HS30-H

Kats, you did not need to delete them. That's not the point here. What I am unhappy about is the re-posting of photos, divorcing them from their original context and the information that went with them. I strongly believe we should try to keep any information about what is in the photo, where it was taken, who it was taken by, anything..... should be kept with the photo, if possible. At the very least, the person posting/re-posting the photo needs to act like a guardian or curator. They are a vital link. We should try not to break the link if we can avoid it. Yes, it's exciting and interesting when we see photos that are new to us, or are 'fresh'. We can talk about them and it can be entertaining, but it's a shame if some vital data or the chain back to the original source is lost in that process. A very wise man once told me that I should be careful only to post photos about which I could answer questions on, and - if that was not possible - to pose them as a question. I do try to heed that advice. My original "Hoover" comments were specifically with regard to photos being taken from threads here on classiczcars, and then re-posted on new classiczcars threads, but without the information and context that went with them. That seems, to me at least, to make no sense whatsoever. We have spent a lot of time on this forum digging into stories and learning so much, and the photos are a vital part of that. We are in danger of tearing the photos out of a book and throwing away the text. So, please post those photos again, but tell us something about them. Thank you.

Salient point being that they were not simply Hoovered up from another classiczcars.com thread and presented as though they are "new news". Where I come from, we call that "shitting on your own doorstep"... 掃除機

Looks like you didn't Hoover up a whole one. Try this one:

No different from just about anywhere else in the world I can think of then... My point being that a photo of Jaremko Motors from '73 disappointingly doesn't show the vast queues of prospective 240Z owners around the block and teams of Jaremko-branded overall wearing minions throwing TOPY wheels and hubcaps in the dumpster, bolting on slot 'mag' wheels and plastic chrome belt line trim while salesmen in Sears sport coats and white loafers count wads of cash. That Bronco looks nice though.

I'm feeling slightly underwhelmed. I guess they had sold all but one of their Zs, and the buyers had part-exchanged their domestics for them...?

It's a 432, not a 432-R. The tests for the article were carried out at Murayama on 12th and 13th November 1969. The photos are in the original magazine article.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look out for the book. Presumably it's about the Cobra coupes? My original copy of The Cobra Ferrari Wars is a much missed 'lent-out-and-never-returned' casualty...

Thanks for taking the time to answer my somewhat rhetorical question. My point has always been that Porsche (as in the German company itself and its own works race team(s)) hardly had a dog in that C-Production fight. I'm not saying that SCCA C-Production was small potatoes, but the habit of talking-up the involvement of companies like Porsche and Triumph (EG "Porsche, unable to compete with us, quit") takes the situation out of its original context. The BRE team took the preparation and participation to another level, effectively a professional team in what had been an 'amateur' class and series.

And I've read it! I know that - by their very nature - such quotes can be hyperbolic. I just think it's worth putting them in context and not swallowing them - and repeating them - whole. I sometimes ask - rhetorically - exactly what models of Porsche were taking part in SCCA C-Production in the period concerned, and how deep was the "factory" connection in the "factory Porsche team" type quotes. Usually don't get a full answer. Nissan's support for the guys using Datsun product was certainly an order of magnitude greater. "Triumph quit as well" is a strange one for the old Mic Drop too, when Triumph (ie - privateers driving Triumph product) took the championships in SCCA G-Production class in 1970, '71, '72, 74 and '75. An Austin Healey Sprite - another BL product - took the class win in '73. I'm a great admirer of Pete Brock and the BRE team, but let's treasure their achievements in some sort of perspective.

Reality check: During the manufacturing and sales period of the S30-series Z (1969 through 1978), Porsche won the World Championship For Makes in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1977 and 1978, and the International Cup For GT Cars (AKA the World GT Championship) in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Seems they had their own unique way to "quit"...

I believe this photo was taken at the Nissan press writers test driving event - where various members of the Japanese automotive press actually got their first drives in the various new S30-series models - held on November 5th 1969, and over the following days.

Japanese market models, at launch: S30-S 'Fairlady Z-S'/'Z-S'/'Z-standard' = 'Standard', no frills model. No bumper rubber trims. PS30-SB 'Fairlady Z432-R'/'PZR' = Super lightweight race homologation model. No bumper rubber trims. S30 'Fairlady Z-L'/'Z-DX' = 'Deluxe' model. Comes with bumper rubber trims. PS30 Fairlady Z432/'PZ' = 'Deluxe' version of 432. Comes with bumper rubber trims. So what you are seeing is one of the visible external differences between 'Standard' models and 'Deluxe' models. There were many other differences too. All Japanese models had the extra cost showroom option of bumper overiders, hence the presence of mounting holes in the bumper with black plastic grommets to fill them when not used.

OK, thanks for the explanation, but personally speaking I feel the North American concept of 'Model Year' is a commercial aspect of business practice that doesn't have much place in the commemoration of design debut dates. A 1969 S30-series Z is a 1969 S30-series Z to me. I don't want to wait until I'm 58 for my 57th birthday...

