Carl Beck

Hello Alan: I don't believe I disputed that the old L20 may have been an "ancestor", just that it wasn't the parent. You and I, as usual, simply have a different perspective on this. In this case, I believe you are saying / insisting that the Nissan L20, as pictured by you circa 65/66, simply evolved into the L20A, you feel that they are one and the same and purely a Nissan design. You also seem to believe that the more modern L16, did not precede the more modern and differently named L20A in both development and production, or rather that since you believe that the L20/L20A are one and the same, then the L16 and L24 are simply detail changes to the 63/68 L20. I on the other hand see evolution as a distinct series of small incremental changes, leading from the origin to the current example. I see no such incremental progression between the L20 and L20A. Rather I see a completely different engine, unlike any that Nissan had ever produced before - pop up out of nowhere - with the appearance of the L16 in late 67 as specified for the PL510 in 1966. I do see clear incremental evolution from the L16 to the L13 (same block de-stroked & head) and then to the L24 (same block/head with two additional cylinders) and L20A (same block design / head design cast in a smaller bore, and in some cases with small main bearing supports) all sharing a visibly common design, quite different from the Mercedes looking L20 of 65. If your perspective is that the old Nissan L20 is the new L20A, with "minor detail" changes... then your time frames must be correct, and the new L20A engine was around for five or six years before the Z. If my perspective that the L16 was a clean slate design, with collaboration between Nissan and former Prince engineers is correct.. Then a completely new block was designed and cast, a completely new cylinder head with associated combustion chambers were designed and cast, a completely new valve train was designed etc etc - then the L24 was indeed evolved from the L16. In this case I do clearly see the small incremental changes that represent the evolution of a design. That new design however starts with the L16. How much change has to take place in one step - before the evolution of an old design is completely replaced with a new stating point? We simply differ on the answer to that question. Just as many view the evolutionary path from the Fairlady roadsters, to the Silvia, then to the Goertz Nissan 2000/Yamaha A550X and ending at the Z Car; I suppose they would view your perspective as correct. I however belive that the L16 was as completely revolutionary within Nissan Motors, as the Z Car was itself. About the only thing the Z and the L16 have in common with the Fairlady Roadsters and the old M/B style L20 - is the name of the company that produced them all. If you tell me that the engineer that designed Nissan's original L20 circa 63 (did you say), is the same person that designed L20A... then I would tell you that the metamorphosis (caterpillar to butterfly) in the design took place in his mind, but not in the physical world. I would hold that it was indeed a second clean slate design, not a further evolution of the first and that the L16 preceded the L24/L20A. The L13/16 and/or the L20A/24 could very well represent the evolution of the knowledge and experience the Design Engineer possessed. It may be all perspective and perception, but I believe that to understand where the Datsun 240-Z came from, and why it became so hugely successful - one has to look at the difference between evolution and revolution. I believe that it was revolution, and that was driven by Mr. K in America, Nissan Motors need to increase production by increasing Export Sales, the merger with Prince Motors and the restructuring of the in-house design department - all of which converged at Nissan in the 65/66 time frame and resulted in the creation of something totally new for Nissan. The first outcome of that revolution in Design and Engineering related to new engines was the U20, followed by the L16 in the PL510, and then the L24/L20A. As I said, I know we see things quite differently - I would sincerely encourage you to simply tell the story from your perspective of the subject, and I'll hope we can conduct a reasonable discussion. regards, Carl B. BTW - If anyone following this thread doesn't already have a copy of Brian Longs translation from the original Japanese, of "HOW I DEVELOPED DATSUN 240-Z STYLING", written by Mr. Matsuo... just send me an e-mail at beck@becksystems.com and I'll loan you my copy. (in MS-Word format).

