HS30-H

Hi Eric, The Sports Option lists carried both solid and vented discs to go with the solid and vented disc versions of the MK63 4-pot calipers. There were 'early' and 'late' types of disc to suit the 'early' and 'late' front hubs ( 'hat' depth being different ). PGC10, KPGC10 and KPGC110 Skyline GT-Rs had solid front discs and two-pot calipers as stock fitting. Ahmed, Yes, they probably would match up with the Toyota calipers. However, its academic now. NISMO don't make them anymore. Prices of NOS pairs are sky high in Japan when they turn up. Peugeot 505 GTI vented discs are a good alternative, and only need a different disc-to-hub PCD drilling mod to make them fit. Here's a pic of my NOS discs before I fitted them to the 432R replica project car:

Hi Mike ( NZeder ), Here's a pic of one of my new vented-disc type MK63 calipers, before I fitted it to the 432R replica project car. I think the split-line of the two halves of the caliper should be visible in the photo, and you can see that there is no spacer there. Nothing wrong with a spacer as long as it is well engineered and safe, but the original vented-disc type calipers didn't have them. Cheers, Alan T.

, Thanks, Christopher. "I'm lovin' it"

Sorry to jump in with a different view here, but I don't believe the proper vented-rotor version of the Sumitomo MK63-20S four-pot 'FIA' calipers used a spacer. They were a quite different casting to the non-vented version....... I've had quite a few pairs of these calipers pass though my hands over the years - both vented and non-vented versions. I have a pair on my ZG, and a pair on my 432R replica project car too ( both vented ) and I have never seen a pair of originals that used spacers to allow for the extra width of the vented disc. The vented types always had extra 'meat' on the casting. To be honest, the non-vented version kind of misses the point. They are OK until you use them in anger a few times, and once they get the disc hot enough its fade city. Vented version is definitely miles better. Be careful to note that pad shapes are different between vented and non-vented versions. Unless you are a fan of period-correct options and accessories for these cars, the 'FIA' brake calipers might not be the best long-term solution. Especially when you price up seal kits and replacement pistons.

Hi Kats, Nice thread idea. I think we have to think about the 'Law Of Averages' as well as 'Fudge Factor' in this kind of discussion. Considering the amount of companies engaged in manufacturing parts for the Z cars, as well as the natural possibility for parts manufactured, say in January 1970, to be either mixed up close to the production line with parts manufactured in, say February 1970 - you would have imagine that a little bit of crossover in dates or lag would have occurred. These were the days before the "Just In Time" parts supply system was implemented, so I would guess that a kind of 'rubber band' effect would have been observable in parts supply at that time. With batches of parts being manufactured and date stamped, and then being sent out to Nissan in regular ( or possibly irregular ) shipments, there would - I guess - be times when parts may have sat around for a period of time before being attached to a car, with some later-manufactured pieces 'jumping the queue'? .... From what I can tell by cross-referencing the dates on my own cars, and from a few others, it seems as though the Law Of Averages shows that most parts were used within a month or two of being made ( this is what you are seeing on your own car, isn't it? ). That's just me comparing and cross-referencing the date stamps and marks found on each one of my cars - if you see what I mean. I don't think anybody who has a non-USA market model should be "worried" about not having the door jamb tag, if that is what you are saying? If it is not supposed to be there, then what is there to worry about? It seems to me that the door jamb tags of the HLS30-U models are not really the most reliable source of actual manufacturing date on these cars. Simply having a month of manufacture stamped into them must mean that some will be at least four weeks more accurate than others. That's not close enough for me! ( I want to know the DAY it had its OK sticker signed and slapped onto it, and even that might not be the same day as it reached the end of the production line! ). Added to that, there is also the question of exactly where and when the door jamb tags were stamped and attached to the cars......... Do you remember I told you before about my old Izakaya friend Mr Tsukamoto ( now sadly passed away ) who used to work for Nissan during the period we are concerned with here? We had some discussions once about the door jamb tags on an HLS30-U that a friend of mine had imported to Japan as a project car, and we were not sure that the door jamb tag was the correct one for the car ( we thought it had been altered and switched from another - later - car ). Anyway, Tsukamoto san laughed at us when we asked him how accurate the door jamb tag should be. He told us that they were sometimes attached at Hommoku Wharf just before the cars were put on the transporter ships, and were stamped according to the shipping schedule - and how many cars would fit onto each sailing schedule. He even hinted that there were cases where tags were sent to the USA after the container ships sailed ( and presumably attached to cars in the USA ). I don't think this would drastically affect the noted 'manufacturing date', but I think it would be a good idea for us to treat the door jamb tag dates as - in some cases, but not all - possibly up to a month or two 'out' in comparison to the real production date. Just like all the other components on the car. In short, they are certainly not 'Gospel' truth.... I can't imagine a case where the door jamb tag of a car might pre-date the average date of the components on the car, but it would be great fun if one did turn up. Just for a little fun, and in comparison to your Kanto Seiki speedometer date stamp Kats, here is a stamp on the back of my tachometer. 13th November 1969?:

@ Beck. Everybody else has beliefs, but only Beck has the facts. So Carl, you get to decide exactly where the "beginning" and the "end" are, right? You might like to be a little more circumspect about reading a translation ( it ain't that simple you know ) of a ghost-written text compiled from a few interviews with Matsuo san. Lots of room for interpretation and misunderstanding there - which is just what you have done: Rubbish. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? The L20 was specified for the car BEFORE the S20. Indeed, Katayama wanted a bigger capacity for the Export market version - and hence the L24 was also specified. There was NO POINT at which just the S20 and L24 were on the drawing board. This is just you misinterpreting what has been written because of your perspective. Matsuo was not saying that the S20 came before the L20 - quite the opposite. Matsuo quite clearly relates the story that the insistence of his superiors to use the S20 engine in a special version of the car came after they were already a fair way down the road with the L20 and L24 engined designs. If you are trying to re-write history by suggesting that the L24 engine came before the L20 in the S30-series Z design process then all must be made aware that you are distorting the story. In fact, you had better go and look into your S20 engine history a little more closely before writing stuff like this. You might find that the S20 didn't exist until well after the L20 was specified for the car. You also need to be a little careful about your L24 design history. No more of this nonsense about it being a Bluebird four-banger with a couple of extra cylinders tacked on please. The L20 six quite clearly came first. This is FACT. Not my fact - just historical truth. All of this demonstrates the truth of what Christopher writes: namely, that to truly understand the export cars you have to understand the domestic cars. Of course, if you think the domestics are an "irrelevance" then you are going to be missing half the story. You seem to love representing a subjective view as reality. Its really only your reality though. You flit between the "preliminary" and "final" designs, attaching your own interpretations of what they represent. You present your beliefs as fact - but the truth is that they are open to different interpretations even amongst the major players in the process ( let alone you and me - who are nobodies in this story, and don't you forget it ). I don't remember anybody saying that they "just" got lucky. That's a gross distortion you are giving to the suggestion ( justified, I believe ) that at least a little bit of luck was involved in the timing. Had the product come to market slightly earlier or slightly later than it did, then it would not have done so well. Matsuo himself has acknowledged this, and I remember him saying that he would not really have wanted to design what became the S130, as times had changed and things were becoming a lot harder. Carl, you always overstate the case of the 'opposition' to your views - to the point where it sounds stupid to try and reply to your 'defence', which itself is always vastly overstated and full of hyperbole. I don't remember anybody seriously stating as 'fact' that the HLS30-U was a 'version' of the domestic market models, and if they did it was probably just a little bit of chain-pulling aimed at winding you up. There is plenty of evidence ( even if you choose to ignore it ) that BOTH domestic and export and versions of the S30-series Z were designed, productionised and produced AT THE SAME TIME. That would be enough for most people to believe that the domestic models were an important part of the design process, and the fact that - being a Japanese-built car - the S30-series Z would have some natural bias and design concession in favour of an RHD configuration, even if it was a case of force majeure! You only have to look at the layout of the engine, transmission and final drive ( and the domino effect this had on exhaust system location, fuel tank location and a whole raft of other design details ) to understand this. I believe that the 'truth' is far more subtle and subjective than you ( or myself even ) try to portray, but if you ignore the domestic ( and the export RHD ) models then you have no chance of putting it all into perspective, let alone making your own take on the 'truth' reflect what really happened. So much for "The True History Of The Z Car", huh? Alan T.

