Another discussion on L-series evolution

[Carl Beck]

Of course, if you prefer to swallow NMC USA corporate and advertising mumbo jumbo whole then you might be happy to believe that the L24 was an "ALL NEW!" design based on the "JUST FOR YOU" L16, but "WITH TWO ADDED CYLINDERS"...........

Returning to an old and controversial subject. The design of the L16/L24 or the Modular Series of Nissan OHC, in-line engines.

Per Alan's suggestion - that we take the word of the man that designed the Nissan L20 into account.

I have had the interview with Mr. Iida, that was published in Nostalgic Hero, April 2004, translated by a professional source, and that translation then reviewed by several others who read/write both Japanese and English - feedback from everyone was that the article was as faithfully/accurately translated as possible - so everyone can now read the article in English for themselves.

As with many Magazine articles, it is difficult to tell exactly when the author is writing/reporting his perceptions some time after he left the interview vs when he is accurately reporting what Mr. Iida actually said. (remember the Goertz Myth)

I have followed that up with farther specific questions related to the names of the men working in First Engine Design Division that did design the L16, and I am awaiting replies from friends in Japan at this point. They are attempting to pin down more specific answers to any questions left by the article.

Nonetheless the overall context of the interview with Mr. Iida comes though in the article. I believe everyone will be able to determine what part of the article actually relates the story of the development of the L20 and later the design and development of the L16, L24, L20A per Mr. Iida vs which part of the story is filled in by the writers perceptions or simply misunderstanding of the subject. {this is all too normal for magazine articles}.

I believe that the Mr. Iida states fairly clearly the following:

1. There were two divisions of the Design Organization that did engine design. The First Division did engine design for small displacement engines (Bluebird) and the Second Division did engine design for larger displacement engines (Cedric and Truck). Mr. Iida was assigned to the Second Division in July of 64.

2. The L20 was a rushed design which resulted in many problems with the L20 engine for the Cedric

3. 4 months from the start of design they were casting development engines for test in Nov. of 64.

4. The L20 design cycle was completed in short order because Mr. Iida used the block of a 4 cylinder engine that was already in development, and added two cylinders to it. Then used the M/B OHC design. Mr. Iida makes the point very clearly that six cylinder engines are the result of adding two cylinders to an existing four cylinder engine.

5. Because of the rushed design, the pre-production test engines showed problems with the oil pump drive mechanism, and cracking of the cam towers. These problems were solved but then first production L20 still suffered from several major problems and many customer complaints {excessive oil consumption. excessive noise and poor fuel economy} Some of the problems in the production engines were mitigated in the second production run a year later when the HP was reduced and the engine fitted with a downdraft carb. - - but there were still problems and customer complaints.

6. Mr. Iida states that LATER the L16 having had an extensive design and development cycle was put into production, and as a result it was a much better design. Mr Iida does not state that he designed the L16, nor does he say that his engine "was evolved into the L16" (although the author of the article seems to have made that conclusion in his writings). Mr. Iida makes the very clear point that the L16 was the result of an extensive design and development cycle, that was well rationalized. It is very clear that the L16 was not developed by removing two cylinders from the L20, nor was the L20 used as the base design. Quite the contrary, the two engines had quite different design and development cycles and were done in different design divisions.

7. To take advantage of the better design and development of the L16/L13 engine, and to share these four cylinder series design and their parts, L20 was again designed. The new L20A whose development cycle was completed Jan. of 1968, was the result.

8. Mr. Iida also notes that engines that share design and parts are called "modular engines". Here we see that while the original L20 was first, it was not part of the L Series of Nissan's Modular Engines sharing their design and parts. Is the L20 part of the L Series? Yes. Is the L20 part of the modular L Series of engines that share common parts and were carried forward for decades? NO. The L20A however having been based on the L16 is part of that modular series.

9. The L20A was considered a design based on the L16 engine by Mr. Iida, in order to take advantage of the improvements made with a full design and development cycle afforded the design of the L16 in another design division, and one that could also share common parts with the other new modular engines.

10. The design of the L20A was completed in Jan. 1968 at which time the full responsibility for the L Series of modular engines was turned over the First Engine Design Division (that had been for small displacement engines, and in which the L16 was designed). At which point Mr. Iida and the Second Engine Design Division were assigned responsibility for development of the A10 engine.