Hello Alan: Actually I have now written about five answers...just haven't posted them. A couple of them just made me feel better after writing them, but they were ah... too... bluntly honest .. to send. Most would have seen them as "mean";-) A couple of them were as honest, as I could be and still not be outright flames... but then I thought the chances of getting you to settle down and hold an actual "discussion" were pretty low, you seem to so enjoy provocative debate and wining the debate becomes way to important to you. Then that turns into Posts and Replies that get way to complex and way to long.. and our fellow forum members grown in pain.. The truth is Alan, there are many subject area's I'd love to "discuss" with you. But you simply must quit assigning evil intent to my statements, quite calling me a lair and understand that I really attempt to mislead no one. The ZCCA Historian, Dan Banks and I have spent hundreds of hours collecting source materials and doing extensive research on most subjects we write on. Where necessary or appropriate we reference them so others can read them for themselves. (I mention Dan because he has been a huge source of information related to the history of Nissan Motors as well as the Z Car). I will say up front that I do not believe that just because a magazine article or book is written in Japanese, or written by a Japanese writer - it somehow is to be given more credence than anything written English. I think we both have enough experience in that regard to know how badly mangled an interview or writing can get before it gets to print. I know that you and I can read the same article and come away with completely different perspectives of what was written. Secondly, since neither I not the vast majority of our fellow forum members can read the Japanese sources you site as references - to decide for themselves the true quality, content and meaning of the wittings in total.. I can't really respond to your interpretation or possible misinterpretation of them. if you read your source materials like you read my Posts... well.... All that said - I'll try one more time... next Post.... kind regards, Carl B.

Hi Chris: No, he isn't an anomaly, from the perspective that he's willing to pay for a #1 car. He in turn has a couple of friends, that seeing his Z, decided they wanted one of their own.. and so it goes. As Collectors with serious money enter the market, they bring others with them. Doesn't take long once that starts to spread out to larger numbers of them.. Of course the supply of true #1 cars is VERY limited indeed. Of course once that starts.. the #2 cars follow the value curve at a lower level ($20K-$28K)... and the #3 cars follow more closely along. ($18K to $20K). Of course very few of us have a true #1, #2 or even #3 car judged with a critical eye. But the #4 cars are now in the $10K to $12K range for the right buyers, and many are still sold for half that amount. Supply, Demand and Timing.... Putting your car up for sale when there is a serious buyer looking.. then reaching him with your ad - it's a roll of the dice... One problem in the #4 category is that the buyers there, are still thinking they can find a #4 car for $5K. After they look for a year, show up to inspect the "perfect" car.. only to find junk, time after time... they figure out that it takes $10K now to buy the car they want. Or they buy the $5K car and wind up putting $10K into it... FWIW, Carl B.

Well that too is a two edged sword. Even if your a buyer, you'd rather see prices going up at a steady rate, rather than dropping like most used cars. If your a smart/wise buyer you can still find relative bargains NOW.. and if you do you can enjoy the car for years and not lose too much money when you sell. I'd agree we would mostly not want to see the price of good 240-Z skyrocket out of sight.. but I believe the days of having a cheap 240-Z that's in great shape - are all but over and many people will be priced out of the market pretty soon. When I was a kid, a good used car was at least $500.00 to $1000.00, and a great used car was $1,500.00 to $2,500. It's the same today, just add a couple of zero's.. When I was a kid a E-Type was about $6,500.00 new in 62... by 75 you could find them for $1,500.00, by 85 they were $15,000.00 by 95 they were $25,000.00... by 2005 they are what now??..... $50,000.00 to $65,000.00. It's all about supply and demand... the Demand for 240-Z's at least is far larger than the supply. FWIW, Carl B.

Make sure you change the coil - to the 280Z/ZX type. Carl B.

Chris... I know. you know that pristine originals are now going for $40K... One buyer that I know, offered one owner that I know.. $40K for a certain white 72 that we both know ... the offer was refused... Heck - that Orange 72 on ebay with 80K miles went for $20K.. if the economy stays good and interest rates stay low.. pristine 240-Z's will be $50K+ in four years. FWIW, Carl B.

It's not a Vintage Z Program Car - just spare parts left over when the program ended. $18K isn't too bad if you liked the color and wanted a project to finish.. the fun part of the refresh is still ahead and there are lots of parts with the car... for the right buyer $18 is an OK price. Carl B.

