Flashback to the mid-'60's

[doradox]

Looks like it was purely a business decision. Just sell a Margherita pizza with effectively no choice of extra toppings, and keep production, supply and sales for export markets simple. If you want extra cheese or anchovy, go to the deli down the road and get it yourself.

And engineering input was likely a part of that purely business decision.

[Jetaway]

One of the things I think was missing for the US market was no "real" options. A '70 Camaro had literally dozens of engine, rearend, and transmission combos to choose from not to mention body trim levels. In a way it makes the Z look kind of boring. If you've seen one 1970 240Z you've pretty much seen them all. I know some will disagree but when compared the to the vast range of just drivetrain options offered by my Camaro example any options the Z had were a big yawn.

So I vote, as mentioned earlier, for more engine, trans, rear end, and suspension options.

Steve

I wish American manufacturers still offered the dizzying combination of drivetrain components that they did in the 1960s. From a 1966 Road and Track GM performance car ad the SS 396 (i.e., Chevelle with Super Sport components) only had 2 engine choices (both 396's) but a 3 or 4 spd manual or the 2-spd PowerSlide auto or the 3-spd Turbo-HydroMatic automatic with, in the case of the 4-spd High Output 396, no less than seven rear ends ranging from 3.07 to 4.88, all also available with Posi-Traction. True, some of the rear ends couldn't be ordered without Posi, and not every transmission had a choice of seven differentials, but all in all, quite the selection. If you consider the base Chevelle as part of the line, dang skippy, you'd probably get another three or four engine packages to consider.

Not to mention the possibilities with a dealer who had an "in" with COPO's.

The lack of options on at least the earliest of the Z's wasn't particular to the Z per se, rather that was standard practice with the high-volume importers. Inexpensive imports, especially those in high demand, were ordered by the distributor with the factory options (engine, transmission, interior, etc.) that they felt met the demands of the American market. Many of the items we consider "factory" options today were actually installed by import dealers (radios, air conditioning. exterior trim, bumper guards, etc.) after delivery. Even when factory options were nominally available in America, not many people wanted to wait the 2 - 4 months it would take for the car to be ordered, shipped, prepped, and delivered. Even high-end cars, M-Bs, Porsches, Jags, which had more options available tended to have relatively thin choices when compared with contemporary American cars.

It was later, I'm thinking the early to mid-1980s, though I could be a half decade off on that, that importers and foreign manufacturers began introducing "packages," which would incorporate a related group of options (comfort or looks, or performance or all three into one package) into one tidy, but indivisible package. (Somewhat different than American packages at the time, which largely consisted of options that also could be ordered individually.)

Alas, "packages" today, foreign or domestic, seem to be formed more on the basis of having one or two really cool or useful options thrown in with a bunch of crap you don't want (notice how I cleverly leave it open as to what is "cool" or "junk";)) than with a coherent purpose in mind. Thus forcing you to buy stuff you don't want or to go without something you really need.

Chris

[xs10shl]

Regardless of the US getting almost none of the goodies when compared to the home market Z, they still sold out as fast as they could make them. So perhaps the only change I'd advise them to make is to build another factory to meet demand.

[HS30-H]

And engineering input was likely a part of that purely business decision.

In what way? Many of the parts / specs that people here are lamenting the lack of on the north American market cars did already exist, and were either fitted as standard equipment in other markets or as readily available options.

I'm saying that the business side's decisions nixed the fitment / use of parts that had already been designed, engineered and fitted for other markets.

Oh yeah, I forgot, why the deuce did they not put a 5 speed in the thing? My '69 roadster has one, so they clearly had the engineering and parts.

Another one! What's the roadster got to do with it? The FS5C71-A ( and the FS5C71-B that followed it ) was standard equipment in all S30-series Z markets except the north American market.....

