HS30-H

Since these captive nuts were welded onto the panel BEFORE the bodyshell was put together ( impossible to weld them into a closed-off panel ), it means that Nissan Shatai would have had to have had TWO piles of panels; one type for markets that did not get the Sports Option list, and one type for markets that did. I'm not surprised that they chose to attach them to ALL market panels, as it would solve any possibility of mix-ups at the same time as allowing the use of the Sports Option roll over bar should anyone wish to fit one at a later date. Sure they COULD have been used as body fixture mounts, but next time you have the trim off a car you might like to have a close look at them. Notice that ( usually ) the nuts have been painted in the same grey panel primer as the inside of the panel ( suggesting that they were on there when the primer was applied - probably when the panel was sub-assembled and closed off ). Notice also that this primer can sometimes be seen to have covered the thread of the nuts ( it has on several that I have looked at ) and that any fixture bolted into these after priming would surely have taken some of this out ( no? ). Note also that the body colour paint ( car interior side ) usually covered by the trim under the quarter window completely covers this are ( look at my first photo ). This means there could not have been a fixture attached to it while that paint was being applied. Carl, you are looking down the wrong end of that telescope again. You talk about percentages of Export and Domestic cars, but you forget that at the start of production these percentages were NOT a foregone conclusion. We know that they were HOPING to sell a great number of cars to the US market, but they did not KNOW that it would be that kind of percentage. Hence a number of details that were perhaps not totally necessary on the Export cars were carried onto the basic design and shared by all models. If you want an example of this, take a look at the extra windsreen wiper mount holes pressed into the panel that holds the windscreen wiper spindles. Configured for use in both LHD and RHD wiper orientation. What were those percentages again? I suggest you also look at the rear wishbones for evidence of the rear anti-roll bar end link attachment points, as your early US market cars were not actually fitted with rear anti-roll bars, but I believe they still had the hole and spot-welded strengthener. But why are you even approaching the subject in this way? There were LHD Works FIA rally cars that used the Sports Option roll over bar, so the mounting holes certainly do NOT form any kind of ammunition for a LHD vs RHD argument. If the captive nuts in question actually did get used as mounts for a jig or production line fixture, then that is of great interest. I want to know what every detail on these cars is for. What is without doubt is that they WERE used to mount part of the bracketry that supported the Sports Option roll over bar in the shell. Its a good and very strong design ( for the period ) that considerably beefs up the centre of the shell. I can't think of any other model of car that used captives already in EVERY shell as mounts for a Factory-supplied Sports Option roll-over bar. Alan T.

Fantastic new information, Kats - thank you! I don't want to dwell on it too much - but thank you sincerely for your encouragement to me. You do a very good and important job of raising awareness of the Export models in Japan, and I have great respect for that. We are both trying to achieve a balanced perspective, I think. It pains me when people call the RHD cars ( and the Domestic models in particular ) "irrelevant", as its clear that just as much effort went into them as the LHD models. Those photos of production charts that you supplied for 1969 ( Japanese calendar year Showa 44 ) are things of wonder to me. Its so good to have an official document to back up those figures from Nissan Shatai that were in your first post. I think that the figures speak for themselves. Regarding the Steering Wheel and Horn Pad question, I have never had the opportunity to compare the differences side-by-side in my hands. However, I believe that ALL ( RHD or LHD ) Export steering wheels were the same, and changed at the same time too. I always believed that the Japanese domestic model difference was for ergonomic reasons ( reach ) and wondered about safety too. I always point out the extra seat brackets on the Domestic bodyshells ( not fitted to Export models ) that allowed the seat runners to be unbolted from the floor and repositioned further forward - essentially allowing a very short driver ( especially Japanese ladies ) to reach the pedals and other controls safely and comfortably. I think this is part of the same thinking. Matsuo san's combined rotary column switch / stalk is a thing of wonder too. One of the things that hit me when I first drove a Z was just how clever and convenient this was to use. I also saw and used the equivalent on many more modern Nissan models when I was living in Japan. Its a shame Matsuo san could not patent it. When I was living there, I also noted the regulation about switching from dipped headlamps down to sidelights when waiting at traffic signals or an intersection ( in order to avoid blinding oncoming traffic ) and I always thought this was a great idea. The rotary switch makes this operation just a finger-flick away. Excellent idea and excellent engineering. They last a long time too! Matsuo san's Citizen watch is a lovely story too. It is so typical of a man like Matsuo to appreciate the fine things, and to be inspired by good design and engineering and apply that inspiration to his own designs. The mystery lady with the prototype car photo is fascinating. I'm not sure if the photo is distorted, but the quarter window shape looks different from the final design, and possibly the windscreen rake also? There were a lot more of these clays and plastic prototypes than the previously published photos normally show. I am very very glad that Matsuo san has kept them, along with his original sketches for the body shapes. One day we will be able to give the team that designed, engineered and built the S30-series Z its true acclaim, and Matsuo san's collection will be valuable evidence for this. This is all very inspiring Kats. Sincerely - thank you. Alan T

