HS30-H

I'm not sure I buy this whole cultural difference thing really. It's a bit of a cliche (we even get the "loss of face" thing dragged up early in the article, as though everybody is happy to look like an idiot except the Japanese) and I see holes in the surrounding story: The article states that BRE/Brock were sending their reports "to the factory", and hearing nothing in return. I'm confused by the chain of communication that implies. Why didn't they report to Nissan USA and/or Katayama (since they were so close)? Why short circuit the chain? If Japanese customs were so distinct and relevant, cutting out the local office and going straight to "the factory" certainly qualifies as a faux pas. It makes me wonder whether it really happened like that. If it did, what was Katayama doing? And if Katayama was so powerful, how come he never pushed for an answer for BRE sooner? Doesn't really add up. No, the article is full of holes. The very last paragraph is the Factory Max That Proves The Fact for me. Apparently the 432 "never did go into full production" (huh?) but its engine "...has gone on to be the basis for the one found in the legendary Skyline GT-R....", even though the PGC10 Skyline GT-R was on sale in February 1969, a good 9 months before the debut of the S30-series Z and the PS30 Fairlady Z432/PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R models.

Mr B, The eyes on your avatar keep following me around the room...

Here's an excerpted paragraph from the Classic Motorsports Magazine article: This theme runs through the whole article. If the BRE team had nothing to do with discovering and diagnosing the crankshaft problem, then "developing and proving the design of a new production 240Z crankshaft", then what was the point of mentioning it so prominently in the article, and why does it contradict the above paragraph? Yes - we know that racing improves the breed, but Nissan had already encountered the problem and were working on the solution. The article byline says "Story By Peter Brock", but my hunch is that it was ghost-written by a Classic Motorsports Magazine journalist. Perhaps a little bit of lost in translation and artistic interpretation going on there? There's plenty more in the article that's ripe for discussion. Plenty: First of all, calling the 510 "Katayama's vision" - as though it would not have existed without him - is absurd. Calling the S30 Katayama's "personal project within Nissan" is nonsense, even if Katayama may have believed that himself, but stating "...new L-series engines ... created especially for [the 510]" is not far south of cargo cult-level misapprehension. Hopefully most of us here on classiczcars know the full story of Nissan L-series engines and understand that the 'two cylinders added on to the 510 engine' thing was just the simplest way for Nissan to explain the L24 to a market which had seen the 510 first and had no idea where the L-gata had really come from, but we probably can't expect the average Classic Motorsports Magazine reader to have the same background knowledge. That's a shame. I could take potshots at this article all day long. There are plenty of legitimate targets, and the nonsense written regarding the "Prince Z 432 engine" (does the article ever correctly identify it as the 'S20'?) is fairly inept if not unexpected, but we also get stuff like this: ...which is patently untrue. First of all, Nissan was completely dedicated to taking the S30-series Z racing and rallying from concept (just as it had been doing with just about every other model it produced...) and had been preparing the way to do that, including developing and homologating the parts with which to do it. Quite apart from what was going on in Japan, a small group from Nissan's works rally team was to be found testing a nascent 240Z rally car on the Monte Carlo Rally route in January 1970, before BRE had even received their first car. And Nissan was PERFECTLY aware of the rules and requirements for sanctioned international competition - including 'production' based racing in the USA - because they had already been participating in such forms of racing since the late 1950s. The statement is just bizarre... It convinces me that it must have been ghost-written.

With the caveat that "the truth" can depend on your point of view... The article has a lot of the usual shibboleths (Katayama "banished", Katayama lobbying for the 510 and S30 as though they wouldn't have happened without him "needing" them etc etc) but in the other thread where the article was mentioned - can't remember what thread it was now - I was particularly interested in the L24 crank harmonic/breakage story. Brock's article makes it sound as though the BRE team were directly responsible for discovering, diagnosing and curing the L24's initial crankshaft problems, when in fact Nissan's engineers in Japan were fully aware of the problem and were working on a remedy (eventually a re-designed crank forging) well before BRE had even received their first 240Z. These days the lines of communication are so much more direct that it's hard to imagine the same scenario.

Apologies for misleading you. I have the same data as supplied to you by Kats, but - I can only guess - must have made a mistake when noting your chassis number. Glad you have the correct information to hand now.

We could discuss it, but if you already think it's a "great article" I might struggle to convince you to take some of its claims with a large pinch of salt... Thing is, I have a huge amount of respect for Pete Brock and many of the people who worked with him. These days, people seem to take any questioning of details and the presentation of a different viewpoint as some kind of attack. The 'Twitter Effect', perhaps. Or maybe the 'Katayama Effect'...?

Panda eats, shoots and leaves.

The engine in question:

If you're struggling, don't hesitate to ask me.

