production number for 1969

[lordbiotree]

WOW, That is the most informative article I've read.

shows the difference between Nissan and Mr. Matsuo.

-Brandon

[LEE240ZPERTH]

I for one have found this post to be quite addictive so thanks to all who have contributed.

I have a couple of comments which are quite insignificant considering the amount of information that has been provided during the course of the many threads to this post, but I'll make them anyway.

Firstly I have never seen the Handbrake (E brake) as anything but a brake to be applied when parked or as an aide for hillstart's.

I have been driving 240 Zeds (RHD) for many years and despite my being somewhat larger than I would like to be, I have never had a problem with the positioning of the handbrake or even thought about it until seeing Carl's comments.

There were many good points raised in the many threads of this post but one has stuck in my mind, Carl's comment that the 240 Zed was an American Sports/GT car made in Japan seems to me to be a little arrogant, surely the correct statement should be that the 240 Z (S30) was a Japanese car made in Japan with the HLS30 simply an American specification, a variant of the S30 series of cars.

I would also suggest that on the "evidence" the original design s looks to have been based on the RHD form, this is not to suggest that the Nissan marketing team were not planning a major offensive on the American consumer at exactly the same time with the LHD form the first to be exported on mass.

The information from Katz show's that both RHD and LHD were in focus at the same time but the overall layout does seem to point to the initial design thought being based on the RHD car, Carl's arguments against Alan's comments on this, to me, do not hold water, hence my aforementioned comment regards the Handbrake.

Whilst the largest potential market for a great value, well equiped fantastic looking sports tourer was indeed the US, I would suggest that the S30 series of cars were designed ultimately for sales in all markets, hence the number of varients.

Afterall if Australia had in excess of 200 or so million people in 1969 all of the information today would be on the HS30 and it's sales into Australia!?

Just my thought's

Regards

Lee

[Carl Beck]

Originally posted by LEE240ZPERTH

I for one have found this post to be quite addictive so thanks to all who have contributed.

.......snipped..cjb

There were many good points raised in the many threads of this post but one has stuck in my mind, Carl's comment that the 240 Zed was an American Sports/GT car made in Japan seems to me to be a little arrogant, surely the correct statement should be that the 240 Z (S30) was a Japanese car made in Japan with the HLS30 simply an American specification, a variant of the S30 series of cars.

....snipped..cjb

END QUOTE -=

Hi Lee (everyone):

I believe that you are allowing a mistaken perception on your part of "American arrogance" on my part - to mislead you in this discussion.

While I am very willing to admit to a certain amount of arrogance - in this particular case it is actually praise that I argue for. Praise for a Japanese Designer named Mr. Matsuo and a Japanese Manager named Yutaka Katayama.

Your perception seems to support the mistaken belief that a Japanese Designer was not capable of designing a product for any market other than Japan. That somehow the Japanese are too... well .. "Japanese" to ever sit cultural ideology aside. You would seem to side with Alan in the mistaken belief that it was just good timing, just luck, just the result of a huge rich market - that lead to the sales of 85% of the Z Cars produced coming to America. Additionally, that no one expected the Z Car to sell in the huge numbers it did (it was just a pleasent surprise for Nissan that the Z in America outsold the Fairlady Z in Japan).

That rational would seem be in line with most of the books written about the Z Car, by English authors. They too seem willing, without much serious research, nor investigative reporting to verify factual information; most, all but rush to attribute the original design of the Z to an American Citizen - one Albright Goertz.

They seem to believe, as you do, that Nissan had to hire someone outside of Japan to design a car for the American market. Clearly that is what Mr. Goertz has lead them to believe, or at least report in their books. According to Mr. Goertz he was really hired by Nissan because they wanted to design a car for sale in America.

The facts on the other hand, are clearly outlined by Mr. Katayama and Mr. Matsuo in the book they authored in Japan - "FAIRLADY STORY - Datsun SP/SR & Z". The Design and Production of the Sports/GT that we know as the Z Car - were driven by American requirements. That however is only a simple fact. The real story of the Z Car goes much deeper and is much more significant.

