“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” An oft-quoted saying that Rudyard Kipling wrote as the opening line of his poem “The Ballard of East and West”. Taken out of context it seems like a trite comment on the intractability of Eastern and Western cultures. What the poem really examines is enemies learning to respect each other and recognizing their common virtues. Wanting to take on British sports cars in America, this is something Yutaka Katayama, father of the Nissan Z car, would have understood. Pour some sake, it’s time for Damn Good Design.
The original 240Z wasn’t a straight Japanese copy of the E-Type I covered last week, but in terms of design and mechanical arrangement, you can draw a line between the two cars. I criticized the E-Type for not totally subscribing to what we would now consider ideals of form and proportion, but really my issue is subjectively what it represented. Considering how the Z adheres to the E-Type template, it’s remarkable that it represents something very different: the end of the E-Type was an interregnum in the Jaguar sports car linage, whereas the Z was just the beginning of Nissan’s (author’s note: Datsun was the name used by Nissan in export markets, until it was phased out in 1986. This piece will use both names as appropriate, but they refer to the same company).
In 1959 Datsun reclothed their Bluebird sedan with two-seater fiberglass bodywork to create the S211. With a sub 1 liter engine it was a half-assed cross between a Corvette and an MG Midget, and according to Wikipedia they sold the grand total of twenty. Displaying a level of agricultural engineering that would make even MG do a double take, the follow up Datsun SPL213 was based on the 223 pickup truck. In an early example of the Japanese predilection for cultural whimsy, it was named ‘Fairlady’ after the Broadway musical My Fair Lady. Then a few months before the release of the visually similar MGB, in 1961 Datsun revealed their first genuine sports car for mass production – the SP310 or 1500; the first Japanese car to challenge the hegemony of the British sports cars in the US market, and crucially to building the image of Datsun, on the track.
Call Mr. K, That’s My Name. That Name Again is Mr. K
Yutaka Katayama, or Mr. K as he became known was a Datsun executive who didn’t fit well within a Japanese corporate environment that prioritized the collective effort over the maverick individual. According to his obituary in The New York Times, in 1960 his superiors punished him by sending him to the worst Siberia they could think of – Southern California. My plan is to annoy The Autopian management so much they’ll punish me the same way.
Anyway, hardly any Japanese cars were being sold stateside due to cultural resistance and being seen as an inferior product compared to American cars of the time. Recognizing that to sell Japanese cars to Americans, they had to be designed to appeal to Americans, he insisted US versions of the 510 sedan came with a larger 1.6-liter engine. By 1969 sales had taken off to 60,000 units a year. Mr. K built up the west coast Datsun sales from nothing and became the president of Nissan’s U.S operations in 1965. Recognizing the potential of the 1500 in club racing, he gradually ramped up Nissan’s involvement in SCCA races to the extent of total domination. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday.
Although the 1500 started off as a better built Japanese MGB, by 1967 it had evolved into the 2000, with a two liter engine and a 120mph top speed, blowing the decrepit B into the weeds. But the Japanese, like any country trying to get a fledgling car industry off the ground was still in its ‘copying and learning’ phase. Having humiliated the MGB, for their next sports car they were setting their sights a bit higher up the British sports car food chain, and Mr. K was instrumental in its gestation.
Priced within $200 dollars of the by now very-out-date MGB GT and released in Japan in late 1969 as a 1970 model, the Fairlady Z had a two (2.4 for US-bound cars) liter straight six with twin single barrel carburetors, a four or five-speed box and independent strut suspension at all four corners. According to a letter from Mr. K to the Z Owners of North California written in 2005:
“I wanted the car to have a beautiful rear view and be affordable to young professional people just out of college. I was not at all irritated when the car was called “Poor man’s Porsche” or “Poor man’s Jaguar”. I knew I was providing first class sports car performance at an affordable price. Nissan forced me to put the name Fairlady on the car, but I insisted with 240Z, a simple but unforgettable name, and it still survives after 35 years of its introduction”.
A British Sports Built By Japan For America
Disliking the Fairlady name given to the car back in Japan, according to The Reckoning by David Halberstam, Katayama’s importers simply pried the badges off the cars landing on the docks and replaced them with the ‘Z’ moniker. Katayama said at the New York launch:
“The 240Z represents the imaginative spirit of Nissan and was designed to please a demanding taste that is strictly American… We have studied the memorable artistry of European coachmakers and engine builders and combined our knowledge with the Japanese craftsman.”
