Jump to content
zed2

Nissan Z: 50 Years of Exhilarating Performance

Recommended Posts

On 6/28/2020 at 9:10 PM, Z50for2020 said:

My, we have a lot of criticisms here.  I appreciate the clarity.  I did my research with the help of Nissan's library and lots of interviews.  If there are issues, I am taking notes.  Yes, the Datsun Z432 name was an error, but I think "15 years of mistakes" is a bit harsh, HS30-H.  Write your own book, then.

didn't you also plan to, or feature 'the240zguild' in the book?  are you aware of his history?  The other chap who posts on BAT, who likes to talk about himself, what did he bring to the party? who did you consult to get facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 16: "....but in 1911, US-educated Masujiro Hashimoto began the Kwaishinsha Motor Company in Tokyo."

There was never any company called 'Kwaishinsha'. It was 'Kaishinsha'.  

Here's the original Kanji: 快進社

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 16: "Hashimoto took three years to build his first vehicle, a two-cylinder, 10-horsepower car he called the "Dat". The name derived from the initials of his three supporters. Dat also means "hare" in Japanese, reflecting the vehicle's presumed speed and craftiness."

Here's a classic case of copying the mistakes of others. The Japanese word for the common Hare is 'Nousagi' (literally, 'Field Rabbit').

NoUsagi-Kenkyusha Dictionary.JPG

 

The running hare emblem on some of the early Datsun products:

Datsun NoUsagi.jpg

 

This is not 'a Dat'. In Japanese, the word which can be Romanised as 'Dat' (phonetically 'Da-tto') is a verb. Here's the Japanese dictionary again:

Datto-Kenkyusha Dictionary.JPG

 

...so the emblem uses the wild Hare as a symbol of speed and agility (whilst still being fairly modest) and it is not 'a Dat'.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue, in reference to the symbolism of the hood ornament, that "datto" is a prefix.  What we really should say about the hood ornament and the DAT / hare correlation includes the prevailing philosophy of design (in Japan) at the time.  The image of a leaping hare expresses datto - or DAT; lightning speed.  DAT / Datsun really means "lightning speed".  This is classic Japanese Art Deco.  The expression is obvious and I can see with a stretch how the DAT / hare connection could be made, by someone who doesn't understand art, perhaps an American (sarcasm intended).  The ornamental animal is posed in a way to express motion, or in this case, lightning speed, quick response, and as fast as...  It is expressed from a hare which conjures the thought of quick response or lightning speed because those are the outstanding qualities of a hare.  It is not a literal translation to "rabbit"!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting Hares, 26th-Z...?  ?

It's all very well for us to wax lyrical about the symbolism of motoring ornaments - and it's a good thing - but that beautifully realised Deco figure on the top of the Datsun radiator is not a 'Dat', and 'Dat' is not Japanese for 'Hare'. 

 

Happy 4th July, by the way. Here's an English hood ornament on the day we celebrate having got rid of the troublemakers:

BSA-Snail.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 118: "...the Z432. Four valves, three carburettors, two camshafts. Carrying the S20 engine originally installed in the Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC10), which was built by Prince Motor Company, the automaker Nissan acquired in 1966..." 

The PGC10 Skyline GT-R debuted in February 1969. The PS30 Fairlady Z432 and PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R debuted in October 1969. The KPGC10 Skyline GT-R debuted in October 1970, a full year after the 432 and 432-R. So, if we want to say that the 432 and 432-R received the Skyline GT-R's S20 engine, we have to cite the four door PGC10 as the 'source', not the two-door KPGC10.

In any case, it's not strictly accurate. By the time the S20 engine was being finalised for production, it was already lined up for use in the S30-series Z chassis as well as the C10-series Skyline, and the cylinder block was engineered to fit both mid-rear sump (Z) and front sump (GT-R) configurations and their corresponding oil pickup/main oil gallery and dipstick locations. In fact, the first batch of 432/432-R engine block castings were made at the same time as the first Skyline GT-R blocks.

And 'built by Prince Motor Company'? The S20 engine was descended from the Prince GR8, but was quite different. In truth the S20 was a Nissan product, designed and made by what used to be Prince before it was subsumed by Nissan... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, it has been a long time since I have read such a stream of negative comments in an enthusiast thread.

Someone here needs to write their own book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Man, it has been a long time since I have read such a stream of negative comments in an enthusiast thread.