Yes, I can confirm that. Shape of the ZG ones is far more softly curved. They are longer and don't have that right-angle joint like the 'short nose' ones do. Will - got your PM and just replied. I'll be on the case tomorrow. Cheers, Alan T.

That's a copy of ( or inspired by ) the 'Type B' aero package lip used by Nissan's 'works' race cars in Japan ( the later version of the '240ZR' - as Eric pointed out - or even the "260ZR", which was not actually a 260 ). This was available to the general public through the Nissan 'Sports Option' lists in the mid Seventies. See the picture attached below, which is a scan of one of the Sports Option catalogues. Part marked no.21 in the pic: *62605-N3020 AIR SPOILER - FR ( long nose type ) Usually, this was matched with the super-wide Overfender set - parts marked nos 19 & 20 in the pic. These matched up the extra width at the sides of the spoiler with the front of the Overfenders. However, the 'street' ( ie - copy ) versions of the spoiler were different at this joint, allowing the spoiler to be used with the normal 432R / ZG type Overfender set, or versions of them. Looks like the version in your pic is this type. As Eric said, replicas are available in Japan. Alan T.

Will, if you need any pics of Stainless or Chrome versions just let me know. I have a couple of sets of both. Alan T.

I still don't understand exactly what point you are trying to make in relation to Matsuo san's book chapter title. The fact that he used the ( English derived? ) word "design" means exactly what in relation to the point I was trying to make ( the fact that he wrote what translates as "Original Z" rather than "240Z", as the translation had it )? I don't know what linguists on your side of the pond say, but over here in England the linguists say that a language is alive and kicking if it is assimilating, tweaking and re-using words from other languages, as well as creating new compounds and onomatopaeic words. If English is still alive and kicking, then I'd say - judged by the same criteria - Japanese is too. Name me a language that DOES NOT, or HAS NOT borrowed from another. You should never discount the issues faced by an ancient language that uses an ideogram-based writing system. 'Modern' words have to be written phonetically, and this is one of the reasons that Japanese has Hiragana and Katakana as well as Kanji. But new 'Japanese' words ARE being created every day, and some of them CAN be written in Kanji ( just as long as everybody agrees as to what they mean ). I do hope that you are not trying to imply any of that old 'Japanese only copy - never create' type bullsh*t that gets thrown around by morons and mouth-breathers who know nothing about the origins of their own culture, let alone any Eastern ones. That would not be like you at all........ so what is the point you are trying to make about Matsuo san using the word "design"? I feel like a damned plate spinner trying to address all the stuff going on in this thread.

Well, he DID get some 'help' ( in the form of relevant data ) didn't he? The kind of thing that would help him to back up his claims of it being an authentic November 1969 build when he comes to advertise it elsewhere. We also saw a question about whether it was originally fitted with a 5-speed from the Factory laid to rest - which is just the kind of question that will be asked if he sticks it up for sale on eBay. He also got a bit of 'help' on another thread that he created which was asking about identifying parts and cars that he has. I think he's had plenty of 'help', don't you? As for a "big check", I'm afraid I can't help him on that score. I'm Fairladied-up and monied-out at the moment, but if the car was located in the UK I would probably pull out a few stops to try and get it, and then decide what to do with it later. His car is located in just about the worst country in the world to get a "big check" for an early or rare first generation Z car at the moment - especially one that is seen as an 'odd ball' in that territory. That's just an observation on the relative value of the $US in comparison to other major world currencies at the moment, and the fact that some 'experts' ( as seen on this thread ) seem happy and willing to talk down the value of one man's car, but talk up the value of their own. If the car was located in Japan he could put it up on Yahoo Japan auctions and expect to sell it straight away for - I'd say - easily 800,000 Yen or more as-is. Convert that to $US, and you might get a surprise. Get the right people fighting over it and more is achievable. About two years ago, when I came across my '70 Fairlady Z-L ( the car that I am using as a base to build my 432R replica on ) I would have been ready to pay something around 4-5,000 Pounds Sterling for a base car like NovaSS might be selling. At the current exchange rate that is around the $10,000 Dollar mark. Probably sounds like a huge amount of money to you guys, but its just the reality of the economics. I have all the original Nissan panels ( including the inner 'fenders' and air tubes ) should they need replacement - so a bit of rust would not put me off. In fact, NovaSS's car looks to be in better condition than my project base car was when I bought it - with less missing parts. Selling something like this is never easy, and NovaSS will - I think - have to be patient and persist if he wants to get a good price for it. He will also meet a lot of 'tyre kickers' and time wasters. I really hope that if it does get sold it will go to somebody who will appreciate what it is and what it represents. I would be happy to offer my help - in any way that I can - to anybody that buys it. Alan T.

