'Datsun Heritage Museum' interview clip

[Mike B]

And to end the confusion for us who are NOT in the know, What exactly is a 432??

I was told that it was a 4 cyl, 3 valve (per cylinder), 2 carb, motor. How far off was I missinformed???

Actually, it has 4 valves per cylinder, 3 carbs (triple solex), and 2 overhead cams.

-Mike

[Zs-ondabrain]

See there, I knew it had something to do with carbs and valves. I thought 3 sounded weird for valves. Thanks Mike, I figured it would be you or Ron who answered the question.

Dave

[Ron Carter]

Mike beat me to the answer...

[MikeW]

A few odd engines have actually had 3 valves per cylinder. For an overhead cam engine I suppose 4 valves would require 2 camshafts so that last part of '432' is a bit redundant.

[NissanMaster]

Here again we have a perfect example of a simple misunderstanding blown into a reason to down grade the museum. It's sad to see the repeated negative energy certain club members put into a museum they have never visited or contributed, though not surprising finding the good always takes an extra effort. Fred is a gentlemen and a class act,his accomplishments are more than most will ever achieve.:bulb:

Edited June 25, 2009 by NissanMaster

[HS30-H]

Here again we have a perfect example of a simple misunderstanding blown into a reason to down grade the museum.

"Down grade the museum"?

When you open a museum to the public, you also take on some implicit responsibility. Likewise, Mr Lance Lambert with his 'Vintage Vehicle Show' takes on the implicit responsibility to get it right when he makes these films and sells them for broadcast ( a commercial product! ). Neither are immune to critique.

It's sad to see the repeated negative energy certain club members put into a museum the have never visited or contributed, though not surprising finding the good always takes an extra effort.

Ironically enough, I believe that my first exchanges with you on this forum related to you calling your car a "240ZG". You seemed to take exception to me making the point that it is not, and never will be. You made some stupid ( personal ) comments that you subsequently deleted. Perhaps I ought to thank you for making the extra effort there? I have not seen you make any informed or even interesting written contribution to this forum since then, but there's always hope....

Fred is a gentlemen and a class act,his accomplishments are more than most will ever achieve.:bulb:

You don't seem to be able to understand what has already been written on this thread. Nobody is questioning Mr Jordan's status as a gentleman, but he was led astray perhaps a little too easily in this video interview - was he not? The "432 cubic inch" gaffe is simply amusing ( it is too silly to take seriously ) but Mr Lance Lambert must expect to have his work judged by its audience and I don't see any problem with pointing out the mistakes. In fact the home page for this 'Vintage Vehicle Show' of his invites such comments, and by now I'm sure he has realised just how bad this clip is ( it would be interesting to see the rest of it..... ).

This is one of the ways we can try to make things better for the future, and hopefully lessen the chances of it happening again.

Alan T.

[Inf]

I agree Alan, misinformation needs to be pointed out regardless of who states it and in what context.

Honest mistakes quickly become things like the massively widespread "Goertz designed the 2000GT, the Fairlady/240Z and every other good looking Japanese car" fallacy if gone unchecked.

How long until someone who only has passing knowledge of Z-cars makes conversation with one of us along the lines of "Did you know the Japanese made a 432 cubic inch displacement performance version of your car? Cool huh?"

:stupid:

Anyway, If I ever find myself back out in LA, I'll make it a point to stop by the museum and check it out. It seems like it would be right up my alley, and a venture like that needs support from the community to survive.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Inf

[26th-Z]

I have attempted to respond to several of the comments made in this thread without success. There is no need to jump on anyone for any personal attack or negative comment. Some remarks are very well made from people whom understand what led to this video clip. I don't know (even loosely) what the Datsun Heritage Museum business plan is or what the Board of Directors have in mind, but from a "museum" implying historical integrity, this clip never should have happened. Probably the most well put comment was: "then what chance is there to ever get this stuff discussed with any accuracy?"

Alan, I don't agree with the idea that a brand is just a badge. It is far more. It is identity which is crucial to marketing success. If Nissan never should have branded the line of automobiles Datsun in the first place, then Nissan has an identity crisis. Perfect example - the rally cars. Labeled both Datsuns and Nissans, a viewer has no idea what the car is. Frankly from first glance, it would appear the award winning cars were Datsuns with Nissan engines. Or Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. sponsored / entered a Datsun. If there is any inference that Datsun = good and Nissan = bad, I would suggest that the fault is with Nissan.

