HS30-H

Sourcing and fitting an earlier twin cutout crossmember would not be all that difficult? Straight swap. Here are some scans from a 2020 issue of Nostalgic Speed magazine (Vol.025) which might be helpful. They show and talk about the flipped flange (he's pointing at it...) and there are some good photos illustrating the area where the twin pipes pass around the (R200) diff. Might be useful to some.

A cursory look back through this thread shows you throwing shade at both Fujitsubo and Spirit Garage. Your (ridiculous) assertions that Fujitsubo should personally curate every single sale - even when their products are passing through a chain of both authorised and unauthorised re-sellers - is for the birds, as is your suggestion that they need to do it in the English language. Pie-in-the-sky stuff. You have been sniping at Fujitsubo on other forums and on Facebook for years now. Many of the questions being asked arise from typical social media whispering grass scenarios, and from misconceptions which you yourself contribute to. My advice to everybody - as always - is to go back to source. In the case of aftermarket exhausts that means the manufacturers themselves. Look for example at the situation regarding R200 compatibility. The guy whining that his exhaust didn't fit his 280Z simply didn't understand what FGK's published data told him. You're kidding, right? This thread is titled "New Fujitsubo Exhaust System" and it started in January 2017. By post #4 you are active in the topic and throwing shade, by post #12 you are showing a photo of your own product and by post #13 you are advocating your Z Story exhausts with sales patter ("....still a big advantage buying from me is that.....I'm here - you can talk, ask questions, get measurements (get replacement parts if needed) - gotta be better than buying blind from a 'buy it now' site !"). By post #17 you are even quoting prices. So you elevate yourself as a rival supplier, and you've had posts (and threads) elsewhere deleted and edited because of it. You've even been sent on extended Gardening Leave by one forum because of your incessant sales pitches. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, you would be well advised to simply let your products speak for themselves and stop with the blatant and between-the-lines criticism you throw at the products of other manufacturers who are not here to defend themselves.

There's no "flame war", and taking yourself a little less seriously might be a good companion to the pragmatism I've already recommended.

Flipping the 'binocular' flange between the manifold and the rest of the system is (surely?) part of their effort to improve ground clearance.

It seems to me that after 19 pages "The Information" is peppered with misunderstandings, miscomprehensions and personal opinions with - I'd say - a little light salting of wilful disinformation and unfair criticism from a rival supplier with a dog in the fight. I've answered your PMs to the best of my ability. I've also recommended that you reach out to the actual manufacturers rather than their online re-sellers because I don't believe the re-sellers will make the effort to get full answers to your (many) technical questions. QED. I also get the feeling that, whatever system you eventually go with, you'll probably find fault. You now say you're going with a Spirit Garage system but (even as a happy Spirit Garage system user) I can assure you that the Fujitsubo systems are better quality both in materials used and in construction. Whatever you buy, a pinch of pragmatism will go a long way.

To be fair, you've been posting on this thread asking questions since 2017 and you still haven't bought a system. One might be excused for thinking it's you that doesn't want to "buy the damn thing"... 😉 At some point you just need to step up and do it. I see you asking questions about stuff (sensor bosses, welded mounting tabs etc) that you can add/modify on whatever system you buy. Some of the questions make it sound like you are ordering parts for NASA. Aftermarket exhaust systems for almost any car - in my experience - are likely to need a little tweaking at the very least. This is not millimetre accurate engineering here. They are pipes with bends in them. I previously vouched for the Spirit Garage (Japan) systems and used one on one of my cars for many years. It is still going strong. However, I made some small modifications to the rearmost mounts to better fit (in my opinion) my car, and my tastes. No big deal, surely? I eventually painted most of it flat black, as I got tired of the 'bling'. The Spirit Garage and Fujitsubo systems are excellent quality and have the advantage of ready availability and, currently, USD to JPY exchange rates greatly in your favour.

Mostly in your head. Rent free.

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?

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.

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.

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!

And 1969.

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...

"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.

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.

And that's the problem...

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.

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.

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...

Series is 'S30': Yes, I know I know....

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:

That's why I posted it!