Someone here needs to write their own book.

If there were not so many mistakes in the book, it wouldn't be possible to pick it apart piece-by-piece, would it?

And this is classiczcars.com, where we - hopefully - pride ourselves on getting this stuff right. If we don't, then who will? WE are the enthusiasts. I presume that WE are the target market, no?

Perhaps Mr Evanow just needs to write a better book? Or get it double checked by people who know their stuff before publication?

 

Oh, and from the publisher smallprint in the book:

"We apologize for any inaccuracies that may have occurred and will resolve inaccurate or missing information in a subsequent reprinting of the book."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HS30-H said:

If there were not so many mistakes in the book, it wouldn't be possible to pick it apart piece-by-piece, would it?

And this is classiczcars.com, where we - hopefully - pride ourselves on getting this stuff right. If we don't, then who will? WE are the enthusiasts. I presume that WE are the target market, no?

Perhaps Mr Evanow just needs to write a better book? Or get it double checked by people who know their stuff before publication?

Oh, and from the publisher smallprint in the book:

"We apologize for any inaccuracies that may have occurred and will resolve inaccurate or missing information in a subsequent reprinting of the book."

In that case, you should provide a well-researched and extensive set of errata to the publisher and request that they be included in the next edition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

In that case, you should provide a well-researched and extensive set of errata to the publisher and request that they be included in the next edition. 

I intend to.

In the meantime, I'm carrying on with my critique here in the hope that it will elicit some discussion on the topics raised, and - thereby - get us all a little closer to the truth.

If anyone disagrees with the points I am bringing up, they are most welcome to counter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one waiting for Alan's book to be published to correct the many mistakes made by other authors about Z history, models etc?  It's kinda fun in the cheap seats and the peanut gallery but it's still the peanut gallery and the cheap seats.  I'm serious, i would pay good money for a book you would author Alan, if you would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More tea, Vicar? ?

Page 12:  "The Z's L24 powerplant was a six-cylinder adaptation of the four-cylinder L16 used in the 510 and would prove to be a bulletproof workhorse."

Ah, that old chestnut. No mention of the L20 six, or indeed the L20A six. Of course not! And "bulletproof"? Not in initial form it wasn't. Crankshaft re-design and re-homologation required...

Page 12:  "While the additional two cylinders required a new, longer block, crank, and overhead camshaft, most of the engine's internal components - pistons, rods, bearings - were the same as within the 510. Displacement grew to 2,393cc and horsepower to 150."

The two engines first lined up for use in the 'Maru Z'/'270KK' project (in mid 1967) were the L16 four and the L20 six. Soon after, a High Performance version of the L20 six (with triple carbs and 160hp output) was added to the plan, but this was dropped when the S20 twin cam was green-lighted for inclusion in the project. The L24 six only came into the picture much later, as an Export spec with extra capacity that would help to mitigate the power-sapping anti-emissions measures necessary in some markets. Six cylinder L-gata engines existed before the L24, so painting the L24 as a direct jump step from the L16, and created solely for the Z, is both inaccurate and misinforming.  

Either he doesn't know about the L20/L20A, or he's ignoring it. 

The above quotes are taken from a section titled 'Z DNA'. Ironic. It would be fun to give the S30-series Z a DNA test. A few people might be surprised to find out that Daddy isn't who they thought he was...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 6:11 AM, HS30-H said:

Page 16: "....but in 1911, US-educated Masujiro Hashimoto began the Kwaishinsha Motor Company in Tokyo."

There was never any company called 'Kwaishinsha'. It was 'Kaishinsha'.  

Here's the original Kanji: 快進社

Here is the original Sign on the factory.

 

 

 

KwaishinshaDATMotorCo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, HS30-H said:

More tea, Vicar? ?

Page 12:  "The Z's L24 powerplant was a six-cylinder adaptation of the four-cylinder L16 used in the 510 and would prove to be a bulletproof workhorse."

Ah, that old chestnut. No mention of the L20 six, or indeed the L20A six. Of course not! And "bulletproof"? Not in initial form it wasn't. Crankshaft re-design and re-homologation required...

Page 12:  "While the additional two cylinders required a new, longer block, crank, and overhead camshaft, most of the engine's internal components - pistons, rods, bearings - were the same as within the 510. Displacement grew to 2,393cc and horsepower to 150."

