LEB

Will, I now understand what you're asking. I'll try to respond in a way that is possible to follow. Design really isn't smoke and mirrors but it is sometimes subtle. In that I'm only trying to identify a "whiff" of Z and not elements of the 240, I may be able to do it. To break it down I'll refer to three different design elements. 1.The first would be proportion. The 350 shares the major proportional elements as much as was possible with the previous Z's. The package hard points require that the cowl, front overhang, radiator clearance, wheel base, OAH and length be held (there are many others). Thus the designer has to work around them. As was mentioned in another thread it would be nice to put the driver in the back seat and make the hood longer, It's just not possible. Anyway, with the constraints of the package the 350 still manages to accommodate some of the proportion that the earlier Z's had. 2. The second would be form vocabulary (shape) and stance. Although the strongest part of the form is very different from the Z's, there is some feeling of the latest 300ZX in there somewhere. The gesture and stance are very much Z. Maybe even a bit of a cartoon or caricature of the earlier Z cars. I see it in the extreme hook in the upper center line falling quickly to the rear which terminates as expected at the deck edge where the belt shape also terminates. I think all Z's share that strong element. The hood also shares the character of the Z's even if it's not as long. It does fall dramatically and not return at the nose. The movement is chopped as the profile reaches the front and not looped or redirected down or back. 3. Graphics are the things that are drawn on the shape that aren't shape themselves. I think of shape as 3-D and graphics as 2-D. The Graphic statement would have been the easiest way to make the 350 look more like a Z. In this case , however the graphics were used to make the car more contemporary. The grill is the only graphic element that I see as Z like. The rest tends to make the Z qualities harder to notice. I know that there is counter opinion out there and it's just as valid as mine. I'm only trying to share what I feel. I hope folks can understand even if the disagree. Hope this helps, Larry

Will, At Nissan design is done to sell product. The designers are not trying to inform people about a message. There isn't a message. They are trying to make the product appeal to the folks that have been selected (by someone else) to buy that particular product. If they can do it the company makes money. To design for designers is an interesting topic in itself. It wins awards but doesn't necessarily sell product. It's obvious that the owners of the original Z's weren't included in the market that was selected to the extent that they might have been. Hope this helps. Larry

Good observation, The design studio is made up of three disciplines, designers, engineers and modelers. Both the design and the engineering has to be reflected in the model by the modelers. I won’t go into CAD because I think it’s easier to understand without it. Outside input can come from anyplace but it usually happens outside of the studio and the information is given to the studio discipline whom it affects most.. Often the marketing folks would be most involved early on. There is a lot of work done to know just who you’re going after with each product. Clinics would also fall into that category. Design is rather messy but in my experience it never has been done without a lot of outside input. The biggest misconception that I find is that people think it’s a linier process, like baking a cake. Only when the story gets told to the press does it become linier. Hope this helps.

Will, I understand where you're coming from. It's just that the design guys at Nissan were able to see more than a whiff of Z in the car. I can still see it, but it's obviously not the amount that you would have liked. I have more trouble seeing it as an Audi TT copy. Some of the form vocabulary is similar but the Z is a much more emotional statement than the Audi. The Audi (which I like a lot) is almost a product design, one of Germany's best. It was even better in the show car version at Geneva. I don't remember the year, but I'm sure it wasn't overlooked by the Nissan designers. As for the marketing people, I'm unaware of their involvement in the program. I’m sure they had recommendations, but when the design brief is published it’s hard to deviate too much. The other thing is that designers don’t like to have their stuff tampered with. Change isn’t easy, especially late in the program. Larry

Daniel, The short answer is yes, all of what you said and more affected the design process. We typically never got involved with selecting the platforms that we were given. If there was something (for a design reason) that truly interfered with the design intent we would make an effort to get it changed so as to better accommodate the design. This couldn't be a big expensive change like moving all the stuff around to accommodate a longer hood or a short deck. You take what you're given and do the best you can. I feel that it's the difficult conditions that the designer has to work around are what cause good things to happen in design, not the lack of them. Having an unlimited budget and no restrictions doesn't insure good design. Often it's the restrictions that have to be creatively solved, that lead to success. Larry

