production number for 1969

[Alfadog]

BRAIN OVERLOAD!

There is sooo much new precious information in this topic, I'm going to have to read it over again to make sure I remember it all, you are a very determined man Kats, and I think you have a bit of luck going for you too!!! You must be so proud and honoured to have met all of those men!

Thank you so incredibly much for your input, I for one am infatuated with history and history of the Z car is even more exciting! What the best part about this is that the information is so hard to come by, that even after 30 years NEW information is coming out (for example the steering wheel! Do you know how many people have been confused by this?!).

Thank you again kats

[Zedrally]

Wow again,

Georlz de-bunked!.

Steering Wheel is wood!

The only other good news I would like to hear is about the metal G-Nose!

Keep it coming guys.

MN

PS. Don't worry about offending anyone with differing views, everyone is probably wrong anyway!

[Zedrally]

Oh, I forgot to add:

Remnants of 68 zed found by Redex Round Australia crews in Aussie outback.

[Carl Beck]

Hello Alan (everyone):

When I said I was enjoying the dialog I sincerely meant it. Wordy exchanges don't bother me ;-) and I enjoy a good exchange (this is a hobby after all;-)

I'm sorry your first contact with me was not as pleasant as it should have been Alan. I am all to often bluntly honest at the expense of tact, but I never intend to be personally offensive in that regard.

As I recall - you wrote me bitching about there not being enough information on ZHome about the Fairlady Z. Not your exact words - but that was my take on the situation and I most likely was more than a little defense;-). (feel free to correct me if my recall is incorrect -I'll go back and re-read your e-mail message.).

I get about ten e-mails per month from people bitching about my not having done enough free work to satisfy their needs/desires - so over the past ten years I've gotten a little thick skinned and maybe too snippy.

There is another old saying however - "no offense intended then none taken". I've taken our exchange here with good humor and tried to keep it that way. Heated exchanges don't bother me and they usually revel more information than less.

If you've read the articles I've written on ZHome - you know that I believe most books written about the Z Cars to date - good as they are - have missed what I refer to as "The Real Story Of The Z Car".

They have covered the available data and information about the car, some of the history of Nissan, some of the history of the previous Nissan Sports Cars... and that seems to have been their purpose. For the most part they meet their purpose and I'm not knocking them in that regard. On a much higher level however, I believe they all missed "the Real Story of the Z Car". They have missed the "Forest" for the "Trees".

In a very brief summary - my contention is that the real story of the Z Car is about industrial development in Japan post WWII. It's about industrial competition at it's best and the consumer products that come out of that competition. The real story of the Z Car is about excellence in design and engineering in the "Deming Award" sense of the term.

The Real Z Car Story is intertwined with corporate in fighting, outstanding Leadership, and yes - even very stupid decisions along the way. The real story of the Z Car is also intertwined with Japan moving from enemy of the US - to becoming a benefactor of arguably the best friend they have ever had.

In that context - the main theme is about designing the Datsun 240-Z for the US market and it's American customers.

Your position would argue that Nissan designed a "dual use" or "multiple use" automobile - one intended from the beginning for "world sales". You suggest that the success of the Datsun 240-Z in American, may have been just blind luck, good timing, cheap price... ie an unexpected benefit to Nissan. You infer that sales success in the marketplace does not mean it was a good product. (your Mac argument;-). You say the home market S30S and S30 were the main design and argue the LHD models weren't even laid out well nor properly equipped.

Your position is clearly that "all the S30's" were originally intended to be produced and therefore they should all have equal time, equal written coverage. That they are therefore all equally as important as one another. (your horse before the cart)

I argue soundly against that position - not because I feel the Fairlady is inferior but because your position is diametrically opposed to what I believe is the true story of the Z Car. You are telling people we should count and compare trees - when I'm trying to tell people the forest is what should be the focus today.

There are already lots of books listing and describing the trees IMHO. It's the forest that will preserve long term - the history of the Z and the men who delivered it.

The real story of the Z Car - is carried by the Datsun 240-Z - as specified, as designed, as built for the American market. Diverting the focus from that truth undermines building a public comprehension of the tremendous accomplishment of both Japan and Nissan; not to mention the individuals involved.

If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view their Fairlady's as "the original intent". If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view their Fairlady Z as a "Japanese Icon" to the extent that a Samurai Sword is. If indeed the Japanese owners of Z Cars view America as simply a large market into which they sell products to the suckers (or devil). Then that would be a very sad commentary on them indeed.