.........and here's a Works-built FIA rally car with the same arrangement. The Works rally cars had a slightly modified bar ( altered by hand using the standard Sports Option bar as a base ) but the mounts were the same type. Alan T.

Hi Kmack, Sure. Here's two photos of different cars. The first one is a circuit car with the Works / Sports Option bar:

Alfa, Aren't they just bumpers that keep the hatch centralised in its 'hole'? Little rubber blocks moulded onto a steel backing, and screwed into the body? I think they are what you mean. Kmack, I knew you'd get this too as what reminded me of it was your post a few days ago discussing how you had been using them. They were not used as harness mounts though - they were for a bracket that located the bar in a special holder. Here's a pic of the bracket: Alan T.

Ah, Victor - you've almost finished the thread before its really begun. That's it - they are for the Sports Option roll-over bar. In fact, most of the Factory race and rally cars used these mounting points as PART of the mounting for their roll-over bars. The complete mount was a little bit better than you might think, so your comment about them being weak would really only be correct if they were the ONLY place where the bar was attached to the bodyshell. Victor, I'm glad a Roadster owner got this as there was certainly a fair amount of continuity involved with the thinking behind these parts. Anybody got any idea what the complete mount looked like, and where else it located? Anybody seen a bodyshell WITHOUT these mount holes? Alan T.

Anyone know for sure, and can explain it? Hope you can take the time to post and find it a subject worthy of debate. Good luck!:classic: Alan T.

.........and here's a pic of the inside of that panel ( a side that you can't usually see ):

OK everyone, Here's a semi-serious quiz for anyone who fancies having a shot. Some of you will know the answer, or at least hav a pretty close guess straight away. Maybe we can spin in out a little and expand the subject so that we can all learn from it. Here's a picture of a section cut out from an S30-series Z bodyshell. The section includes the area at the base of the quarter window, the inner wheel arch and the door jamb. This section was cut out of a UK-market HS30 body that dated from around 1973 ( didn't look at the VIN or any other identifying features I'm afraid ) but that SHOULD be irrelevant to our quiz, as I'm pretty sure that ALL models of early S30-series Z car in ALL markets had the same detail. I've added some wobbly white arrows to point out four captive nuts that were welded into the panel at the Factory. These are the subject of our quiz. What were they there for, and what fitted on there? Here's the first pic:

Hi Ian, The Seller has not got his description quite right. This is the single carb intake and the exhaust manifold that was fitted to many Japanese domestic and some Export models - but never on a Z. He is correct in stating that this setup was installed on some of the Skyline models - but it was on a lot of other models that were fitted with various versions of the Nissan L-series six ( Laurel, Cedric, Gloria etc etc ). It was never fitted to a Z. Hope that helps. Alan T.

I certainly wasn't trying to make anything like an anti-US stance on this - so I'm sorry you seem to have taken it that way. Ultimately, I would like to see more recognition of the domestic and non-US Export models of S30-series Z car outside Japan. I see very little about those cars on zhome.com ( I note that its called "zhome" and not "HLS30home" or "US-market Datsun 240-Zhome" - so I would hope for a little more mention of other Z models there ). I've been trying to make the effort here on classiczcars.com ( p****** in the wind, it could be said ) and for the most part the ( mainly US-based ) members and visitors to the site SEEM to be both interested and surprised to hear many details about the non-US market cars. Especially the fact that RHD cars were designed and prototyped at the same time as the US-market model. Still, that's just my perception of their interest - so who knows, maybe this also is a figment of my imagination. Respectfully, Alan T.