OK, In the interest of making a situation that is easier to understand I’ll ramble a bit about the new Z program. The first assignment was to do a retro Z. After all in order to do a retro version you need to also have something in your past that warrants doing a retro version of. Please don’t think that retro makes it easier. It’s very difficult. Not a guarantee anyplace, look at the T-bird. The package that we were given was a 240 SX and It didn’t have the perfect proportions for the original Z but that’s not unusual in the automotive design world. I did get to compete in the 1/4 scale phase and have personal experience in the difficulty involved. Anyway after going through a complete 1/4 scale and 1/1 design process a show car was made and shown to the world. Even during the design process there was some leakage to the car rags. The next thing we knew we were starting over with a new package. This platform was new and more contemporary. At the time I didn’t know that it would be the same as the G35 (being done in Japan) but with 70mm less wheelbase. I wasn’t as involved in that program and thus don’t know the details as well. The original chosen design that was selected belonged to my friend Ajay Paschal. It scared me but that‘s a good thing. I’ve found that new stuff that doesn't scare me will fade into the background quickly. That’s OK for some bread and butter cars but for the new Z we needed a winner. I wanted to retire from a company that wasn’t going bankrupt (if you know what I mean). I know that the folks at Nissan promised one thing and seemed to delivered another. Even when they pushed the limits of retro beyond easy recognition it’s possible for me to see how they would still claim that the new car was inspired by the original Z because it really was. It’s just that you would have to have been there to understand it’s rather unusual development process. My involvement with the marketing folks often leads me to think that there is a huge unrecognized difference between marketing and design . I suspect that the general public bought it with no problem. It’s just you Z folks that didn’t buy the slight of hand that was used to get the new Z to market. I have a lot of respect for companies that are able to get really good stuff through their systems and on the road. It’s a high stakes game and takes skill, good management, guts and luck. Larry

I hate to weigh in on a thread that's stated title is to find fault with something. I'll make some personal observations anyway. 1. When the G35 came out I thought it was strikingly beautiful. When we did the 350Z I thought it was too controversial, too strong of a design statement. After the first year I changed my mind. The G35 now is still beautiful but not in a lasting way. It's starting to fade. The 350 Is now my preference. It has shown more staying power and isn't fading into the background. It's going to be remembered by me and others as a good, strong and important design. I still don't like the refrigerator door handle but that's just me. Nissan hit a home run just when they needed one. 2.When you try to talk about the 240 and the 350 as though they need to compete with one another you're comparing oranges to apples. It was two different times and two different circumstances. I believe that they were both successful relative to what they needed to do under the circumstances that existed. Larry

Easy decision. Just decide not to decide. Have your cake and eat it too. I also have a 73, just painted. Change the carbs and use the 280. Just save all the original stuff. I'm looking for a 280 to rebuild and a 5 speed. Make it more drivable but don't loose the original in case you change your mind later. Larry

I'll apologize first if there is already some discussion about this that I can't find. Can someone either direct me to the proper thread or enlighten me as to why most of the earlier Z's seem have the wheels located too far forward in the wheel openings? The front seems to be OK by the time the 2+2 came along. The rear seems to still be out of location into the early 80's. I first noticed this on my 73 when I was making the body straighter. Sense then I've noticed it on most of the straight side view photos that I see. I remember a thread that talked about moving the differential but that wouldn’t change the wheel location. Thanks, Larry

OK, in as much as I started this thing I should try to contribute something. I'm even older than Carl, I'm 64. I retired from Nissan Design in 2000 as General Manager of Model-making. I've been consulting/contracting sense. I've worked with Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, KIA, GM, Isuzu, Socal Speed Shop, Aria and some folks in China that nobody here has heard of YET. My expertise is clay models and the design process. I've been involved with automotive design ever sense leaving a graduate program at the University of New Mexico in 1967 to go to GM. It's been fun. I have a fascination with design and the design process. That's why I'm interested in hearing enthusiastic people share their feelings about Z cars. I've had many Z's starting in 1980 when ordering my first Nissan company car. We actually had accesses to not only the Nissan stuff but all the direct competition. Unfortunately when I look at cars I don't consider whether I like them or not personally but rather I consider if it's good design, well executed, what the form vocabulary is, the amount of risk that it takes, etc.,etc. I've been programed to not have the emotional feelings that most people who like cars have. My job has always been to make it the best that it can be even if it's a loser. Everything can be improved. The common thread I see so far is that although the acronym GT is used, it seems to be relatively consistent that the folks here are attracted to the notion of keeping it simple. Of course the other side is how high-tech can you get. I sometimes teach a class on the emotional content of form. If you think about it that's what cars really are to a lot of us. Many people see their car as an extension of themselves. The custom/hot rod folks are a good example. Enough for now. I've got a beautiful 240 that I just painted and am trying to get back on the road. Thanks everybody for participating, Larry

Gee Carl, nicely put. Makes a lot of sense. I've been enlightened on this can of worms I opened. Thanks. Is what you're saying about the early Datsun Pickup mean that the sheet-metal was actually Austin? I've got two of them. A 58 and a 62 from what I could tell. Your help is much appreciated. Larry

