One Former Keeper

8658kv

Club Member
Its a good sign that any damage has been replaced with correct panels I guess.

It just questions the autcion descriptoin which could be a bit of an issue?


I think the auction have it covered.

Note: This description is provided by the vendor and unless otherwise stated is 'Not Verified' by Barons or any person employed by Barons. Prospective purchasers are advised to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of any statements made, whether they be statements of fact or opinion.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Its a good sign that any damage has been replaced with correct panels I guess.

I'm not surprised to see that any structure has been replaced (it's par for the course) but I'm concerned that any strengthening additions are being mistakenly linked to Works rally car practice and there's talk of "C.A./Competition Accessory part numbers", yet pretty much nobody is batting an eyelid.

I can't imagine that happening with any other marque or model with a decent sized following. Can you imagine what would happen if somebody did the same on a forum dedicated to early Porsches? It's all very well people talking up the values of the first generation Z, but the first generation Z enthusiast *community* (forums, Facebook groups, owners clubs and the individual enthusiast) needs to take an equal step up with its knowledge base and the active curation of the cars and the story around them. You can't have one without the other.
 
I'm not surprised to see that any structure has been replaced (it's par for the course) but I'm concerned that any strengthening additions are being mistakenly linked to Works rally car practice and there's talk of "C.A./Competition Accessory part numbers", yet pretty much nobody is batting an eyelid.

I can't imagine that happening with any other marque or model with a decent sized following. Can you imagine what would happen if somebody did the same on a forum dedicated to early Porsches? It's all very well people talking up the values of the first generation Z, but the first generation Z enthusiast *community* (forums, Facebook groups, owners clubs and the individual enthusiast) needs to take an equal step up with its knowledge base and the active curation of the cars and the story around them. You can't have one without the other.

Totally agree........

So 100K est for a car thats had a nice restoration but illumina dampers and not quite the 'works/competition' parts people are being led to believe.

Its this sort of stuff that I think can do more damage to the marque. If there was a wider knoweledge base it wouldn't be an issue.
 

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
.....yet pretty much nobody is batting an eyelid.

It's all very well people talking up the values of the first generation Z, but the first generation Z enthusiast *community* (forums, Facebook groups, owners clubs and the individual enthusiast) needs to take an equal step up with its knowledge base and the active curation of the cars and the story around them. You can't have one without the other.

Its this sort of stuff that I think can do more damage to the marque. If there was a wider knoweledge base it wouldn't be an issue.

Because Porsche and other European makes actively share that information, at least make it available and there are a plethora of make and model specialists whereas Nissan are a little lacking in historic support in Europe.
 

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
"Originally Posted by SeanDezart View Post
Didn't JD avertise at least one of their Sammys for +£200000 last year , This auction house is just halving that and taken a bit away because the car is basically unknown.

I'd like to know why a performance derivative 240Z can't be so valued please ?"



The car in question is not "a performance derivative 240Z" though, is it? It appears to be - as far as I can see - a fairly mildly modified standard UK showroom model car that was sprinted a little in period.

No disrespect to early 1970s period sprinting, but it was perhaps best described as one of the most basic forms of private motorsport and participants were not forced to comply with national (RAC) or international (FIA) competition rules. Cars could be pretty much stock, with little or no extra safety equipment. The sprinting history for the car may be interesting, but it's hardly the same as a rule-compliant period race or rally car and it is closer to stock than anything else.

I disagree Alan - it IS a performance derivative and here's my argument :

it was modified by an after-market performance company - this wasn't some tart-up (alright, the paint-job is subjective :rolleyes:) and the emphasis was on enhanced performance, several of these early cars ran and run in MSA controlled historic events and apparently this particular car did too.
I know it wasn't Nissan's gift to man's Z432, Z432-R and was a dealer sold bog-standard Z at one time but then most of the circuit racers outside of Japan (and some in ?) were exactly so. Some weren't as we know and some had a couple of ID changes down the road but still using works chassis' and parts but I feel that this car qualifies as more than standard and more than a very nice road car.

