Carl Beck

Hi Chris: Which two are we missing on the Vintage Z Register at this point? http://zhome.com/IZCC/ZRegisters/VintageZ.htm thanks, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Nothing seems to move on EBay until the last 30 seconds of the auction. Today... yes, if the car has been well taken care of... it will bring $30K if the right buyer finds it. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA Now 15 of the original 39 Listed on the Vintage Z Register http://zhome.com/IZCC/ZRegisters/VintageZ.htm

Hi Alan (everyone) Per your offer to contribute the JDM Pace Car information and images to the Z Car Home Page; I've attempted to extract them from this thread, and created a first DRAFT of the article. Now it's your turn... Review the "DRAFT" and send edits directly to me at my e-mail address: beck@becksystems.com (I'll cut/paste the plain text into the html). The draft is not yet linked to the main index on "the Z Car Home" page... so the direct url is <a href=http://ZHome.com/Racing/JapanPace/FairladyZPace.htm>http://ZHome.com/Racing/JapanPace/FairladyZPace.htm</a> thanks, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Alan (everyone): Per your offer to contribute the JDM Pace Car information and images to the Z Car Home Page; I've attempted to extract them from this thread, and created a first DRAFT of the article. Now it's your turn... Review the "DRAFT" and send edits directly to me at my e-mail address: beck@becksystems.com (I'll cut/paste the plain text into the html). Secondly: g72s20 aka "Jim" provided another image to the thread.. I've put it there as well - Jim if you will, please e-mail me a full name to credit for the image, I'll add that to the article. The draft is not yet linked to the main index on "the Z Car Home" page... so the direct url is <a href=http://ZHome.com/Racing/JapanPace/FairladyZPace.htm>http://ZHome.com/Racing/JapanPace/FairladyZPace.htm</a> thanks, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Yea Gad.... I don't know which amazes me more... Feedback to a thread that started seven months ago, or the fact that the "BRASSO" brand name seems to have been lost to a generation of Americans. ;-) OK - do they still sell Pepsi in 16oz returnable glass bottles where anyone lives? Now that's something I'd like to find for the garage... How about a bar of Bon-Ami glass cleaner? Can anyone locate a place that still sells that? FWIW, Carl

Hi Johncdeere: I believe that your observation is correct. The passenger side seat does not have the same amount of rearward movement, that the drivers seat does, in the left hand drive 240-Z's as sold in the US. I replaced the stock seats in my 72 240Z with seats out of an Acura.. used the OEM seat tracks and bolted them to the Acura seats.. I first noticed the difference when my son, about 6'2" sat in the passenger side seat on our first road trip after installing the Acura seats.. he couldn't slide the seat back far enough.. whereas he had no problem on the drivers side. See: <a href=http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/AcuraSeats/AcuraBeck.htm>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/AcuraSeats/AcuraBeck.htm</a> I too thought something was hanging the seat track up... So I took everything back out. If you hold the Drivers side and Passenger's side seat tracks, the side that has the lock/stops on it, side by side you will see that the passengers side seat slide, does not have the full range of motion that the drivers side seat does. The only thing I could figure out was that something inside the slide/track, stops it from having the full range of motion... I didn't want to destroy the seat track... by forcing it apart... So now I have another drivers side seat track for the passenger side seat, but I don't have it installed yet.. I guess I never spent enough time in the passenger's side seat to notice that difference before.. and it is a small difference at that.. but enough to be noticeable if you are long legged... and over 6' tall. Anyway, that's what I found... regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://Zhome.com

