HS30-H

Once again, I find it hard to take you seriously. Take another peep at posts nos. 5, 15, 17, 21, 24, 27, 29 and 35 of this thread for starters. Don't make me quote them all. And that's without listing up every post from our new friend 'tzagi1', who is beyond satire. He even mentioned old Russian trucks at one point, which made the tin foil on my head quiver a little. Putinbot? Nah, he's too funny to be Russian. But here's a real zinger from yourself: "Considering how many parts can get replaced during a restoration, it seems kind of limiting to make a small piece of firewall metal so important. If a person cuts that rectangle of metal out of a car and installs it in another car, which car is the legitimate one?" That was from post no.68. A rhetorical question? Satire? Not clear from where I'm sitting. One minute you're condoning the practice, and the next you're against it. My impression is that you might have woken up and smelled the coffee around the second page of the thread. Hard to tell though. You're clear now though, right?

First I want to hear your explanation of how you can "swap a body" on these cars. Swap a body and you've effectively swapped a car.

The answer to your first question is 'Part Number One'. It's the unibody/monocoque/bodyshell, and it carries a unique identity. You cannot "swap a body" on these cars. Nissan did not supply 'Body In White' un-numbered replacement bodyshells for these cars, so if you substitute one for another then you have - effectively - another car altogether. Parts from two - or more - cars can become one, but two unique identities cannot become one. I notice people like yourself are not asking why the car in question ended up like it did. We are talking about two cars in the mix here. One car donated an engine bay tag, door jamb tag and dash tag (what happened to their original bodyshell?) and one car donated its bodyshell (what happened to its engine bay tag, door jamb tag, dash tag and any identity-related paperwork?). "As long as one does not lie" is not going to cut it here. The car itself - as it stands - is a lie.

It is perhaps wise not to take the expression "playing god" too literally. Especially if the letter g is in lower case... National laws pertaining to motor vehicles in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are administered by The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) - a government agency - on a nationwide basis. The DVLA share data and intelligence - where necessary and practical - with other European vehicle licensing agencies. I think you'll find that most first world nations take a dim view of vehicle cloning, vehicle identity fraud and - in the vernacular - vehicle 'ringing'. Indeed "this is not England". And I've a feeling we are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

In this particular case, it appears to be two cars...

What's all this 'museum or driven' stuff got to do with anything? What has quantities built got to do with it either? You're missing The Big Point here. There are several reasons why car manufacturers issue individual cars with their own unique chassis/car number and 'identity', but the main one is to comply with (international) laws. These unique identities are not transferable. But we all know what goes on. If it is done *professionally* (cough....) enough that it is all but undetectable, then so be it. That stuff happens, but it is not supposed to. What beggars belief is somebody blithely talking about an example of fraudulent activity (as a victim of it, no less) on an open forum, and apparently not even getting what the car represents. He has a car which has had the identity of another loosely pinned on it, and half of the people replying to this thread don't appear to think he has a problem. My understanding of the situation is that he has documents which show he owns an engine bay tag, a door jamb tag and a dash tag. They are attached to a car body that he doesn't legally own, even if it is in his possession. For those not so hot on their arithmetic, that's TWO sets of unique identities that have been separated from their original homes. And why? The usual answer is that it was for nefarious reasons. I'm surprised that members of a marque and model specialist 'club' forum would condone such activity, either directly or indirectly. As far as I am aware, such practices are illegal in the majority of civilised countries. Here in the UK and Europe, if such a car was inspected and discovered by a member of the Police force, by a customs official, by a vehicle licensing agency, a licensed engineer or independent assessor, it would be impounded. If no legitimate paperwork for the part of the vehicle with the biggest claim to a unique identity ('Part Number One' - the unibody) could be produced then the vehicle would be crushed and a fraud investigation would follow. Anybody who unwittingly purchased such a car would drop it like a hot stone, and would be seeking recourse and legal advice. The 'nothing special' / 'not historically important' part of your post just doesn't stack up. Each and every firewall-engraved identity unique. None of us has the moral or legal right to play god with these cars and remix identities at our convenience. It's nothing to do with value, model rarity or historic significance. And all this is quite apart from whatever happened further back up the trail, which often turns out to be theft or fraud, and has a victim...

Do you seriously not know the answer to that question?

You've just proved my point (thanks....). Cars with *faked* identities will eventually be exposed, and their fate then falls into uncertainty at the very least. Does not bode well for the OP's car, in my opinion.

Race cars are race cars, but race cars that display TWO numbered identities at the same time are on their way to the scene of an accident. The car in question smells very iffy to me, and some parts of the USA are not far from being banana republics if the comments on this thread are anything to go by. Some of the people posting in this thread would make the rank of Generalissimo in those banana republics. Names have been taken for future reference... Note to self: Do Not Buy A Used Car From _______________.

OK, a somewhat rhetorical question here: To what exact model(s) and/or sub-variants does the 'Series One' moniker actually apply?

The main problem is that people use the term inaccurately, and apply it to details and features which don't fall neatly into such pigeonholing. As can be seen on this thread...

