HS30-H

aarc240, I see your bicycle has ten reverse gears as well as ten forward gears, and you are pedalling like mad. :knockedou Your "source" wants me to prove to him that the KPC110 model was built, then? I suggest he ( and you ) do your own research on that one - as it seems you have trouble believing anything that comes from me. Perhaps the info from g72s20 above might go some way to convincing him? 'Katashiki' doesn't translate to the equivalent of a 'build order'. It is a word made up of two Kanji characters ( reading 'Kata' and 'Shiki' ) that both mean almost the same thing. A dictionary definition of each character would give you 'model' or 'type' for the first Kanji and 'style' or 'formula' for the second. I think it is quite clear what the term refers to - and you can translate that to suit the automotive usage how you want. But you get the point don't you? These are Japanese cars ( and mainly Japanese market models too! ) that we are discussing here, and therefore I believe it is correct to use the factory's own terminology when referring to them. Splitting hairs about the modern meaning of the acronym 'VIN' is a waste of time, and I've already justified the reason why we use it on forums like these. *sigh* You missed the point I was making ( again ). You keep disappearing up avenues that are side issues to the main point here. You need to remind yourself that earlier on in this very thread you were convinced that all the different models shared the same body serial numbering sequence! If we look at Nissan Japan's whole modus operandi with regard to model variation identification and body serial numbering sequences during the period in question, we can see what they were doing. I'm talking about all models, and all variants of those models. Then it starts to make a little more sense. WHO said that the body serial number sequences apply to SUFFIXES as well as prefixes??!!! I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. I'm talking about major variant prefixes having their own numbering sequences. Once again I remind you that it was you yourself that was trying to convince us that one body serial number sequence was shared across all the model variants, and this info came from your "source". Clearly mistaken. I think you need to look at your copy more often ( before you post! ) and also keep in mind that the major topic of this thread concerns Japanese market models. Quoting parts of the Export market manuals as though they are comments that you have personally obtained from your own enquiries to Nissan ( Australia? ) are not really going to cut the mustard, I'm afraid. As for "snide sarcasm" - if you don't like being on the receiving end of it then I suggest you refrain from using it yourself first. Nonsense! The suffixes are a vital part of the correct identification of the exact model variant. Surely you can see the irony of your statement when we have spent so many thread inches discussing just this very fact? Just because the weak links in the chain ( meaning us ) do not use them properly or - usually - acknowledge their significance, doesn't mean the factory considered them meaningless after the cars had left the factory. You only have to look at the first few pages of a factory parts list, service manual or Japanese 'Service Shuho' document to see the factory helping us to understand and use them! You can lead a horse to water............. You can consider a pukka factory-applied and unaltered 'KPGC110' firewall stamping a "legal" identifier if you want, but I think you would find that the idea of what is "legal" and what is not depends on the legal system in use in the court concerned. Maybe you'd have a chance in Australia, but I think Japan would be more of a challenge. The reason being that ALL the other 'evidence' so far presented ( including the body serial number that follows the prefix! ) points to the bodyshell being something other than what the prefix says it is. All the parts attached to that bodyshell now ( and there's a grey area there, as the previous owner changed so much himself ) are a side issue, as the 'shell itself bears little tangible relation to a genuine GT-R 'shell. Somebody earlier in the thread brought up the possibility of selling it back to Japan for a high price, but in my opinion ( I imagine shared amongst other GT-R owners ) such a car could only be sold as an anomaly, and is neither fish nor fowl. Hopefully this is academic, as I am sure that Brian has no intention of trying to pass it off as a 'GT-R' anyway. Time for a cup of tea for me. :squareeye Alan T.

Yes, thanks from me too Ron. Your post shines a light on the vendor's exaggerations. Cheers, Alan T.

