HS30-H

"Camero"? You are Carl Beck, and I claim my prize Doradox, there's a big f'in hole in the radiator support panel of you car that has the S20's name on it. You might not have noticed it yet. I invite you to take a peep, and open your mind a little. Alan T.

Thanks Ron, I was hoping you would comment. I agree that the thread drifted off topic, but they always do, don't they? I'm afraid that some of the initial claims being made ( look at that codswallop about HLS30-00016 for example ) did not stand up to scrutiny, and from then on the inevitable debate was always going to happen. You will - I hope - have noted that I was not the only one taking the thread 'off topic' ( even though I believe what we were discussing was putting HLS30-00013 in perspective ) but that the only complete posts that have been deleted were mine ( and Chris's ), whilst Frank T has chosen to add his choice comments about me whilst misrepresenting the chain of events. I think forum moderators need to be seen as fair and even handed, and the fact that he was part of the 'problem' he perceived - as well as his obvious courting of Carl Beck - was never going to allow him to act as a moderator should. Now the thread at ctzcc.com - as Chris has pointed out - contains some really crock data, leftfield opinion presented as solid fact, and no toleration of it being debated let alone corrected. It will now go be preserved as reference material for other unknowing souls to believe in good faith, and the whole thing starts over again like a Typhoid infected water source. That's how we got to this "foreign Z" and "American Car, Made In Japan" nonsense in the first place. Sorry for the thread diversions..... Cheers, Alan T.

Thanks Chris, that means a lot to me. Much appreciated. Alan T.

This was the first post on this thread: If you want to find out what's happening with HLS30-00013 ( and what the 'experts' are telling everybody it is worth, even though it isn't for sale ), just click on the link to the ctzcc.com thread. Alan T.

