Datsun 240k Gl 1977 Needing Advice Or Feedback?

[HS30-H]

reference Nissan publication Part Number 99996-M8012 'How to modify your Nissan & Datsun OHC engine' exploded parts views "Drawing Courtesy Nissan" pg 89 four cylinder and p90 six cylinder. Both clearly show the lettering to be DATSUN. The same info was also published in the earlier 'How to modify DATSUN 510 610 240Z engines & chassis' pg 46

Are we to assume that Nissan released that sort of detail incorrectly? Come on!!

In a word, yes.

We have already agreed that the L4 engines and some of the others had the word 'DATSUN' on their cam ( and valve ) covers - but the L6 cam cover with the word 'DATSUN' on it from the Factory is proving to be as easy to pin down as Nessie.

Pointing at pictures from publications 'approved' by NMC USA ( one of which shows an L4 anyway ) is not enough 'evidence' for me I'm afraid. I've had my knuckles rapped in the last few months on this forum for posting Nissan factory literature that supposedly related to parts for the L6, but showed an outline of

an S20 engine.

Show me an OEM Factory-fitment 'DATSUN' scripted

cam cover fitted to an L6 in a Z or Skyline and I'll soon STFU though.

Since America and Australia were the two countries to which Nissan was exporting at that time (apart from the dribbles into UK and Europe) then I would have thought that you would realise that there was a fair bit in common between the two markets. Even then we got 5 speed gearboxes from the outset which no other export market got in 1970.

Yes, the USA / North American market was Nissan's biggest export market in 1970. Australia was the next biggest export market for Nissan at that time, and was very important to Nissan ( and had been a serious target for Nissan's export drive before the USA ) - but BOTH those markets were dwarfed by Nissan's domestic market at that time. Let us not forget that. This KPGC10 we are discussing was a domestic market model.

You can take the wizz out of the amount of cars that Nissan exported to the UK and mainland Europe if you like, but it can't be denied that Nissan took those markets seriously and they were actively engaged in addressing the logistics of increasing sales there. Special models - modified to local market requirements - were being aimed there. The UK market HS30U 'Datsun 240Z' was mechanically the same spec as the Australian market cars, so I don't see what your point is there. Yes - we got 5-speeds in the UK. So did 'Europe'.

But all this is beside the point isn't it? We wouldn't be discussing it unless you had brought it up as some reason why the KPGC10 did / didn't ( I'm not exactly sure which you believe ) get officially exported and sold in Australia.

Tyres - '6.45H 14 4PR' are cross plies in Australia.

This looks like a major sticking point. The '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' tyre fitted to the KPGC10 in the Japanese market ( a Japanese-made tyre! ) was of RADIAL construction. It was NOT a crossply tyre. Maybe it wouldn't have been recognised as such in Australia - but it wasn't aimed at the Australian market, and therefore would not have had to conform to any Australian regulations.

Australia still required speedometers to read in MPH in 1972 and so odometers also read in miles. Maybe, just maybe, someone actually fitted the correct parts to make the car legal. Oh, and Nissan did have MPH speedos - they were fitted in 240Z's until at least late '72. In fact our '73 KHGC110 came with a MPH speedo, as did our May '72 240Z

Yes - we all know that cars aimed at markets that used MPH had speedos and odos that read in MPH. The point I was making was that you have two scenarios running in parallel: You say that this single KPGC10 you saw in the Australian showroom was badged as a 'Nissan', but you also say that it had details that were 'converted' to suit the Australian market. Seems like a lot of effort for a single car ( I keep asking you if there were more......? ) - so why did they go to the trouble? And then to not convert it to 'Datsun' badging? I still don't get it. Converting a KPGC10 speedo / odo ( an item unique to the 'GT-R' - and obviously reading in KPH too ) to MPH would not have been a 5 minute job. In fact, I think it would be a bloody BIG job to do it well enough to look OEM.

You insist that the car was 'delivery mileage' on the showroom floor, but if it had been converted to use an MPH speedo / odo then how could you be sure that it was the car's true mileage?

I really can't see where you get the idea that a Nissan S20 would arouse some interest here. A hot 2 litre might have been noteworthy in England as real performance car compared to the standard fare. Not so in Australia as standard road cars were reaching 110MPH readily with 5 litre V8's. ................

..............An S20 KPGC10 seen as a threat? More like a joke back then.

