Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tonyasap

Datsun 240k Gl 1977 Needing Advice Or Feedback?

Recommended Posts

Are you just being deliberately thick or something?

No. It just comes naturally :bunny:

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" LOL 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....... :love:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan,

Cam covers:

quoting kyteler

I know the early L4 covers had 'DATSUN OHC' sometimes even 'DATSUN 1600 OHC' however, much like Mr. Camo, I have never seen nor heard of a L6 with 'DATSUN' lettering.

quoting you

In case you haven't noticed, a couple of other people picked you up on the 'NISSAN' cam cover issue too.

Errrr - something smells there!

Actually Kyteller and I were agreeing with Alan in that we have never seen an L6 DATSUN OHC cam cover, only L4 covers, and other engine covers. Of course that doesnt mean they dont exist. Just that not many people that post here have seen one. The valve cover fitted to the 240z that was sold in Australia had NISSAN on the cover (Maybe the Dealer you frequented replace it with the datsun cover that you list the part number for).

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. It's a drawing. In How to rebuild you Nissan & Datsun OHC engine (nissan part number 99996-M8013) there is an illustration of an L6 valve cover with no writing on it at all. pg 53, drawing, courtesy of Nissan. Doesn't mean that Nissan made a valve cover without any lettering.

Part number 13264-E3100 is a DATSUN cam cover for an L24. Part number 13264-P0100 is a NISSAN cam cover for an L24 or L26. At least that was what they were when I had to replace a cover back in '72 after a cam gear bolt came loose (and initially got the wrong, E3100, cover).

Ok Part numbers, now we are getting somewhere.

Maybe someone could look it up on the parts cd, or microfiche or something and get us a photo of it. Maybe we should move this Valve cover discussion to L6 valve cover discussion thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Part numbers, now we are getting somewhere.

Maybe someone could look it up on the parts cd, or microfiche or something and get us a photo of it. Maybe we should move this Valve cover discussion to L6 valve cover discussion thread.

Mr C,

The part numbers are easy to look up. I already did it when aarc240 posted the numbers. He told me to check my facts, and I did.

From the factory Parts Catalogue for the USA & Canada market:

*13264-E3100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER ( applied model L24 )

*13264-P0100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER ( applied model L24, L26 ) superseded 13264-E3100.

The illustrations on the pages ( just like the Courtesy Nissan-supplied illustrations in the books he quoted ) show the script "DATSUN 2400 OHC" - but I think this is just one of those Nissan anomalies in the parts books.

For the record, I believe:

*13264-E3100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER = "NISSAN 2400 OHC" script.

*13264-P0100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER = "NISSAN OHC" script.

Alan T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way - from the 1969 Japanese market factory Parts Catalogue:

*13264-E3000 - arse'Y COVER, rocker. L20 engine. = "NISSAN 2000 OHC" script.

The parts catalogue illustration - in contrast to the Export market versions - shows exactly that.

Maybe there was some *intention* to fit a "DATSUN" scripted cam cover to the Export market cars, but they never quite got around to it?

Alan T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about cam covers, I had one that said Datsun 160 OHC on my 510(or 1600 HC - it was a bit difficult to distinguish). What were these from? I always figured it would be cool to have a Datsun 1600 OHC cam cover on my Datsun 1600, but used to ponder why they left one of the 0's off:ermm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just like the Courtesy Nissan-supplied illustrations in the books he quoted

Where do you get the idea that "Drawing courtesy Nissan" is the same thing as "Drawing Courtesy Nissan" ??

Referring to the illustration on page 60 of the same Nissan Part Number book, are we to assume that "Drawing courtesy O.S. Giken" is somehow supplied by a mysterious company called Courtesy O.S. Giken ?

In case your understanding of English is that flawed, the statement "Drawing courtesy Nissan" is a contraction of "This drawing is published by courtesy of Nissan".

) show the script "DATSUN 2400 OHC" - but I think this is just one of those Nissan anomalies in the parts books.

For the record, I believe:

*13264-E3100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER = "NISSAN 2400 OHC" script.

*13264-P0100 ASSY-ROCKER COVER = "NISSAN OHC" script.

I believe ?!!?

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

It doesn't fit with your preconceived notions so therefore you believe something else and are going to ram it down everyone else's throat!

There have been a few other examples of that sort of egotistical individual throughout history, most of whom don't bear thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Kyteller and I were agreeing with Alan in that we have never seen an L6 DATSUN OHC cam cover, only L4 covers, and other engine covers. Of course that doesnt mean they dont exist. Just that not many people that post here have seen one. The valve cover fitted to the 240z that was sold in Australia had NISSAN on the cover (Maybe the Dealer you frequented replace it with the datsun cover that you list the part number for).