So here we are, 24th October 2018 and the 49th anniversary of the doors opening to the general public at the 1969 Tokyo Motor Show - the official public debut of Nissan's S30-series Z car range. Here's looking forward to the Big 50...

(Shirley) the 50th Anniversary will be in late 2019....?

The article itself - as seems the case with so many such articles - is a bit of a dog's dinner, but the very first line jumps out to me as being particularly strange: "Nearly 50 years ago, a small Japanese car company..." Huh? Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Japan produced nearly 1.2 million vehicles in calendar year 1969. They weren't exactly Crosley, were they?

I was right and you were wrong, and '26th-Z' can choose whatever soubriquet he likes as his forum user name. Simple.

The analogy with buying a house doesn't really work. The house (presumably) already exists, is in a fixed location and has been seen and approved by the purchaser. The car in question was months away from being made, and was not even a 'bespoke' order. He may have expressed a preference for body colour, and not a lot else. Nissan did not have a special day set aside to make 'Mr Magoo from Chattanooga's red 240Z'. The reason that some of us get pernickety about this kind of thing is that all sorts of false claims and implications can arise from such false assertions. One of them was a well known commentator on the marque who insisted that 240Zs could be "purchased" in the USA in 1969, when in fact there were no standard production cars available for purchase from dealerships in the USA until well into 1970. Yes it's pointless hair-splitting to some, but that's what we do. If we don't get it right, then who will...?

So, not "purchased new" on "July 11th 1970". An order was placed, a reservation was made - not a purchase. It might seem like splitting hairs, but this car simply didn't exist at that point - so it could not have been "purchased new" on that date.

Lovely car, but can you clarify the above? How could he "purchase new" a car that wasn't actually built until 6 months later...? What an I missing here?

The narrative - as related in the September 2018 issue of Classic Motorsports Magazine - doesn't really add up. Nissan was very well aware of the harmonic problem with the L24 crankshafts even before the end of 1969, several months before Bob Sharp received his first 240Z - let alone BRE. The lead-time involved in investigation of the problem, re-designing the crankshaft, machining and testing the new forgings and then putting them into full production, apparently took something like 12 weeks or so. BRE were relaying their findings back to "the factory" (wasn't that Katayama's job?) in good faith and "hearing nothing" when Nissan were in fact already hard at work rectifying the problem and putting the new parts into production. New Year 1969/70 got in the way, with Nissan's forging plant shut down for a week's holiday. Hearing these stories is fascinating, but we need to hear the viewpoints and facts from all sides before we put the big picture together.

Oh, I forgot. "Thanks Mr K.!"* *It wasn't solely down to him...

I don't agree. Primary focus was - clearly - on providing efficient packages in both 4-speed and 5-speed versions, with third member gearing to suit. The transmission tunnel was already big enough for the future provision of an Auto transmission, as that was part of the initial pre-production planning - despite an old school slushbox type Auto-transmissioned GT/Sports car being a flightless bird in Darwinian terms. This topic is worthy of a split into its own thread. However, such topics have sometimes become divisive here, especially when the "American Car, Made in Japan" type narrative is challenged in any way. It's still gospel to some, and the most evangelical proponents are sacred cows. I've been warned off from mentioning name, rank and serial number. It's like being served a roast dinner and being told you're not allowed to touch the meat. Vegetables only. "There Be Dragons..."

Not much point in mentioning transmissions types/ratios without reference to the differential ratios they were paired with. In the markets where a 5-speed overdrive type transmission was standard equipment, a 4-speed was offered as a 'showroom option'. It would require a diff ratio change to make it work as intended. However, I very much doubt that such options were taken up in practice except perhaps in Japan, where the selling dealers had a more realistic chance of fulfilling such an order, but then Japanese buyers had the choice of both 4-speed and 5-speed equipped models on the showroom floor anyway. In contrast, here in the UK it was a case of choosing from whatever had actually turned up on the boat... ("do you want the red one or the blue one...?"). The 4-speed was theoretically an option, but I can't imagine why anyone would select that option. They would have been better off buying a Cedric or a Laurel. When I have asked the "why 4-speed + 3.3:1 diff for north America" question in Japan - including putting the question to Chief Chassis Engineer Mr Hitoshi Uemura - the answer was usually that the driving style of the average north American market customer was perceived as being less 'sporting' than those in other markets, and that a wide ratio 4-speed transmission with a tall differential ratio would be more suitable for the vast majority of such buyers. Cost would also have been a major factor in planning. There are other details on early cars which show the initial cost-cutting focused planning for the north American market Export models. So it was likely a combination of both. Without wishing to insult, reading between the lines it seems clear that the USA mass market in particular was seen as being less sophisticated, less inclined to live with more frequent gear changes and higher RPM cruising speeds, and that the arch enthusiasts who did require that type of sporting character would be happy to modify their cars to suit (and it appears they did). All the same, it would have been nice to see a more sports-focused model available alongside the 'standard' north American Export model. Something along the lines of Car and Driver Magazine's 'Omega Z', perhaps...?

This car is not one of the first 800 Zs.