In the US auto industry, there’s been a lot of upheaval in the past decade or so. GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy and rebirths. Ford’s brush with the same. And more recently, Tesla’s emergence as the first (apparently) viable new American start-up, with a market cap to rival GM and Ford.
But the biggest single actual change, in terms of market share, has been Nissan’s remarkable growth, and its ability to meet (so far in 2017) a very ambitious goal by CEO Carlos Ghosn in 2011 that Nissan would have a 10% market share by March 31, 2017. That was widely poo-poohed by many, but Nissan has actually surpassed it slightly with a 10.3% market share in the first quarter.
Automotive News recently ran an article on Nissan’s success in meeting its ambitious goal, and it makes for interesting reading. It’s been a combination of factors, but most of all, an aggressive attitude to get there, no matter what it took. Yes, Nissan has had some real product successes, especially in the hot CUV field, where their Rogue has actually been #1 in some recent months. On the other hand, not having much of a truck portfolio has made it all the more remarkable.
Nissan has also been very aggressive with incentives as well as motivating their dealers with various programs to get them to achieve certain goals. These have been controversial with their dealer network: some of them seem to be able to work with Nissan’s programs and achieve considerable success; others hate it, and some have just walked away.
Nissan has also become very big in the fleet sector, taking over the role that GM once played. Undoubtedly, their retail market share is not as big. But any way you look at it, Nissan has made some impressive gains. And it really helps explain why GM, Ford, Toyota and some others have seen their market shares be flat to down: when one competitor is so aggressively gobbling up share, it has to come at someone’s expense. Ford and GM seem quite content to focus on their hugely-profitable trucks, and build cars in more limited quantities to satisfy their actual retail demand, limiting fleet sales. This has boosted profitability at the expense of market share. A different strategy, and one that has left an opening for Nissan. If its costs are low enough, and large volumes reduce unit costs, than presumably it’s working for Nissan.
Update: there is a new article in this morning’s autonews specifically on this subject. Here’s a snippet of it:
Nissan’s presence in the U.S. daily rental fleet business is rising, and Nissan North America Chairman Jose Munoz says that’s a good thing.
“It’s part of the business,” Munoz told Automotive News during a wide-ranging discussion at last week’s New York auto show. “The dollars we get are relevant, so we’re going to continue to be there, even if other companies don’t want to.”
Munoz made the defiant declaration partly in response to criticism from competitors about Nissan North America’s overall market share growth. Detractors have commented — usually in hushed tones — that Nissan’s climb to a 10 percent U.S. market share has relied on increased sales to rental fleets rather than organic demand from retail customers.
Munoz’s message?
Yes, of course it includes fleet sales, he says. And no, there’s nothing wrong with that.
“I guarantee you that every fleet sale we do in the United States is a profitable sale,” he said, or the company wouldn’t do it. “In many regions of the world, the best corporations are also the best in fleet. The important thing is do responsible fleet,” he said.
Note: Nissan is the No. 4 supplier of rental market vehicles in the U.S., behind Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, General Motors and Ford Motor Co.
On the retail side, it appears that Nissan’s strategy has been to stake out a claim in the lower end of the market, and aimed its guns particularly at Hyundai-Kia, willing to take them head-on with comparable, if not even lower prices. And in that regard, it seems to have worked, as Hyundai has stumbled lately and Kia’s growth has basically flat-lined. The days of the Koreans defining the low-end of the market are well gone.
Needless to say, Nissan had to put effort into the product to attain these goals. In terms of design, Nissan has been generally batting quite well; it’s become to be seen as a leader in the CUV arena, and their sedans are doing well too. The Altima has beaten both the Camry and Accord at times in recent years. It’s clearly competitive.
Although the sedan market has been on the down swing generally, there are geographic places where they remain very important, like Southern California. It’s a huge market, and compact sedans are the transportation pod of choice for so many freeway warriors. The Latino market is particularly important there, and Nissan is very big in Mexico. But the cars have to have visual appeal too. The current Sentra sells at twice the level as its dowdy predecessor.