AT> I posit that if the S30-series Z car was, as you quoted, AT> "An American Sports Car - made in Japan" - then they would AT> have made a better job of the LHD version. You can think about AT> that every time you go to use your E-brake. C> That's just too funny Alan;-) Think about that for a minute. In an "emergency" if you had to stop your Z with only a hand actuated mechanical brake - which hand would you rather grab that brake handle with? - Your stronger Right Hand - or your weaker Left Hand? If I was designing a RHD car - I'd put that e-brake handle on the right side of the drivers seat. In a non emergency - just sitting, and later releasing, the "parking brake" - do you really prefer to use your weak arm? Your cruising along in your GT - do you really like having that e-brake handle obstructing your reach for all the controls in the center of the car? - Do you really like having it rub your left leg as you drive hundreds or thousands of miles? In the LHD 240-Z's that e-brake handle is exactly where I would have put it - I most certainly would not want it on the right side of the center console either. Sorry Alan - your observations about the layout of the HLS30 are simply too far fetched to make any sense to me. -------------------- Why do Americans call it the "Emergency Brake"? Where I come from, we call it the Hand Brake. I don't think we think of it as anything other than a parking brake. In Japan they call them the "Side Brake". In both cases, I don't think anybody expects to use it "in an emergency"! Spirited drivers ( especially rally drivers ) make great use of them - but not usually in an emergency. I think the "E-Brake" term is colouring your perception of what this control is designed to do. If you have not read it, then I would recommend that you search out the thread we had going here a few months back on this very subject. I noticed lots of comments about Hand Brake handles ( I'll use the English term ) rubbing or interfering with legs. Visions of splayed-leg driving styles and extremely chunky thighs came to mind. Anyone who has driven a RHD Z just knows that this is not an issue. I've driven both RHD and LHD configuration of Z - so I do have personal experience to call on. I also have to point out that when I'm driving my RHD cars I usually drive them with the Hand Brake 'off' ( ie - down ). If you think that the handle might get in way of the normal ergonomic operation of the car then I would have to say that yours must be faulty. Either that or you are a VERY big man indeed! You say that if you were designing an RHD car you'd put the handle on the RIGHT side of the driver's seat? I say that would be a health hazard when getting in and out ( or at the very least 'stimulating' if you were not careful! ) and a nightmare for cable and linkage mounting. If you like this kind of thing, then I can recommend a Bentley "R" type or Wolseley 6/90 - both of which had gearlevers on the right side of their RHD seats and created a few falsettos amongst their owners! ----------------- Carl> Now lets get serious about the design criteria. 1. The design team on Project Z - used US spec, human factors. A human considerably larger than the Japanese spec. As an example -the Silvia was a complete FLOP in the US because the Goertz design - was based on the human factors of the typical Japanese and the car therefore provided too little leg and head room for Americans. ------------------- The CSP 311 was a sales 'flop' for a lot more reasons than that one. Save me the reply to this one, and I do know a fair bit about the car and what the Americans said about it. You might like to consider that it was a flop in Japan too - but obviously not because it was considered too small inside for Japanese drivers. ------------------- C> 2. The 2.4L in-line six - Mr. Matsuo has stated that for the Japanese market he would have used a 2.0L four cylinder (from the Fairlady 2000). The Z is a six cylinder because it was designed to meet the needs the US market. ------------------- What about all the other domestic six-cylinder models? Prince brought plenty of six-cylinder designs with them and the C10 Skyline ( always thought of as the 'brother' to the S30-series Z in Japan ) had a big range of engines that included more sixes than fours. The C10 was never seriously targeted at the Export market, so why did it have a six? The truth is that Nissan's engines were growing anyway. This was a time of great change in Japan ( and at Nissan ) and I challenge you to think a little more of what the Japanese market was starting to demand, and not JUST what they thought the US market and other export markets wanted. ------------------------ C> 3. The 240-Z was engineered to meet the US Safety and Emissions Standards. They "drove" many design and engineering considerations. ------------------------ I agree, but mainly in respect to the US-market "240-Z". Many other design and engineering considerations applied to the other models, and some overlapped. ------------------------- C> The Fairlady Z's are interesting and they allowed Nissan to sell a few more cars in their home market - but your assertion that they were "as important", "as significant" or evenly weighted in the design consideration of the Z - are simply - well - your opinion. However I would suggest that your opinion is not based on any real facts nor sound logic. ------------------------- Again you are looking at things in hindsight. Your beliefs seem to hinge on the fact that the US-market car was a huge sales and marketing success. But what if the Z had flopped in the US for some particular reason? ( go on - try to imagine it ). Imagine if another foreign car maker had trumped Nissan and made a better and cheaper car that sold like hot cakes. Would you judge the car in the same way? You might say yes - but I think a really big part of your position and philosophy about these cars comes from the fact that they were seen as being successful. I guess that looking at things from where you experienced them makes this inevitable, but I do invite you to step outside that view and look at this from another perspective. Stop the clock at the Tokyo Motor Show stand in late '69 and judge the cars on the stand. I see a family of cars, and each one of them has good points and bad points. I know which ones I prefer, but I also appreciate why the ones that I do not prefer came out the way they did. Forget about your story of what the HLS30 achieved in the US market ( even though it deserves a book on the subject ) and just think of what was there. Anything else at that time was just a question mark. We know how it turned out, but I think you are using the result as too much of the story of how the cars were born. The S30-series Z is a family of cars, and not just one market-specific model. ------------------ C> Lets get real Alan. It's not about a US ("devil") vs the world. It's not about the Japanese putting the British Sports Cars out of business. It's not about the 240-Z being "superior" to the home market "Fairlady". It most certainly isn't about any Japanese owners thinking their "Fairlady Z" is the "original" or that it is "superior" to the product designed for the US. It was all about Nissan vs Toyota - Nissan vs GM - Nissan vs Ford etc. It was all about building and selling cars that the target customers wanted to buy. It was all about "customer driven quality definitions". I doubt that anyone over 25 years old in Japan really feels that by building and selling products aimed specifically at the US market - they are selling out to the US devil ;-) FWIW, Carl B. ------------------ Well, you seem to have taken a lot of notice of one remark - and I would guess that it might have touched a raw nerve in the US vs the rest of the world zeitgeist that seems to prevail in much of the USA at the moment. The point I was trying to make with the Robert Johnson story was that anybody hoping to gain success in a particular field might be forced to make a compromise, or water down their ideal a little in order to gain that success. In relation to the design of the S30-series Z car, I meant this to be taken that the original ideals or dreams of the designers might have been compromised slightly by the perceived needs or standards of its biggest ( potential ) market JUST AS WELL AS their obvious intention to make and market RHD versions that included a high-performance version and a race homologation special based on it. Here is one of the biggest problems that I have with your position. You seem to believe that the US market HLS30 was in no way compromised by Nissan's intention to make these RHD models. However, by the same token you seem to believe that these RHD models were compromised because the whole design was geared towards the US market model. Sorry, but if you think this way then I think you do not have enough information and experience of the RHD models. -----------------