Additionally:

Looking at the introduction dates (as opposed to Model Years) of the engines in Nissan's cars - 1965 L20, 1967 U20, L13/16, 1968 L23/24, 1969 L20A . It would seem that in fact the L23/24 block was put into production ahead of the L20A with its smaller bore. So again it seems that the author of the article assumed that the L20A was "expanded" to the L23/24.... Even though Mr. Iida told him that six cylinder engines start as 4 cylinder engines with two additional cylinders being added. Add two cylinders to the L16 and you have the L24.

It is interesting (and understandable given the problems that the L20 suffered) to note that the 1998cc L20 was no longer offered with the introduction of the 1968-1969 Model Cedric 130 Series Mark 4, when the L20 was replaced with the new L23. Only with the introduction of the 1969-1970 Model Cedric 130 Mark 5 and the Fairlady Z do we see the then new L20A implemented.

This article written after the interview with Mr. Iida is interesting and informative, but like most stories in the magazines, the authors perceptions or conclusions after he walked away from the interview seem not to line up faithfully with the information provided by the person interviewed. {ie. Goertz comment that he worked for Nissan prior to the introduction of the Z - or that he had been at Porsche - resulted in reporters writting that he had designed the Z, and the 911 - even though Goertz actually never said that at the time}.

I've put the text of the article translated, on a web page and everyone can read it themselves and extract their own conclusions. The translation was done by a very seasoned professional Japanese citizen, with advanced degrees from universities in the US and over 20 years experience translating Japanese to English. I then ask several friends that have both English and Japanese language skills to review the translation. All agreed that the overall context was accurately conveyed.

See: http://ZHome.com/DatsunLSeries/L20NH2004AprilTrans.htm

FWIW,

Carl B.

[sblake01]

Interesting........

[HS30-H]

Returning to an old and controversial subject. The design of the L16/L24 or the Modular Series of Nissan OHC, in-line engines.

......or how about we discuss the whole family of Nissan's 'L-gata' engine series, rather than starting out with the mistaken preconception that the "L16/L24" was some kind of Big Bang from whence everything else evolved?

Per Alan's suggestion - that we take the word of the man that designed the Nissan L20 into account.

What a strange thing to write. Hiroshi Iida was the head of the design team that produced all of the Nissan 'L-gata module' engines up to early 1968, including the first L20, the L20A, L23, L24, L13, L14 and L16 - which led to all the other versions of this engine line that continued on well into the 1980s and beyond. What's with the "take the word of the man", and mentioning just the L20? I think you're playing games already........

I have had the interview with Mr. Iida, that was published in Nostalgic Hero, April 2004, translated by a professional source, and that translation then reviewed by several others who read/write both Japanese and English - feedback from everyone was that the article was as faithfully/accurately translated as possible - so everyone can now read the article in English for themselves.

First of all Carl, I must say that it is quite amusing to see you apparently taking this article seriously, as when we first starting discussing it on this forum you appeared to be completely writing off its contents - and the testament of Hiroshi Iida - without having even seen it.

I don't want to be rude to the "professional source" who translated the article from Japanese into English for you ( as I know how hard true translation - in the real sense of the word - can be ), but it seems quite clear that they are not all that familiar with the terms used in automotive engineering. For example, I'm wondering quite what the "....several others who read/write both Japanese and English....." who checked the translation of the article for you made of Iida san's "cold water" ( sic ) engine design study? Did none of them suggest that it be corrected to 'water cooled'? I could go on, but I think any native English speaker who reads the translation you commissioned will understand the point I am making. You make it sound as though this is an unimpeachable professional translation ( to back up its gravitas, no doubt ) whereas I say - quite objectively - that it is written in Japanese-style English with something less than a full understanding of the techical subject that it relates to. I also note that the translation misses off a chunk of text. What happened there? Was it surplus the requirements?

As with many Magazine articles, it is difficult to tell exactly when the author is writing/reporting his perceptions some time after he left the interview vs when he is accurately reporting what Mr. Iida actually said. (remember the Goertz Myth)

Yes, journalists can be very sloppy. We know that. So can the authors of web sites. So too can the likes of you and I be sloppy, and misunderstandings are human nature. However, I don't see how you can be pointing the finger at Mr Manabu KUMANO when your own understanding of the topic is so young. Your writings on zhome.com still say that the design of Nissan's L-series engines came directly from Prince - which is quite clearly erroneous. And I also notice that you have put the translation of the Nostalgic Hero article on a zhome.com-addressed ghost web page without the courtesy to mention the original author Kumano san's name. Nice.