Nissan USA had to virtually re-create itself to even hope to attain the 10% goal. One of the key changes was to increase the number of regions from five to eight, and substantially beef up regional sales and marketing operations.
Unlike Toyota, Nissan has had an exceptionally bumpy ride in the US since the time in the 1960s when Datsun it outsold Toyota. The bumps continued for decades, with inconsistent styling, the name change from Datsun to Nissan, and numerous other missteps. But it would seem that Nissan has gotten its act together, and is firing on all of its cylinders, or batteries.
Wow, I guess I had no idea this had taken place! My dislike of the CVT transmission has made most of Nissan’s products a no go for me for the past 5-10 years, but now I can see why I see so many around!
Rumors I have heard are that if you can get financed anywhere, you can also get financed at a Nissan dealership. Rumors continued that Nissan has the highest new-car loan default rate of any automaker. I’ve yet to see numbers to back this up, tho.
I’d have guess Kia would have the highest default rate but who knows.
Why? Kia is not a heavy discounter; in fact their incentives are among the lowest among all US auto brands.
Agree, Kia may be in the lower price field, but I don’t see them doing any unusual financial tricks to lure in “bottom feeders”, instead price alone (and improved products over the recent years) being their driver.
Just basing my opinion on, er, observation. I see an awful lot of new(er) Kias (and Hyundais) in the crappier neighborhoods of Cleveland, more so than Nissans for sure.
Really??? Does that highlighted GM figure take into account $15k off Escalades and $10k off Silverados? Hyundai/Kia’s msrp’s are probably still among the lowest out there, so this figure effectively means nothing. And I didn’t even mention its source…
I looked up your source and it specifically says it doesn’t take into account type of vehicle. GM mostly sells pickups and large SUVs, Hyundai-Kia doesn’t even sell either. You can buy a new Hyundai-Kia for the price of a discount on a large GM pickup/SUV. The figure is useless.
it’s not “useless”. it say that Kia’s average discount is $2978. Compare that to GM’s discounts on passenger cars and CUVs. I’m looking at Chevy’s web site right now that says $4290 off Malibus, $4797 off Equinox, and $3793 off Trax.
I’m not going to go into a pissing match with you about a model-to-model discount analysis. But what Kia’s average discount does suggest is that they’re not discounting very heavily/more compared to other passenger car/CUV brands and models too.
IIRC, Kia has been somewhat capacity constrained in the past year or two, which would explain the lack of huge discounts.
Now check Hyundai-Kia pricing. $13k Forte, $17k Sonata, thousands off msrp. When they start selling $100k SUVs this chart might mean something.
P.S. GM has over-inflated their msrp’s big-time the past few years! Useless.
Heavy reliance on truck and large SUV sales by a manufacturer will skew the average incentive figures, as incentives tend to be larger on those vehicles.
GM, however, has been trying to clear out excess inventory of all models, not just pickups and SUVs. One source I read said that GM had a 97-day supply of new vehicles early in the year, while Ford and Fiat-Chrysler were around an 80-day supply. GM did not reduce production in the final quarter of last year, and had to clear out the resulting inventory.
. I’ve yet to see numbers to back this up, tho.
Me neither.
Now that I have time to look, I can’t find any data on Nissan loan default rates to back up my statement.
Much like Mitsubishi in the early days in the US. If your breath showed up on the mirror under your nose you got credit. When I traded in my 88 Dodge Raider 4X4 ( I regret doing that ) for a 95 Montero We put down a large down payment and were going to finance it through or credit union. The dealer made us such a good deal on financing that we stuck with him. I asked why and it was so they could package our loan with the subprime poor credit score loans to get their bank to take them.
The Dodge Raider was basically the 2 door version of the Montero.
My brother had an 88 Raider, with the nice black/gold color combo, with the chrome steel wheels…He loved that thing.
Then he bought an Isuzu Trooper, nice looking in pearl white/gold, but what a mistake that was.
It was never as reliable as the Raider, or as fun.