Looks like a factory PL510 with some doo-dads on it to me. But maybe I'm one of those "CHAT ROOM NO LIFES" he loves so much? I know next to nothing about 510s really, but I've seen one of the BRE race cars close up and inside / underneath ( it was on holiday in Japan ) so this bit of the auction description made me chuckle: "........If the new owner does this then they will have the the most original BRE built 510 in the world as it will be original in every way including the original Goodyear tires." Nice bit of promotions-man hyperbole there. And he said the 'F' word too............. Naughty naughty. Sad thing is that none of the hype and overblown description from what appears to be the archetypal promotions bod is the fault of the poor car itself, which is obviously an honest example of a mildly ( period ) jazzed-up PL510 that even retains its stock air cleaner. Poor thing. I notice that the auction ends conveniently on April 1st too

Don't forget that the factory had made around 4500 RHD S30-series Z models other than the 'HS30' before the end of calendar year 1970. The '240Z' models were not the whole story............ But back to the thread subject: Ha! You've got me scratching my head and my chin at the same time now. When I was pulling my mid-1970 build 'Fairlady Z-L' apart, the scuff plates were nicely rusty - to the point where the vinyl covering was bubbling up and peeling off. I think they were the original fitment, and they were certainly steel. I have a couple of pairs of new ones still in the packet ( I bought them several years ago in Japan ) but I can't for the life of me remember whether they are steel or alloy. I'll have a dig around in the garage and report back later. I do remember thinking that the new ones were nice and light in comparison to the rusty originals. The RHD export model parts list shows that there was a supersession in May 1972: *74932-E4100 PLATE - SCUFF ( up to 05-72 ) *74932-E4101 PLATE - SCUFF ( 06-72 on ) Japanese market parts list shows the former in use there too. My LHD export parts list shows exactly the same numbers and dates - so I think all models got the same part during the same period of manufacture. I see that there's just one part number for RH side and LH side until November 1973, when new individual numbers for RH and LH sides must mean that there was a detail change for the new models. Alan T.

Ron, Those will be the Japanese home market versions. They didn't have any text on them ( not being 'Datsun' models they would not have 'Datsun' on them of course ) and the serrated stamping covers their whole length. They were still available in Japan last time I checked. Alan T.

'GC10-TK' was the four door version of the GT-X, introduced in March 1973. A last-gasp sales push before the introduction of the new C110 series later in the year. The 'TK' suffix is not seen anywhere on the car - only on the paperwork accompanying it. g72s20, your car is a 'KGC10-TK' ( two door GT-X ) I believe?

Miles, Nissan made the option of a 'Regular' gasoline version S20 engine available as some of the more rural regions of Japan had filling stations that didn't always supply 'High Oc.' fuel. These S20 engines had different pistons ( for lower compression ) and different distributors ( with a different advance curve ). Lower compression Fairlady Z432 models were also supplied ( the 'PS30-N' model ) with the same parts and specs. Compression ratio was reduced to 9:1 ( from 9.5:1 ) and power dropped by 5ps. In practice, very few of these low compression models were sold as the take-up was negligible. Those that did get sold tended to get converted to the 'normal' higher comp specs at their first rebuild ( as High Octane fuel soon became more widely available ), and I believe almost no examples of original 'TN' C10 GT-Rs or 'N' PS30s exist in factory spec today. Alan T.

Apart from the 'KPC110' of course. Maybe you should ask your source at Nissan about that, as they would seem to have forgotten it? The existence of this model would also appear to blow your following statement out of the water: See chart of K-prefix C10 model types below. Not C110 series admittedly ( I don't have the C110 chart to hand, but somebody else participating in this thread does - so hopefully they will pipe up ) but it does at least illustrate the fact that the KPC10 and KGC10 ( and the KPGC10 - but we already knew that ) had their own different body serial number sequences. The C110 series followed suit, I'm sure. Alan T.

