HS30-H

Zedrally, I'm often up late due to my job. I have to try to fit in with Japanese time zones - but I DO need a kip in the middle of the night. I've got bad jet-lag now. Its 4.30am and I'm wide awake. Takes ages to adjust these days ( getting old you see ). Of course toe-warming from the exhaust would be all well and good in a perpetually cold climate, but surely it gets a little TOO hot down there on the LHD cars in particularly hot climates? Unlike the passenger in an RHD car, the driver is somewhat stuck with keeping his / her right foot on the accel pedal. I'm sure that the majority ( that old 99.999% again ) of LHD drivers will not think this is an issue, but it got me thinking. I'm reminded of a comment about the RHD pedal layout ( from an LHD user ) to the effect that there looked to be 'less space' in the RHD footwell / pedal area than in the LHD version. Of course, this is not actually the case. In fact, if anything I would say that the right foot possibly has more space in the RHD layout, and the clutch-foot rest is well sited to work properly. Maybe more important to me was that feeling of much weight on the left side of the car. Not that I'm all that heavy myself ( getting heavier though! ) - but its that mental image of carbs, inlet manifold, exhaust manifold, brake booster and m.cylinder, clutch m.cylinder, steering column and wheel, pedals, full exhaust system etc etc - ALL on one side of the car that made me wonder. There's not much balancing it out on the right side of the car - especially if you are the single occupant. Alfadog, is this the 'thin ice' that you mentioned? Am I going too far? I have to be honest, it is something that I've always pondered over. Now that I've heard Matsuo san talk so much of the inherited layout constrictions being RHD biased, its got me going again. Does anybody else agree / disagree?

Well Zedrally, you certainly like to put me on the spot don't you?!:classic: Naturally, having grown up in an RHD environment I should imagine that I grew up used to that configuration and to driving on the left. However, I have owned a fair few LHD cars over the years ( European and even some American ) and have driven them over here in the UK. It could be inconvenient sometimes ( overtaking, toll booths, car parks etc ) but that was not always anything to do with the actual ergonomic layout of the car interior. It's just naturally more comfortable to drive an LHD car in an LHD enviroment and vice-versa. I suspect that it comes down to the individual car type, as I certainly found it just as easy to adapt to either - although I'd honestly rather have my RIGHT hand on the wheel at all times. Since we are referring more specifically to S30-series Z cars, then I'd have to say that I felt happier in RHD. I must try not to sound biased - but in the LHD I felt very conscious that my feet were down there near the exhaust and that there must have been a big weight bias on the left side of the car even without me sitting in it. How much of this is psychosomatic I couldn't tell you! I do know that I drove an RHD Z long before I ever tried one in LHD layout - so that will probably have influenced me about what felt 'funny'. I'm sure that 99.999% of LHD Z car owners will not ever have considered that there would be anything 'wrong' or unergonomic about the layout of their cars. It's just not an issue. That's natural. Probably a lot of those people would feel most uncomfortable in an RHD car. Its hard to come to any strong conclusion from this with regard to what is 'better'. What I WILL say ( and it gets back to the original theme of this thread ) is that I did find the Handbrake position on the LHD car to be most inconvenient for me. But again, I'm sure that 99.999% of LHD owners will not even have thought about it. Its always worth having a go in the opposite version to what you drive, if you ever get the opportunity. Alan T.