Mostly through his own self-promotion (a trick he learned from his mentor Raymond Loewy), the debonair Albrecht von Goertz long had his name associated with authorship of the 240Z. The actual designer of the car was Yoshihiko Matsuo. After his success designing Nissan’s first performance sedan, the Bluebird SSS, he was promoted to head of Studio No.4. He would be a willing ally in Mr. K’s efforts to convince the timid Nissan management to build a new sports car for America.
I mentioned earlier one of Katayama’s big insights was realizing Japanese cars needed adapting to appeal to the unique demands of the US market. Something you should understand when designing a car (or any other consumer product) on a fundamental level, is what is your car’s purpose and who is going to buy it? Impending legislation (that never happened) meant Mr. K wanted the new sports car to be a hard top. Raising the Z’s roofline and giving it a proper rear hatch immediately made it a roomier prospect than the Jaguar for well-fed Americans over ration-stunted Brits.
Why The Z Is Such A Good Design
Having a healthy dash-to-axle ratio, being a shorter, taller car means the Z’s proportions work better than the E-Type despite their superficially similar layouts. You never want one characteristic to overpower another. The deeper bodyside gives the car more visual heft, making it diminutive but not dainty. Sports car aggression comes from its detailing – the scooped-out headlights, wide flat grill opening and blacked out spoiler and rear fascia. Whatever the extent of von Goertz’s involvement, there’s a hint of his trademark glitz in the use of chrome and C pillar badging, and the overall cab rearward proportions.
It basically defines the layout for the modern small sports coupe–solid, balanced and elegant–not disjointed like a Spitfire or dated like the MGB GT. Despite the unholy mix of American, Japanese and British influences the Z isn’t a pastiche. It combines the American ideal of the open road, the accessibility of a British sports car and an integrity and thoroughness that is purely Japanese.
The standard chintzy wheel trims are a bit endearingly tin-plate toy from Japan, but this is a car that is resolutely confident in its identity. It became a glitz t-top boulevardier in the malaise era, a pop-up headlight transistorized neon grid runner in the eighties and a supercar touching technological terror weapon in the nineties. More recently it’s gotten back to its affordable fun origins, although I have my issues (because of course I do) with the design of the current 400Z. It knows exactly what it is and who it is for, and this is what has allowed the Z to adapt and flourish over several generations.
It sounds simple when you break it down like this, but sometimes it takes an external pair of eyes to really see what’s needed. Which is why it’s baffling to me I’m not a highly-paid design consultant. It took the Japanese to improve and reinvent the British sports car. Do you know what Gaston Glock’s company made before it revolutionized the market with its simple and rugged handguns?
Curtain rails.
All images unless otherwise stated courtesy of Nissan Media
I think axle-dash ratio is just a complicated way of saying “long hoods look good but long front overhangs don’t”.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. But it’s about what is correct for the car. It’s qualitative rather than quantitive.
Did it just eat my comment?
Yes, it definitely ate my comment. :\
Maybe you’ll get lucky and it will poop it out in some random location.
Probably. It just ate mine.
Glocks have certainly meant curtains for a lot of people.
In 1970, my uncle returned from Viet Nam and separated from the Army. We happened to be visiting with my grandparents the day he arrived back in town. He pulled up in a new, pumpkin orange sports car with black interior, the likes of which I’d not seen before. It was my first sighting of a 240Z. Some things stick with you forever.
It always pissed me off even as a kid how Japanese design was dismissed as a copy of X. Always heard the “poor man’s E-Type” uttered by those clearly blinded by racism as they’re only as alike as any other dozens of front-engine, fastback sports cars and GTs. Dumbest one I read was “poor man’s 911”, which is too stupid to even pick apart.
Had a 240 and 260Z (thankfully, an earlier one with the thinner bumpers) and, while the current Z certainly follows on from how the car evolved into an overweight GT starting with the 2nd generation, I think the modern spiritual successor to the S30 is the GR86/BRZ with the engine displacement (if not type), looks, size, weight, value-for-money, relative performance, and even the inflation-adjusted price. Would prefer the Zs hooded gauges to the goofy tach strip display and useless lap timer that’s exclusive to shutting off the nannies, though.
The FR-S has a drag coefficient of 0.27. By the standards of modern so-called “sport cars”, that’s actually decent. The highway fuel economy and top speed tell the story, in spite of having an inefficient, underpowered Boxer-4 engine.
Yeah, my GR86 gets over 30 in the combined cycle even with short gearing (6th is the same as 5th was in my ’83 Subaru GL with 1/3 the power). The Z struggled to get mid-20s on the highway. You could feel the lift and drag as it forced its way through the air. The Z is over 50 years old, though, so I would expect the aero would be better today.