Hi Enrique, Its refreshing to see somebody on this site thinking about this kind of thing, but please don't read too much into Matsuo san's use of the word 'design' in his Japanese. Who was it that wrote "for words are trains, for moving past what really has no name....". You wrote yourself that these are just 'labels'. Its very common in modern Japanese to use many many 'Western' words, and just like any vibrant modern language, people chuck these words around and use them very freely simply because everybody soon gets used to what they mean. That's all that is needed. I don't see how you can characterise Japanese as a "dead" language? New words are being created every day ( in fact I'd say that Japanese was one of the most fecund languages in the world at the moment ) and young people in particular are very adept at capturing the zeitgeist in this way. Look at that - I just used a German word. Does this mean that English is one the way to being "dead". No - it just means that we found a German word useful and we all pretty much agree as to what it means...... Matsuo san could have used the Japanese word 'Sekkei' instead of 'design', but using 'design' was preferable to him - and perhaps it conveyed something more of a modern creative sense than to say 'Sekkei suru'........ Do you know the name of Matsuo san's company? It is called 'PDS', an acronym standing for "Product Design Sekkei office". How about that? He used 'Product', 'Design' and the Japanese word 'Sekkei' all in the same phrase, and shortened it all up by using the Western habit of an acronym.

Which particular bits were diamonds for you then, Will?

Stephen, Maybe that's your perspective, but others of us have our perspectives too. I'm surprised that you think all of Carl's responses are "fact", as I see a lot of opinion and biased reporting mixed in there. Maybe that doesn't look the same to you as it does to me - so be it. But I think you would have to admit that Carl Beck popping up on a thread in which NovaSS was asking about his car - a model of Z which is not represented on zhome.com whatsoever - is faintly ironic. Or perhaps you don't read anything into that, and its me that is the strange one. Here's a selected quote from his posts on this thread: Is this a good example of one of the "facts" that he posted? Where are the figures for the Japanese market 'HS30' models ( they are '240Zs' are they not? The figures in that 280ZX book are wrong, and Beck knows it, but he still uses them. "Bragging rights", Stephen? If anyone is looking for bragging rights I'd say that Mr Beck is doing a pretty good job. But you think not, it seems.

Mike, The handbrake issue is only one of the design concessions on the car, but Mr Beck likes to explain them away like he did on the "Interior Ergonomics" thread ( like the petrol filler flap being on the RIGHT of the car because that's the side that the pumps are in USA 'gasoline stands' ). Domino Theory goes nowhere when the Beck Patent Blinkers are fitted. But didn't you see the one MASSIVE seachange in this thread? A huge seismic event. Buried amongst the quotes, wisecracks, postulations and hectoring was the very rare site of Beck conceding a point. Well, nearly anyway..... Didn't anybody else notice that he seemingly - I still can't believe it myself - is now willing to accept the possibility that at least "one" HS30 might have been manufactured before the end of 1969. His arithmetic is a bit out ( I would count at least three if Nissan actually assigned numbers HS30-00001 and HS30-00002, which does seem likely ) but even one is better than his previous "none". And all this because - it appears - he hadn't seen a right hand drive Export market 'R-Drive' Factory parts book before. I guess there must be something missing from 'The Z Library' chez Beck? Think we'll see revisions at zhome.com now? Don't hold your breath....

