Talk:Nissan Fairlady Z (S30)

Change name to Datsun 240Z

I would like the title to be changed to Datsun 240Z as this is the original name. Calling them Nissan 240Z are for idiotic people who are ashamed to be associated with the Datsun name WilliRennen 14.07 31 January 2006 (UFC)

-I second this, the title of the article should be made 'Datsun 240z', Nissan 240z can be made a redirect to keep everything tidy. Also I might note that I think the articles on other Datsun models have the same problem, and they need to be fixed aswell. --Silver86 07:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. There never was a Nissan 240Z, it was a Datsun.--Mikebrand 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

After doing research for the 240ZG section, I have changed my mind about the article title. Nissan 240Z is accurate. While the vehicle was released in the US under the Datsun name, in Japan (where it was made) and in other markets, it was known as a Nissan.--Mikebrand 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why then is the article titled Nissan S30? You don't seem too be aware that the S30 was one particular model of the Fairlady Z series which was only available in Japan and had a 2 liter engine, which this article doesn't even mention. As far as chassis codes go there was S30, HS30, HLS30, PS30, RS30, GRS30, S31, GS31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DatsunZfan (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, why is the title changed to S30? I know that it is common among conversation to refer to the Z cars (or cars in general) by their chassis code, but in this case it is inaccurate and encyclopedic. --76.186.94.195 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1971 JDM Fairlady Z-L came with an L20 6-cylinder dual Hatachi carberated engine coupled to a 5-speed transmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:C00:5B6:40D5:2FDC:AFE2:9642 (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The page should be left as Nissan S30 for two obvious reasons. 1. There never was a "Datsun". It was just Nissan's shyness about using their own name in the US. Nowhere else was there a "Datsun". 2. The model code is "S30" for all three cars. Labeling it simply as "240Z", or any of the other cars would not be a good title to the rest of the cars.--152.157.95.228 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Cars were badged as Datsuns worldwide, not just in the US. Nissan was stamped on the motors, but all badges and documentation referred to them as Datsuns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.21.28 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the "Nissan Z-car" entry in Wikipedia, the car was badged as Datsun everywhere outside Japan, not only in the USA. Additionally, it seems that Datsun was a car maker owned by Nissan, so it is not true that the name "Datsun" was just a marketing name dreamed up by Nissan. This comment has relevance for the discussion about whether or not the car should be called a Datsun or a Nissan. Personally, I think the title here should be "Nissan/Datsun 240/60/80Z" and not S30 because I doubt the public has never heard of S30! I owned a '72 240 and had never heard of S30. February 28, 2020 RPeel (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yutaka Katayama to be given his own entry

As he was in fact the head of Nissan North America at the time. I would also like Yutaka San to be given his own entry and be broke n off from this 240Z link as it does not deal with the man himself.

WilliRennen 31 January 2006 14.12(UFC)

Mr. K

I have started to create a Mr. K page at the Z wiki [aboutz.net]. Please check that out and contribute as you see fit.

Thank you.

Russ T 23 May 2006 18:11

240ZG

I believe the addition of the "Confusion" paragraph about the 240ZG to be fundamentally inaccurate - The ZG was more than just a 240Z with displaced mirrors, it had a whole new nose! and who exactly confuses the two?? to consider it as a variant of the 240Z rather than a completely different model is a valid point of view.

I moved the 240ZG to its own section and condensed the existing wordiig (without changing the meaning), but I am not in a position to list out all the differences between the two.--Mikebrand 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and came up with a description that I am fairly confident is accurate (see article), but I am not sure it is complete. Do anyone know if the differences between the 240Z and 240ZG were purely related to the body? Or were there mechanical differences? --Mikebrand 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect 260z horsepower

This wikipedia article states that the 260z is not desirable because of it's lower HP rating of 140hp. The inside of the engine bay on a 260z shows that it has a Max HP of 162 at 5600 RPMs. What is the reason for this inconsistency?

A: During the production of the Datsun S30 series, nissan switched from GROSS HP (ie HP before accessories including alternator, etc) to SAE NET HP. This article is somewhat innacurate with its HP figures in that it is comparing the 240Zs 151 GROSS HP with the later 260Z and 280Z's SAE HP ratings. This article is comparing apples to oranges and it should be corrected. I don't have the actual numbers in front of me right now, but someone who does have them should chime in and correct the article.