While the Cd value of the Z is terrible by today’s standards, because of its small frontal area, its CdA value is favorable to most modern cars. Its carbureted engine is even less efficient than the modern boxer found in the Toyobarus. A modern fuel-injection system in that Z could see you potentially getting around 35 mpg highway.
Downhill with a tail wind and with a complete head redesign, maybe. The aero was truly horrible—not just bad drag, but lift from both ends, as well. To counter the lift would require more drag. The engine was cast iron block with a reverse-flow head—heavy and inefficient and low end torque was disappointing for an I6, yet it also didn’t love top end. If heavily revising the car to make it efficient, there are much better starting points.
It was outside the scope of the article, but Nissan came very unstuck with the standard six when it came to racing.
In what way did they become “unstuck”? Are you referring to crank harmonics with early L24s?
Hell, if anything is a poor man’s Porsche, it’s either a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia or a ’65/’66 Corvair Corsa turbo
Or a Greenbriar…
It always pissed me off even as a kid how Japanese design was dismissed as a copy of X. Always heard the “poor man’s E-Type” uttered by those clearly blinded by racism as they’re only as alike as any other dozens of front-engine, fastback sports cars and GTs.
Well I got some bad news for you:
“The Datsun 240Z was introduced in 1969 as a 1970 model. The engine was a derivation of the Datsun 1600. The Datsun 1600 engine was a copy of the 1960’s six-cylinder Mercedes-Benz 220 engine, but with two fewer cylinders. By adding two extra cylinders in the 240Z the cylinder count was back to six.”
https://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z13071/datsun-240z.aspx
“In 2004, Mr. Kumano Manabu interviewed the man placed in charge of the design of the L20 and then wrote an article for Nostalgic Hero Magazine.
…
Mr. Iida tells us this rapid design was accomplished by taking the drawings of the block, from a previously designed L Type 4 Cylinder Engine and adding two cylinders to it. Mr. Iida said that they used the Mercedes Benz OHC design, wherein 12 valves are driven by a single over head cam shaft via adjustable rocker arms. The Cam is driven by a double row, roller chain with power taken off the crankshaft.”
http://zhome.com/History/LSeries/LSeriesR1.htm
Scratching my head to this one. I’m well aware of the engine’s origin (also, conceptcarz is a terrible resource for accurate information in general) and . . so? If I can try to follow this, you’re saying that because they both had a (very different spec) I6—a very popular engine type at the time to the point where it was almost standard for any low-to-high midrange sports/GT car—that somehow makes the dismissive statement that the design was a poor man’s E-Type accurate? Or is it because the origin of Nissan’s engine was originally from Daimler Benz, a different company in a different country than Jaguar that it makes it a poor man’s E-Type? Even more perplexing to think that Daimler Benz is generally a more high end company with better build quality than Jag, especially the E-Type of throwaway construction and engineering (I’ve worked on both and the bad engineering of the E-Type is staggering as opposed to that of the simple, rugged Nissan). At some point, anything can be compared derisively to anything else, so it’s an f’n stupid statement to make at best, but the prevalence for it being aimed specifically at Japanese cars until about a couple decades ago and often accompanied by other dismissive stereotypes points to there being far more insidious a thought behind it than mere laziness and—ironically—lack of originality in thinking.
conceptcarz is a terrible resource for accurate information in general
It was just the first one I found. I added the second reference as a cross check.
If I can try to follow this..
Its quite simple. It’s a confession by the designer of the L20/L24 that Japanese design sometimes IS a copy of X.
Even if it’s built under license it’s still someone else’s design. Not that there’s anything wrong with that as long as credit (and royalties if applicable) are given where they are due.
OK, the article is about design and the engine is still not a copy of Jaguar. The L24 was a SOHC reverse flow head in a much smaller displacement. About the only thing it really had in common with the Jaguar engine is that they were both I6s. They’re less similar to each other than a FIAT tipo 104 (engine in the 8V) and a SBC. I have never seen the Z referred to as a poor man’s MB because of the engine origin, which would make more sense than the Jag even though MB never offered a comparable vehicle type to the Z because at least there was a commonality.
My point is regarding you being pissed off even as a kid how Japanese design was dismissed as a copy of X. The body styling may not have been a copy of a Jaguar “X” but the engine WAS a copy of a Mercedes “X”.