My fear is that with your perspectives - you really miss the real story of the Z Car and it's significance in the history of the automobile.

If you read the above referenced book (Fairlady Story)- you will see that Mr. Matsuo clearly states that his original concept (his Plan A) was for a roadster, with a four cylinder engine. He wanted it to be a world class sports car for Nissan. He then steps you though the design as it evolved "driven" by requirements from America and Mr. K.

The resulting Sports/GT - a six cylinder, coupe that we know as the Z Car today, is quite different than even Mr. Matsuo had envisioned at the beginning.

To argue that the Z Car was designed by the Japanese for the Japanese, with the hope of selling a few in the export markets - is to greatly reduce the significant accomplishments of both Mr. Katayama and Mr. Matsuo.

In The Words Of The Chief Of Design:

Let’s take a look at the Design Process and Drivers - as outlined by Mr. Matsuo, the Chief of Design on the Datsun 240-Z Design Team, in the book “FAIRLADY STORY Datsun SP/SR & Z” by Yutaka Katayama and Yoshihiko Matsuo, as published in Japan by MIKI Press.

Mr. Matsuo states (relating to export markets)

"35 years ago Nissan products were not highly regarded, they sold because they were cheap."

When he became the head of the Sports Car Design Section, he wanted to produce an original sports car that could embody the spirit of the best the U.S. and Europe had to offer and ultimately see it compete on equal terms.

"When Mr. Katayama came back from America Mr. K. said we could go on making cheap economy cars forever, but by doing so, we would never be able to move forward in the export markets."

When the new sports car project first started Mr. Matsuo felt that this couldn’t simply be a full model change based on the Fairlady roadster. He was conscious of the fact that there were new safety regulations to consider (again referring to the US), and this latest car had to be both more comfortable and considerably more practical than its predecessors.

Mr. Matsuo said that the car had to be a high volume seller, at least 3000 units per month. (compared to 400 units per month for the Fairlady roadster in 1965).

Mr. Matsuo’s superiors thought it was a foolish plan – only Mr. K would listen to him and it was Mr. K’s support (for the US Customer) that kept the project rolling.

We can see clearly from the above that the American Market was starting to drive the design. Nonetheless at that point at the beginning of 1965, Mr. Matsuo had his own ideas of what the car should be. His original concept (Plan A) was that of a smaller roadster with a four-cylinder engine.

As it became clear that American requirements were driving the design, Mr. Matsuo’s original concept was allowed to evolve accordingly. He reports that:

1. Mr. K’s requirement for a 2.4L engine caused the car to be made wider and increased the height and length of the hood.

2. The US Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (MVSS) directed it be a coupe instead of a roadster.

3. The MVSS cited SAE standards stated that the headlights should be 60 cm off the ground - this drove the use of the sugar scoop headlight treatment. Headlight covers were illegal in the US at the time, but were retained as an option for Japan.

Mr. Matsuo wrote: “In final prototype, with full interior, was completed in the Spring of 1968. It was duly wheeled into the display hall and seeing it sitting there, low and wide, I thought how much better it looked than the original Plan A model.” “I had every confidence it was going to sell well.”

Mr. Matsuo’s final comment in that book (which he and Mr. K Authored) is:

Quote – I’d like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the thousands of owners in America (and other foreign markets) who bought the Z during a period when Japanese vehicles were still looked down upon. May your enjoyment of the Z-Car continue for many years to come. – END QUOTE.

I believe that Mr. Matsuo proved 1) that a Japanese Designer was fully capable of designing a car for any target market in the world, 2) that Mr. Goertz's theory that only a single designer can produce a unified design was wrong (Mr. Matsuo lead a team of designers), and 3) that TQM was the pathway to success for any product.