Hi Mark (everyone): I'm rather surprised, given the pace of advancing technologies in related fields, that you couldn't simply find a service bureau that could scan one of the Franklin Mint's die cast models and output a 3D Model... for something close to $100.00. Gee, you can buy a Super Computer for your desktop today for a couple grand! I called a service bureau here in Clearwater, and the cost was estimated to be about $2K. YEIKS!! As I talked to the nice man, the cost driver was the manual work necessary to take the scanned image from the Point Cloud output by the laser scanner, to the finished model. He said that if one of you guys had the RINO S/W... then you could take the Point Cloud and do the work yourself.. which would save a lot of the costs. Looking on ebay.. there is a Roland LPX-250 3D Laser Scanner (Demo Model) Item number: 7520552715 with a Buy-it--now price of $7495.00 The man I talked to here in Clearwater is a Roland Dealer.. he said that is a very low price for that model.. and that it could certainly be used to scan a die cast model of the Z. He said that the LPX-250 came with a pretty good software package.. and again at the price point nothing else on the market was close.. next step up is a $20K system. These are Laser Scanners... but there are also other alternatives we could look into.. there are also scanner systems based on taking photo images and doing the conversion to a 3D model etc. So, can you find 10 people that would pay $200.00 each for a 3D model, that they could input to their modeling/analysis programs? Do you know anyone that uses/has the RHINO S/W? Maybe you could sell 100 240Z owners a 3D surface model of the 240Z.. that they could play with for $20.00 a copy, or maybe they would buy several different 2D views of the 240-Z that they could use in simple drawing packages or as vector based clip art?... Like I said, there simply has to be an economical way to get a die cast model scanned in 3D today.... We need to find that method, or that service... Maybe a new side business for you Mark? Do 74 scan jobs for $100.00 each and you'd own your own scanning system... Should be able to easily find 74 small items that people want scanned... with the power of the Internet today.. Maybe start an ebay business selling 3D surface models of items.. Porsche/Ferrari Owners Models etc... I'll keep looking... everyone keep thinking.. researching, this has got to be something simple and cheap to get done. Mark, how fine grain or high resolution a model do you need? FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hello Everyone: For the people that are interested, the Article by Dr. Ben Millspaugh mentioned earlier can now be read on-line at: <a href=http://ZHome.com/ZAerodynamics/AeroMillspaughPart1.htm>http://ZHome.com/ZAerodynamics/AeroMillspaughPart1.htm</a> The entire article is broken into three parts, and I've put hyper-links to connect them. It's about 12 pages in total length. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Chris Wrote: >...snipped..... >In the mean time, you might go back to your Z Car magazines and read the >articles Ben Millspaugh, Phd,. Aerospace, wrote in 1995. That would be good >reading for anyone who is interested in Z car aerodynamics. Hi Chris (everyone) In reference to Dr. Millspaugh's, (IZCC #11695), 1995/96 articles in Z Car Magazine, you will note, I hope, that at the end of the article he lists his sources of information: "Sources: 1. CAR & DRIVER, May, 1974. The first generation Z-car tests referred to in "Aerodynamics, Part II" was the "Crisis Fighter Z Car", by Don Sherman. 2. For an in-depth technical coverage of automobile aerodynamics, the reader is urged to read "Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles" by Gino Sovran and Wolf-Heinrich Hucho in the Annual Revue of Fluid Mechanics, 1973." Reference #1 is the same article I referenced, and Dr. Millspaugh reported most of the same information in his discussion. While he was still with us, I did have several conversations with Jim Cook related to the aerodynamic effectiveness of the various spoilers, aid dams and ground effects packages available for the 240-Z as well; another source mentioned by Dr. Millspaugh for his article. I do agree that Dr. Millspaugh's articles would be good reading for anyone who is interested. Dr. Millspaugh has been kind enough to grant me permission, to put a copy of his articles on "the Z Car Home Page" for everyone to enjoy. (as the original Z Car Magazine is no longer in existence.. it isn't possible to get back issues from them, and there shouldn't be any copyright issues with them either.) I'll post the URL here when I get the article scanned and on-line. FWIW, Carl

Hi Alan: Great Stuff... thanks for the contribution... I'll put a draft up on the Z Car Home Page, send you the URL via e-mail (is it still the same as it was?). You can review the draft.... send corrections/edits as you see fit (copy/past plain text in e-mail will do, or if you can do the html coding that is fine also).. and once it meets your satisfaction... we'll link it to the main index. If you have color images, or higher resolution images that you would like to use.. just e-mail them to me (I have no limit on size of files on my e-mail and high speed connections etc.). kind regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com beck@becksystems.com