As a direct answer to your question, I have no idea where this HP figure came from. There were 2 generations of the 260Z (the late 1973/early 1974 and the later 1974 260Zs), noticeable by the bumpers among other things. Unsure completely, but maybe the newer 260Zs had gross and the later had net listed?

-- My take on it is the US 260z had 139hp gross, ROW 260z had 162hp gross. The 70-72 240z had 151hp gross, 73 US 240z had 129hp gross. It seems that SAE gross hp was used to measure the power of all Z's 70-78. Remember that going from 9:1 compression in the ROW 260z to 8.3:1 in the US version could easily account for 23 hp gross lost.

^ In regards to that which was mentioned above, the 129 and 150/151 ratings for the 240Z are correct. In SAE gross (which was the rating system for the day), the HP figures for 70-73 240Zs was 151/150; or 129 HP adjusted to later, SAE net specs. This is apparent on dyno testing (which i personally have not done, but other Z owners have) where the 260/280 platform puts out more HP at the wheels than the 240. I will attempt to research some more evidence. --E racer1999 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

BRE Racing Team

The following was posted at the bottom of the article, but clearly belongs on the Talk page. I do not vouche for its accuracy and am merely moving it here. --Mikebrand 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article above says Bob Bondurant ran the BRE Racing Team including the 240Zs piloted by John Morton. Check Bondurant's wikipedia article and site http://www.bondurant.com/about/bobbondurant.php to see that is not confirmed. BRE was Brock Racing Enterprises http://www.datsun.org/fairlady/BRE.htm started and run by Pete Brock. See also http://zhome.com/Racing/Racing.htm It seems Bondurant used some Datsuns for a while in his school, http://www.classicdatsun.com/zz/TheBondurant240Z.htm and might have collaborated in some ways with BRE, but does not seem to have been the driving force behind BRE's Datsun racing campaigns.

Bob Bondurant racing school started with Datsuns. Here is a late '70's video of Bob selling retread tires with S130, and Datsun 810 cars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxexxPeumo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagr.lee (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing to merge this (240Z), 260Z and the 280Z page into one called Nissan S30 as they are universally known as the S30

I support the proposed change. Although many owners may be surprised to learn that their car is really an S30, it would be more accurate (especially for the 260 and 280 versions). Technically, rather than a merger, would this be just a renaming and expansion since the S30 page does not currently exist? --Mikebrand 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has now being mentioned at the WikiProject Automobiles, so far 3 people including myself agree, 1 said they should be split into 3 and nobody is against it so far. So the move is going to take place at the end of the year Willirennen (talk · contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2006 (utc)

Support, Just so long as the redirects still work I'm fine with it. It is pretty confusing typing in Nissan 260Z and coming to an article titled Nissan 240Z. ren0^talk 22:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight is WRONG.... Curb weights 2301 lbs | 1043.7 kg and was siginificantly lighter each previous year...

This merge is ridiculous. Each car is a different model. I dont care that the chassis might be the same, as long as the model number is different, there is no point in merging 240Z, 260Z and 280Z/ZX into one page. Zlatko 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I Disagree - and the merger should be reversed.

First - the Z Car is not universally known in the USA as the S30. Go to any gathering of Z Car enthusiasts here and ask them what they own. Not one out of 50 will reply "S30". Ask 100 in person what a "Nissan S30" is, and perhaps 10 will reply that it is a Z Car, 2 might reply that it is the Nissan Fairlday Z as sold in Japan. Since "S30" was used by Nissan itself as both a model designation and a chassis designation it only adds to confusion.

Secondly the First Generation Z's 1969-1978, included S30 and S31 chassis designations.

People that search for information about a car that they have an interest in, use the Make and Model designations. They really should not have to sort through the entire manufacturers model line to find the information they seek. For example if I want information about the Pontiac GTO, I don't care to read about all the GM "A Body" cars that were based on the same chassis -ie. Chevell, Cutlass, LeMans, Skylark plus all the Canadian models etc.

Certainly all these models are related - however relatives of any specific make/model can be easily linked if people want expaned information.

