70 Fairlady Z

What is this?

    Recommended Posts


    It's a photo scan I posted here on the 18th of December 2009.

    I can't help but point out that the answer to your question is easily answered in the thread in which the image was originally posted, but somehow I doubt that's where you found it - right?

    It's a photo of a prototype. I think Carl Beck would like to believe that it refers to 4 cylinder engine capacity (2400cc='240', 1600cc='160) but this prototype is well past the stage where the planning for a 4cyl S30-series Z was dropped.

    '160' refers to the rated PS of the S20 engine (160ps), so it's a dropped prototype emblem for what became the '432'. Font type and paint scheme matches too.

    It's likely that the '160' idea was dropped when the '240' moniker was adopted for the L24-engined Export market cars, as the higher CC-based number would make it look like the L24 was more powerful than the S20. There's a subtext in that the '160' moniker was quite possibly the inspiration for the '240' moniker, unless people are happy to believe it was picked out of thin air...?

     

     

     

    • Like 2

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanks! Was not found on Classic Z Cars. School me - how would I have found that image in the plethora of forums on this site?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, RHDNISSANDATSUNDUDE said:

    School me - how would I have found that image in the plethora of forums on this site?

    That's a chicken and egg question. "If you want to get there, then don't start from here..."

    I'd start by working backwards from where you right-click-and-saved it from.

     

     

    This internet/world wide web thing was a good idea when it started, but it's been going to hell in a hand cart ever since I tell you...

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, RHDNISSANDATSUNDUDE said:

    Thanks! Was not found on Classic Z Cars. School me - how would I have found that image in the plethora of forums on this site?

    Let's not get our trolling lines all tangled up.  Where did you find that image?  And what is the real question?  Are you asking what a Fairlady Z 160 is?

    Exceedingly obvious that it's a picture aka image.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    That image comes from the February 1970 issue of "Car Graphic" magazine, a Japanese publication, page 58 of an extensive article on the design and prototype development of the S30.  We have seen many images scanned from that article.  The picture is attributed to the development stage of July / August, 1969 (prototype P6 and P7).

    • Like 2

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

    That image comes from the February 1970 issue of "Car Graphic" magazine, a Japanese publication, page 58 of an extensive article on the design and prototype development of the S30.  We have seen many images scanned from that article.  The picture is attributed to the development stage of July / August, 1969 (prototype P6 and P7).

    And the article makes it clear that the '160' emblem related specifically to the 432, and not anything else, so I don't know where any confusion or counter theories come from?

    Original picture caption also points out that the pictured emblems were hand-made aluminium and paper mock-ups, and that the size, style and location of emblems had to accommodate the requirements of panel production, as stamped holes needed to be in a one-size-fits-all configuration.

     

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    16 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

    That image comes from the February 1970 issue of "Car Graphic" magazine, a Japanese publication, page 58 of an extensive article on the design and prototype development of the S30.  We have seen many images scanned from that article.  The picture is attributed to the development stage of July / August, 1969 (prototype P6 and P7).

    Thanks.  This one - http://backissues.com/issue/Sports-Car-Graphic-February-1970

    siteunseen had the best and most direct and informative answer, I think.  And he didn't even add a comment.

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    15 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    siteunseen had the best and most direct and informative answer, I think.  And he didn't even add a comment.

    Three cheers for siteunseen, then. He's clearly our last best hope.

    Next time I need an explanation for an image I've uploaded I'll cut out the middleman and go straight to him.

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    15 minutes ago, HS30-H said:

    Three cheers for siteunseen, then. He's clearly our last best hope.

    Next time I need an explanation for an image I've uploaded I'll cut out the middleman and go straight to him.

    Begs the question - where did you get the image?  Is it from your camera?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    Begs the question - where did you get the image?  Is it from your camera?

    Look at the post above yours.

    You are - of course - missing the whole point. It's the lifting of images LOSING ORIGINAL CONTEXT that's the problem. If they stay with their explanations, or at least a link to the source, then it's all fine and dandy.

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    You seem to be be blaming RHD for someone else's "lifting".  And the post above mine doesn't show or say anything about where you got it.  Are you saying that you lifted it from that magazine?  If you did, and didn't include an attribution in the post then you have broken the context chain.  

