Flashback to the mid-'60's

[26th-Z]

Well my appologies to anyone offended by my "dumbed down" comment. Looking across the board at all the various models / configurations of the S30 introduced by January 1970, I have to say that the model arriving in North America was so very similar to the base / minimal configuration with very few ammenities. I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation of that. I don't think anyone (in North America) knows. Obviously the arrangement with what Nissan wanted to export and what Mr. Katayama wanted to import would be an interesting read. And I think the 'dealer add-on' story plays into those facts.

[doradox]

That's my primary objection to all this "An American Car..." yak.

I know that's sticking point with you but since I have not made any sort of "An American Car" comment it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Hence I don't see why you would ask if a "US market version" might be "more difficult to engineer". They were all designed and engineered together.

Simply that the requirements that needed to be met by whatever was sent to the US aren't automatically "easier" to meet. Certainly just leaving off features is easy enough. But during design of the chassis to perform with different suspension bits for different markets who's to say the requirements for what eventually came to the US were easier to achieve. That a softer suspension setting is less difficult than a firmer one to make work with the myriad of other competing requirements. That they were all designed together is irrelevant. The requirements weren't the same so the effort to achieve them might not have been either.

[doradox]

Well my appologies to anyone offended by my "dumbed down" comment. Looking across the board at all the various models / configurations of the S30 introduced by January 1970, I have to say that the model arriving in North America was so very similar to the base / minimal configuration with very few ammenities. I have yet to hear anyone offer an explanation of that. I don't think anyone (in North America) knows. Obviously the arrangement with what Nissan wanted to export and what Mr. Katayama wanted to import would be an interesting read. And I think the 'dealer add-on' story plays into those facts.

I take no offense from the standpoint of features that were omitted. But, from an engineering perspective the engineering requirements were meant to suit the market and it doesn't make sense to say the vehicle was dumbed down. A seemingly simple requirement might have taken a more sophisticated solution to achieve. I might agree that in some cases the market itself is dumber though mostly just different.

[HS30-H]

I know that's sticking point with you but since I have not made any sort of "An American Car" comment it's irrelevant to the discussion.

"Irrelevant". Now where have I heard that before...?

I didn't say you said it, but it gets said, written and repeated often enough to be a factor. I think it's relevant to this discussion because it implies - very strongly - that the specifications / needs / perceived requirements of the USA market completely dominated all others. This is quite simply not the case, and the cars themselves show that very clearly.

Simply that the requirements that needed to be met by whatever was sent to the US aren't automatically "easier" to meet. Certainly just leaving off features is easy enough. But during design of the chassis to perform with different suspension bits for different markets who's to say the requirements for what eventually came to the US were easier to achieve. That a softer suspension setting is less difficult than a firmer one to make work with the myriad of other competing requirements. That they were all designed together is irrelevant. The requirements weren't the same so the effort to achieve them might not have been either.

I don't get where you're going with this. You seem to be going round in circles. Just as a reminder, here's what you wrote earlier:

Is it so hard to imagine that it was a challenge to so successfully meet the US market requirements? That a US market version might have been more difficult to engineer?

So, you were saying that the "US market version" might have been "....more difficult to engineer", right?

Since the first variants of the S30-series ( S30, S30-S, PS30, PS30-SB, HS30, HLS30 ) were all designed, engineered and produced at the same time, I find it hard to see the "US market version" as being any more difficult or "easy" to engineer than all the others. The engineers would have to take into account the fact that differences to one variant would possibly affect another. That's why you would see - for example - anti roll bar link mount holes in the transverse links / rear wishbones of the "US market version" when it didn't actually have a rear anti roll bar.....

[26th-Z]

I know that's sticking point with you but since I have not made any sort of "An American Car" comment it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, but then, it's not all about you. What is relevant to this discussion is the understanding that the car was NOT designed for one specific market. Flash back to the 60s and what could have come to North America as part of the design range of S30 features is the relevancy.

That they were all designed together is irrelevant. The requirements weren't the same so the effort to achieve them might not have been either.

On the other hand the requirements might have been easier. So what are you saying? The relevant facts are that the chassis was designed for a range of suspension bits just as it was designed for a range of engines and transmissions. The chassis was tested under a range of conditions including crash testing and wind tunnel testing. Information I have gathered lately surprises me with how comprehensively the suspension and chassis were tested prior to production.

So when one looks at the North American configuration and compares it to the range of available components designed into the S30, it is fairly easy to say; dumbed down.

[doradox]

Yes, but then, it's not all about you. What is relevant to this discussion is the understanding that the car was NOT designed for one specific market. Flash back to the 60s and what could have come to North America as part of the design range of S30 features is the relevancy.