Now was the styling of the Z a “copy” of the E? Clearly not. To my eye the Toyota 2000GT was a lot closer in styling to the E-type than the 240Z. That’s no coincidence:
From the start, the Toyota project team had the sensational Jaguar E-Type in its cross hairs. That star of the 1961 Geneva show represented everything Toyota wanted its flagship to be.
https://www.motortrend.com/vehicle-genres/c12-0509-classic-coupe-comparison/
If anything I’d say the 2000GT was a missing link between the Z and the E.
The Mercedes link stories were exaggerations. Hiroshi Iida simply stated that he and his team “looked at” the Mercedes M180 engine when drawing up their first Nissan L20 six in 1964 and liked its solution for driving the camshaft by chain whilst having a single gear-driven jackshaft to drive both the oil pump and the distributor off the crank. It is simply a similar answer to a similar engineering question. Hardly a ‘copy’. And Prince did a very similar thing – at the same time as Nissan – for their G7 OHC six.
It should be noted that the inlet and exhaust of the M180 engine are on the right hand side of the engine whilst Nissan’s L-gata family of fours and sixes had them on the left, suiting its main volume market (which was RHD…).
“Mr. Iida said that they used the Mercedes Benz OHC design”
“Used”, not “looked at”. Given the rushed schedule they wouldn’t have had time to come up with much else.
If you have a reference proving otherwise feel free to show it.
You are quoting “used” from a bowdlerised ‘translation’ of the original Japanese article. It isn’t what Iida san was saying.
The author of the English language source you are quoting from personally believes that the original Nissan L20 six of 1964 was NOT directly related to the L13/L16 fours that came after it, which flies in the face of what the whole original Japanese article was about. He also believes that the L14/L16 fours were influenced by the Mercedes M180 whilst NOT being influenced by the L20 six which preceded them. A bizarre take, but he’s something of a specialist in that department.
Want me to send you a copy of the original Japanese article?
Sure. I’ll teach myself to read Japanese meantime. 8-/
While you’re at it you can include the blueprints of the Mercedes M180 and Datsun L20, L16 and L24 engines with the significant differences clearly highlighted.
Till then here’s a quote from British author Brian Long’s book on Datsun 240z/Fairladyz:
The L16 was a four-cylinder version of the Mercedes Benz sohc six which Prince had built under license before the Nissan takeover. In effect this new engine was almost the same as the original Benz unit!
I cannot however yet confirm rumors of a lawsuit by MB brought on Prince/Nissan on this matter.
Your post is a reminder that the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe…(wave!)
Some dates for you: Nissan’s original OHC L20 six dated from 1964 and was first installed in the ‘Cedric Special Six’ model which debuted in 1965. Prince Motor Company’s OHC G7 six dated from 1963 and was first installed in their Gloria sedan. Nissan and Prince were market rivals with their Cedric and Gloria models and the two companies did not merge (it was a ‘forced marriage’ which many at PMC were unhappy with) until 1966.
People have tried to make a Merc-Prince-Nissan chain of origin, but it doesn’t work. The legend was that Prince *may* have licensed some MB-held patents, but Mercedes have been asked about this and they have no record of such. In any case they would have been for details, not a whole engine design. Prince were perfectly capable – as were Nissan – of drawing up their own engines by that time. They both had plenty under their belts by then.
And the MB M180 looks nothing like Nissan’s L16! Don’t need a blueprint to see that. Same people who want to tell you that the original Nissan L20 six wasn’t related to their L16 four also want to tell you that the L16 is related to the M180. It is nonsense.
Oh, and Brian Long? Take a peep in the first edition of his Z book and you’ll see a credit to me.
And the MB M180 looks nothing like Nissan’s L16! Don’t need a blueprint to see that.
It is strange then if the differences between these engines are so clear cut then why would a fellow Nissan expert have included that in his book about the Z?
Prince were perfectly capable – as were Nissan – of drawing up their own engines by that time. They both had plenty under their belts by then.
Perhaps but from concept to casing prototypes in four months?
It should be noted that the inlet and exhaust of the M180 engine are on the right hand side of the engine whilst Nissan’s L-gata family of fours and sixes had them on the left, suiting its main volume market (which was RHD…).
Achievable I think by swapping the camshaft drive and flywheel while leaving as much as possible in-between the same.
(I’m not claiming that is what happened, only that may be one way to make it happen.)
All that said I have since reviewed diagrams of these engines and while there are some similarities I’m not seeing a “copy”. At this point I’m going to need someone from the Flat Earth society to walk me through the madness.
Do I detect a few scales falling from eyes?
Brian Long named his daughter Mercedes. Her Godfather is Yutaka Katayama. Some clues there… (wink!).
