andys120: McNamara considered the original Falcon to be "his" car. He viewed it as just about perfect in its original form. I remember reading an interview with him about 3-4 years ago, and he disliked the improvements Iaccoca made to it (adding hardtops and convertibles to the range, introducing the Sprint option and making the neat V-8 available).
Interestingly enough, McNamara did champion an innovative small car for the American Ford lineup - the Cardinal. It was to be introduced in 1963 or 1964 and boasted front-wheel-drive and a four cylinder engine. It was smaller than anything offered by the American companies at that time. When Iaccoca assumed power, he took one look at it and cancelled it. One wonders what would have happened to America's fortunes in the small car arena if Ford had produced the Cardinal for the North American market. Too bad McNamara left Ford for the Kennedy Cabinet - he might just be remembered for giving us a homegrown, modern front-wheel-drive subcompact instead helping to escalate the Vietnam War! On the other hand, we might never have had the Mustang.
I posted the following message under the Classics topic "60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords", but since it relates more to this topic, I'll post it here too (my apologies to those of you who happened to read it under the other topic):
I bought a new ''70 510 sedan while living in the Chicago metro area, and ab348's message speaks for my experience also. The 510's technology - OHC and IRS - was admittedly appealing, particularly when considering the price of the car. The combination of technology, price, and fuel economy was what motivated me to buy this car, but it was, quite simply, a rust bucket. Also, it's pollution control system had not been perfected, which caused serious driveability problems in below freezing temperatures, until the engine warmed up. While the engine always started, even in sub zero weather, it had absolutely no power, literally, for the first several minutes in cold weather. Most owners outside the rust belt might never have experienced this particular problem. Datsun corrected this problem in '71 or '72, but the company did nothing for owners of cars with the problem. I was unaware of this deficiency before I purchased the car, in January, because the salesman cleverly warmed the engine up before my test drive. I tried to return the car to the dealer after a couple of days, but was essentially told "sorry, you bought it, you own it."
In addition, the engine was excessively noisy above ~50 mph. This made driving on the highway unpleasant, particularly on trips, because the engine didn't emit a pleasant sound, as an old Alfa does, but, rather, an annoying drone.
By comparison, the '60 Valiant my parents owned several years earlier was far superior to the Datsun in every respect except fit and finish. While these two cars are in different size classifications, my conclusion was that the Valiant was a significantly better value, despite its older technology. That said, the Datsun 510 was clearly far superior to the Vega and Pinto in terms of mechanical durability, but if you lived in the Rust Belt, the life expectancy was similar for these three cars, due to corrosion. The bodies typically began to show outer signs of rust after, say, 18 - 24 months, and had gaping holes in the fenders and lower panels by the fourth or fifth year.
The compact, mid size, and full size domestic cars had considerably better rust protection than most sub compacts (other than the VW Beetle, which was comparable to the larger domestics in terms of corrosion resistance). This translated into a longer useful life. You could say that the domestics' better corrosion resistance compensated for the higher fuel consumption, to a significant extent, or maybe completely, since depreciation is such a large factor in the cost of ownership. Therefore, it was probably less expensive to drive a Valiant/Dart, Maverick/Comet, or Nova/BOP derivative than a 510.
Yes, but what about that subjective quality that can compensate for so many owner frustrations, character? Didn't the 510 have a lot of character? No, not really. Beetles had character. Fiat 1100s had character. Even Renaults had character. But 510s were virtually devoid of character, in my opinion. They were maybe half a notch above the domestic compacts, which were arguably at the low end of the character spectrum, but, then, for all their faults, the Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin also had a little more character than the larger domestics. The lesson in this, in the case of the 510, is that (relatively) advanced technology doesn't necessary equate with character. After all, the British sports cars had character, but weren't really high tech. Would you agree with this assessment, Shifty?
to run with the biog v8s on the race track. For a cheap car they were fairly good performers and took well to modifications.
Problems you had with cold running a 1970 model surprise me. Emission controls didn't become really bothersome until about '74. My '71 Fiat had no serious cold starting or running issues (choke stuck once in a while) so I wonder if yours didn't have a carb or fuel system defect.
They started leaning out carbs in 1968 so it's conceivable that a 1970 510 would have a leaned out carb but you're right, 1970 is considered one of the last years when smog controls didn't have a major impact on performance. Might have been as simple as a choke that needed adjustment.
You don't see any old Renaults or Fiats or Valiants on the track duking it out with the big boys in SCCA and vintage racing, but you see plenty of 510s.
The Datsun 510 may not have been perfect, but it got the last laugh on all its competitors, foreign and domestic. It lives on in the hearts of real car nuts.
For the 95 percent of American car buyers who didn't know (and still don't know) the SCCA from the ASPCA, the Valiant/Dart twins and the Nova were better choices - sturdier construction, lower-maintenance engines, better rust resistance and far superior automatic transmissions, heating/air conditioning systems and radios. The Datsun 510 was for people who loved cars and were willing to put with its vices in exchange for its virtues. The Valiant/Dart and Nova were for people who wanted solid, reliable transportation. Today, ironically enough, their spiritual descendants eagerly snap up Japanese cars!
The Nova and Dart of the early 60s were for people who didn't enjoy driving basically. They are just transportation, and they did that very well, it's true. But forget fun, style, agility and all the rest. At least later Novas and Darts got some HP, that was some compensation for the torture of driving one.