Wow. 110 MPH? Can human beings actually breathe at that speed? Here in funny old England we were still driving around in three-wheelers powered by wood shavings at that time. Maybe that explains why I'd be impressed with something you would call "a joke" ( even if you did admit you considered the possibility of buying one ).

I still can't figure out why you are so sure that this car ( cars? ) never got ANY press coverage in Australia. How would you know that for sure? It sounds pretty definitive to me. Surely someone took a picture of it at the very least? I don't think we should be ready to give up just yet.

:knockedou

Alan T.

[aarc240]

Alan,

Are you just being deliberately thick or something?

I saw the car in Australia, not Japan, so it had to comply with Australian regs. If something didn't comply then the offending part(s) had to come off and be replaced with acceptable substitutes. No ifs or buts, no bullshit about being JDM spec items, off it comes PERIOD.

Tyres are production materials readily available from Bridgestone (which is what was on them).

Actually I would like to see some proof of the supposed radial tyres that shared identical markings with the previous cross plies. Even back then that would have been a potential legal minefield for the tyre manufacturer. I think you're blowing smoke out your arse with that one!!

It would be no more difficult for Nissan with the speedo than the tyres.

Nissan speedos were off the shelf mechanisms from (then) Jeco, including the one you seem to think is something unique to the C10 GT-R. Exchange the mechanism and very likely an off the shelf face too and you have a converted unit. Nothing hard, nothing magical, just normal old engineering practice. Even doing a custom dial face is a simple (and cheap) excercise when running a business like Jeco.

In that vein, the same would have applied to the seatbelts. JDM belts never have been acceptable in Australia so they would have been changed too but who remembers something that is a normal item used regularly.

It really comes down to the simple fact that I have stated what I saw and I really could not care less what a self opinionated individual thinks about it. If you don't want to know then give everyone else the relief of burying your head in the sand.

[aarc240]

Oh, I forgot about the supposed same spec HS30U that was the same as the HS30 that came to Australia.

Again, you're blowing smoke where it don't belong.

Get out your parts microfiches and check it out. Dampers, springs and lots of other 'tuning' bits have different part numbers between the HS30U and the HS30.

For a car of the same spec as you claim that's just a little fishy.

[HS30-H]

Are you just being deliberately thick or something?

No. It just comes naturally

Actually I would like to see some proof of the supposed radial tyres that shared identical markings with the previous cross plies. Even back then that would have been a potential legal minefield for the tyre manufacturer. I think you're blowing smoke out your arse with that one!!

No smoke without fire?

Ironic that you should be asking for "proof" Personally, I'd be very pleased to see some "proof" of this ( I say again, single ) car that you say you saw in an Australian dealer's showroom.

I never said that the newly-introduced '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' tyre "shared identical markings" with a crossply. I merely said that they could be mistaken for a crossply. I don't suppose that would happen with the 'optional' 165SR-14 tyre.

It would be no more difficult for Nissan with the speedo than the tyres.

Yeah, but when you write the word "Nissan", I'm wondering if you mean Nissan Japan or Datsun Australia PTY. You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether this was an official Nissan import or a Grey Import by the dealer. And all the while I'm remembering that this is ONE car that we are talking about here.

Nissan speedos were off the shelf mechanisms from (then) Jeco, including the one you seem to think is something unique to the C10 GT-R. Exchange the mechanism and very likely an off the shelf face too and you have a converted unit. Nothing hard, nothing magical, just normal old engineering practice. Even doing a custom dial face is a simple (and cheap) excercise when running a business like Jeco.

Jeco? I thought Kanto Seiki made the KPGC10 speedo and tachometer units.

But you are doing it again. Why would the OEM manufacturer of the KPGC10 speedos be making one special unit for the Australian market? If there were more cars, where is the evidence of them? This question is the at the very heart of why I am questioning what you have written. I don't understand one car being sent unless it is for promotion, and if there was no promotion then why was it imported? If there were more, who sold them, who bought them and where did they go? I don't see any attempt to address these big questions.

Maybe you are the wrong person for me to ask?

Alan T.

[HS30-H]

Oh, I forgot about the supposed same spec HS30U that was the same as the HS30 that came to Australia.

Again, you're blowing smoke where it don't belong.

Get out your parts microfiches and check it out. Dampers, springs and lots of other 'tuning' bits have different part numbers between the HS30U and the HS30.

The 'HS30U' was the Export-spec RHD 'Datsun 240Z' that was sent to BOTH Australia and the UK.

