HS30-H

Japanese market models, at launch: S30-S 'Fairlady Z-S'/'Z-S'/'Z-standard' = 'Standard', no frills model. No bumper rubber trims. PS30-SB 'Fairlady Z432-R'/'PZR' = Super lightweight race homologation model. No bumper rubber trims. S30 'Fairlady Z-L'/'Z-DX' = 'Deluxe' model. Comes with bumper rubber trims. PS30 Fairlady Z432/'PZ' = 'Deluxe' version of 432. Comes with bumper rubber trims. So what you are seeing is one of the visible external differences between 'Standard' models and 'Deluxe' models. There were many other differences too. All Japanese models had the extra cost showroom option of bumper overiders, hence the presence of mounting holes in the bumper with black plastic grommets to fill them when not used.

OK, thanks for the explanation, but personally speaking I feel the North American concept of 'Model Year' is a commercial aspect of business practice that doesn't have much place in the commemoration of design debut dates. A 1969 S30-series Z is a 1969 S30-series Z to me. I don't want to wait until I'm 58 for my 57th birthday...

So here we are, 24th October 2018 and the 49th anniversary of the doors opening to the general public at the 1969 Tokyo Motor Show - the official public debut of Nissan's S30-series Z car range. Here's looking forward to the Big 50...

(Shirley) the 50th Anniversary will be in late 2019....?

The article itself - as seems the case with so many such articles - is a bit of a dog's dinner, but the very first line jumps out to me as being particularly strange: "Nearly 50 years ago, a small Japanese car company..." Huh? Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Japan produced nearly 1.2 million vehicles in calendar year 1969. They weren't exactly Crosley, were they?

I was right and you were wrong, and '26th-Z' can choose whatever soubriquet he likes as his forum user name. Simple.

The analogy with buying a house doesn't really work. The house (presumably) already exists, is in a fixed location and has been seen and approved by the purchaser. The car in question was months away from being made, and was not even a 'bespoke' order. He may have expressed a preference for body colour, and not a lot else. Nissan did not have a special day set aside to make 'Mr Magoo from Chattanooga's red 240Z'. The reason that some of us get pernickety about this kind of thing is that all sorts of false claims and implications can arise from such false assertions. One of them was a well known commentator on the marque who insisted that 240Zs could be "purchased" in the USA in 1969, when in fact there were no standard production cars available for purchase from dealerships in the USA until well into 1970. Yes it's pointless hair-splitting to some, but that's what we do. If we don't get it right, then who will...?

So, not "purchased new" on "July 11th 1970". An order was placed, a reservation was made - not a purchase. It might seem like splitting hairs, but this car simply didn't exist at that point - so it could not have been "purchased new" on that date.

Lovely car, but can you clarify the above? How could he "purchase new" a car that wasn't actually built until 6 months later...? What an I missing here?

The narrative - as related in the September 2018 issue of Classic Motorsports Magazine - doesn't really add up. Nissan was very well aware of the harmonic problem with the L24 crankshafts even before the end of 1969, several months before Bob Sharp received his first 240Z - let alone BRE. The lead-time involved in investigation of the problem, re-designing the crankshaft, machining and testing the new forgings and then putting them into full production, apparently took something like 12 weeks or so. BRE were relaying their findings back to "the factory" (wasn't that Katayama's job?) in good faith and "hearing nothing" when Nissan were in fact already hard at work rectifying the problem and putting the new parts into production. New Year 1969/70 got in the way, with Nissan's forging plant shut down for a week's holiday. Hearing these stories is fascinating, but we need to hear the viewpoints and facts from all sides before we put the big picture together.

Oh, I forgot. "Thanks Mr K.!"* *It wasn't solely down to him...

I don't agree. Primary focus was - clearly - on providing efficient packages in both 4-speed and 5-speed versions, with third member gearing to suit. The transmission tunnel was already big enough for the future provision of an Auto transmission, as that was part of the initial pre-production planning - despite an old school slushbox type Auto-transmissioned GT/Sports car being a flightless bird in Darwinian terms. This topic is worthy of a split into its own thread. However, such topics have sometimes become divisive here, especially when the "American Car, Made in Japan" type narrative is challenged in any way. It's still gospel to some, and the most evangelical proponents are sacred cows. I've been warned off from mentioning name, rank and serial number. It's like being served a roast dinner and being told you're not allowed to touch the meat. Vegetables only. "There Be Dragons..."

Not much point in mentioning transmissions types/ratios without reference to the differential ratios they were paired with. In the markets where a 5-speed overdrive type transmission was standard equipment, a 4-speed was offered as a 'showroom option'. It would require a diff ratio change to make it work as intended. However, I very much doubt that such options were taken up in practice except perhaps in Japan, where the selling dealers had a more realistic chance of fulfilling such an order, but then Japanese buyers had the choice of both 4-speed and 5-speed equipped models on the showroom floor anyway. In contrast, here in the UK it was a case of choosing from whatever had actually turned up on the boat... ("do you want the red one or the blue one...?"). The 4-speed was theoretically an option, but I can't imagine why anyone would select that option. They would have been better off buying a Cedric or a Laurel. When I have asked the "why 4-speed + 3.3:1 diff for north America" question in Japan - including putting the question to Chief Chassis Engineer Mr Hitoshi Uemura - the answer was usually that the driving style of the average north American market customer was perceived as being less 'sporting' than those in other markets, and that a wide ratio 4-speed transmission with a tall differential ratio would be more suitable for the vast majority of such buyers. Cost would also have been a major factor in planning. There are other details on early cars which show the initial cost-cutting focused planning for the north American market Export models. So it was likely a combination of both. Without wishing to insult, reading between the lines it seems clear that the USA mass market in particular was seen as being less sophisticated, less inclined to live with more frequent gear changes and higher RPM cruising speeds, and that the arch enthusiasts who did require that type of sporting character would be happy to modify their cars to suit (and it appears they did). All the same, it would have been nice to see a more sports-focused model available alongside the 'standard' north American Export model. Something along the lines of Car and Driver Magazine's 'Omega Z', perhaps...?