In some future penal colony for car freaks, we'll all be forced to drive 60s American compacts. Ah, 22 turns lock to lock. Optional power steering! Undersize drum brakes! Enough body roll to scrap your door handles off!
I'm not aware of any 510 "vices"? Can you list a couple? Only things I can think of were rust (not really a Datsun problem per se) and carburetor rebuilds were tricky (the internal passages were very very small and you had to really work at it).
Datsun 510 was a milestone car, and already has a place in history as the "poor man's BMW". It was a historic car of great importance and you'll often see it on the Top 100 cars list or the 100 Most Influential Cars list.
As for rust, that's a problem for any 60s car in the salt belt.
What people should have done but were never taught to do is wash down the car, in the same way that you flush out a boat engine if it is salt water cooled.
Also, some cars were not designed very well and their undercarriages had built-in "salt traps". BMW coupes were notorious for this.
is in the Jan 2002 issue of R&T with s recap of it's success in the under 2.5 liter TransAm class of the early 70s. This $2004 econo car competed with the Alfa GTV and BMW 2002.
Interestingly it was the Bimmer that was the laggard as the Alfas and 510s duked it out for the championship. Anyone who saw the duels between John Morton (Datsun) and Horst Kwech (alfa) will never forget them.
Shifty, I agree w your comments about rust problems being common in carsd of that era. Eventually they spawned an entire rust-proofing industry.
The last car I felt compelled to Zeibart when new was an '85 Prelude (BTW it worked). Improvements in rust-proofing new cars may be the main reason why late-model used cars are now viable alternatives to new ones(at least they are IMO).
Shifty, I agree w your comments about the dreadful road handling of most of those cars but I'd also remind you most of the bigger Detroit offerings were sloppy handling and not much fun to drive (although they had power and torque).
Most cars then foreign and domestic had seats no one would tolerate today. Bench seat compacts were particularly horrible as I recall.
Having owned a new '70 510 I would have to agree with mminerbi that it had it's shortcommings. Very little insulation from road and engine noise and real tinny compared to a VW. It surged and had very poor throttle response
Back then there were "Dyno Kits" being hawked through (I believe) Motor Trend designed for various cars. The Kit consisted of bored out jets and different springs so the distrubitor could provide faster mechanical advance. Adding the kit made a huge difference, great part throttle response and it eliminated the surging.
I added Corvair wheels which were 6"x13" (compared to the 4 1/2"x13 stock units) and 700 13 tires which filled out the wheel wells nicely
Yes, they were tinny but they outperformed a VW mightily for only $100 more in price. So for around $1,850 you got ohc engine, good handling, good brakes and a decent heater. A Chevy Nova was $800 more and a Dart $900 more, so you're right, not really competitors at a full 50% more in price.
As for interior noise, well you can't get much worse than a VW. American compacts were a lot quieter, except maybe the Corvair.
...I had a '69 Dart GT that, according to the paperwork that came with it, stickered for about $3600 brand-new. It only had the 225 slant six, but had probably every other conceivable option you could get on a Dart back then...Torqueflite automatic, 3-speed electric wipers, power steering, vinyl roof, air conditioning, AM radio, and probably a few things I'm forgetting.
I spec'ed out my '68 Dart 270 a few years back, using one of those American Standard auto books that lists all the options and stuff. IIRC, it came out to around $3300, with V-8 (a 273 originally, I found out, when I decoded the VIN), Torqueflite, 2-speed wipers, air conditioning, power steering, etc.
Just for comparison, In '69 you could get a Valiant 2-door sedan with no options for about $2100. What would a 510 have run back then by the time you put a decent amount of stuff on it?
Also, something else I've been wondering...is there any way to tell a 318 from a 273, just by looking at it? It's just that now that I've found out the car originally had a 273 in it, I'm wondering if what's in it now is a 273. Truthfully, the only way I "knew" it was a 318 was because that's what the seller told me! As much as I'm into old Mopars, I should probably know this stuff better :-P
Wevk, Yes, while I didn't mention it, mine was also plagued by surging and poor throttle response. Did your 510 have a manual or automatic transmission? I compromised with my wife's preference for an automatic, which I'm sure contributed to what turned out to be an unsatisfying ownership experience.
My Datsun dealer tried to correct the driveability problems on several occasions, both in and out of warranty, but didn't succeed. Neither did an independent garage, which enjoyed a good reputation.
I wish I had known about the Dyno Kit. Wevk, did your fuel economy suffer noticeably with the Dyno KIt?
When it came time to replace the tires I went with the next larger size, which I believe helped the handling some. Shifty, I respectfully disagree with some of your comments in your message #59, as it relates to the Valiant. They may have softened the suspension on later models, but the '60-'62 models did not exhibit excessive body roll. They had firm suspensions for their day, and not the typical wallowy American suspensions. In fact, all Chrysler cars from '57 - '62 sacrificed ride softness for better handling and control. True, the Valiant required more turns from lock-to-lock than the 510, but it was a reasonable compromise, given the weight of the car compared to the 510, and the fact that majority of the early Valiants were not equipped with power assists. The Falcon, on the other hand, had a softer suspension and less responsive steering.
were developed and sold by Gerraty (sp?) Automotive in southern California. Each month Motor Trend would chronicle the development of a kit for a certain car, with before and after dyno readings.