I have followed that up with farther specific questions related to the names of the men working in Engine Design Team 2 that did design the L16, and I am awaiting replies from friends in Japan at this point. They are attempting to pin down more specific answers to any questions left by the article.

I don't understand this. You now want the names of the men working in 'Engine Design Team 1', and you specifically mention the L16? Surely you are missing the point of the whole topic? Who are you asking these new questions to, and why did you not ask them before now? Are these the people that told you that the Nissan L-series six design was acquired by Nissan after the merger with Prince ( as seen on zhome.com )?

Why are you singling out the L16 unless you are trying to reinforce your long-stated misconception that all of Nissan's 'L-Gata' / 'L-Series' engines grew from Katayama's claim to have 'ordered' an engine 'suitable for the USA'? I'm afraid that this stance owes more to Creationist theory than logical Darwinian explanations. Why do you insist on singling out the L16 and L24 from the rest of the family, and pointing to them as though they are L-series Genesis?

I believe that you are looking for scraps of thread that you will attempt to sew together into a tapestry that depicts the L16 as the Adam and Eve of Nissan L-series engines, giving birth to that "All New" L24 ( "for the USA" ), and completely ignoring the big picture. That's not scholarly or even logical. It's worthy of a prize from the Flat Earth Society. I presume that - once you have got a name to pin the 'L16' design on - you will move on to vaunt him as Lord Creator and totally expunge Iida san's name from your specialised branch of "Datsun" history?

Nonetheless the overall context of the interview with Mr. Iida comes though in the article. I believe everyone will be able to determine what part of the article actually relates the story of the development of the L20 and later the design and development of the L16, L24, L20A per Mr. Iida vs which part of the story is filled in by the writers perceptions or simply misunderstanding of the subject. {this is all too normal for magazine articles}.

Ah - now we are really getting down to the nitty-gritty, aren't we? So basically, you want to take what you want to believe from the interview, and disregard the plain fact that Iida san, Nissan and indeed Kumano san all saw Nissan's L-series engines as a family that had several generations which had their root in that design brief of creating an answer to Toyota's new six cylinder engine for the Crown in 1964. You insist on drawing a hard line between that first Nissan L20 six and everything else that was either designed alongside it or followed on from it - when in actual fact the whole article ( and Nissan's own corporate history ) makes it clear that this was a family with shared DNA. I believe the only reason you do this is because you grew up with NMC USA's Pol Pot-style 'Year Zero' policy press releases and internal 'newspeak' - which made a studied point of ignoring what was going on in Japan.

All that and you actually have the brass neck to question Kumano san's "perceptions", and imply that he 'simply misunderstands' the subject? Just amazing.

I believe that the Mr. Iida states fairly clearly the following:

Or alternatively, I believe that Mr Beck says that this is what he understands from the writings of a journalist who quite possibly has his own 'perceptions', and may 'simply misunderstand' what Mr Iida told him - and that Mr Iida may not have understood what he was doing anyway. That's pretty much what you have been alluding to above, isn't it? You now go on to write out what you want to take from all this. To wit:

1. There were two divisions of the Design Organization that did engine design. The First Division did engine design for small displacement engines (Bluebird) and the Second Division did engine design for larger displacement engines (Cedric and Truck). Mr. Iida was assigned to the Second Division in July of 64.

No. You already misunderstand.

Iida san was assigned to Engine Design Team 2 ( with responsibility to 'Mid Class Capacity' engines, including the Cedric and others, and also large truck engines ) when he returned to Nissan from secondment at Hitachi. This was not in July 1964! You are already misunderstanding the translation that you commissioned. The date of July 1964 relates to the design brief to come up with a new engine for the H130-series Cedric, which was some time after Iida was installed in Engine Design Team 2.

Again, I see what you are reading into this. You want to make mileage out of that 'Bluebird division' vs 'Cedric division' thing, as though the two teams would be in competition with eachother and not consulting / sharing resources and ideas. You are disappearing up a cul-de-sac when the road signs quite clearly tell you otherwise.

2. The L20 was a rushed design which resulted in many problems with the L20 engine for the Cedric

3. 4 months from the start of design they were casting development engines for test in Nov. of 64.