Enrique, Nice post. Some very valid points there. I could particularly relate to your thoughts on the differences between translations, and the fact that sales pitches can be mistaken for truth... I'd just like to alight very briefly on the subject of Mr Yutaka Katayama. He has a ( rightly deserved ) reputation as a seminal figure in automotive history, and - like just about everybody else - I admire him very much. Revere his achievements, in fact. But criticising him, or suggesting that not everything he did was good for Nissan, would be considered akin to shooting Bambi or picking a fight with Mother Theresa of Calcutta. And yet there would be a very strong case to argue that he made some mistakes, and perhaps went rather a long way to creating some of the problems that reared their heads after he was shown the door. No doubt I will be castigated for daring to suggest this. Katayama and Matsuo's names have been mentioned many times on this thread, and one might get the impression that all is sweetness and light between them. It wasn't always so, and I can tell you - from personal experience - that their renewed friendship has a very lot more going on behind it than the current smiles and backslapping suggest. All this "Mother and Father of the Z" thing does not tell the whole story..... Yes I have, as I'm only too aware that 'translation' from Japanese into English and vice versa is not as straightforward as most people would imagine. Its not only WRITTEN Japanese that is the problem. So much of Japanese culture is what is not said, and what is implied. Any translator would have to be a virtuoso jazz musician to do a half-way decent job I feel. Which brings me to tie-up the two themes of my post; 'Lost In Translation' and the subtle differences between Katayama and Matsuo's viewpoints: Carl Beck posted quotes ( at length ) from a Japanese-published book called "Fairlady Z Story" - published by MIKI PRESS in 1999. Katayama and Matsuo are credited as authors of the book, although the bulk of it was written by Hideaki Kataoka, Brian Long, and the "Miki Press Editorial Team". The chapters 'written' by Katayama and Matsuo ( one each ) were actually ghost-written from interviews conducted with them. Most of the picture captions are written in both Japanese and English, and a special limited-dition version was printed that contained an English translation of selected sections of the book on a folded paper insert - which was performed by Brian Long and his wife Miho. It is mostly from this that Carl Beck's quotes come Now, I should say that Brian is a friend of mine - so I'm not slighting his translation. But I would like to illustrate the difficulty of translation, as well as differing viewpoints of Katayama and Matsuo, by pointing out the differences in their chapter titles. Katayama's chapter reads ( phonetically ) "Datsun 240Z koshte tanjo shita" - which I would I would translate just as the book's subtitle has it: Birth of Datsun 240Z". Katayama wrote ( said ) "Datsun 240Z". Contrast this with Matsuo's chapter, which reads ( again phonetically ) "Shodai Z design kaihatsu shuki" - which I would translate as: "Original Z design development essay", and yet the English subtitle in the book translates this as: "How I developed Datsun 240Z styling" - which is quite clearly not what he said or wrote. The Japanese title reads "Original Z" - not "Datsun 240Z".... Here's where I'll have the "nitpicking" ( or "whining" ) foul card shown to me, I suppose. It may not matter to most people, but to me it is a subtle illustration of the way that Matsuo thinks ( more the Japanese way ) and the way that Katayama thinks ( naturally more the American way ) and I want to point it out. Not least because I don't want anybody to think that the book that Carl Beck is quoting from is the First Testament on the Z, or that it portrays everything the way that he sees it. I doubt that many people are interested in this thread any more, but at least it had some decent info for NovaSS in it when it started. Alan T.

Er, so its 'HS30-00004' that is the 'lowest VIN' 240Z 'sold to the public' that you have found and verified. Correct? See what I mean? Hoist by your own petard, Sir. So you think your conclusion that 'HS30-00004' was manufactured in January 1970 proves that 'HS30-00001', 'HS30-00002' & 'HS30-00003' were also not made in 1969 ( presuming that they ever actually existed )? You are willing to be very definite in your views on this, but it seems to me that you have less than enough evidence to prove it. I believe that you might be under the impression that the '240Z' ( er, which model of 240Z? ) is not a member of the "S30 Model Series" of Z cars. In which case you had better inform Nissan, as they seem to disagree with you. So its OK for S30-S and S30 models of Fairlady Z to be lumped in with the PS30 and PS30-SB Fairlady Z ( despite their different prefixes and model variant names ) but not correct to include the '240Z' ( again, which one? ) in that group? Ah, must be the Beck Filing System at work. I remind you that the blue HLS30-U model '240Z' displayed at the 1969 Tokyo Auto Show was wearing all its 'Datsun 240Z' emblems, but was wearing a sign in place of its number plates that read "Fairlady Z - Export Model". As I have noted so many times before, you seem to be in total denial that the '240Z' ( for all territories ) was part of a range or family of cars that was covered by the appelation 'Model S30 Series'. Accepting that plain truth will not diminish the '240Z' in any way. Why can't you see it? I attach a scan from a Nissan factory parts manual for you. If you tell me that it is incorrect in the data it portrays, then it also calls into doubt the data published in the corresponding North American market parts manuals, does it not?