It was impressive to see what could be done without changing the carb or distributor, even with slugs like the Maverick six. Jettings and advance curves were a long way from being optimized in those days. The lean jetting was for better mpg, the lazy advance curves to minimize warranty work due to detonation.
As I recall there were wild claims of around 40% HP increases on engines outfitted with a kit. I don't think the kit actually added much peak HP it just ran Much better and at part throttle (BTW the 510 was Stick and a '71 model) I think M/T took some heat later on regarding these claims.
I mean it this way. If you match up the 510 spec for spec with a Valiant, the Valiant comes out about 30 years behind in technology.
if somebody has the specs, please list comparative engine type, front brake type, rear axle design, # of trans speed for the manual trans, and weight. I think you'll see that the 510 is a much more modern car and was a great value for the $$ you spent. A 1960 Valiant is really a 1930 Buick with an alternator. (pushrod OHV inline six, three speed manual trans, solid rear axle, drum brakes --ah, no torsion bars on the Buick, that's true!)
On prices, I picked out the stripped down MSRP for the 2dr coupe versions of the '68 cars I mentioned, since I thought that was fairest.
I don't recall Motor Trend reporting changes in mpg with the dyno kits, although they may have. Most carbs, especially the Stone Age one- and two-barrels Geratty was often dealing with, were jetted on the lean side by the factory for better fuel economy. And for 99 out of 100 drivers that was the best set-up.
If you were the 1 in 100 who wanted to go faster, a workhorse carb like the Rochester 2GC had a wide variety of jet sizes available and it was easy enough to change them. Or you could drill out the stock jets, although this wasn't always recommended because the orifices sometimes were machined with a special shape.
But unless you knew what you were doing it didn't take long before the gas gauge needle went down every time you accelerated. I speak from experience here. That was the great thing about the dyno kits.
It was the same with the advance curves. Total ignition advance (including initial, mechanical and vacuum advance) came from the factory on the conservative side to compensate for a wide variety of usages, ambient temperatures and numbnuts drivers. If you were the 1 in 100 who wanted more throttle response it was easy to buy a one-size-fits-all recurve kit at a speed shop and install it but you could grenade the engine if you weren't paying attention.
More and quicker advance is great if you've got a clue. But if you're the kind of driver who would try go up Pike's Peak in top gear during a heat wave then more advance would hole a piston. That's what the factories were trying to avoid.
It's entirely possible that you could get better mpg with a dyno kit even with larger jets because the quicker advance curve had the engine running more efficiently. The downside is that you might have to switch from regular to premium because a quicker curve generally increases the octane requirement. A quicker advance (and more of it) is like raising the compression ratio--it increases combustion pressure. However, a superior combustion chamber design can tolerate increased combustion pressure with less need for higher octane.
The horsepower and torque increases were real but the hp and torque curves themselves didn't change. In other words, a dyno-kitted engine didn't pick up another 1000 rpm at the top end but it did pull harder within the existing curve. To change the curve you'd have to change the cam, valve or port sizes or carburetion.
I agree with each of your points, Shifty, regarding the spec comparison of the 510 vs. the Valiant. I purchased my 510 because I was very impressed with how advanced it was, and, yes, especially for the price. I couldn't afford a BMW at the time, so the 510 was a logical alternative. So we agree on many key points, but reach somewhat different conclusions.
The three speed manual transmission on the Valiant (and the original Corvair and Falcon), with its sloppy shift linkage, was indeed a real deficiency. A four speed with a decent linkage would have been sooo much better, that's for sure. Ours had the automatic, which was a good and modern three speed unit. In addition to being relatively efficient, for an automatic, and smooth operating, it was very rugged. The automatic was a better alternative, in my opinion, to the crummy '30s style manual. However, a nice four speed manual would have been preferable to the automatic.
Moving beyond the transmission, I found that Chrysler deserves credit for getting the old technology to yield good results, whereas Nissan/Datsun, in my judgement, for the reasons listed by Wevk and me in previous messages, did not succeed in getting the 510 to equal the sum of its parts. For this reason, the 510 frustrated me more than it pleased me. My comments apply to the '70 510, with automatic, in a cold weather climate. Had I owned a manual transmission version in, say, California, the driveability problem associated with cold weather starts, a real annoyance and a safety hazard, wouldn't have been an issue. Datsun recognized the problem, and fixed it in a subsequent model year. Premature rusting would also not have been a problem in California and some other regions of the country. The surging and poor throttle response issues would have remained, however. The throttle response deficiency manifested itself in the following way: The engine didn't respond promptly when you depressed the throttle (there was a very notable lag between the time you first depressed the throttle until the engine responded with increased rpms), and there was also an annoying lag between the time you released the throttle and the engine's response.
Both cars were very rugged mechanically. The Valiant was notably superior to the 510 in terms of rust resistance from road salt. Rust resistance was an important ownership issue in cold weather climates until the late '70s/early '80s, when virtually all manufacturers adopted effective measures to deal with the problem. The problem is greatly diminished now.
Japanese automatics weren't really up to snuff in the late 60s, early 70s. Americans still had a big edge back then, as they did with a/c systems and cold weather starting ----although I must say that a Slant Six with that gear reduction starter on a very cold winter day was a bit iffy to say the least.
I had a Valiant with a factory 4 speed. Compared to today's gearboxes, it was a crude piece of work and of course with the sloppy steering the whole package was not what one would have hoped.
Still it was sorta fun compared to a normal typewriter transmission.