Hi Chris: Please provide the source of the "other tests" including Nissan's and/or publish their results for us, I would very much like to read them. C&D wrote of the Factory Front Spoiler: ..."Unfortunately, the Datsun Spoiler hangs down so little that it isn't very effective. Our tests showed it developed only 35 lbs of front down-force and no measurable improvement in gas mileage. The 3.5 inch vertical dimension is simply not enough to block a substantial amount of under-car air flow." Secondly, BRE sold both the front and rear spoilers, so of course they would recommend them both. Both BRE spoilers are effective, as I reported from the C&D article.. I'd recommend both BRE spoilers, if the person wants them both. Recommending them both, for specified reasons (total drag reduction, total down-force etc.), does not in any way imply that the front spoiler is worthless without the rear, nor that they are both "required" in every case. Your original statement however: "Consider that the front spook is worthless without the rear spoiler." is, I believe, simply incorrect. Actually it is a conclusion, based on both personal experiments (one 72 Z with both front and rear spoilers, a second 72 Z with only the front spoiler)... and supported by the quantitative data provided by the C & D article. Additionally, I told you how to substantiate it for yourself - ie. pack for a road trip. 20 lbs of lift is completely offset by 20 lbs of down-force, no matter if the down-force is supplied by air pressure or additional weight. I seriously doubt that anyone driving their Z on the highway at 70 mph would notice any difference in handling when their fuel tank had 9 or 12 gallons of gasoline... for example. What does it mean?... It means that adding only the front Spook to a 240-Z, adds 20 lbs of lift to the rear wheels... there is no need to add the rear spoiler in an effort to offset that additional lift, because 20 lbs of lift on the rear wheels has no noticeable effect on the handling of the car. The car handles perfectly well on the highway at 70 mph, plus or minus 20 lbs of lift at the rear. On the other hand, as everyone who has added the BRE Spook will attest, adding it to the front of the 240-Z does have a very noticeable, positive effect on the handling of the car at highway speeds. FWIW Carl

Hello zhead240 (everyone): I'm coming to the thread a little late... but if you haven't decided what to do yet... I will add a few comments that might provide a little more information to help your decision. I have a couple of 72 240Z's myself. The one I drive most of the time is pretty much stock from the perspective of the body, drive train, color etc. However I have added a few bolt-on options that improve the driving experience, without permanently altering the body; so if at any time in the future, I or any future owner want's to return it to ""pure stock".. it can be easily done. There is no question in my mind, if you plan to drive your Z at freeway speeds, the addition of the BRE Spook (Front Spoiler/Scoop) is a must have. According to tests done by Car & Driver back in the early 70's the stock 240Z generates 140lbs of lift on the front tires at 70mph. This contributes greatly to that feeling of front end wonder.. you feel in a pure stock 240-Z. The BRE Spook generates 105lbs of downforce (ducted type), or 115lbs of downforce (unducted type) at the front tires. This all but cancels the lift.. and has the added advantage of directing additional cooling air into the radiator. The effects of the BRE Spook can be measured at 35mph.. so you don't have to be going 70mph to benefit. Chris wrote: >.....snipped... >....Furthermore, the Japanese cars came with spooks and spoilers. So did >the European exports. Consider that the front spook is worthless without >the rear spoiler. >......snipped... Car & Driver also tested the factory front spoiler and found it to be all but ineffective. It only protruded down about 3.5" and had no significant effect on reducing lift. Additionally the BRE Spook covers the area between the front lower finisher panel (valances) and the lower radiator core support.. enclosing this area had the added effect of preventing air flow around the bottom of the radiator from the grill area.. thus directing/forcing more air flow through the radiator. Adding only the front Spook is actually very effective. You will find it locks the front end down to the road at speed and provides far more stable tracking which makes the 240Z far easier and more enjoyable to drive for prolonged periods. (it eliminates that feeling of front end wonder). Adding the BRE Spook to the front, adds downforce to the front, which in turn pushes the nose down. This then causes the rear of the car to be pushed up.. in other words it adds lift to the rear. The lift at the rear wheels on the stock 240Z at 70mph is 35lbs, adding the BRE Spook to the front increases the lift on the rear wheels by an additional 20lbs. The additional lift at the rear is hardly noticeable... and all but gone if you are packed for a road trip. Nonetheless - adding the BRE Rear Spoiler (which is about the same as the Nissan OEM type) adds 75lbs of downforce to the rear at 70mph.... which completely cancels the 35lbs of lift on the rear wheels in the stock Z, or the 55lbs of lift at the rear, on a BRE Spook equipped Z. For higher speed road racing you might want to add the rear spoiler... or if you just like the look.. Dave wrote (related to the rear spoiler): >the spoiler isn't going to help with the fumes...might make em worse. Car & Driver's Tests and my personal experience would tend to indicate that the opposite is true. Adding the rear spoiler moves the turbulent high pressure area, normally present and pushing directly on the rear of the Z.. which is caused by the Kamm back design... farther to the rear of the car. This reduces the positive pressure that is pushing the exhaust fumes into the cabin in the stock Z... So adding the rear spoiler will, in theory reduce the exhaust fumes normally pushed into the cabin. This has been born out by my experience as well. (it's not a cure-all but it will help). To properly mount the BRE Spook.. you do have to drill about 7 small holes in the front lower finisher panels. If you remove the Spook, it is doubtful that you would notice these, without close inspection. Nonetheless, if that bothers you, simply buy a used set of finisher panels, have them painted to match the car along with the Spook, and save your stock panels to reinstall, should you ever want to return the car to its pure stock look. I also agree with the recommendation to buy the Spook from Classic Datsun Motorsports. Les had the original Interpart molds used for the remanufacturing of the Series II BRE Spooks. hope this helps, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Larry: Yes, they are correct. In 75/76 both the manual and automatic trans cars had the R200. Only the 77/78 280's with the A/T had the R180's. Of course that was followed by the 280ZX's in 79 having the R180's etc. The listing at this URL has been pretty well reviewed/approved by hundreds of our members... so we believe it reflects reality. http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/GearRatios.html regards, Carl