The two engines first lined up for use in the 'Maru Z'/'270KK' project (in mid 1967) were the L16 four and the L20 six. Soon after, a High Performance version of the L20 six (with triple carbs and 160hp output) was added to the plan, but this was dropped when the S20 twin cam was green-lighted for inclusion in the project. The L24 six only came into the picture much later, as an Export spec with extra capacity that would help to mitigate the power-sapping anti-emissions measures necessary in some markets. Six cylinder L-gata engines existed before the L24, so painting the L24 as a direct jump step from the L16, and created solely for the Z, is both inaccurate and misinforming.  

Either he doesn't know about the L20/L20A, or he's ignoring it. 

The above quotes are taken from a section titled 'Z DNA'. Ironic. It would be fun to give the S30-series Z a DNA test. A few people might be surprised to find out that Daddy isn't who they thought he was...

 

 

As Mr. Iida described it - 

"The improvement of L20 continued afterwards. It is because four cylinder series such as L13 and L16 are completed. To share these four cylinder series and the parts, L20 was again designed. L type series of four cylinders was developed over time, and had been rationalized to detailed parts. It was too good to miss these parts. Reduction in costs can be attempted by sharing parts. The engine that shared parts was called a module engine."

"The engine that shared parts was called a module engine."  These engines did not share parts with the original L20. Mr. Iida also tells us that the original L20 came about based on the engine block of a previous 4 cylinder block.     http://zhome.com/DatsunLSeries/L20NH2004AprilTrans.htm  

I think the statement "would prove to be a bulletproof workhorse"  is accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 9:54 AM, HS30-H said:

Page 118: "...the Z432. Four valves, three carburettors, two camshafts. Carrying the S20 engine originally installed in the Skyline 2000GT-R (KPGC10), which was built by Prince Motor Company, the automaker Nissan acquired in 1966..." 

The PGC10 Skyline GT-R debuted in February 1969. The PS30 Fairlady Z432 and PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R debuted in October 1969. The KPGC10 Skyline GT-R debuted in October 1970, a full year after the 432 and 432-R. So, if we want to say that the 432 and 432-R received the Skyline GT-R's S20 engine, we have to cite the four door PGC10 as the 'source', not the two-door KPGC10.

In any case, it's not strictly accurate. By the time the S20 engine was being finalised for production, it was already lined up for use in the S30-series Z chassis as well as the C10-series Skyline, and the cylinder block was engineered to fit both mid-rear sump (Z) and front sump (GT-R) configurations and their corresponding oil pickup/main oil gallery and dipstick locations. In fact, the first batch of 432/432-R engine block castings were made at the same time as the first Skyline GT-R blocks.

And 'built by Prince Motor Company'? The S20 engine was descended from the Prince GR8, but was quite different. In truth the S20 was a Nissan product, designed and made by what used to be Prince before it was subsumed by Nissan... 

Interesting isn’t it? That the sedan was introduced ahead of the Z.  It seems that Nissan’s top management felt that the S20 should be introduced in the Z, so that the Skyline could be advertised/sold as having the most powerful sports car engine - rather than putting a sedan engine in a sports car. That was why the S20 was put in the Z by management direction. (as I currently understand the story). It was a clever trick by the head of the Development Department to get Mr. Matsuo’s Plan A selected for production - as the long nose on plan C based on the previous roadster chassis was ugly)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

 

KwaishinshaDATMotorCo.jpg

You're making my point for me Carl, whether you realise it or not...

The whole point - as I tried to make clear on another thread where I criticised Nissan's constant repetition of old mistakes - is that the original Romanisation of the company name as 'Kwaishinsha' was wrong. Yes, they even wrote it in large white letters on the outside of their factory in Toshima-ku, Tokyo.

I don't know who was originally responsible for this - and I have some sympathy for them - but they made the mistake and it has stuck. In plain terms, that letter 'w' in 'Kwaishinsha' is a Japanese linguistic impossibility. Take a peep in a Japanese dictionary and see how many cases you can find where the Romanised version of a Japanese word has a letter 'w' following a letter 'k'. It won't take very long, as 'Ku...' is followed abruptly by 'Ky...'. There will be no 'Kv...', 'Kw...' or 'Kx...'.

