HS30-H

Two basic different types of wheel nuts were used between the OEM '432' Kobe Seiko magnesium wheels and the Works 432-R/Works 'Rally Mag' wheel. The (narrow) '432' type used what I believe is called a 'Sleeve Nut', with a long parallel shank and a corresponding parallel hole in the wheel. These centred the wheels on the studs by having a close clearance between the shank on the nut and the hole in the wheel, and clamping force was distributed by a thick washer on the outside face. Personally speaking, I don't like this fixing method. It always seems to raise questions of balance and poor centering. The (wider) Works 'Rally Mag' type used a conventional nut with a (60 degree?) tapered washer that was pressed on - but free to spin to the short shank. The wheels had a steel insert with a matching taper. Clamping force was distributed around the tapered washer and centering was 'automatic' via the stud-centric nature of the tapered washers. These seem pretty much fool-proof to me. I've got a fairly big collection of Works Kobe Seiko wheels (7j x 14" Rally Mags, wide 15" 4-spoke circuit racing mags and 6j x 14" 'Violet' rally mags) and all of them use tapered steel inserts in the wheels to suit tapered nuts. Works rally cars started off in 1970 with open-ended wheel nuts, but switched to chromed dome nuts soon after.

I can see your dilemma. Ultimately it is up to you, but as you already have a good quality Grande Nose and overfenders (very likely a genuine factory 5-piece kit plus genuine factory overfenders) and it was clearly fitted a long time ago, then maybe it would be fitting to keep it. Part of the car's story. On the other hand, you could sell on the Grande Nose and overfenders and use the money they bring as an assist in a return to factory stock 240Z-L bodywork. Maybe factory body colour (white?) too? Period/period-sympathetic modifications and updates would not be out of place. Glenn Chiou's gorgeous blue Fairlady 240Z-L is a great role model. In any case, I'd like to see more photos when you are ready.

The three models in the photo I posted (it is a page from the October 1971 'Z-4' #272 Nissan Service Shuho model introduction booklet) are the three that I have been talking about; the 'HS30-S' Fairlady 240Z'/'HZS'/'HZ-Standard' model is the one on the bottom. It had the L24 engine the same as the other two models above it, and is implicitly included in the "2,600" conjectural figure from the graphic that we have been discussing.

You are correct, 'S30' equals not just Japan... and therein lies a story (shall we go there, considering this story is often painted as the story of 'the 240Z'?). However, the graph/graphic you are citing refers only to the Japanese domestic market variants. No Export market variants included, because it is intended to indicate what was happening in Japan.

Where are you getting the figure of "175 cars" from for 1971? You seem to have left out the HS30-S 'Fairlady 240Z' ('HZS') model too. In my experience, it is safer - and better for everybody - if we follow the naming/coding structure of the factory, using their 'Katashiki' charts. They can be a little inconsistent if you track them through the different Nissan publications (sales brochures, service manuals, parts lists etc) but there is a logic to them which makes sense to me. Hence I refer to: *'HS30-S' Fairlady 240Z ('HZS') 'Standard' model. *'HS30-D' Fairlady 240Z-L ('HZD') 'Deluxe' model. *'HS30-H' Fairlady 240Z-G ('HZG') 'Grande Nose'/'Aerodyna' model. ...rather than terms such as "HS30L" and "HS30ZG" etc. Note that there are extra suffixes to denote such as Automatic versions too. This is just further conjecture, which is all well and good, but there really are no definitive breakdowns for the three variants of L24-engined models in hand yet. Kats believes - as do others, and at looking from what is left extant in Japan today as much as anything else - that the 'HS30-H' model was the best seller of the three. I'm inclined to agree. However we still don't know the hard numbers, so I believe it is a step too far to be putting numbers like "470", "235" and whatever else out there. Especially when you are extrapolating from a graph which was never intended to give such detail in the first place. Again, I'm going to point out that you have not included the 'HS30-S' Fairlady 240Z 'Standard' model. It would make a good candidate for rarity simply because its de-contented 'Standard' spec was a slightly ill-fitting piece in the jigsaw puzzle that was the Japanese domestic market lineup. So it had the L24 engine (meaning extra purchase cost and extra licensing taxation cost because it exceeded the two litre tax band) but came with a 4-speed trans and very few bells and whistles. Alongside it in the showroom would be an 'S30-D' Fairlady Z-L (conforming to the two litre tax band) with a 5-speed trans and all the bells and whistles (headlamp covers, radio, hubcaps, stopwatch clock etc, even carpets!) and it would cost the new car buyer less overall - and ongoing - than the 'HS30-S'. It hardly looked any different than the more expensive Fairlady 240Z-L, so it would perhaps have made a better choice than the 'HS30-S', hence painting the 'HS30-S' into a corner that made it a rare choice, I'd say. My advice is to just continue to research your car by looking at its details. There has obviously been a lot of customisation in its history, but you can pin down what is 'factory' and what is later addition/modification. Probably the best documentation of the car's original spec would be the Japanese title ('Shakken Sho') but I'm guessing it is long gone? You never know, some research into previous owners - particularly the person who originally imported the car from Japan - might provide some extra clues (it has been beneficial with my own Japanese market cars). Keep an open mind and perhaps don't try too hard to assign hard numbers where we don't know them yet. Fun isn't it?!

