It’s almost been a couple of years since we last looked at a C210 Skyline imaginatively nicknamed “Japan” because one of its taglines was (*eye roll*) “SKYLINE JAPAN.” I ask you. Using blatant jingoism, in advertising as in most activities, is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. That’s kind of how I feel about this fifth generation Skyline, on the whole: it’s the worst of the bunch (said bunch comprising generations 1 through 10, the 20th Century Skylines). Can this surprisingly original early model change my opinion?
On the looks side, this quad headlamp and honeycomb grille combo does look a lot better than the late model’s dreadful square composites. So we’re off to a good start.
The rest of the car, however, which I previously compared to a Renault 12 on steroids, is identical.
For reference, here’s the R12 – the similitude is more clearly visible in profile. Neither car tickles my fancy, as I think has been made clear, but from an external point of view, the Renault is marginally less awful by a nose.
By a nose, but not by a butt, which is this Skyline’s better angle. The signature round taillights (for the 6-cyl. Skylines only, if you please) was the one inheritance from the Prince days that lasted through to the 21st Century.
Another place where Nissan temporarily lost the plot with the C210 is under this rust-speckled hood. There lies the 1998cc L-series straight-6. Competent though it was, it was no S20 – the Prince-designed DOHC 24-valve six that graced the C10 and C110 GT-Rs. But then, due to emissions regulations, Nissan had to kill off a bunch of engines in the mid-‘70s, including that one. All because those lazy sods wanted more NAPS.
Launched in 1975, the Nissan Anti-Pollution System consisted in an array of features designed to adhere to Japan’s 1978 regulations – claimed to be the harshest in the world at the time. On our Skyline’s L-series six, this included electronic fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation, a catalytic converter and a bunch of other things that go waaaaay over my head. Point is, Nissan claimed the system did not impact the power output (which was 130hp), and only increased fuel consumption by a mere 1%. In practice, power was also down by a smidge (about 5hp), but it’s unclear whether this was public knowledge at the time. Nissan NAPS, but Nissan also OBFUSCATES. Try making an acronym out of that.
Nevertheless, the Skyline had lost much of its sporty edge. No DOHC, no GT-R, just NAPS – it was in danger of turning into a run-of-the-mill family car. Toyota saw this and pounced, launching an ad campaign for the Celica (which did have a DOHC engine) with the slogan “GTs in name only, make way for us” aimed squarely at Nissan.
This all changed in April 1980, when the 145hp L20DET (the T is for turbo) was unveiled. In extremis, the C210 managed to pull itself back from the brink of mediocrity, in the eyes of many. Their PR message back to Toyota, which did not have a turbo, was “Who’d chasing the Skyline now?”. Touché, Nissan.
Nissan still sold about 600k units of the C210, including export models. That was about 130k less than the previous generation, but still way better than this pseudo-nationalistic oddly-shaped GT-come-lately had any business doing. It’s hard to argue with sales numbers, but it’s also true that you can fool some people sometimes. Just be quiet about it. Nissan NAPS.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 1980 Nissan Skyline (C210) 2000 GT-EL – Facelift Facepalm, by T87
CC Capsule: 1978 Nissan Skyline (C210) 2000GT-EX Coupé – Disco Sucks, by T87
Ahh, the obscure Skylines from the seventies. I think both C110 and C210 are kinda forgotten by now… they’re definitely much less appreciated than the mid-late 60s models and the 80-90s stuff. But don’t you find it funny that these two were the best selling Skyline generations of all times!
Brilliance might be still remembered decades later, but it seems that its the mediocrity that will bring home the bacon for tonight.
Oh Boy, Fun Understated Styling. Cats Added To Every Skyline.
Perhaps it’s best I don’t work in marketing. 😉
I will admit that neither of them is really my sort of car, but I’ll take the Skyline over the Renault any day.
Well done, Dan!
Buying a car with NAPS prior to 1978 made you eligible for some tax incentives — I don’t know exactly how that worked or what the numbers were, but it was economically attractive. Sexy, no, but being able to advertise, “Hey, our car is eligible for that nice rebate/tax break you’ve been hearing about” was not a terrible pitch.
A comparison with the Renault 12 had not occurred to me.
And the truth is that they look similar.
Yeah, both the R12 and the C210 have this combination of a small rear wheelarch and a perk C-pillar that seems to draw some visual weight and stubbyness into the area between those two features.
I owned a 1978 Datsun Sunny once upon on a time and I can recognize hints of that in the C210 as well. Although I must say I’d take the C210 over the bland Sunny anytime. And probably over the bit more interesting R12 too.
The Renault comparison didn’t occur to me, but I can see it now. My first thought was just a nice modern evolution from the B210.
Wow, Bam! That is quite the rear end. Can’t decide how I feel about it.
Interesting you should say that about the taillights; in Australia we got the four’s lights on our six. I can only guess it was something to do with local lighting regs.
To me, these Skylines represent an uneasy juxtaposition of an over-fussy front and rear on an over-plain body, on which the angular interpretation of the ‘classic’ Skyline rear-door ‘surf line’ sits rather uneasily.
My memories are of a cramped interior with a nice dashboard, smooth engine but not a lot of poke with the L24E.
Had one very similar to this as a father-in-law hand me down. Great car – never had a problem and it had high miles.
Obscure
But
Finely
Understated
Styling
Can
Attract
Tremendously
Enterprising
Souls
An interesting model the C210. The front and rear are gloriously over-decorated, whereas the side view is a little…understated. Thanks to the lower roofline it’s not as disproportionate as the Renault, but it’s still quite stumpy in 2512mm wheelbase 4-cylinder form. Even with the 6-cylinder’s 2615mm wheelbase, the passenger cell is still that of a small car. Nice interior though, especially in top-of-the-line GTE-X form, and who doesn’t love a smooth and sonorous (even if sleepy!) 6-cylinder engine combined with a manual transmission!
We got these with a 2.4 six and five-speed, making them nippy in the day (making this a Nippy Nippon-napping Nissan, no?). They were also very smooth, and, with their independent rear-ends and such, were kind-of like a cheap Beemer (in truth, a really cheap one, BM’s being eye-gogglingly pricey then). There were plenty about.
I drove one years later: it was very Japanese, lovely engine and box, plenty of zip, poor seats, bad steering, wind noise, slightly off-putting handling from that IRS.(I’d got out of a Pug 505 to do it, which had the opposite to everything above – including any performance to speak of – and which, despite being SLOW, showed how far the Japanese had to go).
I don’t see vast differences between these and the previous better-liked one (here, 240K), nor do I see the connection to the gormless Renault 12, which always looked like a roofed bumper car for those with really big heads. This doesn’t look like that.
The C210 equiped with NAPS was dubbed C211 and was 3rd in sales in 1978 only behind Corolla and Sunny. Quite an achievent for a car this large.