In the context of the comments between HS30-H and I it is irrelevant. As in, it adds nothing to our discussion.

On the other hand the requirements might have been easier. So what are you saying? The relevant facts are that the chassis was designed for a range of suspension bits just as it was designed for a range of engines and transmissions. The chassis was tested under a range of conditions including crash testing and wind tunnel testing. Information I have gathered lately surprises me with how comprehensively the suspension and chassis were tested prior to production.

So when one looks at the North American configuration and compares it to the range of available components designed into the S30, it is fairly easy to say; dumbed down.

They might well have been easier but neither you nor I know that. Assuming it was easier makes no sense. I think it was pretty smart to offer what they did for the NA market at the price they were able to. Do you have any reason to believe more cars would have been sold in the NA market if a "smarter" configuration had been sold?

[doradox]

"Irrelevant". Now where have I heard that before...?

I didn't say you said it, but it gets said, written and repeated often enough to be a factor. I think it's relevant to this discussion because it implies - very strongly - that the specifications / needs / perceived requirements of the USA market completely dominated all others. This is quite simply not the case, and the cars themselves show that very clearly.

Still no reason to bring it up in our discussion. It adds nothing.

I don't get where you're going with this. You seem to be going round in circles. Just as a reminder, here's what you wrote earlier:

So, you were saying that the "US market version" might have been "....more difficult to engineer", right?

Since the first variants of the S30-series ( S30, S30-S, PS30, PS30-SB, HS30, HLS30 ) were all designed, engineered and produced at the same time, I find it hard to see the "US market version" as being any more difficult or "easy" to engineer than all the others. The engineers would have to take into account the fact that differences to one variant would possibly affect another. That's why you would see - for example - anti roll bar link mount holes in the transverse links / rear wishbones of the "US market version" when it didn't actually have a rear anti roll bar.....

All variations were equally easy to make the combinations of various parts work together to meet the design requirements for a particular market because they were all done at the same time? Interesting. And you would have some evidence of this? The project I am currently working on has dozens of different configuration across several customers. My team is designing and engineering everything all at the same time yet some customer requirements conflict with others and require extra effort to integrate into the whole. How I wish I lived in your world where all engineering challenges are of equal difficulty.

[sblake01]

[HS30-H]

Still no reason to bring it up in our discussion. It adds nothing.

No, I think I explained it and justified my quoting it. If you choose to ignore that ( I remember you becoming a little sniffy about it in a previous thread too ) then it's up to you, but don't tell me what I can or can't bring up in this discussion. This is a forum, not a private meeting room.

All variations were equally easy to make the combinations of various parts work together to meet the design requirements for a particular market because they were all done at the same time? Interesting. And you would have some evidence of this? The project I am currently working on has dozens of different configuration across several customers. My team is designing and engineering everything all at the same time yet some customer requirements conflict with others and require extra effort to integrate into the whole. How I wish I lived in your world where all engineering challenges are of equal difficulty.

Hang on, it was you that started all this "easy" and "difficult" stuff in the first place. I'm saying that if you look at it as one big project ( all variants made up to the end of 1969 designed together in that project ) then all variants would theoretically have been given equal consideration. I don't know how you would decide that one was "more difficult" than another, or "more easy" than another? The only scenario where I can envisage that being a problem is if one particular variant / configuration / market model was dominant ( or designed / engineered first ) and the others had to be compromised to suit. That is why I brought up the "Made For The USA" type quotes, as their proponents would appear to be telling us that there was indeed one dominant variant, and that all others were an afterthought ( therefore, and I quote, "irrelevant" ).

We've seen you dismissing the design and engineering of the cars for both RHD and LHD, and L20A, S20 & L24 engines as 'easy' in a previous thread here ( didn't you say it was just a matter of a few extra holes here and there? ) but I happen to think it was a little bit mroe involved than that. Such comments usually come from people who have only seen one type of variant, in my experience.

The relevant facts are that the chassis was designed for a range of suspension bits just as it was designed for a range of engines and transmissions. The chassis was tested under a range of conditions including crash testing and wind tunnel testing. Information I have gathered lately surprises me with how comprehensively the suspension and chassis were tested prior to production.

Exactly. And in the case of suspension and its effect / interaction with unibody rigidity, structural stress analysis and everything that goes with that, the engineers would make sure that they designed the basic structure of the body to cope with the springing and damping of all variants ( presumably taking into account the highest rates that would be offered - Option as well as stock ). Hence for example a variant sold with soft springing and damping would fall within the parameters set by that with the higher rates, but both would be given equal consideration in the project as a whole.