AT> Nissan ( probably at Katayama's behest ) gave you a four-speed AT> and matching diff ratio, C> If you don't have enough torque - you have to add gears to the tranny and teeth to the ring and pinion. Additional moving parts reduces reliability and increases cost. Do you really think lower rear end ratio's and a five speed is "better"? It's not - its a compromise for loss of torque in the Fairlady and it was simply a local market preference in the HS30's. There was no customer demand for five speed transmissions here in the US in 1970. ---------------------- You can't have it both ways! To write off the 5-speed as both a compensation for lack of torque and a "local market preference" sounds silly. I will resist the temptation to make an obvious joke about the perceived sophistication of the US market and their lack of demand for a 5-speed. Now I need to go and look for special US market Porsches, Alfas and Lancias etc that were presumably fitted with 4-speeds. Presumably these cars would also have been less powerful in their own domestic markets, and that would be why they had 5-speeds in the first place? ----------------------- C> There is no question that Nissan gave the US customers what they wanted. If they wanted a five speed - it was easy to order it over the Parts Counter and simple to install. I'd guess that at least 90% of the 240-Z's sold in the US - stayed with the 4spd. until they were driven into the ground by their owners. No doubt when the new "B" style 5spd. came out in the 280Z here - and it was time to replace the worn out transmissions on the then old 240-Z's - many of us opted to install the over-drive 5spd. ------------------------- Might have been nice of they could have had more than one spec. to choose from though wouldn't it? Not forgetting the Auto of course. So what was it that changed the US markets' lack of demand for a 5-speed? There sure seem to be enough people that want them for retrofit these days. Sorry - I think its more evidence that the US market got one spec. and one spec. only just because it would save money and keep that sticker price down. -------------------------- AT> softer springs and dampers and no rear anti-roll bar. This was a AT> car MADE for the USA? I don't think so. C> If you don't think so - you don't really know anything about this market. It was made to suit American Consumers - driving under normal American driving conditions. "Market specific" design and engineering at its best. We have excellent high speed freeways, excellent secondary roads and streets. We like a softer and more comfortable ride quality in our GT's. In 1970 if you wanted a harsh, jerky ride - you bought an MG:-) ---------------------------- Again, the US market model was made to suit American Consumers. That is my point. But other markets got a different spec. Considering your previous statements about the majority of Z car production going to the US market, it would be rather surprising that Nissan went to the lengths of making the domestic and non-US market specs so different from the US spec. Would this be that "Japanese Ego" at work again? Forget about dissing the British "sports car" to me - you are preaching to the converted. Poking fun at my domestic product is water off a duck's back. I've owned 'em and I've driven 'em. If you don't like them then that's something we have in common......... ---------------------- AT> The USA-market HLS30 was a spec. that was aimed at a certain market, AT> but you can't say that the layout of the car made any sense in LHD form. C> "the layout of the car" - what in the world are you talking about? Let me guess ;-) When you pull up to the gas pumps at your local petro station - do you like having to open the drivers door against the pump island and squeezing out between the car and pump island? (we have our gas filler on the right side of the car - where the gas pumps are - and we have plenty of room to get in and out of the car on the left. I suppose you could pull up with the pumps on the Left - but then you'd have to pull the gas hose across the car to reach the filler. I would think that if the car was designed as a RHD model - it would have been a better design to put the gas filler neck on the Left side of the car. -------------------- Giggles. I'm just thinking of the Japanese pump hoses that retract into the air, and the lack of self-serve pumps. When I used to buy petrol in Japan I never used to get out of the car, and the attandants used to bring the hose down from 'on high' - a really neat arrangement. I'm also thinking of the length of our hoses here in the UK ( don't go there! ). Despite being such a small little island, we still seem to manage to have enough space to park close enough to the pumps to get the hose in without stretching too much, and far away enough from the pump to open the door. Careful Carl, that last sentence might get taken out of context as a CJB quote: ".........the car was designed as a RHD model.........". No, the "duality" of the bodyshell is of prime interest to me. We've had discussions on this site before now about this ( don't know if you ever saw them? ) and the general concensus was that a fair amount of duality was built into the basic body design to allow it to be both LHD and RHD up to a point. Maybe this point was before all the pressings were put together into a fully-formed shell - but the evidence of duality is there nonetheless. This was most interestingly contrasted in the Hand Brake / E-Brake / Parking Brake location - which never moved from the right side of the tunnel. No, I would have thought the fuel filler position was dictated by the location of the exhaust pipe for safety reasons, and by the offset of the tank to that side? I see this as a foregone conclusion considering that the L-series engine and the S20 engine both have the exhaust manifold on the left side of the cars they are used in. -------------------- C>In a more general sense - I like left hand drive cars. I like using my right hand to work all the controls that are normally centered in any car... radio, heater, AC, GPS, Cell Phone, shift lever.. I guess one can get used to using one's left hand for all that - but most people in the world are right handed and their left hand isn't as precise. Give any design Engineer a choice of where to put controls for good human factors considerations and you will find that they always put them on the "right". That's one reason that Command Pilots fly in the Left Seat no matter what country they are from. I really can't think of anything related to the "layout" of the 240-Z that I would change. --------------------- Carl, you just damned ALL of us RHD market drivers. We have to use our 'wrong' hand to do everything! That's why we are inferior to the rest of the world, I suppose! I thought you were an engineer? Surely an engineer would look at the layout of the LHD Z with a half tank of 'gas' and just the driver on board ( presumably the majority of time this would be the case ) and conclude that a little weight redistribution would not go amiss? You know - move the inlet and exhaust manifolds to the other side of the engine bay and stuff like that. No? Oh well. Carl, have you actually driven an early Z car in RHD form? --------------------- AT> The layout of the engine and trans forced the controls of the driver's AT> side to avoid the induction and exhaust manifolds. Sorry - but that's a AT> fact that was forced on the designers because they had to work with AT> what was available to them. C> Completely irrelevant and an incorrect assumption. There is plenty of room for the steering mechanism (if that is what you mean). Even room for a Turbo set up!! --------------------- I'll tell you what I see as relevant from my statement. The L-series engine was configured in one particular way - with the manifolds on one side of the engine. So was the S20 engine. Your perspective probably means that you see this as being evidence that the L-series engine was configured to be used mainly for LHD Export applications. I would not agree. ----------------------

