Leaderboard

Reality check:

Baiting? Of the three of us, I believe I've LIVED USA car culture the most. So, I win.

But looking at what you had written, a picture of Goertz is just parachuted in with no context to why (which is my point). He had very little to do with Nissan as a whole, and for me I will keep on the csp side of things, you show a picture of Goertz, yet don't name the two far, far, more important people (can you name them?), who, had sooooo much more input into the CSP311, and Nissan as a whole. Compared to others who worked at Nissan, his (Goertz) input is just a footnote. His foot note is worthy, but why, oh why just that? Why does the foot-note get mentioned, rather than the book? Its an American thing, oh come on. The S30 is a global car, with its home (Japanese) market and the (global) export market, its not just about the North American cars. There is soooo much info on all the models in the Z range (on here), why is the North American market (sales figures) makes it so much the.... ? As I said, the story is sooo much more and you left so much behind, which for me leaves it biased. It is tricky to write something , and takes time. and being informed. If people don't, people pull you up on it, and question what is written. Not for me. This like other forums can be viewed by anyone, info has to be correct, otherwise..... More on the CSP "experiment".....the car was the first time Nissan had a synchro gearbox (under licence), disc brakes, hand assembled bespoke model, selling to a specific upmarket clientel (in Japan). The design team knew what they wanted to create from the start, so some "experiment", which has produced one of Japan's most desired cars from the 1960's.

All fixed. Thanks for the heads up. -Ben

So we can put this item to rest -- here's the partial label positioned over a complete Nissan label. A little tweaking was necessary to allow for the condition of the original, plus there are minor differences in scale between the two.

Time for a little more knowledge today After i posted pictures from my T/C rod bushings in various forum-threads, people replied that i should swap to rubber in the back. After discussing a few topics i figoured out that original rubber bushings are still available new from Nissan and ordered a set, which i was able to pick up today: The problem: According to many people, the T/C rod tends to brake at the yellow area, when PU-bushings are used both in front and rear of the Frame-rail mount. This due to much counterstrength whith the hard PU-bushings. For sciences' sake i decided to compare both setups with an original NOS 240Z frame rail i have in my shop. Top: Front PU / rear Rubber Bottom: Front PU / rear PU 1st: Both PU. Fits perfect, but it's very stiff, both compression and angle-movement wise. Second: Front PU / rear rubber. You still have the advantage of PU-front (less rearwards movement during compression, red arrow), while having more freedom of angle-movement (yellow arrow) and therefore minimized the chance that the T/C rod will brake. So thanks all for the inputs and advice and i'll definitely stick with the PU / Rubber combination for best performance and with least failure rate

No we aren't hacked... Yes, I am running a back end software that scans the site for keywords and provides links to external sites. It's not perfect, but, it can be helpful. In this case, it didn't work all that great.. lol. (unless one of you wants to buy products from them -- by all means please click on it) It brings in about $70/mo to help me pay for server costs. The service is called Skimlinks and works within just a few minutes. m