Fleet sales would probably be the biggest reason for the gain. When you go to book a car, the Versa comes up as the small car on most of the bigger rental agency sites as the default model. If you think of the number of new cars gobbled up by Avis/Budget, Thrifty/Enterprise, and Hertz, that means a lot of product from Nissan is going both into the fleet and then out onto the secondary used car market as cheaper used cars. Increased visibility to a decent product probably leads to more retail sales. Since Nissan does not have the truck market to fall back on, and has the support of Renault for development, they can focus on CUVs and sedans.
I just updated the article with some new info from today’s autonews. Among that is the fact that Nissan is #4 in rental fleet sales after FCA, GM and Ford.
“Thrifty/Enterprise”
Many major car rental brands are owned by same umbrella companies now. But Enterprise is not linked to Thrifty. Hertz Corp owns Dollar/Thrifty.
But, Enterprise Holdings does now own National and Alamo.
Avis and Budget are together as Avis Budget Group, along with Zipcar.
I’m surprised Nissan is only #4 for rental fleet. Granted that when i rent in MSP I’m going the economy route, but there is always a Nissan vehicle sitting in the row I’m choosing from, and often the row is mostly Nissan vehicles, Rouge, Versa, etc. Perhaps they are #1 in the economy rental class
Isn’t it usually the most popular or highest rated model in the segment that gets the headline picture? I’ve heard it joked that Nissan might as well have named the Versa “Honda Fit Or Similar”.
I’m surprised by the sheer 10 percent number, but not that Nissan’s growing in the U.S.. I sat in a few of them at the Detroit Auto Show, as I do every year, and I’ve seen the progression from meh to surprisingly good. Sat in the Murano, then went and sat in the Ford Edge; The Nissan was good enough I honestly think a medium-sized CUV buyer’s choice between the two would only be based on personal preferences instead of one or the other having some glaring fault, and I think Ford has some of the best interiors in the business right now. Mr. X said the same for the Altima-he was genuinely impressed.
Good on ’em. Hopefully their reliance on rental fleet sales won’t come back to bite them in a few years like it did to Ford and GM. If the residuals are good enough when this current crop of buyers trades in, maybe they can “move up” to an Infiniti-I was so impressed by those I’d honestly consider buying one.
It depends on how the manufacturer approaches sales to rental car companies, and the quality of the product. I’ve read that Ford now ensures that sales to rental car companies reflect the trim levels most popular with retail customers. This way rental car fleets don’t become a “dumping ground” for unloved base versions, and turn off potential customers.
The basic product, however, must be sound. In the summer of 2014, my wife rented a Ford Fusion for one trip. Later that summer, for the family vacation, we rented a Chrysler 200. My wife was impressed with the Fusion, but after a week with the Chrysler and the strange noises it was making, she said, “I would never buy one of these.”
Nissan’s fleet rental sales are still #4, after FCA, GM and Ford. I’ve updated the article with that info.
Fair enough.
I think the bigger question, though, would be what the rental fleet is as a share of Nissan’s business. How they manage that, in terms of their own product mix as well as keeping their residuals healthy, will be the bigger test as compared to how they rank amongst the OEMs in terms of rental. Ford scaled way way back on rental after the mid-2000s once they learned that dumping 2-year-old Tauruses into the market at 1/3 to 1/2 the price of new ones killed their new car business.
Hopefully Nissan won’t put itself in a position where they do the same. Or rather, hopefully they were paying attention when Ford was doing it.
And another factor will be how the level of fleet sales will affect the brand’s reputation. So far, Nissan has gotten a pass from the opinionated blog crowd who just loves to pile on GM, Ford and Chrysler’s fleet sales. I’m wondering how long that’ll continue. (And willing to bet, it’ll continue for a long, long time.)
Nissan is a huge name in Mexico, probably in the top 3. By a similar token, Nissans likewise seem to be a huge deal for Mexican-Americans.
I visited United Nissan a couple years ago and encountered very few people (among both customers and staff) who were native speakers of English.
Perhaps the growing population of Mexican-Americans has something to do with Nissan’s growth in the US?
Not sure why the CVT receives so much hate on the internet. The early CVTs were annoying, I agree. I drove a Subaru Justy once and felt the descriptions that followed, including motor-boating and rubber-band feeling, were appropriate.
