Jump to content

HS30-H

Members
  • Posts

    5,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

About HS30-H


  • User Group: Members


  • Member ID: 1359


  • Title: OOoxxoOO


  • Content Count: 5,078


  • Content Post Ratio: 0.68


  • Reputation: 1,313


  • Achievement Points: 32,136


  • Member Of The Days Won: 79


  • Joined: 05/01/2002


  • Been With Us For: 7459 Days


  • Last Activity:


  • Currently:


Clubs

HS30-H last won the day on August 28

HS30-H had the most liked content!

Contact

  • Map Location
    London, England, UK.

My Cars

  • About my Cars
    72 Fairlady 240ZG ( HS30-H ) x 2, 1970 PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R replica project, 1970 HLS30U & 1971 KPGC10 Skyline GT-R.

Social Sites

  • Website
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

HS30-H's Achievements

GrandMaster Z

GrandMaster Z (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare

Recent Badges

1.3k

Reputation

  1. I couldn't possibly imagine why you'd be asking so many questions about Fujitsubo's Legalis systems, or be so exercised about finding out as much as possible about them. Have you ever considered making and selling your own exhaust systems?
  2. Hi Kats, I think every PZR bonnet I have ever seen has that same gap difference in comparison with the factory steel bonnet, including the period race cars. You can see the fender mounting bolts and rubber pads. So it is 'correct' for PZR and I don't think it is down to shrinkage or distortion. The aftermarket FRP bonnets on two of my cars have the same feature, so I would *guess* this is possibly a feature of construction and the process of making the moulds/molds? Maybe it is somehow inevitable when using an original steel panel to make the moulds/molds? I see some variation in the interior structure details of the factory mouldings, so I would again *guess* that this would be down to a process of evolution and/or natural variance of hand-made parts produced in relatively small batches across a period of months and years? In that period I don't think anyone truly expected an FRP panel to fit as a closely as a factory steel one would.
  3. I can't help feeling that things would be a whole lot simpler if everybody got into the habit of doing that for all the other production years (and months...) too.
  4. Perhaps tellingly, and certainly interestingly, Chief Engineer Suitsu san's original plan from April 1967 aimed at shipments starting in August 1969. They were slightly late!
  5. Hmmm. Yes, S30-series is S30-series, but maybe you are forgetting (or didn't understand?) the point made previously; that 'S30' is both the series designator AND the chassis prefix for the 'base' models - S30-D 'Nissan Fairlady Z-L' and S30-S 'Fairlady Z'? And this whole line of conversation sprang from people trying to make sense of the 'Series 1', 'Series 1.5', 'Series 2' et al vernacular terms and the continuing confusion between 'Model Year' and manufacturing date. Yet that is all - largely - a local, North American phenomenon. The point being made was that 'Series 1' etc is probably not a judicious choice of retrospective denomination when the factory had already used it... Nobody, nobody!, even the "woke police" (pfft...) is telling you that you can't call your 'Datsun 240Z' a 'Datsun 240Z', or your 'Datsun 260Z' a 'Datsun 260Z'. Meanwhile people will - I guarantee! - continue to use the term '240Z' to describe a whole family of S30-series variants being conceived in 1967, designed and engineered through 1968, then produced and finally put on sale in 1969. A tap on the shoulder from the Z Police would then be in order...
  6. "Woke police". LOL. This from the guy who claims to have never heard of one of America's greatest automotive authors. I'm talking about situations where the whole is being talked about, but the specific is being used. For example, a book published regarding the 'Maru Z', '270 Kaihatsu Kigou' project; The genesis, planning, design, engineering and putting-into-production of the whole S30-series range as seen at launch (S30, S30-S, PS30, PS30-SB, HLS30U, HLS30, HS30U etc etc) being titled 'Datsun 240Z Engineering Development'. See? Probably not... Happens all the time. Probably whizzes way over your head.
  7. Not really. And if you approve of people using '240Z', '260Z' or '280Z' in situations where 'S30-series Z' is more appropriate, then we are definitely on different wavelengths.
  8. You've got at least some of that the wrong way around. BMW '3-series' (like '5-series' and '7-series' etc) is used in the same way that (for example) Mopar used 'A-body' and 'B-body' to denote platform type/size. Hence they carry it across different generations of Series (E21, E30, E36, E46, E90/91/92/93 etc). Similarly, W201 is a Mercedes generation for a particular class of product. The sequence was W121, W110, W201, W202 etc. The whole point about Nissan's S30-series is that it was a series from launch, but people use variant names from within that series as though they are a series themselves. Hence '240Z' instead of HLS30/HS30 and their sub-variants, '260Z' instead of RLS30/RS30/GRLS30/GS30 and their sub-variants, and not even a thought to S30/PS30. Nissan's system made sense and was used across its whole range. The 'base' model in a series was usually the series denominator, hence C10-series Skyline and C10 model, S30-series Z and S30 model.