A separate and related article could be written specifically about the Nissan S30 & S31 chassis. That article could define who did the chassis design/engineering, what components it shares with other Nissan Chassis and how the S30 chassis evolved through the years to accommodate new model requirements during the 1969 to 1978 period.Here too a complet list of models based on the S30 & S31 chassis could be given and linked.

Why waste the wonderful ability of hyper-text by insisting on grouping everthing on one page or trying to include everything in one article Saturn345 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

432

This section requires some attention if it is going to be seaprate from the rest of the S30 section. I corrected some grammatical errors in the Z432R section, however much needs to be adressed for this to be a well-flowing entry. --E racer1999 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Z432R has exactly the same specification engine as a standard Z432. In addition, the R has several bespoke parts and frame panels that are unique to it, as well as a 100l gas tank. 20 were made (or thereabouts) and I believe 11 are currently accounted for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.189.226 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Further information that differentiates the Z432 is the underbody spoilers, which included unassisted control levers in the cabin, mounted further back in the center behind the shift lever. While I have gotten several accounts of these adjustable aero parts, I have yet to see any website even mention it. I am currently speaking with a gentleman who seems to know the location of one in Mississippi that may bear some evidence for this for the article. Pictures to come if I can find it, however if anyone else sees this and can assist, I think it would be a valuable piece of information to include. PolarisOutThere (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Repairs/Additions

The compression was 8.8:1 on some years which is not reflected. I believe the 260z made LESS horsepower in the american market than the 240z. If this is due to emissions or switch over to SAE NET rating, fine, but it wasn't more on paper. Also, the 2355lb is a curb weight, not a dry weight. Yay or nay on the ammendments?

German Design

You should add the fact, the car was designed by Graf Albrecht von Goertz.

That would be fine and dandy if it was entirely true. Von Goertz participated in early works with Nissan for a sports coupe in th 1960s, but the idea was later scrapped. A separate entity was designed by a Japanese fellow shortly thereafter. If you feel that I am inaccurate, you may want to discuss it with the folks over at Nissan, because that is the story that they stand by. It is worth mentioning that von Goertz never explicitly claimed that he designed the Fairlday Z (or any other name it has). For a more in depth discussion on this topic, visit: http://zhome.com/History/Truth/GoertzMyth.htm . In response to this, I am removing the mention of von Goertz from this entry to avoid any further miseducation. E racer1999 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more interesting is the claim that the design originated with Dick Avery at Ford. I'm not going to start that catfight but a little research will turn up some interesting interviews with Mr Avery (who became the head of design at Chris-Craft for many years, during their heyday.) 203.160.86.243 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

htt ps:// youtu.be/2N0jrbqbkec 2601:1C0:8380:16E0:C559:41C3:2536:941E (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

L20 Straight 6 in JDM 240Z?

Was the L20 available in the JDM 240z? Which model engine was it?Nly8nchz (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No. As the model name implies - the JDM Nissan Fairlady 240Z had the L24 engine. The Nissan Fairlady Z used the new L20A. The L20A was a re-design of the original L20, which incorporated the design improvements made during the design and development of the L16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn345 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The L24 was an export engine for the Datsun 240Z, and the L20A was a JDM engine for the Nissan Fairlady Z. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete The Existing Text On This Page - Then do a complete rewrite more specific to the S30 S31 chassis

The five paragraphs on the page Nissan S30 are so filled with misinformation and incorrect data, that it should be deleted. Editing it at this point would simply result in a page impossible to read/comprehend or benefit from.

It is also very important to delete the Goertz Myth - it has been disproven, the real design team has been defined. Time to quite repeating the mistakes made by writers in the past.

Nissan S30 could refer to at least two different subjects.
1. Nissan S30 - is the designation for the chassis upon which several different models of the Z Car are built.
2. Nissan S30 - is the specific model designation for the Nissan Fairlady Z-L as sold only in Japan with a 2.0 liter L20A and later 1S30 with the L20E engine.
.

To bad Nissan used S30 for both purposes - but they did and we have to live with it. Whenever we use S30, it has to be farther defined to be useful. For example: Nissan S30 chassis.... Nissan S30 Fairlady Z-L.... Nissan's S30 was quite an upgrade to their base model the S30S in Japan.

