HS30-H

And by the way, your choice of illustration is another example of not looking at the bigger picture. Sure the (F)MVSS regulations were a key consideration when designing a vehicle that would be sold in North America, but so were the regulations outlined by Working Party 29. Your chosen illustration shows the work-in-progress Plan A clay sporting the flush headlamp covers that were technically illegal under those very (F)MVSS regulations...

I see you joined here quite recently. Have you introduced yourself anywhere? Did I miss it? What's your name, and where do you live? Who are you?

But you haven't adressed the (rhetorical) question. You get the point? Nissan's S20 engine was specified for the S30 chassis before the L24 even existed. It wasn't specified for the Export market (for more than one reason) but it was a key consideration for the 270KK/'Maru Z' project team and Teiichi HARA even went so far as to point out that the 'Maru Z' project was helped along in the course of its gestation by the simple fact that Nissan had it available to use, and would look daft not to. All the more so when it was being lined up for installation, homologation and sales in the 4-door C10-series Skyline. Why would Nissan want a hot-rodded salaryman's car pinching the performance package crown from its nascent halo model Sports/GT? It actually makes the whole "designed for the USA" thing look even more like tunnel vision rather than the opposite.

I agree. I think 'numbers sold' is by definition after-the-fact data that doesn't necessarily prove much about design and engineering. Were The Beatles, The Dave Clark Five and The Rolling Stones "designed for the USA"? That's where they sold the most product, so... I've pointed out the example of The Austin A90 Atlantic on this forum in the past, and it seems appropriate to cite it again now. Austin - like many other British companies - found itself in a situation of 'Export or Die' in the immediate post-war years. Indeed, if they could not export a reasonable amount of vehicles they would not even be allowed access to the restricted steel market to make product at all. They came up with a great wheeze: A car that the valuable USA market would be falling over itself to buy, a sports car designed and engineered expressly for the USA Export market. Heard that one before? Guess what? It laid an egg. Export sales were pitiful. If you looked just at numbers sold, you'd have to extrapolate that it was not "designed for the USA", but it was... The point is that there's a whole lot more to it than numbers...

How does this extrapolate as "...indicating Z was for US market"...? The Mizma Gikoh blog is a one-man operation, and we've discussed it on this forum several times in the past. Quoting one excerpt - out of context - is not really a good idea. Some of it is good, some of it is a little out of date. Nissan's 270KK/Maru Z/S30-series Z was conceived, designed, styled, engineered and produced as a family of variants intended to satisfy the demands of several different markets. The biggest single *potential* market was the United States of America, as indeed it was for any number of Sports/GT cars from other manufacturers including MG, Triumph, Austin-Healey, Jaguar, Porsche and even exotica from Lamborghini, Maserati and Ferrari, but it's not very often you'll hear anybody saying that those European cars were conceived, designed and engineered "for the US market", is it?

Have you considered applying a similar by-the-numbers analysis to products from the likes of Triumph, Austin Healey, Jaguar, Porsche, ALFA Romeo, FIAT et al? I think you'll find that all of them - without exception - found the biggest market for their Sports/GT models was in North America, and the USA in particular. Would you say that their products were "designed for the USA" too? How about applying the same analysis to other Nissan products sold alongside the S30-series Z in the USA, such as the SP/SR Fairlady Roadsters, various small pickup trucks and 'economy' cars and - perhaps more specifically - the 510-series Bluebird? Were they too "designed for the USA"...? You're kind of late to the party on this one (around 13 years or so...) but still... Have you had a close look at many contemporary (late 60s/early 70s) Nissan products in comparison? What is your reaction to the fact that many Nissans of the same period - including those that had little to no intention to be exported outside Japan - share similar ergonomic features? Can you clarify the above statement please? It does not seem to relate to what we can see when we compare LHD and RHD S30-series Zs. Certainly not a GR8 (as that was specifically a Prince race engine ) but you may be thinking of the 'GR8-S', or S20. The answer is revealed in the post crash-test photos from that sequence, which some of us have.... ;-) Rhetorical question: Would proof that Nissan tested the S20 engine in LHD S30-series Z layout (a nascent 'PLS30'?) prove or disprove your "made for the USA" line of thinking?