Hi Larry: No the statement is not correct. 75 though 78 280Z's with manual transmissions had the R200. Only 77/78 280Z's with A/T came with the R180. Why? I don't know. But if I had to guess I'd say that the R180 was strong enough for the average A/T driver, and it saved a bit of weight. I have seen/read references to the "early" vs "late" R180's (don't know the dates that go with the terms "early" nor "late" in this case).... but as the story goes, the early R180's had two spider gears (one of their weaknesses), where the later R180's had four. Of course adding either the Nissan or Quaife limited slips to the early R180's results in them then having 4 spider gears and thus they are considerably stronger. I have not personally pulled any "late" R180's out of the 77/78 280Z's nor later 280ZX's so I have not seen any R180's with the four spider gears. Would love to pin this "story" down if anyone has first hand knowledge. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi XRAY/dogma420 (everyone): Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) first took effect in law on 1 Jan. 1967. Since that time several have been added, and many have been modified over the years. FVMSS 110 -- applies to tire selection and rims and all FMVSS's apply to the vehicle manufactures that sell motor vehicles in the USA. Basically it requires the manufacturer to equip the car with tires, load rated to carry safely the GVWR the car manufacturers provide. (there are other standards that tell the tire manufacturers how to test and certify their load ranges on the tires). In effect, the Federal Government is requiring the car manufacturers to equip your car with tires that can safely carry the maximum weight of the car, when it is being used per the manufacturers recommendations. The required labels are all about giving you the information you need when you go buy replacement tires. (so you know what load range tires to buy, as well as the speed ratings and sizes). GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Maximum loaded vehicle weight per the Standard is the combined weights consisting of: a) Curb Weight (the car with a full tank of gass and all oil and coolants) Accessory Weight (the additional weight of accessories like A/T, A/C etc) c) The number of passengers times 68 kilograms (or 2 times 150lbs) d) The maximum vehicle cargo/luggage weight (this is set by the manufacturer) Note... 1. passenger weight is a set number per the Standard (150 lbs per passenger) 2. if the manufacturer wanted to, they could raise the GVWR by installing tires with higher load ratings. Curb Weight, Accessory Weight, Passenger weight would be pretty well fixed number, but an increase in cargo/luggage weight could be achieved by installing tires with higher load ranges at the factory. The requirements for Labels, that provide the required information to the consumer, are set in the Standard as well... they do allowed the manufacturer to place the required information labels in either the Glove Box or on the Drivers door jam. Just exactly why Nissan decided to move the GVWR info to the drivers door jam at the beginning of 1972 I do not know. (maybe it saved them one label in the glove box, by adding the info to the existing door data tag??). Just exactly why the GVWR went from 2400lbs to 2820lbs. at that time, I do not know (could be as simple as higher load ratings on the tires they were getting at the time). What is important to you as an owner, as Walter mentioned, is that you know what load range tires you need for your Z as well as the inflation pressures required. Also important to know that you can increase the GVWR of your car, by buying better tires than the OEM''s (better - meaning tires with higher load ratings if you need to carry more/heaver cargo/luggage). Since it only seems to have lasted a few months in the beginning of 72.. the 2,400lb. GVWR on the door tag, could have simply been a mistake... Could be they just forgot to add the 400lbs for luggage/cargo at first. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Chris Wrote: >Carl, >Looking at your pictures again, I am noticing discrepancies between what I >have and what you have. Hi Chris: Well I guess the purpose of the public posting is working then - yes? <vbg> >The chassis number HLS30-05401 is listed as 05041. That is because the seller listed it wrong on ebay in his description. I have the picture of the door jam data tag... it is actually HLS30 05041. (you may correct your listing). >Also, why are you listing the chassis numbers as six digits? They are five digit serial >numbers. "Why?"....I keep them all as six digit numbers in my files... so they sort correctly in my listings. They are six digit numbers for cars with VIN's above HLS30 10000. I should have corrected them in the html format - after copy/paste from my complete listings.. to the published format on the web. I've corrected that now as well - thanks. >Then, you have a red car listed as a serial number I have for another car altogether! I have three red cars listed.. #11553, #40904 and #68727. #11553 is Bob Berke's car.. #40904 was listed twice on ebay by Peak Nissan. They had the VIN listed wrong in their description the second time as HLS30 4904.. but the VZ Certificate shows HLS30 40904 (and the car is obviously not a Series I car) #68727 was as I recall - pictures and VIN's I received from the seller. I do not have a picture of the door jam tag, nor VZ Certificate... I'll check my incoming e-mails again. What do you have for it?... >Holy Smoke! We need to get together and compare notes! I thought we were... at least as far as the listings of "found" VZ's to-date...that was why I put them on-line - even with partial data .... just so that we all knew what had been reported to date. Let me know what you have that doesn't agree.. and we'll work to reconcile the listings.. kind regards, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Chris: 96203 show up fine on my browser... anyone else having trouble seeing it? HLS20... oops... corrected - thanks. Great - I'll add 630 to the register just to account for it.. and post the picture. No problem...I just wanted to assure that I was keeping my end up and keeping the public list of known VZ's up todate - so everyone would know whats been found and reported. The building boom in Florida won't slow down for the next ten to twenty years. You might as well take some time off for "the ZDayZ" with me ..it would be good to get out and drive a 240-Z again. later, Carl