Nissan used two basic chassis designations for their First Generation Z Cars, the S30 and S31. These were modified to designate or account for the longer 2+2 chassis.. ie GS30, GS31.. So to be more correct or more complete Nissan used four basic chassis for their First Generation Z Cars.

I suggest that the Article titled Nissan S30, should more specifically address the Nissan S30 and S31 chassis. It's physical description, and all the various models that were based upon it. Much the same as any discussion of GM's A Body or F Body would be. Saturn345 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"the real design team has been defined" ... you are of course referring to Dick Avery at Ford ?  :-) 203.160.86.243 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You are of course replying to a comment from over 11 years ago.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

relationship to Toyota 2000GT?

I'm not an expert on ancestry of the 240z (though was a happy owner of a '72 years ago, sadly totalled but the car so solid I walked away with a few scratches!) but it seems to me there is some relationship to the 2000GT and that car's page links here. As I understand it Datsun pursued a sports car project with Yamaha, abandoned the partnership and Yamaha sought a new partner and ended up with Toyota and thus became the 2000GT- a car strikingly similar, much prettier but likewise prohibitively expensive. As Datsun came out with the Z 3 years later than Toyota, but had worked on the original project with yamaha, isn't there surely some crossover lineage which bears mention? While some might argue they are two different cars it would be disengenuous to assume Yamaha did not take some of Datsun's ideas and they ended up in the 2000GT, and that Datsun did not likewise take some of Yamaha's ideas that ended up in the 240z. The connection of the two cars and automaker brands of course being Yamaha. While I'll always love my 240z I was walking through a parking lot in Honolulu in the early '80's while in the Navy on liberty from the USS Coral Sea and parked like it was any average car was a RHD 2000GT, white and so gorgeous I stopped and stared for nearly an hour. Thus my love affair. Both cars stylewise are derivitives of both the 250 Testarossa and the E type Jaguar IMO. Rumor has it the dimensions are so close the window glass in the 240z is nearly interchangeable with that of the Ferrari. Regards!Batvette (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well unless you have any proof, you can't just go changing it willy nilly. :T--152.157.95.228 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

Some of the specs are incorrect. The 280Z was longer than the 240Z given the larger bumpers. The 260Z also had differences. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have completed an extensive reorganization of the existing content with little change in the content, save any errors found. I hope everyone agrees this improves readability. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Newman

As far as I know Paul Newman never raced an S30. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Durability

It became evident by the end of the seventies that these vehicles, at least in the USA, just didn't last long. One saw fewer and fewer of them on the roads (and more and more of them in junkyards)--I haven't seen one in years. I don't believe this was because they were driven carelessly. Rather, I believe that they either rusted out, having been manufactured with a very thin steel, or that their engines gave up the ghost because of their lack of cooling capacity. However, I have no sources or statistics to back up these assertions. Anyone? C. Cerf (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah... The thinner gauge steel and unibody construction was a desirable trait of these cars allowing the very light weight and giving the car unbelievable price/performance characteristics of its era. No cars of that vintage had the chassis dipped in corrosion prohibitive solutions like they do now and these cars, like all of the era, rusted from the inside out at several key spots (dog-legs, battery tray, front of rocker panels, etc). The motors (after the original 500 cars issued with crank shaft issues) were rock solid. 300K miles is common. A larger radiator and electric fan is desirable in hot climates as aluminum heads will warp if overheated. Stagr.Lee —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nissan S30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141109054608/http://www.scca.com/news/?cid=51591 to http://www.scca.com/news/?cid=51591
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150130052421/http://www.scca.com:80/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44475 to http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44475

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This car is a 3-door

It has an opening rear hatch with a window that gives full access to the interior. That's a three-door, right? I know that some cars like this are referred to as coupes but that does not explain why it's marked everywhere as two-door. Dogs.barking.duster.rolling (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Should more things be cited?

It feels like there is a lack of citations throughout the article, maybe give citations through the description of the different cars or something? Awesomesoup1 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Rear suspension

The article claims that all variants have Chapman struts in the rear. A Chapman strut uses the half-shaft as the lower arm but the 240Z has a separate lower arm. See http://www.oldriceautos.com/blog/2011/datsun-280z-restoration-spindle-pins/ and https://www.thezstore.com/page/TZS/CTGY/classic20n01 for diagrams.  Stepho  talk  01:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Photographs

I think the interior 240Z photo currently used showing blue interior should be replaced with one showing black interior because the blue is hideous but mainly because it was extremely rare. In fact I had never seen one until landing on this page. Like my '72 240, all 240 interiors I have ever seen are black. February 28, 2020 RPeel (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Complying with Wikipedia Manual of Style for a Japanese Car.

