240260280

Here is a very early Red 240z at the Nov 26, 1969 ARRC in Daytona. It is most likely HLS30-00007. BIG THANKS TO KATS! FOR THE FOLLOWING: Only 3 HLS30 240z's were on the Nissan books as exported into NA in 1969. These may be the 3 show cars that were manufactured in Oct 1969 and brought into the USA in Oct. 1969. They were: HLS30-00006 (Green) HLS30-00007 (Red) HLS30-00008 (Silver) Two test cars manufactured in Sept 1969 were temporarily imported into North America from Oct 10 to Dec 29 1969. They were: HLS30-00004 (Silver Manual) HLS30-00005 (Silver Automatic) 240z at '69 ARRC. From video: "Drive the Ragged Edge" 1969 ARRC Races. (Click here to watch the commercial). (note: no OK sticker in quarter window) Same 240z at '69 ARRC. From Datsun.org (Jack Scoville's winning car with mechanic Vern Colvin). 1969 ARRC program cover and 1969 Datsun advertisement proclaiming ARRC '69 win. HLS30-00007.mp4 http://www.classiczcars.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=80519

I wonder if this is where the "lost" chassis HLS-00009 to HLS-00012 went? Geneva certainly had one in March however later production Z's were arriving in NA by then so it may not have been one of the "lost". For "very" early Z's to be in Europe, one would expect an arrival of Sept/Oct 1969 like in North America.

Another photo of one of the silver test cars w/o badges and open hood.

Submarine Cable Engine.... pulls cable into the ship and pays it out like a giant spaghetti slupper! Here is one passing an optical amplifier The older ones used tank track-like design And then again... the early method:

Copy Cat!

Measuring closure point (Fuel level in middle axis of plate-bowl) at different degrees of tilt will solve the "mystery" and give a nice curve as you do 0 degrees (23mm), 5 degrees (?mm), and 10 degrees (mm) as well as -5 degrees (?mm), and -10 degrees (mm) .

Can you compare the fuel height with water... yeah I know your pump will be wet for a bit but it would be a good calibration point for those calibrating with water. Also measuring the pump psi or giving its rating would be good to know as it determines when the valve closes.

Brilliant!

Interesting! I read in a post from KATS they did hill testing in 1969 in San Francisco. I guess it would be a side-hill-gouger modification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidehill_gouger

For CV carbs, only venturi vacuum from air flowing in the throat of the carb between the piston and bridge is what draws fuel. The height that the fuel has to be lifted from the liquid surface in the fuel bowl to the carb throat opening at the bridge is what must be approximately the same for both carbs. How the fuel bowl maintains the correct level under all driving conditions is what the float and needle valve have to do as a team. Fuel pressure, variations in fuel pressure (pumping impulses), acceleration, braking, turning, bumps, and engine vibrations are the primary forces affecting how well the float and needle valve function to constantly maintain a constant fuel level. If you can figure out why the float stand-offs are different in one carb for one year then I'll be glad to know. Engine tilt is moot as it is static. Dynamics of refilling under acceleration out of a turn when racing is my guess... a fuel bowl going empty is a bad thing. It does not matter when braking as the fuel sloshes forward as there is no engine demand for fuel but it seems to be very important to adequately feed fuel when accelerating. (when the fuel sloshes backwards). The fact that the hinges on the fuel bowls are on different fore-aft sides seems to be why the stand-off heights were changed. When accelerating, in one fuel bowl the fuel sloshes away from the hinge point but in the other it sloshes towards it. This seems to be the reason for the attempt to mitigate by altering the stand-off height in one carb.