Look at the bottom line of the 1921 catalogue. It is written in Kanji. I have highlighted 'Kai Shin Sha' in red:  

Kaishinsha-Cat-1.JPG

So it's right there in black and white. 'Kai Shin Sha'. Rather quaintly - and perhaps a clue to the 'Kwai' mistake - the final two Kanji characters in the above line say 'Kata Roku', a naive form of the English 'Catalogue'. These days it would be written in - phonetic - Katakana characters (カタログ).

The question is, why do Nissan themselves still carry on with this mistake whilst others do not? From many Japanese technical and scientific sources you will see it correctly Romanised as 'Kaishinsha', and - somewhat ironically - Nissan's arch rivals Toyota get it right in their own museum and museum literature. Back in 1994 the Toyota Automobile Museum held a special exhibition for 'Pioneers of Japan's Early Automobiles' in which Masujiro Hashimoto, Kaishinsha and the DAT car were heavily featured. The research and display was better than anything I've ever seen Nissan themselves present. 

Japan's National Science Museum in Ueno, Tokyo has an extensive collection of material relating to early Japanese automobile and motorcycle manufacturing. Mr Kazuyoshi Suzuki, who curates the collection, wrote an excellent book called 'The Japanese Motor Industry in the 20th Century' which I highly recommend. Mr Suzuki fittingly chose his Chapter 23 to be titled 'The Origins of Nissan - Kaishinsha and DAT'. 

 

Anecdote: The location of that original Kaishinsha factory (the 'Dai Ichi Kikai Kojo' in Higashi-Nagasaki, Toshima-ku, Tokyo) is now a large supermarket. 100 years ago it was surrounded by small plots used for agriculture with the occasional private residence dotted around it. Now it has been completely subsumed by urban sprawl. I used to live in the area, and made a pilgrimage.      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

As Mr. Iida described it - 

"The improvement of L20 continued afterwards. It is because four cylinder series such as L13 and L16 are completed. To share these four cylinder series and the parts, L20 was again designed. L type series of four cylinders was developed over time, and had been rationalized to detailed parts. It was too good to miss these parts. Reduction in costs can be attempted by sharing parts. The engine that shared parts was called a module engine."

"The engine that shared parts was called a module engine."  These engines did not share parts with the original L20. Mr. Iida also tells us that the original L20 came about based on the engine block of a previous 4 cylinder block.     http://zhome.com/DatsunLSeries/L20NH2004AprilTrans.htm  

 

We've been here many times before, haven't we Carl? I'm even slightly nostalgic for the days when you were denying that the first two engines lined up for the Maru Z/270KK project were the L16 four and L20 six. Remember when you were telling us that the prototypes were widened and lengthened to accommodate the L24, which didn't even exist at that point?

Your (rather bowdlerised) translation of Nostalgic Hero magazine's Hiroshi Iida/L-Gata engine story as seen on zhome is still pushing - through you, as that's not what Hiroshi Iida wrote - the idea that L-Gata 'Year Zero' was somehow the L16 (notably ignoring the L13 which was designed alongside it...) even though the whole article makes it clear that this was a story of evolution rather than revolution. Their use of the photo of the 1964/5 L20 six is the most obvious clue to Iida and Nos Hero's linear presentation of the story, but you insist on adding your own L16 Year Zero skew ('Made For USA' confirmation bias) to it.

Iida makes it clear that - when developing the first four-cylinder L-gatas - he and his team had the advantage of being able to do what they had not been able to do during the time-pressed design, development and initial production of the L20 six. They were able to take advantage - significantly - of new tooling and advanced metallurgy now available to Nissan (especially significant was the new pressure diacasting machinery that was coming on line) and were able to incorporate improvements that were simply not feasible beforehand. It was perfectly natural for the L20 six to evolve into the L20A and L23, and - later - the L24, utilising the advantages of the modular system which could share components and tooling across both six and four cylinder variants of several capacities and beyond. Drawing an arbitrary line between the L16 and everything that came before it is not something that Iida did, and it is not what you should be doing either. But you do, and you will won't you? 

It's no wonder that Mr Evanow writes about the L24 as though the L20 and L20A did not exist, and paints a direct jump from L16 to L24. Evanow namechecks Zhome.com several times in his new book in just the same way he did with his previous book 15 years ago, so it should be no surprise that he swallows that stuff whole. This time he namechecks Hitoshi Uemura and his book, although he doesn't seem to have read the parts of the Uemura book which make the L16, L20 and S20 plans for the Maru Z/270KK project clear.  Not 'On Message' enough, perhaps?