Nope ( see my previous post ). I got the same set of figures that you ( presumably ) got, but through several different sources, including a direct e-mail from Kats ( thanks Kats ). Ah, that will be the famous 'Beck Patent Blinkers' in full effect. You are trying to make a silly semantic point by pretending to be Mr Magoo again. To refresh, I quoted ( for 1969 calendar year production ): *S30 ( Fairlady Z & Fairlady Z-L ) = Chassis Numbers S30-00001~00953 *PS30 ( Fairlady Z432 & Fairlady Z432-R ) = Chassis Numbers PS30-00001~00072 For my used term "Chassis Numbers" - please note that I am referring to the body serial number and model variant type combination, as stamped into the firewall sheet metal, and stamped into the plate affixed in the engine bay. No doubt you will want to re-educate me as to what I should be calling this according to your personal interpretation ( biased heavily by customs in your home country, just like I am ), but as we are essentially discussing JAPANESE domestic models here, lets nip that in the bud and let ME tell YOU that I am talking about 'Shatai Bango' - OK? See above. You want me to list them one by one for you? S30-00001, S30-00002, S30-00003, S30-00004 de da de da de da......... You see why I love you so much? Its because you come up with nonsense like this in an effort to destroy what you don't agree with. Over 900 Fairladies were made before the end of 1969. Just how is saying that the "the first 300 or so Fairladies that stayed in Japan were made in the last three months of 1969" an accurate representation of the truth, let alone what was actually meant by NovaSS ( and which he confirmed in a subsequent post )? You really are the ultimate twister. Did you work as a speech writer for Tricky Dicky Nixon? I compared figures to 'Export' models in the Nissan Shatai figures for good reason. You obviously don't want to understand why. Well the "first 500" seems to be an arbitrary figure for a start, but you know damn well that it would be too long-winded and time-consuming to pinpoint anomalies one-by-one and then argue them through with you. I've been there before. Let's just say that my gripes with your site ( and you know what I mean by 'your' ) on the subject of its one way street view, and America Uber Alles stance ( summed up by the banner at the top of the home page - which I note you have corrected the spelling mistakes in since I pointed them out to you ) are well known to you. I can sum up the mindset of the site by pointing at title headings such as "Z Production" and "The True History of the Z Car", when in fact it would more accurately be "HLS30-U Production" and "The True History of the HLS30-U" etc etc etc. And you know what I'm talking about, and you know that I know why you do it. I'm NOT talking about the registers of early cars / original owners and the data supplied by owners - which I think is an admirable project worthy of praise by all. So stop trying to twist it. Tea break. I'm going to put the kettle on. There will now be a brief intermission. Popcorn, choc ices and Acapulco Sno-Cones will be available in the Foyer. What flavour would you like, Enrique? Alan T.