When looking at Datsun racing history, it seems that the Datsun convertible sports cars in the USA in the early 60's were the first track racers and winners after the war: http://www.nissan-motorsports.com/ENN/NISSAN/HISTORY/MOTORSPORTS/index.html The USA convertible sports cars were also the first racing cars to be sponsored by Nissan. Datsun seems to have done a bit of track racing in the 30's and 40's but stopped. Datsun NL-75 1936 Apart from Nissan's well known 1958 headfirst jump into rallying that was spurred by Mr. K. .... 1958 Australia Mobil Gas Trial Nissan did little in Japan until after a non-sponsored privateer, Genichiro Tahara, won solely on his own effort at the 1st Japan Grand Prix Race, Suzuka Circuit, spring 1963. It seems this kick started Nissan into its racing activities in Japan. Genichiro Tahara Winning at Suzuka 1963. SP310_first_race_Japan_1963.mp4 In the USA things were different; Datsun's were track racing for the previous 3 years (since 1960). Mr K was in the USA and things were moving much faster than in Japan (both cars and Nissan-sponsored racing involvement). The fact that no convertible sports cars were sold in Japan for two years, the fact that Mr. K was the motive force at Nissan for racing, the fact he was now situated in the USA, and the fact he requisitioned a sports car for the USA market, affirms the 240z sport car was designed and built for the USA sports car market. Jean Le Plant and Benny Ackermann raced an SPL-212 in 1960 & 1962 then switched to the SPL-310 in 1962 Norah Taylor raced an SPL212 in 1961 Modernized "Datsun 1200" SPL-212 Commemorating Nissan's first Sponsored Racer: Jean Plant's 1960 LHD SPL-212 #129 Datsun 1200. It Raced from 1960 to 1963 in the USA.

FYI It looks like there was also a 432-R at the Tokyo International Motor Show: The Blue 240z seems to have been replaced at some point by the 432R. A few other items were also added to the display.

