HS30-H

Hi Steve, I thought I'd chime in here, as the makers of Lumenition products are based just a couple of miles from me here in London ( although they are on the other side of the river ). Their "Optronic" ignition system is a good conversion to get rid of the standard points and condenser. Its all fairly fool-proof and long-lived as a long as you install the black box in a place where it won't get too hot. It likes to have a little bit of airflow over its cooling vanes.............. They have a good reputation over here and there are many types of cars that run their products. AUTOCAR ELECTRICAL EQPT. LTD. - for LUMENITION I used to run the Lumenition OPTRONIC setup on my old red car, and it was great. However, you have to be aware that a great percentage of distributor-related woes are not electrical but MECHANICAL. That is to say, half the time the bearings in the dizzy itself are so shot that the signal is all over the place. The Lumenition kit claims to fix this, as the optical signal is not affected by distributor shaft and bearing wear. At the moment my ZG is running a hybrid system based on Lucas parts ( horror of horrors! ). Its a brand-new Lucas distributor for a Triumph GT6 engine adapted to fit the L24, running a Lucas electronic ignition unit. It works just fine, and never needs to be touched. I have a better setup stashed away which is destined to go on my 3096cc engine project ( which has been on the backburner for the last few years ). That engine should be fairly potent and I figured that a better setup was probably prudent. Its a full-custom KAMEARI distributor with a CDI made by ULTRA. Its pretty impressive to look at, and they guarantee excellent results on the bigger N/A engines. My S20 engine uses an electronic distributor system ( Mitsubishi ) as standard, so I might leave that alone. Cheers, Alan T.

Thanks to everybody for the kind comments. Its much appreciated. Seems that if I had been hurt I would have got a better reaction from the Police. However, the Police are ignoring the other guy's obvious INTENT to reverse into me and therefore his INTENT to hit my car and do injury to me. Frankly I would have thought that attempting to hurt me was almost as serious as actually causing injury. It was only my avoiding action that stopped him from hitting me when he was aiming at me in reverse gear. That and the fact that he was having trouble keeping the thing going in a straight line whilst reversing.............. New developments this morning. I went to hand in my crime report paperwork to my local Police station, and was told that they have actually tried to trace the owner of the Land Rover by using the registration number that was on the vehicle. Surprise surprise ( not ) - the number is a false one and relates to a vehicle that is recorded as no longer existing, and is still under the name of a former owner a long way outside London. Great. This almost certainly means the guy will change the plates once again and be able to swan around as though nothing has happened, safe in the knowledge that he cannot be traced. There's a lot of this about at the moment; the proliferation of speed cameras, bus lane and traffic signal enforcement cameras and zone charging cameras means that some of the less law-abiding citizens will hide their true identity and the identity of their vehicle by using false plates. Meanwhile, the more legitimate and law-abiding citizens are EASY to catch and fine. I should have guessed that his plates were false. They were, after all, held on by yellow electrical tape! My suspicion is that not only was his vehicle on false plates, but that it was also probably stolen, uninsured and untaxed. He may even have been banned from driving previously and judging by his misjudgment in overtaking me he may also have been drunk or otherwise under the influence ( drugs? ). Unless the Police get lucky or he does something even more stupid I doubt he will be picked up. In the meantime he can cruise around as he likes, and nobody will be able to touch him. However, I feel that he probably lives around the area where our little encounter happened. He seemed to know the backstreets quite well, and he originally pulled out behind me from a very residential area of side streets. I think I might have to take a slow evening drive around and see if I can find his Land Rover. Once again, cheers for the shoulders to cry on. All the best, Alan T.

Those L20E pistons might be a bit of a sloppy fit in that F54 block. Like a 'prick in a top hat' as my dad used to say:classic:

Today I became a statistic. Just another victim of a Hit and Run lunatic. Plenty of these happen everyday, and it just happened to be my turn. Pootling along in my 'everyday' car down a relatively traffic-free street here in central London, a Land Rover ( short wheelbase 4WD ) popped into my rear-view mirror and very quickly filled it. He was sitting right on my tail with his headlights on main beam, and at very high revs. Obviously in some kind of hurry, I thought ( not unusual for London......... ). He was not able to overtake because of oncoming traffic, so I gradually increased speed in the hope that I would get a little bit of air between us. No such luck. Land Rover man decided to stick even closer. A bit further down the road and there's a gap in the oncoming traffic. Land Rover man drops back a metre or so and takes a stab at overtaking. Unfortunately, he misjudged it and whacked my offside rear quarter as he went past. The impact was enough to pitch my car slightly sideways and make the tyres chirp. Land Rover man nearly loses it completely but just about gathers it all up again and speeds off! I gave chase ( at least to get his full registration number ) and followed him down a few small residential streets at speed. He was trying to get away........... I caught him up easily ( the Alfa is actually pretty quick, and the Landie was no match ) and he slowed down, then stopped. Great - he wants to talk, I think. Actually no, he wants to ram me. He reversed towards my car at a good speed, so I selected reverse and retreated. After several ridiculous backwards and forwards encounters ( I'm quite SURE he was aiming to hit me, and not just bluffing ) he makes off again. I take down his number and as many details as I can and head to the nearest Police station. To be met with a wave of indifference! They don't want to try and catch him, they don't want to even attempt to trace him! "He will be long gone by now"................ I'm given a four-page form and told to go away and fill it in. When I bring it back they will decide if they want to pursue it further. Great. Now I'm looking for sympathy and mourning the inevitable rise in my insurance premium next year. Good job I wasn't in a Z. Alan T. survey the damage here:

Hi Tomohawk, I find it interesting that you might want to re-position the lever. Are you finding it difficult or awkward to use, or is the main thought to do with using different consoles? I have always ( personally ) found that the lever positioning on the LHD cars was most inconvenient and unergonomic, as its much too far away from the natural and comfortable position that would suit the wrist / elbow / shoulder joint combination. I would have thought that a lever mounted on TOP of the trans tunnel would be pretty difficult to use? The tunnel is already pretty high, and sitting down nice and low in the Z ( as nature and good posture intended ) would leave the lever a bit too high up to use ergonomically in my opinion. A centrally-positioned lever would have made the layout more suitable to use in both LHD and RHD versions, but as we know the designers did actually bias the layout of some features of the car towards RHD ( see the "Interior Ergonomics" thread for more discussion on this ). Actually, putting it down on the floor towards the OUTSIDE of the vehicle might make it a bit easier to use and would free up the choice of centre consoles completely. However, there is almost certainly not enough space between the seat and the inner sill / rocker panel to do this. It would also mean getting in and out of the car would need a little more care to avoid a sudden surprise! As for your comments regarding the design of the original Z, I would have to point out that there are plenty of cars that people are always trying to 'improve' or re-engineer in retrospect. In fact, name me one that nobody has ever messed with. Frankly I think its human nature, and people like us always want to improve or personalise a product so that it suits us better ( or so we think! ). Before dissing the original design of the Z car, we have to take into consideration that it was designed, engineered and built DOWN to a price. Any product is always compromised by many factors, and the designers have to compromise and make concessions for it to be a sales success. A true carte-blanche design with no concession to market-needs would probably be a sales failure even if it were a critical success. The masses need to be pleased, and that is why things change to suit the market that they are aimed at. Mr Yoshihiko Matsuo and his team made many concessions when the Z was being designed and productionised, and they were not allowed to do some of the things that they wanted to do. The accountants even made them re-design some parts of the car to keep the production costs down. Perhaps this was a good thing, and perhaps not. Its all quite subjective. You might not have realised it, but many of the items and ideas that you mentioned WERE available as options in the Japanese market ( er, except the CD - which had not been invented - but an 8-track stereo was. Remember 8-tracks?! ). Unfortunately for us, many of those parts were not very well known in the "Export" markets - but they did exist, and the design team had a good handle on what was needed in the race and street-tuning worlds. I certainly don't think that installing a V8 necessarily 'improves' the Z - but people can do what they like can't they? Its all just a matter of taste. But please don't put down the design just because people want to re-engineer or 'improve' it in some way. This does NOT mean that the original design was as bad as you make it sound, especially as you are looking back at it with just about 34 years of retrospect and acquired wisdom. I noticed that you have asked the same question over at Zcar.com and HybridZ. Personally speaking, I don't expect you to get much of an answer at Zcar.com ( if you get one at all..... ) but - as has been suggested - you might well get a more engineering-led response at HybridZ, as there are some very educated engineering minds over there. I don't think Zedrally or anyone else was taking a swipe at you personally, and you have to make allowances for some of the 'foreigners' on this site ( yeah - that includes me :classic:). We sometimes have a different perspective on things and I know that I myself have to stop and think twice and make allowances for the fact that this is a US-based site - even if it is floating around in cyberspace. Debate without argument is a fast-dying art. Let's try to keep that in focus. Sincerely, Alan T.

You might want to make sure that the number is being described correctly. Possibly HS30-101342 or HS30-013420? I would not rule it out.... Would not be the first time that this has happened, as I've seen it many times. My 1970 S30 was mis-described on import to the UK and was listed as an "HS30" on the official UK ownership document ( V5 ). The DVLA ( Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority ) are famously useless when you throw something out of the ordinary at them. If in doubt, check the actual Factory stamping on the firewall and trust it more than any of the non-Factory supplied paperwork. You can approximately date the car by cross-referencing many other factors ( Factory parts dating / Factory-supplied documents etc ) as has already been mentioned. Alan T.

Don't worry, Alfadog. I had the same problem - and my operation worked out just fine. It didn't hurt too much, and there were not that many side-effects. The main problem is remembering to speak with a low voice rather than my natural high-pitched squeak. You can't see the join, either..................

Some might not realise that there was yet another version of the earliest interior rear-view mirrors. This was from the 'no frills' base-level Fairlady Z ( S30-S ) and it had no knob on it at all - it had no 'Night' anti-dazzle position. This was also seen on the 432R, which shared many of the 'no frills' touches of the S30-S in an attempt to save weight. *96321-E4100 BACK MIRROR arse'Y - inside ( S30-S & PS30-SB ) ( no Anti-Dazzle position ) *96321-E4600 BACK MIRROR arse'Y - inside *96321-E4601 BACK MIRROR arse'Y - inside I wonder if the E4600 is the "Red Dot" type and the E4601 is the "Sun & Star" type that very quickly superseded it? Alan T.

Here's a sticker that they used on the oil cap of the S20 engine:

Nissan's "Elephant" brand oils and fluids were indeed named after successes in the East African Safari Rally. They predate the Z car by some years. They used several different versions of the elephant logo over the years. Here's one that they used in Factory parts manuals;