And the reply I made to Frank T's post, here: http://forums.ctzcc.com/viewtopic.php?t=4114&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 THANK YOU Frank, For the record, I think you might find that the expression 'having your ear close to the ground' is not necessarily a slang term of solely "American" origin..... That exchange rate was fixed by the Bretton Woods System in 1949, and by the late 1960s it was starting to cause problems in Japan because it effectively undervalued the Yen. Japan had changed a lot since 1949, and by 1970/71 Japan's imports ( including most of the raw materials that 'our' cars were made from ) were costing Japanese industry too much, and its exports were earning less than they should. On the path to a floating exchange rate system, the Yen bounced around in value a fair bit. The $US was devalued in mid 1971 and the Smithsonian Agreement set the $/JPY exchange rate at 308 Yen. This did not last long, and market forces brought the agreement to be abandoned. By early 1973 the $US was buying just 270 Yen. For the rest of the decade it was averaging around 295 Yen. This is not quite the situation yourself and Carl are portraying, is it? You must understand that all of this had deep implications on the manufacturing process behind 'our' cars, let alone the amount of revenue they brought in sales. So once again we see that the situation was a lot more complex than a few - unquestioned - paragraphs can convey, and that if you look a little deeper into the Japanese side of the story ( of a Japanese car ), you can get a much better handle on the big picture. I'm sorry Frank, I'm not really seeing where you are going with this. My point - made to Carl - was that while he claimed to have been looking for 500-and-something 1969 production HLS30s, there is no 'given' that these would all have been north American market models, or that they had all been sent outside Japan in the first place. It might seem a small point to some, but I think it is very relevant when there is so much talk about these 'first 500' or so Export cars and so much time and discussion is spent on trying to find the missing pieces of the jigsaw. See below for more on this point: "Unimportant"? Frank, the whole point is that the cars I'm talking about were given series production prefixes and body serial numbers. They are important pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and their very existence - even if we do not know their specific serial numbers - affects the story, and the surrounding history, of all the others. Yes, it even affects the way that 'HLS30-00013' fits into that story.... You're perhaps revealing a little too much vehemence in your post than the point deserves, don't you think? You might like to reflect on the fact that we are gradually finding out more and more about these cars and the stories that surround them. If it wasn't for 'Kats' Endo, much of the data from Nissan Shatai we have been discussing ( which helps to put 'HLS30-00013' into context too ) would not have been available for us to chew the fat over. Never say never. It was a relatively short time ago in the scheme of things that Carl was insisting than NO export spec HS30 had been built in 1969, and not much longer ago than that he was under the impression that ALL the early S30-series bodies, regardless of prefix, shared a body serial number sequence. We are all learning as we go along, aren't we Frank? As for me supplying 'VIN' numbers for cars that are known to have been in certain locations at certain times, again I'd say 'Never Say Never'. Don't bet against data turning up. I recently got hold of some 'Katashiki' data for some competition cars that I knew existed, and had been chasing for years. The key point was in knowing that they existed in the first place, where they were at a certain time, and what they were doing there. Would you advocate that we ignore cars that might have had 'interesting' prefixes and low body serial numbers just because you seem to have a personal dislike of the person providing the sighting? That would appear to be an inefficient method of acquiring information....... Yes, but 'HLS30' does not solely designate north American market - does it? Er, two things here Frank: First of all, HLS30-00013 was certainly not the "FIRST 240Z off the assembly line". It may well have turned out to be the first car sold to a customer in the USA ( remember that another car was claiming that particular accolade in the beginning of this thread? ) but I don't believe this was the pre-determined plan when it rolled off the production line in Japan, was it? There appear to be cars with lower numeric serial numbers that were originally planned to be sold before it. Secondly, the "Z car" was not designed solely for the American market, as I think I have made quite clear. I think you're thinking of the HLS30-U model........ I apologise for my trivial "facts" ( ), but thanks very much for writing the brilliant "foreign Z cars" quote, which I think puts this whole thing in perfect ( warped ) perspective. I feel obliged to point out that all of these cars are in fact Japanese, even if it should be rather obvious to all of us. Posting whilst you have a little bit too much adrenalin flowing is probably not such a good idea. Especially if this is the kind of stuff that results: Oh dear! Er, Frank - even the S30-series 'Fairlady' was a 'Z'. I think you're getting a little bit mixed up. Too much adrenalin, maybe? "Sissy" :: I think you're giving that little bit of Katayama lore another airing, whilst seeming oblivious that this was really just a sideshow dating from the SP/SR Roadster days. I think you'll find that one of the main thing Katayama didn't like about the 'Fairlady' name was that he didn't like the guy who came up with it ( that ring a bell for you at all? ). Regardless, when the S30-series Z range made its debut at the Tokyo Auto Show in October 1969, the sole HLS30 on the Nissan stand was already wearing its 'Datsun' and '240Z' emblems, whilst also wearing a plaque on its rear license plate position that read "Fairlady Z - Export version". Matsuo san has related just how late in the day the 'Datsun' and '240Z' script emblems were prototyped and put into production, whilst the 'Fairlady Z' and 'Nissan' emblems had been finalised much earlier. If Katayama was in such strong control of the Z's concept, design, engineering and destiny then you might imagine that he'd have a little bit more control - and a little earlier in the process - than this illustrates. Of course, the answer is that he wasn't. I couldn't care less if you , or "homophibic" ( sic ) America think that the 'Fairlady' name is "sissy", and it certainly didn't matter in Japan. For the record, I think 'Z' was a good name, but I don't care for 'Fairlady' one bit. Not because I think it's "sissy" ( is it really? ) but more because I think it's a link to the SP/SR series that they needed to break away from. One thing that this difference in naming for different markets did achieve was to draw an arbitrary line through domestic and export models that didn't really - in terms of concept, design engineering and production - actually exist. It confuses the issues, and makes it easier for people to justify their intentional 'them and us' stance. It's a Maguffin. The plain fact is that all the S30-series Z range, as seen at launch in 1969, had been conceived, designed, engineered and prototyped at pretty much the same time. You could point out that the majority of prototypes and mockups were RHD, and that much of the layout of the design displayed a clear bias and design concession towards the car's Japanese roots, but that should be obvious when we are talking about a Japanese car of that period. What it all boils down to - and the reason I'm posting on this thread - is that we should remember that these are all Japanese cars, that the vast majority of the players in the story were Japanese, and that they were designing a range of variants that were all part of the core design. This is a message of democracy and inclusiveness, not elitism, nationalism or bragging rights. I'm off to play with my "foreign Z". It knows what I'm talking about, I think. Regards, Alan T. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Again, if anyone can see anything hugely insulting or objectional in there ( surely not? ) then I'd appreciate having it pointed out to me. I don't expect Frank T to sign up here, but anyway..... I like the "foreign Z" quote ( ). Sometimes great comedy lines can be delivered quite unintentionally, I think. Cheers, Alan T.