I don't think you are quite up to speed on this yet.

For a car of the same spec as you claim that's just a little fishy.

Fishy? Like a Caelocanth for example?

Like a KPGC10 on a dealer's showroom floor in Australia.......

[boyblunda]

I have had a quick read of the postings on this thread and personally enjoy the investigation and speculation on historical matters such as this. I also think that it is important that these matters are brought to light and properly discussed at this point in time before even more more of the undiscovered pool of knowledge and events is lost to us forever. I sometimes wonder about the knowledge, photos, stories etc about our cars that individuals have in their possession but may never come to light.

However, for future generations of Datsun owners and others who may question how a particular piece of history came to be written, the key to documenting history is the matter of verification.

Requests for evidence and supporting documentation should not be taken as insults or queries about anyone's integrity but more that of a historian trying to nail down the degree of certainty that can later be used to support or modify / temper a conclusion.

I sense that this is hard and frustrating when one the one hand there is someone who has seen something with their own eyes and on the other someone who may seem to want an additional degree of supporting evidence to enable them to authoritively make a statement in a book (hopefully Alan?).

Art, I am certain that Alan would love to have an overwhelming amount of evidence come forth that would enable this matter to be verified.

It is a shame that there might be little prospect of the dealer records being available but are any of the dealership identities able to be asked about the details of this matter?

Thanks to all who have contributed thus far to this thread.

[Mat Big Hat]

i posted what i heard on the socal grapevine

and apparently that info was already out of date

also, i just read on hybrid z that he's keeping the car to install an rb31tt

btw, alan, ratdat says "hi"

[aarc240]

The so-called HS30U is nothing more than a luxury spec HS30 just as the so-called HLS30U is a luxury spec HLS30.

So your 240Z has a model identification on the factory affixed plate that says HS30U...... ?

The one on mine says HS30....... so it must be the poor cousin in your understanding of Nissan nomenclature.

Not PROVABLY the same spec then.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind!

[aarc240]

Hmmm.

that the '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' markings on a standard-equipment KPGC10 tyre denoted a crossply type rather than an early radial that still used some of the crossply identification codes ( which was what they were )?[/uNQUOTE]

I never said that the newly-introduced '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' tyre "shared identical markings" with a crossply. I merely said that they could be mistaken for a crossply. I don't suppose that would happen with the 'optional' 165SR-14 tyre.[/uNQUOTE]

Your assertion "I never said" is what could be best described as being somewhat loose with the truth.

That identification marking is exactly as stated by Bridgestone as a cross ply tyre identification.

btw, 165SR-14 is NOT an optional tyre to replace a '6.45H 14 4PR'. It is undersize, under rated in load capacity and of a lower speed rating. The correct size is either '175HR78 14' or '195HR70 14'. Oh, its also not a legal marking for the sidewall of a tyre here where the car was.

If you want to make assertions like that, get your facts straight first.

I don't need to make up my mind about grey market or official. I manage to keep an open mind and have got the sense to know that there is no way I or just about anyone else outside the dealer and Nissan (yes, and maybe Datsun Australia) at the time would really know what was going on.

"I don't understand one car being sent unless it is for promotion, and if there was no promotion then why was it imported?"

Duh! Maybe because someone thought it would be pretty neat?? When you find out, oh guru of all things Nissan / Datsun, let the rest of us know. We lack a crystal ball!

[HS30-H]

The so-called HS30U is nothing more than a luxury spec HS30 just as the so-called HLS30U is a luxury spec HLS30.

Oh dear. I don't think everybody would agree with you there ( especially not the 'bean counters' at Nissan ). I think they would tell you that the 'HLS30' ( 'European' export model 'Datsun 240Z' ) was an arguably 'higher' spec than the USA / North American market 'HLS30-U' model 'Datsun 240Z', which was built down to a price and - again, arguably - 'dumbed down' a little to suit the market it was aimed at. That included softer springing and damping, deletion of the rear ARB and a softer one on the front, and a four-speed transmission and matching diff ratio.

But then, I suppose it depends what you want "luxury" to mean in this context.

So your 240Z has a model identification on the factory affixed plate that says HS30U...... ?

The one on mine says HS30....... so it must be the poor cousin in your understanding of Nissan nomenclature.

No it doesn't. But then Nissan did not always use the full 'Shanai Kigo' for each model as its VIN prefix. You seem to think it did? Have you ever seen 'HS30-U' or 'HLS30-U' on a VIN tag, or stamped into a body?