My hope is that the Japanese owners of Z Cars see the Z for what it truly represents; "The First American Sports/GT designed and built entirely in Japan". A car that changed the automotive world. If they are driving a Z - they are in effect driving a domestically produced "foreign car". If they are driving a Z they are driving a First Place trophy representing a WIN - in the automotive marketing competition.

Kind regards and if you get to Clearwater - you'll be welcome in my home Alan.

Carl B.

[Alfadog]

Mate, like Alan said, this is kats' topic, if you want to continue can you just please start a new thread? I really enjoy listening in to your two (very different) views on the matter but I dont think this is the right place.

[HS30-H]

I'm going to ask Kats to make a NEW thread when he posts his next instalment of the latest news of the 1969 activities.

I can't think of any way to repair this thread whilst still leaving the verbal tennis game complete - so I am forced to continue. I just hope that Kats does not mind. I must make my attempt to answer properly, otherwise it might seem like a submission.

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

Originally posted by Carl Beck

A l a n Wrote:

AT> You call the Japanese domestic model S30S ( Fairlady Z )

AT> a "stripped out model" - but you seem to conveniently forget

AT> about the Fairlady Z-L.

Hi Alan:

I call it like it is. The S30S was stripped of many otherwise standard features to lower its cost in the Japanese market.

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

Hi Carl,

There's the evidence of your perpective again. You say "stripped of many otherwise standard features", but the base model Fairlady Z never had them in the first place. To follow your thinking through to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the HLS30 for the US market was "stripped" of its 5-speed transmission and rear anti-roll bar for the US market. You'll never agree with that. The Fairlady Z and Fairlady Z-L were DESIGNED to have the features that they did and did not have.

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

C>

I most certainly did not forget the Fairlady Z-L. However now that you mention it I will point out that it too was a compromise of the original design which offered lower performance. I hardly see how that would be "an improvement".

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

But Carl - What WAS the "original" design? You obviously think it was the US market version of the HLS30 ( as opposed to the five-speed equipped HLS30 models that were offered to some other LHD markets ). I would have thought that the figures quoted in the first post on this thread would help to point out that RHD models were being developed AT THE SAME TIME AS the LHD models ( you accepted this fact ). How does this make either one of them first? I know you will argue that it was the CONCEPT of making a Sports / GT that might sell well in the biggest single market in the World that drove the project - but the evidence does not point to this being the SINGLE target of the project.

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

C>

The S30 chassis was designed for the torque and hp of the 2.4L engine. Substituting the 2.0L was a compromise not driven by customer defined product quality - but rather to accommodate then current Japanese restrictions on the displacement of gas engines. What Sports/GT owner "wants" less power?

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

Hold on there. Don't conveniently leave out the model that had more power than the HLS30. The PS30 Fairlady 432 and PS30-SB Fairlady 432-R were BOTH on the stand at the launch of the Z car, along with the Fairlady Z and Fairlady Z-L. Japan had a choice of FOUR model specs. to choose from at launch, and more than that from October '71. This must have been that "Japanese Ego" at work. I fire your question back at you; what Sports / GT owner wants less power, fewer and more widely spaced gears, no LSD and less sporting springing / damping? I guess you will write off the 432 with a flip comment or damn it with faint praise - but unless you have driven one I doubt that you would truly understand what a great little package it made.

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

C>

The 2.4L engine was on the other hand - driven by Mr. Katayama insisting that the US market demanded larger more powerful engines. He got his wish first in the PL 510 with the L16 and then with the 240-Z's L24.

If we must rate the to engines as either superior or inferior - then yes, we would have to conclude that the Fairlady Z got the inferior engine. It has less torque, less horsepower and it puts out significantly more greenhouse gases that pollute the atmosphere than the US spec. L24. (with no offsetting weight savings from using a smaller displacement).

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

As you stated above and is well known, it was the Japanese taxation laws that restricted the capacity to 2 litres initially - but only as far as late '71. Contrary to popular belief, there WERE cars in Japan that had capacities greater than 2 litres. They were however in a more expensive taxation bracket. There were good reasons for this legislation, which I am sure you know about.

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

AT> This was - in all respects apart from its 2 litre engine - of EQUAL or SUPERIOR spec. AT> to the USA model HLS30.