“Perhaps but from concept to casing prototypes in four months?” That ‘four months’ quote refers to the original Nissan OHC L20 six, the same engine that one of your key sources (author of ZHome.com) swears blind was NOT related to the L16 four. Doesn’t add up, does it?
Not insisting, but if you have the time and the inclination please take a peep at a similar discussion here:
https://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/59140-guess-what-these-are-and-from-what-engine/
Brian Long named his daughter Mercedes. Her Godfather is Yutaka Katayama. Some clues there… (wink!).
Not really. To claim something is a copy when it is provably not when one that intimately connected to the subject is pathological, woefully negligent, sycophantic or intentionally deceptive. It’s not clear which you are accusing Mr. Long of.
Not insisting, but if you have the time and the inclination please take a peep at a similar discussion here
Again its strange how much effort it took for you to convince the members of a Nissan Z forum of a truth that should have been obvious to them.
Doesn’t add up, does it?
You seem passionate about debunking this issue. I suggest you make a sticky topic on your Nissan Z and Mercedes forums with a brief summary of your qualifications and your case clearly laid out with pictures, then use that as the lead in your responses elsewhere.
“It’s not clear which you are accusing Mr. Long of.”
He was mistaken about the MB link, that’s all. His book was written a long time ago now. We’ve all learned plenty since then.
“Again its strange how much effort it took for you to convince the members of a Nissan Z forum of a truth that should have been obvious to them.”
Oh, you think I convinced them? Not sure that’s true.
Anyone who spends some time around the first generation Z-owner/enthusiast ‘community’ will probably start to understand just how reluctant they are to accept ‘new’ facts being put before them. When I got my first early Z around 30 years ago I was dismayed to read – in just about every book on the subject – that Albrecht Goertz was being feted as its creator. The ‘community’ believed it. He was even given honorary presidency of a Z-owners club here. We should know better, but still his name gets linked with a shape that he had nothing – not a single line or curve – to do with.
“…with a brief summary of your qualifications…”
Maybe you’d like to ask the author of the site you referenced for his “qualifications” in the subject. Seems you swallowed his bowdlerization hook, line and sinker.
“He was mistaken about the MB link, that’s all. His book was written a long time ago now. We’ve all learned plenty since then.”
Mistaken? That’s a Hell of a mistake! This isn’t ancient history nor is it a secret of the universe. This is a history book about a fairly recent car not a millions year old fossil. To have messed up on something so basic and easily verified is very sloppy work.
“Maybe you’d like to ask the author of the site you referenced for his “qualifications” in the subject. Seems you swallowed his bowdlerization hook, line and sinker.”
That’s very uncharitable of you to say random voice from the internet Why should anyone listen to you either, even if you do go all in on your word of the day calender?
“That’s very uncharitable of you to say random voice from the internet Why should anyone listen to you either, even if you do go all in on your word of the day calender?”
Talking of “random voices from the internet“, I’ve probably been giving someone who calls himself “Cheap Bastard” a little too much benefit of the doubt.
What did you expect, a masters thesis? A doctoral dissertation? Certainly not without a hefty grant, full access to a university library, a lab and at least three post docs and a scapegoat. A core lab to perform metallurgical testing would be nice too.
Why would your expectations be greater from me than your friend the author who went so far as to publish such a mistake? Or for that matter Z forum members who should already know better?
To me “poor man’s 911” references the Z’s performance. Indeed, the Datsuns would compete against Porsche’s finest and win for a fraction of the price. No one in their right mind would confuse their looks.
Without context, I’d agree, but I’ve been reading car magazines since the ’80s and there was a pattern of dismissive, denigrating comments for anything from Japan that was common well into the ’90s. It was like the opposite of the veneration for German engineering (largely garbage) or the way the British excused the glaring issues with many of their homegrown cars (except for TVR, but TVRs were awesome enough that I don’t think the jokes mattered).
Well in the ’80s I wasn’t even a tingle in my dad’s back so I’m gonna have to trust you on this!
It’s odd given the roaring success the Z was.
I still love the 240Z. My first car was a blue (I think “Midnight Blue”) 73′ 240Z. It had mag wheels like most did at the time in the late 8-‘s. My brother had a fire orange ’71. The smog gear on the ’73 kind of messed things up and switching to the flat top SU style carbs didn’t help. The exhaust manifold sat directly below the carbs and intake manifold and the heat shielding put here didn’t help too much.
I always thought the E-type inspired the Z’s look. And making a hardtop instead of a convertible was a stroke of luck due to the fear that the US would soon make convertibles near impossible.
It’s been almost 30 years since I had to get rid of it but I still miss that wood steering wheel and a 3rd gear you could wind up to near 90.