I don't think the graph was designed to be taken too literally (it is more illustrative of increasing domestic consumption in the sporting car sector) but nevertheless I think the numbers roughly correspond with the graph.

First of all, the chart (its from one of the Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Japan 10 year report books) doesn't give a breakdown including PS30 and PS30-SB Fairlady Z432 and Fairlady Z432-R models, so they are not in that particular mix. The bars on the chart show total S30-prefixed production and the total (Japanese market only) HS30-prefixed production in proportion to eachother. Kats has marked in green the proportions of the HS30-prefixed cars at the top of the '71, '72 & '73 year bars. The numbers on the vertical axis are thousands of units. Secondly, the Japanese market L24-engined models (HS30-S 'Fairlady 240Z', HS30-D 'Fairlady 240Z-L' and HS30-H 'Fairlady 240ZG') were only sold from late 1971 through late 1973, and in parallel with the (four) Japanese market 2-litre models, so their uptake - being more expensive to buy and to own than two of the 2-litre models - was reduced. In fact, a fully optioned HS30-prefixed variant was a premium product in the Nissan showroom lineup. That explains somewhat why the proportions of L24-engined variants are smaller than the L20(A)-engined variants. As Kats pointed out, cashed-up buyers tended to choose the Fairlady 240ZG over the 'Standard' spec Fairlady 240Z and the 'Deluxe' spec Fairlady 240Z-L, probably because of its radical looks and the reflected glow of the factory race cars. By late 1971 the 432 and 432-R were already the best part of two years old, so not 'The New Thing'. The 240ZG itself was a 'Deluxe' model with all the bells and whistles of the 240Z-L, but the addition of that factory body kit, so buyers tended the leap-frog the 240Z-L. All these factors combined to make the 240Z-L a relatively rare choice then, and therefore a relatively rare car today. Yes, there are no hard numbers for the breakdown of HS30-S, HS30-D and HS30-H production. The chart that Kats posted is a rare clue to totals, but it doesn't give hard numbers. The Japanese Motor Industry Association kept records of year-on-year batches of chassis numbers, broken down by chassis prefix. Therefore we know the chassis number ranges for each year of production for the Japanese market HS30-prefixed variants, but not the sub-variant (S,D,H suffix) breakdowns. Such is the mystique - and joy - of the Japanese market variants.

Yes, I think I should probably sell them. However, a few things to bear in mind; First, I don't really want to split the pair up and secondly I'm a long way from you. Shipping cost would be high, as these things are long. Tomorrow I'll have a word with a freight broker I use to see if he can give me a rough quote on freight cost from UK to Canada. Stay tuned.

...and a 'late' LH 2-seater door: 80101-N3400 ASSY-PANEL DOOR LH

...and a pair of late 'Air Tube'/'Upper Chassis Reinforcement'/'Hood Ledge' panels: 64150-N4600 RH ASSY-REINFORCED HOOD LEDGE 640151-N4600 LH ASSY-REINFORCED HOOD LEDGE

A few more NOS parts from my 'stash' which - all things considered - are doing no good sitting in a dark corner of my storage garage. They need to find a home that wants and, ideally, really needs them... First up, 90101-E8300 ASSY-PANEL TAIL GATE 01-71 up:

I've got a lot of parts both used and NOS, but here are some that I don't seem to see all that often. Its a pair of NOS E4102 Inspection Lids: *63200-E4102 ASSY-LID BATTERY INSPECTION RH (from 05-72) *63201-E4102 ASSY-LID BATTERY INSPECTION LH (from 05-72) A little battered (they must have been on a shelf in the local dealer for the best part of 40 years before I got them) but intact and usable.

The yellow paint marks were applied to certain fastenings that were part of the production line process at Nissan Shatai's Hiratsuka plant. Since the differential wasn't assembled at Hiratsuka - same as the engine and transmission - the guys on check duty at Hiratsuka would most likely not have been tasked with checking & marking them. As for self-locking nuts, I should imagine the guys tasked with checking and marking them were making sure they were (A) present and correct and (B) torqued to spec.

Well, it's a nice thought ('23' being significant to Nissan...) but the tank will have been made in a different Nissan-related facility and then trucked - most likely as part of a batch of similar parts - to the Nissan Shatai factory in Hiratsuka. I very much doubt that would have been possible on the same day that the car was 'finished'. I'd say a few days, maybe a week or so, more likely? Most of the component parts on these cars usually seem to show production date/QC check stamps within a few weeks to a couple of months before the completion of the car.

In fact that is Takeuchi san's Z432-R, as used as a muse through the whole genesis of the RZ34 project, and debuted today on Nissan's Fairlady Z-themed stand at the 2023 Tokyo Auto Salon, paired with the RZ34 'Customised Proto' concept car:

The '46 6 23' date stamp translates to 23rd June 1971. '46' = 46th year of Showa = 1971 (First year of Emperor Showa's reign was 1925). '6' = Month of June. '23' = 23rd day of the month.