Ha, I'm trying to post a new thread and I think I just found an appropriate spot to do it. My primary interest is in design (Industrial and Transportation) and I've noticed here that there is a very well established feeling relative to where Nissan is going with the 1st and 2nd generation 350Z's. There may be some strong feelings about the 2+2 cars as well or even the differences between the 240, 260, 280, 300zx, etc. So, How do you feel about the most recent Z's and why do you feel that way? Or how do you feel about the Z car you drive and the rest of the Z line? In order to keep these thoughts in some kind of usable and understandable order it would be good if you could offer something about why you feel the way you do as well as offer something about where you're coming from relative to demographics. Like approximate age, geographic location, profession, education, or anything else that might describe you in the social/cultural structure. There aren't any wrong answers here. Everybody is entitled to have their own feelings and not be judged by anyone else. Let's try to not let this become food fight and just see where it goes. Thanks, Larry

Arne, I called Motorsport. They no longer have replacement masts for the OEM antenna. Said that they probably wouldn't be able to find another supplier. I'm keeping my old stuff anyway. Maybe I can fix it. Thanks, Larry

Matt, I've seen it only briefly in clay and I can't talk about that. I'll go out and get an Oct. Road and Trash and look at what you did. Thanks, Larry

I've been using 5 minute epoxy and glass cloth. Seems to work. Larry

Alan, I’m not trying to throw water on any body's parade. Please don’t try to discredit me quite so hard. I never said that I was there in 69. I believe that I mentioned a couple of times that I arrived in 79-80. The discussions that I was privy to (1980-2000) talked about the 240 being out of place from a design quality point of view. Maybe you don’t feel that way but I can easily see the 240 as being of a higher level of design than the typical products coming from Japan and Nissan at that time. Another observation would be that the Japanese had a much more regimented management structure than I was used to. Managers were not allowed the leeway that I was used to working with. Orders came down and everybody marched. I ‘m sure there are exceptions to all that I have said and I’m sure I would enjoy talking with Mr. Matsuo. He sounds like my kind of designer. If he had the qualities that you describe, and being responsible for the 240 Z, that might well go a long way in explaining my questions about its development. In 20 years nobody mentioned anything about a previous hurricane. Their culture (I’ll use the word again) wouldn’t easily abide with discussing such problems with the new kids on the block. Sort of a dirty laundry thing, you just don’t share it. Please don’t try to read between the lines. I’m perfectly capable of getting into enough trouble with out your help. Sorry about misspelling your name, Lary

Carl, I’m not going to be of much help here. I’ll probably just confuse things more. The first package that we got was based on the 240. The sketches that you show in your first photo reflect that package. I believe the artist was Tom Semple. The design, which got reflected on the first showcar, was a Hirshberg. The second photo shows the new package that we got which started the design process all over again. The artist was a young English fellow whose name slips me now (a senior moment) Ajay something. The ¼ scale is in the foreground. It was (if I remember) retrieved from storage for the event. The package was probably not intended to be unique to either the G35 or the Z. It was probably intended to be shared all along. To make a package for only one product would require that it be a flagship model, as you mentioned we were trying to turn the company around at that time. Both show cars were done at Metalcrafters and I believe I remember we had to send people to Japan to try to resolve the cowl height problem. I’m not of the camp that is offended by the thickness of the car. The third picture is Shiro Nakamura who was brought in by Goshen to head up all Nissan Design worldwide. He’s a good guy, originally from Isuzu. Looks a little like a deer in the headlights in your picture. He’s now the President of NDA as well as in charge of all Nissan Design. Times and dates were never very important to me so I don’t always get them right. Larry

Oh my, Sorry Allen, I’m not a history buff and I’m not trying to say that the Z wasn’t done in Japan. I shouldn’t have said it that way. I was just stirring the pot. My mistake. My intention is to question the original sources that might have been used. My experience is only derived by being there when these things were discussed. I would not ever expect the Japanese to say they were influenced by anything outside of Japan. It wouldn’t be in any one's best interest and it would fly in the face of their culture as well as ours. At GM and NDI we had a saying that there was a “not invented here” syndrome. I’ve also have lapses of memory from time to time and you’re right, I’m probably thinking of the B110. I apologize for the above. I don’t mean to offend people who have strong feelings about their cars or the history of them for that matter. We were established in 79 by a Nissan President I believe his name was Ishihara. The logic was that Japan had a different set of aesthetics and thus NDI was established to do design for the American market. I am suggesting that at that time there was a perceived difference between the American taste and the Japanese taste. I’ve never subscribed to this theory but without it I’d still be freezing in Detroit. There were still four sections of design there when we arrived in 79-80. I believe that there was not the absolute separation between them that you suggest. What I saw was a rather consensus orientated style of management. I did see models that were in the same room which belonged to different sections. Space was at a premium before the Tech Center. I was told that Yotsumoto did the 510 only after he had retired. I had no reason to think differently. Should I? It was a rather high up executive that told me. That’s what I get for not being a history buff of the company I spent half my life working for. Truce? Larry

