Nissan may sell roughly a million Nissan Rogues every hour. It may be the brand of Z cars and GT-Rs. And who doesn’t love a hardbody? But search your mind and think of all the Nissans you’ve known and you’ll probably think of a sedan. Maybe it’s a Sentra, maybe it’s a Maxima, quite possibly you’re enjoying some Big Altima Energy in your mentals. Gather ye four doors while ye may, as they may be on the way out.
EVs aren’t yet taking the world by storm but the technology is seen as the next step and America doesn’t want to get left behind, which is why it’s forking over more than a billion to 2 of the Detroit 3 to make them. Audi isn’t getting that money and it’s maybe why Audi is considering closing a plant for the first time in decades. You can guess what that plant makes.
Finally, new car prices are pretty much stuck where they are for now, so if you want a new car this is basically it for a while. The jet-lag has hit me and I just tried to take a nap in a tent but there was a racing sim there and so I just raced a few laps to wake up (I’m in 9th, behind Top Gear).
Long Live The Sentra, I Suppose
Nissan is the last non-luxury automaker, I think, selling a lot of sedans. There’s the Versa on the cheap end, the Sentra a bit up from there, an Altima for the people who are Camry-phobic, and a Maxima for those craving a bigger ride.
That’s remarkable. GM and Ford got out of the sedan game a few years ago. Stellantis has a few Chargers sitting around, but that’s it until the new one comes out. Toyota and Honda are still in the game, though not to the extent Nissan is.
In fact, sedans account for more than a third (36%) of all of Nissan’s sales! That’s a lot. Given that there’s less competition, it makes sense for Nissan to keep this niche so, of course, they’re probably not going to do that. I guess we all made too many jokes about Nissan Altima drivers?
Here’s the reporting from Automotive News saying that many of these sedans are probably toast:
In the next couple of years, Nissan could ditch two its three remaining sedan models, leaving only the compact Sentra in the lineup before the automaker debuts a battery-powered sedan by early next decade. Production of the Maxima large ended late last summer.
Nissan will drop the subcompact Versa after the 2025 model year, people familiar with the plans told Automotive News. According to AutoForecast Solutions, production is set to end in April 2025, with no next generation planned.
The midsize Altima will sunset following the 2026 model year after production was extended a year at Nissan’s underutilized Canton, Miss., factory.
There’s a chance the Altima does survive as a PHEV or hybrid.
The new Sentra, though? You can’t touch the Sentra. Sales are up 55% through the first half of the year compared to last year, and, as pointed out in the article, it attracts a lot of first-time buyers because it’s just in that right zone of not being too small, too big, too expensive, or too cheap.
Stellantis, GM Getting $1.1 Billion
Ford has been the most active of the Detroit 3 in planning to build EV plants and gettin’ that government cheddar cheese. Now Stellantis and GM are back in the game with more incentives from the Biden Administration. GM gets $500 million to convert its Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant in Michigan to EVs at some point in the future. Stellantis will get $335 million to convert the closed Belvidere Assembly plant to build EVs and $250 million to transform its Kokomo transmission plant into an EV component facility.
And that’s not all!
Hyundai Mobis, which operates a Stellantis supplier in Ohio, will receive $32 million to produce plug-in hybrid components and battery packs.
Other awards include $89 million for Harley-Davidson to expand its York, Pennsylvania plant for EV motorcycle manufacturing; $80 million for Blue Bird to convert a former Georgia plant to build electric school buses; and $75 million to engine company Cummins to convert part of an existing Indiana plant to make zero-emission components and electric powertrain systems.
The DOE also plans $208 million for the Volvo Group to upgrade plants in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania to increase EV production capacity and $157 million for ZF North America to convert part of its Marysville, Michigan plant for EV component production.
If America is to be a leader in EV production it’ll need these facilities and I’m sure it’s just a big coincidence that all these plants are in swing states. Totally random. So random.
Audi Might Close Its Q8 E-Tron Plant
The Audi Q8 e-tron, the her? of big EVs, has not been a huge seller. It’s an expensive luxury EV at a time when people don’t seem to want that.
According to Manager Magazine, this might spell doom for the plant in Brussels, Belgium where the SUV is built:
The VW subsidiary Audi has initiated an “information and consultation process” for the plant in order to find a solution for the site with around 3,000 employees. “This could also lead to a cessation of operations if no alternative is found,” Audi announced on Tuesday.
The group is now preparing for additional costs amounting to billions. The operating return on sales will be between 6.5 and 7 percent, half a percentage point lower than previously forecast, Volkswagen announced. One reason for the additional costs of up to 2.6 billion euros are the expenses in connection with the plant in Brussels, which will be set aside in the third quarter, it said.
As a reminder, VW hasn’t closed a production facility since 1988 when it bailed out of Westmoreland, PA.
The One Graph That Explains Car Pricing
I was going to write a thing about how automakers are practicing great price discipline when it comes to new cars. That was the plan. Why? There’s a ton of volume out there right now for some brands and there’s always a temptation when that happens for carmakers to chuck profits out of the window to move cars. This kills profits.
When I look at where the market really is this graph from Cox Automotive is absolutely my favorite one to consider:
The blue line is the average transaction price (i.e. what people end up paying all-in for a car) and the orange line is incentives. What’s happening here is that the pandemic shortages are over, Trimflation has abated, and automakers have started to find a balance between incentives and pricing. Obviously, these are averages, so the numbers for highly discounted EVs are being balanced out by vehicles like the Range Rover and every hybrid Toyota that people cannot get for close to MSRP.
This balancing point was inevitable and it shows a bit more maturity from automakers.
Can I be cynical for a second? I’m going to be cynical for a second. Automakers have been enormously profitable over the last few years and this has made their C-Suite hella rich. These are public companies, generally, and it’s the job of these automakers to make a lot of money, but I don’t really know the line between price discipline and unwillingness to meet consumers back where they are even though the semiconductor emergency is over.
I don’t know.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
Bad girl pop stars didn’t come into existence with Chappell Roan. Maybe Eartha Kitt? Madonna? Either way, lest we forget that the aughties had Lily Allen. I’m in England so let’s enjoy her track “Smile.” I love that the premise of this video is that she has hired some street toughs to harass her shitty ex and she gets off on it. She’s so mean! I love it. Also, she’s married to David Harbour now and their life just seems delightful. I’m Team Lilavid. Team Allbour… Team Harlily?
The Big Question
Q8 E-Tron?
So reading between the lines here, the real news is that the next gen Sentra will be 15-20% larger.
Q8 E-Tron? I think you nailed it, cause I had forgotten about Ann and this thing myself until your reminder.
Egg?
Her?
Is she funny?
The semi-conductor emergency that they helped cause by pre-emptively canceling orders and then going “confused pikachu face” when others snatched up the supply.
Nissan still makes the Maxima?!?!