Well, if one of these "smartasses" got something wrong I invite you to correct it on this thread. Here's your opportunity to put down some good information to be brought up in future by users of the SEARCH function. But be careful, as you might get somebody labelling you a "smartass" too.......... Hold on, I think it was a little bit more complicated than that. This talk of "lines" is a little misleading, and I don't see what the number of "lines" had to do with the number of body serial number sequences ( ?? ). As mentioned before, each distinct prefix type had its own body serial number sequence. Are you saying that - for example - the KC110, KPC110 and KGC110 models all shared a body serial number sequence ( "So, all K codes received sequential numbers......" )? I'm sorry, but I do not think for one minute that this is correct. Perhaps you misunderstood? The production figures and body serial number sequences published by the Japanese motor vehicle ministry show that it is not the case. That we can agree on. But it is not news is it? The PGC10, KPGC10 and KPGC110 models are such a specialised and well documented subject that the body serial number sequences are common knowledge amongst enthusiasts. You are only 'confirming' a fact that you were effectively disagreeing with earlier in this thread. , That's all straight from the C110 series export model factory service manual! Have you only just noticed it? Some of us are very well aware that the term "VIN" ( Vehicle Identification Number ) is a more modern term, and that the 'VIN' on modern cars contains far more information than that seen on the cars of the period we are discussing here. But the reason we use the term 'VIN' is just for convenience sake ( so that everyone knows what we are talking about ). You only have to turn to the first few pages of a factory service manual to see the 'Model Variation' list, and the meanings of the prefixes and suffixes. The fact that the suffixes hold a lot of information on the model variant, and yet were never attached to the car, is unfortunately seldom acknowledged on forums like this. If I start using the real terms that Nissan ( a Japanese company! ) used in the period, namely 'Katashiki' and "Shadai Bango", wouldn't that just confuse you a little more, and give you even more reason to label me a "smartass"? That's why we use the colloquial vernacular of 'VIN' etc. I'm tempted to welcome you once again to the 'Model Variation' page of the C110 export model factory service manual ( welcome! ) as you don't appear to have noticed it before. Heaven only knows what kind of euphoric epiphany you will experience should you see the Japanese home market model variation page. Maybe you ought to sit down before looking at it? No, I don't believe they ever built any. Unless you know better? I think it is well known that the factory ( factories ) occasionally did things we find difficult to get our heads around, but we are standing on the outside and we - essentially - have no God-given right to all of the information that might make things a little clearer. We are often reduced to the level of archaeologists trying to decipher the Rosetta Stone. That's just the way it is. Personally I find it fascinating. The weakest links in the chain ( the ones that are often seen to be the least 'sensible' ) are ourselves - the amateur enthusiasts. Alan T.

Most RHD cars up to the end of 1973 have the correct mounting bracket for the oscillator unit welded to the firewall under the dash from the factory. If your car is LHD then you will of course have to reverse these illustrations, and hope that the mounting bracket is present. I have seen it on some European market LHD cars, but I don't know if it made it on to all LHD cars.

