(first posted 8/23/2016) The first car to really put Datsun on the map in the U.S. market was the 510, introduced in 1968. With crisp, clean styling, sprightly performance and top-notch quality control, the 510 earned a stellar reputation as sort of a budget BMW. However, like so many automakers in the 1970s, Datsun replaced the 510 with larger, softer models: the 610 and 710, both featuring over-styled designs that looked more Michigan than Munich. However, by the late 1970s, Datsun seemingly changed direction and brought back the 510 for 1978. Did they recapture the magic?
Reintroducing the 510 name was an interesting move by Datsun, no doubt intended to recapture the continuing enthusiasm for the original. After all, the first 510s were enjoying almost cult-like status among small car enthusiasts in the 1970s. The 510 was easy to modify for more performance, and became a favorite of SCCA racers. Resale values were also very strong, adding to the allure of the name.
Plus, some model clarity was in order, after Datsun had developed a case of Detroit-itis starting in 1973 with the launch of the 610. Looking like a ½ scale version of a reject from the Mopar drafting tables, the 610 chucked many of the attributes that had made the 510 an enthusiast hit. While still very well assembled and quite reliable, the 610 was also heavier and less engaging to drive, with overwrought styling replacing the clean-cut, efficient look of the 510.
The 710 followed for 1974, offering still more shrunken Mopar (or AMC) styling on a slightly smaller car. Wait a second, the 710 was smaller than the 610? You bet! In spite of the higher number, which would indicate a “better” car, the 710 actually slotted below the 610 in Datsun’s lineup, and was arguably more of a “true” successor to the 510. A look at the specs tells the story:
| 510 2-door Sedan | 710 2-door Hardtop | 610 2-door Hardtop | |
| Wheelbase | 95.3” | 96.5” | 98.4” |
| Length | 165.4” | 169.3” | 174.2” |
| Width | 61.4” | 62.2” | 63.0” |
| Weight | 2,105 lbs. | 2,214 lbs. | 2,313 lbs. |
| Engine Displacement | 1.6L | 1.8L | 2.0L |
| Horsepower | 96 @ 5600 | 97@5600 | 110@5600 |
| Torque | 99.8 @3600 | 102@3600 | 108@3600 |
Confused yet? So were buyers. In 1973, sales for the sole remaining 510 model—a 2-door sedan (the 510 4-door sedan and wagon had been dropped to make way for the 610)—sold 30,688 units in its last year as a lame duck model. In contrast, for 1974, the full range of 710 body styles (2-door, 4-door and wagon) sold 33,366 units, while the same 3 body styles in the 610 lineup sold 32,916 units. However, most years since its arrival stateside, the 510 had easily sold 60,000+ units annually. So, Datsun’s two new models with a full range of body styles couldn’t beat the historically popular 510. Uh oh.
Simplification was the answer. For 1978, among Datsun’s “main line” non-sports/specialty cars, the B210 was the entry point, while the 810 took top honors as the fanciest. The middle range was once again covered by just one series wearing a familiar favorite name: the 510. A 2-door sedan, 4-door sedan and 4-door wagon were on offer, along with a groovy new body style—that 1970s favorite, the 2-door hatchback. This was the model Car and Driver tested in the December 1977 issue.
All the right ingredients were present and accounted for, but somehow the final mix was uninspiring. The new 510 was competent in most every way, but truly memorable in none. That special brio, which had made the original 510 an object of desire for enthusiasts on a budget, was extinguished. In its place was an economical transportation module in the best Consumer Guide tradition.
Indeed, in the 1978 CG Auto Test, the new 510 was ranked #2 in its subcompact class. Receiving the top score was the talented Honda Accord—a car that presented excellent engineering with a youthful, fun-to-drive flair. Nipping at Datsun’s heels the were the fresh, front-wheel-drive Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon. Datsun’s archival Toyota ranked surprisingly poorly by CG in the subcompact class for 1978 (tied for 5th with the Dodge Colt), but the Corona was in the final year of its 5-year cycle. For 1979, the Corona would be revamped once again, a reminder that stalwart Toyota, the King of Good, would be relentless in their quest for dominance by building bullet-proof, up-to-date, well-priced family conveyances (who would have dreamed in 1978 that Toyota would one day snatch that market position away from Chevrolet). Still, in spite of Datsun’s high ranking among subcompacts, this blandly efficient 510 would soon be forgotten, regarded as nothing more than cheap, reliable transportation.