Are you not - again - missing the whole point of what is written? The nuance - quite clear from the article in its original Japanese - is that getting such a new engine to market in such a short space of time was a huge achievement. It allowed Nissan to give an answer to arch-rival Toyota's new six cylinder engine for the flagship Crown model. They started off on the back foot, but caught up due to the hard work of Iida and his team - working round the clock, and testing the new engine in the dyno room for ten hours at a time for twenty days - after coming up with a running pre-production prototype just four months after starting the project........

You're reading-in negativity when the whole point is that they did well. Yes, there were problems in the first production engines - notably in valve stem seals ( soon improved ) and oil control rings on the pistons ( also cured by changing to a different design of ring ), but many problems were overcome on the test bed and well before production release. Why the negative spin, which is not a true 'translation' of the feeling and spirit of the original Japanese article?

4. The L20 design cycle was completed in short order because Mr. Iida used the block of a 4 cylinder engine that was already in development, and added two cylinders to it. Then used the M/B OHC design. Mr. Iida makes the point very clearly that six cylinder engines are the result of adding two cylinders to an existing four cylinder engine.

Again, you are reading just what you want to hear into this. Yes, Iida san makes the point that they were able to start with block casting data that already existed ( for obvious reasons ), but this is not really any different than referring to a book of cosines and tangents rather than working them out for yourself each time you need one, is it? The point being made is that they started design on the new engine quickly because they used design data from a block style that already existed. Don't confuse the mention of a 4 cylinder 'L' engine ( meaning a generic Longitudinal configuration ) with the name given to the L20 six, and the rest of the Nissan 'L-gata / L-series' range that shared its DNA.

You misconstrue the meaning of the point being made about 'sixes from fours' in the original Japanese text. Iida san was alluding to the fact that at that time all Nissan's small and medium capacity engine data and know-how ( aside from truck, marine and stationary engines ) was in four-cylinder engines. When they started drawing and laying out the new six they utilised this existed know how rather than starting from nowhere. That is logical and natural. It should not be misunderstood to mean - in any practical sense - that the new L20 six was 'based on' an existing four-cylinder engine, or that they 'added on' two cylinders to make a six from a four. Why would you want to pursue that train of thought unless you wanted to - perversely - rewrite history to match what was nothing more than an advertising blurb?

Iida san admits - rather candidly I think - that he and his team "referred" to the Mercedes OHC six design with respect to the valvetrain design for the new engine. He does not say that they simply copied it ( neither does he state baldly and somewhat flippantly - as you have done above - that they "used the M/B OHC design" as if it was a blatant copy - as if they had then surely MB would have had something to say about it ) and it is clear that they had a good look at Prince's G7 engine too, some details of which were apparently properly licensed from MB. Nothing is created in a vacuum, after all. Iida san seems to be quite open in acknowledging his team's influences.

5. Because of the rushed design, the pre-production test engines showed problems with the oil pump drive mechanism, and cracking of the cam towers. These problems were solved but then first production L20 still suffered from several major problems and many customer complaints {excessive oil consumption. excessive noise and poor fuel economy} Some of the problems in the production engines were mitigated in the second production run a year later when the HP was reduced and the engine fitted with a downdraft carb. - - but there were still problems and customer complaints.

Why are you making so much mileage out of the initial problems they had - even when many of them were cured before production? Is it part of your attempt to draw that line between the L20 six and the L16/L24, as though the L16/L24 were some kind of immaculate conceptions? It is quite obvious that the L16 and L24 ( and all the other variants in the family ) benefitted from the problem solving on the first engines, and were the better for it. That's the big picture that is quite clear from the spirit of the article.

6. Mr. Iida states that LATER the L16 having had an extensive design and development cycle was put into production, and as a result it was a much better design.

Ah - here we are getting to the bottom of your Creationist-style theory. Now you again want to highlight that L16, as though the L13 and L14 never existed and talking as though the L20 six - which was being updated and improved simultaneously with all the other L-series variants - had stopped dead in the water. It had not! This is the whole point: It was a continuous process of evolution that was going on here. You point to the L16 as being a "better design" once again as though it was made on another planet to all the others ( you fail to mention above the L13 - which kind of puts your skewed perspective in a nutshell, as it is quite clearly mentioned in the original text and even in your commissioned translation ) and bend the story to suit.

Mr Iida does not state that he designed the L16, nor does he say that his engine "was evolved into the L16" (although the author of the article seems to have made that conclusion in his writings).