Adrian – I’m curious to hear your opinion of the eventual transformation of the 240Z into the 260Z and finally the 280Z. Did Nissan take the design and size too far by eventually increasing the size to accommodate a 2+2 like the early 80’s 280Z?
Transformation? Don’t the 240, 260, and (non-2+2) 280 all have exactly the same bodywork and appearance?
They don’t. The eventual difference was about 10″ in length compared to the 240Z which mainly came from a similar, yet somewhat awkward cabin. Overall, the wheelbases were within an inch of each other.
No, the 2+2 was a stretched version of the standard car with an awkward roofline. Bumpers on US models got bigger starting midway through the 260, but the 2-seater bodies were the same throughout. Maybe you’re thinking of the 280ZX? That got larger, though it was pretty redesigned to look smoother in turn.
You’re correct about the 280Z vs. 280ZX. I’ll edit my original post. Thanks for the “X”!
The S30 took a European shape and finished it. That’s all it did. And yet it’s still my favourite car. The 1971 240Z with the bumper overriders flanking the grille and the the turn signals embedded in the lower half of the sheetmetal is the best looking version of them all and I have wanted one for almost twenty years now. The first year looks slightly awkward, and the ’70 and ’72 don’t look quite right thanks to changes to the grille and side markers. And pity the poor 260Z and 280Z of 1974 to 1979, stuck with the massive rubber bumpers…
And it’s also why I hate the 240ZG. It takes the things that didn’t work on the French and English coupes and applies them to the S30, not erasing the progress, but overworking the finished shape. It fairs in the headlights, it adds flares that look like the shoulderpads on ’80s suits, and it lengthens and sharpens the brilliant blunt nose that gives the original shape a form that really shows how short it is in both length and height.
The S130 makes it even worse by squaring off the headlight enclosures, making it look wall-eyed, and with the lengthened hunchback roof required for the 2+2 layout it makes the almost sprinting rodent like posture of the S30 look like a capybara instead. Thus I settle for the pre-facelift Z31 as my second choice, as the Z32 looks too wide, the Z33 looks… It looks like a big guy trying to appear muscular by putting on a smaller shirt. And the Z34 and Z35 just make the problem worse by raising the ass higher and higher.
Bumpers on the US 260Zs changed throughout their short run. I don’t know when the cutoff happened, but earlier cars didn’t have the large bumpers of the 280Z, they had slimmer style like the 240 with rubber backing pads and shock absorbers. Not sure what changes you’re talking about with the grille and markers throughout the 240Z run. On the early cars (’69 to mid ’71) had “240Z” on the C-pillar and “Datsun” badges on the lower front fenders instead of “Z” and “240Z” respectively, plus they eliminated the flow through vents at the back of the hatch and moved them to the C-pillar, incorporated into the “Z” badge since the hatch vents tended to pull in exhaust. The big bumper cars (later 260 and all 280) got the marker lights in the grille. All others were under the bumper. Tail lights also changed for 260Z with the reverse lights separated from the main units.
I agree with your opinion on the ZG. Didn’t look right to me, either, though the aftermarket covers for the headlights on the standard nose were a great idea as the drag was terrible enough to feel.
The 1969 and 1970 240Z had the black paneled steel side-marker lights up front which looked 1970s cheap. 1971 and beyond had all chrome. Some early ’71s had both, and these days almost all surviving cars have the all chrome ones thanks to reproduction parts or filching from later cars. But it’s still a small detail that sticks out in person. As for the grille, the 1969 Z had a five blade grille which made it look a bit too full and thick, while the 1970 onwards had the airier (and for Nissan cheaper to make) three blade grille. For the Z432 and GS30 you also had the option of the mesh “safari” grille, which was often placed on U.S. bound cars and has also never looked right to me.
I never noticed the different grilles and don’t think I’ve seen the safari grille, but by the time I would have been noticing such things, the 69s that were always rare were long gone. Even my early ’70 was considered special in the early ’90s for being early. We didn’t get the Z432 of G in the US (though I think you could have bought the nose as a kit from the dealer, IDR, and there were definitely aftermarket kits).
I agree. I loathe the E-type but love the 240z. The E looks like a pregnant clown shoe whilst the Z looks like a athletic running sneaker.
Good analogy.
“…his superiors punished him by sending him to the worst Siberia they could think of – Southern California.”
I used to do marketing for Shimano bicycle components and fishing reels & rods. The Shimano son heading the bicycle division hated living in the US/Southern California, feeling like he had been banished. However, his brother heading the fishing division LOVED it. He was a fun guy and a bit of a party animal. He wanted to stay as long as possible. He was much easier to work with than the bicycle guy.