But the technology has come a long way. Modern CVTs have sophisticated electronic controllers that can bring down the revs instantly after you step on the gas. I was in a new Civic 4-door recently and it was terrific. Big, torquey engines like Nissan’s 3.5 V6 work especially well with a CVT, they are both smooth and fun to drive. None of the multi-speed conventional transmissions can match a CVT’s city fuel economy.
Right as Ford was unveiling the second-generation Fusion (2010), I was part of a big ride-and-drive event for my department, and one of the drive opportunities we had was the Fusion, along with several competitive cars. The Altima, with a CVT, was amongst the lot.
It was not a great experience. As my memory goes, it was not as bad as the first Ford Five Hundred that had the CVT and the 3.0 (Ford deserved every hit it took for that one!), but it was buzzy and felt sluggish if I got into the throttle at all. I’m sure it was actually just fine, but it didn’t feel “just right.”
The aforementioned Five Hundred with the 3.0 and the CVT? Terrible. I’m sure the acceleration was adequate in reality, but it felt like that car responded to the throttle like a teenager told to clean his room. Pin it down and you got a whole bunch of noise for awhile until you got to a speed you wanted, then it subsided.
Maybe the newer CVTs are better, but we know consumer memories are long. I have no idea how those earlier ones performed over time, but I think the companies that sold them needed to lay some groundwork with the consumer base before putting them onto the market.
It’s funny you mention the Five Hundred CVT 🙂 . A friend of mine out in Iowa called me a couple of weeks ago asking advice about Freestyles. Seems she had a Murano she couldn’t stand and was thinking on trading it in on a super low mileage Freestyle. She went ahead and did the trade (ignoring my advice) but as luck would have she LOVES how the Freestyle’s CVT drives compared to her Murano’s. Go figure.
The only CVT equipped car I’ve driven is a friend’s 2017 Subaru Outback. It’s programmed to mimic a conventional 6-speed automatic and doesn’t feel particularly unusual to drive. Presumably it can pick the actual ratios on the fly as needed. The most noticeable things are that it takes a couple of seconds to go into drive or reverse, and there is a little whining noise from the trans as you come to a stop. (This is presumably due to the pulleys and chain moving around.)
I would think in theory a CVT would be more reliable than a multi-speed geared transmission since it is much simpler but don’t know how they’ve actually fared in real-world use.
A ride and drive event provides a sort of distorted perception. People stomp on the throttle to see what it will do, but for most people, daily driving does (hopefully) not involve stomping on the throttle.
I purchased a 2005 Ford Freestyle new with the 3.0 and CVT. Your comments are quite true in most respects, except that in 98% of normal driving, the issues you mention are not relevant.
My beef with this Ford CVT is twofold. After weak sales of the 500 / Freestyle (for a handful of reasons beyond just the CVT), they abandoned this CVT. Rebuilds or replacements are several thousand dollars, so the cars are junked if they go out. Second, it’s a sealed design, so you cannot check fluid level, and service every 60,000 miles involves pulling the pan and replacing an internal filter. This runs a ridiculous $900.00 at the dealer!
But, I’ve cared for mine, it has served 120,000 mostly trouble free miles, and I have no issues with the drivability of the CVT.
My experience with the Ford CVT brings me to sort of crossroads with the current Nissan Pathfinder. It’s interior space utilization is impressive and reminds me of the best aspects of the Ford Freestyle / Flex interiors. But, early criticism of its CVT, including reliability problems, would make me a little nervous – a similar story to my Ford CVT that has never been a problem beyond the pricey maintenance.
Have you spent any time on the Nissan forums to see how many CVT failures (well under 100K miles) that there have been? It’s even worse than Honda’s 1999-04 V6 automatic transmission debacle. When they have proven that issue corrected, I may become a believer.
We had a 2004 Murano, sometime in 2008 we got a letter extending our warranty on the CVT to 100k miles. We sold it well before that time but with that letter in hand I’d feel pretty good about being taken care of. Not that it’s ok but the Murano is hardly the only vehicle to have transmission issues prior to 100k.