C>

Come on Alan - the heart of any sports car is its engine! The 2.4L in-line six with 150HP (SAE) was one of the major factors that sat the Datsun 240-Z apart from it's competition.

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

See above with regard to the S20 engine in the 432 and 432-R. I agree that the L24 was and is a great package, but the L20 was really not as bad as you seem to make out. Again, don't forget the five-speeds. I would argue that the 'heart' of the car needs to be part of a good drivetrain. I'm sorry but I feel the five speed suited the package more, and I still do not understand why the US market did not receive it as standard.

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

C>

- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the East African Safari Rally with.

- It was the "240-Z" that Nissan won the C-Production Championships with.

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

Absolutely. In the case of the Safari win, the car that won the '71 event was an HS30, and was homologated with the 5-speed transmission. Good job too.

Nissan was winning domestic races with the Z before both of the above achievements, which should not be written off either.

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

AT> How on earth can you posit that the USA-market model HLS30 was

AT> in any way superior to the RHD cars EXCEPT in its engine spec.?

In the first place - I never said that the 240-Z was "superior" (although it was - more power and less pollution). Also which RHD car are you referring to in this case - S30, HS30, S30S, PS30....???

What I said was the 240-Z was specifically designed for the US market - and every other variation was simply a side benefit to Nissan of no where near the significance in the overall scheme of things.

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

The USA market model "240-Z" ( HLS30 ) was specifically designed for the US market. The whole S30 chassis / model type was not.

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

AT> You are ignoring the fact that these models were arguably better

AT> at being "sports" cars than the USA models.

I think your being silly now... Besides, the Z is a "Sports/GT". The "GT" part is as important, if not more so, in the US market than the "sports" part. Remember, the Z was designed based on US customer defined quality.

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

My eye immediately falls on that last sentence. When you write "Z", you show your bias again. The domestic models were also "Z" cars, and were designed and prototyped alongside the US market model. There were major differences ( even in the bodyshell ) between the domestic models and the US market model, so to broadly use the "Z" letter in this way is perhaps not entirely correct - is it?

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

[HS30-H]

AT> Nissan ( probably at Katayama's behest ) gave you a four-speed

AT> and matching diff ratio,

C>

If you don't have enough torque - you have to add gears to the tranny and teeth to the

ring and pinion. Additional moving parts reduces reliability and increases cost. Do you really think lower rear end ratio's and a five speed is "better"? It's not - its a compromise for loss of torque in the Fairlady and it was simply a local market preference in the HS30's. There was no customer demand for five speed transmissions here in the US in 1970.

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

You can't have it both ways! To write off the 5-speed as both a compensation for lack of torque and a "local market preference" sounds silly. I will resist the temptation to make an obvious joke about the perceived sophistication of the US market and their lack of demand for a 5-speed. Now I need to go and look for special US market Porsches, Alfas and Lancias etc that were presumably fitted with 4-speeds. Presumably these cars would also have been less powerful in their own domestic markets, and that would be why they had 5-speeds in the first place?

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

C>

There is no question that Nissan gave the US customers what they wanted. If they wanted a five speed - it was easy to order it over the Parts Counter and simple to install.

I'd guess that at least 90% of the 240-Z's sold in the US - stayed with the 4spd. until they were driven into the ground by their owners. No doubt when the new "B" style 5spd. came out in the 280Z here - and it was time to replace the worn out transmissions on the then old 240-Z's - many of us opted to install the over-drive 5spd.

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

Might have been nice of they could have had more than one spec. to choose from though wouldn't it? Not forgetting the Auto of course. So what was it that changed the US markets' lack of demand for a 5-speed? There sure seem to be enough people that want them for retrofit these days. Sorry - I think its more evidence that the US market got one spec. and one spec. only just because it would save money and keep that sticker price down.

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

AT> softer springs and dampers and no rear anti-roll bar. This was a

AT> car MADE for the USA? I don't think so.

C>

If you don't think so - you don't really know anything about this market. It was made to suit American Consumers - driving under normal American driving conditions. "Market specific" design and engineering at its best.

We have excellent high speed freeways, excellent secondary roads and streets. We like a softer and more comfortable ride quality in our GT's.