...too many Valiants in rallys...people are restoring them instead of racing them! FWIW though, I have a Mopar Performance catalog that I got a few years back, that lists everything you need to do to get a Slant Six Mopar A-body to do the 1/4 mile in under 14 seconds. So there must be some kind of market for that kind of stuff!
I'd also forgotten what a pompous-looking little car those first '60-62 Valiants were! Compared to a Falcon or Corvair, they almost look like they're trying to be a little luxury car. That styling looked neat on the Valiant, and the '61-62 Lancer, but when Exner tried applying it further up the line, it was horrible!
In those days prestige was tied to size so the compacts of that era were all trying their best to look big and luxurious. If I remember correctly the Valiants had a faux Continental spare embossed on the trunk lid (ewww!).
True confession: MY 17 y/o self was nuts about those cars, I loved the Valiant styling, I thought it was sooo elegant and "continental". Oh well I guess you're allowed lapses in taste if you're a dumb kid.
I have to disagree with Andre about how that styling idiom translated to the larger Plymouths and Dodges. I thought it worked quite well. IMO the best looking Plymouth ever made was the '63 Fury Convertible.
Mr. Shiftright: I guess when I refer to the "vices" of the 510, I'm primarily thinking of the negative effect that Snow Belt winters had on them. They rusted out much faster than the GM and Chrysler compacts (although not the Vega, Pinto or Gremlin, which were the real competitors) and were much harder to start in sub-zero degree weather. Plus, their heaters and defrosters were weak. And our pothole-filled roads really tested the suspension and body structure of Japanese cars. The fact that the Japanese established a beach head in California is not just because residents were more willing to take a chance on a new nameplate. The cars were better suited to Golden State driving conditions than they were to those encountered in the Keystone State (and other Snow Belt locales). In Pennsylvania, Japanese cars really didn't start making significant inroads until the mid-1980s.
That said, I always thought the 510 was a sharp car (and it was my favorite Aurora/AFX slot car, too!). I'd love to see one at an old-car show.
I don't know when exactly in the year my parents bought their 510 new, it was a '71 two-door (ORANGE w/black vinyl), 4-speed with the optional AM/FM stereo. This was the first car I remember well (they LOVED this car). Mom claims it cost $1800 new, I think she's stretching it a bit (she also claims the radio was a $450 option!), but I'm betting it was about a $2k car (unless my dad did some serious chiseling, which wouldn't surprise me). My neighbors also had a 510, a bit older (maybe a '69), but it was a four-door with a COLUMN SHIFT AUTOMATIC (sorry 'bout the caps, but I'm emphasizing the scary thought of a 510 with an automatic).
Andre, in response to your question in message #63, "Just for comparison, In '69 you could get a Valiant 2-door sedan with no options for about $2100. What would a 510 have run back then by the time you put a decent amount of stuff on it?", about $1, 800 for a basic 2 door, and around $2,000 for a little better equipped 4 door, as I recall. I paid ~$2,100 for my '70 with automatic, but it was a demonstrator (prices went up notably every year in the late '60s/early '70s. Therefore, to Ghulet's point in message #78, it's possible that your mom was fairly accurate in saying that your dad paid ~$1,800 for a basic '71 2 door, if he bargained hard.
Okay, we've established that the 510 (full model designation was PL510, if I recall correctly, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this) was a technically advanced subcompact, which sold at a very competitive price, and that it's attributes could best be enjoyed in warm and moderate climates. I would note, however, that instead of building on this success, Datsun/Nissan offered numerous unremarkable sedans after the 510, beginning with the successor to the 510, the 710 (I think that was the model designation...does anyone recall for sure?). The 710 was a little larger than the 510, but uglier, in my opinion. Also, if my memory serves me right, and, again, I could use some help here, the 710 reverted to a solid rear axle instead of IRS. I don't believe that the 710s and the Stanzas were nearly as appealing in their day as the 510 was in its day. Agree or disagree?
The importance of the Datsun 510 to both Nissan and the import invasion was highlighted in The Reckoning by David Halberstam. A lot has changed for both Ford and Nissan since that book was published 16 years ago. Maybe it's time for a sequel.
...where exactly the 710 fit in. I have an old used car book put out by Consumer Guide, that covers '77-86 models, and it lists the 510 right up until 1981 or '82, after which it was replaced by the Stanza. Then there was the 810, which ultimately became the Maxima.
Wasn't there a 610 as well? All I remember is there was a 210 that became the Sentra, a 310 that ultimately became the Pulsar, and was slowly transformed into a sporty little coupe, the mid-line 510, and the top-dog 810. I think there was an F-10 as well. Wasn't that Datsun's first FWD car available here?
I'm sure the 510 listed in my used car guide is a totally different beast than the older late 60's/early '70's 510. At least it looks different. The older 510 looks like a poor man's BMW, while the one in my book is just a conglomeration of all the small-car cliches of the time...square headlights and creases trying to make a '70's car look modern. I remember they gave it high marks for reliability, but marked it down for drivability and road noise. They listed a few quality problem areas, but I forget what they were. They didn't say anything about rust, but that was pretty much a given on small cars in the snow belt back then.
...with grbeck, that it would be great, and consistent with Nissan's current renaissance, if they introduced a spiritual successor to the 510. While the Sentra is a good car, I don't think it fills the bill, for the following reasons: It's considerably larger than the 510; the performance version, the SE-R, has a 2500 cc engine versus 1600 for the 510; the SE-R is essentially a Sentra on steroids, but it's not technologically advanced compared with other pocket rockets.
