The driver of this Datsun F-10 bought it new in 1977, and she’s still in love with her beautiful baby. Which raises the question: Is ugliness in the eye of the beholder?
There has to be some truth to that, because some folks’ idea of ugly cars is so totally off base. A while back Business Week recently carried a list of ten ugliest cars ever, and it included (get your meds ready): the gen1 Corvair(!), one of the most influential, revered and copied designs ever in the history of modern automobiles! They also listed the Chevrolet Vega, which was actually quite cute and well done design wise, despite its other flaws. Just goes to show there’s no accounting for taste.
It’s amazing how quickly a car company can fall off the pedestal. The Datsun 510 was hailed (still is) as a landmark in clean, timeless design, from a country that at the time was still finding its way stylistically. But only two years after the 510 arrived, Datsun was already going down a very different path stylistically.
It started with the 1970 Cherry, the predecessor to this F-10. You can see two things going on in Nissan’s first FWD car, and one of the first from Japan. Its back half accurately predicts the very successful 240Z, but the front half is already going down the ugly road towards the F-10.
The Coupe version of the first Cherry then adds a very high and bulbous rear end, and now the ingredients are largely in place.
But what really makes the F-10 bad are the front and rear end details: the front looks like the designers went home one night, and the janitors cobbled something up out of junk and by beating on it with an ugly stick. It’s about as bad as a front end gets on a car, no doubt. Our featured coupe has non-original or different black trim around its headlights, perhaps in an attempt to put on a bit of make-up.
Here’s a wagon (not my pic) of the un-adulterated F-10 front end. Nothing like making the headlights look even more google-eyed (and here’s one found some time later).
And lacking any other inspiration, the designers decided to mirror the front on the back end, with oversized tail lights and a general lack of design acumen. I don’t know what Nissan was feeding its designers at the time, but the F-10 wasn’t the only recipient of its effects. The B210 was the RWD counterpart to the F-10, and its details are only slightly less ugly, but its proportions aren’t quite as bad. We’ve got some nice ones coming in a CC soon.
That dashboard has lots of ’70s Nissan design school stuff going on here. There’s something decidedly Mopar-ish about all of this; at least more so than GM or Ford influence.
As much as I like greenhouses with visibility, and can hold up the Audi 80/Fox/VW Passat/Dasher as an example of clean timeless 1970′s design, I also recognize that high belt lines and gun-slit windows seem to be here to stay, and the benefits of aerodynamic Kamm-back tails are indisputable. So as I sat looking at these pictures last night, I realized that from a side profile, the F-10 really is really rather contemporary, and a prophet of things to come.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
Related CC Reading
1976 Vintage R&T Review: Datsun F10 – “Overstyled” or Just Ahead Of Its Time?
Curbside Classic: 1977 Datsun F10 Wagon – Ugly? No, It’s Cute!
Aww, it’s not that bad. I guess because a hunting buddy had a 70’s Datsuns pickup that served him well for 150,000+ miles, I have a tender heart for any pre-Nissan Datsun. There are so many other ’70s cars that cause involuntary cringing. This one? It’s cute!
Agreed. There are much worse looking cars. This is more “cute” than Ugly IMO.
When these came out I thought these were the ugliest car produced since the ’61 Plymouth. Time heals all wounds, and I kind of like the ’61 Plymouth now but the F10 still looks odd. You used to see them around so not everyone agreed with that. Maybe Datsun was riding on it’s reputation and the sales reflected some of that.
Honey overlook the styling, it’s a cheap and reliable Datsun.
Speaking of Mopar styling faux-pas, I always thought the F10’s pop-eye look was an attempt to mimic the old Dodge ‘pie-plate’ front end used on the trucks and more well-known A100 van.
Neither could be considered a styling tour de force.
Shades of the Hyundai Veloster for sure, maybe even the Honda CRX and even the PGO Hemera, if I’m generous. I can’t fault Datsun too much. They were still figuring out how a FWD car should be proportioned.
My Dad considered buying one in 1976. We were living in Vermont, and he wanted good traction that came with FWD, but early FWD cars commanded a premium, even the non-luxury brands. The Civic and Accord, VW Dasher and Rabbit sold for a pretty penny. He didn’t consider Fiat, because I had owned one that turned out to be a disaster. He liked Datsun, and might have gone for an F10 (function more important than appearance in snow country) but what was “ugly” to him were the vents on the hood…they seemed like a last minute addition maybe due to carburator icing or something (other Datsuns didn’t have them)…it queered him from buying it, and instead he bought a new ’76 Subaru DL. The Subaru was FWD, and still reasonably priced (Subarus weren’t common in 1976).
Not an F10, but my first co-worker out of college had a new ’79 Datsun 310 Coupe, very similar body style (maybe lacking the hexagonal head/tail lights) that she loved. She lived in apartment building next to mine, and she, her boyfriend (later husband, he worked at same place) had a carpool to work (only one I ever was member of). We all had 2 door cars (45 years ago). I had a Datsun 710, not FWD, but pretty conventional for the time car. Hers was pretty well equipped for the time, standard radio and intermittent wipers, carpet and cloth seating (no kidding…back then ads bragged about such things on entry cars…power windows and locks let alone keyless entry weren’t even available on these cars. We didn’t feel deprived (at least I didn’t).