I am trying to post in a way that is accurate and I encourage anyone to correct and/or add to what I have to say. I took the car on a proper drive after work today and everything from the snug fit of the competition bucket, the direct steering, the tight suspension, and the sound of the engine all made for such a thrill. Speaking of the Datsun Competition bucket seat; I bought it a number of ago from a guy that had it in a 1800sss Bluebird that was newly imported at the time. The 510 Bluebird coupe has a swept back roof varying from 510 sedan (2 and 4 door) with the large greenhouse type roof. They are both beautiful cars just different. I had always intended to install the seat in my 260Z and it took a lot more time than I would have ever imagined, but now its getting used and squished by my big American body. I will emphasize that it is quite snug, but not uncomfortable. The headrest is a modern replica from Kameari (Thanks Alan T. for the lead.) I feel even more connected with the car and the road while in that seat. It is a bit of a chore getting out as I have to put my hand on the sill, arch my left tip toe to the ground, and then lift myself up. The steering wheel is an original Datsun Competition piece and it was sourced by a very generous member here many years ago whom I am still very gracious for (I hope we can meet one day). The Datsun Competition 'Rally' shift knob is a piece that I saw on Yahoo Japan Auction (again many years ago) and it is a reissue of the the original that was made by Nissan for the 15th (?)anniversary of NISMO. I believe they made the steering wheels and bucket seats for those reissues as well. I would never have thought I would have this set of interior items, but over time I was able to gather the pieces to complete the ensemble. It took a lot of research, some luck, and members of this forum to make it happen, but it was worth it and there is a little story to each piece. I would love to learn more about these pieces and their role in competition cars. The construction of the seat for instance is amazing. The shell looks like fiberglass and the vinyl stretched around it is done to a very high standard. There had to have been a lot of handy work done to make it. My understanding of the 'bucket' seat is that it was Nissan's generic racing seat. I have seen them in anything from Z's to Cherry's. The steering wheel is similar in that it is slightly smaller in diameter than an original, a bit thicker, and not as deep as a standard wheel. It looks similar to the steering wheels in the WORKS rally cars, but those are slightly larger in diameter. In Japan the steering wheel is referred to as a 'handle' and slang for the Datsun Competition piece is Compe handle. The horn button I am using is from a Fairlady Z (1970-1973). It is almost faux pas for me to fit that button because the vast majority of enthusiasts in Japan would have a 'proper' Datsun button, but thats so common here in the states. It is funny how that works. The shift knob is wood (walnut? )with a metal insert. I have always thought it had the perfect shape for a shift knob. Someone once said it was shaped like the end of a broomstick and that's not far off the mark. Anyways, thats all I've got for now. -Ben

Metal elbow noodle brazed in. These are the one of the early sets of triples used on the #33 BSR 240 and you can see where they tapered bored them out to 50mm. The direct stream of 114 octane means after you lift and then get on the throttle a nice flame comes out the twin exhaust trumpets.

Mr Purcell I don't know if you've seen this before but it's a pretty good write up, just an FYI. http://jarvas240z.blogspot.com/2013/01/electric-fuel-pump-installation.html

Mr. Junkie is smok'in too much JDM. This has to be the funniest thread I have seen in a long time. Thanks for the chuckle this morning! Ya' know, the more JDM you smoke, the less your spring rate. Unless, of course, you vape with a TOR CO. Sorry, I couldn't help it.

They went together pretty smooth. The circlips are very tight to the flanges. I still have to clip one in.

Sure, you can use the tube method and it will get you there or close to it. Probably "good enough". The method that I'm suggesting is the 100% sure way to know that the fuel is at the proper height. Keep in mind that the float adjustment is THE PRIMARY MIXTURE SETTING. Get that right and everything else gets a lot easier. Not over the nozzle. The fuel level should be even with or just below the top of the small hole in the center of the nozzle. This is the hole that the needle slides into. The fuel level can be below the nozzle top as much as 1/16" but should never be over the top of the nozzle. Fuel over the nozzle top will result in fuel puddling above the nozzle. No need to measure the 1/16". Just eyeball the fuel level so it's as close to the nozzle top as you can get it without going over. Luck.

I just wanted to make sure you guys know that the pricing on the registration site is for early registration. You need to register by March 15 to take advantage of those prices.

You can run both pumps. By 74 (maybe earlier) Nissan used both pumps to try to resolve a fuel percolation, vapor lock, problem with limited success.

Heading to the shop now. Yeah, I know the China parts issues but I have had good luck with SKF in the past.

I'm sure he had a good reason at the time, although I can't explain why. But, if I had to hazard a guess, he may have been trying to compensate for a float setting that left the fuel too low in the nozzle. Let's proceed. Your goal now is to get the fuel level within 1/16" of the top of the hole in the center of the nozzle. (Leave the nozzles at 2 1/2 turns) To achieve the 1 1/6" fuel level, you'll be adjusting (re-bending) the float tangs either up or down. At this point you don't care about the 9/16" float measurement. Ignore it. Don't even go there. After each adjustment, reassemble the carbs, fire it up, run it for a minute, shut it down and pull the domes and pistons. Look again to see the new fuel level. Readjust the floats until the fuel levels are correct. Then we'll go into fine tuning with the mixture screws. Piece of cake.

Picked out the material today, the original shop is going ahead and cutting these out with a laser cutter. Will post when completed. I believe the minimum order was 50 so I should have plenty of shims!

