AD240Z
Club Member
Think our posts overlapped there
Fascinating stuff Alan. Really appreciate that .
I find such Histories so fascinating when presented factually . Yes , in this case - very sad .
-
The Z Club relies on the support of it's paid members - join the club or renew your membership here.
Just a photo the z club members may ( or may not ) enjoy
- Thread starter AD240Z
- Start date
Fascinating stuff Alan. Really appreciate that .
I find such Histories so fascinating when presented factually . Yes , in this case - very sad .
Albrecht
Well-Known Forum User
I may have found it
The Datsun Z series at Le Mans (Daily sportscar.com 17 nov 2013)
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2013/11/17/the-datsun-z-series-at-le-mans.html More atrocious 'journalism'....!zclub.net
You'll notice how testy I get about all this (sorry....).
The erroneous stuff that's written about the whole saga is like Japanese knotweed. It seems to be impossible to kill. Does my head in.
But then these cars have always had that problem.
AD240Z
Club Member
In a world where volume of ‘content ‘ is king - the facts are irrelevant to some . The regurgitation of shite on the web is rife / the norm
I’ve learned something tonight , I’m happy with that.
I’m interested why these cars in particular have that problem - is it beyond language ?
Perhaps that’s a whole other thread ……
Albrecht
Well-Known Forum User
My best guess is that it is a combination of factors, not the least of them being about 50+ years of language gap (we never got the Japanese side of the story until recently) and other sources - mainly American - stepping in by default to fill that gap.
The problem is that a lot of it is erroneous. All that "Thanks Mr K!" stuff for example. Just in the last week we've had a well-intentioned YouTube video from Hagerty telling us that Nissan's L-series engines are a Mercedes unit effectively built under license. It doesn't stand up to much in the way of proper scrutiny, but it is out there and people are swallowing it whole. Its that old adage about a lie being halfway around the world before the truth has even got out of bed.
Over 40+ years I've had lots of cars from lots of manufacturers and from many different nations. British, American, French, Italian, German, Swedish, etc. None of them - I can't think of one anyway - have had the massive 'gap' between legend and fact surrounding them that these cars have. Quite extraordinary.
Paul_S
Club Member
That photo is epic!!
AD240Z
Club Member
yellowz
Club Member
and the first thing I saw was the side indicators...........................................................
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
The simple answer is the vast difference in language AND culture between us occidents and the Japanese but you know that already Alan.
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
It ran at Le Mans as well as his popular hill-climb events in Eastern France.
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
So, what 'is' a 240ZR ? A made-up suffix ?
One was 2.5ltr and the other a 2.870ltr, both L24 based ?
Are we agreed that the 2.5ltr Grp IV became Chatz and Mortimers' car ?
Albrecht
Well-Known Forum User
Deja Vu (all over again....) time.
The owner of the time was telling people (including Old Timer Magazine in Japan) that it was *the actual* '75 and '76 Le Mans 24hrs car. Yes, Haller ran his personal car in 'lesser' club/ACO events on the Bugatti Circuit at Le Mans, not the full Circuit de la Sarthe for the 24hrs .
It might sound like hairs are being split, but the whole point is that they are two completely different cars and two cars of completely different nature and content. The owner was (deliberately, it seems) sexing up the dossier of the silver car. Quite needlessly, I'd say. The car has its own story.
No. Nissan's Works team called some of their race cars '240ZRs' on race entry forms and their internal documentation. The cars they applied it to were constantly evolving, so it doesn't mean just *one* spec.
Both the Works cars that took part in the 1973 Kyalami 9hrs race had L24-based engines (and the Works team called them 'L24Rs'). The Group 5 entry was allowed - by Gr.5 rules - to run at a bigger capacity than the Group 4 car was. Group 4 was allowed a percentage-based capacity increase, whilst Group 5 was unlimited capacity but had to be based on the L24 block.
No. I'm more cautious about it than some people are.
Why? Well, the '75 and '76 Le Mans 24hrs car was entered in the Group 4 class. It was running - as we know - on the 'borrowed' (ahem...) identity of a Works 260Z rally car. There were details and parts on the Group 5 Kyalami car that simply would not have been legal in the Group 4 class at Le Mans. Not least actual engine capacity.
Without evidence to prove - once and for all - the identity of the Le Mans car (the chassis number would be a good start) I'm staying agnostic. Nissan always said that they left one car in SA for Chatz and Mortimer, and they took the other one back to Japan. It would *seem* to make sense that they took the Gr.5 car back to Japan (it being newer and more fancy) and left the Gr.4 car to Chatz and Mortimer for the remaining Springbok Series races, and that was the one that Schuller obtained for Haller. But without definitive proof...