Hi Enrique, Your full post was very interesting and thoughfully put together, but do you mind if I concentrate my answer mainly on that part of it which I quote above? My first post on this thread ( I think it was post #11 on the thread ) contained information from two sources in Japan regarding reported production quantities and chassis numbers ( 'Shatai Bango' in Japanese ) for the 1969 Japanese market Z cars. I posted this information firstly to correct the statement made by NovaSS that "300 or so" Fairladies were made in 1969 ( I think he actually wrote "300 or so Fairladies that stayed in Japan" ), and secondly to BACK UP his assertion that his car was manufactured in November 1969. As you may know, our friend Kats visited some staff members of Nissan Shatai last year, and they gave him some copies of production records that contained details of both "Export" and "Domestic" S30-series Z cars that had been produced by Nissan Shatai during the 1969 and 1970 calendar years ( they are broken down by calendar years ). We have discussed these on this site on several previous threads, and they seem worthy of being taken seriously. Kats e-mailed copies to me, and - the World being small as it is - I also received copies from mutual friends in Japan. I stress, they apparently record the quantity of bodies / cars that Nissan Shatai made during the period recorded. It is still not clear exactly how many of these bodies / cars were assigned a series production chassis number ( "Shatai Bango" ) and how many of them were NOT sold to the General Public. We have also discussed this and other related points at length. Please note that they list Z car production broken down into just TWO types - namely "Domestic" and "Export" versions. As far as the 1969 calendar year goes, I would take that to mean 'S30' and 'PS30' prefixed models for 'Domestic' and 'HLS30' and - arguably - 'HS30' for the 'Export' types. If Nissan Shatai made even one 'Export' HS30 during 1969, then I think we should count it. The second set of figures I posted were taken from documents supplied to me personally as a member of "CLUB S30" of Japan. These are a list of chassis numbers ( 'Shatai Bango' ) recorded as issued to cars by the manufacturer, and reported to official Japanese ministries by the "Nihon Jidosha Kogyo Kai" ( my translation - take it how you will - would be 'Japanese Auto Manufacturers Association' ). These figures apparently list the 'Shatai Bangos' issued to Japanese DOMESTIC market models during the period they cover, broken down by VIN prefix type ( S30, PS30, HS30, GS30 etc etc ) and by calendar year. For example, in year 1969 they list 'S30' VIN numbers from 'S30-00001' through to 'S30-00953' INCLUSIVE as having been issued. That's 953 bodies / cars. Note that they DO NOT cover 'Export' models. I made the point that the Nissan Shatai numbers and the Nihon Jidosha Kogyo Kai numbers do not add up to the same total. I also made the point that it might be possible to explain this if you take into account that they essentially list quantities under different criteria ( one is 'bodies made', and one is 'bodies / cars issued with a 'Shatai Bango' ( serial VIN number ). Everybody is free to poke holes in these figures at their leisure, but I would remind everyone that they are arguably more credible than those published in a piece of Nissan advertising / coffee table book, published retrospectively ( as repeated and known to be total nonsense on zhome.com under the heading "Production Figures" at zhome.com/History/zproduction.html ) The Japanese lists are compiled from records filed AT THE TIME ( at the end of each calendar year ). If anyone wants to argue that NovaSS's car ( S30-00144 ) was NOT made in November 1969, then bring it on. I'll argue the case most strongly FOR. I hope it is now clear WHAT those figures are, WHERE they came from, and WHY I posted them. Alan T. Edit: sorry - can't insert hyperlink

Have a heart. Its 3am here in London. I might be able to do better if I wasn't so sleepy. If its any help, I believe NovaSS said he was in Delaware on the other Fairlady thread? ( take a look over there to make sure, perhaps? ). Nighty night. Alan T.

Shushhhhh! Speak softly, they might hear you. If you squint and take a step back from your monitor, you can just see them through the trees and undergrowth and stuff - see? There's two of 'em. One red and one white..........

The picture of the hub cap you posted does appear to be from an early Fairlady. You can find head casting numbers on the right hand side of the head, hear the front, slightly below the spark plug holes. Expect to see 'E30' casting code for early Fairlady type ( as fitted to L20A engine ), but E31 and E88 are also possible, and were the types fitted to the majority of first generation Z cars exported to the USA. You might even come across a Y70, which was a later domestic head. Cylinder block designation is stamped into a pad on the right hand side of the block, near the back, and up near the top surface. See the attached picture for location reference. If its an early Fairlady block, then expect to see 'L20 A' as per the picture, but don't forget that Japan got the option of an L24 engine from late 1971, and you might even find an Export L26 or L28 ( even a domestic L28 is possible in the pile ). Body type designation ( VIN plus body serial number ) for a Fairlady will be stamped into the firewall sheetmetal, above the brake booster. You may need to push away wires and pipes to see it clearly. Expect to see 'S30' for an early Fairlady, but 'HS30' is also possible for a Fairlady ( from late 71 ) and so is 'S31'. USA market types say 'HLS30' and 'RLS30'. I don't think you have a 280Z there, but its hard to see clearly. Maybe the cars still have their original VIN tags too. There might be a pair of the smaller L20A-fitting Hitachi HJG38W-3 carbs in that pile, fitted to the equivalent narrow-runner manifold. Be aware that they are not a beneficial bolt-on to the USA model type heads, generally speaking. Be careful to identify them correctly before you sell them or use them. If you have any more questions then come right back with them. I'd start labelling stuff if I were you.