So Datsun seemingly took a page from Detroit and wasted a good name on the wrong car. Enthusiasts looking for a rebirth of that old 510 magic were disappointed, while thrifty shoppers seeking a straightforward, high-quality Japanese car couldn’t have cared less what it was called—it could have been a Violet, as named in Japan, and import-hungry Americans would have snapped it up anyway.
Additional reading:
Curbside Classic: 1979 Datsun 510 – Revived In Name If Not Spirit by Dave Saunders
It’s hard to believe that all of the offered perspectives were of the same car. What to believe when Bedard suggests the car feels cheaply constructed and rattly, Cook says its too noisy, Jordan applauds how quiet it is, Mandel concedes it’s quiet, and the spec page says its far quieter than any competitor? The same range of opinions is offered for the driving experience, and almost as much range is suggested for the reality of the original 510’s qualities as a drivers car. Apparently, it was diesel-slow.
It’s interesting that Subaru was one of the worst rated small cars in Consumer Guide. IIRC, they had already figured out how to dominate the world of customer satisfaction scores, even as the cars rusted on the showroom floor.
The Aussie press agreed with Bedard. One test I remember said the doors moved in their openings over bumps at speed. IIRC they concluded it was too flimsily constructed for Australian conditions.
How ironic that they returned to the styling of a previous generation. I remember thinking “You idiots! It’s the mechanicals of the old car that we want!”. As a young car enthusiast, I concluded Nissan had lost the plot. The 280ZX seemed to confirm my impression: Nissan didn’t know what they had with the old models.
The 1600 (original 510) sold well here. The 180B (610) was the top-selling car in its class. But then Nissan seemed to lose its way; subsequent models tossed out the IRS, flimsified the body structure, and funkified the styling. It’s like they decided to forego aiming at excellence in favour of mediocrity. They’ve never been key players in the Aussie car market since.
They sort of flirted with goodness in the US with the last the RWD 810s/Maximas, the 2nd generation FWD Maxima, and the initial release of the Stanza when they switched to calling the cars Nissans. The first Stanzas were faster than rival compact sedans and handled decently. Oddly, when they introduced fuel injection later they face-lifted the car into a Japanese Ford Tempo, but the original carbureted version was celebrated in comparison tests and could cover ground on the road.
That was the Wheels road test of the Stanza SSS. More a character assassination than a road test.
The quietness comments make a reasonable amount of sense. The dBA figures for 70 mph cruising are lower than the rivals they note, but the full-throttle figures are not, which is what Bedard says in the text — and 84 dBA is not quiet, even if it wasn’t any worse than a Mk1 Fiesta (not a ringing endorsement in terms of noise). Cook’s comments are primarily about the quality of the noise, which again is consistent with Bedard’s observation. There’s not any indication how much seat time each editor had, and the numbers bear out that there was a huge difference between driving gently and driving hard.
This car was a Violet in Europe, being a 140J or 160J depending on the engine.
I was lent a slightly used 140J for a weekend in 1979 while the dealer did some work on my new car, and it was the first Japanese car I had spent any time with. I remember how shocked I was at the wonderful, refined, driving experience – as long as you didn’t go quickly. At 50+ the shortcomings of the steering and suspension were exactly as described by contemporary car magazines.
Years later I sourced a cheap old Violet for my sister as a shopping car and it gave years of good service, though I was never able to make the clock work.
Yep Japanese suspension tuning was crap they handled poorly at speed.
My sister in law had a brown 510 wagon way back when 1980 or so. Totally uninspiring, cheap looking interior, noisy, you name it. Totally bulletproof and 100% reliable until the day she tried to drive it thru a LTD.
I would ask her tongue in cheek frequently..”Are you sure that’s a 510, it sure doesn’t look like one?
That Car&Driver comparison is ridiculous. They compared the 510 to a Fiesta, a 1200 Corolla, and the entry-level Dodge Colt…..talk about apples to oranges.
Nissan wanted to show potential customers that it could still build sensible yet sporty cars in the vein of the original 510. Unfortunately, when you set folks up to see your new car as the equal or even better than one of your legendary older cars….the new car needs to be better, as customers will expect even a slight improvement. The newer 510 traded heavily on looks, but failed (to some extent) on “substance”, as in no IRS.
Yes, you have to wonder if a different name might have helped. Or, if Datsun/Nissan had replaced the 1st 510 with the “new” 510 instead of the 610. Or had been able to sell the new 510 instead of the 710 which sounds like a “bigger, better,” car than the 610….but wasn’t.