@Mr.choppers Per the Wikipedia manual of style: quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses e.g. 200 kilometres (120 mi). For details on when and how to provide a conversion, see the section § Unit conversions. The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable: As this is a Japanese car SI units should be the primary unit. You might live in the United States, but Wikipedia is also for the other 96% of the planet. If this were an American made car I would agree with your need for Horsepower and inches, but in this case the Manual of style is clear. Avi8tor (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Metric units should indeed be shown first. However, the number used as input to {{convert}} and {{cvt}} should always be the number found in the reference. If the reference provides imperial units then we use that and add |order=flip or |order=out. Eg:

{{cvt|100|kW|hp PS|0}}	100 kW (134 hp; 136 PS)
{{cvt|100|kW|hp|0}}	100 kW (134 hp)
{{cvt|134|hp|kW hp PS|0|order=out}}	100 kW (134 hp; 136 PS)
{{cvt|134|hp|kW|0|order=flip}}	100 kW (134 hp)
{{cvt|136|PS|kW hp PS|0|order=out}}	100 kW (134 hp; 136 PS)
{{cvt|136|PS|kW hp|0|order=out}}	100 kW (134 hp)

At no point do we do a hand conversion to get the right order.  Stepho  talk  19:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the reference is a magazine article then it's already been converted from the original, and if from a newspaper also probably rounded out as well. The best source is the original language version in this case Japanese, who do use Arabic numbers. Avi8tor (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I assure you that I am a metric person; I do not like hp, cwt, lbft, nor inches. But when original sources and original manufacturers use PS or hp then those should also be used in the articles. Japanese manufacturers used PS (metric hp) rather than kW until pretty recently, as did many many other metric countries, and when you place kW as the leading unit you often get incorrect results. Sources have to be read judiciously: obviously the S30's wheelbase is 2305 mm and not 2,304 mm (90.7 in), but when the American importer claims 151 hp then that is likely the correct number. You changed this to 113 kW (152 hp) which is obviously factually incorrect. The 260Z and 280Z were not even sold in Japan, who didn't even use kW to begin with. The "strong national ties" all point to keeping hp and PS as the leading units for the S30. This kind of unthinking converting and rounding back and forth also leads to sites like Carfolio often providing completely unreliable figures, made worse by the hp/PS confusion and similarity of numbers.

SI is great, but not to the point of being anachronistic, misleading, and factually incorrect. Some countries switched to kW quickly, like Germany (and none more completely than Australia, where hp disappeared nearly overnight), but most metric markets retained PS (or CV or hk or pk or whatever they called 735 W) for decades. If I was to include the 280Z's output in the Australian market, then I most certainly would lead with kW.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The choice of which unit to lead with is simple. WP:UNITS allows for articles strongly tied to a particular country to lead with that country's units. The car was designed in Japan, made in Japan and sold in many parts of the world but not sold in Japan. There are no strong ties to any country, therefore, this article should use the default of metric. This is mostly about modern readers being able to read about historical topics without necessarily needing to understand historical units. From there, WP:UNITS says we consistently use the same order throughout the article and definitely do not change for individual references and/or countries. However, the input to each instance of {{convert}} and {{cvt}} should use the figure and units from the reference and then change the display order via use of |order= (see table above).

Eg, the reference says 151 hp, so we use {{cvt|151|hp|kW hp PS|0|order=out}} to give 113 kW (151 hp; 153 PS).