Datsun 240z LHD at Le Salon international de l'automobile de Genève. March, 1970

1952 Datsun produced their first sports car, the DC-3 "Datsun 20" RHD. They made 70, sold only 30, then converted the remaining 40 back to trucks.Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1952. 1959-60 Datsun produced their second sports car, the SP211 "Datsun 1000" RHD. They made only 20. Again Japan was not ready for a Nissan sports car in 1959. 1960-61 Datsun produced their third sports car, the SPL212 "Datsun 1200" LHD They made 228. Nissan skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1961 Datsun produced their fourth sports car, the SPL213 "Datsun Fairlady" LHD They made 217. Nissan again skipped the domestic market and made all (100%) for the USA market. 1962 Datsun produced their fifth sports car, the SPL310/SP310 "Datsun 1500/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. They made 6460. ~4160 (64%) for USA market. 1965 Datsun produced their sixth sports car, the SPL311/SP311 "Datsun 1600/Fairlady" LHD/RHD. An iteration of the SLP-310. They made 27,400. ~26,430 (96%) for USA market . The first successful sports car sales!!! 1965 Detroit officials were called to testify on automobile safety before the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization chaired by Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff. 1966 Changes in USA safety regulations make continued production of convertibles more challenging. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave regulators until January 31, 1967 to develop federal motor vehicle safety standards that were practical, stated in objective terms, and met the need for motor vehicle safety. 1966 August. All Datsun 240Z sketches and clay models from designers up to August 1966 were convertibles. Model "A11" had an optional hard top affixed similar to the one used by designers to retrofit to the SPL310 (Figure 2 below). It is clear the direction of design changed at this point. In Q3/Q4 of 1966, Datsun designers made their first 240z model with a full hard top. It was design model "C3. Oct. 11, 1967 Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the National Traffic Safety Bureau (NTSB) issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on 47 issues, including roof intrusion, seeking public comment. 1967 Datsun produced their seventh sports car, the SRL311/SPR311 "Datsun 2000/Fairlady" LHD/RHD It was again an iteration of the SPL-310. They made 14,990. ~12,880 (86%) for USA market. Figure 1. Datsun Production Sports Cars Preceding the 240z After a testing of the waters for selling sports cars in Japan in 1952 and again in 1959, it was clear that the domestic market was not ready for sports cars. Datsun immediately re-focused on the USA market for selling sports cars. For the next two model years from 1960 to 1962 they produced only LHD models and only for the US market. Although the market and production numbers were small. Nissan management had chosen to go after the USA sports car market early on. Unfavourable post-war trade barriers with many other countries may have also shaped Nissan's export focus on the USA at this very early point. Countries in Europe traditionally manufactured small cars where as in the USA cars were typically large. Having small Japanese cars enter the market in the USA presented nearly zero competition with the large car manufacturers however, in Europe small Japanese imports would have competed directly with all manufactures so protectionist tariffs were maintained against Japan. In 1962, Datsun re-designed/styled the convertible. This new design (SPL-310 Datsun 1500) remained relatively unchanged until all convertible production ended in 1970. In 1965 and 1966, production numbers were up, and sales in the USA were growing exponentially however, changes in the safety requirements for automobile design in the USA were well underway. In 1965, preliminary documents from the USA Govt. the creation of new Govt. automotive safety agencies, and discussions throughout the industry & media pointed to significant safety challenges to come for manufacturers of convertibles. At this time, manufacturers had no details regarding the extent of the new rules to come so it was anyone's guess as to how difficult it would eventually become to produce a convertible that would meet the impending new requirements. The fact that new roll-over tests were required made convertibles seem vulnerable to failing this test. Immediately after the US Govt. began the process to increase safety requirements, Nissan management began to re-risk and focus on developing a new enclosed coupe. Up to that point, all Datsun sports cars were convertibles*. To continue expanding into the USA market without risk, it was clear that a convertible was not the way. A coupe would guarantee a path through the impending stricter safety requirements. In fact, Datsun did not significantly change the design of their 1500 sports car beyond that point in time apart from some engine changes and safety compliance changes. It was clear they were done with it apart from churning out