It might actually be beneficial to hear views from people like SpeedRoo, however half-baked they may be. Maybe we can help him straighten it out a little? "Faulty"? How many early L24 crankshafts failed in normal - road - use? The use for which they were designed? Why was the early L24 crankshaft designed and manufactured in the way that it was? You might think different, but I have a hunch that Nissan knew how to design and manufacture a crankshaft properly. We already know that there were problems meeting the required kerb weight and costing of the HLS30U variants (that costing due to an unusually low retail pricing target set by NMC USA) so where to pinch? Personally I'd say that whole subject is a lot less black and white than you want to paint it. And the story of BRE having "discovered" the counterweighting issue and given feedback "to Japan" and therefore solving the issue is for the birds. Happier, thanks (tee hee). You get the point though, right? Nissan - like any Japanese company - takes its home market very seriously. Sometimes people make it sound as though they only existed to feed the USA with cheap cars and trucks, but Nissan's aims were global. Hence we are talking here about a car they built to compete in a world championship European rally, a factor that was taken into account on the drawing board, indeed. On the contrary. Of course they thought it important. That's why NMC USA supported racing in the way it did. How would you have proposed they took part more directly? Factory-built race cars shipped from Japan to take part in local SCCA C-Production races in the different divisions? Or maybe setting up a satellite factory race shop in the USA (or maybe one for the East Coast and one for the West, maybe more...)? It becomes increasingly unlikely the more you think about it. No, the way they went about racing in the USA made perfect sense. Private race teams and private individual racers benefitting from national distributor support was the way to do it. Direct factory team presence would have been disruptive and counter-productive even if there was any possibility of it being logistically feasible, which there wasn't. For Japanese domestic racing and selected international events Nissan could of course take a more direct approach. The car we are discussing here is an example of that. As I've mentioned, Nissan was taking a world view for its activities. That's why it was in Australia before it was in the USA and Canada. That's why it was in Africa. That's why it was in Europe. This wasn't just about selling a few hundred thousand sports cars. I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand how important those 'Big Three' international events - the East African Safari Rally, the Rallye Monte Carlo and the RAC Rally - were to Nissan. It might be possible that one or two people got out of bed and went to work at Nissan Japan whilst dreaming of Bob Sharp winning Sunday's SCCA C-production race at Cumberland, but I somehow doubt it. The farmer in Angola didn't buy his little Datsun truck because he was swayed by the result of a race at Bridgehampton. That's not my view at all. However, there's certainly the occasional whiff of the opposite view from yourself here and there. This recent exchange was prompted by your reaction to the assertion that Nissan's international rallying activities are underappreciated in the USA but, ironically, your reaction serves to prove the point. Why would Nissan have to compete in a USA-based road rally event (not that there was one...) in order for people in the USA to take notice? Are you saying that results of the Safari, Monte and RAC are not of any interest or relevance in the USA? If so, maybe we need to check who is wearing those blinkers you mentioned? Personally, I'd like to give a little more benefit of the doubt. There has always been a hard core of world motorsports enthusiasts in the USA who know what's what, and it is reciprocated. This weekend the subject of this thread was on display at the show in Long Beach. I feel sure it will pique the interest and curiosity of many attendees. The owner is certainly dedicated to the task of helping us all to understand the car and its context more fully, and I am cheering him on with that.

Nissan's most important market was then - as it still is - the Japanese market. Do you honestly think that Nissan were "not good enough to compete" in the USA's local, SCCA-sanctioned events? How about the possibility that they didn't even consider it as necessary? What other actual manufacturer team was directly involved in C-Production at the time? As far as I'm aware, none. All the manufacturers were represented/supported by distributor-supported local teams. Nothing wrong with that, and it makes total sense. Like I said, why have a dog and bark yourself? Oh, you mean the crankshafts that were penny-pinched to meet the "Thanks Mr K!" recommended retail price? Good job that BRE "discovered" that and "told Japan", huh? I have a very nice bridge here that you really should buy.

'Planet USA' thinking. By inference, nobody outside the USA would need to take any notice of what BRE and Sharp were doing locally then? Nissan's Works team rally activities were undertaken on the WORLD stage in competition with the other manufacturer Works teams. Anybody with an interest in world-level motorsport would understand this as significant. Ben is saying that this is largely unrecognised in the USA, especially with regard to the content and specs of the cars involved, and I concur. Nissan never rallied a car in the USA because there was no World class rallying event in the USA to take part in. Not exactly a shining success, was it? And I'd dispute the 'for them' part too. The attention BRE gave to the Baja style events was purely its own. Nissan was concentrating its Works efforts on the Big Three world-class events - the E.A. Safari Rally, The Rallye Monte Carlo and the RAC Rally - through the 1960s, 70s and 80s as standalone events and also - from 1970 - as part of the FIA International Championship of Makes. Manufacturer-backed local activities in the USA were best undertaken by locally-based teams. Why have a dog and bark yourself?