Katayama loved it, much to the annoyance of his superiors.
He spent about 4 months traveling around Washington and Oregon pre-WWII on a furlough from O.S.K. Lines (now Mitsui-OSK), out of all the higher ups at Nissan in the late ’50s, that was probably enough to give him the most experience of the United States of any of them, so being sent to California was maybe both a punishment and also exactly the right business decision, as he was the best suited for the job from the start. Might have wound up running Nissan USA anyway even if he had been a loyal conformist team player, probably just not for as long (quick rotation in the provinces, then prompted back to Tokyo)
Having been a crew member on a transpacific ocean liner crossing between Japan & Canada & the US would have given him some exposure, too.
There would gave been other shorter port calls before the 4 months away, plus he was a cabin steward, so there would gave been direct interaction with American and Canadian passengers during the 2 week trip. His ship was a cargo liner with token capacity for just 20 all-1st class passengers in luxurious accommodations. Fortunately Mr K was no longer working on board when B-24s hit it in 1944.
While undoubtedly beautiful, the s130 Z is on my list of too much hype. I prefer the Z predecessor, the Roadster. However, the best version of the roadster would be a hardtop fastback with the Z’s roofline and quarter window treatments as primary inspiration. Beyond that, I gotta say a Sil80 is my favorite Nissan fastback.
I would take either a roadster or a sil80 over a Z. Well, actually, I already have. I’ve passed on Zs but currently own both of the others :D.
I also have a Roadster and glad I chose it over a Z as well.
I always appreciated how well the first-gen Z took to being made into a 2+2 … better than the second- and third-gens, for sure.
I’ll probably get flamed for this but I love everything about the 240Z except the rectangular taillights. I’m picturing it looking much better with round Stingray/Opel GT like taillights
I could see that. I’d also prefer the Opel GT to have smooth headlights like the Ferrari 250GTO instead of those damned popups.
Its been done. It adds a different, more 2000gt flavor to it. But I’m not sure its truly superior, though it could also be handled very differently in the details.
https://datsunzfiberglass.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/datsun-240z-260z-280z-round-tail-light-conversion.jpg?w=741&h=563
Yeah that looks like shit.
If I may ask, what is wrong with the round tail light conversion?
They just don’t work with the shape of the tail, which is really too squared off, and those light units look lost in that sea of silver plastic.
Looks like a damn Corvair. And like crap.
Second gen Corsairs are very tidy looking cars. And the first gen was quite influential.
I’d have certainly done that a lot differently…
Yeah no kidding, that’s bad. Of course, I never liked the round lights on a Daytona Coupe either.
The last picture is in my opinion the best 240Z look – the smooth “G-Nose” with headlight covers, without the fender flares normally seen with it. A nice narrow body design.
Yes. That is my ideal Z from the choices available.
Narrow helps keep it aerodynamically slippery from a CdA standpoint. While the 0.42 Cd value was no good, a partial grille block, smooth underbody paneling, rear diffuser, rear wheel skirts, and a re-proportioning of the rear roofline into a Saab Sonnet style kammback could possibly cut that drag in half without changing what the car is or its overall sensualness all that much.
I have never seen this before – more Ferrari than Jaguar influence. Was this the look the new 400Z was going after and failed at? My biggest complaint about the “look” of the 400Z is the loss of the razor thin bumpers. That huge front maw needs SOMETHING to tone it down and the rear just looks like a block. I think a thin bumper would fix both.
The issues with the 400Z are twofold. The rigid rectangle of the grill opening, and the roofline.
I feel humbled that you have responded to my comment. That rectangular open maw is an abomination! I know the roofline is constrained by the 350/370Z base platform and designers must work within set hardpoints.
The roof line they would have been able to change, the bodyside is not part of the platform in this instance.
In the last picture in the article, the license plate frame says “Datsun Saves”. I guess this wasn’t targeted at the evangelicals.
I’ve always loved the Z up through the 300 in the 90’s. I have disliked all the post 2000 iterations.
I liked the 1st iteration of the 350Z because it was getting to be reasonably slippery, with a Cd value of 0.29, until I found out how much the damned thing weighed. If that car kept the same engine but were built to 5/6 scale, it would be superior in every way relevant to performance.
I miss how small these cars used to be.
Obviously the 240 is the Platonic ideal, but I’m curious where we think the 280 (I assume that’s the “glitz t-top boulevardier”) ranks overall in the Z-world hierarchy.