Rented one a couple years back. Actually surprised by how good it was. Wouldn’t choose it over a V6 Accord or V6 Camry, but it was nice. The V6 paired with the CVT didn’t suck nearly as much as many other engine and CVT pairings.
I’d take it over a V6 Accord….as the freshest V6 accord would be a 2016my
Once again, another satisfied user of the Jatco CVT. Probably because of its powerful abilities in refinement, efficiency, reliability, and output.
Nissan ended production last year, there was no 2024 model year Maxima. All the ones that Nissan is selling are leftovers. Hard to believe that there’s still some on dealer lots!
the headline says Maxima but the article says Nissan is killing the Versa and Altima, while it also mentioned the Maxima was discontinued last year.
Audi has plenty of ‘Coupes.’ They have 4 doors.
Heck, BMW even has some Coupes that have four doors and are SUVs. Coupes are everywhere.
oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Yelling takes too much energy.
I just complain about them on the internet.
How are all these government incentives any different than the chinese subsidies US is tax-blocking chinese cars for?
I went down that rabbit hole a couple of months ago. I was able to find a report that showed China subsidizes their EV several orders of magnitude great than everyone else. It included both direct and indirect subsidies. That’s how they are getting first and second generation* EV architecture in the sub $15k price point while no one else can follow.
It’s a very hard report to find unfortunately. The best I could find is a link to a news article about it.
https://www.carscoops.com/2024/07/china-gives-its-automakers-grants-sales-incentives-cheap-loans-and-bargain-batteries-eu-tariff-report-finds/
TLDR or bother searching, the EU subsidies are more grounded in facts that the US subsidies.
I have no problem with Chinese EV imports. They can’t used forced labor or more subsidies than we spend on our own USA built EVs.
*My own metrics. Open a hood and have no frunk but a mess of hose and wire spaghetti (Bolt), generation 1. Have a small, usable frunk and cleaner looking appearance, (Kia, Hyundai), generation 3.
I should correct myself. The EU and US tariffs, not subsidies. Day 4 of a 102°F fever is a bit draining. Plus taking care of a two year old who also has a fever.
RidesBicycles is correct. It’s true that every country protects their own industry to some extent, and every country trots out the same rhetoric when other countries do so. So a lot of bs posturing. But the way China does it is sooooo sosososososo far beyond what the US and many other countries do, it’s really not comparable.
Plus that’s not the only reason we are doing it. Don’t forget Trump cited IP theft when these started rolling out.
Sad to see the Versa go. It’s still available with a manual transmission too (the Mirage isn’t, and the Mirage is also going away soon).
Maybe they can rebadge the Renault Clio and call it a Versa or even keep the Clio name. Nissan Clio.
Nissan or Mitsubishi should rebadge the Renault Kwid and sell it here.
People can’t afford new cars anymore, stuck buying used. The cheapest new cars don’t steal sales from their more expensive new cars. They compete with used cars. New still makes sense due to lower interest rates for financing, and you get the full warranty too.
They are leaving a hole in the market for the Chinese to take over.
They know it too. That’s why these companies are bribing US politicians to keep the Chinese out. The so-called “free market” at work.
Lol if they’re bribing them it’s a waste of money – keeping China out of our key markets is just about the most bipartisan issue there is these days. Market protectionism for certain sectors is incredibly popular when polled. So you might say it’s “representation at work”.
Anecdotally, I see tons of Mirages and a fair amount of Versas as well. I guess it makes sense, as other inexpensive cars are discontinued, there’s less diversity in that space. You can still get a new Versa or Mirage for around $17k here, last I checked. It’s a bummer those options are going away. Once they’re gone, I think the Forte would be the cheapest option left on the market.
and I don’t think the Forte has much time left, either
Sedans
That’s it. I give up on this world. Usher in the Rapture and put a fork in it.
My daughter wrecked her Ford Fusion Hybrid and we decided to use the insurance check as a down payment on a new car. In an effort to keep payments low, we looked at the Kira Forte, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and the Nissan Sentra.
My daughter specifically told me she did not want a crossover. She liked the Sentra, though she went up the trim level chain to the SR. At least she chose an exciting color; Monarch Orange. The black greenhouse also hides the daggy plastic floating roof trim piece. It seems like a nice car and she likes it. Hopefully the CVT doesn’t explode.
None of my three 20 something kids want crossovers. They all prefer smaller ‘cars’. Their current vehicles are 07 Focus, 10 Mazada3, 11 Mazada3. Two of the three are stick shifts.
Not my place to say this but.
You have a weird family. And it sounds like your kids are a bit touched.
By common sense. Kudus to everyone here. Well done, and carry one mates.
I realize I’m a sample size of one but I am aware of at least one peer who thinks the Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler was Peak Car, another bought their (nonbinary, they/them) dad’s 2018 Accord from their dad, even though they had the means to get a gently-used Mazda CX-30.
I (28) myself only entertain “crossovers” is because that’s the only body style offered that checks two boxes: EV and a pretty shade of blue.
Contrary to what the bosses say, this doesn’t fit our appetites either.
This is a thing apparently. Friend of mine told me today that Gen Z’s love Miatas. And my gen Z sister in law who’s finally ready to learn to drive said the Ford Taurus her parents have for her is too big.
My daughter borrowed our 02 lexus rx300 to go to beach in Miami. She couldn’t wait to her smaller/better mileage car back. She wanted to drive her car, but it was very recently acquired, so was not confident to let her/friends drive 14 hrs from home.
My 20 year old son has pretty much full use of our 2004 Odyssey. Seems like a safe car to keep him out of driving trouble anyway.
You have raised them well. We need more parents like you.
It kind of makes sense. People didn’t want station wagons, because that’s what their parents drove. So they bought minivans. People didn’t want minivans for the same reason, so they flocked to SUVs. Only makes sense that younger folks want something other than what everyone’s parents are driving. That’s oversimplifying it, but I was wondering if it would happen with SUVs/crossovers since they’re not just family haulers, they’re driven by a huge segment of the motoring public. I also wonder if increased awareness about climate change with younger generations has something to do with it too.
Easy to park is high on their list, especially when needing to street park in crowded urban/university areas.
We’re 2 for 2 with kids & sticks, but our daughter-in-law dislikes driving one. Maybe because she didn’t learn to drive until after college.
She knows how, though, just in case. I helped with that.
The middle child didn’t take to the stick shift very well. She can be a bit short on patience on occasion. She knows how to drive one anyway, should the need arise.
Good for her! We rented a Sentra last year and were surprised by how much we liked it. It’s a hell of a value. Supposedly the newer CVTs are ok, but I’d certainly perform regular fluid changes.
The fluid should last the lifetime of the transmission. 45k miles is a lot, you know. A Jatco CVT could shred itself to bits faster than you could ever make that walk. That’s impressive.
The Jatco CVT doesn’t explode. They are designed to be reliable. So reliable, in fact, that you never need to change the fluid!