The Colt Mileage Maker made sense, since that was just what Dodge was calling the new 3rd generation Colts that were then only available as 2 and 4 door sedans as the 2nd generation wagon and 2 door hardtops carried over. The Corolla 1200 didn’t make much sense against a 2 liter Datsun, but it was probably just a case of Car and Driver not having tested a 1.6 liter Corolla in the previous year. As for the Fiesta, I can only imagine they compared it since the Fiesta was considered a good handling small car that might have been favored by enthusiasts as the original 510 once was.
Some of their data panel comparisons of this period are pretty odd and seem to have been driven mostly by, “What have we recently tested that’s in more or less the same price range?”
Beyond that, the major U.S. magazines back then really didn’t draw a big distinction between what we’d now consider B- and C-segment cars other than purchase price. C/D did a comparison test in mid-’78 where they pitted the Corolla, Horizon, Rabbit, and Chevette against the B210, Civic, and Fiesta; it was all about as-tested price rather than size.
I wondered then & still wonder now why Nissan gratuitously replaced a winning design, having racing “heritage” (as the British liked to boast about), with an appliance. I thought that sort of management fail was an Anglophone specialty.
While I was in high school, customized, “boy racer” old 510s were all the rage among punters, along with mini-pickups. If the kids like your cars, don’t mess with ’em!
I can only assume that a Japanese company producing a subcompact with IRS was no longer profitable after the Bretton Woods system ended in 1971. Cars with solid axles don’t need to be as strong, since they don’t rely on their bodies to maintain the relative positions of the rear wheels too.
As Uncle Mellow notes, and GN mentions in the text, the 710 and later 510 were actually from a completely different car line. The original 510 and the 610 were LHD versions of the Datsun Bluebird, which was a middle-class family car in Japan. The 710 was the Datsun Violet, which was from a smaller, cheaper class, as was this “510,” which was the second-generation A10 Violet/Stanza.
The 610 and later 810 were bigger and more sophisticated than the Violet and retained the semi-trailing arms in back. (Some cheaper Bluebird models did go back to a solid rear axle with four links and coils for a while, presumably for cost reasons, but the SSS models continued to have independent rear suspension.)
The basic problem, as GN alludes, is that NMC-USA dropped the Japanese model names, which had previously been deemed too cutesy for Americans, without coming up with something else. If the 710 had been called Stanza (as one version of the A10 was — no relation to the later U.S. Stanza), it would have been a lot less confusing.
Yes, I had a 710 sedan thru my 4 years of undergraduate study, and though I never drove the original 510 (I drove this “newer-Stanza family 510 when I was a transporter for Hertz in the latter 70’s), I would think that the 710 would seem less powerful, and less maneuverable than the original 510. My 710 was an automatic, so it likely felt even less spritely than a manual would have.
Really, I think starting with the 710 (or more probably the 610) Nissan was trying to broughamify their models…even though they still appeared a bit spartan compared to the 510, they had nicer features like full carpeting (mine was brown and appeared to have several sections, rather than being one piece) and as mentioned armrests, plus the styling seemed to be aimed at a mini- American psudo luxury car. (the newer 510 even had cloth seats, which was a big deal at the time, though my 710 still had (white!) vinyl seating. The 710 was a good car for me going though school, it was dependable (only failing to start for me during the blizzard of ’78), pretty comfortable, but not a very exciting car…but one I learned to work on, do tuneups, rebuild the carburator etc.
The irony is that both the U.S. 610 and the Violet/710/510 had a bigger engine than any 510 Bluebird. (Non-U.S. Violets typically had 1.4- or 1.6-liter engines, but I assume standardizing the bigger four simplified EPA certification as well as helping to deal with heavier bumpers and more emissions control equipment.) This 510’s straight-line performance is actually better than the 510 Bluebird 1600’s.
Actually intending to reply to “ateupwithmotor’s ” comment in 2016, yes, I was surprised that the 710 was only about 100 lbs more than the original 510 thinking with the 1.8 vs the 510’s 1.6 litre engine it should have seemed peppier in the 710 than it seemed to me. Of course, there are variables, like different emissions (my 1974 probably had one of the worst impact years) and that I had an automatic, which back then wasn’t quite that efficient…wonder what an “original” 510 with automatic drove like? Wonder if it still felt peppy or not that great. I’m no lead foot, but my 710 really felt like a slug. Probably was good though, living in snow/ice country back then with a light rear wheel drive car much of the time traction was a much bigger deal than horsepower.
Actually got a ride in an (older) 510 wagon owned by a lady I graduated from college with the same year and same degree, and later worked for the same company I did (in a completely different city 200 miles away). Can’t remember if hers was a standard though.