The position that you presently hold - would negate all of that and flies in the face of very significant factual history related to the Z Car. It isn't arrogant to say that the Datsun 240-Z is an "American Sports/GT" - it's recognition of very accomplished design. One that should have been recognized with a Deming Prize.

FWIW,

Carl

Carl Beck

Clearwater,FL USA

http://ZHome.com

[HS30-H]

Tee hee. This thread is still a smouldering ember it seems.

Carl, I think you do seem to go much too far over the top in your defence. Some of the statements that you put forth, and attribute to the non-believers like me, go quite a lot beyond what people really think and believe.

I think ( and I speak mainly for myself here of course ) that the main thing that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge is that the S30-series Z was quite obviously designed to cater for both RHD and LHD versions. Now, notice that I wrote "S30-series Z" and NOT "240Z". I think when talking and writing about the first generation of Z cars - in all forms and variations - we ALL ought to follow the cues of the manufacturer, and say "S30-series Z". To say or write "240Z" when referring to a whole family of cars simply causes confusion, and is the root cause of a lot of misunderstandings about these cars.

As for believing that the enormous success of the Z in the USA market was any kind of an accident or pure good fortune ( you quote "luck" ) , well - I don't think I've ever said that ( unless you have taken something out of context ) and of course it would be wrong to believe that. I don't think anybody disputes that Nissan hoped to sell a huge proportion of their product to the largest single export market in the World. I would think it was a relief rather than a "surprise" that the car did so well. You seem to forget that at no stage until the car actually started selling like hot cakes in the USA was this success ever a 'done deal' or a foregone conclusion..........

And who said a Japanese designer would not be capable of designing a product for any other market than Japan? You are just putting words into other peoples mouths.

You might like to try and read between the lines a little too. In order to challenge your entrenched position that the USA-market specific HLS30 model was in some way the Big Mac of the Z range and that somehow all other models and variants are "niche market" models, it becomes necessary to throw a bit of rhetoric your way. You seem to over-react to this sometimes. For my own part, I would like to see you ( as something of an oracle when it comes to these cars - at least as far as the World Wide Web is concerned ) in some way acknowledge that the RHD and LHD versions were conceived, designed, developed and productionised at the same time.

You will remember ( about 5 pages or so ago ) that this thread started with Kats posting some absolutely fascinating new information from Nissan Shatai and Matsuo san with regard to the 1969 production numbers. Your own first post in reply immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion with regard to my own posted reply to Kats. You seemed to pounce immediately on the perceived threat of somebody claiming that an HS30 model might have been produced in 1969 ( which is something that we can argue about as much as we like and get nowhere, and until we get better info is just conjecture anyway ). For me it was significant that indisputable proof had been produced that RHD models were produced at the same time as LHD models. I think you immediately overlooked this, and jumped on my imaginary claim - did you not? That's how it looked to me and a few other people, anyway. To me that kind of summed up your approach.

You have now started getting your critical teeth into the books ( which you say were written by "English authors" - but I would possibly advise you to say 'British' ) who promoted the idea that Goertz "created" the S30-series Z car. In answer to this I say two things. First of all, the greatest blame for this has to go to Goertz himself for shameless self-promotion and the spread of doubt, lies and myths that were never properly quashed as they should have been by Nissan USA. I think you and I both agree that Goertz is the cowboy with the black hat in this particular western.

Secondly, I think its possibly a little rich of you to accuse these authors of a 'lack of research' on their subjects. In many cases they were repeating information that they had taken in good faith with regard to what you call "The Goertz Myth" from figures who really should have known better. In fact, USA-based authors were never immune to this failing either. Your friend Ben Millspaugh dedicated sections of his book "Z Car - A Legend In Its Own Time" to several people who have been, and still are, die-hard Goertz fans; namely, Lynne Godber, Mike Feeney, Steve Burns and Jon Newlyn. Don't you think that, in the light of your comments, its somewhat ironic that Ben Millspaugh gave such a lot of space in his book to these British people?