In 1970 if you wanted a harsh, jerky ride - you bought an MG:-)

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

Again, the US market model was made to suit American Consumers. That is my point. But other markets got a different spec. Considering your previous statements about the majority of Z car production going to the US market, it would be rather surprising that Nissan went to the lengths of making the domestic and non-US market specs so different from the US spec. Would this be that "Japanese Ego" at work again?

Forget about dissing the British "sports car" to me - you are preaching to the converted. Poking fun at my domestic product is water off a duck's back. I've owned 'em and I've driven 'em. If you don't like them then that's something we have in common.........

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

AT> The USA-market HLS30 was a spec. that was aimed at a certain market,

AT> but you can't say that the layout of the car made any sense in LHD form.

C>

"the layout of the car" - what in the world are you talking about?

Let me guess ;-)

When you pull up to the gas pumps at your local petro station - do you like having to open the drivers door against the pump island and squeezing out between the car and pump island? (we have our gas filler on the right side of the car - where the gas pumps are - and we have plenty of room to get in and out of the car on the left. I suppose you could pull up with the pumps on the Left - but then you'd have to pull the gas hose across the car to reach the filler. I would think that if the car was designed as a RHD model - it would have been a better design to put the gas filler neck on the Left side of the car.

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

Giggles. I'm just thinking of the Japanese pump hoses that retract into the air, and the lack of self-serve pumps. When I used to buy petrol in Japan I never used to get out of the car, and the attandants used to bring the hose down from 'on high' - a really neat arrangement. I'm also thinking of the length of our hoses here in the UK ( don't go there! ). Despite being such a small little island, we still seem to manage to have enough space to park close enough to the pumps to get the hose in without stretching too much, and far away enough from the pump to open the door.

Careful Carl, that last sentence might get taken out of context as a CJB quote: ".........the car was designed as a RHD model.........".

No, the "duality" of the bodyshell is of prime interest to me. We've had discussions on this site before now about this ( don't know if you ever saw them? ) and the general concensus was that a fair amount of duality was built into the basic body design to allow it to be both LHD and RHD up to a point. Maybe this point was before all the pressings were put together into a fully-formed shell - but the evidence of duality is there nonetheless. This was most interestingly contrasted in the Hand Brake / E-Brake / Parking Brake location - which never moved from the right side of the tunnel.

No, I would have thought the fuel filler position was dictated by the location of the exhaust pipe for safety reasons, and by the offset of the tank to that side? I see this as a foregone conclusion considering that the L-series engine and the S20 engine both have the exhaust manifold on the left side of the cars they are used in.

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

C>In a more general sense - I like left hand drive cars. I like using my right hand to work all the controls that are normally centered in any car... radio, heater, AC, GPS, Cell Phone, shift lever.. I guess one can get used to using one's left hand for all that - but most people in the world are right handed and their left hand isn't as precise. Give any design Engineer a choice of where to put controls for good human factors considerations and you will find that they always put them on the "right". That's one reason that Command Pilots fly in the Left Seat no matter what country they are from.

I really can't think of anything related to the "layout" of the 240-Z that I would change.

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

Carl, you just damned ALL of us RHD market drivers. We have to use our 'wrong' hand to do everything! That's why we are inferior to the rest of the world, I suppose!

I thought you were an engineer? Surely an engineer would look at the layout of the LHD Z with a half tank of 'gas' and just the driver on board ( presumably the majority of time this would be the case ) and conclude that a little weight redistribution would not go amiss? You know - move the inlet and exhaust manifolds to the other side of the engine bay and stuff like that. No? Oh well.

Carl, have you actually driven an early Z car in RHD form?

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

AT> The layout of the engine and trans forced the controls of the driver's

AT> side to avoid the induction and exhaust manifolds. Sorry - but that's a

AT> fact that was forced on the designers because they had to work with

AT> what was available to them.

C>

Completely irrelevant and an incorrect assumption. There is plenty of room

for the steering mechanism (if that is what you mean). Even room for a Turbo set up!!

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

I'll tell you what I see as relevant from my statement. The L-series engine was configured in one particular way - with the manifolds on one side of the engine. So was the S20 engine. Your perspective probably means that you see this as being evidence that the L-series engine was configured to be used mainly for LHD Export applications. I would not agree.

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

[HS30-H]

AT> I posit that if the S30-series Z car was, as you quoted,

AT> "An American Sports Car - made in Japan" - then they would

AT> have made a better job of the LHD version. You can think about

AT> that every time you go to use your E-brake.