Guess I have some sentimental attachment to the 510, as it was kind of the last of the RWD Datsun sedans…my family seems to have had an attachment to Nissan/Datsun, as my youngest surviving sister owns a ’97 240SX she bought new; between her and my deceased youngest sister they owned 4 240/200SX cars. Also like that the later 510 came as a hatchback, which I’m a big fan of (guess hatchbacks were more common after the original 510 was designed). And as a bit of a contrarian, guess I kind of like that they were rare and didn’t sell well…my 710 also seemed to be uncommon. It wasn’t the greatest car but somehow it suited me well for that time in my life…maybe not so much what I wanted, but what I needed.
Never will forget how excited I got when a friend of a friend told me his mother had a Datsun 510 2 door for sale. Went over to look at it and…..it was one of these…sigh. Had no idea they brought the 510 name back, they were that forgettable.
This “Car & Driver” road test article is another reason why “C&D” was the “go to” car magazine in my Father’s and eventually my home for over 40 years. David E. Davis, Patrick Bedard, Brock Yates, William Jeanes, all informed, educated and delighted me with their wit, style and automotive knowledge.
Alas, no more. The current magazine reads like it is written by some vacuous 20/30-somethings, who have spent their entire lives behind a computer and NOT behind a steering wheel, actually driving a lot of different cars.
When my current mail order subscription to “C&D” expires; it will NOT be renewed. I glance thru it and leave it on the table at my favorite coffee shop now.
I gave up on them a few years back. We read the product, not our memories.
Mark Reimer:
not really sure, but suspect most magazines nowadays are formatted so that readers can read them in small bursts. As a result, they are written so that any “info” is contained in chunks or nuggets. Anymore, when I pick up Car&Driver, I head to the back pages with the “capsule” road tests. Those pages often mix the oddball with the mundane vehicles and they get somewhat to the point in a few paragraphs.
Haven’t subscribed to any car mag in decades.
Mark Reimer, about the current state of Car and Driver:
“The current magazine reads like it is written by some vacuous 20/30-somethings, who have spent their entire lives behind a computer and NOT behind a steering wheel…”
Within their driving lifetimes, is there a difference???
That Consumer Guide chart is a bit suspect since the Pinto and Bobcat were tested separately with very different scores. We are left to assume different powertrains and/or body styles, probably the latter due to identical power/economy scores but differing trunk ones – but nothing is stated clearly.
The only variance I see in the scores between the Pinto and Bobcat is in the “Value Bonus” column, where the Pinto earned an extra two points. I suspect this is due to the base price difference for what were essentially identical cars.
The Bobcat cost $86 ($317 adjusted) more than the Pinto (for the same body style), and I don’t think CG would have seen the value in the “Mercury” grille, tail lights and badging as being worthy of the extra money.
As for the specific test cars, CG had a base Pinto 2-door sedan with the 140 cubic inch OHC I4 and a 4-speed manual. The Bobcat used the same powertrain, but was a 2-door “runabout” (i.e. hatchback). So for these specific cars, the price differential was even greater–$201 ($742 adjusted), which undoubtedly impacted the value rankings.
The original Datsun 1600 Bluebird or 510 as Americans call it was quite a good car one completed the B&H 500 mile race for stock production cars without once lifting the bonnet/hood. Body quality left a bit to be desired Ive seen an amazing amount of B pillar shake on gravel roads in one of those but when used for rally competition a roll cage ties them all together and tightens the handling up and they are then quite capable, the second 510 edition called Stanza here enjoyed some rally success too though nothing compared to the original, Once upon a time Datsun had quite a motorsport rep with 240Zs competing in rallying 1200s in club and international rallies it all went away when they sent their cars just slightly upscale, the cars were still ok but their fan base changed for ever.
My old boss sold his 1973 plymouth fury and bought a ’81 or ‘ 82 b 210 hatchback . It was silver and very nice looking . He loved it especialy the gas mileage
The car went from his carport to the underground garage at work ,it rusted away in less than 2 years . Fred hand washed and waxed it himself .
Rust was the killer of these cars
Around 1980 the 210 replaced the B210, and was a nicer looking car, both hatchback and sedan. The later 210 and 510 sedans look so much alike , except for the size difference.
In the top picture of the article/ top picture of the C/D we see something interesting. The old 510 is a race prepared model while the then new 510 was showroom fresh. Given that the old would have looked much less purposeful before racing experts had installed their packages, and more like the new. We can understand that perhaps the brilliance of the older should be more credited to those who took time to get the best out of it rather than the basic car coming from Japan.
