240Z - a copy.......or not ?

SeanDezart

SeanDezart

Well-Known Forum User
It's been said that the Z was a copy ! Of what I might ask ?

Was it not just the trend back then to say that the Japanese were just copying 'old world' designs, scenes of Yank car builders beating up Datsun saloons in rage with sledgehammers, British motor-bike manufacturers going to the wall, all those Kodak Brownies being tossed away - everyone hated the Japs but everyone bought the goods !

So the Z was a copy of what ? A 911 ? I can't find the engine in the rear..........

An E-Type - read on :

Apart from its distinctive styling, the E-Type's chassis was what truely set the E-Type apart from its competition. Like the D-Type, it consisted of a central steel monocoque with a front subframe supporting the engine and independent front suspension. The center section was extremely strong, but less complex than the spaceframe constructions of equal strength. Although it was relatively cheap to construct, it was quite expensive to fix a damaged chassis. Rear space was conserved by using the driveshaft as an integral part of the suspension. It acted like the upper section of two wishbones.

Covered by a huge one piece bonnet, the straight six engine was carried over from the XK150 S performance model, which was similar in design to the engines used at Le Mans. One of the car's weaknesses was the four speed gearbox, which did not have a synchromesh first gear. Another feature carried over from the racing cars were the inboard mounted rear discs brakes, which decreased the unsprung weight, and in turn improved the car's handling. An unfortunate side-effect with early E-Types was overheating brakes under extreme conditions.

Obviously no convertibles, despite the well-known phrase 'Big Healey sucessor' - btw, anyone know the source of that ;) ?

So what did Nissan copy ?
 
There were a wealth of similar(ish) shaped coupés betwixt 60 & early 70s but the Triumph GT6 was a similar sort of thing (I'm not saying the Z was a copy of it but it came first with a 2 litre straight 6 with a hatch, power bulge and coupé styling). Are you just setting someone up for a firing squad you bugger?
 
JakTheRuby said:
Are you just setting someone up for a firing squad you bugger?
Click to expand...
How well you know me..........but I'll be nice today.:unsure:

It was really a 2-seater, but a small extra rear seat could be ordered if required and was large enough for small children.

The car was largely based on the Triumph Herald saloon..............also from the Herald came the rack and pinion steering and coil-and-wishbone front suspension up front, and at the rear a single transverse-leaf swing axle arrangement.

The GT6 inherited the swing-axle system from the Spitfire, which in turn was copied from the Herald small saloon. In the saloon it was tolerated, in the little Spitfire it was not liked, and in the powerful GT6 it was heavily criticised. Triumph had done nothing to improve the system for the GT6, and the tendency to break away if the driver lifted off the power mid-corner was not helped at all by the increased weight at the front of the car. The handling was most bitterly criticised in the USA, an important export market for Triumph, where they were traditionally very strong.

However it never sold in the numbers hoped for by Triumph, and was comprehensively beaten in the marketplace by the arguably inferior MGB. This seems a puzzle; the smaller-engined Spitfire sold better than the MG Midget, but this success eluded the GT6..................the only likely explanation for this is their reluctance to offer any competition for their TR6 roadster, a strong seller in the USA.

I could tell them why.............
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z was not a copy but an improvement on most car designs of the period, period.
 
Criticising the GT6 for it's rear suspension doesn't mean it wasn't copied. It was itself a response to the MGBGT.

FWIW I can't see any similarity in styling design or intent between a GT6 and Z. The only common things are straight 6 (de facto for the time) and the hatch (MGBGT amongst others). Apart from that they're apples and bananas.

Wasn't there a ferrari?
 
Ah, yes. If it's Japanese, the very first word we must remember to use is....... 'copy'.

Apparently - or at least according to most amateur and 'pro' journalists - all Japanese people appear to lack the 'original design' gene.




Sean,
I know what you're getting at, but aren't we just going to be discussing the shape of the can, rather than the soup inside.....?
 

Attachments

  • Stirring-the-pot.jpg
    Stirring-the-pot.jpg
    197.8 KB · Views: 30
Albrecht said:
I know what you're getting at, but aren't we just going to be discussing the shape of the can, rather than the soup inside.....?
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why the GT6 is an unlikely inspiration for the Z.
The Z was aimed at more serious performance motoring and is only really comparable with prestige GT's of the time (despite the dodgy interior). The GT6 was based on the spitfire which was always, despite the image, a poor mans sports car. I've had spitfires though and they are good looking and a lot of fun to drive.

The Ferrari comparison is more interesting, I don't know a lot about Ferraris, but it make sense to me that Nissan would want to bring that design principle to the masses.
 
The 275 possibly for the prancing horse but they only had the door windows (not the extra C-pillar ones). Dunno old boy. It was a coupé when curvy coupés were the thing. Just another on the market (albeit really quite a good one barring of course the 60s/70s Jap tin they were built out of).
 
