Usually you are pretty knowledgeable but you are all wet here. The year was wrong my dad told me it was a 72 . Just to keep some egg off your face let's compare it to a Camaro. My dads <as he was quick to point out to me> had twin side draft hitachi carbs that required high octane gas produced 109 hp. It also was a product of the prince engine company. It shared a lot with Mercedes Benz especially the valve train . Your in line 6 from the Camaro sure out stripped it. With a whole additional horse . 110 to 109 in favor of Camaro. The 307 in most produced version of Camaro that year a monster 130 hp. The 510 is a favorite of rally drivers to this day , for a few years it out sold Beetles. Want to compare hp between it and mid to late 70's Camaro's ? You know the kind I used to just demolish stop light to stop light ? Shall we compare an apple to an apple now ? A US built station wagon to the 510 ? Shall we take a look at a few of the problems with Detroits business model ? Like planned obsolescence ? Shoddy quality control ? The fact they had to scrap a butt load of Camaro's that year because the bumpers did not meet federal safety standards ? Let's limit the number of flaws though please.
i'm very familiar with 70s datsuns, as well as fords, chevys and dodges. unless your dads 510 wagon was a deluxe version, the basic standard factory L16 engine produced a whopping 97hp. the chevy 6 cylinder used in low end station wagons and some "budget" sedans, was rated at 155hp, not 110. the 1972 307 chevy chevelle motor managed a timid 200hp. if you want we can compare my ford 390 or 428 cobrajet to that puny souped up datsun 4 cylinder, for that matter i'd stack my old 350hp chevy 327 against it. fact is until 1976/77 when gas prices went above $1 a gallon which caused a lifestyle change in the u.s., gas guzzling detroit built land yachts were "what the customers wanted".
as far "planned obsolescence", that was a u.s. engineering/manufacturing standard from the late 60s, from automobiles to electronics. it was intentional and from what i was told in 1975 after asking an electrical engineer why the tubes in our expensive television blew on what appeared to be a regular interval, it was to maintain some state of economic growth. always puzzled me that if the capacity to create things that lasted until nature made them unfit for use existed, why the hell wouldn't they make stuff to last that long. i thought it was and is as ridiculous as you do.