11 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

I think the statement "would prove to be a bulletproof workhorse"  is accurate.

"Bulletproof" enough to hold up production and require a crankshaft re-design? Something that wasn't necessary on the L20 or L20A. Guess they just got lucky, huh?          

Edited by HS30-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan for the kind words, and to reinforce, this about the CSP311 is just un-researched waffle. Just more lazy "research", done in a few minutes.

It took me months and months of transcribing kanji and translating, and cross referencing, (as well as what was written in English) to put the Silvia history together. Why didn't they get in touch....?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RIP260Z said:

Thanks Alan for the kind words, and to reinforce, this about the CSP311 is just un-researched waffle. Just more lazy "research", done in a few minutes.

It took me months and months of transcribing kanji and translating, and cross referencing, (as well as what was written in English) to put the Silvia history together. Why didn't they get in touch....?

I presume (hope!) you haven't bought the book, Ian. I don't recommend it for CSP311 scholars, as it might be a health hazard. For example:

 

Page 121: Talking about the CSP311 Silvia: "The car also fostered some characteristics similar to the Chevrolet Corvair".

 

Wow. Just....wow. Let that sink in for a moment. Had he mislaid his spectacles? 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HS30-H said:

Page 121: Talking about the CSP311 Silvia: "The car also fostered some characteristics similar to the Chevrolet Corvair".

More waffle (being polite here). I have seen this before, probably know the source of this  pile of s... Its like saying the Chevolet Covair fostered some characteristics similar to the Ford Model T. And the Model T fostered similar characteristics from a horse and cart.

Thankfully I haven't brought the book, wasted my money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

Interesting isn’t it? That the sedan was introduced ahead of the Z.  It seems that Nissan’s top management felt that the S20 should be introduced in the Z, so that the Skyline could be advertised/sold as having the most powerful sports car engine - rather than putting a sedan engine in a sports car. That was why the S20 was put in the Z by management direction. (as I currently understand the story). It was a clever trick by the head of the Development Department to get Mr. Matsuo’s Plan A selected for production - as the long nose on plan C based on the previous roadster chassis was ugly)...

You're doing it again. The G8B 'S20' was already lined up and well into the planning stages for the C10-series Skyline in 1966, just before the enforced Prince-Nissan merger. I don't think you're a scholar of Skyline history are you Carl? The ex-Prince staff at Murayama were very protective of what they saw as 'their' IP and there was no way they were going to let their blue-blooded engine debut in the Nissan Maru Z/270KK. 

The real story here is that Nissan couldn't have a Nissan-branded sedan out-engining and out-performing its new Sports/GT car, hence the planned Hi-Po triple carbed L20(A) version which was part of the plan before the S20 was pinched (somewhat to the Murayama team's dismay). It is notable that the very astute Teiichi Hara used the G8B/S20 as ammunition to help the Maru Z/270KK project styling along. No L24 at this point, and not much Katayama either, but the S20-equipped PGC10 still debuted a good 8 months before the 432/432-R.

You seem content that Mr Evanow states that the 432/432-R's S20 came from the 'KPGC10', which actually hit the market a whole year later than the 432/432-R? It's just poor research, isn't it?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 12:07 PM, HS30-H said:

Page 12:  "The Z's L24 powerplant was a six-cylinder adaptation of the four-cylinder L16 used in the 510 and would prove to be a bulletproof workhorse."

Page 12:  "While the additional two cylinders required a new, longer block, crank, and overhead camshaft, most of the engine's internal components - pistons, rods, bearings - were the same as within the 510. Displacement grew to 2,393cc and horsepower to 150."

 

With regard to the idea that the L24 sprang directly from the L16 (like some kind of Immaculate Conception), here's Nissan's take on matters...