The Sheriff needs to hand in his badge and the 'Appraiser' needs to get another job. The two of them could get hitched and go to live in a banana republic somewhere. Venezuela might suit them. I think it's fair to say that in any country that takes classic cars seriously - and I think that includes the USA - it's the chassis number stamped or engraved into the bodyshell (by the Factory...) that counts. That's certainly the case for Nissan and the S30-series Z . Door jamb tags, dash tags and engine bay tags are all moveable feasts, and do not trump the firewall-engraved prefix and body serial number combo that was applied by the Factory when the car was being made. Without getting into the philosophical discussion of what actually constitutes 'a car', it is generally accepted that 'the car' in your case will be the thing that has the firewall-engraved chassis number. At this point, it looks to me as though you don't actually have full and correct ownership of that. I'd consider that a big problem...

That style of rear ARB/'Sway Bar' was nothing to do with Nissan. But of course, Nissan did design and engineer rear ARBs for S30-series Zs right from the beginning of production. They just were not fitted to cars sold in the North American market. It's yet another example of why the 'Series One' and 'Series Two' monikers are all but meaningless when it comes to detail differences on the S30-series Z.

I like "chassis" and "engine" in particular... When it comes down to it, doesn't this kind of question point to the fact that "Series One" and "Series Two" are fairly nebulous terms, coined well after the fact in an attempt to line up a set of ducks? A set of ducks that Nissan themselves didn't really make much attempt to line up? There always seem to be anomalies and exceptions to the rule, and the 'Series' terms certainly don't seem to work accurately on Japanese domestic market cars or indeed any non-North American market car. The one big difference where a line can be drawn - on a car-by-car basis - is the change from non-vented quarter and vented tailgate to vented quarter and non-vented tailgate. Many of the other small detail differences did not change as part of one single step, so how can the 'Series' terms be applied to them?

:polite cough:

Here are images of the three Works SCCN team-entered cars from the '73 Fuji 1000Km race: The No.8 car is the TAKAHASHI/TOHIRA 240ZR and the No.10 car is the SUZUKI/TOSHIMORI 'experimental' test car. The No.10 was repaired and, as I mentioned above, managed to finish the race and place third in the 'R' class. It was a tough race.

It's the works SCCN team Nissan Fairlady 240ZR, shared by SCCN works team drivers Masahiro HASEMI and Kazuyoshi HOSHINO in the 1973 Fuji 1000km race, held on 29th July. Nissan's SCCN works team had entered three cars in the race; two 240ZRs and an 'experimental' modified 240Z (testing new parts for long-distance racing), all in the 'R' class. The two 240ZRs were running bored-up, crossflow headed LY24s on ECGI injection and the other car was running an FIA 'Safari' non-crossflow head, also on ECGI injection. The race was badly affected by typhoon conditions, with HASEMI and HOSHINO crashing out after contact with another car after only 24 laps. The sister 240ZR, shared by Kunimitsu TAKAHASHI and Kenji TOHIRA, crashed out on the 57th lap, but the third SCCN 'experimental' car, shared by Seiichi SUZUKI and Yasunori TOSHIMORI, finished 7th overall and third in the 'R' class.

A far as I can tell there's no offset in the hold-down pressing, so the top of the T-handle sits in the same position whether the hold-down pressing is high side up or high side down.

Great photos Mike, and I think they bring up an interesting question regarding the orientation of the hold-down. Which way is 'UP'? Many, many times I see the hold-down facing DOWN. That is, with the pressed-out shape of the hold-down facing down and IN the spare wheel rather than facing UP and sticking out of the spare wheel. The T-handle can be used either way, but the (correct?) orientation of the octopus dot-grip side of the rubber would seem to suggest that it is intended to grip the spare wheel. If the dot-grip is facing fresh air then what function is it performing? Nissan themselves seem to have been confused by this. I see both orientations in various factory documentation. For example: ...which I think is the correct orientation. The temptation is to fit the pressed-out shape of the hold-down into the centre of the spare wheel, and it seems to make sense, but I think it was not actually designed to work that way. I believe they dropped the rubber cover for the T-handle quite soon into production.

There's more than one set of factory spring rates for the '240', let alone anything else. '240' doesn't mean just one thing... As Jason has pointed out, it would be interesting to see some of the budget end of the market damper units put on a shock dyno. You almost never see any discussion of bump/rebound ratings, knee-points and etc in relation to them. The suspicion is that they are generically-valved with little real attention paid to final application. At least some of them were originally aimed at models with semi-trailing arm rear suspension.

The retainer has (had) a rubber ring around it, smooth on the upper side and dot-gripped (octopus-like) on the underneath. The T-handle should have a rubber cover on it too, but they rarely survive...

We are going round in circles now. The grip on your steering wheel is simply deteriorated, that's all. I don't think it's a question of quality. I've seen Izumi steering wheels where the grip has pretty much turned to mush and dust with the ravages of time, UV, humidity, sweat and biological attack. They can have a hard life...

Izumi made (real) wood, composite wood, 'leather-look' Urethane and (real) leather-rimmed steering wheels. Yours is - like the one on my KPGC10 - the moulded Urethane 'leather look' type, with stitch detail.

Judging by your photos, there's nothing 'missing' from your steering wheel. The covering with the moulded-in faux stitching is the original 'leather look' surface finish. I have an Izumi with a similar faux leather finish (it has become sun-bleached and faded) on my KPGC10. Not a very good photo, but you can see the moulded-in stitch detail:

Yes, but this is the opposite to that. Any Italian-made steering wheel - and especially a Nardi - imported into Japan in the 1970/80s would be considered premium product. Slapping a 'Japan' sticker on it would not increase value or desirability in Japan, quite apart from it not representing true country of origin. I think the 'Japan' sticker is a true reflection of origin, added to comply with laws in the country of sale.