more as it was most profitable to continue an existing product. Almost immediately after the new regulations warning, contingency stop-gap tests occurred (in case the safety requirements changes came earlier). One such test in August of 1966 was the fitting of a large hard-top roof to their popular SPL-310 convertible. Figure 2. Datsun SP-310 Testing Optional Hard Top August 1966 Figure 3. Datsun 240z Convertible Prototype Model "A11" with Optional Hard Top ~July, 1966 It should be noted that during the design and development of the 240z, the designers and engineers at Nissan had to keep abreast of the evolving USA safety standards. As mentioned by Mr. Takeshi Kume Tamura, the Chief designer of the 240z during its final stages prior to going to a prototype: "During this time, design changes occurred such as significant changes to size of the complete body, modifications to the fenders, due to the change of the wheel, and changes to the design to match American safety standards". By the end of the 60's Datsun had produced ~ 50,000 convertible sports cars . The expected stringent safety restrictions did not materialize however Datsun had moved away from the convertible and completely stopped convertible production in 1970. Of all Datsun Sports Cars produced prior to the 240Z, approximately 44,000 (88%) were LHD sold in the USA market. Whereas sales in the USA market grew substantially for Nissan throughout the 60's, domestic sales did not significantly change. Nissan management would have observed this pattern as it evolved through out all of the 60's. From the graph below, it is clear to see that domestic sales of Datsun sports cars (convertible and S30) did not show significant growth for the convertibles or even later with the S30. On the other hand, the convertible grew in the USA market and the 240z design exploded in the USA market. Prior to the 240z, the convertible sport cars growth was only in the USA. 1969-1970 production crossover from the convertible to 240z is easy to see. One product ramped up and one ramped down, This was partly due to sharing of some production facilities. Production for both convertibles and the 240z confirm Nissan's management made a wise decision to go after the USA sports car market. Low sales in the domestic market did not warrant the need for so many iterations of the S30 platform however the iterations were done and they seem to be more for the requirements of automobile racing that Nissan was involved in since Mr. K's stimulus in the 1950's. Rally racing, the avid road racing scene in Japan, and the success of road racing roadsters in the USA during the 1960's were the prime drivers for small quantities of variants to the standard model sold in Japan. The basic models sold in Japan and the USA came with L engines (2.0 litre for the domestic market and 2.4 litre for the USA). Nissan's determination for the 240z to succeed in the USA market is exemplified by the additional pre-release road testing they did in North America above and beyond the their standard product development and certification testing done in Japan. Nissan's sports car sales success to this day is traceable to the fact they had chosen to go after the USA sports car market at an early stage rather than most other manufacturers in Europe who focused on local markets first. This ultimately shaped Nissan's continued success where as many others failed to make a sports car for the USA market like the 240z. Nissan successfully designed for, and successfully sold in the largest sports car market place in the world... the USA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Service Administration (GSA) Published the following 17 new standards on June 30,1965. More were to come. Anchorage for seat belt assemblies. Padded dash and visors. Recessed dash instruments and control devices. Impact-absorbing steering wheel and column displacement. Safety door latches and hinges. Anchorage of seats. Four-way flasher. Safety glass. Dual operation of braking system. Standard bumper heights. Standard gear quadrant, P-R-N-D-L, automatic transmission. Sweep design of windshield wipers-washers. Glare reduction surfaces. Exhaust emission control system. Tire and safety rim. Backup lights. Outside rear view mirror. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES: 31 (March 8, 1966): 4091, GSA proposes safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (July 15, 1966): 9631, GSA final rule, safety standards for Federally purchased vehicles. 31 (December 3, 1966): 15212, NPRM for the initial FMVSS. 32 (February 3, 1967): 2414, final rule for the initial FMVSS, including FMVSS Nos. 103, 105, 108, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 301. [Notable technologies are seat belts; energy absorbing steering assemblies; door locks, latches, and hinges; occupant protection in interior impact; dual cylinders / Front disc brakes; and trailer conspicuity tape.] 32 (October 13, 1967): 14278, ANPRM to consider regulations to limit roof crush and intrusion. 