Ah, Indiana (the Kokomo plant) isn’t a swing state, though, at least not recently.
Illinois is even less of one (Belvidere).
Indiana had a Democratic senator until surprisingly recently.
Neither is Maryland, where what Volvo plant is
It’s also where the author is. To be fair he hasn’t been here for very long.
Ummm, I’m pretty sure he’s in England?????
You may be correct. Where the author’s residence is would have been a better way of saying it.
I so hope they make a special edition of the Altima EV with a massive 200KW battery and call it the “Big Altima Energy Edition”. Bonus points if one of the rims is a spare.
BAE requires that more than one tire be a donut.
Donuts are lower rolling resistance. Go for all four. It’s the efficient choice.
Make an SE-R edition with 1,000+ electric horsepower, price it around $30k, and sell them to illiterate high school dropouts with no insurance, suspended/revoked licenses, and 350 credit scores.
They’re gonna be pissed that their parents didn’t buy them the Spec High-V edition though.
Do the body panels have to match? Unpainted bumper as standard equipment? This has potential!!!
First edition package, complete with missing bumper.
you forgot a cracked windshield and harlequin quarter panels
Bonus Lily Allen fact: she has a third nipple.
Was Francisco Scaramanga her Grandfather?
and off on a search of the google thing we go. damn you.
As much as I wince each time I see a Maxima or Altima weaving dangerously through traffic, it will feel odd to see them disappear from the landscape of the car world. They have been a longstanding part, and I will be a little bit sad.
Don’t worry, there’s millions of banged up Altimas out there that people will keep on the road via duct tape, bungee cords, and trash bags. We’ll be enjoying their highspeed freeway antics for many years to come!
They will be the Pontiac Grand Ams and Chevy Cavaliers of the 2020s and beyond. Pure spite and hatred are the fuels needed to keep them going. Blue smoke belching. Transmission whine heard two streets over. Tape holding up a mirror and a bumper. Hit and run damage. Half of the lights are dead. Nicotine encrusted interior. Maybe a bullet hole or two. They will not be defeated. They will not die.
I have wondered by I didn’t fully get the Altima jokes. It’s because I’m old. They should be the Grand Am and Cavalier (and possibly Bonneville) jokes!
You’re giving me high school flashbacks. I remember a lot of Neons too, but I never see those now. I still see Cavaliers on a regular basis though.
Hey, I saw that just yesterday! I just laughed.
I thought this was already a done deal, but maybe just that it was rumored, with the Maxima returning as an EV (unless that’s shelved).
The Sentra, as with the Jetta, Civic, Forte, most of its competitors, may not be as small as they once were but they seem to be a sweet spot in size and pricing for most people that are seeking out a sedan. For more space, most buyers are probably not looking at a midsize sedan.
The discontinuation of subcompacts gets claimed to be in favor of tiny crossovers, but I really see that more as PR speak when it’s more likely a decision made due to thin margins and the narrow price gap to the next size up (which usually also has greater incentives), and typically doesn’t come with a significant hit to fuel economy either. A budget car for most people is not about the size or type of vehicle, it’s about the pricepoint. The gap between a CVT Versa and the Sentra is ~$1500, and the Sentra has $1250 cash on the hood in my area that also helps wash it out.
Regarding Nissan… I’m glad they’re keeping at least one sedan around. Also the Sentra has grown in size and looks to be about the size of the Altima/Stanza of the 1990s.
That’s pretty true across the board. If you look at Civic v. Accord, 3-series v. 5-series, Corolla v. Camry, etc. Size creep in the industry is real.
Except little is being done to fill the hole left below it.
Look at Ford: nothing small remains in their lineup in America. Which translates to people looking for affordable, or small, look elsewhere.
Unfortunately, you’re 100% correct here. The Fit was amazing to fill in under the Civic. No one else really tried with a truly good effort.
And then they stopped bringing the Fit here. As always, I blame crossovers. Twenty years ago, when I was a lot rat at a Honda dealership, my coworker said he’d heard a rumor that Honda was going to bring the City to the US. Of course, it never happened, it was the Fit instead, but I think the City would be another logical choice to slot in under the Civic, should people ever decide to come out of their giant-ass car hangovers. Bonus, they exist again in hatchback form too, after a quarter century since they stopped making them.
It makes no sense that our government keeps throwing billions of dollars on tech that isn’t ready and the overwhelming majority of taxpayers don’t want or can afford.
I’ll grant the dissenter that it does create some jobs, but for what? At the end of the day, there are way better ways to utilize that money if they are insistent on spending it.
Speaking of those that can’t/don’t want/can’t properly charge EVs, Nissan cutting off those cheap sedans is a big blow to the sub-prime purchaser. Them, alongside similarly challenged The Price Is Right contestants.
the environment can’t wait for some undefined point of time when the people want EVs and the tech is “ready”
There are waaaaay bigger fish to fry first.
oh i didn’t realize we can only do one thing at a time
We can do exactly as many things at a time as we can afford to pay for. The average EV costs well over the average annual income in the US, and more than six times the average global annual income. Personal transportation accounts for 15% of US emissions and 6% of global.
There are far more effective ways to spend this money, but it doesn’t line the pockets of the right people.
That said, this is probably still money well spent. People just need to wake up and smell the coffee regarding realistic adoption rates.
The median household income in the US is $74,580. Median personal income is $47,960 ($60,070 if you adjust for adults working full time). The average new car transaction price for a new car in April was $47,218 ($55,242 for BEVs and $44,989 for gas). If you control for the people most likely to buy new cars, you’re grossly wrong.
That’s pretty sizeable. Even halving the emissions from all light duty vehicles would be the same as eliminating all medium and heavy duty trucks on the road. Even reducing the light duty emissions by 25% would net a ~7% reduction in all emissions. And that’s assuming literally nothing else is done.
So an easy solution would be to set the same total emission ceilings (and safety standards, especially pedestrian safety standards) on all “personal” vehicles, whether they’re a subcompact or a 4-door pickup.
It’s even more significant than that. The transportation sector is 28% of US emissions, and 80% of that is road transport (including everything from motorcycles to garbage trucks). Those tailpipes alone are 22.4% of US emissions. If you include the refineries that make the fuel (ANL and CBO estimates match), that makes motor vehicles responsible for 26-28% of US emissions… and it’s been rising since 2010, while every other sector has been falling.
Road vehicles are, mathematically speaking, the long pole in the tent.
Which is ironic, because the purchase of personal vehicle that consume large amounts of fossil fuel is frequently attributed to the exact opposite of that.
Now you’re hitting on the real problems with burning oil for transportation, and the real reason why at some point we do have to develop the tech to solve this problem, even if it’s not the most effective place to focus efforts now. That area is going in the wrong direction and it’s only going to get worse as the billions of people who have traditionally lived in abject squalor around world start to instead live in just poverty. They are going to get access to transportation, the carbon consequences of that will dwarf what we’re producing now, and they won’t be able to afford (or likely even charge) electric cars. If we can’t do it cheaper than the status quo, we may as well not have done it at all.