This car is not one of the first 800 Zs.

That's high praise indeed from such a respected authority as Mr Pete Brock, and I have the great pleasure of pretty much agreeing with him. Way back in the early 1990s I attended a Japanese Toyota 2000GT owner's club meeting at Tsukuba Circuit, and was very kindly allowed a drive of several laps around the circuit in a beautiful silver RHD MF10. What a revelation! Like putting on a bespoke Savile Row suit, it just felt 'right'. A proper Japanese GT car. Loved it. Some pretty stupid comments on Bring-A-Trailer (the worst - some idiot claiming that Toyota "stole" the design etc etc - flagged up and deleted) as usual when it comes to Japanese cars. You know the drill...

For example:

It's been discussed here on classiczcars several times in the past, and the "it's Cadmium" opinion tended to come from one particular source. In fact, Nissan factory documentation in Japan mentions that on most of their product of the period concerned they and their suppliers were using was ZINC plated, and often finished with a yellow/gold passivation stage. The Japanese word for Zinc is 亜鉛 ('Aen') and it is mentioned specifically in Nissan's 'Service Shuho' booklets for the S30-series Z cars.

Reality check: On 18th October 1969 Nissan held a 'Press Preview' event in their ground floor showroom at their Ginza, Tokyo HQ, featuring their new Nissan Fairlady Z, Fairlady Z-L, Fairlady Z432, Fairlady Z432-R and 'Fairlady Z Export Model' Datsun 240Z. Those 5 models would also feature on Nissan's huge stand at the 1969 Tokyo Motor Show, which opened its doors to the general public on 24th October 1969. By the time the show finished on 6th November, more than 1.5 million visitors had passed through the doors.

I think the weight of evidence - suspected replacement of radiator core support panel, non-factory finish on undersides of bonnet extension and headlamp cowls, bad fit of headlamp cowls, rippled fenders/wing tops etc - points towards a front-ender at some point in the past. Not surprising in the grand scheme of things, and - of course - rectifiable. The new owner will hopefully put some effort into that. I don't want us to break a butterfly on a wheel here, as the car has a new owner and hopefully it will see some sympathetic rectification. What disappoints is the sales hype and presentation of the car by Bonhams, and some sections of the press, as an excellent example of type. I'm disappointed at the previous owners too. They could have done better by this car.

Kats, I've always believed that shot of the underside of the bonnet extension in the factory service manual (G1-21 above) shows either an early, early production or almost pre-production panel. The horizontal strengtheners on the underside are not anything that I've seen on any of the (many!) genuine ZGs that I've had a good look at over the years, and are certainly different than the four vertical stiffening ribs that I believe were used for series production. In which case is it another example of the factory documentation needing to be treated with caution? What do you think?

Kats, you might want to clarify that the above photos are not the Bonhams ZG, but are examples of an Automatic Transmission-equipped car for detail reference?

Kats, First time I've seen some of those photos. Thank you. What do you think about the finish of the reverse sides of the headlamp cowls/cases? The lower nose assembly looks authentic to me, but Ben already mentioned the chopped strand FRP finish he noticed on the underside of the bonnet extension panel and it seems to me that the reverse sides of the headlamp cases have the same (I think incorrect) finish. Possibly evidence of replacement/repair?

Quite apart from all the other issues with the car, that front license plate makes me very nervous. Hopefully it was put on to create some 'atmosphere', but it's all wrong for the car. The taxation class is wrong for a genuine ZG (it's for a car with capacity under 2000cc) and any car hailing from Sapporo needs extra scrutiny of its structural condition because more than half the year it is snowy and icy up there. There's one old car dealer in Sapporo who has a particularly bad reputation for make-do-and-mend type repairs that are covering up all sorts of nasty stuff.

Some photos of an OEM Fairlady 240ZG 'upper nose'/bonnet extension panel for reference. Construction/material is very similar to the later factory rear spoilers, which is a more advanced form of FRP moulding giving very crisp definition and very stable shape. These panels are very vulnerable, and easily bumped by other vehicles when parked. I've seen all sort of repairs on the underside, with chopped strand and woven roving bonding being common. I've also seen a piece of wood glued under there (!) and some pierced steel self-assembly shelving even did the deed on one example. It would not be a surprise if the panel on the Bonhams Monterey car had been repaired at some time in its 45+ year life. It's easily rectified these days.

Ben, if you felt any weave/texture on the reverse of that panel, it's wrong. Factory OEM finish on the underside of that section was gel coat, with the strengthening ribs very clearly defined and neat. I'll take some photos later to better illustrate, and will post them here. The panel has probably been changed to an aftermarket version some time in the car's life.