HS30-H

Q.E.D.

If I were you, I'd stick to fondling your basketball. You simply have no clue what you are wittering (yes!) on aboot. Och aye the noo. If you have some free time sit-down time between 'shooting hoops' (tee hee), try getting your head around the idea of what the word "fake" actually means to everybody else except you.

I built a 'Fairlady 240Z' emblem-ed car (based on a UK market HS30) back in the 1990s. Sounds similar to what you are planning to do: Key points: You need the correct S30-series specific 'Z' bonnet emblem, not the flatter S130-series type. Good thing is that the vented-quarter Japanese market models used the same 'Z' vent emblems as the vented-quarter Export market cars, so two less emblems to source. Your 'Fairlady Z' glovebox emblem was also used on the 'Fairlady 240Z' models, so that's correct.

One of the 'concerns' - although it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things - is that you will sometimes have to listen to the ill-informed and/or plain stupid witterings of people who don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes down to the nitty gritty. As you have already seen from our basketball-fondling friend further up the thread... But how about this? Your car is a 1973 build, right? Why not put factory-style 'Fairlady 240Z' emblems on it? To me, 'Fairlady Z' emblems indicate a 2-litre car. The Japanese market L24-engined cars (1971 through 1973 Fairlady 240Z, Fairlady 240Z-L and Fairlady 240ZG) all wore two-piece 'Fairlady 240Z' emblems rather than 'Fairlady Z' emblems. If anything, it would make it a little bit *more correct* as an hommage/lookalike/tip o' the hat and it's arguably more appropriate to the car. Naysayers - again, as you've seen upthread - fixate on the RHD vs LHD aspect of all this, but it's neither here nor there really. Nissan themselves put 'Fairlady Z' emblems on a few special 240Zs, so you have a precedent. Here's an example of the 'Fairlady 240Z' emblems. The '240Z' part is the same as that used on Export market 240Zs, and the 'Fairlady' emblem (without the attached 'Z') was a dedicated item for the Japanese market L24-engined models. You *could* cut the 'Z' off of your 'Fairlady Z' emblems and make something very very close...

As has been pointed out, this is not the case. We need to qualify the market/model/production date if we want to be accurate.

Toyota's MF10 2000GT was never envisioned as a mass-market product, so the high costs of press tooling for a unitary body were out of the question. Instead, a relatively modern and fairly sophisticated backbone chassis was chosen - similar to that in the Lotus Type 26 Elan, which debuted in 1962. I wouldn't say that the S30-series Z unibody/unitary body was "way ahead of its time". In principle the unit body idea was established and in use in the 1930s, but if we are looking at relatively inexpensive sports/GT cars then the MGB, which debuted in 1962, is a good example of prior use a good 8 years before the Z.

UK and 'Europe' (I suspect some exceptions, perhaps Portugal and other 'hot' areas) were specified with a similar - but perhaps slightly simpler - Idle Compensator/Vacuum Can/Temp Sensor-equipped system from August 1973 onwards:

Sorry but, with respect (you are usually a saint in this respect, rturbo 930), "240Z (1972)" is not refined enough for this discussion. As I've pointed out, North American market got a 'slow' steering rack ratio from the get-go, whilst other markets got a relatively 'quick' ratio during the same period. Market and/or variant needs to be specified if any of this is to be accurate.

Different between contemporary-build market/models too. EG 1970 FSM for north American market HLS30U models gives rack ratio as 17.8:1 whilst 'rest of the world' got 15.8:1 and the 432-R model got the 'quick' knuckles as stock equipment.

With respect, "the source" in relation to my - largely rhetorical - questions would not necessarily be the one that you are suggesting. Whilst I have the utmost respect and admiration for Pete Brock, BRE and all they achieved, I tend to look at such stories more from the broader viewpoint. I'm sure a lot of people will be very satisfied and entertained by the article in question, but it just doesn't cut it for me. The statement "Nissan’s management, including Katayama, was completely unaware that American racing rules required the use of engines and components as delivered in their production cars and sold to the public." is just not credible. I very much doubt that this was said/written by Pete Brock.

I'm not sure I buy this whole cultural difference thing really. It's a bit of a cliche (we even get the "loss of face" thing dragged up early in the article, as though everybody is happy to look like an idiot except the Japanese) and I see holes in the surrounding story: The article states that BRE/Brock were sending their reports "to the factory", and hearing nothing in return. I'm confused by the chain of communication that implies. Why didn't they report to Nissan USA and/or Katayama (since they were so close)? Why short circuit the chain? If Japanese customs were so distinct and relevant, cutting out the local office and going straight to "the factory" certainly qualifies as a faux pas. It makes me wonder whether it really happened like that. If it did, what was Katayama doing? And if Katayama was so powerful, how come he never pushed for an answer for BRE sooner? Doesn't really add up. No, the article is full of holes. The very last paragraph is the Factory Max That Proves The Fact for me. Apparently the 432 "never did go into full production" (huh?) but its engine "...has gone on to be the basis for the one found in the legendary Skyline GT-R....", even though the PGC10 Skyline GT-R was on sale in February 1969, a good 9 months before the debut of the S30-series Z and the PS30 Fairlady Z432/PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R models.

