example of differences between markets & models I guess.

Alan, I have never seen a date associated with the E8726 suffix. I would think the suffix change would have more to do with a design specification change of the particular part in question, moreso than coinciding with the introduction of different models. Not that I am saying it didn't coincide with the introduction of the L24-engined models to the Japanese market. Thats good to know. The change of material from chromed steel to polished stainless would certainly merit a suffix change. I would think that a mounting hole pattern change would also merit a suffix change.

Just as Kats was mystified by the hole patterns of 63900-E4126 & 63901-E4126 because of its uncommon nature in Japan, I am likewise ignorant of headlight rings made of stainless, never seeing them. The only time I ever see them are in pictures and the only noticeable difference is the hole patterns. Thanks for clarifying that.

There was a major difference between the way things were done in Japan from what I've gathered. I am referring to the way optioned parts were ordered and fitted to the cars before delivery. Do you know if this was the case with the headlight covers in Japan? I'm guessing more were ordered and delivered fitted than bought over the counter just because of the fact we never see NOS "later" versions come up for sale.

Edited by geezer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I have never seen a date associated with the E8726 suffix. I would think the suffix change would have more to do with a design specification change of the particular part in question, moreso than coinciding with the introduction of different models.

The point I was trying to make - and it's only a theory at this point, as I think we're all groping around in the dark so to speak - is that I noted E8726 following closely on the heels of E8725 ( the ZG type covers ), and the E8725 - in my experience - I have only ever seen in polished stainless ( never in chrome ). It seems likely to me that the E8726 would be stainless too....

There was a major difference between the way things were done in Japan from what I've gathered. I am referring to the way optioned parts were ordered and fitted to the cars before delivery. Do you know if this was the case with the headlight covers in Japan? I'm guessing more were ordered and delivered fitted than bought over the counter just because of the fact we never see NOS "later" versions come up for sale.

The scenario I would expect ( especially comparing with other showroom 'Option' parts in Japan ) would be that more were sold over the counter - for retrofitting onto cars that were no longer new - than were chosen as extra-cost options on new cars. The second owners of cars, or even the original owners looking to add something to a car they bought new, would be likely to buy such items over the counter in the same way that they might buy some aftermarket nick-nacks, to give the car a fresh look or feel. Not forgetting of course that the headlamp covers were available for many years longer than the actual cars were.....

And also, if your car had covers, and one or both of them got damaged or tired / faded, then what did you do? If you took them off, you had an unsightly mess of holes to look at ( three for each mounting screw ). You'd either need to buy another set of covers, or have some localised repairs and paint. No wonder Nissan kept making them for a long time.

Alan T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make - and it's only a theory at this point, as I think we're all groping around in the dark so to speak - is that I noted E8726 following closely on the heels of E8725 ( the ZG type covers ), and the E8725 - in my experience - I have only ever seen in polished stainless ( never in chrome ). It seems likely to me that the E8726 would be stainless too....

I comprehend your point and also believe that it is a very plausible theory. My only disagreement was with your post script...

PS: "What I'm saying is that the different part number suffix doesn't necessarily indicate the change in mounting hole location"......

The point that I am making is, the assigned suffix, in my opinion, represents the cumulative changes to the part, defining all changes made. Until being enlightened about the likelyhood of the trim rings being changed to stainless, I thought the only changes were the trim rings holes pattern and lense profile. Unless there is another part number that I am unaware of, I am 99% sure that all trim rings with the E8726 suffix will have this hole pattern. Also, if any of the E8726 suffix trim rings are proven to be stainless, I would likewise be 99% sure they all are.

If this is proven to be the case, how do we best refer to the two types? "early" & "later", "original chromed" & "stainless"? Doesn't much matter, as long as the differences are noted. I for one will not likely remember "Zenki" & "Kouki", unless I write it backwards on my forehead.:D

I believe you have swayed my opinion on the ratio of "over the counter sales".

I still would like to know what the reasoning was for not making the changes across the board, at the same time. The only reasons I can think of are possibly economics and not wanting to stock both types in the much larger North American market. Very helpful discussion, for me.