It was actually fascinating to listen to him talking about so many details of the cars whilst having cars in front of him that he could point things out on. He spent a lot of time looking at Kats' car - using it to make points and take questions from the assembled group around him. He moved on to a few other cars, and talked about the ZG - which was very interesting to me. More on this anon. One of the things that comes up time and time again in Matsuo san's discussion of the car is the COST CUTTING element. At almost every turn he and his team were under the cosh from the bean-counters who were trying to keep the price of making the car to the absolute minimum. In fact, they were working to target pricings that they thought would allow the company to sell the cars at a very competitive price, but still make a profit for the company and its dealers. Matsuo and his team had to change MANY details of their designs in order to fit in with the strategy of the sales team and the accountants. We all know what happened. They sold shiploads of the things, and the company made a LOT of money from it. Its interesting to think that it might have been a 'better' car - or at least a car with more 'pure' essence of what the designer and his team intended - had the cost-cutting element not been so strictly applied. If that had been the case, it almost certainly would have turned out that the car would have been a sales flop in the export market, and that I would not be sitting here writing eulogies to it. In fact, this site might not have existed! That COST CUTTING was certainly one of the things - if not THE main thing - that dictated many of those 'dual-use' parts and compromises. Isn't this known as 'Design Concession'? You can see that they 'handed' many things that COULD be easily switched and dual-engineered to fit the RHD and LHD markets ( the column-mounted controls are a good case in point, and hell - Mr Matsuo should have got an automotive Oscar for the combination rotary lamp switch / wiper control stalk! ) and also that they engineered some details on the shell that would facilitate dual RHD / LHD use ( like the undercowl panel with dual positions for wipers ). But some details were too big / expensive to engineer for dual use, and the Handbrake / E-Brake is one of these. Matsuo san would have liked to position the lever on the DRIVERS side of the tunnel for both LHD and RHD cars, but was forced to leave it on one side by the cost-cutters. Therefore, the RHD position is what he would call 'correct' according to his original intentions. Its clear from what Matsuo san says that he and his team, along with many others inside Nissan Japan, did NOT believe that they would sell even a small percentage of what the S30-series Z eventually sold. This is true for the Japanese home market as well as the Export market. He said that they just could not take it on board that a SPORTS car would sell anything more that a few thousand in any market. They had this in mind when the car was in its genesis, and it must have influenced them a great deal. Above all, it seems clear to me that Matsuo and his team could NOT at that time have designed and engineered a vehicle that was aimed PURELY at one specific ( LHD ) export market, without it being at least partially a compromise over a true 'clean sheet of paper' design. They were FORCED to use a layout, a system and some components that had bloodlines stretching back to their Austin days and beyond. In fact, I think they made a damn good job of it - we ALL agree on that don't we? Many people might think that I've trying to diminish the LHD cars in some way, or call into question their 'purity' or whatnot. This is not really the case. I have my own thoughts about the LHD cars, and they should certainly NOT trouble the vast majority of you all out there that actually own and drive LHD S30-series Z cars. What is more important to me is that the RHD cars get the recognition that they truly deserve. I have noticed that the vast majority of press and other coverage of the early Z cars puts so much emphasis on the LHD cars that the RHD models seem to be sidelined as some kind of afterthought. They have even been described as a manifestation of Nissan's 'vanity' (!). For many years I have felt like I wanted to rescue the reputation of the RHD cars. Anyone who points to sales figures and thinks that they had any bearing on what Matsuo and his team were thinking and doing during the genesis of the car is making a big mistake. You only have to listen to Matsuo's statement - of their belief that they were only making something that would sell a couple of thousand - to understand that the final sales figures mean nothing much in relation to their intent. My everyday car is an Alfa Romeo 156 ( 2.5 litre V6 - Sport Pack 3 ) and I first got enthusiastic about this model when I rented one in Italy a few years ago. Of course, because I rented it in Italy is was an LHD model, and I enjoyed driving it around the Tuscan hills as well as the crazy Rome and Florence traffic. Its interior layout was quite different to the classic Italian-Ape driving position of yore ( long arms and short legs needed! ). It was certainly better than my 155 - with a nice seat position that would go down as low as I like. I resolved to buy a used one back in the UK. Imagine my dismay when I found that the RHD version had a MUCH worse driving position and interior layout than the LHD version. I had to face up to the fact that the RHD ( UK market ) version was suffering from Design Concession. The layout of its major components was dictating compromise on the 'niche' market RHD version. I decided I could live with it ( its still a good car in my opinion ) and bought one. I'm still enjoying it - but I KNOW the LHD version works better, and is probably more true to the original design. So, this business of Design Concession and LHD / RHD is still going on............. I'm sure that most of this will make absolutely no difference to the history of the Z car now. Its too late. Just this last couple of months there has been another article about the "240Z" ( as though that's the name of the WHOLE range ) in one of the UK classic car mags. Once again they come out with all the old cliches, and once again they say that the car was 'designed' by Albrecht Goertz. We really need to go back, wipe the tape, and start again. I'm not holding my breath, though. I'm also not holding my tongue, OR refraining from trying to make the points that I think need to be made. I'm sure that many people will want to shoot me down over all this - but in essence I'm just a messenger boy. No point in shooting the messenger if you don't like the message he delivered. Once again, sorry for the long and windy post. Since I got back from Japan this time I've been feeling quite frustrated that Matsuo san's voice is so little heard outside Japan, and that he is forced to pull so many punches. Regards to all, Alan T.

Alfadog, I think you can see the pics already because you have special privileges ( being a Moderator ). There were a LOT of cars there fitted with G-Nose type front ends or variations thereof. I'd have to say that the majority of these were NOT Factory-built HS30-H models. On some cars this was immediately apparent ( either at a distance or in some cases after a closer look ) but there WERE some really good replicas there too. I should imagine that there might have been one or two of doubtful origin too. Very hard to tell the better fakes unless you get deep into them................ Actually, it was a little frustrating that so many G-Nosed cars turned up on the day. That was probably just the luck of the day and a matter of who turned out with their cars. CLUB S30 actually has more standard-fronted cars than G-Nosed types, and on the day a good proportion of these happened to be 432's. It ended up looking something like a ZG and 432 benefit gig. There's a couple of good GC110's that were GT-R replicants in there for you. One Silver and one Red. Both in lovely condition. Alan T.