    #6 here - 

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    7 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    You seem to be be blaming RHD for someone else's "lifting".  And the post above mine doesn't show or say anything about where you got it.  Are you saying that you lifted it from that magazine?  If you did, and didn't include an attribution in the post then you have broken the context chain. 

    You really aren't getting it, are you? You're telling me I've broken the context chain but then link to a thread containing the image where I gave the context by explaining what was depicted in the photo I had posted...

    If you don't see the difference between that and the first post in this thread then I don't know how to help you.    

     

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    You din't mention the magazine article at all.  And you seemed to have lifted words from it also.  

    All you're really doing is claiming"first" to post the image on classiczcars.com.  And what you did is actually worse than what RHD did, in my opinion.  He posted the image to learn about it.  You posted it and used it, and maybe even used the author's own words, without attribution.

    I'm not missing the point at all, but you're putting a lot of effort in to avoiding it.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the voice of confidence Zed Head!  Of course, I don't know a damned thing and you should overlook whatever I post.  I gave you the source, publishing date and page number!  What more do you want?  Perhaps all you want to do is argue?

    BTW, thank you again, Alan, for my copy of "Car Graphic".

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    You din't mention the magazine article at all.  And you seemed to have lifted words from it also.  

    All you're really doing is claiming"first" to post the image on classiczcars.com.  And what you did is actually worse than what RHD did, in my opinion.  He posted the image to learn about it.  You posted it and used it, and maybe even used the author's own words, without attribution.

    I'm not missing the point at all, but you're putting a lot of effort in to avoiding it.

    You seem to be trying to do a switcheroo here. As was pointed out in post #4 of this thread, I first posted a scan of the same image on this forum back in 2003 but - as far as I am aware - I have not claimed that I was "first" to post it, even if I was. That's in your (Zed) head, I believe.

    The image that's in the first post of this thread has my initials - ART - and a date code on it, and I believe I first posted it on the Japanese Nostalgic Cars forum thread that the 'Kyusha Kai' blog post (as linked by siteunseen in post #5 of this thread), and was part of a discussion which hopefully debunked a silly theory - as alluded to in the Kyusha Kai blog post. The initialling and date coding is something that I do occasionally with the intention of giving some traceability for an image I have posted, as I am concerned that images get taken out of context by being right-clicked-and-saved and then posted elsewhere. The context in question being the reason that they were posted in the first place, and it's often to illustrate a point or detail that is relevant to the topic of discussion. We do it all the time on classiczcars.com. Lifting an image from one of those threads/discussions and pasting it elsewhere - and in the process dropping all the information that went with it - seems like a backward step to me. I don't know the solution, but a bit of common sense would not go amiss. This is the reason for my hackles being raised somewhat when member 'Blue' here on classiczcars started a process of "vacuuming" images from archived classiczcars threads and posting them elsewhere on classiczcars devoid of any link to their original context. I just don't get it.

    Yes, the image came originally from the 70-2 issue of Car Graphic magazine (as 26th-Z pointed out in post #8 of this thread...) but it is actually a copyright-free Nissan Press Department photo, which is where Car Graphic magazine got it from. If you want an example of 'Fair Use' of such photos I invite you to take a peek at zhome.com, which uses many photos from the same Nissan Press Dept. sequence as used in that 70-2 Car Graphic article. We still have not been told where the original poster sourced the image he was asking about, but the fact that it carries my watermark narrows things down a little I think?

    I don't think you're going to get very far with your finger-pointing regarding me "lifting words" from the Car Graphic article. The original is - of course - in Japanese.           

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    43 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

    BTW, thank you again, Alan, for my copy of "Car Graphic".

    Tip o' the hat to you, too.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    It just offends me to see someone accuse someone else, in a derogatory tone, of an act that it turns out they committed themselves.  26th, you can't come in late as a "proxy" for HS30 to defend his honor, by saying that you gave the reference that HS30 left out.  It's not abut the information, it's about the original accusation.  Actually, I'm surprised that you chose a side, considering all.

    HS30 accused RHD of being a "lifter" when he was the original lifter.  Kettle calling the pot black.  Then he dissembled and obfuscated at great length.  I didn't read his  last post and won't because all of the relevant information is already exposed, in this thread especially but in many past ones.  It's all clear.

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    43 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    I didn't read his  last post and won't because all of the relevant information is already exposed, in this thread especially but in many past ones.

    I think this might say as much about you as it does about me.

    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