Jump to content
Email-only Log-Ins Coming in December ×

IGNORED

Z's on BAT and other places collection


Zed Head

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, EuroDat said:

Wow, I didn't know the handbrake lever could get it to the vertical position. Hope thats not an indication of the degree of maintenance 

The car has been dormant for many years according to the description, so not surprising really.

Looks like a car with great potential. Hope it finds a worthy new owner.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another comment on a BaT auction which attempts to re-write history. Why do this?

BaT comment.jpg

First of all, what is the point in decanting out the '240Z' variants from a timeline which includes the other S30-series Z/'270 Keisha' variants? Is this not - once again - an attempt to make the '240Z' (whatever that is...) some kind of KING?

"Regular production chassis serial numbers"?  The cars in question were 'Kojo Shisaku' and 'Seisan Shisaku' examples (by definition Prototypes rather than regular production cars), and we have discussed them at length on this forum in the past after Kats showed us the confidential factory documents which listed them.

Out of those first fourteen 'Kojo Shisaku'(factory prototype) and 'Seisan Shisaku' (production prototype) cars - the first fourteen cars to be given a unique chassis prefix and body serial number combination - just three of them were 'HL270U' HLS30-prefixed cars. One was an 'H270U' HS30-prefixed car, Four were 'P270' PS30-prefixed and six were '270' S30-prefixed.

So what is all this "#1, #2 and #3" stuff? It is nonsense, isn't it?

Why is the history of these cars so consistently misreported and misrepresented by people who should (and do) know better?          

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were selling a car I do t think I’d use BaT. While there are some great comments helping potential buyers there are just as many trolls on there. There are people that make comments that are just not true (sign of the times) damaging the potential sale. This site suffers the pitfalls of many social media sites. What’s true and what’s false?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

BaT banter is just that, banter.

Banter is one thing, but the data I'm talking about is being presented as historical fact by somebody who clearly understands that it is nothing of the sort.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 587 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • 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.