I take it then that you were in and out of Datsun dealers in 1970?

My first Datsun was purchased new in late February 1970, first sight of the 240Z was five weeks later in the workshop being predelivered.

The first L4 'DATSUN 1600 OHC' cover I saw was on the new engine I was buying (along with a lot of other bits) to stuff into the Datsun 1200 coupe I had bought less than two months before. That was at the same time the 240Z was seen.

Even though that 1600 powered Datsun coupe was in and out of the dealer floor for display on a regular basis, the first time I saw a Nissan cover on either an L4 or an L6 was quite some time later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way - from the 1969 Japanese market factory Parts Catalogue:

*13264-E3000 - arse'Y COVER, rocker. L20 engine. = "NISSAN 2000 OHC" script.

The parts catalogue illustration - in contrast to the Export market versions - shows exactly that.

Maybe there was some *intention* to fit a "DATSUN" scripted cam cover to the Export market cars, but they never quite got around to it?

Alan T.

Maybe they did fit some. That would be terribly inconvenient, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Art,

Why the smarmy poison pen responses? You've stated a few things that raise questions. I like that. It's the ensueing discussion that generally brings in facts, other possibilities and views into play. As others have suggested these statements, of particularly great interest to most of us here, create a need for more precise information, as your info is at odds to what has been accepted so far. That in no way makes it wrong/ untrue ...whatever, but it raises the burden of proof don't you think? Now I know from personal experience that proof can be damned impossible to atain, that's life eh?..but please don't go mistaking the weight of circumstantial, anecdotal and so far substanciated evidence as an attack on your good self! If you don't have the luxury of being able (no one says you have to, I see it as a courtesy) to back up your experiences with something to corroberate it with, no worries, we're big boys here and all been there. Just agree to disagree...keep ya powder dry in the event some document comes to light that you can fire this way, but don't get bent outa shape if a bit of disappointment in being "left hanging" comes through.

It is all too easy to misconstrue the intent of a response. The "I believe" you pointed out is typical of this. I read it entirely different to you Art. "I believe":cheeky: you have some interestng facts to add to this story yet. I just hope they can come out and are not smothered by misplaced ill feeling:)

The only C10 series I could have documented as having been registered in OZ around 1972 is a private import KGC10 2000GT. Imported from or via New Guinea, this is yet to be established if indeed it ever can be now! This is the car NISSAN had "misplaced" the documents for. It has in interesting history I hope to be able to relay with a nod from the current owner.

There is another KGC10 2000GT thats been tucked away for a long time. It's story is still a mystery but I know the owner will be working on its history.

Cheers,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I the picture on my NIssan Parts DVD is not clear, as it is a scan of the parts book. However, it's from the 72 and 73 S30, HS30, and PS30 parts book.

13264-E3000, Cover Assy, Rocker . . . . . . L20AT, L24T

13264-P0100, Cover Assy, Rocker (from E/# L20AT 179168) . . . L20AT, L24T

At least here in the Japanese market, the part numbers match what Alan says, and apparently, from L20A serial number 179168, they switched the covers (probably that's when the 2000/2400 disappeared).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your info is at odds to what has been accepted so far. That in no way makes it wrong/ untrue ...whatever, but it raises the burden of proof don't you think?

No, it is anecdotal evidence. If it provides a clue for anyone well and good.

Now I know from personal experience that proof can be damned impossible to attain, that's life eh?

Yes, and proof usually can best be obtained by constructive cooperation.

It is all too easy to misconstrue the intent of a response. The "I believe" you pointed out is typical of this. I read it entirely different to you Art. "I believe":cheeky:

That is something I see very differently.

Trained originally as a tradesman (Toolmaker) I know very well how and why engineering drawings are done. I also know they are costly to produce, particularly back at a time when each drawing had to be produced individually and by hand.

Somehow we see here a company that will waste money on irrelevant drawings yet would be so unlikely to lay out a small sum to localise a product as with a speedometer.

Yair, right!

Never mind, there's one in every bunch.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"There was at least 1 KPGC10 sold to an RAF pilot then stationed over here and was frequently seen in Woomera SA.

afaik, he shipped that car to Germany when he was posted there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, there's one in every bunch.

I'm sorry that you find it troublesome and annoying, but I am interested in the truth. If your evidence is only anecdotal, then it might be best to make that clear from the outset. Opinions too are probably best clearly stated as merely opinions, rather than facts.