As for US emissions, I personally put a lot of weight behind “The Housing Theory of Everything”. If people could afford to live closer to work, they probably wouldn’t be so interested in bigger, more comfortable cars, and they definitely would drive them less.
you’re comparing “median” income and “average” (aka “mean”) transaction cost – they ARE measures of the “central tendency”, but they are different calculations.
with polarization of income, I’d expect the mean/average income to be lower than the median.
i appreciate you doing the research to quantify the discussion, but apples and oranges math…
ya, it might just be a tempest in a teacup.
I think you’ve flipped those. Median is a better measure that more appropriately adjusts for outliers. It’s also what most people actually mean when they say “average”. In any case, the mean household income in the US is almost double the median…
you are correct, mean skewed more by outliers, median income less than average income, mea culpa.
my point is whichever measure you use, your argument would be stronger using same measure, mean or median, for both EV cost and income.
comparing on different scales invites this apples/oranges noise (and it is just noise, peripheral to the main discussion…tempest in a teacup).
We can go back and forth cherry picking different numbers from different years or produced with different methodologies all day, so I’m not going to start that, but you are implying that 28% of all emissions come from light duty transport. They don’t. 28% of JUST US emissions come from the entire transportation sector. Just over half of that comes from light duty road transport – hence my 15% number. It would take 100% adoption of BEV, PLUS 100% displacement of the existing vehicles in the country by BEVs to produce a 7% reduction of US emissions at the current grid carbon efficiency.
I should have specified US emissions. That’s what I was looking at because I trust EPA data more than worldwide data and we’re talking about US domestic policy meant to primary affect US consumers.
I didn’t specify how we reduce tailpipe emissions, but my point still stands that even comparatively small reductions in light duty vehicle emissions can massively reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
OK, so I want to lead this by stressing that I want it to come across in the least internet dickheadish and most constructive, civil discussionish way possible. The quality and civility of the discussion on this site is the best thing about it and the last thing I want is to endanger that.
I think you’re wrong. I reject the core premise of your point, and I’ll tell you why:
Small reductions in light duty vehicle emissions CANNOT “massively” reduce overall GHG emissions because they make up only a small portion of overall emissions to begin with. The EPA website will back that up if you dig a little, but I highly recommend Our World In Data for clear explanations on this topic.
Reread my last post for the explanation of why your assertion about the potential benefit of a 25% LDV GHG reduction is wrong. You are misattributing all transport emissions to LDV. You are also failing to account for the ~50% of averted tailpipe GHG that will be “leaked” via electricity generation to power the cars. There will be even more leakage if anyone decides the low cost of operation means they can afford to go up a size class when they go electric.
Getting this right is important, and we are blowing it. We are focusing on the absolute highest cost, lowest benefit versions of GHG reduction when we push BEVs for everyone. New US-market cars are now too expensive for 90% of the residents of the wealthiest nation on earth. Electric cars are even more expensive than that. Team blue is pushing it via team red’s favorite tool – free money given directly to rich people – and the political will is running out even faster than the money is. After Joe Car-Buyer has demolished his budget to buy a BEV and Jane Used-Car-Apartment-Parker is spending 2+ hours a week DC fast charging or in line for DC fast charging for the sake of averting half of 15% of their emissions, who is going to tell them “Congrats! Only 92% more to go! You saved more money, right?”
68% of energy-sourced US GHG emissions come from things that don’t move. Electrify them first. It does not require expensive batteries that wear out. The energy doesn’t take a 20% round-trip coulombic efficiency haircut, either.
Note that I’m not saying BEV in an unworthy tech for development – it’s not! It’s the most interesting and exciting thing to happen in my industry maybe ever. But it’s niche. It’s the future, but it’s not the near future.
I think we are broadly on the same side, even if we disagree or don’t have quite the same understanding of a few things.
I want to start out by saying that I’m not saying we rely on passenger vehicle electrification alone to solve greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
First on the issue of light duty vehicle emissions – Light duty vehicles account for 57% of all transportation GHG emissions in the US. Transportation emissions account for 28% of all GHG emissions in the US. Transitively, light duty vehicles account for 16% of GHG emissions. That’s more than what the EPA classifies as Residential and Agriculture combined. Because of this, anything we can do to reduce light duty vehicle emissions, is going to have a significant effect on total GHG emissions. Ultimately, full and partial electrification of the light duty fleet is not a panacea, but it is a big portion of the equation. Personally, I’d like to see more investment in mass transit, but that’s not really the world (I mean, country) we live in.
Second, I understand and agree with the cost/logistical proposition of an EV transition. It unfairly benefits wealthier people who live in single family homes who can charge at home. But these investments from the government are meant to help alleviate the overall cost constraints by reducing the risk for private manufacturers in building out more manufacturing capacity, reducing overhead costs, and making it possible for them to tap into less costly segments. This isn’t designed to put a Cadillac Lyriq in every driveway, but it should help make more affordable BEVs into an economically viable proposition.
Third, 72% of US GHG emissions come from non-transportation sources. I agree that those should be cleaned up as well. And, once again, I’m not saying (nor is this subsidy program) that we should ignore those to focus on transportation. Efforts can and should be aimed at tackling many issues at once. Unfortunately, it’s not as easy as saying “electrify those first” to those non-transportation sources. 25% of emissions are from electricity generation. You can’t really “electrify” – although renewable and less polluting options are available and being promoted by this administration. Other major sources, like agriculture, have emissions that come from non-energy activities. Cow farts, released carbon from soil tillage, fertilizer emissions, etc can’t really be “electrified” either.
TL;DR I agree that BEVs are not a panacea and they shouldn’t be (nor are they) they capstone of US environmental policy. But reduction in emissions from light duty transportation is a vital part of the overall strategy if the US is going to meet our goals to avert even worse climate disaster. Investments like this are important for reducing some of the barriers to entry that make BEVs nonviable for large portions of the population. It’s also unfortunate, but the US operates on a carrot-and-stick method when it comes to changing corporate behavior – the government must institute requirements but they must also incentivize positive change. I don’t like that, but I’m not about to suggest we put addressing climate change off until that can be fixed.
Also – thanks for being civil. I try to make the effort as well. That’s one of the best parts about this site and why it’s one of the few I still comment on.
Based on what? Unless you tow or do tons of marathon roadtrips, EVs can handle the use-case for most people.
EV consideration rates are down to about 30% from the near-half it’s been, but that’s still a sizeable percentage. That would make EVs magnitudes more popular than diesel, CNG, hydrogen, or pretty much any other non-gasoline option. Cost is an issue, but these investments are supposed to help with that.
There’s always a “better way” to spend the money. That’s the nature of government spending. Unless you can specifically point to a program that was robbed to pay for these subsidies, however, it’s a moot point.