I used to be a snowmobiler so I’ve never minded the feel of CVTs in cars. But most have “belts” or chains. Since they are a wear item they should be considered scheduled maintenance and fairly easy to replace. I don’t think any of them are though.
My uncle lives in vancouver bc.He bought a new SENTRA in 2013 with cvt&with less than 60 k km on clock it is on it’s third trans.here locally built PEUGEOT405s with automatic will last four times that.hopefully they have solved that issue by now.
My wife’s 2010 Sentra has nearly 100k miles, and no issues with the CVT or anything else. Sorry to hear about your uncle’s experience.
Everyone I know with a Nissan in the past decade has had major problems.
Especially when taken past the 5 year – 80000 mile mark.
Agree on CVT We have a Forrester and do not have any compliant with the CVT at all.
I know a few Forester owners who absolutely love them and have no complaints with the CVT. on a mostly unrelated note: I had a Buick Super with a Dyanflow, Does that sorta qualify me as an early “CVT” adopter??
From the top…
1) Is the Tesla market cap the BIGGEST act of MM in the industry in recent memory? When they start turning a per-unit PROFIT, then kindly get back to us.
2) Dare I say GM’s upward focus is a good thing and needs to extend throughout the Chevrolet line? If you’re old enough to remember when GM balanced value and style like no one else, well, I hope that’s the goal down at the Silver Silos now. Let Korea, FCA and Nissan scrounge the bottom of the barrel.
3) Not stated here, but I wonder if we dig back a couple more years to the ’02 Altima, we’ll find when that the real turnaround began there. The ’02 Altima and ’04 Maxima were both quite attractive and it seemed like the public responded in kind before the CUV craze really took off. Speaking of which, Nissan, again, turned in some quite interesting if not attractive and endearing designs.
4) To Andrew’s comment: You’d hope Carlos Ghosn would have enough humility and respect for history to study Mitsubishi’s ‘Zero Zero Zero for a Year-o Year-o Year-o’ debacle, aka (clueless face) “I’ve had my Mirage for a year and NOW I have to pay on it!?’ IIRC that was the ACTUAL reaction of some who took advantage of that program.
Nissan’s made some great cars over the years, and they’ve had their share of head-scratchers. I’m sure some would place the Juke and Cube in that last category but I disagree. And people seem to love ’em.
It’ll be interesting to see the new strategy plays out. So far it looks like a winner.
Whatever I might think of the “Cube”, It’s goona be one of those odd cars that people will “Ooo and Ahh” over in 40 years, I’m much to conservative (read boring) for such a vehicle, but after years of ugly AND boring, I appreciate “weird” as it livens up the landscape.
1) Is the Tesla market cap the BIGGEST act of MM in the industry in recent memory? When they start turning a per-unit PROFIT, then kindly get back to us.
Tesla has been posting per-unit profit for years, and it’s per-unit profit margin is one of the highest in the industry (20-30%). They just don’t post a net profit for the company, because they are spending so much to expand. You try increasing production from 40k to 500k within a couple of years. 🙂
Having said that, I’m not saying their current stock price is (or isn’t) justified. It’s a gamble on them achieving a number of lofty goals in the future.
Who says that Nissan is following Mitsubishi’s 0-0-0 program? Facts? Sources?
If Tesla meets their production goals of 400K for 2018 year it will be nothing short of miraculous considering what they are selling today. I’m still pretty skeptical but it’s certainly interesting.
“Tesla has been posting per-unit profit for years, and it’s per-unit profit margin is one of the highest in the industry (20-30%). They just don’t post a net profit for the company, because they are spending so much to expand. You try increasing production from 40k to 500k within a couple of years.”
Having lived through the arbitrariness of corporate cost accounting, this gives me a chuckle and a migraine at the same time.
I worked for a merchant credit card services company. It was a division of a larger company, and the division struggled with profitability. My portfolio of clients was profitable or not profitable in a given year based on the CFO’s pen signing off the accounting manger’s cost assignment decisions, which varied each year. One year I dutifully reworked the price structure of services for my clients, and brought in enough revenue to make my portfolio profitable. But, never mind, they shoveled more cost my way at the end of the year, and I was barely making money.