I am a member of The Classic Z Register here in the UK - a club dedicated to the first generation of Z cars, which was formed as a breakaway group from the Z Club of GB precisely because some members felt that the early ( pre S130 ) cars deserved their own club. The Chairman ( now honorary president ) is Lynne Godber, and the current Chairman is Mr Jon Newlyn. Both of these people are STILL Goertz-promoters, and indeed Goertz is listed as an "Honourary Member" of the Register. I have protested about this many times, but my protests fall on stony ground. Once set in stone, these legends are difficult to dispel aren't they?

Anyway, with regard to mistakes and poor research - nobody is immune. The Millspaugh book has its own fair share of mistakes, as does your recommended-reading for today - "Fairlady Z Story" by Katayama and Matsuo..................

This book, published by MIKI PRESS of Japan ( ISBN4 - 89522-244-6 in case anyone wants to order one ) is in Japanese. It contains some selected headings and picture captions in English, and some editions carried a partial translation into English that was in the form of a flyer insert. I think your edition possibly carried one of the English translation flyers by my friend Mr Brian Long ( one of those English authors that you don't seem to rate very highly ) and his wife Miho. Am I correct? Or possibly you have had your own translation performed on it?

Anyway, the first thing I would like to point out is the title of the book. It is called "FAIRLADY Z STORY" and subtitled "Datsun SP / SR & Z". Notice that it is not titled "240Z Story" or "HLS30 Story"..........

Then go on to the Contents page, and notice the translated heading of Chapter 1; "Birth of Datsun 240Z" by Yutaka Katayama. This is significant. Then look down to the Japanese heading of Chapter 3 and its English translation below; "How I developed Datsun 240Z styling" by Yoshihiko Matsuo. This too is significant.

Why is it significant? Look at the Japanese title of Chapter 3 ( and I Romanise this Japanese heading ): "Shodai Z design kaihatsu shuki" - or "Original Z design essay" ( my translation ). Notice how the Japanese title of Matsuo's chapter does not specifically mention the "Datsun 240Z" in the Japanese version - but that Miki Press have decided to translate this into English as "How I developed Datsun 240Z styling" - which is not a literal translation at all. I think you can see what I am driving at - and this is something that is clear whenever Matsuo is interviewed in Japanese with regard to the Z - namely that Matsuo usually refers to the S30-series Z as a whole range when discussing its design. Contrast this with Katayama - who usually does exactly as you do - referring to the "Datsun 240Z" specifically. I think there is a big difference in approach between the two of them, and I can see why each takes the approach that he does. I see this as Katayama's Americanised approach and Matsuo's Japanese approach.

More specifically though, I'd like you to take a little pinch of salt when it comes to reading the English translations for the headings and picture captions in this book. I can assure you that they are not all literal translations from Japanese into English ( if such a thing is even possible ). Note too that there are a great many mistakes in the picture captions in both Japanese and English. This is a most regrettable thing in such an otherwise excellent book. We should probably remember that Matsuo and Katayama's contributions were certainly edited and subbed by the staff of Miki Press, and that they certainly did not caption the pictures themselves. The idea of the English captions is certainly meant to appeal to foreign markets for the book ( a translated version of which was apparently at least mooted by Miki Press ) and guess where the biggest market for an English-language book on the Z car would be? Katayama and Matsuo's views are still slightly different ( understandably ) and its plain that Matsuo still defers to the feelings of his former superior out of respect and politeness as much as anything else.