I'm going to ask Kats to make a NEW thread when he posts his next instalment of the latest news of the 1969 activities. I can't think of any way to repair this thread whilst still leaving the verbal tennis game complete - so I am forced to continue. I just hope that Kats does not mind. I must make my attempt to answer properly, otherwise it might seem like a submission. --------------------

Kats, You are doing a wonderful job. Everybody will be happy that you are sharing this with us, thank you! It was really sad that NISSAN SHATAI became a victim of Nissan's financial troubles and the subsequent restructuring of the company. I felt sorry that all that history was going to waste...... Keep up the good work! At this point I would like to put something on the record. I was fascinated and pleased to see the first post from Kats, and in fact Kats mentioned me by name in his post ( as I'm sure he knew I would be drawn to it like a magnet! ). When I made my first post in reply I expressed my pleasure that the figures demonstrated that RHD cars were being prototyped and pre-productioned AT THE SAME TIME as the LHD ( Export ) models. Many times in the past I have tried to get this point across to people who thought that this was not the case. There seems to be a widely held, but nonetheless mistaken belief that the RHD models were some sort of afterthought, and that as the car was ".....made for the USA market..." it must automatically follow that all the designs and prototypes for the car must have concentrated on the LHD model. Indeed, many seem to express great surprise when they see any pictures of the RHD prototypes and pre-production mules. Kats has supplied figures from Nissan Shatai that show the number of RHD models made in 1969, and to many this will be a big surprise. It is to my great regret that the thread subsequently turned into an extremely wordy battle between myself and Carl Beck. When I look back at the whole thread now, it looks kind of polluted. These battles of ego and wit can get ugly, and I think the thread that Kats started should really deserve better. I'm sorry about that, but for my part I must say that I can't leave the RHD ( mostly Japanese domestic market ) models to be fobbed off as some kind of unworthy runts of the litter. That's why my claws come out, and I perhaps overstate my case a little. This does not mean my opinions are ALL incorrect ( IMHO:classic: ) but it does mean that things can get a little heated. Some of you might detect a little hostility towards Carl Beck on my part and I have to apologise for that ( if you didn't notice, well that's good! ). However, this seed was planted quite some time ago when I contacted Carl to ask his opinion on some matters - Carl is undoubtedly one of the foremost authorities on the HLS30 model that was sold to the US market. I'm sorry to say that I came away from my correspondence with Carl feeling somewhat insulted by his replies to my honest queries and nonplussed at his attitude regarding the non-HLS30 models and all the Japanese Domestic models in particular. This was a great disappointment, and I'm afraid it tends to colour my correspondence with him...................... There is however some common ground. Carl has been one of the most vocal debunkers of what he calls "The Goertz Myth", and three cheers to him for that. This is something that I have been trying to convince people of since my first trip to Japan in the mid-Eighties. I was 'educated' about who actually designed the car very quickly by my Japanese friends, and I learned all about Matsuo san and his team. Its still hard to get people to believe it, but Goertz has been a total cad. I really hope that more and more people will gradually get the message about Matsuo san and his team, and Carl's writing on the subject ( at www.zhome.com ) will be instrumental in that process. Just wanted to put that on record ( FWIW:ermm:). Sorry for helping to mess up your nice thread Kats.... Alan T.

Thanks Bambi, Now I'm going to be thinking about Buffalo Springfield every time I see it. Alan T.

Alan T.