HS30-H

Sean, where's the data regarding pipe size? A little bit further back up-thread you were quoting *STOCK* Nissan twin pipe system pipe diameter, but I am 100% sure the Fujitsubo systems use a bigger pipe diameter than that. Where are you getting your data from? Another thing: There seems to be a discrepancy between what the re-sellers (RHD Japan & Whitehead Performance?) are claiming about applicable models. I notice that Fujitsubo themselves are quoting fitment on chassis made between 1969 (Showa 44) and September 1975 (Showa 50-9). Caveat emptor. Also, "stock L20"? Where's that come from? In my opinion you're in danger of throwing a bit too much shade in Fujitsubo's direction. As a manufacturer/supplier of competing product, you have a dog in this fight. If I were you I'd concentrate on your own product and let the market decide.

From back towards the beginning of this thread: As with many things on this forum, we've been there before. Mike has a colour version of that Transcendental Racing/Frisselle/Morton shot.

Yogi Berra:

By the way Sean, one of the clues to guide us regarding the Fujitsubo systems is their 'Legalis' name. They are a tested and licensed road legal system for the Japanese market. Most others are not, and may have to be removed when the car is tested. There are restrictions on fitment, clearance, safety and - crucially - noise. When discussing 'ideals', you have to take this into consideration for the Fujitsubo systems.

Your quote: "....dual pipes are better suited towards the smaller cc engines (S20 and L20) than larger". Right there. Or am I seeing things? It only reads one way are far as I can see. In answer to your direct question to me, I presume (betting that Nissan knew a little bit more about all this than you or I) that there are benefits in a true dual-pipe system on a straight six engine. Those benefits might well include packaging/routing, and there would - quite possibly - be a limit to that pipe dia. wise? Most of the big capacity/big power-aimed systems made and marketed in Japan go to single pipe systems, and I presume this is also packaging/routing influenced just as much as anything else. In fact, such 'big single' systems often seemed to be 'drag' biased and less to do with variable range street drivability and (pleasing) sound. For the record, there are big pipe twin systems available in Japan, but they are mostly aimed at S20-engine C10-series Skylines. Maximum reasonable bore and stroke on S20 engines is limited to around 2400cc (you can go a little bigger, but it's marginal) so 'ideal' pipe dia on a twin pipe system for such high state of tune S20s is not going to need to be all that big anyway...

Sean, you're pointing to the fact that the Fujitsubo Legalis system is aimed at L20 and L24-engined cars (Japan didn't get L26 or L28 powered S30s) as confirmation of your premise that "dual pipes are better suited towards the smaller cc engines (S20 and L20) than larger". It simply doesn't follow. If dual pipe systems on straight six engines, as you say, "...help generate low-end torque without penalising top-end power" then why is that not scalable to larger capacities than 2000cc and 2400cc? Where's the science to back that up? Yes, the quotes are now much better!

Sean, half the time I can't work out what you're quoting and what is your original new text. I'm pretty sure I measured the OEM twin pipe system for you before when you asked. I don't have measurements to hand right now, but can check later. In the meantime, I'll ask the question again. Why would twin pipes not be scalable? You can't point at the Fujitsubo Legalis for an answer. You said "I'm tempted to believe that dual pipes on an S30 are better suited towards the smaller cc engines (S20 and L20) than for larger." Based on what premise, exactly?

I don't see why it would not be scalable? Bigger capacity, bigger (dual) pipes. Pipe size is linked to what you intend to put through it, no?

In the place that most suits "the USA", obviously...

You're a little early with your April 1st joke. Hopefully you won't get clipped by any passing traffic when you are messing about with your bonnet/hood stay. I mess with mine whilst I'm standing on the kerb.

It looks big enough, and "state of the art" enough, to me. 1969:

No R200s fitted as stock equipment on Japanese market S30/S31-series Z cars, Sean. We have discussed that fact before. On this same Fujitsubo/Spirit Garage topic, I believe. On this very thread..? That's why it should not be presumed - when Spirit Garage say their systems "fit S30/S31s up to '78" - that this means they fit neatly around an R200. Yes, R200s are commonly retrofitted to modified S30s in Japan.

So, rhetorical question, what diffs were fitted to S31 models? Secondary question, what models of S30/S31-series Z for the Japanese market were fitted with R200 diffs?

What's the perceived cost got to do with anything? Itagaki san of Spirit Garage is perfectly helpful if you contact him in his own language. That's Japanese. He hasn't set up his business to deal with export enquiries, and nor should he have to if he doesn't want to. If anybody really wants to buy Spirit Garage products, either do it in Japanese or use a middle man/broker.

Feel free to draw your own "aerodynamics art" on the original sales promotion image of the Bingo Sports 432:

Are you taking it seriously....?