Edited by geezer
lowered my 99.99% surety rate to 99%
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I comprehend your point and also believe that it is a very plausible theory. My only disagreement was with your post script...

PS: "What I'm saying is that the different part number suffix doesn't necessarily indicate the change in mounting hole location"......

The point that I am making is, the assigned suffix, in my opinion, represents the cumulative changes to the part, defining all changes made. Until being enlightened about the likelyhood of the trim rings being changed to stainless, I thought the only changes were the trim rings holes pattern and lense profile. Unless there is another part number that I am unaware of, I am 99% sure that all trim rings with the E8726 suffix will have this hole pattern.

I'm trying to get across that I don't believe two sets of numbers, the labels 'early' and 'late' ( or even 'chromed' and 'stainless' and my suggestions of 'Zenki' and 'Kouki' ) are the whole story with regard to these headlamp covers.

I've seen plenty of other examples on these cars where parts have changed in construction and/or detail without changes to part numbers. I'm especially wary of trim / brightwork parts that don't have an interactive mechanical function. It would not surprise me in the least to hear that part number changes for the headlamp covers did not cover all detail changes.

And speaking just for myself here ( and not necessarily trying to convince anybody else of anything..... ), but I'm not convinced that the 'early' / 'late' labelling of the mounting hole positions is correct in some of the earlier posts in this thread.

Here's a photo from the Nissan display stand at the 1969 Tokyo Auto Show. I feel fairly confident that this instance would qualify as a textbook example of 'early'. Please note the clearly visible front mounting screw position, which I see being described as "late" elsewhere in this thread:

Alan T.

post-2116-14150812918317_thumb.jpg

post-2116-14150812919085_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you have swayed my opinion on the ratio of "over the counter sales".

One down, 100 million to go......

I still would like to know what the reasoning was for not making the changes across the board, at the same time. The only reasons I can think of are possibly economics and not wanting to stock both types in the much larger North American market. Very helpful discussion, for me.

I think you're overestimating the influence of the "much larger North American market" with regard to OEM headlamp covers.

I believe the wants and needs of the Japanese home market would have completely dominated those of any other market in relation to these particular parts. Japan was their biggest market, the market where they were fitted to cars as part of a showroom options package ( not the case in other markets ) and where Nissan had an obligation to customers who had bought them. The fact that more than one type could have needed replacement in later years seems to me to be a good reason for Nissan to keep making both/all versions well into - at least - the 1990s......

I note that the Japanese market parts books don't list the E8726 as superseding the E4126, and that they are listed as parallel parts - with their model applications clearly stated.

Alan T.

Edited by HS30-H
corrected missing part number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulated headlamp design for many years prior to 1968. The '68 law regulated positioning, but the sealed beam design was still required. Prior to '68, several automobiles had over-under layouts of high and low beam headlamps. The '68 law requred side-by-side layouts. Around 1965, the square sealed beam was introduced and the '68 law addressed that too. I'm guessing, as I don't remember 240Zs with headlamp covers (because they were illegal) in the period, that this headlamp cover phenonmina is a more 'recent' development. Yes, they were available in the competition catalog, but I just don't recall seeing them with any sort of regularity.

One other thing that should be noted here about headlamps. Headlamps manufactured for the Japanese domestic market have reflector patterns in the headlamp for driving on the left-hand side of the road. They would be improper for use in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So another question - since all early cars are supposed to have plastic ''sugar scoops'' , would this pose a problem for a strong mount for the headlight cover metal fasteners ? Those base screws look awfully short and tiny !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get across that I don't believe two sets of numbers, the labels 'early' and 'late' ( or even 'chromed' and 'stainless' and my suggestions of 'Zenki' and 'Kouki' ) are the whole story with regard to these headlamp covers.

I've seen plenty of other examples on these cars where parts have changed in construction and/or detail without changes to part numbers. I'm especially wary of trim / brightwork parts that don't have an interactive mechanical function. It would not surprise me in the least to hear that part number changes for the headlamp covers did not cover all detail changes.

And speaking just for myself here ( and not necessarily trying to convince anybody else of anything..... ), but I'm not convinced that the 'early' / 'late' labelling of the mounting hole positions is correct in some of the earlier posts in this thread.