I'm sorry but I find it hard to take the JDM Junkies thing seriously. He's got half a paper parts label, he's reading 'TORCO LTD' on it and concluding that 'TORCO LTD' were the manufacturers of suspension components for Nissan...? There may well be a parallel universe where somebody has found the other half of that paper label, is reading 'NISSAN MO' on it and concluding that 'NISSAN MO' were the manufacturers of suspension components for Nissan.

Picked up the used bracket and a NOS fuel pump. Another project!

One of mine:

Stiff TC rod makes cornering over bumps horrible. I went to the ball and socket...what a nice upgrade.

Try Carl Beck on this site. He built one. Cheers, Mike

1952 Datsun produced their first sports car, the DC-3 "Datsun 20" RHD. They made 70, sold only 30, then converted the remaining 40 back to trucks.Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1952. 1959-60 Datsun produced their second sports car, the SP211 "Datsun 1000" RHD. They made only 20. Again Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1959. 1960-61 Datsun produced their third sports car, the SPL212 "Datsun 1200" LHD They made 228. Nissan skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1961 Datsun produced their fourth sports car, the SPL213 "Datsun Fairlady" LHD They made 217. Nissan again skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1962 Datsun produced their fifth sports car, the SPL310/SP310 "Datsun 1500/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. They made 6460. ~4160 (64%) for USA market. 1965 Datsun produced their sixth sports car, the SPL311/SP311 "Datsun 1600/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. An iteration of the SLP-310. They made 27,400. ~26,430 (96%) for USA market . The first successful sports car sales!!! 1965 Detroit officials were called to testify on automobile safety before the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization chaired by Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff. 1966 Changes in USA safety regulations make continued production of convertibles more challenging. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave regulators until January 31, 1967 to develop federal motor vehicle safety standards that were practical, stated in objective terms, and met the need for motor vehicle safety. 1966 August. All Datsun 240Z sketches and clay models from designers up to August 1966 were convertibles. Model "A11" had an optional hard top affixed similar to the one used by designers to retrofit to the SPL310 (Figure 2 below). It is clear the direction of design changed at this point. In Q3/Q4 of 1966, Datsun designers made their first 240z model with a full hard top. It was design model "C3. Oct. 11, 1967 Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the National Traffic Safety Bureau (NTSB) issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on 47 issues, including roof intrusion, seeking public comment. 1967 Datsun produced their seventh sports car, the SRL311/SPR311 "Datsun 2000/Fairlady" LHD/RHD It was again an iteration of the SPL-310. They made 14,990. ~12,880 (86%) for USA market. Figure 1. Datsun Production Sports Cars Preceding the 240z After a testing of the waters for selling sports cars in Japan in 1952 and again in 1959, it was clear that the domestic market was not ready for sports cars. Datsun immediately re-focused on the USA market for selling sports cars. For the next two model years from 1960 to 1962 they produced only LHD models and only for the US market. Although the market and production numbers were small. Nissan management had chosen to go after the USA sports car market early on. Unfavourable post-war trade barriers with many other countries may have also shaped Nissan's export focus on the USA at this very early point. Countries in Europe traditionally manufactured small cars where as in the USA cars were typically large. Having small Japanese cars enter the market in the USA presented nearly zero competition with the large car manufacturers however, in Europe small Japanese imports would have competed directly with all manufactures so protectionist tariffs were maintained against Japan. In 1962, Datsun re-designed/styled the convertible. This new design (SPL-310 Datsun 1500) remained relatively unchanged until all convertible production ended in 1970. In 1965 and 1966, production numbers were up, and sales in the USA were growing exponentially however, changes in the safety requirements for automobile design in the USA were well underway. In 1965, preliminary documents from the USA Govt. the creation of new Govt. automotive safety agencies, and discussions throughout the industry & media pointed to significant safety challenges to come for manufacturers of convertibles. At this time, manufacturers had no details regarding the extent of the new rules to come so it was anyone's guess as to how difficult it would eventually become to produce a convertible that would meet the impending new requirements. The fact that new roll-over tests were required made convertibles seem vulnerable to failing this test. Immediately after the US Govt. began the process to increase safety requirements, Nissan management began to re-risk and focus on developing a new enclosed coupe. Up to that point, all Datsun sports cars were convertibles*. To