Evs can handle the use case…but not the charging infrastructure.
Until you force my apartment complex to install/allow charging (no reserved spots) and the same for my friends’ and family’s 1.5 hours away from me, they just wouldn’t work for me even if I could afford an EV in the first place.
Your specific complaint is more of a local zoning issue. Charging infrastructure is an issue and it’s something the Feds are trying to address – it just doesn’t happen to be part of this specific spending package. Just a couple months ago, this administration opened up $1.3B for charging and alternative fuel infrastructure.
I mean, fast charging stations will help a lot, but it’s going to take a push for a lot of apartment complexes to actively consider gasp spending money to improve their tenants’ lives.
Even L1 charging (i.e. a regular household outlet with decent-amperage wiring) at every space could make a tremendous difference at fairly low expense.
Perhaps, but (in my case) these are regular parking spaces against a sidewalk. So there’s not really square footage to put them without rethinking the layout.
I completely agree with you, but there is federal funding to address this as well.
In my opinion the charging stations (and necessary grid updates) should have happened BEFORE the EV push, but whatevs. We’ll get there.
Unless you tow or do tons of marathon roadtrips, EVs can handle the use-case for most people.
Yeah, I know. Someone says that every day on here. Often multiple times.
EV consideration rates are down to about 30% from the near-half it’s been, but that’s still a sizeable percentage. That would make EVs magnitudes more popular than diesel, CNG, hydrogen, or pretty much any other non-gasoline option. Cost is an issue, but these investments are supposed to help with that.
If you want to rely on poll results of a very slim sample, go for it. I’ll look at actual sales data. Also, are you saying that car companies are gonna make cars cheaper voluntarily as some sort of deed of moral righteousness, just because the government gave them a bunch of free money? No one is going to clip margins on purpose, voluntarily.
…Unless you can specifically point to a program that was robbed to pay for these subsidies, however, it’s a moot point.
“Robbed” or not has nothing to do with it. But, I can sure think of a gazillion other programs that could use it. Like, I dunno, the VA or permanent disability programs. Maybe Social Security? That’s merely three that I didn’t even have to think about, to respond with.
I have no problems with EVs. They are neat. They are useful. Eventually, they will be (probably) the best option in all scenarios. I’m not a hater.
I just think they shouldn’t be a top priority. As I have already said this morning, we have bigger fish to fry. Simple.
Also, are you saying that car companies are gonna make cars cheaper voluntarily as some sort of deed of moral righteousness, just because the government gave them a bunch of free money? No one is going to clip margins on purpose, voluntarily.
The very purpose of government is to spend money where the private sector cannot or will not. New technology R&D fits government spending perfectly.
And it’s an old trope, but if you’re insistent on government money being reallocated, can we talk for a moment of the billions the government gives to oil companies?
Without getting any deeper into it than I kinda already started, lol…
You and I have very different ideas on what the “very purpose” of government is.
That’s based on the Pew survey using a representative sampling and a statistically significant pool. Sales data is limited because it doesn’t account for supply constraints and other factors. Your initial comment was about what consumers want. The goal of these subsidies and grants is to allow the market to better meet consumer desires. And no one is expecting private companies to “voluntarily clip margins out of some kind of moral righteousness” but there is the expectation that they lower prices when feasible to access a wider consumer base. That’s business/econ 101.
This misses my initial point. There’s always a “better way” to spend the money. That’s a circular non-argument. Yes, government funds are fungible, but the government is responsible for a wide range of things and there’s almost always going to be something that’s more important than the cause de jure. But the real fact of the matter is that these expenditures have a chance at real, demonstrable value to the shareholder – certainly moreso than a lot of other things the government does. There theoretically may be better ways to spend this money, but there’s also far worse ways money is already being spent.
Again, go ahead and look at forecasts. I look at precipitation on the ground.
For the second part, I’m not the one talking theory here. You are speaking to “real, demonstrable value” in the future, whereas just in the three examples I rattled off, putting money directly into healthcare for the elderly and disabled creates change immediately.
Are you saying your boobs can always tell when it’s raining?
These investments will only help with cost (price) if that’s a requirement of the deal. E.g. 10% lower MSRP, or they have to pay the money back. Otherwise (like the big telcos) they’ll pocket the money and not fix anything.
there are way better ways to utilize that money if they are insistent on spending it
Please, name the decarbonization efforts you prefer.
While important, they aren’t even on the radar for me in terms of priority. If the US can do more to influence countries like China, Indonesia, India etc. to do more, that’d be awesome.
So you got nothing?
Not if you want to get all sassy about it. I don’t know who kicked your dog, but it wasn’t me. Relax, bro.
The US (also Canada & Australia) has far higher CO2 emissions per capita than any of those. You really think they’ll listen to the US when the US says “I’ve got mine, YOU take the hit”?
Per capita is a pretty specific way to measure things, but if you want to look at the overall “damage”, here ya go…
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region
It’s the only equitable way to measure things, else you end up with with Gulf states (the largest emitters per capita) being environmental models and India, which still has widespread poverty, being one of the global bad guys.
Anthropogenic climate change is also related to cumulative unabsorbed emissions as well. Total excess carbon dioxide emissions were due to activity in industrialized countries whose economies and living standards improved the most from them (I won’t be able to find the source quickly, but there was some recent estimate published that included colonial possessions when calculating historical emissions per capita, and the Netherlands and Britain were by far the largest contributors.) But the burdens are going to be borne disproportionately by less developed nations that not only benefited far less from industrialization but have fae fewer resources to combat or ameliorate the effects.
tl;dr High per capita emissions mean that there’s a lot more room to cut them, and the high incomes such emissions lead to means there are more resources to do so.
Get rid of all coal and NG power plants in favor of nuclear, hydro, and solar/wind. That will make a far, far, far bigger difference. Also, it will help you drive energy costs low enough that domestic heavy industry becomes economically competitive with places like China, which will further reduce emissions.
Trying to reduce emissions by focusing on consumer-level usage is missing the forest for a single manicured bonsai tree.
If anything, EV tech was ready 2+ decades ago on batteries that offered 1/4 the gravimetric energy density vs what we have today. The overpriced, oversized, drag-inducing, bloatware vehicles that are being made are what is incompatible with EV tech, even though EV tech is so much better today than it was 2+ decades ago.
We could have 5-seater sedans that are streamlined to only need 120-150 Wh/mile to hold 70 mph, with enough legroom for the tallest passengers to fully stretch their legs out, price them like a Nissan Sentra, and make a small profit.
But that won’t make as much profit as an SUV or truck that needs 3x the battery pack to get the same range.
It’s not that the auto industry can’t build affordable EVs for the masses, it is that they refuse to. GM could have started doing so in the late 1990s, and would have owned the market.