Note that I said 'derivative' - as Samuri's cars were seen on the tracks, sometimes winning and press articles were published, so more customers came along with their cars for 'the treatment'. This car was so derived from motorsport !

I'm not one to be overawed when confronted by the 'Samuri' name, just they happen to have raced at national and club level - the reputation has been obtained and on that small island, they're the ones that people have read about.

Now, if we could read so much more of the S30s racing history everywhere else (and not just the USA), the meagre part globally that Samuri played might be put into perspective !:eek:
 

datsfun

Club Member
Sorry Mike, was that question to me?


I find it interesting that threads like this one can go so quiet all of a sudden after being quite active. It's like no one has ever seen a factory part number on a factory part before, let alone recognise it...

I suspect some of us are waiting for the owner and "Jay" to digest your revelation and hear what they have to say. Got to say that I too haven't heard of the so called "CA" part numbers. And as you rightly point out, the works parts off the shelf kind of started in 77 onwards with the PA10 chassis.

Hopefully the seller will amend the advert accordingly with reference to the Nissan competition parts etc.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Because Porsche and other European makes actively share that information, at least make it available and there are a plethora of make and model specialists whereas Nissan are a little lacking in historic support in Europe.

This is not about the manufacturers. It's about fellow owners and enthusiasts. The data is out there if people are interested enough to do the research and due diligence.

As far as the S30-series Z in the UK is concerned, there has never been the critical mass of hardcore enthusiasm for the history of the series to make a tipping point from enthusiastic use, modification and social scene to proper curation of the history and legacy. A couple of like-minded individuals is not enough to make it happen. In fact, it may well be too late anyway.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
I disagree Alan - it IS a performance derivative and here's my argument :

SeanDezart said:
Note that I said 'derivative' - as Samuri's cars were seen on the tracks, sometimes winning and press articles were published, so more customers came along with their cars for 'the treatment'. This car was so derived from motorsport !

I think the term "performance derivative" would be more correctly applied to the sports-focused models in a series offered by a manufacturer (so something like a Porsche 911S, 911R, 911RS, BMW CSL or 2002 Tii/2002 Turbo, Lancia Fulvia HF, ALFA Romeo Giulia GTV and - yes - Nissan Fairlady Z432 and Z432-R etc) or a model improved/tuned by a factory-approved affiliate (Renault Alpine/Gordini, FIAT Abarth, BMW Alpina etc).

I think the RHS/Samuri situation is quite different. We are talking about a small operation, not factory affiliated or approved (not even concessionaire affiliated or approved in Datsun UK and Nissan UK's case) which was modifying cars pretty much on a case-by-case basis, the cloth cut to the pocket of the customer and - it has to be said - in most cases consisting of cylinder head mods, triple carburettors and an aftermarket exhaust system. Little or no specifically developed/fabricated parts (even the manifolds from outside suppliers like Mangoletsi and Janspeed, for example), little or no 'menu'/literature and a somewhat relaxed attitude to certain aspects of business.

Did they punch above their weight? Yes, I think so. But much of the RHS/Samuri Conversions reputation was built by the good period press coverage of FFA and the proper racing exploits of Big Sam and LAL. Your average Samuri customer car on the other hand was a fairly simple if effective device (showing the latent potential of the factory stock product in my opinion) and I see Samuri Conversions more along the lines of a company like Jeff Uren's 'Super Speed' and his 'Savage' Cortinas and Capris, but not quite getting there...

SeanDezart said:
...but I feel that this car qualifies as more than standard and more than a very nice road car.

I agree, and I think it should be valued accordingly. So what makes this particular car - with stock interior (re-upholstered seats?), stock transmission, stock diff, almost stock standard brakes, stock tank, almost stock suspension etc etc (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I see little or nothing to contradict) - worthy of an auction estimate well into six figures? I can understand some people being happy with that estimate, but in my opinion it is ill-informed and to cheer it on is ill advised. All this is doing is confusing the market.