There was a thread on piston heads last year in a similar vein to this, the whole thread is here:

RE: Pic Of The Week: Datsun 240Z

And this pic was put on:

g21jan09.jpg


And I can see the similarities, although obviously its not as handsome/pretty as the 240 :)
 
Japanese car designers (like Hino) would have a European design studio design a model for them (or have a consultant), and/or Japanese car designers were talking amoungst themselves and others outside the country... ideas would develop from their own design. I would say there was a certain style of sports car shape around the mid/late 60's

E.g. one of the early S30 designs (or mock-ups [can't remember how far it went down the process]) looked a lot like a Maserati that had just been launched, even though there was no "copying" of the Maserati (e.g both designed separately).

Or, it is said the Fairlady roadster is a copy of the MGB, but the Fairlady was launched before the "B" came out. Obviously both firms had a similar "look" in mind.

Copying...no, I think more influence.... the Japanese motor car designers could think for themselves.
 
Bare with me here (it’s a lengthy analogous ramble):eek:

I spend a lot of my time analysing and improving production processes using various techniques, along the way encountering considerable Japanese methodology, despite various US companies claiming the roots of modern process optimisation (Lean) most of it has been “copied” from Japan, for instance I help teach a shop floor principle called 5C which is based on guess what, a production discipline from Japan called 5S

Seiri (Sort)
Seiton (Set)
Seiso (Shine)
Seiketsu (Standardisation)
Shitsuke (Sustain)

All this is part of a discipline called Lean manufacturing.
Lean manufacturing is a very logical optimisation (Kaizen) process almost a religion in certain manufacturing plants.
Many years ago the UK government (rumour has it to retain some Japanese business in the UK) sent a research party to Japan to observe and bring “Lean” over to the UK, this sparked several government sponsored non profit making ventures teaching this in industry, right from furniture making to the use of meat in food stuffs.

Where’s this going....well is it possible that the evolution of the Z is simply a natural progression of development by very smart, observant and switched on marketing and engineer types, using a logical optimisation process (already identified as a lean process) ……..Use all that is good, throw away all that is bad, learning along the way…..or continuous improvement

Take the long bonnet, needed for that long inline 6 but also very pleasing to the eye (proven by the E type)
Throw away a 1950's agricultural suspension design (MG etc) as it is inefficient, clunky and prone to handling issues, use proven reliable IRS, repeat until done

Throw in a pinch of “Now make an efficient and cost effective production line” and out pops a “world car”

To the outsider this logical optimisation process looks like “copying” until you look closer and find that it is much much better that the original….that is not copying its optimising.

Apologies to Alan and anyone else for the crude (and probably incorrect) use of any Japanese terms I am only taking words and phrases from my Lean books to highlight a connection and do not profess any knowledge of anything Japanese other than these plagiarised techniques.
 
I heard that in the late 60s the japenese were very impressed with how well and sought after 2 sports cars were, these being the jaguar and aston martin, so thought that if they built something along these lines it would be a hit, so sketched the jaguar and aston martin on tracing paper and laid them on top of one another, with the intention that if they drew a car in between the curves of these 2 iconic cars they cannot fail, whether or not this is true i do not know but look at the simularities of the z to these great cars, it makes one wonder if this did indeed happen,
 
(Fantastic find by the way Dale) That is like a Stingray from the front wings and the arse end is very much the Ferrari 275 (it has the single round lights on either side). S30 still kicks the pants out of all of them. It's definitely the most polished of the lot. But the influence is very much there.
 
Albrecht said:
Ah, yes. If it's Japanese, the very first word we must remember to use is....... 'copy'.

Sean,
I know what you're getting at, but aren't we just going to be discussing the shape of the can, rather than the soup inside.....?
Click to expand...

Well, if we accept that a car is an ensemble and not just skin-deep and superficial then the 'copying' wouldn't just stay on the surface.

"Mercedes" engine and then of course parts taken from saloon cars hardly ups the status of an exotic sports-car, didn't E-Type engines come from the same, Ferrari using Fiat electrics and Mustangs are what ?

BTW, I adore my Zs' interior - if it was even more basic and black, I'd love it more - simple, pure - get on with the driving !

It's the
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SKiddell said:
Enlighten please Sean
Click to expand...

"..................Also in 1967 Nissan introduced its new highly advanced four cylinder overhead cam (OHC) Nissan L engine, which while similar to Mercedes-Benz OHC designs was a totally new engine designed by Nissan. This engine powered the new Datsun 510, which gained Nissan respect in the worldwide sedan market. Then, in 1969 Nissan introduced the Datsun 240Z sports car which used a six-cylinder variation of the L series engine.............."

So Nissan 'copied' the Mercedes engine, or at least that's what some journalists have 'deciphered', made it into a four cylinder then added two cylinders to make it a six again for our Zs.

The Count told me ages ago that the 4 cyl. was derived from the 6 which is, of course, completely logical seeing that it came from the Gloria 6 in-line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top