32 (December 16, 1967): 18033, final rule extending FMVSS No. 108 to cars and LTVs. 32 (December 28, 1967): 20865, NPRM to establish FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (February 14, 1968): 2945, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 202 for passenger cars. 33 (August 16, 1968): 11652, final rule establishing FMVSS No. 212 for passenger cars. [Adhesive windshield bonding] 33 (October 5, 1968): 14971, ANPRM announcing the intention to regulate side door strength. 33 (December 11, 1968): 18386, first NPRM proposing FMVSS No. 214. 34 (January 24, 1969): 1150, final rule extending FMVSS No. 206 to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles. 34 (July 2, 1969): 11148, initial ANPRM to consider air bags or other automatic protection. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Below the next few photos are Roof Crush Testing and Policy Development in the USA that Nissan would have been aware of with their Eastern USA Vice President's Mr. Soichi Kowazoe's Liasons with DC (It is interesting how this timeline fits with 240z prototyping and affected roof height changes during the 240z development process): Measuring Roof Height as per FMVSS 208 & 216 (Passenger Restraining in Crash/Roll Over and Roof Crush) FMVSS 208 Roll Over Testing 240z with DOHC Engine. (Note Split Exhaust) FYI: Prototype "CA-4" 240z with Split Exhaust In 1962 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was formed in order to develop test procedures for evaluating vehicle structural integrity under various types of impacts. (Deadly By Design reference 14) The subcommittee's members included representatives from General Motors (and Fisher Body - a division of General Motors), Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, Kaiser Jeep Corporation, International Harvester Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc. and American Motors Corporation. (DBD - 15) In June 1963 the subcommittee developed and approved the SAE Recommended Practice, "Roll-Over Tests Without Collision - SAE J857." (DBD - 16) On October 6, 1966 the Secretary of Commerce announced the development of initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. (DBD - 34) The Static Crusher was then being developed at Fisher Body by James Augustitis, an associate senior research engineer. (DBD - 35) Fisher Body was responsible for building the vehicle bodies for General Motors. In August of 1967 the Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee developed and approved SAE Recommended Practice, "Inverted Vehicle Drop Test Procedures - SAE J996." (DBD - 36) By mid August the subcommittee's work on test procedures was nearing completion. Members used the top drop test procedures as a means for obtaining values for drop height and encroachment distance. The procedure was designed to be a repeatable and reliable test methodology. It was concluded that initially vehicles should be dropped from 2 feet. (DBD - 37) Only a week or so after the subcommittee's Inverted Drop Test - SAEJ996 was approved, and the recommended drop height of 2 feet was initially established, Fisher Body dropped two 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtops from 6 inches which resulted in 8 inches of dynamic intrusion.(DBD - 38) Fisher Body tested the same 1967 Chevrolet "B" 4 door hardtop with the static crusher and the vehicle's roof withstood 6000 pounds withjust 3 inches of crush. (DBD - 39) Immediately after General Motors' vehicles failed the two drop tests on September 6 and 7, Ed Klove of Fisher Body prepared a proposal of a Roof Crush Test Procedure. (DBD - 40) P.O. Johnson of Fisher Body (and also a subcommittee member) presented Klove's proposal to the SAE Impact and Roll-Over Test Procedures Subcommittee on September 29, 1967. Klove's proposal stated its advantages: "more impressive numbers are obtained - three inches crush for 6000 lb. load. (A six inch vehicle drop height allowing eight inches crush is not impressive)." (DBD - 41) Fisher Body now realized that all their vehicles would not even meet a drop height of 6 inches. (DBD - 42) Klove's proposal dared to pose the question, "Who can say that it does not provide as good a measure of vehicle safety as does an inverted drop test?" (DBD - 43) It was Klove's idea to suggest this test procedure as an alternative method of showing compliance.(DBD - 44) Fisher Body's nickname for the Static Crusher was "GOLDFINGER." (DBD - 45) On December 8, 1971, NHTSA adopted General Motors' proposal (one that GM's vehicles could already pass) (DBD - 47) and announced that FMVSS 216 was being created as a temporary alternative to FMVSS 208 rollover testing. (DBD - 60) The December 11, 1971 NHTSA News Release read: "The new standard is intended as an alternative to Standard No. 208 rollover test, and will become effective on August 15, 1973. End of the line for Goertz at Nissan: Oct 1964 Tokyo Motor Show (CSP-311 Silva Coupe) Note earliest 240z sketches were ~ 1 year later. * apart from the CSP-311 Silva coupe that was more of an experiment. It was difficult to produce (only 554) and sold poorly like the DC-3. It was a good learning experience for Nissan as to how not to design a coupe.