Still interested to see Jetaway follow up on his contribution. If he has a follow up that is....

[doradox]

No, I think I explained it and justified my quoting it. If you choose to ignore that ( I remember you becoming a little sniffy about it in a previous thread too ) then it's up to you, but don't tell me what I can or can't bring up in this discussion. This is a forum, not a private meeting room.

Still adding nothing. And I in no way told you you couldn't bring it up. Get you facts straight.

Hang on, it was you that started all this "easy" and "difficult" stuff in the first place. I'm saying that if you look at it as one big project ( all variants made up to the end of 1969 designed together in that project ) then all variants would theoretically have been given equal consideration. I don't know how you would decide that one was "more difficult" than another, or "more easy" than another? The only scenario where I can envisage that being a problem is if one particular variant / configuration / market model was dominant ( or designed / engineered first ) and the others had to be compromised to suit. That is why I brought up the "Made For The USA" type quotes, as their proponents would appear to be telling us that there was indeed one dominant variant, and that all others were an afterthought ( therefore, and I quote, "irrelevant" ).

We've seen you dismissing the design and engineering of the cars for both RHD and LHD, and L20A, S20 & L24 engines as 'easy' in a previous thread here ( didn't you say it was just a matter of a few extra holes here and there? ) but I happen to think it was a little bit mroe involved than that. Such comments usually come from people who have only seen one type of variant, in my experience.

You have no specific performance requirements that you can point to to make your point. Yes, all these things bolt on but that's only part of the engineering challenge. Now they have to work together with all the compromises to meet performance specifications. Do you have any knowledge of what those might have been for various markets? If not then you have an assemblage if bits with no understanding of why a particular bit was used or how that bit may have changed to work in the whole. You seem very reluctant to admit that the US market may have had unique performance targets that required specific changes to the whole. Your premise seems to me to be that any US market requirements easily fell within the range of the whole gamut of requirements specified for the world market. That is naive. It could well be so. But you don't know it.

Hence for example a variant sold with soft springing and damping would fall within the parameters set by that with the higher rates, but both would be given equal consideration in the project as a whole.

This seems to prove my point about your assumptions. How would you know that softer springs and dampers would "fall within the parameters" and be given equal consideration? In my experience all design requirements are NOT given an equal ranking. That's Engineering 101. A car is a mass of compromises and without a guide to use to rank order importance you have no way to guide your decisions.

[bpilati]

* 5-spd tranny

* a bit more power

* different wheels

* better seat

* rust protection

* better blinker switch

[Jetaway]

Did you? Why?

And.....?

I think my heart is still beating, and nobody is going to hold the front page. Was it a surprise for you then?

A review of the Datsun 240Z by a British automobile magazine. I found the statements on power output, the intended market, their performance comparisons and driving impressions quite interesting.

And that the year before Datsun sold, hold your heart, 3000 cars in England.

The response was to the above statements by me:

What I found interesting:

Statements in this thread that U.S. cars had lower power outputs than other markets. Apparently not less than in England.

That Autocar said it was "aimed primarily at the US market."

That Autocar called it a big and heavy car and in fact, drove as a heavy car, probably a little too burly for most women. Believe me, you would not find that Americans considered the 240Z as big and heavy. Not even for a sports car. Road and Track (April 1970) noted the lightness of the 240Z steering and that clutch and brake pressures were comfortable.

That Autocar found the interior to have too much plastic, too simple, which sounds like a polite way of saying too cheap. Road & Track was "impressed by a very modern layout ... almost Corvette like if it weren't more tastefully done."

Not that Autocar panned it, calling it "an excellent sports coupe..." and that it would seem a "natural successor" to the big Healey but that would be unfair because the Z was "so much more comfortable, so much roomier, and so much better-handling" than the Healey.

And to your, I must say, I took as somewhat snarky, response to my repeating their statement that 3000 Datsun's had been sold in England the year before: Duh, gee you know more about the popularity of various car makes in England than I do. Would living in London have anything to do with that? In the U.S., especially in California, I wouldn't doubt there were single dealerships selling 2000 Datsuns a year in 1970. I do realize that this is an international audience, but nonetheless, most of the subscribers are American and I suspect most would be as surprised as I was to discover so few Datsuns were sold in England in 1970.

All of which bears on the never-ending debate on whether the 240Z was designed with the American market as a major target in mind. Of course it was. The Japanese understood the importance of the American car market. The English, French, and Italians apparently didn't and the combined market share of all three countries today would be lucky to break 1%.

Chris