Hi Vicky: Oh come on Vicky....I love that picture <vbg>... has some human beings in it.... that's what the Z Car is all about;-). Most of the other pictures have only the cars in them... .because they were taken from "For Sale" ad.'s.... Nonetheless, if you are not happy with the quality of the picture of Scott and yourself...I'll check the club website... etc. I'll let you know when I find something... kind regards, Carl

Hi Chris: Are you saying that you have found 26 of the VZ's? With Joseph's latest additions we have pictures of 13 of them on the VZ Register so far. Is that the half you have? IZCC Vintage Z Register: http://zhome.com/IZCC/ZRegisters/VintageZ.htm VZ Pictures: http://zhome.com/IZCC/ZRegisters/VintagePictures.htm There has got be a picture of HLS30 00630 somewhere in the net archives. I'll keep looking... FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Kats: The "Red" one is most likely HLS30 00630, sold by the Rick Cole Auction company at the Monterey Historics. This was a car donated by Nissan Motors for a charity event. As I recall, the sale price was something close to $34,800.00 and the car went to Japan. At the time, I was trying to help the buyer for the Vintage Z Program find a car to prepare for this event. I had located HLS30 00240, a red Z and tried to talk him into buying it for this event. The owner however wanted more for the car than Nissan was willing to pay at the time. (as I recall the owner wanted $6,500.00 back then). FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater,FL USA http://ZHome.com

Alan wrote: >...snipped... >None of this had anything whatsoever to do with the Works 240Z and >260Z rally cars, as it happened over a decade later........ Hello Alan: thanks... I stand corrected... I should have said late 70's.. six years later...Andy Dawson ran the dog boxes with the Quaife gears in 79 in his Team Datsun Europe cars AIR.. Would you not consider them as "Works" cars? Most books /magazine articles seem to call them that.. I guess because of the direct support from Nissan.

Hi Vicki (everyone): There are basically two questions here. "What does and LSD do?" and "How does the LSD do what it does? ;-) Here is a very simplified way to think about it. What Does An LSD Do?: As the name implies.. they are supposed to Limit The Slip, or loss of grip that the tires have on the ground. All the LSD's sense either the difference in speed, or the difference in torque that can be applied - between the right and left output axles on the differential. As they sense this difference, they attempt to bring the two axles back closer together in rotational speed. How Does An LSD Do...What It Does?: The clutch type LSD's can be divided into two types. One, as you mention used a series of clutch friction disks, the other uses a viscous fluid coupling type clutch. Both work via sensing the speed at which the output axles are turning, and temperatures increase in both as the speed climbs). These are both commonly called "speed sensing" type LSD's. The mechanical type LSD's, use a worn gear drive arrangement. Instead of reacting to speed/temp... the worm gear drive reacts to torque differences between the two output axles. Thus these mechanical LSD's are usually referred to as "Torque Sensing". OK... So What Is The REAL Difference?: The speed sensing differentials are limited in their ability to bias torque between the two axles. So in effect they simply slow down the axle that is turning the fastest by reducing the torque applied to it. The axle turning the fastest is usually the one with the least grip on the road. The torque sensing differentials however, bias the available torque toward the wheel with the most resistance .. that being the wheel with the best traction. The speed sensing LSD's do this to an extent as well, but to a much smaller extent. While the torque sensing, mechanical units are usually more expensive to build, they are also far more durable. Pay me now or pay me later... Also they usually sell for higher dollars used... because they are far more durable. Like any technical subject it is actually far more complex than this, but overall this is a logical way of viewing it. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

Hi Ron (everyone) You may be right, but I don't recall Borg Warner selling a gear type LSD. For anyone interested... a bit of history about the Torque Sensing Differentials. Actually, Vernon Gleasman from Cleveland, Ohio, an inventor and mechanical engineer who holds more than 100 patents invented and patented the gear type LSD in 1958. He produced it for a limited time, in limited quantities in his shop.( I have a very long story about why I know this... but the short story is.... Myers Pump in Ashland, Ohio built Hemi Powered, Self propelled Spraying rigs... that operated in the fields.. and they used some of the first torque sensing differentials from Mr. Gleasman...). Triple-D Inc. also of Cleveland put the Gleasman Torque Sensing differentials into production on a larger scale in the mid 70's AIR. The Gleasman design was then licensed to Gleason Power Works in the early 80's. Gleason renamed it the "Gleason Torsen" (torque sensing). Gleason was bought out by Zexel around 89 and they still produce the unit for limited applications (but on very high volumes). Quaife Engineering in England also licensed the design and they produce it for a large number of applications, but usually on smaller volumes of each. Quaife built the units for the Nissan Mid-4 by the way. Several years ago, we tried to put together a Group Buy within the IZCC.. hoping to have the Gleason/Torsen units produced again for the R200/R180 differentials. Zexel simply could not build small quantities of anything in a cost effective manor, because they are a mass producer. At the same time, Dr. Alan Robbins (who has the BSR cars) ran into the Quaife Representative at an auto show somewhere.. and wound up working out or supporting a group buy of sorts. Quaife produced and sold a certain number of units to their US distributor(they would not sell them to anyone other than their distributors), the US Distributor in turn laid a certain number of a large order of them off on another Vendor(Dr.Robins Shop).. to sell to the Z Car community...So Quaife now has the torque sensing units available again for the R200/R180's. Quaife Engineering by the way built the old 5spd. Dog Boxes for the Works Rally Cars back in the early 70's...(fifth gear was over to the left and down... al la the Porsche 914/6 etc). FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com 72 240Z, L28, 5spd. and Gleason/Torsen 4.11