C>

That's just too funny Alan;-) Think about that for a minute. In an "emergency" if you had to stop your Z with only a hand actuated mechanical brake - which hand would you rather grab that brake handle with? - Your stronger Right Hand - or your weaker Left Hand? If I was designing a RHD car - I'd put that e-brake handle on the right side of the drivers seat.

In a non emergency - just sitting, and later releasing, the "parking brake" - do you really prefer to use your weak arm?

Your cruising along in your GT - do you really like having that e-brake handle obstructing your reach for all the controls in the center of the car? - Do you really like having it rub your left leg as you drive hundreds or thousands of miles?

In the LHD 240-Z's that e-brake handle is exactly where I would have put it - I most certainly would not want it on the right side of the center console either.

Sorry Alan - your observations about the layout of the HLS30 are simply too far fetched to make any sense to me.

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

Why do Americans call it the "Emergency Brake"? Where I come from, we call it the Hand Brake. I don't think we think of it as anything other than a parking brake. In Japan they call them the "Side Brake". In both cases, I don't think anybody expects to use it "in an emergency"! Spirited drivers ( especially rally drivers ) make great use of them - but not usually in an emergency. I think the "E-Brake" term is colouring your perception of what this control is designed to do.

If you have not read it, then I would recommend that you search out the thread we had going here a few months back on this very subject. I noticed lots of comments about Hand Brake handles ( I'll use the English term ) rubbing or interfering with legs. Visions of splayed-leg driving styles and extremely chunky thighs came to mind. Anyone who has driven a RHD Z just knows that this is not an issue. I've driven both RHD and LHD configuration of Z - so I do have personal experience to call on.

I also have to point out that when I'm driving my RHD cars I usually drive them with the Hand Brake 'off' ( ie - down ). If you think that the handle might get in way of the normal ergonomic operation of the car then I would have to say that yours must be faulty. Either that or you are a VERY big man indeed!

You say that if you were designing an RHD car you'd put the handle on the RIGHT side of the driver's seat? I say that would be a health hazard when getting in and out ( or at the very least 'stimulating' if you were not careful! ) and a nightmare for cable and linkage mounting. If you like this kind of thing, then I can recommend a Bentley "R" type or Wolseley 6/90 - both of which had gearlevers on the right side of their RHD seats and created a few falsettos amongst their owners!

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

Carl>

Now lets get serious about the design criteria.

1. The design team on Project Z - used US spec, human factors. A human considerably larger than the Japanese spec. As an example -the Silvia was a complete FLOP in the US because the Goertz design - was based on the human factors of the typical Japanese and the car therefore provided too little leg and head room for Americans.

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

The CSP 311 was a sales 'flop' for a lot more reasons than that one. Save me the reply to this one, and I do know a fair bit about the car and what the Americans said about it. You might like to consider that it was a flop in Japan too - but obviously not because it was considered too small inside for Japanese drivers.

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

C>

2. The 2.4L in-line six - Mr. Matsuo has stated that for the Japanese market he would have used a 2.0L four cylinder (from the Fairlady 2000). The Z is a six cylinder because it was designed to meet the needs the US market.

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

What about all the other domestic six-cylinder models? Prince brought plenty of six-cylinder designs with them and the C10 Skyline ( always thought of as the 'brother' to the S30-series Z in Japan ) had a big range of engines that included more sixes than fours. The C10 was never seriously targeted at the Export market, so why did it have a six? The truth is that Nissan's engines were growing anyway. This was a time of great change in Japan ( and at Nissan ) and I challenge you to think a little more of what the Japanese market was starting to demand, and not JUST what they thought the US market and other export markets wanted.

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

C>

3. The 240-Z was engineered to meet the US Safety and Emissions Standards. They "drove" many design and engineering considerations.

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

I agree, but mainly in respect to the US-market "240-Z". Many other design and engineering considerations applied to the other models, and some overlapped.

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

C>

The Fairlady Z's are interesting and they allowed Nissan to sell a few more cars in their home market - but your assertion that they were "as important", "as significant" or evenly weighted in the design consideration of the Z - are simply - well - your opinion. However I would suggest that your opinion is not based on any real facts nor sound logic.