A major source of red ink for the division was expansion into a segment of the business where we were trying to bring in-house certain data services which we had been buying from vendors that had national scale. Eventually the expansion was abandoned, and some years later the division was sold to national players.
At the end of the day, eventually, the promise of a company has to become profit at the top line. It remains to be seen how long the Tesla market cap lasts without profits. Personally, I think their future as an energy company is very interesting. As a car manufacturer, it is probably over if the Model 3 doesn’t perform spectacularly in every respect.
Nissan has also stepped up its marketing game. The Rogue’s rapid ascent in the compact CUV segment is partially due to its product tie-in with Star Wars.
Sub-prime borrowers and huge discounts. Didn’t it work for Mitsubishi?
Until it didn’t.
Huge discounts? Not as big as GM and several others.
Huge discounts – I’ll bet Nissan sits at or near the top for % discount.
Their stuff is strictly second tier Japanese, they sell on price/financing.
I looked up your source and it specifically says it doesn’t take into account type of vehicle. GM mostly sells pickups and large SUVs, Hyundai-Kia doesn’t even sell either. You can buy a new Hyundai-Kia for the price of a discount on a large GM pickup/SUV. The figure is useless.
Personally I find the entire Nissan line to be oddly styled, unattractive vehicles. Especially the Puke, er, Juke. Looks like an irradiated 4 wheeled cockroach…
Lol, While reading this, the prime suspect on a 2009 “Law & Order” episode is driving a Nissan at this exact moment! ?
A perfect example that price sells.
When I was in Florida about a year and a half ago, I was amazed how many (mostly rental) Nissans were on the road. In fact, we rented a Sentra that ran just fine, and got over 40 MPG as well.
I’ve been happy with my ’04 Titan bought brand new, couldn’t pass up replacing the ’70 C10 stripper with a new base 4X2 King Cab for 18k, with employee discount, $2000 rebate and the fact it had been on the lot for almost a year. It’s been problem free except for a few recalls and a stuck CD, and the stereo was replaced under warranty, a couple of months later my CD arrived in the mail from Nissan. The forums show that the engine and transmissions are long lasting, many now have over 300k on their original engine/trans. They all came with 5.6 engine, 5 speed auto, tilt, ABS, AC and cruise control no matter what the trim level. Exhaust manifolds and early locking differentials on 4X4’s seem to be the major trouble points. But I only have about 18k on it, so of course it should still be trouble free at this point. So far I only have had to buy a new battery. I was planning to drive the truck and store the 300k ’86 Jetta that refuses to die, but found out my insurance is $60.00 a year cheaper (!) to insure both vehicles vs the truck only. So the Jetta still gets used a lot around town, easy to park and twice the gas mileage.
The new Titan does seem to be a flop at this point, the original had a lot of new features that no one had at the time had yet. Tailgate assist, utilitrack load system, side door folding flat for good parking lot access, bed storage compartment, factory spray in liner, etc. The new truck seems like they put a lot less effort into the design and styling.
The Altima has been a great seller ever since the ’02 redesign. Good to see Nissan doing well.
It seems that in my area, almost every other TV commercial is for Nissan, so it appears that there is a driving force behind their success.
I was wondering when I see an article like this somewhere, either online or in print.
In my area (north Florida) there are 3 or 4 large Nissan dealerships within 30-45 minutes driving. 1 of those dealerships, and only 1 has been advertising for months on tv with infomercials on several channels late at night/early in the morning. They also advertise heavily during the day, with their 1 minute commercials STRONGLY emphasizing that they will take up to $7,000 off the price of a car….Altimas get up to an $8,000 discount. My understanding of the car business is that this type of discounting kills trade in values when/if customers decide to trade that car. It was 1 reason why VW resisted rebates for so many years. And my personal feeling is that any product they almost pay you to take off the dealer’s hands…is probably not that great.