Trained originally as a tradesman (Toolmaker) I know very well how and why engineering drawings are done. I also know they are costly to produce, particularly back at a time when each drawing had to be produced individually and by hand.

You are referring to the cam cover drawings now, yes? Once again, I'm sorry to disagree with you - but I don't think we should classify the drawings from the factory parts lists as true "engineering" drawings. For one thing, they haven't got very much of the data that an engineer would need on them. Essentially they are guides to help identify individual components, and serve as illustrations to accompany part numbers and their descriptions.

Somehow we see here a company that will waste money on irrelevant drawings yet would be so unlikely to lay out a small sum to localise a product as with a speedometer.

Yair, right!

They are not "irrelevant" drawings - they just have some slight inaccuracies - and plain mistakes - in them. I have some Japanese-market parts lists and workshop manuals that were hand-notated by the dealers and mechanics to correct inaccuracies. It is clear that mistakes were made, and some inaccuracies were allowed through the net because - presumably - they would result in little adverse consequence ( I'm thinking of the "DATSUN" scripted L6 cam cover illustrations here ). If you spend time looking at the original publications you can spot quite a few incidences like this. Do you have any factory parts lists? I could give you some examples of mistakes if you don't.

And with regard to the KPH to MPH speedo conversion on that single KPGC10 - you suggested that 'Jeco' could have performed the conversion ( even though I believe - there's that word again - the KPGC10 speedo and tacho were made by Kanto Seiki ) - which would point to the car being an *official* Factory-sanctioned export. To me, this confuses the situation: You are offering up 'evidence' that is clearly questionable ( Jeco ) - and which can mislead.

I went back through this thread and re-read it several times. I picked out the post which caused me some surprise and aroused my interest. Here is what you wrote:

Nissan PGC10's and later KPGC10's were sold in Australia (or at least in South Australia) in limited numbers, suffering from competing with both the 510 and the 240Z. From memory the KPGC10 was several hundred dollars more than a 240Z and didn't perform as well!

So far you have backed this up with anecdotal evidence of one car ( you say it was a KPGC10 ) of which you say no pictures, written reports or other sightings seem to exist. So what about the PGC10s you mentioned? Did they come and go without ever being noted? I would find that hard to believe.

This is not a witch hunt - and I'm sorry if it feels that way to you - but you should expect to be asked for a little more evidence after making such a definitive statement.

Alan T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aarc240,

Whilst I have your attention, can I re-ask you a question I asked a couple of months ago ( you didn't reply last time )?

The original thread was here:

http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20983

You wrote ( in post #45 ):

Very annoying that we can't even run the triple Mikuni carbs and manifold I still own which came from a works rally 240z back in 1973!

And I asked ( in post #50 ):

Would you happen to know which particular Works car these actually came from? Is the history ( fate ) of the particular car known?

I have an ongoing project tracking the histories of the Works 240Z & 260Z rally cars, and would be interested to hear why these carbs were taken off the car in question. Usually this would mean that the car had been crashed and split for spares.

Cheers,

Alan T.

If you have any further information I would love to hear it. Sorry to keep asking you for 'evidence' - but what you write is very interesting and begs for questions to be asked.

Alan T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops! a good example of meaning being misconstrued. I mucked it up trying to be tongue in cheek!

"I believe"(:cheeky:) you have some interestng facts to add to this story yet.

.. is what I meant to get across. Matters bugger all I 'spose!LOL

What are the Prince lenses and bezels for? Wrong part No.s for an S54 from my 1966 book?

Cheers,

Jim.:bandit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for more substance here . . . .

Yes, that KPGC10 that I considered was a Nissan Skyline GT-R badged car and it was physically there on the showroom floor.

Which dealer had it? Are they still open? Maybe they still have records? Maybe some old timer there remembers and can tell us yes, the car was there?

"There was at least 1 KPGC10 sold to an RAF pilot then stationed over here and was frequently seen in Woomera SA.

afaik, he shipped that car to Germany when he was posted there."

Does anyone know who this RAF pilot was? Maybe we can track him down? Anyone else in Woomera remember the car?

I may be grasping at straws here, but we may have overlooked the most obvious in our search for validation.:stupid: :stupid:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking for more substance here . . . .

Does anyone know who this RAF pilot was? Maybe we can track him down? Anyone else in Woomera remember the car?

I may be grasping at straws here, but we may have overlooked the most obvious in our search for validation.:stupid: :stupid:

There wouldn't be anyone in Woomera, the base closed back in the 80's, and I doubt that the current occupiers would be remotely interested.

It's a pity that only anecdotal evidence is available, bit like the metal g-nose, isn't it!

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. 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.