I’m a big fan of hatchbacks, so though I don’t care for the hexagonal lighting, I’d have gone for one. I was still an undergraduate when these came out so they weren’t an option (and later when they might have been, I bought something else…lots of choices of 2 door FWD hatchbacks back then).
It just occurred to me…F10 is name of function key on PC keyboard….I was working on computers back then but mostly mainframe and minis made by DEC or Data General…later I worked for Datapoint Corp (they were victim of corporate takover in 1985 so few have heard of them but they were around since ’68). You could have a family of cars with such names…esc (well, guess that’s kind of taken) shift, alt, enter, backspace, insert, delete, end, home, num lock, tab, fn (which is what F10 is) and prt sc. I’m sure Mac has some other ones they could use too.
All I can do is repeat what I said when presented an F10 as a loaner when I brought in my ’78 280z for service work:
OY! I felt like I should be wearing a strip of black tape across my eyes to avoid identification. 47 years have not softened
my judgement.
What grade was given to the Pontiac Aztek?
Yes. Ugly is ugly and this F10 is certainly fugly. It’s trying too hard to be something who knows what, and so it ends up a total mess.
You beat me to it. The F that this car got at beauty school stood for Fugly. At least the featured car didn’t have those horrible honeycomb hubcaps.
I learned to drive in 1980 and I was in the market for a used car. Cars like this were only three years old, but they were awkward looking and not in great shape after only a few years. The used Hondas went for a premium over Datsun / Nissan. Even the previous generation Toyota Corolla & Celica looked dated compared to what was new in 1980-81.
I think the car looks pretty decent. Pretty good compared to the rest of what was available in 1977. The color helps a lot, if it was 70s yellow it wouldn’t look as good IMO. We all got our own examples of ugly. I think a lot of luxury cars look hideous. But I don’t see anything on this car that rubs me the wrong way.
For me, the love comes from experiences, reliability, ease of repair, and grows every year it keeps going. This little car is just the right size, easy to maneuver and park. Every year that goes by, modern cars get more bloated, unnecessary features that are a dangerous distraction, expensive, and impossible for the average person to fix. And every year that this car becomes more distanced from the modern madness, and remains in the excellent condition it is in, I bet she loves it even more.
The black surround on the face of the car is its prime downfall. It’s exit from visual decency. Painted body color would have made a difference.
I think it looks better than stock. Helps disguise the misalignment and lack of continuity of that section of silver headlight trim that’s part of the hood, and matches the rest of the grille. Cheap, easy, done. It’s just been chipped and faded over the years.
Body color would have worked too.
Nissans in this era seemed to be particularly affected by our bumper regulations and ride height requirements; on this car those changes also forced reworked lighting placement that further deteriorated the original designer’s vision (the same is true of the concurrent 200SX). This home-market example, while still busy, looks significantly more coherent:
I would quickly agree that the front end was the biggest offender. Then or now.
A coworker and friend in the early 80’s had a nice F-10. He was about 8 or 9 years my junior. For two or three weekends per month, he would do an 8-hour sprint, diagonally across the state of Pa. in the F-10. His F-10 was the only one that I have ridden in a few times. I recall telling him of the auto press tag of greatest ugliness and was shocked to hear that.
His 700-mile round trip weekend jaunts to Erie were to visit his girlfriend who was an undergrad there. They had an extended engagement, and she moved to him in marriage. The trips were done in the earlier heavily enforced days of the 55 mph limit. 65 mph speeds were largely winked at in the northern part of the state. I believe he consistently did wel into the 30’s on mpg. Not bad for a 70’s small hatch.
Personally, I’m a function over form guy late in life and I could understand a wagon version with narrow winter treads.
The Datsun F-10 fell out of the ugly tree and hit _every_ branch on it’s way down .
I remember when these came out and I thought “W.T.F. Datsun ?” .
I was’nt into Japanese cars then but I did understand many Americans loved them for being extremely good dollar value .
Nice to see this one surviving in good nick .
-Nate
The F-10 always looked a bit like mid-70’s Subaru to me.
I don’t think it’s hideous, nor beautiful. Quirky is the word I’d use. I wouldn’t have bought one, but I’ll give Datsun/Nissan credit for at least thinking outside the box.
Co worker/acquaintance, had this car ((a bit lighter blue)), Got traded in “85-6ish”, for a “Buick Somerset”. ((blue as well))
Not only were these cars beyond ugly, the weird styling in the rear must have made for terrible visibility.
I really don’t understand why Nissan would toss away clean designs like the 510 and send us monstrosities like the F-10.
Nissan Juke aka “Puke” carries on the tradition. My brother bought an F10, cheap. It was a repo auctioned off at his credit union. Not only did it look weird, the engineering was as well. Maybe Nissan’s first FWD design, it had a motorcycle type multi-disc clutch.