The closest that Nissan has come to the 510 was the '91-'94 SE-R, in my opinion. It was a subcompact, only modestly larger and heavier than the 510, with a 140 hp 2.0 engine (the same engine as the Infiniti G20). Like the 510, the first generation SE-R was arguably a poor man's BMW. The SE-R had FWD, wasn't technologically advanced, and ws only offered as a 2 door, but I think it was the closest that Nissan came to replicating the 510.
I'd almost forgotten about this style of Sentra. Back when they were current though, I thought they were a really attractive little car. The ones before were just too cheap and boxy looking, and the ones after were just too rounded, bulbous, and funky (athough they've cleaned 'em up nicely in the past year or so). But the SE-R looks just right...nice proportions. Heck, it almost looks like those old 510's, just with more updated sheetmetal. Still kinda has that "Poor Man's BMW" look to it.
It was a pretty sweet ride, for an econobox. The one I looked at was in really nice shape, with about 85k miles. Great seats, handled very nicely, nice high revving engine, and I like the looks, too. Only reason I didn't spring was the guy was stuck on it being worth over $4k - for a 10 year old car that sold for 11-12k MSRP!
I took an SE-R out for a test drive when they were new and the ace salesman who went with me kept getting on my back every time I gave it some revs--unbelievable. How not to sell a high-performance sedan that only makes power at high revs.
It's not like I was a kid either. Needless to say the SE-R didn't get to show its stuff and failed to impress. But I really liked the cheaper XE version with five speed and 1600(?). A sprightly car with a sporty feel.
Aussie Falcons now resemble Tauruses and duke it out with Holden Commodores in the V8 Sedan Championships Down Under.
Those original Falcons were simple sturdy cars that withstood a lot of abuse. My best bud had a '61 wagon that we used to go everywhere in, especially surfing at Gilgo Beach, NY. I don't think I've ever seen an American car that had less "stuff" on it....imagine boys and girls, no PS/PB/PL, no a/c, no tinted glass, no floor shift (3 on tree), no woody siding, no whitewalls, no buckets. Just an AM radio small hubcaps (no wheel covers)and front seatbelts(no rears).
So equipped I doubt it cost more than a new Beetle (about $2k).
...was based on the Maverick, but I don't think the Maverick was based on the old Falcon platform. The Falcon gave up having its own distinctive body after around 1965, becoming a truncated version of the intermediate Comet and Fairlane. You can really see it in the wagon variants, which share the same wheelbase.
One thing I've noticed about Granadas and Mavericks, as well as the Fox-bodied models to follow, is that they're very narrow inside. They also have huge transmission/driveshaft humps, and not a lot of foot room. I don't remember the Falcon and Fairlane Torino as having an overly huge tunnel...probably just average for the time. The later Falcons though, were very wide inside, probably a result of having to share most of their structure with a midsize car.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Granada/Maverick really share much with the Falcon, except the engine and tranny, and easy-swap stuff in the suspensions.
I pretty much learned to drive on one that belonged to my aunt (it was a '78 coupe, for the record). Several things I remember about it: yes, big trans hump front and rear, not much room in the back seat, huge hood, the car felt heavy for its size and it was a DOG (no offense to my canine friends).
Would like what I am going to comment on. We're all talking about American and Japanese compact cars from the '60s here, but nobody's mentioned one of the quintessential European compacts of the era: the famous Volvo 544 and 120 Series. Those Swedish vehicles seem to have roomy interiors for their small size, great build quality, decent reliability, and peppy performance. My only beef with the cars is this: Weren't they on a level with American compacts in drivetrain technology back in those days? (Ex: old-fashioned B16 and B18 engines)
Yes, the 544 and 120 were built to be tough, fixable and pretty reliable cars. There was nothing hi-tech about them that I can remember, other than that the 120 Amazon was built much better than any American car of the time, and ran as well too.
But the 544 is the most fun, probably the most fun Volvo ever built until the recent ones. I'd like to own another someday.
Comments
Interestingly enough, McNamara did champion an innovative small car for the American Ford lineup - the Cardinal. It was to be introduced in 1963 or 1964 and boasted front-wheel-drive and a four cylinder engine. It was smaller than anything offered by the American companies at that time. When Iaccoca assumed power, he took one look at it and cancelled it. One wonders what would have happened to America's fortunes in the small car arena if Ford had produced the Cardinal for the North American market. Too bad McNamara left Ford for the Kennedy Cabinet - he might just be remembered for giving us a homegrown, modern front-wheel-drive subcompact instead helping to escalate the Vietnam War! On the other hand, we might never have had the Mustang.
but since it relates more to this topic, I'll post it here too (my apologies to those of you who happened to read it under the other topic):
I bought a new ''70 510 sedan while living in the Chicago metro area, and ab348's message speaks for my experience also. The 510's technology - OHC and IRS - was admittedly appealing, particularly when considering the price of the car. The combination of technology, price, and fuel economy was what motivated me to buy this car, but it was, quite simply, a rust bucket. Also, it's pollution control system had not been perfected, which caused serious driveability problems in below freezing temperatures, until the engine warmed up. While the engine always started, even in sub zero weather, it had absolutely no power, literally, for the first several minutes in cold weather. Most owners outside the rust belt might never have
experienced this particular problem. Datsun corrected this problem in '71 or '72, but the company did nothing for owners of cars with the problem. I was unaware of this deficiency before I purchased the car, in January, because the salesman cleverly warmed the engine up before my test drive. I tried to return the car to the dealer after a couple of days, but was essentially told "sorry, you bought it, you own it."