Nonsense! Once again you misunderstand the translation you commissioned - let alone the original Japanese text. Iida san was the chief of the team that designed all of those early 'L-gata' engines, and their design and development was being led by what they went through to get the H130 Cedric Special Six's engine into production. If you can't see this for yourself then at least I hope others will see it, and recognise that this was a homogenous effort that naturally included both basic engine design teams.

Mr. Iida makes the very clear point that the L16 was the result of an extensive design and development cycle, that was well rationalized.

Where did he mention the 'L16' on it's own? That's your line!

But you can't have your cake and eat it. Of course the later engines were the result of an extensive design and development cycle - but you seem to want to draw a line between them and all that went before. That's quite clearly an error. The fours and later sixes were all the result of the testing, development and production refinements of the earlier sixes. Iida and Nissan themselves make this very clear. Do you honestly think that they just threw all that data and experience out of the window and decided to start again? A quick look at the layout of the engines would show that this was clearly not what they did. The only major change to the core design was the change in bore spacing - a refinement that allowed a bigger range of capacities to suit both domestic and export requirements. The later ( let's say late 1968-on ) engines were clearly developments of the earlier designs rather than the pure clean-slate designs you want to portray them as.

It is very clear that the L16 was not developed by removing two cylinders from the L20, nor was the L20 used as the base design. Quite the contrary, the two engines had quite different design and development cycles and were done in different design divisions.

You are quite correct that the L16 was not developed by "removing two cylinders from the L20" ( who on earth thinks that this represents any kind of practical description of engineering method? ), as the whole point is that the L16 - and its brothers and sisters - were drawn up alongside the L20, and by the same people. They DID utilise the L20 as a 'base design' from which others grew ( the whole article makes that very point! ) and drawing an arbitrary line anywhere in the sequence of events with the sole intention of proving some kind of immaculate conception following on from a Katayama quote is positively absurd.........

[HS30-H]

7. To take advantage of the better design and development of the L16/L13 engine, and to share these four cylinder series design and their parts, L20 was again designed. The new L20A whose development cycle was completed Jan. of 1968, was the result.

Again, you're reading what you want to hear into this. The article makes the point that the four-cylinder versions of the engine design had the benefit of the increased lead time in their production use, and that they were therefore able to benefit from the refinements and changes that had been being made on the L20 six. If that isn't a clear example of later engines inheriting designs and refinements from earlier engines then I don't know what is. There's a smooth transition here - not any Year Zero type 'Now' with no 'Then'......

8. Mr. Iida also notes that engines that share design and parts are called "modular engines". Here we see that while the original L20 was first, it was not part of the L Series of Nissan's Modular Engines sharing their design and parts. Is the L20 part of the L Series? Yes. Is the L20 part of the modular L Series of engines that share common parts and were carried forward for decades? NO. The L20A however having been based on the L16 is part of that modular series.

You're drawing that line again just to fit in with your Katayama quote, aren't you? You portray the L20A as having been "based on the L16" ( once again noting that you ignore the L13 and L14 ) when in fact they were developed at the same time! The L20A, L13, L14, L16 etc etc were part of the module for heaven's sake. I mean, where does this conviction of yours that the L16 is some new Cain come from? Do you honestly believe that these people were drawing up one capacity of engine at a time, and then realising - perhaps over lunch? - that they needed a few more different capacities? Come on, that's just stupid.

9. The L20A was considered a design based on the L16 engine by Mr. Iida, in order to take advantage of the improvements made with a full design and development cycle afforded the design of the L16 in another design division, and one that could also share common parts with the other new modular engines.

No, sorry. You are putting words in his mouth. Where ( in the original Japanese article ) does it say that Iida san considered that the L20A was a design "based on the L16"? Again, the whole point is the L16 ( and the L20A ) are logical parts of the L-gata module which were designed at the same time.

10. The design of the L20A was completed in Jan. 1968 at which time the full responsibility for the L Series of modular engines was turned over the First Engine Design Division (that had been for small displacement engines, and in which the L16 was designed).

Where in the original Japanese text does it say that the L16 ( again - on it's own? ) was designed by the "First Engine Design Division" ( Engine Design Team 1 )? It is just common sense that the 'L-Gata' engine module would have been a collaborative effort between the two departments, and as Iida san was Chief of the 'L-Gata' module design team it is logical that he would have overseen both the four and six cylinder versions of the module. Unless you think that these two teams were in some kind of competition with eachother, and that Nissan would think it sensible for two teams working on different versions of the same core design to ignore eachother even when their projects were going to be made in the same foundries and assembly plants?

