HS30-H

Same old, same old though. Too much Goertz and way too much Katayama.

Don't forget this one (my favourite....)

"Wantanbe's". Maybe that's a clue...

PMC's licensing of MB patented details (if it even happened in the way being assumed...) related to their G7 six and pre-dated their merger with Nissan by several years. Nissan's L-gata (starting with the L20 six of '64) was up and running way, way before their merger with PMC. What parts exactly are you pointing at being "nearly identical"? The cam followers look very close, as indeed do the cam follower pivots. Cam towers and oil spray bar? Duplex chain cam drive and chain tensioning? Combined oil pump drive and distributor drive via shaft taken off crank was not an MB first. The valve layout of the M180 is completely different, as is port shape and layout. These types of discussions too often descend into the old "Japanese copycats" type accusations. It's easier for people to package it up that way and file it neatly. I think the truth is a bit more complex than that. There are still a lot of post-war nation and industry rebuilding angles left undiscussed. A dear friend of my wife's family - a Japanese engineer who graduated from the Japanese Imperial Navy's technical school as an aircraft engine specialist and who joined Nakajima Hikoki in 1944 - was working with Japanese battery manufacturer Yuasa in the immediate post-war years. By the late 1940s Japanese and German industrial concerns, having a pre-war history of Axis co-operation and a shared necessity of post-war rebuilding from total devastation, were in fairly close contact and our friend was sent - along with several of his colleagues - to Mercedes-Benz in Stuttgart, Germany to work with M-B engineers for several months. He had some very interesting stories to tell. Other Japanese and German companies were doing similar personnel exchanges, and were sharing for the common good. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it's relevant to the discussion of 1940s and 1950s technology and is worth bearing in mind.

This is hardly 'new news' though, is it? It's well known that other engine manufacturers were inspired by the same Mercedes Benz valvetrain designs. Prince Motor Co. apparently paid to license some of the MB patents. You never hear the same said about Nissan, or even any whisper of litigation, so I wonder if MB ever fully patented those particular details that are being recognised here? And whose designs *inspired* MB? There wasn't that much new under the sun in OHV valvetrain design by that time... What's not being discussed here is the big layout difference. The Mercedes M180 engine was conceived and designed primarily for use in LHD vehicles, whilst the Nissan L-gata range was conceived and designed primarily for use in RHD vehicles.

What are these two, Sean? The one on the left is aftermarket. Looks like a stainless Spirit Garage item to me. The one on the right looks like one of the old MSA systems.

All of which very likely indicates that it is going quite slowly... Probably on a warm-up or cool-down lap.

Possibly best advised to tag the line "....in the USA/North American market" onto your original question, as 1973 240Zs sold elsewhere in the world certainly did.

Very sad to hear this news. Victor was somebody I admired and looked up to from afar. My sincere condolences to his family and friends. If anybody has any news regarding a memorial service or related event, please let us know. Thank you.

It's still on track according to your original post, as far as I can see. Unless a little too much sunlight has been let in on the 'magic' for your taste...?

One last thing, if I may: Do you own a passport? A passport issued by the United States Department of State? That's a straight question, no spin.

Once again, I find it hard to take you seriously. Take another peep at posts nos. 5, 15, 17, 21, 24, 27, 29 and 35 of this thread for starters. Don't make me quote them all. And that's without listing up every post from our new friend 'tzagi1', who is beyond satire. He even mentioned old Russian trucks at one point, which made the tin foil on my head quiver a little. Putinbot? Nah, he's too funny to be Russian. But here's a real zinger from yourself: "Considering how many parts can get replaced during a restoration, it seems kind of limiting to make a small piece of firewall metal so important. If a person cuts that rectangle of metal out of a car and installs it in another car, which car is the legitimate one?" That was from post no.68. A rhetorical question? Satire? Not clear from where I'm sitting. One minute you're condoning the practice, and the next you're against it. My impression is that you might have woken up and smelled the coffee around the second page of the thread. Hard to tell though. You're clear now though, right?

First I want to hear your explanation of how you can "swap a body" on these cars. Swap a body and you've effectively swapped a car.

The answer to your first question is 'Part Number One'. It's the unibody/monocoque/bodyshell, and it carries a unique identity. You cannot "swap a body" on these cars. Nissan did not supply 'Body In White' un-numbered replacement bodyshells for these cars, so if you substitute one for another then you have - effectively - another car altogether. Parts from two - or more - cars can become one, but two unique identities cannot become one. I notice people like yourself are not asking why the car in question ended up like it did. We are talking about two cars in the mix here. One car donated an engine bay tag, door jamb tag and dash tag (what happened to their original bodyshell?) and one car donated its bodyshell (what happened to its engine bay tag, door jamb tag, dash tag and any identity-related paperwork?). "As long as one does not lie" is not going to cut it here. The car itself - as it stands - is a lie.