Mr C, Yes, that's the one that ended up with me - but I bought it here in the UK from the people that bought it from EKW all those years ago. See story below. g72s20, I think Ray Broughton's recollections are a good example of why we sometimes need to take a pinch of salt with the stories we get given. They don't entirely match up with the side of the story that I got, and it is fairly clear that he doesn't really understand the model of car that engine originally came from, and that he might be confused about the status of the engine when it arrived in Australia from Japan. I reckon it is fairly clear that it wasn't installed in a car when they got it, and that it had been removed from a car in Japan and sent to Australia as just an engine and trans. The story I got ( and I have little reason to doubt ) was from Paul of Fourways Engineering here in the UK. Paul's mother lives in Australia, and on this particular trip to visit his mother he also planned to buy some used parts from companies such as EKW to ship back to the UK for Fourways' business use ( used Z parts at that time being both cheap and relatively plentiful in Australia, as well as usually in better condition than our rusty English junk.......... ). Paul visited EKW and rounded up a bunch of stuff to ship back. He spotted the S20 engine on a pallet and was told that it had been brought in from Japan with a batch of used engines that were purchased from a dismantler in Japan. Paul called his boss Geoff back at Fourways, and told him about the S20 ( and asked him whether it would be worth purchasing ), the result being that he got the green light and he added the S20 to the other stuff he had bought, and shipped it all to the UK. After it arrived in the UK they never really got around to using it for anything, and it sat dormant literally for years. I spotted it in Fourways' storage barn some years back and asked for first refusal should it ever come up for sale. Eventually I did get that first refusal ( Geoff kept his word ) and I brought it home, but without the transmission - which had disappeared somewhere into the big spares mountains at Fourways. I sourced a proper 'A' type five speed with the correct S20-type bellhousing from Japan ( at no small expense! ) only for the original trans to turn up out of the blue at Fourways when they were having a clear up. Just my luck, but at least I have a spare. The engine and trans had all the hallmarks of being removed from the car in the Japanese dismantlers - most likely from a crashed car judging from the witness marks of impact damage on the offside of the engine. The harness wires, exhaust and fuel lines had been cut through, and all fluids had been drained. A label tucked into the exhaust tube gave a clue to the Japanese dismantler too. Manufacturing date of the engine block ( 2nd November 1969 ) and the engine block number itself gave a clue to the likely manufacturing date of the 432 that it was originally fitted to; clearly a pretty early build - and I find it a fascinating 'what if' to think that the original car might have been possible to repair, but was likely considered uneconomical at their market value in the Eighties. What a shame. I can't imagine that EKW took this engine out of a car themselves ( the evidence I see and hear makes this seem very unlikely ) and indeed they don't appear to really understand what model the engine type was found in. They seem to be thinking of ZGs rather than 432s, and if this engine and trans was actually in a car that they sold separately then why would they have effectively 'chopped' it out so roughly? The story doesn't stack up. Maybe that's just due to the amount of years ago that all this happened? Anyway, after a long process and steep learning curve the engine is almost completely rebuilt now ( just have to reunite the head with the rest of the assembly ). Internally it was in reasonably good order, with no evidence of seizure; the bent distributor shaft was what was stopping it from turning freely, and I reckon this might have been a legacy of the crash that I suspect caused the engine to be taken from the original car. It looks to have been fairly low mileage, but there was a lot of evidence of poor state of tune in the form of severe carbon deposits. All waterways were in excellent condition with no corrosion of the aluminium or iron, but the waterpump body was cracked and the impeller shaft bent ( more crash damage? ). Alternator was smashed ( and early Mitsubishi unit that I wanted to save - but it is sadly fecked ). Crank pulley was also damaged by a big single impact, and needed replacement. I have also replaced the distributor due to its damage. Some parts have been easy to source, and some more difficult - but they have all been too expensive for my liking! I'll take some more photos of it soon to update the rebuild stages in the Gallery. Alan T.

If that's the case, I'll have to watch out when I'm ordering a drink or meal at any London bar or restaurant.......... :paranoid: But I'm not guilty on all charges! It wasn't me that got it from EKW, and it was sitting in a very dark shed here in south east England for thousands of years before I rescued it from being a fancy home for mice. At least it went to an honest home, and I must say it is looking fairly spiffy at the moment. Does the idea involve an RB20 head and a large can of Evo-Stik? If so, I might not have one 'available to me' at the moment........

Lachlan, Funnily enough, I heard that he was there and was looking for certain things. One of the people he got in touch with is a friend of mine. Small world. He plans an S20 in an S54? Give it a few years and there'll be a thread on here with us all arguing whether this was actually a 'development car' made by Nissan to test the S20 before the PGC10 So is he now 'catching up' with himself re the stories he told three years ago? Or maybe I'm just far too cynical? Yeah, like all those 'Yakuza' who wanted me to chop off my little finger before I was allowed to buy a new distributor cap for my 'Australian' S20 :cheeky: Honestly, some of the stuff that people come up with makes the mind positively boggle, doesn't it?..........