You might like to note that the mention of the two engine design departments was made at the beginning of the article, and when Iida and his team was given the brief to start work on the new L20 six. I don't see any mention of division of responsibility when it came to fours and sixes in the L-gata module.

At which point Mr. Iida and the Second Engine Design Division were assigned responsibility for development of the A10 engine.

Again, no.

Iida san moved over to Engine Design Team no.1 in 1968, after the newer L-gata module engines were signed off for production. There he was given the job of developing the A-series engine range ( the A10 already existed ) with particular emphasis on the A12 and the A15, and stayed with that up until 1972. He continued to work for Nissan's engine division until 1988, when he was sent to work at Aichi Kikai Kogyo. He retired in 1999.

It would seem that in fact the L23/24 block was put into production ahead of the L20A with its smaller bore. So again it seems that the author of the article assumed that the L20A was "expanded" to the L23/24.... Even though Mr. Iida told him that six cylinder engines start as 4 cylinder engines with two additional cylinders being added. Add two cylinders to the L16 and you have the L24.

Once again I question both your commissioned translation and your apparent understanding of it. The point being made about 'fours into sixes' was just to demonstrate that all of Iida's team's equipment and data up to the point where they started work on the new L20 six related to four cylinder engines. They simply had not designed any passenger car sixes up to that point - therefore everything that they based their work on was naturally biased to the previous four-cylinder work they had done. This is not the same as saying that they simply "added two cylinders" onto a four-cylinder engine and - hey presto - had a six. You missed the point, again.

It is interesting (and understandable given the problems that the L20 suffered) to note that the 1998cc L20 was no longer offered with the introduction of the 1968-1969 Model Cedric 130 Series Mark 4, when the L20 was replaced with the new L23. Only with the introduction of the 1969-1970 Model Cedric 130 Mark 5 and the Fairlady Z do we see the then new L20A implemented.

Hmmm, I think you might be swimming in waters that are a bit deeper than you normally venture into. Japanese domestic model variants are certainly not one of your specialist subjects, are they? I think you might want to have a little bit more reference material behind you before you go into too much depth about what was released, and when - let alone what that is meant to signify. After all, I don't think anybody is trying to tell you that one particular engine capacity variant of Nissan's L-gata module is 'Uber Alles' - despite the fact that you seem to be fixated with just the L16 and L24.........

This article written after the interview with Mr. Iida is interesting and informative, but like most stories in the magazines, the authors perceptions or conclusions after he walked away from the interview seem not to line up faithfully with the information provided by the person interviewed.

Sorry, but to me this seems to be unintentionally ironic - particularly considering your own very obvious misinterpretation of the content ( as detailed above ). You appear to believe that you yourself are immune to misinterpretation and self-obfuscation? I wish I was that confident.

I don't think you are in any position to be deciding how accurate - or inaccurate - was Manabu Komano's understanding of Iida san's story. The translation that you have commissioned - and linked to - is NOT a full and accurate translation of the Nostalgic Hero article ( I'd call it more of a precis, as large sections of the original text are absent ) and your dissection of that commissioned translation is flawed because you bring your own preconceptions to it - especially your belief that the L16/L24 were some kind of genesis that everything else was based on, which appears nowhere in this article and is particularly arcane when one considers that the whole article and story is one of an engine family, and where that family's roots were.

What a waste. You get access to a story from as close as possible to the horse's mouth ( unless you get on a plane and seek out Iida san himself, and interview him in English ) and you only want to read into it what you already think you know, whilst you seem to damn the journalist who chased the story up with faint praise or none at all. You might as well have ignored it, and continued to spread the story that the L16 and L24 in their 'Export' configurations were what was driving Nissan's engine developments, and that all else was secondary to that.

For the record, nobody is telling you that any particular engine was 'superior' or that any other random measure of perceived status trumps another - just that there was a single engine design brief from which a bigger story, and a bigger family, grew. That they were related ( this is indisputable ), and that to understand and appreciate that makes us all slightly wiser and more roundly educated about our chosen subject ( 'our' cars ), which in itself is a story of family, shared heritage, shared parts and shared dreams.

Alan T.