Not bad for a car with an original 80K miles - looks pretty nice in the photo's and worth the money if it actually is that nice... Sitll needs an addition $5K to put it in show winning condition.. anyone know the buyer? The other car that didn't sell... bidding should have gone much higher.. he needs to relist it.. if it checks out it's a $8,500.00 to $10K car today.. FWIW, Carl

Oops... double post ...

What "options" are you asking about? gear ratios? LSD's? Should we assume you in the US/Canada?... if so... For a complete set of OEM gear ratio's see the Z Car Home Page... <a href=http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/GearRatios.html TARGET=NEW>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/GearRatios.html</a> $1500.00 might seem over-priced for the Quaife, but IMHO it's worth every penny. I've had my 4.11:1 R200 equipped with the Torsen/Gleason unit in my 72 for close to 30 years now - it's indestructible. The way it distributes torque evenly on dry surfaces, or allocates torque to the wheel with the best traction in all situations makes for smooth predictable power to the rear wheels. I originally put it in the Z for Auto-X'ing.. but I'm far to old and slow for that today. Nonetheless, crank the steering wheel to the left lock - run the RPM up to about 3800... pop the clutch apply a little more gas - and the Z will walk around the left front tire.. without that tire moving more than a couple inches. Crank the steering wheel back to full right lock - do the same thing... and the car will return to within a couple of inches of where you originally started. Lots of tire smoke, hard on tires!.. but it's an impressive demonstration to watch. I believe that today the Quaife is available for either the R180 or the R200. Check to see which ring gear bolt size is required.. 10 or 12 mm... If you want to know more about the mechanical posi units see: <a href=http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/Torsen/Torsen.htm TARGET=NEW>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/Torsen/Torsen.htm</a> The Quaife and Torsen are basically the same although I am told that the original Torsen units had some advantage. 04/78 to 12/89 non-SE Turbo models got the clutch type LSD's 3.7 R200 in the A/T 3.9 R200 in the 5spd. You'll find that 3.7's and 3.9's were also available in the 280ZX's.. if ratio is more important than finding on OEM posi.... and ratio's is usually more important IMHO. The weak link in the R180 is the fact that they have only two spider gears.. installing a posi unit will solve that. I am told that some R180's were produced with 4 spider gears, but I've not been able to pin down exactly which cars they were in. Pull the rear cover off the 280Z rear-end and rotate the ring gear until you see numbers stamped into it. The numbers are the number of teeth on the ring and pinion, that will give you the ratio's. Change the OIL in that rear-end before you reinstall it. The drain plug will be a total PITA.. set the rear end up on end - apply a good penetrating oil and let it set overnight. apply more penetrating oil and fit a good six point impact socket...if you have a good impact wrench use it. If not - apply a breaker bar.. and smack it a swift blow with a good brass hammer... If you can't budge it - remove the rear cover (your going to anyway).. and apply heat to both sides of the area around the drain and fill plugs.. heat them up and apply the socket/or wrench.. smack with the brass hammer... believe me they will come out. Apply some no seize compound before you reinstall them this time!! That's about all the options I can think of ... now.... FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

You didn't discuss how payment was to be made? Hope you didn't pay in advance!! Take the comprehensive cost break down he provided with you to the shop. Ask him to go over it and and identify what work has been completed and what remains to be done. When that is completed, tell him you'll pay him now for the work completed and call a wrecker to pick the car up to follow you home with the car. If he refuses to cooperate, call the Sheriff's Dept. and have them send a Deputy to the shop. Tell them the service center refuses to return your car, even though you have offered to pay for all work competed to date. When the Deputy gets there - show him the cost break down that was just updated.. Keep in mind that in most states the mechanic can legally exceed the estimate by 10% without your approval - so be prepared to pay the additional 10% if necessary.. Then find someone else to finish the job. When mechanics act like this - it's usually because they have bid the job too low, and keep putting it off because they have far more profitable work coming in the door. The longer it sits there the less incentive they have to finish it and the higher the risk that other damage can be done to the car. Sounds like you've done all the taking and waiting - time to take action. Also be sure to warn others about that shop after your car is home. FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Alan: Yes... and quoted site does say .."and from 1970 on also with two doors (KGC10).." sorry didn't mean to mislead anyone... regards, Carl

Alan - you have aftermarket parts on YOUR Z!! and one's that say DATSUN.. yea gad!! <vbg> regards, Carl B.