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

Again you are looking at things in hindsight. Your beliefs seem to hinge on the fact that the US-market car was a huge sales and marketing success. But what if the Z had flopped in the US for some particular reason? ( go on - try to imagine it ). Imagine if another foreign car maker had trumped Nissan and made a better and cheaper car that sold like hot cakes. Would you judge the car in the same way? You might say yes - but I think a really big part of your position and philosophy about these cars comes from the fact that they were seen as being successful. I guess that looking at things from where you experienced them makes this inevitable, but I do invite you to step outside that view and look at this from another perspective. Stop the clock at the Tokyo Motor Show stand in late '69 and judge the cars on the stand. I see a family of cars, and each one of them has good points and bad points. I know which ones I prefer, but I also appreciate why the ones that I do not prefer came out the way they did. Forget about your story of what the HLS30 achieved in the US market ( even though it deserves a book on the subject ) and just think of what was there. Anything else at that time was just a question mark. We know how it turned out, but I think you are using the result as too much of the story of how the cars were born. The S30-series Z is a family of cars, and not just one market-specific model.

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

C>

Lets get real Alan. It's not about a US ("devil") vs the world. It's not about the Japanese putting the British Sports Cars out of business. It's not about the 240-Z being "superior" to the home market "Fairlady". It most certainly isn't about any Japanese owners thinking their "Fairlady Z" is the "original" or that it is "superior" to the product designed for the US.

It was all about Nissan vs Toyota - Nissan vs GM - Nissan vs Ford etc. It was all about building and selling cars that the target customers wanted to buy. It was all about "customer driven quality definitions".

I doubt that anyone over 25 years old in Japan really feels that by building and selling products aimed specifically at the US market - they are selling out to the US devil ;-)

FWIW,

Carl B.

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

Well, you seem to have taken a lot of notice of one remark - and I would guess that it might have touched a raw nerve in the US vs the rest of the world zeitgeist that seems to prevail in much of the USA at the moment. The point I was trying to make with the Robert Johnson story was that anybody hoping to gain success in a particular field might be forced to make a compromise, or water down their ideal a little in order to gain that success. In relation to the design of the S30-series Z car, I meant this to be taken that the original ideals or dreams of the designers might have been compromised slightly by the perceived needs or standards of its biggest ( potential ) market JUST AS WELL AS their obvious intention to make and market RHD versions that included a high-performance version and a race homologation special based on it.

Here is one of the biggest problems that I have with your position. You seem to believe that the US market HLS30 was in no way compromised by Nissan's intention to make these RHD models. However, by the same token you seem to believe that these RHD models were compromised because the whole design was geared towards the US market model. Sorry, but if you think this way then I think you do not have enough information and experience of the RHD models.

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

[HS30-H]

I certainly wasn't trying to make anything like an anti-US stance on this - so I'm sorry you seem to have taken it that way.

Ultimately, I would like to see more recognition of the domestic and non-US Export models of S30-series Z car outside Japan. I see very little about those cars on zhome.com ( I note that its called "zhome" and not "HLS30home" or "US-market Datsun 240-Zhome" - so I would hope for a little more mention of other Z models there ).

I've been trying to make the effort here on classiczcars.com ( p****** in the wind, it could be said ) and for the most part the ( mainly US-based ) members and visitors to the site SEEM to be both interested and surprised to hear many details about the non-US market cars. Especially the fact that RHD cars were designed and prototyped at the same time as the US-market model. Still, that's just my perception of their interest - so who knows, maybe this also is a figment of my imagination.

Respectfully,

Alan T.

[kats]

Hello,

I have got a permition from Mr.Matsuo to post some photos.

Mr.Matsuo does not have a computer in his office,so he asked

me please say hello to everyone seeing this web.

I am sorry for bad quality of this photo because I can only use home video camera.

First,a lady with a Z prototype which is made of plastic.Please note different door jam mechanism and C-piller emblem.They(design team)wanted to emphasise this car is very gentle for ladies getting into/out of the cockpit even she is wearing beautiful skirt.Mr.Matsuo told she is also a member of design team.

I said this photo was taken in Apr 1968 in this thread,but this is not correct.

Mr. Matsuo said,"I do not remember exactly but this photo was taken in summer 1969.This car called DESIGN PROTOTYPE not only for developing styling but also for displaying and explaining to excutives of NISSAN to obtain their approval .The design team made these models from early 1968.Already those models had got complete interior parts.This could be a 4th or 5th model.Mr.Matsuo said this car might build in early 1969.

[kats]

Explain soon.

[kats]

continue