Mr B, The eyes on your avatar keep following me around the room...

Here's an excerpted paragraph from the Classic Motorsports Magazine article: This theme runs through the whole article. If the BRE team had nothing to do with discovering and diagnosing the crankshaft problem, then "developing and proving the design of a new production 240Z crankshaft", then what was the point of mentioning it so prominently in the article, and why does it contradict the above paragraph? Yes - we know that racing improves the breed, but Nissan had already encountered the problem and were working on the solution. The article byline says "Story By Peter Brock", but my hunch is that it was ghost-written by a Classic Motorsports Magazine journalist. Perhaps a little bit of lost in translation and artistic interpretation going on there? There's plenty more in the article that's ripe for discussion. Plenty: First of all, calling the 510 "Katayama's vision" - as though it would not have existed without him - is absurd. Calling the S30 Katayama's "personal project within Nissan" is nonsense, even if Katayama may have believed that himself, but stating "...new L-series engines ... created especially for [the 510]" is not far south of cargo cult-level misapprehension. Hopefully most of us here on classiczcars know the full story of Nissan L-series engines and understand that the 'two cylinders added on to the 510 engine' thing was just the simplest way for Nissan to explain the L24 to a market which had seen the 510 first and had no idea where the L-gata had really come from, but we probably can't expect the average Classic Motorsports Magazine reader to have the same background knowledge. That's a shame. I could take potshots at this article all day long. There are plenty of legitimate targets, and the nonsense written regarding the "Prince Z 432 engine" (does the article ever correctly identify it as the 'S20'?) is fairly inept if not unexpected, but we also get stuff like this: ...which is patently untrue. First of all, Nissan was completely dedicated to taking the S30-series Z racing and rallying from concept (just as it had been doing with just about every other model it produced...) and had been preparing the way to do that, including developing and homologating the parts with which to do it. Quite apart from what was going on in Japan, a small group from Nissan's works rally team was to be found testing a nascent 240Z rally car on the Monte Carlo Rally route in January 1970, before BRE had even received their first car. And Nissan was PERFECTLY aware of the rules and requirements for sanctioned international competition - including 'production' based racing in the USA - because they had already been participating in such forms of racing since the late 1950s. The statement is just bizarre... It convinces me that it must have been ghost-written.

With the caveat that "the truth" can depend on your point of view... The article has a lot of the usual shibboleths (Katayama "banished", Katayama lobbying for the 510 and S30 as though they wouldn't have happened without him "needing" them etc etc) but in the other thread where the article was mentioned - can't remember what thread it was now - I was particularly interested in the L24 crank harmonic/breakage story. Brock's article makes it sound as though the BRE team were directly responsible for discovering, diagnosing and curing the L24's initial crankshaft problems, when in fact Nissan's engineers in Japan were fully aware of the problem and were working on a remedy (eventually a re-designed crank forging) well before BRE had even received their first 240Z. These days the lines of communication are so much more direct that it's hard to imagine the same scenario.

Apologies for misleading you. I have the same data as supplied to you by Kats, but - I can only guess - must have made a mistake when noting your chassis number. Glad you have the correct information to hand now.

We could discuss it, but if you already think it's a "great article" I might struggle to convince you to take some of its claims with a large pinch of salt... Thing is, I have a huge amount of respect for Pete Brock and many of the people who worked with him. These days, people seem to take any questioning of details and the presentation of a different viewpoint as some kind of attack. The 'Twitter Effect', perhaps. Or maybe the 'Katayama Effect'...?

Panda eats, shoots and leaves.

The engine in question:

If you're struggling, don't hesitate to ask me.

As pointed out before, running the contents of your hoover bag through a machine translating service is not really good enough. I think you should have another try with those driver names. Maybe look back over your (much edited) posts further back up-thread. Your underlining seems to be stuck too. Maybe there's some popcorn stuck under the key?

Owner is - apparently - a Canadian living/working here in the UK. The car was heading back in that direction last I heard... "Faking 432R's" what, exactly...? If you know of any "fake" 432-Rs, I'm all ears. And of course, you're the one doing the door-stepping and you're doing it on this thread too. I can explain it to you if you still don't get it.

The HLS30-00059 identity 'lives on' in - in a shameful example of identity swapping - in the UK as a zombie, in a post-'73 bodyshell:

You have metaphors in the Colonies too, I'm sure. Anyway, how's the Hoovering going? Got enough in your bag for your grand opening yet? http://240260280.com/

You'll get the Bum's Rush, whether you knock or not.