This means what, exactly?

Hello Kats, Excellent detective work! I was looking in the earlier parts lists, so I didn't see the number there. Clearly they missed a few things out from the first versions and included them in the later editions. I feel happier about bending my horn mount brackets to clear the PZR oil cooler now... Was great to see you at Oppama on Saturday, and then again yesterday at the Club S30 20-year meeting. Always so fun and interesting to talk with you, and so happy to see your car again. I hope you got home OK after that long drive. Best wishes, Alan T.

They have Triumph TR5/6 versions which are very similar. Rimmer Bros. have the Stag kit: http://www.rimmerbros.co.uk/Item--i-RS2004

These are very hard to come by, Mike. It took me a few years to find the one in my photos... Your best bet would be Yahoo Japan auctions, but they usually change hands for $$$$. If strict originality is not important then you might be able to find a similar setup (slightly different mounting bracket) on a full size sedan of a similar age, like a 130-series Cedric for example. A slightly left-field suggestion would be to look at the setup on a Triumph Stag (no, really...). A fairly similar bottle with a mounting bracket that can be modified to make it bolt into the same pre-drilled holes on the front of the radiator core support that the PS30/PS30-SB overflow bottle fits. Still available new from the major British car parts suppliers like Moss Motors. Just don't tell anyone where it came from...

If there was an extra bolt-in part that formed a mount or base for the eyeball lamp, then it would have a part number and it would be in the factory parts list. So what's the part number and where is it hiding in the relevant factory parts list? I don't see it. He also mentions that this supposed mount bolts into the rearview mirror location, but what then happens with the rearview mirror? Does it then mount somewhere else, or on the same mount? If so, how? There's also mention of "self-tapping screws". The parts shown in the factory parts list are fine-threaded machine screws. Sorry, but I think he's guessing. And guessing wrongly. My money's on the late Japan market 'Z-T' models having a pre-installed mount spotwelded to the windscreen header rail and extending back under the headlining. It may simply not be present on Export models.

Kats, I firmly believe that the illustrations of the rear mount and spacers in the Nissan parts manuals are wrong, and that your car - as currently assembled - is correct. I came across this when I was assembling my S20-spec FS5C71A rear mount, and it seemed to me that the Spacer shim (11335-E4700) acts as a load-spreader for the two 'Distance Pieces' (11336-E4200), protecting the cast aluminium transmission case from localised loading where the two Distance Pieces touch it. On the L-gata version, the mount simply bolts direct to the transmission rear case and the load is spread across the full shape of the mount. This is most closely replicated If you bolt the Spacer shim between the Distance Pieces and the transmission rear case - as your car is now. If you bolt the Spacer shim between the Distance Pieces and the mount (steel to steel), then what does it do? It seems to me that it does nothing useful... I'm not keen on contradicting Nissan technical illustrations, but to me it seems that this detail was wrongly illustrated, or at least illustrated from an incorrect assembly. What does Kawashima san think about it?

I believe you are right. As far as I'm aware, the two screws thread into captive nuts hidden behind the headliner. It related only to the mid/late '76-up S31 and GS31 'Fairlady ZT' models, and - you never know - those captive nuts might well be ready and waiting on your late '280Z' too. Hopefully that will be the case...

From the factory parts manual:

It's from the tenth Nissan 'Service Shuho' booklet for the Japanese market S30-series Z. It covers the S31 and GS31 models. I've seen one in a car (of course), but it's also depicted in the sales catalogues for the S31 model range:

Yes, I've seen the light... Nicknamed the 'Medama'/'Eyeball Lamp', a 'late' S30-series deluxe addition:

1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 production years. S20-engined models only.

Further reference. Factory parts manual schematic:

For reference, factory PS30 'Fairlady Z432'/PS30-SB 'Fairlady Z432-R' type coolant overflow bottle and mounting bracket:

I don't really want to put the photos on this thread. I'll message you direct. The car was destroyed. The photos explain how...