from the ctzcc.com thread here: http://forums.ctzcc.com/viewtopic.php?t=4114&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 So you want to set the agenda of the discussion, and only answer what it suits you to answer? What is the "subject of discussion"? The answer - of course - is that it all is..... You were actually using the production figures of the SP/SR Roadsters to illustrate a point in relation to the production capacity of Nissan Shatai's Hiratsuka plant. I notice you now rewind and bring the 'average' down by including the figures from 1958 ( a whole different world to the 65~70 period you initially quoted! ), but the real question is just what the figure of "21,000" means here: ...so once again, I ask you exactly what this figure of "21,000" represents? You connected it to 'Model Year' - but how can that include domestic and export markets outside north America? If you don't state whether this is TOTAL production for any stated period of time, then how on earth is it relevant to the subject of production capacity? This is missing the point. None of the above takes into account what Nissan Shatai were making out of all this, and the sticky mess that grew out of it - let alone factoring in what Nissan's true costs were for its north American operations. Ironically enough, one of the main reasons that we have had such a struggle to get accurate production data about the early Z - and all the associated history that goes with that - is precisely because of the baggage that went with all this. All we hear is that Nissan made buckets of cash out of the Z, when the real bottom line was a rather more complex and messy conundrum that didn't pan out until a few years later. Oh dear, here we go again - quoting figures that completely ignore the Japanese market. This - once again - is a perfect example of the way that you approach all of this. Why are you specifically talking about the 'Datsun 240Z" when the full story needs to include models that simply didn't wear the same emblems? And if you are insisting on including only HS30 and HLS30 prefixed models, then where do my two 'HS30' prefixed Fairlady 240ZGs fit into the figures? The production figures for the domestic market models are hugely bigger than the combined totals of the export markets you quoted above, but you insist on ignoring them. Why? Is it because they don't fit the 'Datsun 240Z' pigeonhole that you want to isolate from the term 'S30-Series'? So - straight question - are my two Fairlady 240ZGs something so completely different from those RHD export market cars ( for Australia and UK ) that you quoted above, that they can't be included in sales figures, let alone production figures? Do you even know how many 'HS30' prefixed cars were made for the Japanese market? If you know, why discount them? If you don't know, then why don't you know? To purposely ignore a decent percentage of production quantity seems, well - just bizarre. ALL of our cars are the product of the same design and engineering team, working for the same company, and made in the same factory, in Japan. I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out, but this "designed for America" mantra does not tell us the full story about the actual 'design'. Most of the occasions when "designed for" is being used, the term "sales targetted" would be much more appropriate. In an engineering design sense, it is patently clear from looking at the product itself that it was not designed solely "for America". Nobody disputes that the great majority of cars produced went to the north American market ( as was planned and expected! ) but if anyone disputes the fact that their own car ( regardless of RHD or LHD, Domestic or Export spec ) displays clear evidence of design for multi variant adaptation, let alone natural design concession biased toward the origin of the mechanicals, then they obviously can't have a full understanding of the car or the circumstances surrounding its creation. Alan T. -------------------------------------------------------------- Can anyone tell me what exactly can be described as "caustic", "abrasive" or needlessly confrontational in the above? I'd love to know, for future reference if nothing else. Have people forgotten what a written discussion looks like? Carl, I invite you to continue the discussion here. Alan T.