continue expanding into the USA market without risk, it was clear that a convertible was not the way. A coupe would guarantee a path through the impending stricter safety requirements. In fact, Datsun did not significantly change the design of their 1500 sports car beyond that point in time apart from some engine changes and safety compliance changes. It was clear they were done with it apart from churning out more as it was most profitable to continue an existing product. Almost immediately after the new regulations warning, contingency stop-gap tests occurred (in case the safety requirements changes came earlier). One such test in August of 1966 was the fitting of a large hard-top roof to their popular SPL-310 convertible. Figure 2. Datsun SP-310 Testing Optional Hard Top August 1966 Figure 3. Datsun 240z Convertible Prototype Model "A11" with Optional Hard Top ~July, 1966 It should be noted that during the design and development of the 240z, the designers and engineers at Nissan had to keep abreast of the evolving USA safety standards. As mentioned by Mr. Takeshi Kume Tamura, the Chief designer of the 240z during its final stages prior to going to a prototype: "During this time, design changes occurred such as significant changes to size of the complete body, modifications to the fenders, due to the change of the wheel, and changes to the design to match American safety standards". By the end of the 60's Datsun had produced ~ 50,000 convertible sports cars . The expected stringent safety restrictions did not materialize however Datsun had moved away from the convertible and completely stopped convertible production in 1970. Of all Datsun Sports Cars produced prior to the 240Z, approximately 44,000 (88%) were LHD sold in the USA market. Whereas sales in the USA market grew substantially for Nissan throughout the 60's, domestic sales did not significantly change. Nissan management would have observed this pattern as it evolved through out all of the 60's. From the graph below, it is clear to see that domestic sales of Datsun sports cars (convertible and S30) did not show significant growth for the convertibles or even later with the S30. On the other hand, the convertible grew in the USA market and the 240z design exploded in the USA market. Prior to the 240z, the convertible sport cars growth was only in the USA. 1969-1970 production crossover from the convertible to 240z is easy to see. One product ramped up and one ramped down, This was partly due to sharing of some production facilities. Production for both convertibles and the 240z confirm Nissan's management made a wise decision to go after the USA sports car market. Low sales in the domestic market did not warrant the need for so many iterations of the S30 platform however the iterations were done and they seem to be more for the requirements of automobile racing that Nissan was involved in since Mr. K's stimulus in the 1950's. Rally racing, the avid road racing scene in Japan, and the success of road racing roadsters in the USA during the 1960's were the prime drivers for small quantities of variants to the standard model sold in Japan. The basic models sold in Japan and the USA came with L engines (2.0 litre for the domestic market and 2.4 litre for the USA). Nissan's determination for the 240z to succeed in the USA market is exemplified by the additional pre-release road testing they did in North America above and beyond the their standard product development and certification testing done in Japan. Nissan's sports car sales success to this day is traceable to the fact they had chosen to go after the USA sports car market at an early stage rather than most other manufacturers in Europe who focused on local markets first. This ultimately shaped Nissan's continued success where as many others failed to make a sports car for the USA market like the 240z. Nissan successfully designed for, and successfully sold in the largest sports car market place in the world... the USA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Service Administration (GSA) Published the following 17 new standards on June 30,1965. More were to come. Anchorage for seat belt assemblies. Padded dash and visors. Recessed dash instruments and control devices. Impact-absorbing steering wheel and column displacement. Safety door latches and hinges. Anchorage of seats. Four-way flasher. Safety glass. Dual operation of braking system. Standard bumper heights. Standard gear quadrant, P-R-N-D-L, automatic transmission. Sweep design of windshield wipers-washers. Glare reduction surfaces. Exhaust emission control system. Tire and safety rim. Backup lights. Outside rear view mirror. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES: 31 (March 8, 1966): 4091, GSA proposes safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (July 15, 1966): 9631, GSA final rule, safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (December 3, 1966): 15212, NPRM for the initial FMVSS. 32 (February 3, 1967): 2414, final rule for the initial FMVSS, including FMVSS Nos. 103, 105, 108, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 301. [Notable technologies are seat belts; energy absorbing steering assemblies; door locks, latches, and hinges; occupant protection in interior impact; dual cylinders / Front disc brakes; and trailer conspicuity tape.] 32 (October 13, 1967): 14278, ANPRM to consider regulations to limit roof crush and intrusion. 