Care worn - well used - L13, L16 & L20 engine service manual. Nissan grouping these engines together as part of a series. Related, of course, but the L20 senior and not yet having the benefit of the new tooling, new metallurgy and new oil-sealing technology that the L4s were able to enjoy due to being drawn up later. In due course - of course, of course - the L20 six would be able to undergo updates and join the modular L-gata lineup for a more streamlined range, and Nissan would give it the 'A' suffix to denote the difference between 'Original' L20 and 'New' L20:

L13-L16-L20 FSM-1.jpg

L13-L16-L20 FSM-2.jpg     

 

Context for the L24's 'Immaculate Conception' style upscaling from L16 (a la Mr Evanow): Japanese market H130 model Nissan Cedric debuted with the new L20(A) six in September 1969, and Japanese market GC10 model Skyline 2000GT debuted with the L20(A) six in October 1969. But - of course! - we shall ignore them and paint the L24 as THE prime mover in this story of fours being transformed into sixes. 'Made For The USA', remember...? 

So, Zhome.com/Evanow take: L16 (not L13, we'll ignore that) begets L24 as part of Export-focused 'Revolution' centered around 510 and 240Z. Forget anything made before the L16 as it doesn't count. Year Zero, OK?

Nissan's take: L13 and L16 are part of the natural evolution of the original L20, which begets L20(A) and beyond. We call it a 'Series': 'L-Gata'.

My take: If you really want to understand this, go back to the source. Don't ignore Nissan's single biggest market (yes, that's Japan...), and try to stop yourself from looking at Japanese industrial history through the lens of the USA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 11:11 AM, HS30-H said:

Page 16: "....but in 1911, US-educated Masujiro Hashimoto began the Kwaishinsha Motor Company in Tokyo."

There was never any company called 'Kwaishinsha'. It was 'Kaishinsha'.  

Here's the original Kanji: 快進社

An example of How This Stuff Happens:

In 2014 Mr Hitoshi Uemura - former chief of Nissan's Third Vehicle Design Section and lead engineer during the design and development of the 'Maru Z'/'270KK' project S30-series Z - published a book titled 'Fairlady Z Kaihatsu No Kiroku' (tr: 'Fairlady Z Development Chronicle'). Recommended reading for anyone interested in how the S30-series Z came about.

Uemura Book-1.JPG

On page 28 Mr Uemura mentions 'Kaishinsha', and writes it correctly in Kanji.

In 2017 Uemura's friend and former colleague Mr Yuichiro Motomura collaborated with Mr Carl Beck on an English language 'translation' of the book, 'tuned' (ahem...) to an American audience. They chose to title the book 'Datsun 240Z Engineering Development: The Journey From Concept To Reality' (note the difference in titles...).

On page 8 Motomura/Beck 'translate' Mr Uemura's Kanji 'Kaishinsha' (快進社) as "Kwaishinsha".

 

So, there it is. That's an example of how the ball keeps rolling...
[cue end title music: Billy Joel, 'We Didn't Start The Fire'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HS30-H said:

On page 28 Mr Uemura mentions 'Kaishinsha', and writes it correctly in Kanji.

In 2017 Uemura's friend and former colleague Mr Yuichiro Motomura collaborated with Mr Carl Beck on an English language 'translation' of the book, 'tuned' (ahem...) to an American audience. They chose to title the book 'Datsun 240Z Engineering Development: The Journey From Concept To Reality' (note the difference in titles...).

On page 8 Motomura/Beck 'translate' Mr Uemura's Kanji 'Kaishinsha' (快進社) as "Kwaishinsha".

 

So, there it is. That's an example of how the ball keeps rolling...
[cue end title music: Billy Joel, 'We Didn't Start The Fire'.

Thanks for the plug - we need to sell a lot more copies - -  anyone can order the English language edition hard copy or now download the digital copy at: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=Datsun+240Z

As usual Alan give me far to much credit. I had nothing to do with the translation - Mr. Motomura, one of the Suspension Engineers that worked with Mr. Uemura supplied the English language text files and image files in several different file formats.  Having never seen a copy of the original book, I worked with a professional book layout expert to reassemble all the individual files into the single format needed for hard copy publication and distribution,  as well as with Art Singer for the Cover Art. 

The Title page that Mr. Uemura & Mr. Motomura sent was “ The Development of Datsu Z Car"

By Hitoshi Uemura, formerly Principal Design Engineer at Nissan Motor Co., 

 

The above is cut/pasted from the original text file sent.