Wow Carl, I'm not the historian that you are. I'm mostly interested in just trying to understand why design/styling evolves in the way it does. I know history has a lot to do with it, especially when it all adds up to an explanation that is easily understood. I was in the studios at GM Styling when the 240 arrived. Of course GM management could have cared less about what an upstart Japanese company was doing in markets that they thought they would always control. There was considerable talk at the studio level about the Z. The most significant thing that was noted was that you could have a really cool sports car for very little money. By this I also mean that it didn't follow the design formula of the Triumphs, MG's of earlier times. It more nearly followed the design formulas of much more expensive cars of earlier times. By late 79 or early 80 I was in San Diego setting up a Design Studio (NDI) with Hirshberg, Semple and Flowers. I was doing the nuts and bolts part, in charge of modelmaking. Our first assignment was actually to supplement a project going on in Japan, with 1/4 scale Z models. That first effort never really affected much but we did do some facelifts on the 280's later as the car became more of a grand touring vehicle or some might like to say more exotic. The definition of a sports car has changed over the years. The 300ZX was designed by a young Japanese designer named Yamasta. We competed in that project and lost (something that we weren't used to having happen). The original design that he did was so completely changed after it was chosen that it was unrecognizable. However it was beautiful, as you've pointed out. Anyway I'm getting off topic. I did meet some of the people that were involved with the 60's projects and the process that was in evidence in 1980 was still 4 studios. It was in Surumi (sp) and we couldn't get our driver to enter the facility because he was driving a Toyota, not a Nissan. Nissan had hired a guy named Fred Hoadley, retired from Ford, to consult with them about setting up design studios. I never met him but I saw a lot of his input on paper. Typically the Designers, Modelers and Engineers were all in separate areas (they still are today). We (NDI) put everybody in the same space. A very different concept. Sense I retired in 2000 I've seen the space begin to be divided in the San Diego Studio (now NDA), much more like the Nissan Japan model. Goshen / Nakamura have almost absolute control now. I’m sure that there are very few folks still around that could shed any light on the very beginnings of the 240 Z. In as much as I was able to sit in on many meetings involving what happened in design, maybe there are others who also were privy to information that might be helpful. I do know that we would sometimes compete in projects that were also assigned to design companies outside of Nissan. Who knows somebody may still be out there. Larry

Thanks Carl, I've read the history a number of times and I'm sure history is going to remain as is. My problem is that I've seen history "designed" too many times in the studio. This has gone from blatant fabrication to just not remembering to tell the whole story to not actually knowing the whole story. It's kind of like the big name designers taking credit for everything that their studio does. What are all those other folks doing there anyway? Maybe the Z was done completely in house while they were also doing cars like the B210 right along side. It's possible. Any thing's possible. I wouldn't have said anything about outside help if I'd been asked. Credit still belongs to Nissan for having the insight to produce it. Would you put the 300ZX in the classic category? I suspect it will eventually get there? I wish I had one. Larry

I'm fearless (or foolish). I spent 20 years with Nissan Design and have had personal conversations with many of the Designers that were around then. Design and the design process have always been very interesting to me. I know the books have done a good job of covering this but just look at what was being put on the road by Nissan at that time. The 510 was the only real exception and it wasn't a strong design statement like the Z. It was done by Kazumi Yotsumoto our first president. He chose to change the subject when pressed about the 240. Over the years there have been many design projects farmed out to small design studios in Italy to only then disappear as the project evolved in unexpected ways. There is a lot of Italian Design going to China these days that you'll probably not hear about. That which is in print doesn't always tell the whole story. I'm not trying to rewrite history just thinking about it. Sorry to stir the pot but it sometimes stimulates. I'm hoping that somebody can contribute to this in a positive way. Everybody knows what they like and they are surely entitled to their opinions. Larry

Well, For what it's worth there was an attempt to get more retro with the car that is now the 350Z. There was even a show car that represented one attempt. It was built on the 240SX platform. Design is always a risk. No matter what is done I believe that the amount of risk that is taken needs to be appreciated. The most respected designs today didn't just copy what everybody else was doing. That's the safe way but will almost never make for a classic. Of course manufactures aren't looking to produce classics they are looking for sales. Sales for the 350 are OK. The S30 was a breakthrough design for it's time. I suspect that it wasn't done in Japan but I don't know for sure. The folks at the Design Center in Atsugi never wanted to admit that it wasn't done in Japan. I suspect it was done in Italy and then engineered in Japan. If anybody knows for sure I'd like to know. I'm getting too wordy here. I'll stop. Larry

I stand corrected. I did know what they were used for. Were there two or just one in back. Maybe I need another one, although after putting the one on I liked the look better without any. I guess if I have to get towed it might be useful though. Larry

The right side is probably correct. The left would put it awfully close to the exhaust pipe. I live in Ramona. Larry

Red pigments are the most expensive pigments thus red paint cost more. I got yellow PPG for only 304.00/gal. Other manufactures may be less. Larry