Yes, and if you follow this link on the same site - you'll see the L20A under discussion in the 68 Skyline GC10/KGC10. Too bad there are no close-up's of the valve covers... <a href=http://www1.odn.ne.jp/yooopage/othermachine.html TARGET=NEW>http://www1.odn.ne.jp/yooopage/othermachine.html</a> From: <a href=http://history.jbskyline.net/index2.php#4thgen TARGET=NEW>http://history.jbskyline.net/index2.php#4thgen</a> Quote: The Skyline 2000GT (GC10 series) Just like all other derivatives of the C10 series, the GC10 (G standing for GT) was basically planned by Prince, although it was later badged Nissan Skyline 2000GT. It was introduced in 1968 (2 months after the 1500) and first came in 4-door sedan (GC10) and 5-door wagon versions and from 1970 on also with two doors (KGC10). The car was almost the same as the preceding S54 GT-A model, featuring a 6-cylinder engine instead of the previously common 4-cylinder. The Skyline 2000GT got the L20 engine, a 1998ccm OHC inline-6 with 105hp.... End Quote: Scrol down and check this valve cover: <a href=http://www1.odn.ne.jp/yooopage/A-san.html TARGET=NEW>http://www1.odn.ne.jp/yooopage/A-san.html</a> FWIW, Carl B.

Hi Will (everyone): Interesting point and based on everything I can find, it would seem to hold some truth. Lets continue the discussion a bit farther... and see if we can find out where the valve covers in question came from..... With the merger of Prince into Nissan starting in 1965 and being completed in early 66, the development of Nissan's racing program and engine development efforts were halted, and the Prince R-380 was advanced. Prince had far more experience in both competition and the design of OHC engines... so why not put it to use. Actually the Prince G7 of 1961 looks amazingly like the Nissan L20 of 1966. (picture below as used in the Skyline 2000 GT A & B from 64 thru 67) Both in turn reflect the M/B engine of the early 50's... with intake/exhaust and spark plugs swapping sides of the engine. One of the first design jobs the engineers from Prince (in addition to the Competition Development efforts), were assigned at Nissan, was the development of the overhead cam & associated head for the 2000 Roadster. The result was a new head with overhead cam, mounted on the older Austin derived block - aka the U20. With twin S.U's a 150HP 2.0L introduced in 67. While all this was happening in 65/66, our friend Mr. K was lobbying Nissan Motors Ltd. for a 1600cc engine in the upcoming 510. As originally spec.'s the 510 was to be a 1300cc, but Mr. K felt that was too small an engine for his US Market. Not getting the support from the management chain in either the Design Department or the Export Department, he felt was critical to the success of the 510 in the Export market, he called on an older friend, whom he had known from MITI and who was then a high ranking Nissan Official... a Memo ordering the 1600cc engine for the 510 was drafted, signed by Mr. Matsumura and sent down the management chain in April 66. (there is a chapter about this in Halberstan's "The Reckoning". - and this is part of Mr. K's troubles with H.Q. over the years) The L16 was thus born in 67 and introduced in the 1968 510. This is the beginning of the "L Series" engines we all know and love today. It was in fact a complete new engine design. new block, new head, new "Valve Cover". One might call it the next generation of Nissan L Series engines at Nissan; where one Parent was Nissan and the other Prince, but it was not otherwise related to their previous "L" Type engines. In 67 when Mr, K ask for an L24 for the Datsun Z, the L16 In-line four, became an L24 In-line six. 1595cc/4=398.75cc x 6 = 2392.5 aka 2393cc. Same bore/stroke, valve train components etc. In effect the L16 with larger valves and two additional cylinders. (this kept parts inventory and mechanical training common to the two engines used in the export market). In this case the L24 might be viewed as simply the Grown Up version of the younger L16. In 68 the Cedric G130 received an L23, which would appear to be a shorter stroke version of the L24. (bore 83/ stroke 69.7). It would be interesting to see what the block casting numbers are on these engines. In 69 the Cedric G130-U received the L24. The L20A that by the end of 1969 was standard in the JDM Fairlady Z's. must have come into being some time after the L24 was specified and design started. Why would I think that??? Mr. Matsuo tells us in his book "Fairlady Z Story", that he had concerns that the L24 specified for the Z (around Aug. of 1967) would meet with very high taxes in Japan, thus resulting in a model too expensive to sell in the domestic market. When he expressed these concerns to Nissan Management, he was told to use the Prince S20 for the JDM market version (this eventually became the famous Z432 model incidentally). So at least we know that in Aug. of 1967 the L24 with both Standard and Automatic transmissions were planned for the Z and that the S20 was specified for the JDM by Nissan Management. The L20A must not have been around at that time - otherwise Mr. Matsuo's concerns about engine size for the JDM market, would not have existed at that point. It would appear that by Oct. 69 the L20A had been conceived, and was already starting production, as it showed up in the spec. sheets, press packages etc. Of course in Oct. of 69 the spec. sheets/ sales brochure outlined an L24 with triple solex side drafts, 10:1 compression and 175HP for the Export Market at that time too. (sad we didn't get it as planned;-( So our L24 Valve Covers are simply streatched versions of the L13/16 valve covers. I think there was an L16 valve cover that said "DATSUN OHC" on it. Maybe I'll try to get one, and have to modified to fit an L24. That would be a conversation piece! FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Go to a few local Car Shows or Meets.. and ask the Street Rodders.. they'll know where to send you. Take a pencil and paper.. write down the responses and pump them for details. The body shops that do Street Rods and Custom Cars will be the one's that "LIKE" doing complete paint jobs.. Body Shops that live on Collision Work won't want to touch it a full paint job - too much time and too little money in it for them. good luck, Carl B.