The government’s solution? Ban the Chinese from offering affordable EVs for the masses, so that the legacy automakers don’t have to deal with any pesky competition, and can continue to push their bloatware unobstructed on people that can “afford” it by signing the dotted line for a 96-month payment plan at 11% APR.
Because the car companies make more money off of financing the cars, than selling them.
Hey! Whaddya know! It is possible on this site! lol.
Thanks for getting it 😉
The over the top funding makes sense if you think big picture. US government is puppet run by the Uber wealthy who want control of us plebs. What better way than to get us all into electric vehicles with remote on/off switches. 20 years from now the government can control when/where you go and how fast you get there. (See Europe GPS speed limits and California’s premature introduction of a bill to do the same. ) Breathalyzer tests can also be mandatory in the name of safety, data of which will be immediately harvested and sold to your health care provider/insurance just like your newer vehicle data is currently sold to the car insurance companies. Politicians receive funding in return for pushing these agendas to milk the average consumer out of every last penny and shred of privacy.
You get it.
And I’m a proponent of EV tech. If you make EVs where only the drive systems, charger, and BMS are digital, and make the rest of the car as analogue as possible, where the battery pack is accessible for repairs without having to take the whole car apart, and drive system and charger are both plug and play devices, without proprietary software and tools locking out the indie mechanics, where buttons and knobs take the place of touch screens, the damned thing would be repairable and if cared for, be able to last forever, while also minimizing operating costs.
By making EVs into bloatware designed to milk you of money, strip you of privacy, and allow 3rd parties more control over the vehicle than you, they’ve been rendered into landfill fodder and the ultimate means to preserve a paradigm of planned obsolescence.
Which is 100% opposed to the so-called justification of mandating them in order to “save the planet”.
IMO, one of the most environmentally friendly things one could do, regarding using a conventional car, would be to take an old solidly built 90s/early 2000s car, and convert it to electric with hobbyist grade components. It will likely outlast anything new one could buy, cost less per mile of use, and would be repairable with a basic set of readily available and affordable tools.
Too bad all the folks above that “smiley” each other’s parrot takes won’t bother to read down this far.
Oh, well.
GM just canceled the Malibu, so there are plenty of brand new 2024 Malibus on the lot if you’d like a sedan from GM. I’m guessing they’ll be there as long as all those V6 Dodge Chargers are going to be.
I had a Malibu as a rental for 2 weeks while the BECM on my Volt got replaced. I liked it a LOT, and I was shocked at the good fuel economy for such a big car. What I really didn’t like was the transmission – a CVT that just never seemed to behave the way I needed it to.
Normally I’d be sad about this but it’s the Altima. A big bowl of sawdust with a disintegrating, disposable transmission.
Don’t you talk about sawdust that way!
Killing off these models was part of my response to what I would do as Nissan’s CEO a while back. I think I suggested making the Altima fleet-only, but this approach works too.
A reduction like this dovetails nicely with their announcement of even closer ties with Mitsubishi.
EDIT: Found my plan:
Step 1: Admit that the future isn’t 100% BEV. It might not even be 50% BEV. All other steps follow from that realization. We’ll take a page out of Honda’s book and focus on 3 core models: the Kicks, Rogue, and Pathfinder. The Altima goes fleet-only, the rest of the cars are dropped (including the already-dead Leaf). Continue to sell the Frontier until the new Mitsu truck collaboration is ready. Keep selling the GT-R, no reason not to. Drop the Z.
Infiniti hasn’t produced anything segment-competitive in years, the whole lineup is gone along with the brand. We lost to Acura, Lexus, and, increasingly, Mazda. We won’t beat those brands in the near term, no point in wasting more money.
Produce a PHEV Pathfinder using Mitsubishi’s PHEV system. Keep the existing gas-only model as well. The gas-only model will be the top model in the lineup with luxury appointments. Adapt/create a hybrid platform for use on the Kicks and Rogue. This will be the only powertrain available on those models. The setup should be a system similar to that found in the Honda Accord where there is no real transmission to speak of. This way, we keep the ZF8 in the gas Pathfinder and everything else uses the eCVT style. No more Jatco crap.Keep selling the refreshed Kicks until the hybrid powertrain is readyDitch the disastrous Rogue powertrain, no sense throwing good money after bad. Replace it with anything you have on hand (including Mitsubishi’s engines) until the above hybrid powertrain is ready.Keep the Ariya around as needed for regulation compliance and to keep experimenting with BEV platforms. It will only be available on lease to get the price down via the tax credit loophole. Release new BEVs as needed and as the market allows.
My bullet points disappeared after some amount of time! I’m shocked anyone read that in the state it’s now in
Bullet points don’t persist after you edit. I think they stay if you replace all the text (i.e. make the changes, then copy without any HTML code that was added in and paste only the corrected words as they would have been typed originally), but I’m not sure about that.
And given that the Rogue and Outlander are very closely related, it would be easy for Nissan to shove the Mitsubishi PHEV powertrain in that.
You say “No more Jatco crap”. I disagree. That transmission is the best one for the task. It’s economical for the company and the consumer in its efficiency, it’s smoother than an archaic torque converter, and it allows for peak performance (which is very important to Nissan’s customer base). In fact, put the CVT back in the Pathfinder. The people deserve better.
Hyundai and Kia are still going in the sedan game too. Hyundai has the Elantra, Sonata, and Ioniq 6. Kia has the K4 and K5.I don’t know for how much longer but I hope long enough for the Elantra GT to make a return as a PHEV.
It was kind of glossed over in the article, but Toyota still sells as many sedan models as Nissan did (Corolla, Camry, Crown, Prius), three of which have been recently redesigned, meaning they should be sticking around a while.
And Honda still sells a crapload of Civics and Accords
I know. I’m waiting on the Corolla redesign which should be next year and hoping against hope that they bring the hatchback hybrid to America.
I was looking at the auto market in Ireland, and I found that they have a Corolla estate hybrid there! Wagons, man! Wagons!
I literally gasped and immediately looked it up. I NEED it! I like the rear of the wagon more
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2018-estate-vs-toyota-corolla-2018-5-door-hatchback/rear/?&units=imperial
I will repeat my statement that nothing of real value is being lost with the discontinuation of these sedans.
CUVs are obviously preferred by a great majority of normal drivers.
Enthusiasts prefer sedans, but it’s not as if they are chomping at the bit for the Versa or Altima. In fact, those models seem to come in for as much derision around here as the Rogue or Murano.
If you want a sedan for its dynamic handling vs a CUV, you’re buying a RWD-based luxury branded model anyways (of which basically none have been discontinued). If you want something reliable and cheap you are (or should be) buying a Corolla or Camry. If you want to haul your family around, just get the CUV.
CUVs are a more useful package. It’s why so many people prefer them. As enthusiasts we can deride them all we want but there’s a reason they’ve taken over the normie car market.
I would push back a little on “more useful”. You’re not getting a lot more interior room than a similarly sized hatchback or wagon, but you’re losing efficiency, gaining weight, and spending more. The only real benefit I have found is the higher H-point makes getting in and out easier.