All that said, the Rogue is a big hit here in the U.S. and in some European markets, but Nissan’s sedans are still “also rans”. Read any Car&Driver comparison test that has a Nissan vehicle included, it’s nearly always the last car.
I’m another former Nissan fan who would consider a new Nissan if they dumped the CVT. And I am encouraged by the new Sentra Turbo and Sentra Nismo.
” My understanding of the car business is that this type of discounting kills trade in values when/if customers decide to trade that car ”
Bingo. Just look at what lightly used Sentras and Altimas sell for. It makes buying new unwise in comparison.
There are about 8 to 10 major players in the US vehicle market, depending on how much market share they need to be major player. Dividing up the market amount 10 players means they each get 10% on average. There are 4 over that, while Nissan and Honda are right at about 9 to 10% with the rest well under. A 10% or so share is a fair share all things being equal, which they are not of course.
see this reference
Don’t be too quick to dismiss the latest CVTs. The one in my ’14 Civic LX gave a pretty good driving feel. Engine speed usually felt appropriate to current driving conditions. The overall experience was fairly close to what I was accustomed to in my ’12 Civic with 5-speed automatic. There was some “rubber band” effect, but it wasn’t objectionable.
Nissan is the best selling Japanese manufacturer here in Austria too, just ahead of Mazda (Toyota’s sales are abysmal). The Koreans are far ahead of all of them, which really is the story here.
Nissan’s fleet sales are not surprising to me at all, considering the last four? rentals I’ve had or been in have all been Sentras. Here in Chigaoland “if you’ve got a job? Got $200? you’ve got a New Nissan!” is how they seem to operate. If that’s good or bad, only time will tell. When I still lived in Minnesota, this was not the case whatsoever with the local dealers.
I think a lot of folks are thinking that the in-house lenders are going after the folks with bad credit, but that is not the case. One has to remember that a lot of dealers (not manufacturers) love bottom-feeders for the simple fact that they get great amounts from the finance company, even if the bad credit borrower gets rotten rates. I don’t think Nissan Motors Acceptance Company or any company, for that matter, goes after sub-prime borrowers, but there are a lot of sub-prime lenders that pay great fees to dealers to get people to sign onto lousy rate loans. Since the credit challenged do not usually have tons of money, they tend to buy the lower priced cars. That is why we have misconceptions that the Korean brands, Mitsubishi, and other low priced cars have financing for those with bad credit.
I am surprised Nissan is doing so well since their Minivan has a poor crash test and their Midsized Truck is antiquated. Their Fullsized Truck also has a poor crash test and the Cube was not very successful.
Despite all that they are obviously doing well and I am impressed by their climb. I deal with a lot of Nissans at work at I have noticed some things that I do not care for. The Versa especially and the Sentra have interiors that make me wish I was back in my 1993 Camry. When it comes to the Altima the car has to be all the way off to use the key fob to open the trunk. I also notice on various models where the paint is not applied and where the wire assemblies look cheap.
Nissan needs to figure out what they’re doing with the Frontier. First, they say they’ll bring the new Navara to replace it. Then they talk about revising the existing Frontier. Now there’s talks of a different truck. That segment is heating up and they’re going to be left behind…
Going to be? They already are behind.
That said, the Frontier still serves a nice niche, a no-nonsense truck at a value price.
When it comes to cars these days, by and large, they are all good. I can’t think of a car I have driven in the last five years that stood out as a stinker. Some were a little better than others, but the daily differences are very small.
Nissan makes a decent car for the money. They always have. Not as good as a Toyota or Honda, but very close, and and cheaper to buy.
After driving cross the country both ways last summer, I noticed huge regional differences in the automotive population. Here in Northern California, Nissans are certainly popular, but I don’t feel like there’s been a huge increase. But in the lower Midwest and Southeast, they seemed to be everywhere. There certainly are a lot of Teslas here, even outside the Silicon Valley exotic car sphere. I was wildflower spotting on the fairly remote (but well-graded) dirt roads of the Carrizo Plain in central California a few weeks ago and saw two Teslas (S and X) … pretty far from the nearest Supercharger station.
