| In his bookThe
Reckoning, author David Halberstam wrote about the post-Korean-war stagnation of the
U.S. auto industry and the rise to world prominence of the Japanese carmakers. As part of
his in-depth look, Halberstam examined two industrial giants: Ford and Nissan. In the case
studies, Nissan was a model of everything that was right with Japan's auto industry: It
was astute at marketing its wares in export markets, blessed with excellent quality
control and worker/management harmony, and adept at plowing a large percentage of profits
into research and development for future models. Conversely, Ford was the archetypal
blundering U.S. automaker: It was lagging in engineering leadership, harnessed with a
poor-quality image, often tardy or off-target in addressing new-market segments and
plagued with old manufacturing facilities and a dissatisfied work force. The funny
thing about well-researched books is that they take a while to write. And shortly after The
Reckoning hit America's bookstores, an interesting addendum was occurring. Ford
trimmed excess capacity, introduced some hot-selling, new models and was out-earning
mighty General Motors on half the volume. Nissan, on the other hand, was losing market
share and, more important, Iosing money for the first time in recent memory.
Call it the re-, re-reckoning. Nissan desperately wants to regain the leading edge in
technology it owned nearly two decades ago among Japanese automakers. Can we remember back
that far? It was before Honda brought its first Civic to the U.S.
PHOTOS BY RON PERRY |
| AT A
GLANCE |
1989
NISSAN
240SX |
1988
NISSAN
200SX SE |
1970
DATSUN
240Z |
Price, base/
as tested |
est $13,000
est $14,500 |
$10,849
est $12,500 |
$3526
$3526 |
| Curb weight, lb |
2800 |
3005 |
2550 |
| Engine/drive |
inline-4/rwd |
V-6/rwd |
inline-6/rwd |
| Transmission |
5-sp M |
5-sp M |
4-sp M |
| 0-60 mph, sec |
8.8 |
8.4 |
8.7 |
Standing 1/4 mi,
sec @ mph |
16.5 @ 84.5 |
16.4 @ 85.0 |
17.1 @ 84.5 |
| Stopping distance from 60mph, ft |
148 |
144 |
na |
| Lateral acceleration, g |
.82 |
.78 |
.73 |
| Slalom speed, mph |
64.1 |
61.9 |
na |
| Fuel Economy, mpg |
est 25.0 |
19.5 |
21.0 |
|
Pro |
Con |
| 240SX: |
simple and lighter, attractive
shape; torquey, tractable engine; crisp handling |
only average power, uninspired
front-end styling, limited 2+2 rear seating |
| 200SX SE: |
smooth and powerful in class, good
value, fun rear driver |
heavy, drivetrain lash; only average
handling and grip |
240Z:
tested 4-70 |
good value, attractive style,
impressive acceleration and grip by 1970 standards |
choppy ride on some surfaces,
marginal high-speed handling and stability |
|
|
Previous page
Next page
|