We know that Japanese companies nearly always round lengths to 5 mm, so if we have references for both 2305 mm and 90.7 inches then we choose {{convert|2305|mm|1|abbr=on}} 2,305 mm (90.7 in) and not {{convert|90.7|in|0|abbr=on|order=flip}} 2,304 mm (90.7 in). If we only have a reference for 90.7 inches (ie, no metric reference), then we can round to 5 mm using {{convert|90.7|in|round=5|abbr=on|order=flip}} 2,305 mm (90.7 in).  Stepho  talk  21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Very well put Stepho, I agree with your analysis completely. Here we have people on 3 different continents discussing this and hopefully coming to a consensus. Avi8tor (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, a US market car (developed for the US and not even sold in Japan) should use the units used by the original manufacturer to describe the car's specifications. I would say that just about any US market car has strong ties to the US market, especially in light of having different specifications to meet the federal requirements. WP:MOS states that we should use "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)". US market cars used hp, whereas Japanese cars always always always used PS until the 21st century. Leading with kW goes against practice, it goes against the sources (you will notice that many internet sources mix up the units, which is what we are trying to avoid here), and it looks very silly when Nissan made claims of nice, even numbers like 130 and 160PS. It is done for the same reason we write "rpm" rather than "min⁻¹" which is the SI unit.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

add more motorsport aspects of the car

240ZG, 240ZG GTS-II along with the racing linearity of the car. 14.176.8.254 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Change of Article name

I know this has been raised previously, however the current article name of Nissan S30 does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME. I propose the article should be renamed, under this rule, as Nissan Fairlady Z (S30).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we us American spelling on this article?

An editor has changed the measurement of the engine from litre to liter as someone put that this article should be in American English. However this car is not American or was sold just in the US. And Liter is only used in America, Mynmar and Liberia [1] while the rest of the English speaking world use litre. Should we not the spelling that is most commonly used around the English speaking world? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That was me that restored the American spelling after an anon-IP had changed it. WP:ENGVAR is our guide here. Articles that are strongly tied to a particular English speaking country shoudl use that country's dialect of English. So cars from England should use British English, cars from America should use Americna English, cars from Australia should use Australian English and so on. That's not the case here. All other countries can use whatever the original author of the article felt like. Changes shoudl only be if consensus on the talk page is reached. It is very, ,very, very rare for anybody to give a coherent reason for change beyond WP:IJUSTLIKEIT - which is of course invalid because other editors might feel the opposite.

My own preference is Australian English (for obvious reasons) but for this article I respect the original choice. In that way we don't have edit wars over stuff where there can be no real answer.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That is why I have put this on the talk page, to see what the general consensus is before we should make any changes. The original article created back in 2004 didn't have what English it should be in, so at some point it was amended to contain American English format. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But if you want to use a right-by-might argument based on number of countries, etc, then bare in mind that the US has more native born English speakers than the rest of the officially English speaking countries combined (remember that we only count those countries officially with English as their first language - eg Britain, US, Canada, Australia (me), New Zealand, South Africa and a few others but not Myanmar and Liberia. Right-by-might arguments are usually not very decisive because we can always count slightly different things to come up with any answer we want. Notice that WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN do not list any "most common in the world" type arguments.  Stepho  talk  11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Some information wrong

I was reading and it called the S30 a Grand Tourer, I believe this is erroneous, as the s30 is seen as a 'Sports Coupe' . By definition a GT is a type of car that is designed for high speed and long-distance driving due to a combination of performance and luxury attributes. This wouldn't be what a Z was until they became the S130 (280ZX).

From the GT article - Grand tourers emphasize comfort and handling over straight-out high performance or ascetic, spartan accommodations. In comparison, sports cars (also a "much abused and confused term") are typically more "crude" compared to "sophisticated Grand Touring machinery".

Historically, most GTs have been front-engined with rear-wheel drive, offering more cabin space than mid-mounted engine layouts. Softer suspensions, greater storage, and more luxurious appointments add to their appeal.

I would strongly argue that for this era, the Kenimari C110 2000GT-R is the benchmark for Nissan as a Grand Tourer and not the S30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodOfDatsun (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A grand tourer is what the Europeans call a car that has enough torque to drive effortlessly (ie, not a high revving 1 litre), enough power to drive modestly fast, suspension and steering that is sporty but also comfortable enough that you can drive all day without feeling worn out at the end. A good balance between sportiness and long distance practicality. I believe the S30 can do all that and do it quite well. A grand tourer overlaps quite a lot with a sports coupe. The S130 was a much softer car that was more of a cruiser than a grand tourer. Think of the S30 as like the Aston Martin DB5 but with less leather and wood.

Also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end.  Stepho  talk  11:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)