Nobody seems to know what these cars are worth in the UK at the moment and a bit of a reality check might well be in order.
 

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
Yes, Samuri was not a manufacturer's approved preparer nor obviously not a factory version but you're under classing them deliberately to suit your view - only fair and I'm doing the same.

My point :

Samuri were not luxury versions, they weren't concours cars mad eup for shows - they were all for 'go' - performance and therefore performance derived of which this example is one. Might not have all or indeed any of the factory trick bits nor the stamp of approval BUT they weren't closed down by Datsun UK either were they...however, they were out there to perform and to outperform a standard 240Z.

Later, their versions were raced by many who went on to other things with or without their Zs :

http://www.samuri.eu/index_files/Page1566.htm at least 12x of these raced or still do - I still say performance derived.

What makes this car valued in 6x figures ? Simple speculation in my view but I don't pretent to undertsna d my country anymore after the vote - let's wait and see !
 

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
This is not about the manufacturers. It's about fellow owners and enthusiasts. The data is out there if people are interested enough to do the research and due diligence.

As far as the S30-series Z in the UK is concerned, there has never been the critical mass of hardcore enthusiasm for the history of the series to make a tipping point from enthusiastic use, modification and social scene to proper curation of the history and legacy. A couple of like-minded individuals is not enough to make it happen. In fact, it may well be too late anyway.

Well I'm obviously not interested or diligent enough - I have enough on my plate trying to do what I do for Datsuns and others. I believe that each should bring forth what he (or she) can to the enthusiast's scene for the common good and promotion of the make and models.

Such a curation you speak of would need a register of cars and their following via different owners so as to 'protect' the cars, their identities and ultimately their values along with openly consultable material such as chassis and engine numbers.

My fear as is yours is that the scene will be damaged by its won success as cars sold for high values are later discovered to be less than they appeared to be before their sale.
 

jaydeescuba

Well-Known Forum User
Compare to the parts department ink stamp on the NOS front crossmember (a Japanese domestic market part) replacement on one of the cars I'm rebuilding:

Ok having seen yours, and after a little more digging. .. Would you be able to give me the chassis rail measurements from yours please?
Having Oxford Engineering on our doorstep,they have taken the measurements and the Depth of the chassis rail, or thickness of the metal on this is 68mm top to bottom.
In comparison - on the stock chassis US '74 1/2 260z, the same piece (which should be thicker than the 71 built 240) is only 65mm.
Therefore the metal used is 1.5mm thicker than on the 260,which is supposed to be thicker...
The part number is correct, thank you Alan,yet it looks like your one is missing the brackets that this has - which are from 6.5mm thick plate. There are 3 threaded bolt holes - 2 front facing and 1 on top. There is also the double slot piece next to the driver's side one. Knowing
Andrew Cronk's dealership was only 25 miles from Old Woking Services...
The brackets on the crossmember are believed to be for either/or stone guard/light bar/front bumper. As per monte carlo rally cars.
Not safari. But who knows for certain?
They have the production part numbers and the under side of the car was remarkably clean and undisturbed.

Ultimately The car speaks for itself,(the full story is pretty amazing) and the auctionhouse have valued it accordingly.
c097ce46f0b975cb9143e9fef7b700fd.jpg


Compare to the parts department ink stamp on the NOS front crossmember (a Japanese domestic market part) replacement on one of the cars I'm rebuilding:



Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
 

jaydeescuba

Well-Known Forum User
I think the term "performance derivative" would be more correctly applied to the sports-focused models in a series offered by a manufacturer (so something like a Porsche 911S, 911R, 911RS, BMW CSL or 2002 Tii/2002 Turbo, Lancia Fulvia HF, ALFA Romeo Giulia GTV and - yes - Nissan Fairlady Z432 and Z432-R etc) or a model improved/tuned by a factory-approved affiliate (Renault Alpine/Gordini, FIAT Abarth, BMW Alpina etc).