aarc240, I'm not pulling any legs. I don't need to. Who said this car was ever an official Export market model then? Do you know more about it than the rest of us? As far as I am aware, all the 'evidence' presented thus far ( including information and photos sent to me by the previous owner some years ago ) points to its spec as being that of a Japanese market version. The Japanese language servicing / maintenance advice stickers on the car ( which appear to have been there since new ) would appear to confirm that. In which case it would most likely have been registered in Japan before being exported to PNG. The only other scenario I can imagine this car possibly fitting into is that of a 'Diplomatic Sales Office' car, where a car was purchased with certain taxes 'zero rated' via Nissan's DSO office in Ginza, and then exported for foreign use. Even then it would have to be inspected by Japanese Customs officials at the port of export, which would mean that the firewall VIN stamp and engine bay ID tag ( which would also give the engine type ) would be compared to the documentation presented for inspection. Unless of course you think it might have been 'smuggled' out of Japan as contraband goods? You want me to "Get real"? Only a few posts back you wanted us to believe that ".... each ( Nissan ) body was sequentially numbered regardless of the prefix....." I can hear the tune of 'Jingle bells' in the distance, . Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Japanese imports and exports ( yes, occasionally including motor vehicles ) are part of my line of work. I can tell you a few interesting stories about Japanese customs inspections and paperwork mountains if you have a couple of weeks to spare. I suggest you concentrate on the car that we are talking about here, and think about it a little bit more about the 'evidence' presented thus far ( weighing up all the possibilities - not ruling out skullduggery ) rather than trying to pick holes in common sense. Alan T.

I think the biggest problem with the theory that this VIN stamp could be a simple 'mistake' is that there would have been plenty of opportunities for the mistake to be discovered and action taken. First of these opportunities would have been the big QC check at the factory, and I can't imagine a car with a VIN prefix and spec that didn't match getting through to the stage where it received its first documents and paper 'identity' - let alone being sent out to a dealer and sold to an unsuspecting member of the general public. It would also set off all sorts of alarms as it progressed through the Japanese systems such as first registration ( GT-R was a different taxation category to GT and GT-X, for example ) and local parking permits ( again, GT-R was wider than GT and GT-X - so that would be picked up on ). Servicing at the local Nissan dealer would be another opportunity, and should the car have reached the age where it needed a 'shakken' ( Japanese roadworthiness inspection ) it would surely have been questioned. Lastly, when the car was exported from Japan to PNG the documentation would have been inspected - and a 'KPGC110' VIN prefix with an L20 engine rather than an S20 would have been noted and questioned ( I have personal experience of exporting from Japan, and they are very strict ). Lots of 'ifs' there - but you have to admit the chance of it being a simple 'mistake' that got through all the nets seems remote. The suggestion that Nissan might have 'used up' spare GT-R unibodies on other models also seems to be full of holes: First of all, Nissan didn't have a glut of unsold C110 GT-Rs that caused them to stop making them - they actually made the decision to pull the model because of what you could call 'political' pressure. That is, they didn't want to be seen to be producing such a high performance model during the very sensitive period of what the Japanese call the 'Oil Shock'. This is the same reason that caused Nissan to cancel the projected race programme for the C110 GT-R ( they only produced the two 'Image Cars' - which were standard road cars in drag, and aimed simply at sales hype for the whole C110 range ). So there were not hundreds ( or thousands! ) of 'spare' bodyshells knocking around the factory, and even if there were you would have to imagine that Nissan would re-stamp / alter / rectify the VIN prefixes if they were going to be used on another model. The VIN prefix is a fundamental part of the identity of the car, and without the prefix being appropriate to the spec of the car the body serial number itself is meaningless. We should also bear in mind that a batch of 'KPGC110' VIN-prefixed cars that were not true GT-R models would also indirectly make a nonsense of the 197 real GT-Rs too. So, on balance, I think it looks less likely that it would have been a simple 'mistake', or a case of an 'unused' bodyshell being re-assigned. Which leaves other possibilities......... Well said. I came to the same conclusion without the benefit of being able to see the car in the metal, so I defer to your opinion at the same time as agreeing with you ( if that makes sense! ). The ONLY thing on the car that points to a 'GT-R' identity is the VIN prefix stamped on the firewall ( and not even the body serial number that follows it! ), so in my opinion it is slightly fanciful for some of us to suggest the 'GT-R' connection when all the other evidence against it is so strong. Not wanting to cast aspersions here, but I feel that some of Ray's work on creating this "GT-R clone" is now clouding the issue with regard to its original identity. Things that Ray added or altered are being mistaken for factory spec. Maybe it would be more scholarly of us to think of the car in the spec it was before Ray's ownership when discussing matters of its true identity 'ex-factory'? I remember Ray mentioning that he had an S20 engine that he was rebuilding, and that he was still "looking for some parts" for. I offered to help him with this ( I have a fair few spares knocking around ) but he didn't even tell me what he was looking for. To be brutally honest, I didn't actually believe he had one - but maybe I was just being overly sceptical? I must say, the new owner has ALWAYS been very open, honest, realistic and a stickler for accuracy in his online discussions of these cars. I have every confidence that he will get to the bottom of it, and tell it like it is. He will also most likely turn it into an absolute gem of a car. Good luck to him! :-) Alan T.