  9. I can see why the vernacular 'Series 1' etc thing came about, but I think the word 'Series' was probably not a good choice seeing as 'Series' was already defined by NIssan with 'S30 Series'. Additionally, the 'Series 1' etc nomenclature seems to be a moveable feast open to misuse, mistake and misnomer. The Human Element, I guess. It also does not apply neatly (to say the least...) to market variants that are not USA/Canada models. On the contrary. They do. It's the American 'Model Year' thing that doesn't work very well elsewhere. I'm also wary of applying such nomenclature to Japanese cars in general. Sure, Nissan and the other Japanese manufacturers made great efforts to comply with the American 'Model Year' system and apply/inform of certain changes in line with that, but that doesn't mean that their non-USA market output follows suit. The whole thing seems to have been badly applied and open to misuse. Look at how much talk there is on here and Bring A Trailer about the anomalies and inconsistencies in (stated) Model Years vs (stated) Production Dates. It seems like there was a huge gulf of intent between a car rolling off the line at the Hiratsuka plant and it being sold by a dealer in the USA and, despite the best efforts of everyone at Nissan Japan, the dealers were almost free to do what they liked. There are parallels with showroom sales of the new RZ34... Personally speaking, most of what I need to know about a particular car will probably be contained in the combination of its chassis designation and prefix (full 'Katashiki would be nice), production date and its destination market. Anything over and above that comes from looking at the fabric of the car itself. 'Model Year' and 'Series X' are tits on a bull to me. We touched on this several pages back on this thread.
  10. Sorry but I'm definitely the wrong guy to pose that question to. I find the seemingly arbitrary nature of 'Model Year' application to be a USA-specific nonsense open to all sorts of shenanigans. A real chimpanzees tea party. Thanks for the hat-tip though. I wish you good luck...
  11. Series is 'S30': Yes, I know I know....
  12. More specifically, NMC USA - either officially or semi-officially ("come and take this damaged car away...") - provided a handful of HLS30Us to race teams in the USA. Bob Sharp's first car appears to have been a personal deal between Kawazoe san, via Usami san, and Sharp. A damaged show car, no less. You're projecting quite a lot here. Your "...not fit for the purpose" is doing a lot of heavy lifting (some understatement here...). Says who? The cars in question were not provided or sold as race cars. You might as well point out that the fuel tanks, suspension, brakes, transmissions, differentials, wheels, tyres and cigarette lighters were also "...not fit for purpose" in race cars. These were road cars and they required preparation even for production-class racing. The other cars they were competing with often had their own weak spots and requirements for evolutionary parts, even the Porsches. As far as I understand it, the crankshafts suffered from a harmonic (something very common in straight sixes) which caused damage to flywheel bolts, flywheels and clutches under prolonged high rpm use. The crankshafts themselves did not "break" and they were - clearly - being expected to perform far beyond their original design parameters. So, yes. Hardly Nissan Japan's fault. Without knowing what was going on between NMC USA and NMC Japan - remembering that we are constantly told that the L24 was specified "for the USA" in a car that was "designed for the USA" and that the engine was the personal choice of Yutaka Katayama, which is of course nonsense - I'd say it is jumping to conclusions to blame the engineers back in Japan. That's a fairly simplistic - if not bowdlerised - version of events. Plenty of details on these cars were subject to evolution, improvement and supersession. Mr Brock and his followers may well believe that his employees 'discovered' a design fault and were part of the cure, but Nissan were already on the case - just as they were with many other details on the cars. If you follow the part numbers, the homologations and supersessions they give a good picture of what was going on crankshaft-wise, particularly when you look at homologated crankshaft weights. You seem to want to paint the early L24 crankshafts as some kind of mistake, but I believe you need to take other factors - not least production costings, late specification of a sedan engine for a sports car due to the need to mitigate power-sapping anti-pollution devices and the whole question of who was in charge/responsible for the specifications in the first place. Apparently NMC USA and their president get to collect plaudits for success but dodge any finger of blame for perceived problems? Meanwhile, those same engineers at Nissan were planning and developing their Works race and rally LR24 engines... E3141 8-bolt crankshafts with sufficient counterweighting for competition use, made from higher strength steel (NCM45) than the stock L24 crankshafts:
×
×
  • 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.