In addition, the engine was excessively noisy above ~50 mph. This made driving on the highway unpleasant, particularly on trips, because the engine didn't emit a pleasant sound, as an old Alfa does, but, rather, an annoying drone.
By comparison, the '60 Valiant my parents owned several years earlier was far superior to the Datsun in every respect except fit and finish. While these two cars are in different size classifications, my conclusion was that the Valiant was a significantly better value, despite its older technology. That said, the Datsun 510 was clearly far superior to the Vega and Pinto in terms of mechanical durability, but if you lived in the Rust Belt, the life expectancy was similar for these three cars, due to corrosion. The bodies typically began to show outer signs of rust after, say, 18 - 24 months, and had gaping holes in the fenders and lower panels by the fourth or fifth year.
The compact, mid size, and full size domestic cars had considerably better rust protection than most sub compacts (other than the VW Beetle, which was comparable to the larger domestics in terms of corrosion resistance). This translated into a longer useful life. You could say that the domestics' better corrosion resistance compensated for the higher fuel consumption, to a significant extent, or maybe completely, since depreciation is such a large factor in the cost of ownership. Therefore, it was probably less expensive to drive a Valiant/Dart, Maverick/Comet, or Nova/BOP derivative than a 510.
Yes, but what about that subjective quality that can compensate for so many owner frustrations, character? Didn't the 510 have a lot of character? No, not really. Beetles had character. Fiat 1100s had character. Even Renaults had character. But 510s were virtually devoid of character, in my opinion. They were maybe half a notch above the domestic compacts, which were arguably at the low end of the character spectrum, but, then, for all their faults, the Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin also had a little more character than the larger domestics. The lesson in this, in the case of the 510, is that (relatively) advanced technology doesn't necessary equate with character. After all, the British sports cars had character, but weren't really high tech. Would you agree with this assessment, Shifty?
Problems you had with cold running a 1970 model surprise me. Emission controls didn't become really bothersome until about '74. My '71 Fiat had no serious cold starting or running issues (choke stuck once in a while) so I wonder if yours didn't have a carb or fuel system defect.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The Datsun 510 may not have been perfect, but it got the last laugh on all its competitors, foreign and domestic. It lives on in the hearts of real car nuts.
Newman and Bob Lietzinger in matching 510s during a Trans Am @ Bridgehampton ca. '69-'70.
This went on for many laps on a beautiful afternoon.
Bob is Butch's dad and PL is Joanne Woodward's husband.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
In some future penal colony for car freaks, we'll all be forced to drive 60s American compacts. Ah, 22 turns lock to lock. Optional power steering! Undersize drum brakes! Enough body roll to scrap your door handles off!
I'm not aware of any 510 "vices"? Can you list a couple? Only things I can think of were rust (not really a Datsun problem per se) and carburetor rebuilds were tricky (the internal passages were very very small and you had to really work at it).
Datsun 510 was a milestone car, and already has a place in history as the "poor man's BMW". It was a historic car of great importance and you'll often see it on the Top 100 cars list or the 100 Most Influential Cars list.
As for rust, that's a problem for any 60s car in the salt belt.
What people should have done but were never taught to do is wash down the car, in the same way that you flush out a boat engine if it is salt water cooled.
Also, some cars were not designed very well and their undercarriages had built-in "salt traps". BMW coupes were notorious for this.
Interestingly it was the Bimmer that was the laggard as the Alfas and 510s duked it out for the championship. Anyone who saw the duels between John Morton (Datsun) and Horst Kwech (alfa) will never forget them.
Shifty, I agree w your comments about rust problems being common in carsd of that era. Eventually they spawned an entire rust-proofing industry.
The last car I felt compelled to Zeibart when new was an '85 Prelude (BTW it worked). Improvements in rust-proofing new cars may be the main reason why late-model used cars are now viable alternatives to new ones(at least they are IMO).
Shifty, I agree w your comments about the dreadful road handling of most of those cars but I'd also remind you most of the bigger Detroit offerings were sloppy handling and not much fun to drive (although they had power and torque).
Most cars then foreign and domestic had seats no one would tolerate today. Bench seat compacts were particularly horrible as I recall.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Back then there were "Dyno Kits" being hawked through (I believe) Motor Trend designed for various cars. The Kit consisted of bored out jets and different springs so the distrubitor could provide faster mechanical advance. Adding the kit made a huge difference, great part throttle response and it eliminated the surging.
I added Corvair wheels which were 6"x13" (compared to the 4 1/2"x13 stock units) and 700 13 tires which filled out the wheel wells nicely
As for interior noise, well you can't get much worse than a VW. American compacts were a lot quieter, except maybe the Corvair.
I spec'ed out my '68 Dart 270 a few years back, using one of those American Standard auto books that lists all the options and stuff. IIRC, it came out to around $3300, with V-8 (a 273 originally, I found out, when I decoded the VIN), Torqueflite, 2-speed wipers, air conditioning, power steering, etc.
Just for comparison, In '69 you could get a Valiant 2-door sedan with no options for about $2100. What would a 510 have run back then by the time you put a decent amount of stuff on it?