[hls30.com]

My simple take.

Nissan made Datsun, and inadvertantly made more of it that itself-in America.

Nissan desides Datsun is Bad, and has to pay a big for letting it go after developing it so well.

As an informed consumer, I do see Datsun as Nissan, but, as if to prove the opposite point, I readily admit that it still irks me every time I find "Nissan/Datsun" in the parts interchanges...meaning as a base emotion of pride, I see Datsun as better than Nissan-and what that tells me is that all of the money and energy Nissan spent on promoting Datsun, worked, and the lack of money and energy spent promoting Nissan the same time had its desired out come as well.

Nissan chose to make and promote the distinction.

As to the interview, I see lazy journalism as the real issue here. Fred made a mistake not correcting the issue, and perhaps he could have been better prepared, but the Production company is the one with the journalistic responsibility.

Several of us members have pointed out issues with 240Z "facts" reported by various media outlets, most do absolutely nothing to correct their misinformation, taking the attitude that "we spent money to get the word out, no more value will come to us by either correcting it, or by being correct in the first place." Personally, I simply spend no money on meida that does not correct itself.

As to the Modified fairlady being in the museum. My sister is always welcome by my side, even if she has "work done".

Will

[HS30-H]

I have attempted to respond to several of the comments made in this thread without success.

On the contrary. For my part I'm enjoying the discussion, and you are bringing a lot to it. It is very informative to hear other points of view, especially when they are so well put.

Alan, I don't agree with the idea that a brand is just a badge. It is far more. It is identity which is crucial to marketing success. If Nissan never should have branded the line of automobiles Datsun in the first place, then Nissan has an identity crisis.

I attempted to address this in post #8, when I wrote that ( the 'Datsun' brand / emblem ) ".....didn't actually represent anything that could not have been more accurately attributed to NMC USA or indeed Nissan Motor Co. of Japan."

I understand the feeling and all those other abstract things that the 'Datsun' name will have grown to represent for the people that invested their emotions ( and money ) in 'Datsun' products, but I still can't help believing that pretty much all of that was just as applicable - and more rightfully owned by - Nissan Motors Japan. This is brought home to me all the more when I see people writing "Datsun made" such-and-such, or "Datsun did" whatever, as though 'Datsun' made or did anything at all.

That use of the 'Datsun' brand would have made much more sense if Nissan had a brace of other brand names to line up alongside it. This would be useful for delineating between - for example - pickups / light commercials, sports / GT cars and more luxurious sedan segments. We can see this happening all the time today, but Nissan never used that idea and the whole 'Datsun' thing looks like a dead end to me.

The best - and I think most plausible - explanation for its use ( apart from that "fear of failure" story, which makes less and less sense every time I hear it ) is that Nissan did not want to use the 'Nissan' name on its export products for fear of association with the Nissan brand seen on war materiel. This in itself seems somewhat paranoid, as it didn't seem to hinder manufacturers like BMW, Messerschmidt, Heinkel or Daimler Benz too much.

I'm sorry but the main source for this 'Datsun=good, Nissan=bad' mindset seems to be north America. A lot of it seems to be connected with all this "poor Mr K." type of thinking, and I can't help thinking that much of it is politicking and recrimination, and dirty washing being aired in public. All quite regrettable, really.

I'm afraid I still can't see how "Datsun Heritage" - as a concept - can be divided from Nissan's heritage in a way that makes it possible to curate a museum dedicated to it, and named after it. I still have an open mind though......

Alan T.

[Carl Beck]

Let's back up for a minute.

Nissan Motors Ltd. when formed in 1934 was actually a conglomerate of different businesses. Building a small car named "DATSUN" was a very small part of their business model. A far larger part of their income came from supplying Ford, Chevy and Chrysler with component parts for their plants in Japan, as well as developing an electrical component supply business.