[Arne]

Can anyone explain to me how all this bickering is of any value at all to the original question? Especially in that I strongly suspect that the original poster may not be a native English speaker?

All this history garbage is totally off-topic in this thread. To Alan and Carl - if you two feel you must argue in this manner, take it to a more appropriate venue.

[HS30-H]

Can anyone explain to me how all this bickering is of any value at all to the original question Especially in that I strongly suspect that the original poster may not be a native English speaker??

Quite simply, the original question has already been answered. Everything else is just an unexpected bonus.

All this history garbage is totally off-topic in this thread. To Alan and Carl - if you two feel you must argue in this manner, take it to a more appropriate venue.

Actually, all this "history garbage" makes this forum a better place in my opinion. Certainly a more valuable - and interesting - resource than a site largely written by one man, with no platform for real-time questioning, debate or final consensus. I think we all can learn something if we choose to take the time to read between the lines and sort out the signal from the noise. It's not difficult really. And if you don't like it, the IGNORE function is at your disposal.

Arne, last time I remember looking ( admittedly a while ago now ) your profile listed you as a 'Super Moderator' ( whatever that is ), so perhaps you have the power to move this 'discussion' to a more suitable venue on the forum? You might also choose to delete the whole thing of course, which would be an interesting choice, but perhaps to be expected from somebody who refers to "history garbage"........

I'm always mindful that - as the immortal 'Yogi' Berra might have said - "It is difficult to write about history, especially when it is in the past". Don't underestimate the effort it takes to come up with that sh*t.

Cordial regards,

Alan T.

Edited March 31, 2009 by HS30-H
The dreaded STML.......

[Arne]

Arne, last time I remember looking ( admittedly a while ago now ) your profile listed you as a 'Super Moderator' ( whatever that is ), so perhaps you have the power to move this 'discussion' to a more suitable venue on the forum? You might also choose to delete the whole thing of course, which would be an interesting choice, but perhaps to be expected from somebody who refers to "history garbage".......

Moving it to a different place is an excellent idea, Alan, and I have done so. (Yes, I'm still technically a moderator, but I really do try to let this place self-moderate when possible.)

After all, it's only "garbage" when it's not in the proper place. The previous thread was NOT the proper place. Manure in the barn is a smelly mess, but tilled into the field it is desirable.

But I do ask that as this thread continues (if it does so), that all parties be respectful and not stoop to name-calling and attacks. There's already been a little of that in here.

[Zedrally]

Alan, Carl, Interesting discussion.

I'm happy seeing it in the History Forum. (

after close to 40 years both my L24 & L26 still pull strong......is there a problem with the design?

(long time mod, been away watching from the sidelines for a long time....)

[26th-Z]

Carl,

Would you mind naming your professional source? Obviously if this person is in the business of translation they would appreciate the reference, no? I have many things I would like translated for instance.

[bpilati]

Is something wrong with the Zhome site? I can't access it.

[sblake01]

Try http://www2.zhome.com:81/.

[Tony D]

Technical and Engineering Translations into Japanese Text/From Japanese Text is very difficult, and many times non-engineers will muck it up.

I just spent three days in Nagoya/Chubu going over Human-Machine-Interface Screens our company has done with Japanese Text that were done by a professional translator service.

My job was to take it to our local distributor (Mitsui Seiki Kyogo) and then discuss in detail what each of the screens was perceived to do. I know what it's supposed to do, and I have my English version of the screens. My counterparts were given the screens in Japanese Only and were told to tell me what they thought each 'button' would accomplish.

"Cranking of the Oil" was one response...

I got a bunch of Technical Japanese Engineering Terms hand written out on the screen pages to take back and resubmit to our 'Translation Service' for them to now confirm the meaning as THEY see it.

A non-engineer can make some drastic errors when trying to interpret the Japanese written language, or even a journalist taking and writing spoken Japanese to text...

But I like any history when we can get it, most translations I have to read into anyway, like Alan mentioned "cold water" engine is a typical mistranslation by a non-technical engineer of something which may indeed mean something else.

As with anything Japanese, who you are talking to may change the meaning. You may well say the same thing---and have the same text, but the context of the situation in which it was spoken can make it mean something completely different.

Most English Speakers aren't grammar whizes in the first place. To ask someone to then try to master Japanese inflection, nuance, grammatical shift, BAH! My hat is off to those who try. I'll stick to "Hai, Biru ga ski desu!"