Also, something else I've been wondering...is there any way to tell a 318 from a 273, just by looking at it? It's just that now that I've found out the car originally had a 273 in it, I'm wondering if what's in it now is a 273. Truthfully, the only way I "knew" it was a 318 was because that's what the seller told me! As much as I'm into old Mopars, I should probably know this stuff better :-P
My Datsun dealer tried to correct the driveability problems on several occasions, both in and out of warranty, but didn't succeed. Neither did an independent garage, which enjoyed a good reputation.
I wish I had known about the Dyno Kit. Wevk, did your fuel economy suffer noticeably with the Dyno KIt?
When it came time to replace the tires I went with the next larger size, which I believe helped the handling some. Shifty, I respectfully disagree with some of your comments in your message #59, as it relates to the Valiant. They may have softened the suspension on later models, but the '60-'62 models did not exhibit excessive body roll. They had firm suspensions for their day, and not the typical wallowy American suspensions. In fact, all Chrysler cars from '57 - '62 sacrificed ride softness for better handling and control. True, the Valiant required more turns from lock-to-lock than the 510, but it was a reasonable compromise, given the weight of the car compared to the 510, and the fact that majority of the early Valiants were not equipped with power assists. The Falcon, on the other hand, had a softer suspension and less responsive steering.
It was impressive to see what could be done without changing the carb or distributor, even with slugs like the Maverick six. Jettings and advance curves were a long way from being optimized in those days. The lean jetting was for better mpg, the lazy advance curves to minimize warranty work due to detonation.
I don't recall that the kit affected the mileage
LOL.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
if somebody has the specs, please list comparative engine type, front brake type, rear axle design, # of trans speed for the manual trans, and weight. I think you'll see that the 510 is a much more modern car and was a great value for the $$ you spent. A 1960 Valiant is really a 1930 Buick with an alternator. (pushrod OHV inline six, three speed manual trans, solid rear axle, drum brakes --ah, no torsion bars on the Buick, that's true!)
On prices, I picked out the stripped down MSRP for the 2dr coupe versions of the '68 cars I mentioned, since I thought that was fairest.
If you were the 1 in 100 who wanted to go faster, a workhorse carb like the Rochester 2GC had a wide variety of jet sizes available and it was easy enough to change them. Or you could drill out the stock jets, although this wasn't always recommended because the orifices sometimes were machined with a special shape.
But unless you knew what you were doing it didn't take long before the gas gauge needle went down every time you accelerated. I speak from experience here. That was the great thing about the dyno kits.
It was the same with the advance curves. Total ignition advance (including initial, mechanical and vacuum advance) came from the factory on the conservative side to compensate for a wide variety of usages, ambient temperatures and numbnuts drivers. If you were the 1 in 100 who wanted more throttle response it was easy to buy a one-size-fits-all recurve kit at a speed shop and install it but you could grenade the engine if you weren't paying attention.
More and quicker advance is great if you've got a clue. But if you're the kind of driver who would try go up Pike's Peak in top gear during a heat wave then more advance would hole a piston. That's what the factories were trying to avoid.
It's entirely possible that you could get better mpg with a dyno kit even with larger jets because the quicker advance curve had the engine running more efficiently. The downside is that you might have to switch from regular to premium because a quicker curve generally increases the octane requirement. A quicker advance (and more of it) is like raising the compression ratio--it increases combustion pressure. However, a superior combustion chamber design can tolerate increased combustion pressure with less need for higher octane.
The horsepower and torque increases were real but the hp and torque curves themselves didn't change. In other words, a dyno-kitted engine didn't pick up another 1000 rpm at the top end but it did pull harder within the existing curve. To change the curve you'd have to change the cam, valve or port sizes or carburetion.
The three speed manual transmission on the Valiant (and the original Corvair and Falcon), with its sloppy shift linkage, was indeed a real deficiency. A four speed with a decent linkage would have been sooo much better, that's for sure. Ours had the automatic, which was a good and modern three speed unit. In addition to being relatively efficient, for an automatic, and smooth operating, it was very rugged. The automatic was a better alternative, in my opinion, to the crummy '30s style manual. However, a nice four speed manual would have been preferable to the automatic.
Moving beyond the transmission, I found that Chrysler deserves credit for getting the old technology to yield good results, whereas Nissan/Datsun, in my judgement, for the reasons listed by Wevk and me in previous messages, did not succeed in getting the 510 to equal the sum of its parts. For this reason, the 510 frustrated me more than it pleased me. My comments apply to the '70 510, with automatic, in a cold weather climate. Had I owned a manual transmission version in, say, California, the driveability problem associated with cold weather starts, a real annoyance and a safety hazard, wouldn't have been an issue. Datsun recognized the problem, and fixed it in a subsequent model year. Premature rusting would also not have been a problem in California and some other regions of the country. The surging and poor throttle response issues would have remained, however. The throttle response deficiency manifested itself in the following way: The engine didn't respond promptly when you depressed the throttle (there was a very notable lag between the time you first depressed the throttle until the engine responded with increased rpms), and there was also an annoying lag between the time you released the throttle and the engine's response.
Both cars were very rugged mechanically. The Valiant was notably superior to the 510 in terms of rust resistance from road salt. Rust resistance was an important ownership issue in cold weather climates until the late '70s/early '80s, when virtually all manufacturers adopted effective measures to deal with the problem. The problem is greatly diminished now.