From an interesting blog in Japan regarding the design of the S30Z and the design team.... along with some very uncomfortable corporate politics/interplay: "In 1965, it was headquarters' decision to develop a safe, closed-body sports car due to requests from Nissan USA. The high-level design specifications were reviewed and, in the fall of '65, The Z plan (a next-generation sports car design development plan) was started." '６５年になると米国日産からの要望などから、より安全性の高いクローズド・ボディのスポーツカーを開発すべきと本社の意向が固まり、設計上層部で基本仕様を検討し、’６５年秋にマルＺ計画（次期スポーツカーのデザイン開発計画）がスタートします。 この時にエクステリア・デザインを担当するスタジオとして第４スタジオが発足します。 メンバーは松尾、吉田、千葉の３人です。 http://mizma-g.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2011/12/s30zzdatsun-240.html

"Rhetorical question: Would proof that Nissan tested the S20 engine in LHD S30-series Z layout (a nascent 'PLS30'?) prove or disprove your "made for the USA" line of thinking?" My understanding is that Nissan considered this engine to be too complex to maintain and to train mechanics outside of the domestic market. The larger displacement L24 had similar performance with less weight and less parts. It was the better engine for mass production.

"Triumph, Austin Healey, Jaguar, Porsche, ALFA Romeo, FIAT et al?" I think you'll find that all of them - without exception - found the biggest market for their Sports/GT models was in North America, and the USA in particular. Would you say that their products were "designed for the USA" too?" I think if they were, they would have given Nissan some competition. Nissan did design for the USA market and succeeded. The Z is the proof. "What is your reaction to the fact that many Nissans of the same period - including those that had little to no intention to be exported outside Japan - share similar ergonomic features? " I'd have to look at these and evaluate. I just looked at the Z. As stated, the location of some controls are moot and have advantages and disadvantages for either side. "Can you clarify the above statement please? " The 510's ignition is on the door side on LHD cars. I find it awkward compared to the Z and compared to nearly all other NA cars that have the ignition switch inboard. It would seem the ignition switch location on the Z is a good change for the North American market and it can also maintain the same location for the RHD market (that seems to have been traditionally on the door side for prior RHD Nissan sports cars). For a RHD Z the ignition on the door side makes it a bit tight to reach in pocket compared to inboard on LHD's. Of course there is also the fact that most people are right handed so key on the right is convenient. For uncommon old-school racing starts, and simply turning off the car and setting the hand brake key on right in a RHD is more ergonomic. For LHD automatics, turning key off and opening the door, leaving it in park is more ergonomic. As stated above, there are pros and cons to all iterations. "The answer is revealed in the post crash-test photos from that sequence, which some of us have" So what engine is in that test car?

Sorry, the post that gave Nissan sports car production numbers from 1952 aligned with market is deleted... probably by me accidentally as I have been travelling and jet lagged. The last addition to that post was a picture of Nissan testing a stop-gap hard top design for their SP/SPL-310 in August, 1966 when USA was starting to reshape automobile design safety regulations. From Nissan sports car production numbers and destinations, it can be clearly shown that since 1960 Nissan was focusing on the US market and that it was their biggest sports car market and growing exponentially (~89% of all Nissan sports cars manufactured in the 60's went to the USA). The new US safety regulations starting to rumble through the industry in 65/66 seems to have caused Nissan management to de-risk and move from the staple line of convertibles to a new coupe design to ensure continued success in their primary sports car market. Thus this was a key factor for upper management to push the Z to the US market. The fact that some parts were made asymmetrical and some not seems to have come down to cost cuts (like the cutting of a full grill below the front bumper, the cutting of rear disc brakes, and the cutting of two gas struts on the hatch..as stated by Mr. Matsuo). The design of the transmission tunnel with consideration for a wide Y40 V8 engine and BW35 transmission for the US market also points to the Z being prepared for the US market from an early stage. The answer to the thread's query: the location of the brake lever on the right gives more leg room and comfort for LHD cars for a market of bigger citizens and it complied with safety rules so it was not a critical part needing to be made asymmetrical. It falls inline with the steering column mounted controls, housing and ignition switch that are also not made for two markets. The lack of interior asymmetry could be a management or design decision early in the project or maybe the interior design and production teams were a bit slow to meet the release deadline. (I do like the clever design economy of the ambidextrous control arms...seems like that team had some time on their hands to economize design to one universal part yet maintain fit and function). You may find this photo interesting as it shows the full size grill on a roll-over tested LHD Z along with twice pipe-like exhaust to the back. The front valence and corner buckets along with the lights seem to be moulded and the rocker panel has an unusual section, I wonder what engine warranted that big exhaust so early in the program? GR-8 testing?

lol. look again at the tools. They measure to the top of the fuel surface in the bowl. The lid of the carb and float are not involved in the measurement, Here is another way:

hmm post gone? Weird. Oh well. Nissan were designing Z for NA market:

If you roll up your sleeves and set up the carbs using the default settings in the Weber guides by Haynes or Pat Braden then you should be close. I recommend matching your carbs Emulsion tubes to the list below (F2 or F11) rather than the choke size. Hopefully your carbs have either 28 or 30 mm chokes and either F2 or F11 emulsion tubes. Make sure the fuel levels are equal and set to ~ 29mm down from the ledge and that the linkage opens all 3 carbs at exactly the same time and same amount. btw your 42DCOE carbs are very valuable and desirable by collectors. 40DCOE are the most common variant. Here are the default settings for 28mm and 30mm chokes in 40DCOE''s Here is a good reference for a well sorted 240z with Cam and slight over-bore: I foresee a great Weber tuning web page being ready by spring that will help you very much

SK Racing Carbs... the final carb...best of both.