Yes, the title of the book was changed for the English Language edition to:  “DATSUN 240Z ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT”. “Engineering” as added to differentiate it from all the previous books devoted mostly to the origins in the “Styling Studio" . Datsun 240Z was selected -  to increase meta data for search engines (recommended by the Publisher’s suggestions)  as that is what the vast majority of English speaking customers initially search for.  It was the goal of Mr. Uemura and Mr. Motomura to get Mr. Uemura's story to the American enthusiasts that embraced the Datsun 240Z's in such massive numbers and who had kept/maintained so many of them for 40+ years. 

Kwaishinsha” is exactly what was sent - I suppose Mr. Motomura or perhaps Mr. Uemura had photo’s of the original company signs or literature. Being a proper noun - the name of the company isn’t subject to having its name respelled. (no matter that later someone thinks it was spelled wrong to begin with)- it is the name. The owners/ creators had the right to spell it any way they wanted.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

As usual Alan give me far to much credit. I had nothing to do with the translation - Mr. Motomura, one of the Suspension Engineers that worked with Mr. Uemura supplied the English language text files and image files in several different file formats.  Having never seen a copy of the original book, I worked with a professional book layout expert to reassemble all the individual files into the single format needed for hard copy publication and distribution,  as well as with Art Singer for the Cover Art. 

Thanks for confirming your input, or lack of it. So you never even saw Uemura san's book in the original Japanese form? Wow... 

 

4 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

Yes, the title of the book was changed for the English Language edition to:  “DATSUN 240Z ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT”. “Engineering” as added to differentiate it from all the previous books devoted mostly to the origins in the “Styling Studio" . Datsun 240Z was selected -  to increase meta data for search engines (recommended by the Publisher’s suggestions)  as that is what the vast majority of English speaking customers initially search for.  It was the goal of Mr. Uemura and Mr. Motomura to get Mr. Uemura's story to the American enthusiasts that embraced the Datsun 240Z's in such massive numbers and who had kept/maintained so many of them for 40+ years. 

Unless people have the two versions to compare and contrast, they'll never really know just how far the original Japanese language version was bowdlerised in the English language version. Whilst I can understand and commend Motomura san for wanting to get an English language version in front of an English speaking audience, I simply do not understand why it was necessary to insert the term 'Datsun 240Z' in place of Uemura san's original terms (usually 'Fairlady Z' and 'Maru Z', meaning - of course - the whole family of variants) and any reading of the English version will, as is so often the case, miss the point that Uemura san and all of the other participants were creating a family of models in the S30-series, and not just one. In some parts of the book it renders the anecdotes being related nonsensical. Its a real shame. The original makes much more sense. I might 'get' it for the title - although I'd add a caveat - but the (seemingly endless) times it is used in the text just loses the meaning of the original sentences. 

 

4 hours ago, Carl Beck said:

Kwaishinsha” is exactly what was sent - I suppose Mr. Motomura or perhaps Mr. Uemura had photo’s of the original company signs or literature. Being a proper noun - the name of the company isn’t subject to having its name respelled. (no matter that later someone thinks it was spelled wrong to begin with)- it is the name. The owners/ creators had the right to spell it any way they wanted.. 

Since Uemura san used the (correct!) Kanji form of Kaishinsha (快進社) in his book, it won't have been him. If it was Motomura san's doing then I would find that a slightly baffling decision.

You might want to think of 'Kaishinsha/Kwaishinsha' as a proper noun, but - as the original was originally written in three Kanji characters - it is not quite as simple as that. I'd be wasting my time trying to explain the nuances of Kanji to you, but the company name is a composite of three Kanji characters and pinning it down as a single proper noun is to miss a lot of the point. That first Kanji ('Kai') means something very specific, as do the other characters, and together they mean something more. For me, the true test is in speaking the word. If you say the word 'Kwaishinsha' (with that rogue 'w') out loud it simply doesn't convey the meaning it was intended to convey any more. That is why 'Kaishinsha' is correct and 'Kwaishinsha' is not, regardless of how it was spelled out in Romaji on the side of the Kaishinsha building. If you want to tell the Toyota Museum staff, the curators of the National Science Museum in Tokyo and any number of other scholars that 'Kwaishinsha' is correct because it is a proper noun, please cc me in on the replies. Might be entertaining.  

Of course, you spell it 'Kwaishinsha' on zhome.com, don't you? I would imagine that is because - like everybody else who is spelling it out as 'Kwaishinsha', like Mr Evanow and even some of the people at Nissan - you are copying somebody else's (mis)spelling, and simply never even considered the original Kanji form. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.