As a Gen-Xer, they were my introduction into this magical model and I can’t help but recall the fairly neon-soaked exuberance of them.
Late Gen-X, there was a 280 ZX a few streets away growing up – liked it so much better than the contemporary (late C3) Corvette a few doors down. College pal had a non-turbo 300 ZX and I still love the pure wedge shape of these. Also the Subaru SXT.
They were almost more like personal coupes than sports cars or maybe even GTs, but I always liked the looks of them, too. I think it was a good evolution of the design, if not the concept, but they sold quite well and that’s what matters to the company.
Big “Big Healey” vibe on the SP213.
long hood proportions… always a good signal
Friend of mine had one of these – I think it was his first new car. It was a lot of fun for the money, and he loved it, and I loved riding in it. He hated the later models – called the 300 the ZP for Z PIG as he thought they had gotten too big and bloated.
Good luck with the transfer to SoCal. I’d love to see you go to Monterey for car week and give us your take. It only seems fair after the others got to go to Goodwood.
I’d also love to see your outfit if you went.
Shirt: black
Pants: black
Shoes: black
Jacket: black
Socks: black
Underwear: vermilion
I did get to chaperone the tea throwers around Goodwood and managed to keep them all out of the local nick. There’s images of me on the Autopian Instagram but I went full goth rock star.
Isn’t full goth rock star your natural state? Or do you knock around in a Hawaiian shirt and cargo shorts when off duty?
https://youtu.be/K_P7yWnAAd0?si=Nlkkz2o8mjCq-v3T
I bet that dude has an Eraserhead T-shirt.
I think something that’s been lost in later Zs is that the original was very much built as a personal project, pushed and guided by one person with a vision who got it done and knew what he wanted. The later ones have been more corporate committee cars. In fact, I think most iconic cars start out much the same way, there’s got to be some main idea person calling the shots and keeping it all on track, or else you wind up with something more amorphous and mediocre
Fun Fact Glock (yes the same one as the handguns) also runs the “Horse Performance Center” In Austria. And yes, it’s exactly what you think it is.
The 240Z is an iconic, timeless design with so-so aero(with potential to be extremely slippery with some small changes), which came to market at a price affordable to average Joes, and it’s delightfully lightweight coming in close to a Miata ND in curb weight. And that 2.4L inline 6 with its throaty exhaust note is a delicious little cherry on top.
The new 400Z is an overpriced, morbidly obese lardass of an abomination with the mass of a 20-year-old Ford Explorer, riding on the design coattails of its predecessors while adopting all of the trite and dull modern styling cues everyone else uses across their lineup(oversized grille, big wheels, ect.), without actually doing anything to meaningfully improve upon its predecessors where it matters, other than perhaps having a bigger, more-powerful engine and fancier suspension to help this portly thing get out of its own way. It will go completely out of style when the next body style is introduced, as it was designed to do, and become subsequently forgotten.
I didn’t want to wonder too far off topic, but there was an ‘aero nose’ version of the original, the 240ZG.
I’m aware of this! Love it.
really could’ve used some chrome door trim work though
What do you mean? The side windows are surrounded with chrome, the roof rain gutter too and the C-pillar badges are chromed.
It was a meta post. Torch went off on how much he hated chrome door trim a few articles before.
https://www.theautopian.com/my-car-prejudices-i-hate-chrome-door-edge-trim/
My bad, I had missed that piece!
We’re definitely on the same page here, although I’m sure you won’t see it as a compliment that a mere mortal like myself agrees with an accomplished and erudite designer like yourself. Although I really like the original E-type, the 240Z outclasses it in every way (except perhaps rust-resistance). The 240Z was the first car that I really fell in love with and it still makes my heart beat faster to this day.
I did not know what Glock produced before guns, but a few minutes’ on the interwebs indicates that they made grenade casings, machine gun belt links, and field knives for the Austrian army. I’m not sure what your point is there, but that’s undoubtedly because I’m not a designer.
I was simplifying for the sake of impact, but they had zero experience in the design and manufacture of firearms.
Bit harsh on my beloved MGB GT, but since I do love the 240Z also, I’ll allow it. This time.
Preversely the MGB GT (and only the GT) is one I really like.
Does this also encompass the MGC GT or is that where you draw the line?
MGC is an abomination. Let us purge our minds and never speak of it again.
There was an MGC?
I suppose I shouldn’t even bother asking about Super Beetles, then.
There’s an oxymoron for the ages.
That is a perceptive description of the profession but we prefer to be called geologists.
Wouldn’t it be neat if they made a sequel to The Matrix?
I am so over The Matrix.