I quite agree with your last statement and its three points though. How on earth can you accuse anybody here ( I presume you mean me? ) of holding a position that negates all of those three points? Not true at all. I have nothing but respect and admiration for these people.

continued next post:

[HS30-H]

continued:

To those of us outside the USA who read that "American Sports / GT - Made in Japan" quote, it can indeed look somewhat arrogant. It fails to take into account the fact that Matsuo and his team were working under some constrictions, and implies that they had embarked on the design of a vehicle that was aimed specifically at the USA market AND NO OTHER. That last bit is important. Whatever you want to believe, its clear that just as much effort went into OTHER non USA-market specific variants / models and that a great deal of time was spent in making this more of a World Car ( rather than just a USA specific model ). Its also clear that Matsuo and his team were obliged to use certain components and layouts that in turn dictated other details and functions of the car ( unless you think that the L-series engine and its transmissions were also designed SPECIFICALLY for the USA market - which is patently not so ). They were also clearly just as influenced by the needs pertaining to an RHD layout as they were to an LHD layout ( and in some areas were forced to make 'design concesssions' because of this ). Here is quite clearly the design and development of a vehicle aimed at more than one market, and to take on several different forms. These facts seem to horrify you. Why is that?

Pretty much all of us agree and cheer on a great number of your points Carl. They are usually very well laid out and eloquently expressed. It looks nice on the page - apart from your daffy comments about the anti-matter that is the RHD car, which I presume was only half serious, and recommend that you don't repeat too often as it will look ever more daft the more often it is repeated:classic: Its just the last bit of spin that you put on the ball that makes it a no-ball. I think you have to try to see the way the rest of the World sees the Z now, as well as taking into account the other iterations of the first-generation Z car ( remember - its the "S30-series" right? ) and the fact that just as much effort went into both LHD and RHD versions.

I'm not really looking forward to your response, as it will doubtless run to several thousand words just like mine and will probably try to pick me up on every last point without ever giving an inch or making any concession. I'm sure that this game of squash would eventually run the thread into the ground and get nowhere into the bargain.:classic:

Alan T.

[sjcurtis]

I just want to jump in here for my 2c. The information that KATS has so graciously shared with us is ground breaking stuff. Yes these discussions are great reading when you get input from ALAN and CARL, two people I think we all have great respect for, both are very well read and have established set positions that are hard to dispute (sometimes).

S30 build on the production line in more than one guises from the start. My point here is the marketing strategy was brilliant, ramp up all production on all lines. Release the HLS 30 to the American Masses on ship and a prayer. Creating a good home market product and a growing sales position. Hold an ace up the sleeve ( the export HS30 SPORT ). Yes I say from my exulted position above my sunlight soapbox, " If the HLS 30 had fizzled on the dock in San Fransico Nissan would still have created history with the High Spec Export HS30 SPORT ". This was NISSANS black powder that it was keeping dry. An S30 sibling still under raps with the best export pedigree yet to be tried. I now climb down of the sunlight and hide under my box.

G'DAY

Steve:classic:

[mperdue]

Are there any solid production numbers for the '71 model? The reason I ask is from looking at texasz's car, it's a '71 but it's number 8000 or something like that. zhome production numbers say something around 10500 '70's were sold. So I'm wondering how could texasz's car have been built before ~2000 other '70 models but get labeled a '71? COuld it have been issued a number and then sat around the factory for several months before being completed or repaired? The production date is 8/70 - I guess that's when it was finished right?

Michael

[Alfadog]

I found this document in my pile of stuff a little while ago... maybe it will help you?

I dont know where it comes from though??? Nissan???

[Carl Beck]

Hi mperdue:

See: http://ZHome.com/History/1970or1971.html

[sjcurtis]

For all the boys in OZ that want a low production number, I just found this in the Melbourne trading post. Has anyone got a look at this car, or possibly taken pics.

MELBOURNE TRADING POST 7/12/03

DATSUN 240Z, AUST. delivery Build No. 91, only 300 1969mdls built worldwide, good condition, stored since 1995, paintwork average, body & interior orig, ready to RWCert. Vin.HS30-00091, $12,000. (0417) 786815 Pearcedale.

cheers

Steve

:classic:

[Gav240z]

Steve even though it's a low numbered Z it's come to my attention that none of our Aus Spec Z's were 1969 mdl's. Infact the lowest number Z in Aus is HS30 0004. This was a 70mdl I thought I should point out.

:classic:

[sjcurtis]

Hi Gav,