Well Mike, as you know I joined up to the ctzcc.com forum and got into a little debate. Carl Beck also joined up there, and I see that you and 26th-Z did too. Unfortunately it seems that forum administrator Frank Thomas has decided that the sound of one hand clapping is preferable to any kind of reasoned discussion, and has 'taken his ball home', so to speak. He has deleted two long and detailed responses that I made to posts by Carl Beck and himself, citing "caustic and abrasive" language ( huh? ) as the reason for deleting them. He has also deleted some of the follow-up posts I made which - I think - politely questioned why he had deleted the whole of my own posts, but had removed offensive remarks from his own post. If anybody was following the discussion, and would like to see what was deleted, I am posting it here. I don't think there is anything "caustic or abrasive" or even excessively confrontational in what I wrote, and I think I made some fairly on-topic responses to what Carl Beck and Frank T had written ( and which are still up on the original thread at ctzcc.com ). Some of the data that was posted was clearly wrong, and I think it is worthy of debate. If you're really not interested in this, then please ignore. At least you will have been allowed to make your own mind up from the data and opinion presented, which seems to be anathema to some.... Cheers, Alan T.

I was looking at the bit where he's talking about: ...And the fact that he seems to be talking about his 1970 HLS30-U. But you're right. I guess anything's possible. He doesn't really make it clear as to exactly what part of Carl's posts in this thread he's agreeing with' date=' but it's likely that he'll be agreeing with [i']anything and everything Carl writes...... :classic:

Good plan. At least you'll stay friends that way...... :classic: I think you mean SRL-311? In which case you'd need a few more parts to convert that FS5C71-A transmission to fit the Z ( including a bellhousing, T/O bearing & sleeve, tailhousing, driveshaft and driveshaft flange ) - so it was hardly a straight swap, was it? Meanwhile, outside north America, the guys who wanted a Z car with a 5-speed went and bought a Z car that came with a 5-speed as stock equipment off the showroom floor. Wouldn't you have liked to have that option too? So this wasn't in 1970, was it? Sounds like you bought an FS5C71-B ( 'Close Ratio O.D.' ) or FS5W71-B ( 'Wide Ratio O.D.' ) so-called 'Competition' transmission, which was standard equipment for models outside north America. I think your 5th gear overdrive ratio would have been 0.864:1 rather than 0.854:1. Typo? If you bought an R200 diff with a 3.9:1 ratio ( again, a standard ratio in markets outside north America ) then it certainly would not have been in 1970, when you bought your car - would it? I'm guessing this transmission and diff upgrade that you are telling us about was likely 1973 or later - yes? So what changed for you in the three years or more between buying the car and upgrading to a five speed overdrive trans and 3.9 ratio diff ( with LSD )? Did you finally realise that you might have been missing out on something? Sorry, but you appear to be saying that this setup was better than the 1:1 four speed and 3.36 diff ratio that came as standard equipment on your car when you bought it? In which case, you're agreeing with me too. It's a win/win situation! Alan T.