Hi Texasz (everyone) As far as we have been able to determine to date, the switch from the NISSAN 2400 OHC valve cover to the NISSAN OHC valve cover, at least here in North America, took place with the beginning of production of the 240-Z equipped with an A/T. That would make it around 09/70 at about HLS30 089xx. For a brief time cars past that VIN arrived with either one, but we have found none with production dates later than 10/70 to have been equipped with the "2400" type. All of the A/T cars seem to have had the NISSAN OHC valve covers. FWIW, Carl B. Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hello rztmartini: Well we could start by looking at the tranny to determine if it's a Type A - with the three piece case, or the Type B with the two piece case. Gears usually don't get sloppy - but the gear shift linkage can cause a very sloppy feeling. The Type A gear boxes are commonly referred to as the "monkey motion" type.. because the shift lever was mounted in rubber bushings and the shift linkage was a bit vague to begin with. If you have that type of gearbox - there are some "fixes". One of the most common is to replace the rubber bushings with metal one's. If you have the Type B gear box - a sloppy feeling can be caused by the nylon bushings between the shift lever and the control arm on the transmission wearing out of falling out. There are three bushings involved. One on each side of the shift lever where it is pinned to the transmission, and one on the bottom of the shift lever below the pin. It's really an easy and inexpensive fix. As was mentioned earlier in this thread - if you have the A Type you'll need to pull it out and take it apart to count teeth on the gears. If you have the B Type - you'll still have to pull it out, but you can usually tell which one you have by checking certain gears. This can be done by turning the input shaft and and seeing how many turns it takes to make one complete revolution of the output shaft. There is no way to tell from looking at the outside of the case which transmission you have. FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