As pointed out before, running the contents of your hoover bag through a machine translating service is not really good enough. I think you should have another try with those driver names. Maybe look back over your (much edited) posts further back up-thread. Your underlining seems to be stuck too. Maybe there's some popcorn stuck under the key?

Owner is - apparently - a Canadian living/working here in the UK. The car was heading back in that direction last I heard... "Faking 432R's" what, exactly...? If you know of any "fake" 432-Rs, I'm all ears. And of course, you're the one doing the door-stepping and you're doing it on this thread too. I can explain it to you if you still don't get it.

The HLS30-00059 identity 'lives on' in - in a shameful example of identity swapping - in the UK as a zombie, in a post-'73 bodyshell:

You have metaphors in the Colonies too, I'm sure. Anyway, how's the Hoovering going? Got enough in your bag for your grand opening yet? http://240260280.com/

You'll get the Bum's Rush, whether you knock or not.

Kats, you did not need to delete them. That's not the point here. What I am unhappy about is the re-posting of photos, divorcing them from their original context and the information that went with them. I strongly believe we should try to keep any information about what is in the photo, where it was taken, who it was taken by, anything..... should be kept with the photo, if possible. At the very least, the person posting/re-posting the photo needs to act like a guardian or curator. They are a vital link. We should try not to break the link if we can avoid it. Yes, it's exciting and interesting when we see photos that are new to us, or are 'fresh'. We can talk about them and it can be entertaining, but it's a shame if some vital data or the chain back to the original source is lost in that process. A very wise man once told me that I should be careful only to post photos about which I could answer questions on, and - if that was not possible - to pose them as a question. I do try to heed that advice. My original "Hoover" comments were specifically with regard to photos being taken from threads here on classiczcars, and then re-posted on new classiczcars threads, but without the information and context that went with them. That seems, to me at least, to make no sense whatsoever. We have spent a lot of time on this forum digging into stories and learning so much, and the photos are a vital part of that. We are in danger of tearing the photos out of a book and throwing away the text. So, please post those photos again, but tell us something about them. Thank you.

Salient point being that they were not simply Hoovered up from another classiczcars.com thread and presented as though they are "new news". Where I come from, we call that "shitting on your own doorstep"... 掃除機

Looks like you didn't Hoover up a whole one. Try this one:

No different from just about anywhere else in the world I can think of then... My point being that a photo of Jaremko Motors from '73 disappointingly doesn't show the vast queues of prospective 240Z owners around the block and teams of Jaremko-branded overall wearing minions throwing TOPY wheels and hubcaps in the dumpster, bolting on slot 'mag' wheels and plastic chrome belt line trim while salesmen in Sears sport coats and white loafers count wads of cash. That Bronco looks nice though.

I'm feeling slightly underwhelmed. I guess they had sold all but one of their Zs, and the buyers had part-exchanged their domestics for them...?

It's a 432, not a 432-R. The tests for the article were carried out at Murayama on 12th and 13th November 1969. The photos are in the original magazine article.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look out for the book. Presumably it's about the Cobra coupes? My original copy of The Cobra Ferrari Wars is a much missed 'lent-out-and-never-returned' casualty...

Thanks for taking the time to answer my somewhat rhetorical question. My point has always been that Porsche (as in the German company itself and its own works race team(s)) hardly had a dog in that C-Production fight. I'm not saying that SCCA C-Production was small potatoes, but the habit of talking-up the involvement of companies like Porsche and Triumph (EG "Porsche, unable to compete with us, quit") takes the situation out of its original context. The BRE team took the preparation and participation to another level, effectively a professional team in what had been an 'amateur' class and series.

And I've read it! I know that - by their very nature - such quotes can be hyperbolic. I just think it's worth putting them in context and not swallowing them - and repeating them - whole. I sometimes ask - rhetorically - exactly what models of Porsche were taking part in SCCA C-Production in the period concerned, and how deep was the "factory" connection in the "factory Porsche team" type quotes. Usually don't get a full answer. Nissan's support for the guys using Datsun product was certainly an order of magnitude greater. "Triumph quit as well" is a strange one for the old Mic Drop too, when Triumph (ie - privateers driving Triumph product) took the championships in SCCA G-Production class in 1970, '71, '72, 74 and '75. An Austin Healey Sprite - another BL product - took the class win in '73. I'm a great admirer of Pete Brock and the BRE team, but let's treasure their achievements in some sort of perspective.

Reality check: During the manufacturing and sales period of the S30-series Z (1969 through 1978), Porsche won the World Championship For Makes in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1977 and 1978, and the International Cup For GT Cars (AKA the World GT Championship) in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Seems they had their own unique way to "quit"...

I believe this photo was taken at the Nissan press writers test driving event - where various members of the Japanese automotive press actually got their first drives in the various new S30-series models - held on November 5th 1969, and over the following days.