I think the RHS/Samuri situation is quite different. We are talking about a small operation, not factory affiliated or approved (not even concessionaire affiliated or approved in Datsun UK and Nissan UK's case) which was modifying cars pretty much on a case-by-case basis, the cloth cut to the pocket of the customer and - it has to be said - in most cases consisting of cylinder head mods, triple carburettors and an aftermarket exhaust system. Little or no specifically developed/fabricated parts (even the manifolds from outside suppliers like Mangoletsi and Janspeed, for example), little or no 'menu'/literature and a somewhat relaxed attitude to certain aspects of business.

Did they punch above their weight? Yes, I think so. But much of the RHS/Samuri Conversions reputation was built by the good period press coverage of FFA and the proper racing exploits of Big Sam and LAL. Your average Samuri customer car on the other hand was a fairly simple if effective device (showing the latent potential of the factory stock product in my opinion) and I see Samuri Conversions more along the lines of a company like Jeff Uren's 'Super Speed' and his 'Savage' Cortinas and Capris

This was converted a full year BEFORE Big Sam - one of the earliest.




Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Ok having seen yours, and after a little more digging. .. Would you be able to give me the chassis rail measurements from yours please?
Having Oxford Engineering on our doorstep,they have taken the measurements and the Depth of the chassis rail, or thickness of the metal on this is 68mm top to bottom.
In comparison - on the stock chassis US '74 1/2 260z, the same piece (which should be thicker than the 71 built 240) is only 65mm.
Therefore the metal used is 1.5mm thicker than on the 260,which is supposed to be thicker...

I'm in no position to be measuring anything even if I wanted to (my cars are elsewhere), but it is beside the point anyway. Some of the chassis sections on the car in question may well appear to be a thicker gauge than stock, but - as has been mentioned - that will be due to private modification.

My focus is in attempting to demonstrate that the parts you are pointing at are not "Works" parts, are not the (non-existent) "C.A."/"Competition Accessory" parts you said they had been identified as, and that the lower core support crossmember with the Nissan part number '74820-E4102' is a stock replacement panel.

So...

jaydeescuba said:
The part number is correct, thank you Alan,yet it looks like your one is missing the brackets that this has - which are from 6.5mm thick plate. There are 3 threaded bolt holes - 2 front facing and 1 on top. There is also the double slot piece next to the driver's side one. Knowing
Andrew Cronk's dealership was only 25 miles from Old Woking Services...
The brackets on the crossmember are believed to be for either/or stone guard/light bar/front bumper. As per monte carlo rally cars.
Not safari. But who knows for certain?

I do. Here's a scan from a factory parts list. You can see (OK, I know it's not the best image but it's the best I can find in factory literature on a Thursday evening when my dinner is almost on the table) there is some structure evident on the front face of the panel. These are in fact the brackets you are describing. They are not stone guard/sump guard/light bar/front bumper mounts for rally use:



Here's an image of a radiator core support crossmember of a type that is closest I could find to the one in question. This is a factory stock part, remember:



First I'm going to deal with the question of the spotwelded tab on the front right end of the core support (far left on the picture above). This is something that what added to many thousands of core support crossmembers because it was required by the PS30 Fairlady Z432. It was the tab that the bottom of the 432's air filter box tucked into. See below for an image of a 432 air filter box sitting on a core support crossmember without the spotwelded tabs:



Nissan added the tab to many thousands of crossmembers so that they would have a 'universal' part to cover both L-gata and S20 engined variants.

The tab and brackets on the crossmember in my previously-shown photo (one of my projects cars) have been removed because the came on the 'universal' 74820 replacement part and they are not appropriate to the car it has been put on (a 1972 Fairlady 240ZG). They were there, but they have been removed. I showed that photo as a reference to factory ink-stamp part number on a replacement part.