Hi Enrique, Since nobody else ( as far as I am aware ) has posted any serial / VIN number information on this thread apart from me, I presume you are referring to the figures that I posted - which relate to Japanese market models declared manufactured in 1969. Correct? I posted production figures supplied directly by Nissan Shatai ( the people that made the things ) and also Japanese government ministry records which show the VIN numbers of cars declared manufactured during the 1969. All of the numbers I posted are for JAPANESE market cars, as one of the first posts on this thread quoted "300" cars manufactured for the Japanese market during the 1969 calendar year - which was clearly wrong. Compare these figures to what you see on 'zhome.com' regarding the "first 500" at your leisure. I don't recall seeing ANY mention of the 1969 S30 and S30-S models on that site, and one would be forgiven for imagining that they did not even exist. The irony of seeing Carl Beck posting on this thread - completely ignoring the subject under discussion in the title of the thread, surprise surprise - was not lost on me. Gave me a wry smile, actually. But nevertheless, here is a 1969-build Fairlady being very relevant - in its own thread - and providing interesting conversational matter...... As far as I am aware, zhome.com does not show any information on production quantities provided by Nissan Shatai, or from any Japanese government ministry ( I wonder if a Japanese ministry would have VIN number records for exported cars? ). It seems that the information on the "first 500" ( that's a nice round figure isn't it? ) HLS30-U models on zhome.com is compiled mainly from US-based sources, and somewhat anecdotally to boot. As a guide to what was received in the USA and Canada it may very well be a good source, but what was actually made in Japan could be another thing entirely. Regarding the figures from Nissan Shatai - these are the quantities that Nissan Shatai recorded that they manufactured. We don't have any 100% reliable information that indicates whether all of these cars were assigned a VIN number, or which of them actually made it into the ownership of a private individual ( although Kats has had a very valiant stab at deciphering the numbers for the "Export" cars quoted ). As for the 'Shatai Bango, Ichi Ran Hyo' figures submitted to the Japanese ministry by 'Nihon Jidosha Kogyo Kai', these relate to VIN numbers assigned to Japanese market vehicles, broken down by VIN prefix type and year of manufacture. Pull them apart at your leisure. As I pointed out when I posted them, they don't completely correspond with the Nissan Shatai figures but they DO purport to list actual VIN numbers stamped onto car bodies. They are better than nothing, and I think the 'truth' ( whatever that is ) probably lies in how the figures are deciphered and what is counted ( and not counted ) in the Nissan Shatai figures. If you want to argue that the figures I have posted could be incorrect, then you are welcome to make that observation. However, this thread was started in reference to the car wearing VIN number S30-00144 which is CERTAINLY one of more than 900 'S30' VIN prefixed cars to have been manufactured before the end of 1969, and was almost certainly manufactured during November of that year. Alan T.

26th-Z, Slightly off topic but... Are you referring to the BRE SCCA C-Production cars here? I recall reading that they were using a 5 speed overdrive transmission ( the FS5C71-A ) on the BRE car(s). Was that legal under C-Production rules?

5 Speed ratios for 1969 & 1970 Fairlady Z-L model ( FS5C71-A transmission ): 1st = 2.957 2nd = 1.858 3rd = 1.311 4th = 1.000 5th = 0.852 R = 2.922 Diff ratio = 3.9:1 You keep making the assertion that a 5 speed transmission was fitted to "cover the lack of performance over the 240Z". I'd like to remind you that the Fairlady Z 432 and 432R both had exactly the same transmission ratios as the Z-L, and were rated at 160ps ( ie - more peak power than the HLS30-U ), as did the other non-USA market HLS30 models and HS30 models - which like the HLS30-U had the L24 engine. They were certainly not fitted with the overdrive 5 speed to cover any lack of performance, were they?