Here's a photo from the Nissan display stand at the 1969 Tokyo Auto Show. I feel fairly confident that this instance would qualify as a textbook example of 'early'. Please note the clearly visible front mounting screw position, which I see being described as "late" elsewhere in this thread:

Alan T.

Looking at the photos and changing the subject for a sec, the wire-style wipers were OEM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get across that I don't believe two sets of numbers, the labels 'early' and 'late' ( or even 'chromed' and 'stainless' and my suggestions of 'Zenki' and 'Kouki' ) are the whole story with regard to these headlamp covers.

It never is the whole story is it? We can only piece together whatever clues, evidence, proof, validation, testimony, documentation, etc. that we come across. Then we can decide what we choose to believe. I certainly am not claiming to know the whole story but I do find some of what we know to be compelling at the very least.

Using your own example of sequential suffixes indicates "early" or "later" when comparing the two part numbers. Although the two sets of headlight covers were produced and sold concurrently for many years, in different markets, one type had to be first and we know which set was first to be included in the parts listings.

You mention:

"I've seen plenty of other examples on these cars where parts have changed in construction and/or detail without changes to part numbers."

Yes of course, we have all seen examples of that but this is not the same. In this case the parts have been changed in construction and/or detail, as well as a new part number assigned.

To me, the photo from the 1969 Tokyo auto show qualifies as "early" only in the sense of the time period. I would not testify either way in a court of law, to what type of headlight cover I am seeing in the photograph. I just couldn't say with any reasonable amount of certainty. I think we have all been fooled in similar circumstances. Chrome or polished stainless can distort quite readily in these old photographs, especially with the lighting provided and reflections created.

Prototypes, pre production or pilot cars could be outfitted with just about anything the designers were developing, shown in the media, previewed by the public but never put into production. We've all seen it.

Chris's remarks caused me to remember back to the '70s. I am old enough that I did drive a 240Z in 1970 (that belonged to a friend), loved the cars and was fairly familiar with them. Like Chris, I don't recall seeing any Zs equipt with headlight covers, other than perhaps in a magazine article or such. Along with your explanation Alan, I can understand how the headlight covers were much more predominant in Japan.

We really didn't have that many S30s in this area. Come to think of it XKEs were and still are more plentiful around here.

I'm not meaning to be argumentive. Its safe to say I'm out of my league, when discussing some of these topics. To me its like a big jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes the pieces fit, sometimes they don't.

Edited by geezer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using your own example of sequential suffixes indicates "early" or "later" when comparing the two part numbers. Although the two sets of headlight covers were produced and sold concurrently for many years, in different markets, one type had to be first and we know which set was first to be included in the parts listings.

Ron,

We can certainly believe that the E4126 number was the first part number, but what mounting hole position layout does it indicate? My conviction is that the E4126 numbered covers had more than one mounting hole position layout.

I can't track the E8726 suffixed parts as appearing until the introduction of the 'H' prefixed models to the Japanese market ( late September 1971 ), and have noted that the part number closely corresponds with the E8725 suffix of the longer 240ZG headlamp covers. And yet I can see period evidence of at least two different mounting hole layouts long before September 1971. As far as I can see, that's two distinct variants within a period where we have only one part number.

You say that you can't see them clearly, but I am quite convinced that I can clearly identify the front screws on the 1969 Tokyo Show 432 pictured above. They are visible on both sides of the car. I can't make you see them, but photos of the car from other angles clearly show the absence of screws on the forward top part of the covers which would be there in the 'other' layout.

To move this discussion on from parts in boxes, and in an effort to give some dating perspective, here is some evidence of 'period use'. Three photos taken in mid November 1970 of two of the four Works 240Z rally cars that were about to take part in the 1970 RAC Rally here in the UK. You will notice that the top parts of the headlamp covers were painted satin black to match the satin black bonnet and wing tops, and I believe the mounting screw positions are clearly visible, and are different than those of the October 1969 Tokyo Auto Show 432:

post-2116-14150812924992_thumb.jpg

post-2116-14150812925958_thumb.jpg

post-2116-14150812926512_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 770 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.