[26th-Z]

Perhaps it's time to discuss what version of the S30 came to North American shores and why. Sooo many comments have been made about what was part of the design and development. I read a comment about wishing for a sporty suspension. In the mid / late sixties, coil-over front and IRS rear was cutting edge for the most expensive sports cars, unheard of in the lower priced market. The suspension is a key point in the success of the S30. The L24 engine delivered plenty of sufficient torque for a four-speed gearing. For the market that the 240Z would compete in, a four-speed was top of the line. Most five-speeds of the time were overdrive units meant for high speed cruising that the lower gears could not provide (because of the torque of the engine and weight of the car). The L24 and four-speed combination provided competitive acceleration and 120 mph top speed - not bad for $3,500. The rust and metal issues we complain about were common to most every car of the period. It was the way steel was made at the time. But the unique unbody construction was not so common. What became of the chassis performance was top of the line for the price range and weight.

The version of the S30 that came to North America did not have many of the options and upgrades that we see available in Japanese and other foreign markets for what seem to be two obvious reasons. One, Nissan was unsure of how well the Z-car would sell in America. The corporate dispute over this issue is well documented. Secondly, the price target for the American market was set low. Probably as "insurance" for high sales figures. This was demonstrated almost immediately by the number of manditory dealer options sold for an elevated price. I think the 'stripped down' configuration of the HLS30 was initially a mis-guessed marketing / sales compromise. Even though the model was modestly configured, it was more than adequate to compete in its sales class, insuring high sales volume and profit.

Datsun in America didn't have a big options marketing strategy at the time. I recall that customer satisfaction was high for the configuration of Datsun cars sold in America. They seemed to come with everything one needed for the economical price. Datsuns also had a reputation for endurance at the time. Even though I understand the complaints about the electrics, there are 40 year old spark plug wires still in service. Compared to the sports cars that the 240Z competed with, the electrics were more than satisfactory. Nissan products do not have the "prince of darkness" reputation enjoyed by other manufacturers.

Frankly, I think it is strong testiment to the initial design and engineering that so many HLS30s still exist and continue to provide excellent service.

[Jeff G 78]

Here would be my short list of changes:

Same body shape and design, but with slight tweaks for better aerodynamics to avoid exhaust fumes and front end lift

Better spindle pin design so there wouldn't need to be "right of passage" for future owners

Better rust protection

Better differential front mount design

Timing chain tensioner that can't pop out of position when the chain isn't wedged

Better dash pad material that wouldn't crack in a few years

[TomoHawk]

You would have to build a time machine to go back to the 60s with the 'secret formulas' for all that stuff, like the UV-stable plastics, superior engine and body design, non-corroding steel alloys, and show them your perfectly-average American physique for measurement, then convince the tightwad execs to spend the extra money to modify their 'already proven' engineering. practices.

While you're at it, get the real scoop on who did what in the design of the marque. You might even bring back some low (zero) mile examples of the 240Z, in perfect factory-new condition!

[doradox]

In what way? Many of the parts / specs that people here are lamenting the lack of on the north American market cars did already exist, and were either fitted as standard equipment in other markets or as readily available options.

I'm saying that the business side's decisions nixed the fitment / use of parts that had already been designed, engineered and fitted for other markets.

In the same way engineering participates in any business decision. Engineering holds the information that would be used to evaluate any change or variation from the set of requirements they were given to meet. I am often consulted by sales and marketing on what the cost/benefit is of many different "engineering" options. How can you make a decision if you don't know what the potential trade off is? And engineering isn't just design of parts as industrial and manufacturing engineering are key parts in the whole getting a product to market chain of events.The parts may have already been designed but engineering chose which of those part combinations best met the requirements for the specific market. How much would it cost to fit the 5 speed vs. cost vs. performance requirements much more complex than what is the 0-60 time.

[HS30-H]

Perhaps it's time to discuss what version of the S30 came to North American shores and why.