32 (December 16, 1967): 18033, final rule extending FMVSS No. 108 to cars and LTVs. 32 (December 28, 1967): 20865, NPRM to establish FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (February 14, 1968): 2945, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (August 16, 1968): 11652, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 212 for passenger cars. [Adhesive windshield bonding] 33 (October 5, 1968): 14971, ANPRM announcing the intention to regulate side door strength. 33 (December 11, 1968): 18386, first NPRM proposing FMVSS No. 214. 34 (January 24, 1969): 1150, final rule extending FMVSS No. 206 to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles. 34 (July 2, 1969): 11148, initial ANPRM to consider air bags or other automatic protection. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Below the next few photos are Roof Crush Testing and Policy Development in the USA that Nissan would have been aware of with their Eastern USA Vice President's Mr. Soichi Kowazoe's Liasons with DC (It is interesting how this timeline fits with 240z prototyping and affected roof height changes during the 240z development process): Measuring Roof Height as per FMVSS 208 & 216 (Passenger Restraining in Crash/Roll Over and Roof Crush) FMVSS 208 Roll Over Testing 240z with DOHC Engine. (Note Split Exhaust) FYI: Prototype "CA-4" 240z with Split Exhaust In 1962 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was formed in order to develop test procedures for evaluating vehicle structural integrity under various types of impacts. (Deadly By Design reference 14) The subcommittee's members included representatives from General Motors (and Fisher Body - a division of General Motors), Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, Kaiser Jeep Corporation, International Harvester Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc. and American Motors Corporation. (DBD - 15) In June 1963 the subcommittee developed and approved the SAE Recommended Practice, "Roll-Over Tests Without Collision - SAE J857." (DBD - 16) On October 6, 1966 the Secretary of Commerce announced the development of initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. (DBD - 34) The Static Crusher was then being developed at Fisher Body by James Augustitis, an associate senior research engineer. (DBD - 35) Fisher Body was responsible for building the vehicle bodies for General Motors. In August of 1967 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee developed and approved SAE Recommended Practice, "Inverted Vehicle Drop Test Procedures - SAE J996." (DBD - 36) By mid August the subcommittee's work on test procedures was nearing completion. Members used the top drop test procedures as a means for obtaining values for drop height and encroachment distance. The procedure was designed to be a repeatable and reliable test methodology. It was concluded that initially vehicles should be dropped from 2 feet. (DBD - 37) Only a week or so after the subcommittee's Inverted Drop Test - SAEJ996 was approved, and the recommended drop height of 2 feet was initially established, Fisher Body dropped two 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtops from 6 inches which resulted in 8 inches of dynamic intrusion.(DBD - 38) Fisher Body tested the same 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtop with the static crusher and the vehicle's roof withstood 6000 pounds withjust 3 inches of crush. (DBD - 39) Immediately after General Motors' vehicles failed the two drop tests on September 6 and 7, Ed Klove of Fisher Body prepared a proposal of a Roof Crush Test Procedure. (DBD - 40) P.O. Johnson of Fisher Body (and also a subcommittee member) presented Klove's proposal to the SAE Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee on September 29, 1967. Klove's proposal stated its advantages: "more impressive numbers are obtained - three inches crush for 6000 lb. load. (A six inch vehicle drop height allowing eight inches crush is not impressive)." (DBD - 41) Fisher Body now realized that all their vehicles would not even meet a drop height of 6 inches. (DBD - 42) Klove's proposal dared to pose the question, "Who can say that it does not provide as good a measure of vehicle safety as does an inverted drop test?" (DBD - 43) It was Klove's idea to suggest this test procedure as an alternative method of showing compliance.(DBD - 44) Fisher Body's nickname for the Static Crusher was "GOLDFINGER." (DBD - 45) On December 8, 1971, NHTSA adopted General Motors' proposal (one that GM's vehicles could already pass) (DBD - 47) and announced that FMVSS 216 was being created as a temporary alternative to FMVSS 208 rollover testing. (DBD - 60) The December 11, 1971 NHTSA News Release read: "The new standard is intended as an alternative to Standard No. 208 rollover test, and will become effective on August 15, 1973. End of the line for Goertz at Nissan: Oct 1964 Tokyo Motor Show (CSP-311 Silva Coupe) Note earliest 240z sketches were ~ 1 year later. * apart from the CSP-311 Silva coupe that was more of an experiment. It was difficult to produce (only 554) and sold poorly like the DC-3. It was a good learning experience for Nissan as to how not to design a coupe.