KHGC110 240k GT

[aarc240]

Kent, 2/73 is correct as is build number 302.

Sedans seem to all be from late-ish '73 onwards.

The taillights aren't unique to the GL, all cars coming into Australia had them including the early GT's.

It's all to do with our ADR's and the required angles at which the taillights and brake lights must be visible.

Now that I've spent some time with the Skyline or JDM market lights, I can confirm that they are in fact illegal for road use in the C110 in Australia (and of course I wouldn't be so naughty as to use the ones I've installed in our car).

The side badge is likely to be either a GT or GL.

The main badge should be Datsun not Skyline and there just isn't enough difference in either shape or size of the GT badge and the earliest GL badge to be detectable on such a poor image.

The rear panel name plate is DATSUN on all cars marketed in Australia including the early GT batch. The SKYLINE name wasn't used on the C110.

Oh, and I can find no evidence that production started in September '72. The car was introduced at the motor show and wowed the crowds but that doesn't mean that anything more than a hand built show mule had happened.

Don't forget that quite a few of the earliest production cars were also destroyed in crash testing, road testing etc to satisfy the various standards authorities throughtout the planned markets.

ADR's alone would have used up at least 5 cars!

In recording any cars the only way to do it is photographs of the ADR plate.

The description imprinted in that plate is the only proof that any given car was actually sold as a GT by Nissan (Australia) Pty Ltd (unless someone really lucks out and gets the original receipts for a car describing it as a GT).

Edited October 24, 2008 by aarc240

[Mr Camouflage]

Whats the earliest GL badge look like? I've only ever seen the rectangular GL badges, which doesn't appear to be what's on the car in the background. Could be a European Datsun 240K GT.

It wouldn't be the first time Nissan have sent out photos of a Foreign market car to the Aussie press.

[g72s20]

The rear panel name plate is DATSUN on all cars marketed in Australia including the early GT batch. The SKYLINE name wasn't used on the C110.....in Australia.

Fixed!

My Japanese references (from 1973-1983) refer to first selling time for the C110 series domestically was 47.9*, which translates to 9th month of 1972 .

*Begin at 1925,(beginnings of the reign of Emperor Hirohito) add 47.

[Alfadog]

Whats the earliest GL badge look like? I've only ever seen the rectangular GL badges, which doesn't appear to be what's on the car in the background. Could be a European Datsun 240K GT.

You're correct Craig, they're GT badges. It is easy to see.

[aarc240]

Were there two different GT badges on the earliest cars Alfa? Maybe Nissan changed the location of the badges a little also?

The badge on the rear car is taller than those on our car relative to the adjacent Datsun badge and extends significantly below the Datsun badge, which ours also does a little but to nowhere near the extent of half the GT badge height.

Also, ours (and a NOS badge I have with its package and correct part number) has the entire height of the right half in white and the entire height of the left half in blue.

The badge on the rear car appears to have a dark section right across the lower 30% or so..

I think this just adds more confusion without really giving any more data on cars badged, labeled. ID'ed and sold by Nissan in Australia as GT's.

So far we have just two provable cars left - Kents and ours, both of which have ADR plates fitted by Nissan in accordance with the laws applicable at the time of sale stating that they are a "Datsun Coupe GT".

I recall at least one claim that a car with a much earlier chassis number (something like 000173) existed with GT identification but to date that hasn't re-surfaced.

There is the possibility of another GT in lower north SA which a friend is tracking down and reputedly another in a shed south of Adelaide that the owner doesn't want anyone looking at (yeah, right!).

Jim, I think you'll find that the document you have referred to doesn't actually state that the first car was sold in Sep '72 but that the planned date of first sale was to be then. Of course we might be looking at entirely different sources too, and yours may be more accurate!

Edited November 1, 2008 by aarc240