How Nissan and Honda's $60 billion merger talks collapsed
neuters.de
Intransigence, combined with what Honda management saw as Nissan's slow decision-making, helped torpedo a deal that would have created one of the world's largest automakers.

Summary

  • Nissan’s pride and denial hindered merger talks, sources say
  • Honda pushed Nissan for deeper cuts to jobs, factory capacity, sources say
  • Nissan unwilling to consider factory closures, sources say
  • Honda’s proposal to make Nissan a subsidiary caused tensions, sources say
  • andyburke@fedia.io
    241·
    13 hours ago

    Personally think Nissan is better positioned for the EV future and Honda is likely to be the one that needed this more. 🤷‍♂️

    • weew@lemmy.caEnglish
      8·
      3 hours ago

      Nissan could have been better positioned for EV but they didn’t bother actually doing anything with the Leaf for a decade.

      Kinda like how they could have been a high performance brand with the GTR if they bothered to actually do any more development on it for the past decade.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        12·
        2 hours ago

        The leaf was an objectively terrible Eevee that probably set the industry back a few years.

        Autocorrect changed it to Eevee and I think it works.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          41·
          1 hour ago

          Disagree, they are exactly the type of EV we should be building: inexpensive, enough range for around town, pretty dependable. The first couple model years had crappy range, but the later ones were fine.

          What Nissan needed was to expand the EV product line. Ideas:

          • make the Leaf cheaper - 150 mile range, look into cheaper chemistries; should be the cheapest EV on the road; prize prioritize reliability and cost
          • make a sports car that you want to drive - this is your flagship - prioritize speed and style
          • make something in between the two (fast, but also practical) - what most people will get; compete directly with Model 3

          Don’t compete on range at all, that’s R&D you don’t want to deal with. Just make great cars for urban and suburban use.

          • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            16 minutes ago

            They weren’t dependable is the problem. There were a lot of problems with early deterioration of the battery, supposedly from not having very good temperature control on the battery pack.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            2·
            26 minutes ago

            Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though. Sure I probably don’t need that capacity more than maybe once every year but what about when I do need it?

            How am I supposed to be able to drive halfway across the country to see my family every Christmas if my car only has 150 miles of range and it takes 4 hours to fully recharge. That’s going to turn a 3-hour road trip into 10 hours if we have to stop and wait for it to recharge. My problem with the leaf was that it had hardly any range at all so that problem was massively exacerbated.

            It’s great in a multi-car household where the other car is something with a bit more range but as you’re only vehicle you better hope that no family emergency crop up.

            To be clear I would have the same issues with an ICE only had 150 miles of range but in some ways that would be better because it “recharges” faster.