Jump to content

IGNORED

A bit of Z432-R info


g72s20

Recommended Posts

G'day Jason,

Remember ...this was written in 1971(?) ..the car was quite new anyway. I can clearly remember the era in Australia, and from the magazines I've seen, much the same in the 'States. A set of American Racing or Ansens wrapped in Polyglas or Redstripes was THE look to give your musclecar the edge in second look stakes.

Here's a coupla ads from the early seventies for tyres and wheels.

Jim.

post-6441-14150795330012_thumb.jpg

post-6441-14150795330264_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

Interesting article. Thanks for taking the time to scan and put it up.

It was originally from the January 1974 edition of 'MODERN MOTOR" magazine, I believe.

I'm afraid the article wasn't strictly correct factually, and Mr Don Knight ( the owner of the car ) wasn't being completely truthful about the car either....

First of all, the car being described in the article is clearly a Fairlady Z432 ( PS30 ) and not a Fairlady Z432-R ( PS30-SB ).

Secondly, the journalist writes: "All the stock running gear, suspension, interior layout, transmission, body, etc are 240Z components" which is not true. For example, the suspension ( spring and damper rates ) of the 432 were different to the '240Z' in all market versions, and the diff in the early 432 was the R192 ( equipped with an LSD ) rather than the R180 of the '240Z' ( although it got an R200 from 1973 ).

He also writes ( presumably in good faith ) that the owner claims to have fitted a "Rally option cam" when the S20 had two cams and no "Rally" cam option to choose. He's getting his L-series and S20 option parts mixed up.

He then relates that the car has "Racing headers and a dual pipe exhaust system" when the 432 had what could be considered a 'race' header and dual pipe system as stock equipment.

He also reckons that "A tad has been milled off the head to bring up the compression ratio" which is NOT the way the increase compression on the S20, as it completely messes up the cam drive geometry ( you need to change the pistons to increase compression ). Again, L-gata and S20 practices being mixed up.

He writes that the "differential has been modified for better acceleration - a 4.1 ratio" when the stock ratio on the early 432 was 4.44 and even the later 432 had a 4.375 ratio R200. A 4.1 would not 'improve' acceleration over the stock ratios.

Sorry to make a negative post about the article, but I think it is important to point out the mistakes and confusing information to save them from being quoted as fact in future.

Alan T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you posted your comments, Alan. Many of the things you cited from the article didn't sound correct forcing me at pen-point to consult my Japanese literature. I was hoping you would see this and comment. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan

what info from the article shows that it is a Z432 rather than a Z432-R?

Well, first of all, 'PS30-00017' ( if the car was indeed "no.17" as the article claimed ) is not on the list of noted PZRs.

Secondly, the description of the car ( even with its obvious inaccuracies and mistakes ) does not sound like a true PZR to me.

I think the journalist would have noticed the lack of numerous items on the car ( such as eyeball ducts, clock, heater / demister systems - unless the owner put these back in, which did happen - centre console, ignition switch, carpets, standard seats, spare wheel well etc etc ) and the presence of others ( acrylic windows, FRP bonnet etc etc ) and noted their differences to the '240Z' instead of saying that they were the same.....

The pictures tell their own story. The car is wearing the full rubber-trimmed bumpers ( not PZR items ) and full window rubber garnishes and drip rail garnishes, as well as some dress-up details. It seems strange to me that the owner would choose a super-basic PZR and then add items that came standard on the stock 432 and other models. Its missing the whole point of the 'R' spec ( less is more ) and seems to me to indicate that the car started life as a stock PS30 rather than the ultra-rare PZR.

I also think the journalist would have noted the spare tyre sitting on the rear deck of a PZR ( if the car had a spare at all ) and the reason for this. He didn't.

Seems to me that the owner was exaggerating slightly, and the journalist didn't know the difference between a PZ and a PZR anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the owner was exaggerating slightly, and the journalist didn't know the difference between a PZ and a PZR anyway

I think that's it in a nutshell Alan. It really reads like they saw the car simply as a hotted up version of a 240Z, which I suppose to the casual uninformed observer....that's all it appears to be. I'm just happy I know better...now! :)

Sorry to make a negative post about the article, but I think it is important to point out the mistakes and confusing information to save them from being quoted as fact in future.

Please do not hesitate to set things straight. I certainly appreciate any input relating to the Prince/Nissan performance car history, it's so d*mn hard to come by. Thanks Alan!

Cheers,

Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly appreciate any input relating to the Prince/Nissan performance car history, it's so d*mn hard to come by. Thanks Alan!

I just love reading about the differences between these rare cars - thanks again Alan for pointing out the differences between the PZ and PZR. I have read a few Datsun Z books over the years and some of the info/stats are not factually correct or bias to one market. Alan you don't want to write a book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I had a ride in a Z432 which was in the U.S. illegally. The owner was a C-5 pilot who had driven the car onto his plane at Yokota AFB in Japan and driven it off the base at Travis AFB in Northern California. He did get caught and had to change out the engine of his right-hand drive car for a U.S. spec engine, but there was no penalty! Of course this was a LONG time ago. My guess is that the statute of limitations has passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.