Matt, Enrique ( EScanlon ) is giving you some very good advice, so please be sure to take notice of it...... As for your dash - I would recommend that you put it to one side and deal with it occasionally whilst you pay attention to the other ( BIG ) jobs that need doing on the car first. From the looks of it, I don't think you are going to need to re-fit it for a good while yet.... I had a similar problem with a long-stored RHD dash that smelled bad and seemed to have all sorts of microscopic life growing on it. It was not cracked though, so the incentive to reclaim it was high and I persevered. After several months of occasional washing / intensive cleaning and feeding with Johnson's Baby Oil ( believe it or not ) it looked just great and smelled, well, of Baby Oil. You can get dashes re-skinned, but you can always tell ( and it's expensive ). I suggest you think about other more basic things on the car - like the structure, mechanicals and paint - before you worry too much about the trim and cosmetics that you will be re-fitting to it some time down the line. Have you got any literature that pertains to the cars? I'm talking about a proper Nissan-issued Factory Service Manual, and/or a Nissan Parts List? Both would answer a LOT of the kind of questions that you have already asked and will probably be asking here. There's also a really useful book titled "How To Restore Your Datsun Z Car" by Wick Humble, which - even though it is specific to the north American market models - can be a great aid and a good source of inspiration. Many of the parts and techniques in the book are also applicable to your UK market RHD car. You might also like to sign up as a member on the UK Z Club forum ( www.zclub.net ) for RHD-specific advise, parts and sympathy. And don't throw ANYTHING away yet! Alan T.

And by the way, this thread is located in the MEMBERS ONLY section of the forum - so nobody can see it unless they are a member, and 'signed in'. I'd like to see this interesting project getting a little more forum exposure, so maybe you'd like to start another thread in a different section of the forum that you can add progress updates to, and which everyone can readily see? Don't hide your light under a bushel. Up with Fairlady Zs! :classic:

Mike, Yes, the dipstick location and sump orientation identify it as what we could call a 'sedan' ( Cedric, Laurel, Skyline etc etc ) version L20A rather than a Z version L20A. Not so difficult to convert ( re-drill the dipstick tube location, change the oil pump pick-up / strainer - not forgetting to plug the original drilling - and swap to a Z-type sump ) but you might like to investigate the spec of the engine a little more closely in case it is a low compression version...... It looks to me as though it is a remanufactured / reconditioned unit rather than a brand spanking new Factory crated item. The block colour would seem to support that. Lets see what you find when you take it apart. You always have the option of modifying it for a little extra pep ( valves, cam, slight head skim, little pit of port work etc ) to suit the Mikunis and the ex. manifold. The L20A can be a nice sporty little powerplant when matched up with the right gearbox and diff. If you PM me with your postal address I'll send you a parts list CD, which you might find useful. Cheers, Alan T.

Hi Mike, I have a 1970 Fairlady Z too ( originally a 'Z-L' model in 901 Monte Carlo Silver ) which I'm slowly turning into a 432R replica. Watch out for that crate L20A engine, as it may very well have been made for a model other than the Fairlady Z. You should be able to tell straight away by the oil dipstick location and sump orientation. Luckily you can 'convert' it to use in the Fairlady quite easily should it turn out to have been made for a sedan. If I can help you in any way ( parts, data, or even just encouragement ) please don't hesitate to get in touch via PM. I'll do my best to assist if I can. Good luck! Alan T.

It's not a 'Build Sheet'. I think it is better described as part of the quality control process inside Nissan Shatai's Hiratsuka plant. It is titled 'Sharyo Kanri Hyo 5'. Rough equivalents in English - in my opinion - would be: 'Sharyo' = Car / body. 'Kanri' = Control / Management. 'Hyo' = Sheet / Document. The number 5 indicates that there were likely at least 4 other forms in the QC / post-production process, or several different levels and methods of check for the car to go through before it was released from the QC process. Some of the headings along the top line read 'Car Type', 'Version', 'Paint Colour', 'Engine No.', 'Chassis No.', 'Serial No.', 'Month / Day', 'Location', 'Repair Location / Relocation'. Notes on the bottom right of the form read as instructions / directions, and include classes such as 'Repair completed', 'Ready for delivery', 'Keep aside / store' / 'Port use', 'NG ( no good ) treatment / Reject'. I guess that the inspector would choose one of these classifications to decide the next movement for the car. Final note on the very bottom right indicates that this is a triplicate form, and where the three different copies are to be filed. Top line reads 'Office Issue'. I've seen one of these before ( in a UK market 240Z ) but it was not filled in with any legible writing, and was in terrible condition. I guessed that it might have been dropped in the car by mistake rather than placed in there for a reason. If it is part of the quality control process, it seems likely that it would only be used on cars that had fallen foul of QC checks - for whatever reason, even minor - and therefore not every car would have one. Seeing as there are notes advising of the destination for each of the three copies, I guess that one of these should not have been left inside the car at all...... Of course, Nissan Shatai would be able to explain what the document indicates. But for us - peering in from the outside - it is rather difficult to decipher. Alan T.