I do not know where the seller found the Date Of Manufacture that he has stated. However based on the original engine serial number shown - it is most likely the car was built around 08/70. If you have HLS30 02126 then your original engine serial number would be in the range of L24-2500 to L24-5xxx. FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Of the three head you ask about - the N42 flows the best stock, it has larger intake and exhaust valves to begin with. (44/35 vs 42/33). The N42 & E88 have close to the same combustion chamber size and design. E88 is 44.7cc and the N42 is 44.6. By comparison the P90 had a 53.6cc combustion chamber... so you'd have to mill it to get the compression up - then most likely shim the cam towers to get the correct height to keep the chain tight etc. An N42 with Flat Tops should put you right around 9.5:1 as I recall, but if you mill it a bit, then unshroud the valves it will come out between 9.5:1 and 9.8:1. You'll have to cc the combustion chambers when the initial work is done... to see where you end up. Just do a little Port Matching and your good to go. With any of these older heads - be sure to have your machine shop check them closely for micro cracks before you put any serious money into them. Good luck, Carl B. Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Will: The ashtray pictured on Top is from #00587 12/69 The ashtray picted on the Bottom is from #00020 11/69 FWIW, Carl B.

I put a set of Dunlop SP SPORT A2's on my White 72 a couple years ago. This was a 195HR70x14. This was also the least expensive tire I've ever put on any Z. As I recall Tire Rack had them for $49.95 and Sears had them on sale for $46.95... so I went to Sears. I just wanted a "good" tire for pleasure trips - but I wanted it to handle well (if not great). I also really didn't care what it cost - so much as I wanted to keep my 14" Libre's. and a more or less stock look. I have to report that I was amazed at the quality of the Service at my local Sears Auto Center. They mounted/balanced 4 tires on my American Racing Equipment Libre's.. and no tire took more than an ounce to balance. I've driven 240-Z's since 1970 - and had the ARE Libre's on them since about 71. They have always been difficult to mount - and the 240-Z's are so sensitive to tire balance that I usually wind up having them re-balanced a few times before getting it right. Sears put them on the car - I drove out to the freeway and the balance was perfect first time. I've been very happy with the ride and handling of these tires. They do tend to want to go straight.. even when you might want to drift from one lane to another... so you have to steer them to the other lane.. (hard to explain in writing, but easy to feel when you are driving. They also might have a slight bit of noise at speed, that might bother someone - doesn't bother me. I do not know at this point how long they well last, nor what total mileage to expect from them - but for a car intended mostly for longer road trips and pure pleasure driving - I'd recommend them to anyone. Matter of fact I took my Blue 72 Z back to Sears a few months later and had a set put on it as well. Considering the price - and performance I'd think anyone would be happy with them. FWIW, Carl B. Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Alan (everyone): It must be - in this case it is mine as well. This is interesting... I went back to some of the earler Competition Parts listings for our Datsun 2000 Roadster (1969 I think). As that is supposed to be the transmisson sold here, that could be converted for use in the Z. It lists 1st gear as..... 2.937 !! All I have here for the 2000 Roadster - is part numbers for "Gear Sets".. but no data for the individual tooth count of the gears/shafts... What does your Parts Catalog list as the tooth count on both the Gear and the Main Shaft? (maybe we should do the calculations ourself;-) Could be... when it comes to the recording, reporting, conversion or translation of data or information by Nissan Motors Ltd. (no matter what country they are operating in) - - I think we've all learned to trust but verify. No one is perfect, and the publications by Nissan in the late 60's and early 70's are certainly proof of that. As for my transcriptions - I'll simply have to quit doing them this late at night. FWIW Carl B. Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Jim (everyone) Thanks - always fun to share whatever I can. This should give you a good idea of what the Borg Warner T-5 looks like. See <a href=http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/BorgWarner.htm TARGET=NEW>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/BorgWarner.htm</a> kind regards, Carl B. Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Alan (everyone) 1 out of 2 Yes - NMCRK-32011 is correct (my typo) No - 2nd gear is listed as 1.383 in the 73 & 74 Edition of the Datsun Competition Parts Catalogs. Very interesting... thanks. FWIW, Carl B.