More later. My dinner is on the table.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
Next, a word about genuine Nissan Works rally 240Z sump guard front mount brackets. They were added to the radiator lower support panels, but facing DOWN, not forward. A picture saves a thousand words, so here are some images of actual Works 240Z rally cars:





I think the difference between what you are describing on the car in question and the genuine parts on the Works cars is clear to see.
 

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
There is also the double slot piece next to the driver's side one.

Explained above as being the base mount tab for the 432 air cleaner assembly, added to many 74820 variants to make them 'universal'.

jaydeescuba said:
The brackets on the crossmember are believed to be for either/or stone guard/light bar/front bumper. As per monte carlo rally cars.
Not safari.

Can I ask, 'believed to be' by whom? Here's an image of one of the 1971 Monte Carlo Works 240Zs (post event, hence the snow damage to the front valance...), in which the quick-lift jack points (unique to the '71 Monte cars) can be seen, as well as the sump guard brackets. They are pointing down, not forward:



jaydeescuba said:
Ultimately The car speaks for itself....

Apparently some people don't understand what it is saying...

jaydeescuba said:
...and the auctionhouse have valued it accordingly.

As I've said before, I don't think the auction house know what they are looking at. If they believe all that stuff about "C.A. Numbers" and Works rally parts then clearly their valuation is based on more than one misunderstanding.

As I've said, it's a nice car and the early history is a nice addition, but some of what is being claimed for the structure and componentry of the car is based on plain mis-identification of stock factory replacement parts, and fanciful conjecture is being poured on top.
 
Amazing collection of info there Alan.

So it seems the auction house really do value two tone paint on a car thats just had just damaged panels replaced with standard parts.
 

samuri-240

Well-Known Forum User
Amazing collection of info there Alan.

So it seems the auction house really do value two tone paint on a car thats just had just damaged panels replaced with standard parts.

We all know that two tone paint sells Z's for strong money.
 

yellowz

Club Member
No way, I've got at least three different yellows gracing my car..........

It must be worth a fortune! :thumbs:
 

Al Douglas

Club Member
Ah what the hell, think I'll put mine on at £150,000.00 and see what happens.
"The last samuri" got to be worth a punt.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    3.8 MB · Views: 39

Albrecht

Well-Known Forum User
jaydeescuba said:
Having Oxford Engineering on our doorstep,they have taken the measurements and the Depth of the chassis rail, or thickness of the metal on this is 68mm top to bottom. In comparison - on the stock chassis US '74 1/2 260z, the same piece (which should be thicker than the 71 built 240) is only 65mm.
Therefore the metal used is 1.5mm thicker than on the 260,which is supposed to be thicker...

Let me get this straight: Are you saying that the gauge of sheetmetal of the chassis rails (in the engine bay) is being extrapolated from their outer dimensions? This doesn't sound particularly scientific to me. If you want to measure the gauge of sheetmetal then you have to measure the gauge of the sheetmetal in question, not something else.

Whatever the case, Nissan didn't make and/or market fancy thicker-gauge chassis rails for these cars. The suggestion that the chassis reinforcements on this car were sourced from Nissan ("C.A."/"Competition Accessory" parts) is nothing more than wishful thinking.

My suggestion of the likeliest scenario - based on previous experience with such things - is that it used to be common practice on these cars to 'double' chassis rails by welding new sheetmetal pressings over the originals, and it is quite possible that this may have been done on the car in question, either to beef-up the structure or - signposted by the apparent replacement of the 74820 core support lower crossmember - to repair accident or rust damage.

jaydeescuba said:
In actuality it's had an open-cheque book restoration. Whatever it has needed has been done to take it back to EXACTLY as it was when Jack Phare got it back commissioned from Spike at RHS.
Attention to detail is the owner's biggest character flaw as well as his biggest asset.

I see several details that seem to contradict this. Most obvious is the addition of a pair of rather modern looking strut bars. The refurbishment and restoration of 40+ year old cars requires some pragmatism and it will often be necessary to fit parts which are not exactly the same as originally used, but the fitting of the strut bars contradicts the claims being made.
 
Top