It's for later cars than yours. August '73 up, I believe. Isn't the hose spacing different, and no hole for the centre fastening on earlier cars?

I'd urge great caution on the Fairlady Z-specific data posted on zhome.com, as it contains a significant number of errors, rogue data and plain miscomprehensions. For example, the "Fairlady Z Owners Register" appears to contain data submitted by owners which is clearly incorrect, but remains uncorrected. So you get - for example - a 'GS30' prefixed 2/2 model clearly built in 1974 (directly identifiable from its body serial number) being called a "1971 model year" car, an 'S30' prefixed model clearly built in the latter half of 1975 (directly identifiable from its body serial number) being called a "1978 model year" car and a 'GS31' prefixed 2/2 model clearly built in 1977 (...body serial number again) being called a "1976 model year" car. It's a mess. The truth is that we have far more accurate and comprehensive - peer-group curated and edited - hard data and ephemera regarding the Japanese market models right here on the classiczcars forum.

No, each prefix ('S30'/'PS30'/'HS30'/'HLS30'/'RS30'/'RLS30' etc etc) had it's own serial number sequence, so - theoretically - you could line up 'S30-00023', 'PS30-00023', 'HS30-00023' and 'HLS30-00023' and the "#23" of each other prefix type alongside each other at a virtual car show. The body serial number sequences ran at different production rates for each prefix and with gaps where deemed useful or necessary, so it's best not to think of them as linear and/or directly comparable with each other.

'S30-100698' would indeed be 1973 production year. Towards the latter half of 1973, too. Plenty of parts on the car will have date codes that you can cross-reference to give you a pretty good idea of the build month, if that's what you are after. We have covered the topic many times in the past on the forum, so there's an abundance of interesting data mining to be done. If you struggle, just ask. Good luck!

There's really no input from the Japanese side of the story, so it is naturally skewed to the point of view of the people who have been interviewed. The people who built the cars and who took them half way around the world to compete with them are - in my opinion - probably the most reliable witnesses, certainly so in the specs and details of the cars themselves. You can witness drivers and navigators who actually used the cars in period apparently knowing relatively little about them. Comments like "they were relatively stock/standard", when they were far, far from that - especially so in the case of the early lightweight bodied versions. In extreme cases it's akin to a sort of cargo cult scenario where a television falls into the hands of a culture that's never seen one before. When the Works rally cars turned up the UK for the 1970 RAC Rally, almost nobody had seen a 240Z before. They didn't know what was standard equipment and what wasn't. It's little wonder that the journalists of the time had a hard time understanding the full details of the cars thus setting in stone their mistakes to be followed ever since...

Don't take it all as gospel fact though. It's a nice article but it's chock full of the usual mistakes, misapprehensions, assumptions and received wisdoms. Better to use it as a base for further research and a lot of cross-referencing.

Probably because words fail me. Either that or because I'm on a weather-related go slow after a couple of days of 'Beast From The East' blizzard conditions here in Ye Olde Englande. From the sales blurb: "This evocative 240Z is a super replication of the Nissan works car that was driven by Rauno Altonen and navigated by Jean Todt in the 1972 Monte Carlo rally finishing in a very creditable third place." "Super replication"? It's actually nothing like it. Nothing. Not unless you count red and black paint, a kids art project idea of a carnet number plate and some '5' stickers as 'close enough'... They credited Goertz in the blurb too. That's a top-scoring double fail in Z History Bingo. House! Cars like this are built to purpose, and that purpose is modern historic 'regularity' type events rather than stage rallies. Compliance with modern safety regulations and a bias to practicality is enough to make such cars stray a long way from true period Works specifications. I'm sure it's a good car, but claiming "super replication" of a real period Works car is well wide of the mark.

Two points: I have supplied data to you in the past - which you have used - but you never acknowledged, and never credited. Over the years I have spent a lot of time, money and effort to seek out documentation, original photographs and data. I try to use it wisely, sparingly and when appropriately, and also try to understand it fully before utilising it. That includes how and when I 'share' any of it. Why would I simply give it all away for somebody to put on their 'blog' in the context that *they* choose, and without having any input? I get many, many requests for data and reference material and I do try to help with the majority of them, but I can't - sometimes won't - be able to help them all.

But, for you, the "big picture" doesn't seem to include Japan, let alone the 'Global Market' that Nissan had ambitions to take a share of with ALL of their products. Yes, great pains were taken to make the HLS30U 'Datsun 240Z' suitable for the North American market, and to price it at a level where maximum sales would cover reduced profit margins. But how does this translate to "Z was for US Market", the title of this thread? Unquestionably, the S30-series Z was conceived, styled, designed, engineered and produced for multiple markets. What's the argument to the contrary, let alone the evidence?