Yes, of course they were. But they were not just designing "the 240Z", and they were not only designing a car to be sold in the USA. Here's some of the claptrap you come up against when you point that out: See?

According to the factory service manual, the HLS30-U north American market '240Z' models had a steering rack with a ratio of 17.8:1 in 1970.

According to Nissan's own data, the 'E32' code does relate to engine parts for a variant of the Cedric. I'm not saying that it doesn't relate to some of the Glorias too, as they are so closely related - but when I went looking to try to find an answer to the original question ( three years ago now ) the first thing I saw was 130-series Ceddy related..... How about one of the versions of the 'Cedric Special Six'?

Some of the wording on those e-bay ads is very poorly chosen. The ad for one of the C10s contains the line "...This is a 1971 Nissan Skyline 2000GT "GT-R Clone" (it was converted from a 2000GT to a GT-R)." It most certainly has not been converted from a 2000GT into a GT-R, nor is such a thing possible. These are factory model designations and factory build codes that you can not mess about with. I don't have any problem with 'replicas' ( I'm building a 432-R replica myself ) but the term has a very subjective meaning. If sellers like this want to claim that a certain car is a "GT-R clone", then I'd honestly expect it to have a LOT more GT-R specific details. I don't think many people outside Japan realise just how many fundamental differences that entails. Maybe the term 'Lookalike' would be more apt? The C110 looks like a nice car, but the two C10s look like they were towards the lower end of the market in Japan and have been 'tarted up' a bit for sale. One of them in particular has been painted over some very suspect 'repairs' which will need proper rectification before they become structurally unsound. It's OK if you know what you are getting yourself into ( and are happy to pay the price for it based on that knowledge ) but anyone who thinks they are going to get a really good car for not too much money is most likely going to get a nasty surprise. Buyer beware. Alan T.

Please understand that NOTHING in this thread is any kind of personal attack on Frank T. One or two of us care somewhat passionately about the story behind these cars, and just about all of us have a different view on certain aspects of that story. I think it's healthy for us to discuss these things on forums like this, as I think we can all get something positive out of it, and learn things that we otherwise would not. It can get a little overheated sometimes, but the gas seems to be self-regulating and things usually get back to normal fairly quickly. Along with the heat comes a little light....... Yesterday I signed up as a member to the ctzcc.com forum ( with the intention of asking some questions 'at source', so to speak ) and soon after I received a very warm welcoming PM from Frank. A nice touch, and indicative of a close-knit 'local' club forum atmosphere I think. I haven't posted anything on the ctzcc.com forum yet, but I just wanted to make it clear that none of this is personal, so there's no need for any 'leave him alone' type protests. I know that this thread has been linked on the original ctzcc.com that it pointed to, and that some of the ctzcc.com forum members have already expressed their disapproval of some of the comments here. That's fine by me, but I'd like to make the point that I believe this kind of discussion is healthy. It's the very definition of what the word forum is supposed to mean. Cheers, Alan T.