Mat, I thought I was hallucinating when I first read some of the things written on this thread, so I know how you feel. When I was first asked my opinion on this particular car ( by the previous owner ) I did bring up the possibility that the firewall VIN stamp could have been ( expertly ) "tampered with" by a previous owner some time in the dark and distant past. Not having had the opportunity to look closely at the car in the metal, it is hard to come to an opinion on whether that is the case or not. If I was going to have a close look at it, I'd want to see the reverse side of that firewall panel just as much as the outside face. I believe there is no stamped VIN tag present with the car that would also show engine type, taxation class etc (?). I'm sorry Kent, but you wrote ".....that is what I gather." and you appeared to agree with it. That's the way I read it, anyway. The more people that do that, the more conjecture and inaccurate supposition becomes accepted as - yes - "fact". My intention is not to attack you, just what you are repeating and effectively endorsing. In my opinion, and based on common sense just as much as what we could call 'facts' about the factory KPGC110s, it would be plain daft to believe that Nissan 'used up' spare and unused C110 GT-R bodyshells to make different C110 models, and not change the VIN prefixes on them. Do people honestly believe that thousands of 'KPGC110' VIN-prefixed bodyshells were made? The car in question has a body serial number in the five thousands whilst the known factory C110 GT-Rs sold to the public didn't even make it over three digits - so where are all the others? This car doesn't even appear to have some of the main characteristics of a true C110 GT-R bodyshell - so how can anyone say that it is "....one of the chassis left over from the GT-R production run."???!!! I'm not sure that you understand what I'm getting at? I'm talking about the characteristics of the bodyshell itself, and not the parts that were attached to it. The factory GT-R 'Overfenders' were FRP mouldings that were pop-riveted to the body structure. The rear quarters and inner arch panel pressings of the GT-R were different to all the other models. That's a FUNDAMENTAL difference in the actual sheetmetal of the cars, and the car in question does NOT appear to have the GT-R style pressings and structure ( at least according to the information supplied to me by the former owner ), so how can it have been a GT-R bodyshell? I'm not talking about stuff that was bolted onto the car ( that's a whole other can of worms ), I'm talking about structure. Have you seen a real C110 GT-R with its Overfenders removed? If you have, then you will know what I am talking about. Hold on Brian. I only stated that C110 GT-R production is noted as starting in January 1973. I didn't say that they were all made in January 1973, and I didn't say when production is noted as having finished. I don't see why a true C110 GT-R couldn't have been made in August 1973 or thereabouts - so the build date doesn't really tell us one thing or another, as far as I can see. Alan T.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there gentlemen! The facts are getting somewhat forgotten here with some of the excitement. With all due respect to the former owner - and now the new owner - of this car, I'll try to make some objective observations whilst still being polite. Since when did this become a "fact"? Does anybody really believe that Nissan had several thousand C110 GT-R bodies hanging around in a corner of their factory waiting to become something else???!!! Let's get real here, please! The GT-R models ( unlike our beloved S30-series Z range ) were very well documented right from the start of their production run, and the chassis numbers of all the C110 GT-Rs sold to the general public ( and even the ones that were not ) are well known to arch enthusiasts and marque / model experts in Japan. I think you may have been misinformed? The C110 GT-R model had special high-clearanced rear quarter panel pressings that were spotwelded to the inner arch panels, and these are quite clearly visible when the ( FRP ) rear overfenders are removed. I don't believe the car in question left the factory with these rear quarters, and the overfenders seen on the car now are not factory-fitted items. It clearly has a VIN PREFIX of 'KPGC110' - but the body serial number does not conform to the KPGC110 sequence ( it is WAY too high - the C110 GT-R never got past three digits ). The body also seems to lack many of the C110 GT-R-specific details ( especially in the engine bay ) so - let's be clear about this - the VIN prefix on the car doesn't make any sense. I don't know where this guy got his information, but - and I'll try to be polite about this - it is just nonsense. All Nissan VIN prefixes ( certainly in the case of the S30-series Z cars and the C10 and C110 Skylines ) had their own body serial number sequences. Hence we would - theoretically - be able to stand outside the factories concerned and pull out S30-00030, HLS30-00030, PS30-00030 and HS30-00030, as well as GC10-000051, PGC10-000051, KPGC10-000051, GC110-000051 and KPGC110-000051 etc etc. There was no mixing-and-matching of body serial sequences across VIN prefixes - why would there be? How would that make any sense? #005370 is "early" for what VIN prefix series though? I don't get what you are saying here? 'GC110' VIN prefix production started around September 1972, but 'KPGC110' VIN prefix production started around January 1973 according to marque & model expert records ( and Nissan themselves ). Are apples being compared to oranges here? To cut a long story short, all we really have here is an anomalous VIN number and body serial number combination, and a body that was ( reportedly, as it has been greatly modified since then ) factory fitted with running gear and other details that did not fit the VIN prefix. There are a lot of questions about all this, so please let's not kid ourselves that we are looking at a real C110 GT-R here, and let's not take too seriously the idea that somebody could "....resell the car to somebody in Japan for big bucks......". Alan T.

