HS30-H

OK, as I suspected, it's an example of custom/privateer fabrication making use of the factory-installed captives in the rear header rail. I guess it proves what they *could* be used for, and may well have been planned by the factory to be used for, but (as far as I'm aware) they didn't. As mentioned - I think - way back, there were at least two different positionings for the two vertical drops in the factory roll over bar/'safety bar'. There was the 'normal' gap width (as seen on the circuit race cars and the Sports/Race Option parts sold to the general public) and the factory Works rally cars, which had a wider gap between the vertical drops, to allow them to carry two spare wheels/tyres. I think the gap between the two sets of captives corresponds to one of the above, but I'd have to go to the garage to check....

That photo needs some explanation. It looks like a privateer/custom bracket fabrication to me? Despite the four captive nuts being in the rear header rail, I've never seen a factory or Works installation that actually used them. Certainly none of the Nissan Sports/Race Option four-point roll-over bars had them. I still think it's something that was mooted (hence those four captive nuts in that location) but never used for factory/Works parts.

Tee hee...

Like many road-going 432-R users, they probably found that it was a nuisance when night driving. In just the same way, quite a few road-driven 432-Rs ended up with gloveboxes, heat/demist controls and centre consoles etc within a few years of being sold.

96321-E4100 was the '69-up interior mirror for the S30-S Fairlady Z 'Std' model and the PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R model, with no Day/Night adjustment. Many other Nissan models (especially in Japanese market) had similar style mirrors. What makes them Z specific is the curve of the stalk and the mounting.

Make sure you understand that - contrary to what Zed Head appears to believe - I wasn't directly accusing you of anything. The fact is that images are being posted on platforms like Pinterest and the like and nobody can tell where they originally appeared on the 'net. That's the 'context' I'm talking about. It's the stripping of the conversation around them that seems such a waste to me. I can't do anything about the wider issue and I know it's a ship that's already sailed, but the image you posted was clearly one that I had posted elsewhere with context and some explanation (I own a copy of the somewhat rare magazine issue that it was first published in, I took the time to scan that image and I posted it as part of a conversation where it was relevant) so forgive me for any bittersweet tone you may have detected. I feel a little paternal about it, that's all. The irony is that I think classiczcars is THE place where you would get a comprehensive and correct answer to such a question. By the way, whilst we are on the topic, nice avatar you have there. Recognise this?

Hooray! Tonto showed up! I think you should leave the rude comments about Zed Head out of this. The term 'Prima Donna' has unfortunate connotations in the Z world.

Quoted for Zed Head's attention, even if he chooses to ignore it.

I think this might say as much about you as it does about me.

Tip o' the hat to you, too.

You seem to be trying to do a switcheroo here. As was pointed out in post #4 of this thread, I first posted a scan of the same image on this forum back in 2003 but - as far as I am aware - I have not claimed that I was "first" to post it, even if I was. That's in your (Zed) head, I believe. The image that's in the first post of this thread has my initials - ART - and a date code on it, and I believe I first posted it on the Japanese Nostalgic Cars forum thread that the 'Kyusha Kai' blog post (as linked by siteunseen in post #5 of this thread), and was part of a discussion which hopefully debunked a silly theory - as alluded to in the Kyusha Kai blog post. The initialling and date coding is something that I do occasionally with the intention of giving some traceability for an image I have posted, as I am concerned that images get taken out of context by being right-clicked-and-saved and then posted elsewhere. The context in question being the reason that they were posted in the first place, and it's often to illustrate a point or detail that is relevant to the topic of discussion. We do it all the time on classiczcars.com. Lifting an image from one of those threads/discussions and pasting it elsewhere - and in the process dropping all the information that went with it - seems like a backward step to me. I don't know the solution, but a bit of common sense would not go amiss. This is the reason for my hackles being raised somewhat when member 'Blue' here on classiczcars started a process of "vacuuming" images from archived classiczcars threads and posting them elsewhere on classiczcars devoid of any link to their original context. I just don't get it. Yes, the image came originally from the 70-2 issue of Car Graphic magazine (as 26th-Z pointed out in post #8 of this thread...) but it is actually a copyright-free Nissan Press Department photo, which is where Car Graphic magazine got it from. If you want an example of 'Fair Use' of such photos I invite you to take a peek at zhome.com, which uses many photos from the same Nissan Press Dept. sequence as used in that 70-2 Car Graphic article. We still have not been told where the original poster sourced the image he was asking about, but the fact that it carries my watermark narrows things down a little I think? I don't think you're going to get very far with your finger-pointing regarding me "lifting words" from the Car Graphic article. The original is - of course - in Japanese.

You really aren't getting it, are you? You're telling me I've broken the context chain but then link to a thread containing the image where I gave the context by explaining what was depicted in the photo I had posted... If you don't see the difference between that and the first post in this thread then I don't know how to help you.

Look at the post above yours. You are - of course - missing the whole point. It's the lifting of images LOSING ORIGINAL CONTEXT that's the problem. If they stay with their explanations, or at least a link to the source, then it's all fine and dandy.

No.

Three cheers for siteunseen, then. He's clearly our last best hope. Next time I need an explanation for an image I've uploaded I'll cut out the middleman and go straight to him.

And the article makes it clear that the '160' emblem related specifically to the 432, and not anything else, so I don't know where any confusion or counter theories come from? Original picture caption also points out that the pictured emblems were hand-made aluminium and paper mock-ups, and that the size, style and location of emblems had to accommodate the requirements of panel production, as stamped holes needed to be in a one-size-fits-all configuration.

That's a chicken and egg question. "If you want to get there, then don't start from here..." I'd start by working backwards from where you right-click-and-saved it from. This internet/world wide web thing was a good idea when it started, but it's been going to hell in a hand cart ever since I tell you...

They are asymmetric, as they have to fit to a subtly double curved surface. I have a couple here on my desk and the rear surface (where it meets the body of the car) is slightly curved, and more so in one quarter. The emblems are market 'L' and 'R' on the reverse, with an arrow indicating 'up'. You can't fit an 'L' marked emblem to the 'R' side of the body (and vice versa) without ending up with a gap...

It's a photo scan I posted here on the 18th of December 2009. I can't help but point out that the answer to your question is easily answered in the thread in which the image was originally posted, but somehow I doubt that's where you found it - right? It's a photo of a prototype. I think Carl Beck would like to believe that it refers to 4 cylinder engine capacity (2400cc='240', 1600cc='160) but this prototype is well past the stage where the planning for a 4cyl S30-series Z was dropped. '160' refers to the rated PS of the S20 engine (160ps), so it's a dropped prototype emblem for what became the '432'. Font type and paint scheme matches too. It's likely that the '160' idea was dropped when the '240' moniker was adopted for the L24-engined Export market cars, as the higher CC-based number would make it look like the L24 was more powerful than the S20. There's a subtext in that the '160' moniker was quite possibly the inspiration for the '240' moniker, unless people are happy to believe it was picked out of thin air...?

It's a Silver Cloud. Might even be a Silver Cloud II. Silver Cloud series debuted in 1955.

I quite often wear a hat. I've got lots of hats. I have no need to wear 21475-E4102 as a hat.

It needs to be in capitals to make sure. "SERIESOUSLY!". Somebody might like to ask what happened to E4100 and E4101, if E4102 is "SERIES 1"...?

By whom? The last King died in 1952...

Using the terms 'Series 1' and 'Series 2' etc for the Japanese market models is pure folly, and bound to lead to confusion.