26th-Z

Arne, You should note the correlation between the 911 rear suspension and the S30. Nissan made several comparative studies of the 911 during development and testing of the S30. No doubt there is influence.

Early Z-cars with stock wheels and shock absorbers were notorious for wheel shimmy. That steering damper was put on some time ago to address the problem. But I notice that you have custom wheels and I'll bet your shocks have been replaced with something like a KYB gas shock. You no longer need the steering damper.

The Interpart front spook for the 240Z is either 2701083 for the "street" version of 2701053 for the "competition" version. I would assume that the competition version has the air ducts for the brakes. The Nissan front spook / spoiler is 983000-E8100 which is not a competition application. It is the neoprene one.

Those are pictures of Bill's car and a car belonging to Rich Lewis. You'll see both of them at the party. Here's a blurb from Hemmings; http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/12/17/garage-party/ CW-

My E46 (2001 330Ci) is the same way. Piece of junk. I'll never buy another BMW.

Yes, I have read; "An American Engineer in Japan". Very dry reading however good for understanding the development of Japanese industry, pre war.

Thanks for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard reference. I looked it up. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN108 If we are to confine our discussion to the original "60's Flashback" premise, the FMVSS requirements for design included such items as seat belts, steering column design, interior padding and control accessibility, rear view mirrors, tire performance, wheel performance, hydraulic brake design, anti- theft (steering column lock), glass / glazing design, and headlight covers. I don’t see anything relating to the chassis / suspension design we have been talking about. The FMVSS addressed only safety items at the time. The first of the HLS30s imported into North America were certified to meet Federal requirements NTMVS 15 U.S.C. 1401 and 1407. As an illustration, a convertible model S30 was designed, built and tested even though American legislation for roll-over protection and roof crush design was pending. I still don’t think a FMVSS argument can be made for the thought that the S30 was aimed primarily at the US market.

Always enjoy Bill's party. Always very nice cars. Great crowd. See you there!

Yes, but then, it's not all about you. What is relevant to this discussion is the understanding that the car was NOT designed for one specific market. Flash back to the 60s and what could have come to North America as part of the design range of S30 features is the relevancy. On the other hand the requirements might have been easier. So what are you saying? The relevant facts are that the chassis was designed for a range of suspension bits just as it was designed for a range of engines and transmissions. The chassis was tested under a range of conditions including crash testing and wind tunnel testing. Information I have gathered lately surprises me with how comprehensively the suspension and chassis were tested prior to production. So when one looks at the North American configuration and compares it to the range of available components designed into the S30, it is fairly easy to say; dumbed down.

Well my appologies to anyone offended by my "dumbed down" comment. Looking across the board at all the various models / configurations of the S30 introduced by January 1970, I have to say that the model arriving in North America was so very similar to the base / minimal configuration with very few ammenities. I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation of that. I don't think anyone (in North America) knows. Obviously the arrangement with what Nissan wanted to export and what Mr. Katayama wanted to import would be an interesting read. And I think the 'dealer add-on' story plays into those facts.

The clock is a good illustration, however within the electrical system, I think there are plenty more. As I recall our past discussions on this site, the fog lights, parking lights, and door lights have electrical leads in all wiring harnesses across all markets. Those features were not available in the North American market yet they were part of the original design / engineering. I can think of a couple of other engineering features common to every chassis to accomodate features not sent to North America. My point being that the S30 was thoroughly engineered, probably in a far more sophisticated manner than we realize. I hold this as strong evidence of what Nissan intentions were with the new sports car rather than the accepted thought that the 240Z was built for American shores. I also hold the sophisticated level of engineering as an example of how cutting edge the S30 was for its period. Even in the dumbed down version exported to North America!

Perhaps it's time to discuss what version of the S30 came to North American shores and why. Sooo many comments have been made about what was part of the design and development. I read a comment about wishing for a sporty suspension. In the mid / late sixties, coil-over front and IRS rear was cutting edge for the most expensive sports cars, unheard of in the lower priced market. The suspension is a key point in the success of the S30. The L24 engine delivered plenty of sufficient torque for a four-speed gearing. For the market that the 240Z would compete in, a four-speed was top of the line. Most five-speeds of the time were overdrive units meant for high speed cruising that the lower gears could not provide (because of the torque of the engine and weight of the car). The L24 and four-speed combination provided competitive acceleration and 120 mph top speed - not bad for $3,500. The rust and metal issues we complain about were common to most every car of the period. It was the way steel was made at the time. But the unique unbody construction was not so common. What became of the chassis performance was top of the line for the price range and weight. The version of the S30 that came to North America did not have many of the options and upgrades that we see available in Japanese and other foreign markets for what seem to be two obvious reasons. One, Nissan was unsure of how well the Z-car would sell in America. The corporate dispute over this issue is well documented. Secondly, the price target for the American market was set low. Probably as "insurance" for high sales figures. This was demonstrated almost immediately by the number of manditory dealer options sold for an elevated price. I think the 'stripped down' configuration of the HLS30 was initially a mis-guessed marketing / sales compromise. Even though the model was modestly configured, it was more than adequate to compete in its sales class, insuring high sales volume and profit. Datsun in America didn't have a big options marketing strategy at the time. I recall that customer satisfaction was high for the configuration of Datsun cars sold in America. They seemed to come with everything one needed for the economical price. Datsuns also had a reputation for endurance at the time. Even though I understand the complaints about the electrics, there are 40 year old spark plug wires still in service. Compared to the sports cars that the 240Z competed with, the electrics were more than satisfactory. Nissan products do not have the "prince of darkness" reputation enjoyed by other manufacturers. Frankly, I think it is strong testiment to the initial design and engineering that so many HLS30s still exist and continue to provide excellent service.

Opinion, of course, but if a car has been repainted, in the strictest sense originality is no longer part of the conversation. Arne's mention of the Gold Medallion leads me to another thought. (And I'm assuming you are talking about the ZCCA Gold Medallion) You shouldn't get dinked for a re-paint unless it is a bad quality paint job. There are too many precedents.

PPG provided the painting technology for the Vintage Z program, Rick. I suspect your best bet is with them. I like Tower Paint as a supplier / helpful resource myself. http://www.apstowerpaint.com/index.php Chris

Fred and Betty with Johnnie at the Cleveland ZCCA convention. I'll miss Fred. All my best to Betty.

Before y'all get into a scrap about the plating color of hose clamps...they were both...depending on year and design type. Early hose clamps, like on Her Majesty the 26th are silver zinc.

Arne, I wish you the best with your pursuits. Kinda sad to see you go. Your contributions to the site, offering calm wisdom and the ability to stand back and look at the big picture, will be missed. Your technical experience has been valuable advice to our group and your willingness to contribute goes "beyond the fence". Please stay in touch with your new-found projects and experiences. Chris

Very Interesting! There's a Scarab down here in the Tampa area.

Search function - very good thread on the subject http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?6597-compe-steering-wheel&highlight=competition+steering+wheel I bought this Momo wheel many years ago

Yes, the early cars had unique oil pans. And the "repair" you refer to is probably original. The early oil pans had a braised / welded reinforcing plate on the side of them. See my pictures. If yours looks like this, it is original. And they were black - not blue.

I have a reprint of the 1972 owner's manual from the Vintage Z program (1997). Brand new $35 Send me a PM.

That's a good deal. I have one of those (earlier version) and it is great. I think I paid $200 or so for mine.

Is the pressing profile of the panel in the advertisement correct?

DWG files added. I don't think we used to be able to upload dwg files. Hope this works. Datsun 240Z.dwg Nissan_350Z.dwg

Sorry I'm going to miss the event - have fun JTMader!