Hi Kats / Chris (everyone) From some of your statements, I am lead to believe that you mentally picture the production processes and techniques in use at Nissan-Shatai in 69/70 to be that of the typical mass production assembly line type. In effect, your thinking that like the Ford/GM/Chrysler Production facilities of 1960's and 70's one completed car rolled off the assembly line and out the factory door every so many seconds or minutes... Each one sequentially after the other. You are therefore confused or conflicted when #27 is reported completed before #26. (keep in mind that could be only a matter of 1 day difference). From the business articles in magazines etc of the time, related to Japans then building industrial might, I get the impression that most smaller Japanese automotive assembly plants were either using, or moving toward the use of modular manufacturing systems and techniques; as used for example by Mitsubishi as far back as 1937/39, for the production of the Japanese Zero. (this is actually a significant milestone in the history of industrial progress.. which ultimately had a significant impact on the world's automotive industry). With modular manufacturing for example, the body shells would most likely have come from one production line in a traditional fashion, at the end of which their VIN would have been stamped into them (conception?)... from there the body shells could have been spread out to several individual "Assembly Teams" on the plant floor, who would have worked as a team to complete each car. The time spent with any specific Assembly Team would vary, and the order in which the cars reached completion would vary from team to team; and it would vary within the individual teams as well. (the time spent with the Assembly Teams would be the time in the womb;). As each Assembly Team completed a car, it would have been rolled out the door (Birth). Just looking at the production volumes for 70/71 one would guess (and it would only be a guess) that it would take at least five and maybe as many as ten Assembly Teams to meet the monthly production averages. Oct., Nov. and Dec. of 69 would have been the initial start-up period used to work out the details of how the Assembly Teams would sub-divide the labor/tasks and order/arrange the processes involved etc. Each team may have had five to ten units in process at any given point in time. If modular manufacturing was used, it would be quite easy to see how on any given day as many as 25 to 50 cars would be pooled up on the plant floor. It would also be easy to see how #27 made it to the door prior to #26 or #36. Kats, if you get the opportunity maybe you can do some research, with the people at Nissan-Shatai specifically related to what production processes and techniques were used in the plant at that time. If Nissan-Shatai was using modular manufacturing techniques and Quality Teams (Assembly Teams) it might provide some answers to our questions. FWIW, Carl Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com

hi ezzzzzz: The VIN sequence for the North American 240Z's ended around HLS30 100xxx for the 1972 Model Year. The highest VIN we have found to date for a Series III 1972 Model Year Z for the North American models, is HLS30 100262. (Date of Manufacture is 08/72) For the 1973 Model Year (Series IV cars).. Nissan started the VIN's HLS30 120001. Why leave such a large gap in serial numbers? We don't know for certain, but older Nissan Service Tech's tell me it make it far easier for them to spot the 73 Models, which had some significant changes as far as setting emissions and tuning the cars. The 1973 Model Year cars had to meet significantly more strict emissions and safety standards than previous models. (so we got the "Flat Top Carb's and 2.5mph bumpers plus steel headlight buckets). So any time you see a VIN on a North American 240-Z above 120xxx you know right away that it's a 73 Model... (I guess you also know you need a set of older SU's to make it run right;) As Carl S pointed out - it is most likely an 03/73 production car. If you get a chance, record the original engine serial number off the engine compartment data tag and let me know what it is...I can add it to the data base.. FWIW, Carl B. Carl Beck Clearwater, FL USA http://ZHome.com