It is perhaps wise not to take the expression "playing god" too literally. Especially if the letter g is in lower case... National laws pertaining to motor vehicles in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are administered by The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) - a government agency - on a nationwide basis. The DVLA share data and intelligence - where necessary and practical - with other European vehicle licensing agencies. I think you'll find that most first world nations take a dim view of vehicle cloning, vehicle identity fraud and - in the vernacular - vehicle 'ringing'. Indeed "this is not England". And I've a feeling we are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

In this particular case, it appears to be two cars...

What's all this 'museum or driven' stuff got to do with anything? What has quantities built got to do with it either? You're missing The Big Point here. There are several reasons why car manufacturers issue individual cars with their own unique chassis/car number and 'identity', but the main one is to comply with (international) laws. These unique identities are not transferable. But we all know what goes on. If it is done *professionally* (cough....) enough that it is all but undetectable, then so be it. That stuff happens, but it is not supposed to. What beggars belief is somebody blithely talking about an example of fraudulent activity (as a victim of it, no less) on an open forum, and apparently not even getting what the car represents. He has a car which has had the identity of another loosely pinned on it, and half of the people replying to this thread don't appear to think he has a problem. My understanding of the situation is that he has documents which show he owns an engine bay tag, a door jamb tag and a dash tag. They are attached to a car body that he doesn't legally own, even if it is in his possession. For those not so hot on their arithmetic, that's TWO sets of unique identities that have been separated from their original homes. And why? The usual answer is that it was for nefarious reasons. I'm surprised that members of a marque and model specialist 'club' forum would condone such activity, either directly or indirectly. As far as I am aware, such practices are illegal in the majority of civilised countries. Here in the UK and Europe, if such a car was inspected and discovered by a member of the Police force, by a customs official, by a vehicle licensing agency, a licensed engineer or independent assessor, it would be impounded. If no legitimate paperwork for the part of the vehicle with the biggest claim to a unique identity ('Part Number One' - the unibody) could be produced then the vehicle would be crushed and a fraud investigation would follow. Anybody who unwittingly purchased such a car would drop it like a hot stone, and would be seeking recourse and legal advice. The 'nothing special' / 'not historically important' part of your post just doesn't stack up. Each and every firewall-engraved identity unique. None of us has the moral or legal right to play god with these cars and remix identities at our convenience. It's nothing to do with value, model rarity or historic significance. And all this is quite apart from whatever happened further back up the trail, which often turns out to be theft or fraud, and has a victim...

Do you seriously not know the answer to that question?

You've just proved my point (thanks....). Cars with *faked* identities will eventually be exposed, and their fate then falls into uncertainty at the very least. Does not bode well for the OP's car, in my opinion.

Race cars are race cars, but race cars that display TWO numbered identities at the same time are on their way to the scene of an accident. The car in question smells very iffy to me, and some parts of the USA are not far from being banana republics if the comments on this thread are anything to go by. Some of the people posting in this thread would make the rank of Generalissimo in those banana republics. Names have been taken for future reference... Note to self: Do Not Buy A Used Car From _______________.

OK, a somewhat rhetorical question here: To what exact model(s) and/or sub-variants does the 'Series One' moniker actually apply?

The main problem is that people use the term inaccurately, and apply it to details and features which don't fall neatly into such pigeonholing. As can be seen on this thread...

The Sheriff needs to hand in his badge and the 'Appraiser' needs to get another job. The two of them could get hitched and go to live in a banana republic somewhere. Venezuela might suit them. I think it's fair to say that in any country that takes classic cars seriously - and I think that includes the USA - it's the chassis number stamped or engraved into the bodyshell (by the Factory...) that counts. That's certainly the case for Nissan and the S30-series Z . Door jamb tags, dash tags and engine bay tags are all moveable feasts, and do not trump the firewall-engraved prefix and body serial number combo that was applied by the Factory when the car was being made. Without getting into the philosophical discussion of what actually constitutes 'a car', it is generally accepted that 'the car' in your case will be the thing that has the firewall-engraved chassis number. At this point, it looks to me as though you don't actually have full and correct ownership of that. I'd consider that a big problem...

That style of rear ARB/'Sway Bar' was nothing to do with Nissan. But of course, Nissan did design and engineer rear ARBs for S30-series Zs right from the beginning of production. They just were not fitted to cars sold in the North American market. It's yet another example of why the 'Series One' and 'Series Two' monikers are all but meaningless when it comes to detail differences on the S30-series Z.

I like "chassis" and "engine" in particular... When it comes down to it, doesn't this kind of question point to the fact that "Series One" and "Series Two" are fairly nebulous terms, coined well after the fact in an attempt to line up a set of ducks? A set of ducks that Nissan themselves didn't really make much attempt to line up? There always seem to be anomalies and exceptions to the rule, and the 'Series' terms certainly don't seem to work accurately on Japanese domestic market cars or indeed any non-North American market car. The one big difference where a line can be drawn - on a car-by-car basis - is the change from non-vented quarter and vented tailgate to vented quarter and non-vented tailgate. Many of the other small detail differences did not change as part of one single step, so how can the 'Series' terms be applied to them?