Mike, The original Nissan triple-outlet hard fuel line is still available in Japan - the same one as they used to sell with the triple carb kits. Last time I looked the retail price was around 4,500 JPY or so. I think it is a neat, effective and unobtrusive solution. I use one on one of my cars ( apologies for the crap photo ):

Joris, Adrian might not be able to answer you straight away, as I believe he is away racing in South Africa at the moment........... 3023 includes all of the Group 2 & Group 3 stuff as well, and of course some of those parts were shared with Group 4 & even Group 5. As you have found out, the homologation ran out on some parts in period and were therefore no longer allowed. I think I can see the confusion that this might cause, and it might lead you up the wrong path as far as the build and spec of your car. However, I think you might be taking somewhat of a wrong approach to this. In most of the events and series that your car will be eligible to race in, it is more important for the spec of the car to satisfy the scrutineers and organisers of the event than the FIA themselves ( and who would interpret the FIA spec anyway? ). You also have to convince your fellow competitors that your car is not giving you an unfair advantage over them! Most organising bodies will welcome a Group 3, 4 or 5 spec Z with open arms, as it helps to break up the hordes of Porsches and the other 'usual suspects' that make up the majority of the field. They like the variety, so you might find that they are relatively lenient towards you and your car. I think it is the organisers that you need to talk to rather than the FIA, and for most organisers simple proof of 'period use' within the years concerned is enough to keep them happy. I recently assisted in proving period use of 15 inch diameter wheels in FIA-sanctioned events, for example. To be honest it is sometimes better not to go into fine detail on this kind of subject online........... Alan T.

Diagnosing carburettor jetting, tuning and setup 'online' is a thankless task! You can't blame people for not wanting to get involved, as there are far too many possible variables that come into play. Having said that, you should be able to get fairly close to optimal jetting on paper if you know the carbs themselves are in good condition and without twisted butterfly spindles etc. First of all, what series of 45DCOE do you have ( series type should be stamped on the top covers ) and do you know their origin? Did they come from another known car / engine ( used ) or are they new out of the box? What size are all your other jets, and the emulsion tubes? Do you happen to know what accelerator pump jet actuating rods are installed ( this should be linked to the series type - that's why I ask )? No disrespect intended, but often these kinds of problems turn out to be due to many things other than the carburettors themselves, or indeed due to inexperienced tinkering............. Final twiddling is always best carried out by an experienced rolling road operator who knows his way around carbs. Unless you are prepared to go through a lot of trial and error it might be best to stump up the cash and take the car to somebody else.