Thank you Mike. I have edited the post accordingly. Thank you for the suggestion, Mike. I had actually considered doing just that, but I don't know how such questions would be taken. Quite often it seems that asking for bald and inaccurate statements ( such as that "....the first Z car sold to the public" ) to be corrected or refined is taken as some kind of political attack on the USA, and this might be worse with a close-knit 'local' forum. I thought I'd bring it up here, as I honestly think there is a greater depth of knowledge here, and there are one or two people that understand what it is I'm trying to get at. You do understand what it is I'm trying to get at, don't you? This forum is quite a lot different now than it was a few years ago. I now see figures such as yourself stating with obvious conviction that the S30-series Z range was designed for a world market, when just a few short years ago it seemed as though such beliefs were the equivalent of witchcraft. This is a great inspiration, but unfortunately we still see posts such as the one on this thread where 'production figures' that are known to be wrong are quoted with a link that includes the words "History/Zproduction.html" - so we all go back to square one...... Maybe I'll see if I can find the right way to bring the subject up on the ctzcc.com forum. See? That's perfect. Nobody can argue with that. That's what I'm looking to see. It can't be that hard, can it? Cheers, Alan T.

I think I'm making a fairly good effort to say something substantial, but you're ignoring it :classic: You haven't answered any of my questions, by the way. With your ability to see into the future, I think you would have been very useful to Nissan around 1968/69. At that point they had designed and engineered a new family of sports / GT cars, and hoped to sell a high number of one particular basic variant to the north American market ( ahem, not just the USA ). You could of course have told them just how many they were going to sell, and they could have tooled up appropriately ( instead of underestimating it, which is what DID happen ). Hindsight seems to make those numbers look like a 'done deal' to you. Of course my point - which you conveniently ignore - is that the numbers sold don't actually tell us the whole story of the concept, design and engineering of the S30-series Z range as seen at launch. Talking about the "240Z" ( which 240Z? ) as though it is Z Genesis is just a symptom of the problem. But of course, I'm just "nit picking" and you are doing something else entirely Any volunteers on the HLS30-00016 original sale story? I'm building my hopes up for a good laugh.

Thanks Dave, I've gone back and edited my little omissions of the L button. Getting rather late here at 02:46am..... Of course, you must realise that - whilst it is all about the money in the long term - its not always about the money in the short term. Certain models and variants can be sold in a market because its good for the image of the brand, and certain - somewhat expensive - activities such as racing and rallying can be undertaken simply because its good for the brand. So good for business in the BIG picture, but not necessarily profitable if you can only see "1929" cars through the ole Beck-O-Vision, even if it can look back through time to see certainties where there were originally just hopes.

I hope you don't mind me singling out this particular quote for some extra attention? First of all, I think you are - stop me if you've heard this one before - falling into the same old trap as many others. You don't seem to have any concept of how seriously a company like Nissan ( amongst its sworn enemies in the Japanese market ) took its own image and sense of self worth both then - in 1969 - and now. There's a very strong case to put that Nissan and its home rivals in that period ( and still so today ) took their own domestic market even more seriously than it took any single export market, but outsiders very rarely recognise it. Who told you that the "240Z" - or a car like it with perhaps a different name - would not have existed but for the USA market? On the contrary, it is almost unthinkable that Nissan would not have a model, and even several variants of a current model, in that sector in that period, regardless of any export business considerations. Basically, if you don't get this then you don't get Japan. Thanks for the extra barb of the '1929' cars ( itself an inaccurate figure ) for the UK market. It's flattering of you to aim at me specifically, but the UK market is not some silly pseudo patriotic obsession of mine I'm afraid. I tend to have my eye on the tens of thousands of JAPANESE market cars that the "production list" you quoted above seems to be blind to. Yes of course, Nissan would not have made a huge amount of money out of those UK market cars - but I can assure you they did hope to sell a few more than that. Unlike you, they took the UK market seriously and made a special effort to tailor the car to the needs of a somewhat unfavourable marketing position ( tariff quotas and high import duties to name just two ). They made their presence felt and stepped up their image. It wasn't all about making money. And just a little reminder that "Datsun" never had any "burning desire" in relation to these cars, because "Datsun" was just a badge that was placed on some of them. The company was Nissan, of course. Cheers, Alan T.