That such time was not taken with the newer 510, we are left wondering what it could have been in similar hands.
The “new” 510 was easily modifiable to all sorts of competition specs, as was the “old” one. True, in stock condition, the “old” 510 was boring looking and nothing particularly special.
But the “old” 510 had multiple competition haloes all around it, the successful 1600/2000 Roadsters, the 240Z, and the BRE 510 in red/white/blue. The “new” 510 had no identifiable competition connection, other than the distant 280Z/ZX.
Also, a ton of the “old” 510s had been sold as commuter cars, just begging to be bought up old and cheap, and made into racers or cruisers. The “new” 510, some years later, had none of that.
Also, by the time the “new” 510s were cheap old sporty used cars, there were all sorts of worthy “sporty sedan” alternatives. VW Rabbit/GTI, Honda Civics, even the ‘79 and on Mustangs, and a bunch of the “old” 510s were still kicking around. The “old” 510 largely had the “sporty sedan” space for itself, back in the late ‘70s.
I’m puzzled by this newer generation of 510. Not sure it was imported into Canada.
A fellow Canuck can correct me if I’m wrong. When I was beginning to think about a new car after graduating my post-secondary, there was only one Japanese car on my short list and that was the Toyota Corona. This during 1973-74.
If I recall correctly, nothing from Datsun was under consideration because the “old” 510 was history and as a 2 or 4 door sedan dull as dish water. And what cool guy would want a boring sedan anyway?
GarryM, yes the second-gen 510 was indeed sold here. I had one briefly in Toronto in the late ’90s—bought it from a friend but didn’t keep it for long. I can say from firsthand experience there was no comparison to the several first-gen 510s I’ve owned over the years/decades.
The original 510 really showed the sporting background of Prince engineering, which Nissan had taken over in 1966. Was it too sporting for the Japanese market, maybe? It’s like there were two rival teams of engineers struggling for control. Subsequent Bluebirds were arguably better at low-speed city traffic comfort but lost out on high-speed work; the very thing that had made them popular in foreign markets. The 610 (180B) was very popular in Australia, and seemed to really hit a sweet spot in the market; despite the larger body and Detroit styling it was just what Aussies wanted. But after that Mitsubishi took over the crown of Most Popular Four with the Galant/Sigma, and Nissan never recovered.
This ‘new 510’, sold as the Stanza here, wasn’t that common a sight back in the day, and never got replaced either. To Aussies, there really wasn’t enough of a gap between the Sunny and the Bluebird (200B by then) to warrant its existence. And it was just another nondescript Nissan, no more sporting than the others.
The bronze coupe looks pretty good to me.
Just needs some styled steel wheels.
I’m glad you left out a pic of the B210, one of the ugliest cars of the 70s.
We rented Nissans and I always looked forward to getting one as a daily driver. Repeatedly, after a week, I was ready to get rid of them. They were just not as good as either the Hondas or the Toyotas regarding build quality, fuel economy, and repeatedly failed to meet my initial expectations.
The 510 was great though.
I still cannot comprehend how Datsun managed to go south, shall we say, while Honda and Toyota went north. They came into the 70’s on the success of the 1600, 2000, the home run 510 and then hit a grand slam with the 240Z. After that they went into a slump that could rival the Chicago White Sox.
Right now the White Sox are in 2nd place.
A 1978 Datsun 510 was my first car, in 1999. It was primer grey with the original avocado green showing through on the interior and underside, the interior had caught on fire at some time and it showed (seatbelts, dash, passenger seat), and the wiring for the entire stereo system was gone, but she only cost $150 to buy, $10 a year to register, $20 a month to insure (I had to essentially beg for insurance because no one wanted to cover a vehicle that had no value?). She wouldn’t maintain a speed above 55 MPH and no one could figure out why (though I always secretly suspected the after market cruise control had something to do with it cuz it was melted into various parts of the interior and under the hood, but never said it out loud for fear of being called an idiot). However, I loved Bessie. She was fun to drive and in the three years I drove her, she never failed to get me where i needed to go (including off road). In all that time, I spent a grand total of $200 in repairs (exhaust, brakes, and I had to rebuild the carburetor once) and never had to put more than $20 in the tank every pay day despite working on the extreme northwest portion of Tucson and living in the extreme southeast portion of Tucson (15 miles one way). I cried a little when my fiance made me sell her (he decided she was a death trap). Sold her for $500.