But there are basically no mainstream hatchbacks or wagons.
The comparison buyers are making is to a sedan, and the difference in space (and especially usable space) is significant.
I’ll argue that the CUV having more space than a sedan is a fallacy that people have convinced themselves is truth because they want their driver’s seat higher off the ground.
We looked at a lot of CUV’s while car shopping for my wife and there wasn’t a one of them where I felt “gosh, there’s so much more room in here” than a sedan at a comparable price. In fact, the aft-rear-seat cargo space in some of them was downright embarrassing.
We bought a K5 and are quite happy with it.
Although I went to a smaller overall footprint, this point is absolutely not lost on me. I’ve never quite understood why hatchbacks and small(er) CUVs are thought of as more practical. Sure, if you need a tall item to fit there’s no contest. However for just overall space? To get the same room in the back of a hatch you get in a trunk, you’re forced to put the rear seats down.
Some CUVs becoming “better looking” or “more aerodynamic” by having that steep rake to the back glass just exacerbates this phenomenon (like my CX-30). What I wouldn’t give for an affordable wagon to make a return to the streets!
Here’s an exercise for anyone who’s willing to debate this point. Draw a sedan silhouette. Any sedan, doesn’t matter, make it a notchback or a fastback or whatever. Now on that same silhouette, draw the roofline straight back to end evenly with the rear bumper, and then draw vertically down to it. Now you’ve just drawn the silhouette of a CUV/SUV.
How is the passenger compartment any roomier now? As far as where the people sit? Where is the extra space? I’ll tell you where it is, it’s above the sedan’s trunk lid. So unless you’re going to load the back of the CUV up to the ceiling, there’s no more actual usable space. And don’t forget we’ve actually raised the floor of the CUV relative to the sedan, so in many cases the load-floor-to-not-actually-interfering-with-my-vision space is less than that of a sedan.
I mean, the fact the seats fold down is really useful to me with my Prius. Most sedans I know don’t have the entire back row able to fold flat.
Except that it’s not like that, making your point even more pertinent. Take the Volvo V60/S60 – the wagon is significantly shorter than the sedan, and they took that out of the trunk. Same with the Corolla sedan/hatch. The hatch/wagon version of a car tends to give up trunk length for vertical height for style points so they don’t look like they’ve got a giant ass.
I disagree about the sedans vs wagons thing. For the most part if a model is available as both, they’re the around the same length like the very Volvos you mentioned. The S60 and V60 are identical in every dimensional metric including length at 188″ long. The Mercedes E-Class sedan and E-Class All-Terrain are identical in length. So is the A4 and A4 Allroad, A6 and A6 Allroad, G30 5 Series sedan and wagon are less than an inch different, etc.
Now sedans vs hatchbacks, that’s a different discussion. The MK5 Golf for example was available in all three configurations. Jetta and
GolfJetta Sportwagen were identical in length while the Golf hatch was significantly shorter. Even with the current Corolla, the sedan and ROW wagon are identical in length whereas the hatch is once again significantly shorter. There is a difference between what a hatch is and what a wagon is.At least that’s what I assume you meant?
Yeah, that’s what makes them appealing. I have the option to have a ton more space just by putting the back seat(s) down.
As it turns out doing a quick google, my choice of a Mazda 3 as an example was fruitful. I figured I’d choose something that everyone knows, and a brand that has endeared itself to enthusiasts.
To start, I went with length. Much of the time, hatchbacks have a shorter rear overhang than their sedan counterparts.
Sedan length: 183.5″
Hatch length: 175.6″
There’s 8″ of length lost in the transition to the hatchback. Sure, bulky items may be a bit easier to fit into the hatch than the sedan, but for quick, every-day cargo volume, a sedan is as good or better quite often. However, you may look at the specs and remind me that the hatch has more cargo capacity according to Mazda. And you’d be right: The hatch is listed as having 20.1 cubic feet of cargo capacity, to the sedan’s 13.2. Again, I rely on the layout of a trunk versus a hatch’s cargo area. However, you don’t have to take my word for it…
I saw it mentioned elsewhere, but here is an Autoblog article about fitting luggage. They use a 3 hatch and sedan, as well as a CX-30, as it’s effectively a slightly lifted and rebodied 3 hatch. (full disclosure, I do own a CX-30. I didn’t go looking to compare it, but it was a fun find.) The CX and the sedan can fit all luggage in the cargo compartments, the hatch can’t because of the where of the capacity.
I’m not trying to knock hatchbacks, but for my money, I’d rather have a wagon over a hatch if we’re talking about trying to improve cargo carrying capacity. (And this is a rabbit hole I didn’t completely intend to get into, but now I’ve spent the time on it, and I’m rolling with it!)
I think it’s also clouded by what wagons we used to have, when if they made those wagons today it still might have some of the same compromises with styling and such cutting into their usability.
There’s of course mentions about less true/usable cargo volume in crossovers vs. a sedan already, but there’s also more max cargo volume when needed. Is it all the time, no, but “when/if you need it” idea. Not like a sedan is carrying 4 people all the time either.
But then, you have things like the Honda Fit (RIP) and the Nissan Versa Note (RIP, also), that have tiny footprints, but huge usable interior volumes. My girlfriend’s Versa Note could hold more and larger things than either my Volvo wagon or my GLK, while also having better rear seat room than either.
It helps when you can build to an exact purpose as both those examples did – one-box shapes, taller than even their larger car offerings. The Note even being considered a mini-MPV in some markets.
Depends on what you define as usable. If you’re commonly stacking stuff over the top of the seatbacks, sure. But sedans tend to have more usable volume in the trunk. Edmunds does a pretty good job with their real-world luggage tests, and sedans do really well on those.
It’s easier to get in and out of CUVs and easier to load stuff in. That matters to people.
Yup. And cars are expensive. If you can only have one, and that’s a lot of people, CUVs make a lot of sense. As do quad-cab pickups.
I think a tall wagon is the best option. Lots of cargo space, only minimally compromised dynamics, easy in/out, better efficiency. Basically the Volvo XC line. Maybe Outbacks.
I find my sedan way more practical than the CUV I had previously. The trunk is big and it’s easy to get shit in and out of it. And I love that that shit is hidden away in a separate compartment. CUVs generally have small storage compartments that need the rear seatbacks laid flat to compare which is a pain in the ass to deal with.
Maybe it’s because I have freakish proportions, but I’m going to disagree – CUVs are frequently LESS useful than a sedan of the same price. They almost always have less passenger room – a clever trick of a higher seating position is that you can lie about legroom, since you can include the seat height in the equation. This isn’t helpful for people with long thighs, who have real difficulty fitting inside. The cargo numbers are often fudged because the area is taller but they’re often very lacking in floor space. Floor space is what you actually need. Plus almost nobody gives a shit about space efficiency – Hyundai/Kia are okay and the VW id.4 is actually shockingly well laid out – extra shocking because the ergonomics of that thing are a complete mess – but for the most part CUVs are cramped and have less cargo space than they should.