My particular '240Z' is actually an 'HS30-H' model, but it has an 'HS30' VIN prefix just like your 'HS30-U' model.

Like I said, I don't think you are quite up to speed on this yet.

[HS30-H]

Hmmm.

QUOTE HS30-H: "that the '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' markings on a standard-equipment KPGC10 tyre denoted a crossply type rather than an early radial that still used some of the crossply identification codes ( which was what they were )?" UNQUOTE

QUOTE HS30-H: "I never said that the newly-introduced '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' tyre "shared identical markings" with a crossply. I merely said that they could be mistaken for a crossply. I don't suppose that would happen with the 'optional' 165SR-14 tyre." UNQUOTE

You'll have to be a bit sharper than that if you want to try and stitch me up. Here's what I actually wrote ( bold type for emphasis on what you chopped out ):

I'm wondering if you were mistaken in thinking that the '6.45H - 14 - 4PR' markings on a standard-equipment KPGC10 tyre denoted a crossply type rather than an early radial that still used some of the crossply identification codes ( which was what they were )?

Naughty naughty.

btw, 165SR-14 is NOT an optional tyre to replace a '6.45H 14 4PR'. It is undersize, under rated in load capacity and of a lower speed rating. The correct size is either '175HR78 14' or '195HR70 14'.

Nissan offered the "165SR-14" tyre as an "Option" on the KPC10 and KGC10, and the "165HR-14" tyre as an "Option" on the KPGC10. They are exact quotes from official Nissan literature. Nobody is saying that one is a direct replacement for the other - otherwise why would it be offered as a choice at time of sale? Surely you understand that an 'Option' would by definition be something different to standard equipment - regardless of whether it was "better" or "worse", more expensive or indeed cheaper?

Oh, its also not a legal marking for the sidewall of a tyre here where the car was.

But that's my point exactly. You mentioned that the car you saw in the Australian showroom was fitted with CROSSPLY tyres. You also mentioned that the S30-series Z standing in the same showroom was also fitted with crossplies ( we are presuming here that it was an official Australian market 'HS30-U' 'Datsun 240Z' ) - which was worthy of questioning. Why would an Australian market car be wearing crossplies when - as far as I am aware - all Australian market 240Zs were fitted with radials?

You keep talking about what was "legal" fitment in Australia, and the marking that Australian market tyres should have. My point was that I don't believe the KPGC10 you said you saw was an official import ( or - more to the point - an official export by Nissan Japan ) and if it was a Grey Import then it would be highly likely that some of the specs of the car would not be fully compliant with Australian regulations and Type Approval. I simply offered the possibility that it might have had standard Japanese-market tyres on it.

When you find out, oh guru of all things Nissan / Datsun, let the rest of us know. We lack a crystal ball!

Thanks for the endorsement.

I think a crystal ball might be handy at this point. It looks like it might be the only way of corroborating your story. You seem pretty sure that no evidence of the car's presence in Australia will be found ( what about any others? ) - which I find puzzling. Surely the only way you could be sure of that is if you made it all up in the first place?

Cynical aren't I?

Alan T. :classic:

[sakijo]

Requests for evidence and supporting documentation should not be taken as insults or queries about anyone's integrity but more that of a historian trying to nail down the degree of certainty that can later be used to support or modify / temper a conclusion. I sense that this is hard and frustrating when one the one hand there is someone who has seen something with their own eyes and on the other someone who may seem to want an additional degree of supporting evidence to enable them to authoritively make a statement in a book (hopefully Alan?).

Art, I am certain that Alan would love to have an overwhelming amount of evidence come forth that would enable this matter to be verified.

It is a shame that there might be little prospect of the dealer records being available but are any of the dealership identities able to be asked about the details of this matter?

We (at least I) look for truth, proof, and documentation (I am an Auditor). To question is to seek knowledge. Granted, maybe some may come off as arrogant, insensitive, insulting, etc., but that is not the point. We seek knowledge, that is all. And it is the reader, the poster who decides that they are offended by the comments of others (I have).

Art, can you prove it? probably not. Did you see it? Probably so. Alan asks for documentation, so do I. Do I call you a liar? No! I just want proof. A KPGC10 sold outside of Japan would be like finding the Holy Grail.

Where is the car? I would think that something like that would still be in the country. If it is, someone knows about it. Skyline men of OZ, find this car and help us put an end to this controversy.