I'd like to encourage you to rebuild the diff with its 4.8 ratio intact. If you want to use the car for some events using a different ratio, I think it would be better to have another diff on hand for that. The tyre diameter on the car - if using something close to the period Works Dunlops - will mitigate the ratio. I don't think it will be as drastic as you might imagine. And even if it does seem a little frantic, that's the nature of a Works '71 Monte car... The Works team used anything up to 5.1 ratio in period, so with a 4.8 you're not even at 11 on your Marshall amp.

Hope you didn't use any glue or put any petroleum-based varnish or lacquer on your REAL (mahogany) wood wheel, as that would make it.... 'plastic'.... wouldn't it? 😉 By the way, if you don't like a thread, some of its content and/or posts from a particular member, you have a couple of useful options available to you: First of all you can IGNORE the thread completely by clicking the red button at the top of the thread (I recommend classiczcars' very own soft porn 'Boobs' thread for some, er, slightly stimulating diversionary 'reading' for people not here for car-related content...) or you can use the IGNORE USER button on a member's profile (that's mine on the immediate left of this post). By all means feel free to test this function. Unfortunately I can't tell you how it works because I've never used it. Oh and, Happy New Year!

Already covered in post #32. I got very light grey - almost white - smoke when I test burned a sample from the inner parts.

@rturbo 930 Thank you for that. But I refer you to the thread title, and my first post. I guess I'm leading a one-man crusade against the kind of comments illustrated in post #22. Think of me as classiczcar's own Rodney Dangerfield, if you like. You may well see it differently, but our friend Zed Head's diversions seem to me to have gone past the point where they were helpful. Last I saw he was headed off down a side road attempting to define the nature of wood on a philosophical level whilst - at the same time - accusing me of making that the subject of this thread. Bizarre. Nissan called it wood. Izumi called it wood. Little old me will call it wood too. Some people will go to their graves insisting "it's plastic!". So be it. I just felt it fair to show what I found, that's all. It's already 2023 here, so I wish you a Happy New Year.

But who said it was in a natural state? Of course, of course the wood has been processed and manipulated (that's the whole point!) but I still contend that it appears to retain many of its natural characteristics (grain and structure) and is the majority component. Zed Head called the steering wheel rim "inferior material" and I feel that's laughably inaccurate, unhelpful and contentious on a forum that has - over the years - been a good advocate for the deeper understanding and curation of these cars. You added a 'Like' to that post and I found that disappointing. Yes, I guess it will pass, but I will bear it in mind nonetheless. Thanks. HNY.

I've noted that "your continuous arguing" doesn't include your own 'continuous arguing' (LOL). I've tried to be respectful of your opinions here, but you keep going, not to mention digressing. But this is what you do isn't it? You're 'on the spectrum' too, right? You're fixated on me and you've not made any comment with regard to "wood dust" or "hard powder" as cited by others. I'm sticking up for Izumi, the manufacturer of these steering wheels, on a forum that is dedicated to these cars. What's wrong with that? Where - and how - does any of this discussion infer "inferior material"? That's in your head, not mine. In my opinion the material and techniques are both interesting and effective and the result is admirable. Apparently lost on the majority of people who lay hands on it, but there you go. SNAFU. Oh and @Patcon, you added a 'like' to the quoted post. You AGREE with this guy? Seriously!? I had you down as someone who knew his onions. Major disappointment there.

No, sorry. This whole "real wood" thing comes from your own posts on the subject. You might like to turn that mirror on yourself occasionally. And I dispute your assertion about "anybody who has worked with real wood" and their opinion on what is "real wood" or not. Who are you speaking on behalf of there? You seem to at once consider the philosophical aspect (your Blade Runner question) and at the same time cite it as irrelevant (because you already decided that your term "unnatural wood" is a real thing). I'm familiar with the work of Philip K. d***, but I don't see where you are going with this. Just a few posts up you are telling us (#72) that the binder/resin used is "most likely petroleum based". I suspect otherwise, but I would certainly reserve final judgement and put that in the gift of the chemists. For me the resin/binder/whatever is a side topic (look at the thread title) as the wood content appears - to me anyway - to be a given. I'm not sure that the chemists will have a firm category for "unnatural wood" (?), but I'll certainly tell them that you have staked a claim and planted your flag there. Let's see what they think of it.

Covered in post #32.

With all due respect, I don't think I'll be priming any independent research with your 'guidance'. One would - hopefully - imagine that a scientific examination wouldn't need any parameters - let alone restrictions - set by a third party. I don't get your comments about "real wood". Are you still saying - after all this - that something other than "real wood" has been used here? What is the opposite of "real wood" anyway? Is "real wood" somehow too exotic a substance to have been used? I would err to the contrary. It makes complete sense to me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to wonder what the definition of "real wood" means to you? What percentage of content in the finished product do you honestly think is wood/not wood? Simply going on what I have in front of me, I would happily stand by my assertion that the majority percentage of the material content being discussed here is organic wood. I don't see any point in it all otherwise. Indeed, what's behind the pushback? Do people actually *want* it to be 'plastic'?