While the Practical Automobile Production Co. produced some 563 Datson's in 1933, Ford and Chevy had been producing over 15,000 units per year each by 1930 in Japan. They were major customers of Nissan Motors in 1934. Rather than directly compete with their major source of income - Nissan marketed a "small car" in Japan - the Datsun.

The first car to bare the "Nissan" brand was actually the full size Graham-Paige Crusader purchased entirely from America in 1936, and re-branded "Nissan" in 1937. Design, Patents, Production Tooling and Assembly Line plus Engineering Support and Consulting were all purchased by Nissan and physically moved to Japan. Also components for the Crusader that had been supplied from American suppliers were supplied to Nissan after the transfer. Graham-Paige also supplied the design and power-plant for the truck and bus branded "Nissan".

So prior to WW-II Nissan decided to sell their small cars as DATSUN and later their larger cars, trucks and buses as under the "Nissan" brand. In the 50's as Nissan again started production of their small cars - they used the DATSUN brand on them in Japan. DATSUN was not only an "export" brand name, it was the brand name used by Nissan for their small cars in Japan as well.

We well never know if Nissan had entered the U.S. market in 1960 to market their cars under the Nissan brand, if they would have been successful or not. In any case it is unlikely that they would have been as successful as quickly using NISSAN as a brand.

It was only 15 years after WW-II, and the President of Nissan had been very publicly tried for heinous war crimes related to Nissan's actions in China, put in prison and banned from ever holding a corporate position of authority again in Japan. If you are old enough you may recall that there was much talk of General MacArthur running for President of the US in the late 40's and his actions in Japan were broadly covered in the American Press, so Nissan's actions in China were too. So "Nissan" most definitely had a P.R. problem with their Corporate name in America in the 50's and it is believable that would have concerned them going into the 60's as they attempted entering the market here.

What we do know is that importing Datsuns and marketing Datsun as a brand name in the U.S. was a very successful strategy, and most of that success was due to Mr. K. efforts here. He really made the brand "Datsun" seem like a true emigrant rather than an immigrant. When it comes to marketing "Perception" is 95% of the battle.

So I think it is hard to support the argument that Nissan made a mistake by bringing the Datsun brand of small cars and trucks to America when they did. It was a brand historically applied to their small cars and one that the U.S. Servicemen stationed in Japan came to admire.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[HS30-H]

In the 50's as Nissan again started production of their small cars - they used the DATSUN brand on them in Japan. DATSUN was not only an "export" brand name, it was the brand name used by Nissan for their small cars in Japan as well.

And it continues to be used on certain small commercials sold in Japan to this day. However, I don't think anybody in Japan mistakes the 'Datsun' brand as that of a manufacturer, and I don't believe that they ever did.

Unfortunately, many people outside Japan came to believe that 'Datsun' was a manufacturer. Their dismay at the dropping of 'Datsun' as a brand must have been all the greater because of this misconception.

We well never know if Nissan had entered the U.S. market in 1960 to market their cars under the Nissan brand, if they would have been successful or not. In any case it is unlikely that they would have been as successful as quickly using NISSAN as a brand.

I see you are discussing the US market as though it is the only market again. The fact is that the 'Datsun' brand was applied to Export market models sold in several other countries before the north American market was seriously entered. This is not solely a north American market related issue, and it is clear that Nissan were thinking of the broader worldwide market.

I don't know how it is possible to speculate that using the 'Nissan' name as the brand instead of 'Datsun' would have led to any difference in sales preformance? In any case, you didn't have to look very hard to see that the cars were clearly marked with the NISSAN name too. This wasn't exactly a complete 'cover up', was it?

What I'm still struggling to understand is the philosophy behind the 'DHM'. I don't see how this 'Datsun' brand thing can be refined down ( and seemingly divorced from its very real Nissan-related heritage ) to make a subject that can be successfully curated in a museum? I don't see how we can draw lines so arbitrarily and say "...this is part of the story, but this is not..."? If Nissan's products - regardless of target market - were ALL sold with the 'DATSUN' brand name then I could perhaps begin to see it, but when what were essentially the same designs were being sold in different markets as either Datsuns or Nissans then I don't see how you can say that the Datsun branded car is relevant to the museum, but the Nissan branded car is not. As far as I can see, they are both part of the same story....

Alan T.