I got on the “CUVs are lying to you” train when my ex bought a Hyundai Sonata after test driving a few different CUVs that cost the same. It was the only car that both fit in her price range and allowed her friends to get comfortable in the back.
I’m with you on some of that. I’m tall and the seating position of CUVs/SUVs is much worse for me on long trips. I need my legs to be out in front of me, sitting upright like that for a long time gets pretty uncomfortable, kinda like on a plane. That said, my SUV gets way more use hauling stuff other than people than my sedan does, it’s a better package for that. A wagon is the best of both worlds, but they don’t offer many of those anymore.
It depends. I definitely agree that interior space numbers on CUVs is deceiving as much of it is mostly unusable or at least less useful as it’s vertical rather than horizontal, but sedans now have these fastback profiles leaving small trunk openings that make using any extra space they might have more of a challenge and the perception of it being even less useful due to the height constraints (gone are the days when people lash down a trunk over taller cargo, I guess, though the commonly small trunk lids certainly don’t help). Overall, I think there’s a big issue with interior space all around vs footprint and weight in modern cars.
Dude, I went from CUV to car about 9 months ago. Everyday I have to remember to exit the car without heaving and grunting like a 300-pound octogenarian. It’s so loooooow.
B/c I’m that guy, I actually, memes aside, would like the Altima if I could get it in a manual. But since Nissan won’t (I think the Versa’s manual is gone now too, right?) b/c most buyers don’t want them, it goes right to your point of why even sell them vs. the crossovers.
Edit: this fits with Nsane’s point above.
I don’t think you can tell the story of mainstream sedans falling out of favor with enthusiasts without manuals going away.
But it’s obviously a tough sell to convince people to do more work for less efficiency in a car that isn’t especially fun to drive anyways.
Before CUVs, sedans were the boring shit. Not sure why people think they were ever an exciting category outside some low-selling specialty versions that came and went (because they didn’t sell) or high end models. One reason I decided to drop our of automotive design is that I didn’t want to design doorhandles (that a committee would then change) for beige sedans because that was around when what would become CUVs were only just being born. So, when people lament the loss of boring sedans as some further sign of the decline of fun vehicles, I can only furrow my brow in confusion because it’s a 6/half-dozen thing to me and CUVs are more practical and older/unfit people seem to have an easier time climbing into them than pulling themselves out of something lower (as low as car seats get nowadays as even my ’86 is fairly high for a sports car).
And, as many enthusiasts frequently remind us in these comments and elsewhere, they’re not interested in a new car because, even if they can stomach the ADAS and screen-based controls, they’ll just buy it at a discount when it’s three years old.
Q8 E Tron? What, is she funny or something?
Audi’s entire lineup is about as exciting as watching paint dry outside of the S and RS models. In well off parts of my area there are so many white Audi crossovers in every parking lot that I assume it must be incredibly difficult for every well to do soccer mom to figure out which one is their’s.
I can’t think of a more anonymous luxury product than an Audi SUV, and the Q8 just might be the blandest of them all. No one wants them and they depreciate massively. I see lightly used ones listed for GTI money pretty frequently, and they’d be vaguely tempting at that price point if they weren’t so goddamn devoid of character.
Audi needs a massive mojo injection across their entire lineup. Hopefully the new A5 is worth getting excited over, and apparently the Q6 E Tron is quite good…but of course that’s because Audi got to copy Porsche’s homework, and it’s not a coincidence that the highlights of the Audi lineup usually have some Parsh DNA.
As for Nissan, it seems pretty dumb to kill off products that amount to over a third of their sales…but if there’s anyone that can give GM a run for their money when it comes to repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, it’s Nissan. I assume they’re going to offer several “upmarket” $60,000+ EVs instead because of how fucking stupid they are. That being said, less Altimas on the road is probably a win for society overall given how they’re usually driven.
Meanwhile:
“used car values continue to drop like a stone.”
If only interest rates were dropping with them. The money saved by going used is pretty much wiped out by interest rates right now. You can still get okay rates on new cars if you’re patient but used rates are absurd. If you’re paying cash it doesn’t really matter, but outside of $10,000 or less cars I don’t think very many people can afford to do that either.
There’s pretty amazing rates for new right now, I’m seeing 0-1.9% all over for the stuff I’m shopping for. I haven’t really noticed used pricing dropping that much, not enough anyway, and the interest rates on those is keeping me from even considering it unfortunately.
If you are paying cash mattered a lot about 1.5 years ago when I was shopping for a car. Used cars in good shape and around 50K miles were within one to two thousand dollars of new. Never thought I’d buy a new car but here we are.
I’m sure that’s not a coincidence. Which is good for cash buyers since even fewer people can pay $60k up front for a new car.
My neighbor just bought a new Sentra after she grenaded the motor in her Kia Sedona. It’s pretty nice, but would be so much better with a manual transmission. Those Nissan CVTs are not driver-friendly.
The galling thing is that in literally every other market, you can get the Sentra with a 6MT. So there’s no reason Nissan couldn’t sell them here other than “F**k you, that’s why”. I feel like Nissan could parts-bin another Sentra SE-R Spec V and undercut the hell out of Honda and give the Elantra N a run for its money and also get some good press for once, but noooooo…
Minor, but it always bothers me to see the “SV” trim level of Nissan’s sedans and know they can’t be had with manuals.
It’s always bothered me that Nissan “SV” are not SuperVeloce
Good one. And I love the juxtaposition of car companies using non-national-origin terms. Porsche’s once-regular use of Italian and French terms always makes me happy.
I always assumed “SV” stood for “Super Value” or something like that.
Shoulda (had a) Vasectomy?
That works.
Spec-V Spec-V!!
They had a brilliant Easter egg – in the tint at the top of the windshield (I forget the real name for it) in ever so slightly lighter tint, it says SPEC-V. I always loved that.
It was like a year ago I realized they still offered the Sentra with a manual in Canada and not just the base trim, but a well-equipped SR when they haven’t in the US for years. Not necessarily Spec-V sporty, but at least an alternative to the now-defunct Sport manual Jetta and Civic. (Oddly no manual Versa up there though.)
Not unusual though, Canada often got more manual varieties (Honda for example, or the prior-gen Crosstrek) or even bodystyles (outgoing Kia Forte5). The previous gen Outback kept a 6MT for a couple years too, after the option left our market.
They’re extremely friendly to the driver. They make for thrilling performance due to the CVT’s ability to hold the engine RPM at peak power output, and they save the driver money at the pump too. How could it get any better?
I hope your tongue is implanted firmly inside your cheek.
Q8 E-Tron? lol no
Think I saw her sing on Jimmy Kimmel a while ago.
Not worth buying though.