I wonder if Nissan is making their aggressive prices work by skimping on quality. Our 2015 Murano is wearing out awfully fast: the CVT gets weirder by the week, and the infotainment system develops a new bug every couple months. Great engine, comfy seats, stylish interior… but I’m sure glad we leased it instead of buying!
CVT details: it shudders at about 22 mph, and sometimes it briefly “downshifts” when I let off the gas before suddenly “upshifting” to a ratio that lets the car coast normally. A software update hasn’t helped; we’ll see what the dealer offers at the next visit.
Unfortunately, Nissan’s success isn’t necessarily good news for enthusiasts. Nothing they sell, short of the Juke, GT-R and Z, are terribly exciting to drive. By many reports, the Altima isn’t as fun-to-drive as it used to be; I rented a ’14 a couple of years ago and found it utterly forgettable, especially after having rented a ’14 Passat 2.5. The Sentra is roundly criticized by the buff books, even more so than the Corolla. The Z won’t be replaced, apparently, and Nissan in Australia is even dumping the entire passenger car lineup (“temporarily”) to focus on crossovers. None of Nissan’s crossovers are bad but they don’t appeal to enthusiasts like Mazdas do.
Ultimately though, us enthusiasts are the minority. Witness Nissan’s tremendous success and Mazda’s perennial niche status in North America. I could do without the simultaneously droopy and creased styling of new Nissans too, although the Rogue and Rogue Sport are good looking crossovers. I loathed Toyota for years for being an “appliance manufacturer” but their new leader is committed to shaking things up and I’ve been very impressed with their new design language and their funky new products (C-HR and the proposed F-4X). Nissan, however? They sell nothing that really interests me, other than the GT-R and maybe the Juke and Maxima. But it’s their Rogues and Sentras that are raising their market share and their profits…
I don’t know, sounds like Nisssan is a lot like Toyota now, even with funky (I think awful) design language. I don’t think their quality matches though.
I stopped looking at Nissan long ago.. (07 altima). Every Nissan I’ve test driven has been a let down in some way, either cheap feeling, tinny, uncomfortable, bad ride, etc. They look great on paper and their pricing is very aggressive but the product itself is blah.
Also their reliability had tanked.
IMHO, Nissan has taken sales from owners of defunct brands, Suzuki, Saturn, Pontiac, and Daewoo.
Also, from Dodge, Chrysler, Chevy, Buick, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Kia, Hyundai and Ford. Those who think used Toyotas or Hondas are too expensive, may get new Nissans.
Sure, Nissan isn’t the ‘fun car’ brand anymore, but to average buyers, it’s same as Toyota/Honda, and couldn’t care less about drifting, auto-cross, and twisties.
And yeah, I’m not wild about CVT’s, but again it’s an just another automatic trans to average buyers. D for forward, R for reverse, couldn’t care less about “spirited driving”
“Spirited driving” aside, what bothers me is that in short comparison tests, Nissan is always dead last. But if you ignore that….which apparently 90% of new car buyers do, Nissan has a very spotty reliability record. Heck, a Nissan makes a Volkswagon look like a pretty decent proposition from a reliability standpoint. The styling? Nissan’s sedans all look like a Kia or Hyundai clone. The new Titan? I rarely see one on the road (even the 1st generation is a rarity), but they look like someone threw spare Dodge and Chevy parts in a pile and then assembled them into a new configuration.
As for the Frontier, I prefer the looks over those of any Tacoma, yet for some reason this truck isn’t selling in bigger numbers.
Paul, curious question – does the 10% refer to just the Nissan brand, or is it Nissan + Infiniti? Not clear from the data shown here.
We’re talking manufacturer, not brand, so yes, Infiniti is included. But IIRC, they account for less than 10% of the total.
This article explains a few things. Particularly, how Nissan dealers here in Lee County (Fla.) can get away with their BOGO (buy one, get one free) promotions. I thought it was radio hype, but sure enough I stopped in at one dealer and it was for real – and people were MOBBING the dealership. Between that, and good ol’ Billy Fucillo’s local Kia dealership, they are putting a serious dent in what used to be solid Ford country.