The danger - as seen on the Autodiva forum - is confirmation bias.
The owner of the time was telling people (including Old Timer Magazine in Japan) that it was *the actual* '75 and '76 Le Mans 24hrs car. Yes, Haller ran his personal car in 'lesser' club/ACO events on the Bugatti Circuit at Le Mans, not the full Circuit de la Sarthe for the 24hrs .
It might sound like hairs are being split, but the whole point is that they are two completely different cars and two cars of completely different nature and content. The owner was (deliberately, it seems) sexing up the dossier of the silver car. Quite needlessly, I'd say. The car has its own story.
No. Nissan's Works team called some of their race cars '240ZRs' on race entry forms and their internal documentation. The cars they applied it to were constantly evolving, so it doesn't mean just *one* spec.
Both the Works cars that took part in the 1973 Kyalami 9hrs race had L24-based engines (and the Works team called them 'L24Rs'). The Group 5 entry was allowed - by Gr.5 rules - to run at a bigger capacity than the Group 4 car was. Group 4 was allowed a percentage-based capacity increase, whilst Group 5 was unlimited capacity but had to be based on the L24 block.
No. I'm more cautious about it than some people are.
Why? Well, the '75 and '76 Le Mans 24hrs car was entered in the Group 4 class. It was running - as we know - on the 'borrowed' (ahem...) identity of a Works 260Z rally car. There were details and parts on the Group 5 Kyalami car that simply would not have been legal in the Group 4 class at Le Mans. Not least actual engine capacity.
Without evidence to prove - once and for all - the identity of the Le Mans car (the chassis number would be a good start) I'm staying agnostic. Nissan always said that they left one car in SA for Chatz and Mortimer, and they took the other one back to Japan. It would *seem* to make sense that they took the Gr.5 car back to Japan (it being newer and more fancy) and left the Gr.4 car to Chatz and Mortimer for the remaining Springbok Series races, and that was the one that Schuller obtained for Haller. But without definitive proof...
The danger - as seen on the Autodiva forum - is confirmation bias.
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
No déjà vu for a lot of people here Alan - they haven't followed this 'story' as you, I and others have done ; it's all new and at least we can clear up most of the smog that's been generated by owners, journalists and the ACO !
I met the previous owner, from Poitiers in front of the car and he told me much the same.......then, when I asked when it had been converted from RH to LH drive, he ignored me !
Attached is Hallers' road car -no.69
at the (1974 ?) 2hrs Le Mans on the Bugatti circuit. Ok, thanks.
The Sports Option parts catalogue mentions the L26 being prepared to 2868cc and the attached article mentions a 260Z-R and 2870cc.....not trying to win points here but to get the story straight.
I accept your caution however you and I know the Chatz/Mortimer car was the Grp 4 no. 16 and that the car that ran at Le Mans was the Grp5 no.15 whether it fitted the ACO rules or not !
A. you're basing this on what 'Nissan' said and I'd like to see the car now that they took back (if any) ?
B. Who sold the car through Schuller to Haller if Nissan never had any intention of selling either car ?
C......there is already sufficient proof to accept the fact that the car raced in the 24Hrs Le Mans in 1975/6 was the SA. Springbok Grp 5 car.....however, I agree that a chassis number (should one have ever existed) would solve this *open* question once and for all.
Attachments
Albrecht
Well-Known Forum User
So? The two Kyalami cars were fitted with - as I've said so many times - L24-based engines. I even know their engine block numbers. The point is that both cars *had* to run L24 blocks (or at least L24 stamped blocks...) whilst the Gr.5 car could utilise the nominal 2.9 litre swept volume legally.
The Sports Option catalogues list the stuff that was available to the public. Works team had more resources at their disposal. The Autosport Japan article (my scan, I believe) goes with the brand promotion that the Kyalami adventure was all part of (1973 was last year for the HS30/HLS30, and RS30/RLS30 was just about to debut). I repeat, both cars were HS30-prefixed models and were running what were - nominally at the very least - L24 blocks in their 'LR24' engines.