I had a Valiant with a factory 4 speed. Compared to today's gearboxes, it was a crude piece of work and of course with the sloppy steering the whole package was not what one would have hoped.
Still it was sorta fun compared to a normal typewriter transmission.
http://www.moparpicturebook.com/newpage84.htm
I wasn't able to find a stock-appearing 510 on the net. Perhaps there aren't any left?
I'd also forgotten what a pompous-looking little car those first '60-62 Valiants were! Compared to a Falcon or Corvair, they almost look like they're trying to be a little luxury car. That styling looked neat on the Valiant, and the '61-62 Lancer, but when Exner tried applying it further up the line, it was horrible!
True confession: MY 17 y/o self was nuts about those cars, I loved the Valiant styling, I thought it was sooo elegant and "continental".
Oh well I guess you're allowed lapses in taste if you're a dumb kid.
I have to disagree with Andre about how that styling idiom translated to the larger Plymouths and Dodges. I thought it worked quite well. IMO the best looking Plymouth ever made was the '63 Fury
Convertible.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That said, I always thought the 510 was a sharp car (and it was my favorite Aurora/AFX slot car, too!). I'd love to see one at an old-car show.
Okay, we've established that the 510 (full model designation was PL510, if I recall correctly, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this) was a technically advanced subcompact, which sold at a very competitive price, and that it's attributes could best be enjoyed in warm and moderate climates. I would note, however, that instead of building on this success, Datsun/Nissan offered numerous unremarkable sedans after the 510, beginning with the successor to the 510, the 710 (I think that was the model designation...does anyone recall for sure?). The 710 was a little larger than the 510, but uglier, in my opinion. Also, if my memory serves me right, and, again, I could use some help here, the 710 reverted to a solid rear axle instead of IRS. I don't believe that the 710s and the Stanzas were nearly as appealing in their day as the 510 was in its day. Agree or disagree?
Wasn't there a 610 as well? All I remember is there was a 210 that became the Sentra, a 310 that ultimately became the Pulsar, and was slowly transformed into a sporty little coupe, the mid-line 510, and the top-dog 810. I think there was an F-10 as well. Wasn't that Datsun's first FWD car available here?
I'm sure the 510 listed in my used car guide is a totally different beast than the older late 60's/early '70's 510. At least it looks different. The older 510 looks like a poor man's BMW, while the one in my book is just a conglomeration of all the small-car cliches of the time...square headlights and creases trying to make a '70's car look modern. I remember they gave it high marks for reliability, but marked it down for drivability and road noise. They listed a few quality problem areas, but I forget what they were. They didn't say anything about rust, but that was pretty much a given on small cars in the snow belt back then.
I just found this website... http://www.datsunworld.com/index2.htm
It's got lots of pics of the various Datsuns over the years. Looks like some interesting reading!
The closest that Nissan has come to the 510 was the '91-'94 SE-R, in my opinion. It was a subcompact, only modestly larger and heavier than the 510, with a 140 hp 2.0 engine (the same engine as the Infiniti G20). Like the 510, the first generation SE-R was arguably a poor man's BMW. The SE-R had FWD, wasn't technologically advanced, and ws only offered as a 2 door, but I think it was the closest that Nissan came to replicating the 510.
http://www.se-r.net/about/sentra_se-r/turbo_mag/may93/930501.jpg
I'd almost forgotten about this style of Sentra. Back when they were current though, I thought they were a really attractive little car. The ones before were just too cheap and boxy looking, and the ones after were just too rounded, bulbous, and funky (athough they've cleaned 'em up nicely in the past year or so). But the SE-R looks just right...nice proportions. Heck, it almost looks like those old 510's, just with more updated sheetmetal. Still kinda has that "Poor Man's BMW" look to it.
-Jason
It's not like I was a kid either. Needless to say the SE-R didn't get to show its stuff and failed to impress. But I really liked the cheaper XE version with five speed and 1600(?). A sprightly car with a sporty feel.
It was so successful in Australia, the brand name continues to this day. The I6 used down under is a modernized version of the original 6!
The early 70's Aussie Falcons looked like shrunken 1970 Torinos (like in the 'Mad Max' movies), and kept the basic 1960 chassis until 1978.
Those original Falcons were simple sturdy cars that withstood a lot of abuse. My best bud had a '61 wagon that we used to go everywhere in, especially surfing at Gilgo Beach, NY. I don't think I've ever seen an American car that had less "stuff" on it....imagine boys and girls, no PS/PB/PL, no a/c, no tinted glass, no floor shift (3 on tree), no woody siding, no whitewalls, no buckets. Just an AM radio
small hubcaps (no wheel covers)and front seatbelts(no rears).
So equipped I doubt it cost more than a new Beetle (about $2k).
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
One thing I've noticed about Granadas and Mavericks, as well as the Fox-bodied models to follow, is that they're very narrow inside. They also have huge transmission/driveshaft humps, and not a lot of foot room. I don't remember the Falcon and Fairlane Torino as having an overly huge tunnel...probably just average for the time. The later Falcons though, were very wide inside, probably a result of having to share most of their structure with a midsize car.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Granada/Maverick really share much with the Falcon, except the engine and tranny, and easy-swap stuff in the suspensions.
But the 544 is the most fun, probably the most fun Volvo ever built until the recent ones. I'd like to own another someday.