Steve, with respect... Perspective? Looks like the view down the old 'Beck-O-Vision' telescope to me.... Unfortunately, you have fallen into the same trap as so many others. You seem to believe that these production and sales figures - viewed in retrospect - tell us something about the concept, design, styling, engineering and pre-production processes of the S30-series Z range. That's right, a range of models and variants intended for several different markets. The validity is right there. You don't seem to mention the S30 or PS30 variants ( no surprise there then ) and you certainly don't address the plain fact that the term "240Z" is almost meaningless in the context of the BIG story unless you state which "240Z" model you are talking about. Does it include my UK-market 240Zs, but not my Fairlady 240ZGs? I don't see any figures for the Japanese market in the above list ( a market which received models with the 'HS30' prefix, and which were called '240Z' too.... ) so I think I could be forgiven for calling it inaccurate and meaningless garbage, at the very least. Of course, we've been here so very many times before on this forum. As Unkle says, I'm beating my head against a metaphorical brick wall in trying to get people like you to understand that the men who designed and engineered these cars ( as opposed to the somewhat larger than life figures who got their names attached to them ) were working on projects intended for more than one market, and would have told you in early 1969 that they were just about to release a family of new sports / GT cars onto the world stage, rather than just one single model into one single market. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what they said about it, rather than simply quoting more USA-centric twaddle on a Japanese car from zhome.com? Production figures? How about we look at those for the E-type Jaguar, the Porsche 356 and 911, or even those shitty little Triumph and MG sports cars that some "Datsun" fans like to poke fun at? How about VW's Type 1, 2 and 3? HUGE sales in the USA for all, but "designed for" the USA? I don't think so. How about you look at the sales figures for the little Datsun sedans and pickup trucks that were selling alongside those "Zee cars" in the USA showrooms? They were eclipsing HLS30 sales, but were they too "American cars, made in Japan"...? The answer of course is that, no, they were not. Nor were they ever expected to be. And now that the somewhat vulgar topic of monetary value has reared its head, perhaps you might like to ponder on which car out of the following will be most valuable, considering its rarity: S30-00013, PS30-00013, HS30-00013 or HLS30-00013...? The people telling you that these early HLS30s are sure-fire 'investments' are also - somewhat paradoxically - boasting that they are the commonest of the brood, and with the highest survival rate. WTF indeed. Drifting off topic we most certainly are, so to bring it back to the subject of HLS30-00013 ( and HLS30-00016 ) can you answer any of my questions in this thread? Can you fill me in on the details of the original sale of HLS30-00016 ( in October 1969 ), or how it has been determined that HLS30-00013 was "...the first Z sold"....? I must say though, that its nice to have a debate that we can all get our teeth into again...... Cheers, Alan T.

With respect, this here "questioner of the truth" ( ) is saying that this is exactly what is not being said. And as I've pointed out, the fellow breaking the 'news' on the ctzcc.com thread asserts that 'HLS30-00016' was "...the first Z car sold to the public", so is already contradicting himself at the same time as he's ignoring - or oblivious to - the fact that such a claim is unlikely to be true. Basically - to use the local vernacular that I grew up with - the whole thing is a load of old bollocks, isn't it? Speaking as a resident of the part of "the friggin world" that isn't the USA, I'd like to offer my congratulations. I now look forward to the forlorn hope that some of this breaking news might get put into reasonable perspective, or written up on a site where the contents of the story can be analysed and critiqued by a peer group with the credentials to make sense of it all without bringing the ugly spectre of $ value into the equation, and without ignoring the fact that other markets existed and were just as valid. Dream on, I guess. The UK? That's aimed at me I suppose. Ironically I'm not thinking of the UK, I'm actually thinking of Japan, that little country that made these things, remember? More to the point in this case, I think you might be forgetting your fellow north American market sector, Canada? Since when was the north American market 'HLS30' prefixed production aimed solely and exclusively at the USA?