I'm aware that some effort was made - in 1976 at least - by Haller's team to talk about an 'L26' based engine. This was 1976 after all, and the '260Z' was the current model whilst the '240Z' was three years gone. But looking at the post-crash photos I see the same Kyalami LR24 spec details in the engine bay (FIA/Safari head, ECGI injection, the pump-driven oil replenishment system etc) intact. Maybe they changed the bottom end, who knows? I don't think Schuller and Haller had Works type resources to hand, so I'm doubtful they could have improved on what the car originally had. In 1976 they were running wheels that were at least two years past their factory 'lifed' date. They were trying to punch well above their weight, but a little out of their depth.
No. Strongly suspecting and knowing are not the same thing at all. I'm keeping my powder dry until I see better evidence. I think it is more scientific and more scholarly (you should try it).
Yasuharu Namba told me. He was there. Team manager. Car that went back to Japan often went back into the mix, if notably successful they were sometimes preserved. The majority were dismantled/destroyed for tax reasons.
I can switch that back - if any of this is in doubt - and ask then, what happened to the Gr.4 car? If it was left in SA, then who had it? What about the container load of Works spares that were - like the cars - on a Carnet? Just like always, we end up dancing on the head of a pin.
Prime candidate would be Mr Ewold van Bergen. He had ultimate responsibility for the car(s) once they were left in SA. We then get into - at the very least - Carnet stuff, and I can't imagine anybody even wants to start turning those stones over.
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
You once told me that it would be nigh impossible to change blocks and especially overnight so, guesswork again, we might assume that the '76 engine was the '75 was the '73 !
The old tale of 1976 being a '260Z year' is rollocks anway as they were here in 1974 as the rally plate clearly shows....off the TAP LHD 260Z.
So, you don't know what happened to 'the' car that returned to Japan ? I'm thinking that it was the Grp IV, with metal panels...if you get where I'm headed....!
Didn't anyone ask his son ?
Albrecht
Well-Known Forum User
The danger is - as I have said - confirmatory bias. You end up looking for evidence or anecdotes that confirm the conclusion you already decided on. I think the subject requires a more open-minded and scientific approach.
I think you mean his grandson. I've done plenty of fishing on the SA side (largely because I have an interest in the Works team's activities in SA) and it only goes part of the way to answering the biggest single question about the Haller car. Any amount of investigation on the SA side will not give that big question a conclusive answer.
That big question is *WHICH* of the two Kyalami cars went to Schuller and - ultimately - Haller, and took part in the Le Mans 24hrs races in '75 and '76. That question is best answered in Europe, via connections to Schuller, Haller and the ACO.
French sources (and/or maybe German, given the Schuller angle and Haller being from Alsace) would be my chosen route for that, but bearing in mind the car was presented to the ACO on a false identity - and took part in the LM24 riding on that false identity - this is, again, turning over stones that have long laid undisturbed. It may be better to leave them be.
Raking up muck around a driver who died in the midst of all this is at the very least a little insensitive. Read the room.
SeanDezart
Well-Known Forum User
Ok, agreed however when 9/10 clues point you to believe 'X', it's hard to be considering 'Y'
So what did become of the GrpV car that was returned to Japan please - there must be an historic of the car ?
Yes, of course - my bad !
Some clues then please ? The only way to tie this down is to share info in the pot and not everyone dig their own 'sondage'.
C'mon, you and I know that is was the GrpV and even today, most people won't know a Z from a 'ZR', let alone then and one of the drivers still insists that the car engaged in 1976 was a 260Z. Any contact, and even more miraculously, honest answers won't help in my view because most don't know what they had !
Sure, it all stinks :
Engaged under the plate of a 260Z rally car
Engaged as a GrpIV at 2394cc
Engaged in (and won) the 2000-2500 class (Haller himself was quoted as having nearly 3litres)
And 1976 was a bigger shenanigan that cost dearly (RIP).
There was never enough testing and as you've pointed out, they were an amateur bunch
I've tried several offical and officious avenues via the ACO and their biggest concerns (admitted on the side) are that :
1) someone will use any ID to reproduce the car that was destroyed and claim it as a barn find*
2) If...the car didn't correspond to the entry sheet, the ACO may be held responsable for the fatal accident
*https://www.artcurial.com/en/lot-da...deg-de-serie-hls30134897-moteur-six-cylindres
We, over here, remain convinced that the same car running in '75 and '76 was the Grp V - people here know but won't talk, apparently it's the same in Japan and for perhaps the same reasons - best to brush it all under the carpet....
I've been watching the tt this week. Went in 79 and 80 when Joey was just rising. Bittersweet this week, it needs to be slowed down. I currently have a CB 750K and about to have some refresher training before getting back on the road.