Well, I'm with you on the spec-for-price point ( the North American sales price was set artificially low, especially considering the costs of logistics and infrastructure backing it up ) but soft springing and damping - with soft / no anti roll bars - and slower steering rack ratios are more to do with driving feel than cost. Those North American market cars had been specced according to some kind of expectation that the North American market wanted a particular type of driving character. Something more biased towards a sedan with a pretty body than what constituted the essence of a Sports / GT at that time.

I don't agree with your points about the L24 and the four-speed. The L24 offered in other Export markets certainly didn't lack any torque in comparison ( there's the dirty little secret that the North American L24s actually had less power and response too.... ), and the 5-speed O/D with 3.9 diff ratio was all about giving the car a sportier feel when going up and down through the gears. The wide ratio 4-speed D/D with 3.3 diff gives a completely different driving experience to the close ratio 5-speed O/D with 3.9 diff in first, second, third and fourth - let lone fifth. That too is all about driving experience, driving character, personality.

Yes they sold like hot cakes in North America so *maybe* they got that 'right', but I would have thought a more sporty North American market sub variant ( something along the lines of Car and Driver magazine's 'Omega Z' of 1971 ) would have been a great halo model to sell alongside the 'cooking' model, a year or so after initial launch. It certainly would not have done any harm.....

[HS30-H]

In the same way engineering participates in any business decision. Engineering holds the information that would be used to evaluate any change or variation from the set of requirements they were given to meet. I am often consulted by sales and marketing on what the cost/benefit is of many different "engineering" options. How can you make a decision if you don't know what the potential trade off is? And engineering isn't just design of parts as industrial and manufacturing engineering are key parts in the whole getting a product to market chain of events.The parts may have already been designed but engineering chose which of those part combinations best met the requirements for the specific market. How much would it cost to fit the 5 speed vs. cost vs. performance requirements much more complex than what is the 0-60 time.

OK, I understand your viewpoint. But my point is that the basic design of the chassis incorporates the possibility of several different mechanical layouts and a myriad of different details. Most of the parts we are talking about already existed and the chassis was ready to take them. For example, it was a business decision to decide whether to supply certain markets with a clock as standard equipment, even though the aperture, mounting and wiring for a clock, as well as the clock itself, already existed. I don't see that as a purely engineering decision, as the engineering had already been done.

[doradox]

OK, I understand your viewpoint. But my point is that the basic design of the chassis incorporates the possibility of several different mechanical layouts and a myriad of different details. Most of the parts we are talking about already existed and the chassis was ready to take them. For example, it was a business decision to decide whether to supply certain markets with a clock as standard equipment, even though the aperture, mounting and wiring for a clock, as well as the clock itself, already existed. I don't see that as a purely engineering decision, as the engineering had already been done.

We agree then. As to the clock, you seem to be assuming that the wiring, apeture, etc. existed before any decision was made whether or not to offer it in a particular market. I would suggest that engineering was involved before the decision was made to offer a clock at all let alone in what markets it might be offered in. That the chassis can accept different engines and so forth seems to show that there was a lot of forethought given to the design requirements. Engineering would have provided estimates of the cost of this flexibility so that a business decision on whether or not to offer a particular option in a particular market could be made and the impact on the profit margins across all markets could be evaluated.

[HS30-H]

I would suggest that engineering was involved before the decision was made to offer a clock at all let alone in what markets it might be offered in.

You might need to take another stab at explaining that to me.

My example of the clock fitment / non fitment can be demonstrated with the early publicity for the HLS30-U model, which showed a blanking plate in the clock aperture. That blanking plate already existed because the base-level S30-S 'Fairlady Z' and the super lightweight PS30-SB 'Fairlady Z432-R' did not have a clock, but the other models in the Japanese lineup - as well as other Export models - did. Granted there was an engineering solution involved ( clock, or no clock ) but the concept came first. Before the engineering.

In the case of the HLS30-U, first it seemed that it would not have a clock, but then - in practice - it did. That must have been a business decision of some sort. That decision seems to have been made after the engineering, but the engineering would not have taken place without concept, planning and strategy coming first.