About 10 years ago I bought a Spirit Garage stainless system and fitted it to my 240ZG. The exhaust manifold was a period Nissan 'Sports Option' item, and the Spirit Garage twin pipe system mated up with it perfectly well and fitted very nicely. Good quality, good fit, nice sound and good longevity. Only thing I did was paint it black as it was possibly a little too blingy for my taste. Recommended.

Carl, can I ask who chose the title of the Lulu.com-published translation? Was it Uemura san himself, or was it (ironically) prompted by a change in target market? The original book - published by Tokyo Tosho Shuppan in June 2014 - was titled 'Fairlady Z Kaihatsu No Kiroku' (roughly translating as 'Fairlady Z Development Record') and also covers some of Uemura san's work on the S130-series. Also, the original book was a hardback with 230 pages. I notice the Lulu.com-published version is much shorter at 114 pages. Is that because of a change in format/sizing, or is this an abridged version with some original content not included for some reason? Thanks, Alan T.

Look, it's really simple. I'm interested in FACTS. You posted some (I believe) uninformed opinion and I responded to it. That's how forums like this are supposed to work, no? If you think I was wrong, by all means come back with something to support your views. I'm fairly confident that I know a thing or two about Nissan race cars - and race cars in general - for the period concerned, and it seems to me that you know a thing or two with respect to modern understanding of race car aerodynamics. I think it's unfair to point the finger at Nissan and imply that they "didn't know what they were doing" when - with the benefit of 45+ years of learning - we can can see that true aero understanding (downforce etc) was still in its infancy. Point the finger at Nissan and you have to point it at everyone. In the period we are talking about (say, 1970/71) even the likes of Porsche - a company with racing running through its veins - was making race cars with aerodynamic properties that were downright dangerous (cf 'Kurtz' and 'Langheck' 917s for example). But who said the 'Grande Nose' was considered "the ultimate" anyway? I don't know anyone who does, but its what Nissan did and it's what we got. It was - in effect - a frame on which to hang various other appendages. Without homologating it Nissan would not have been able to progress with their race efforts on Groups 4 & 5 and we would not have seen the later developments on the IMSA cars, for instance. You stated that Nissan was trying to push air under the car, but the whole point of the 'Grande Nose' was to channel air over and around the car and to restrict the air flowing through the radiator and engine bay (KEY POINT: it had to be homologated, so it had to work on the road cars without making them overheat) and the intention was ALWAYS to put an air dam underneath it (the homologation road models even had the mounting points for one) and seal the whole thing off with an undertray. So clearly, saying that Nissan was trying to push air underneath the car is wrong... Offended? I don't think you need to be, and I think we should be able to debate without fear of upsetting anyone with the strength of our convictions. Like the 'Grande Nose', I'm not perfect (who knew?) but I'm here to talk cars and I care about this stuff. In your particular case I have noted a fairly constant theme of dissing certain aspects of the topic and I respond to you with that in mind. I might well be wrong, but by the same token you might be wrong about me. Like you, I only go on what I see on the page and what that makes me imagine.

For example, this magazine ad from 1970: 'Scuderia Nissan' - despite its name - was a private business and not directly connected to Nissan. They just specialised in making race parts for Nissan vehicles.

Nissan - just like everybody else - were changing the aero packages on their cars virtually on a race-by-race basis. One of the main difficulties with introducing new bodywork parts within the framework of the JAF/FIA Group 4 and 5 rules was that they had to be evolutions of already homologated parts. Any radical change - like the 'Grande Nose' itself - had to have a fresh homologation. It wasn't simply a matter of bolting parts on a car and going racing... Who said the 'G-nose' was "the ultimate"? The HS30-H 'Fairlady 240ZG' was a homologation model, made and sold to the general public with the express purpose of legalising aero and body parts for JAF/FIA Group 4 racing. The road car didn't come with any front spoiler/air dam/splitter because it wasn't necessary for the homologation (such parts could be legalised for race use by adding them as evolutions to the homologation) and Nissan fitted a variety of different spoilers to its race cars. At that time it was tyre technology which was the main limiting factor in 'grip'.