How Would You Run Nissan?

It's the end of Fiscal Year 2013. Carlos Ghosn has announced his resignation from his position as head of Nissan and Renault, due to illness. Renault has named a new CEO from inside, for the European make, but in a surprising move, they've named an outside CEO for Nissan: You. You basically have free reign over the course Nissan is going to take over the next several years. So here's the question: How would you run Nissan?

Here's the plan I'd lay out:

Models:
Progress is proceeding in developing the new model line, but for the most part, everything is at a stage where changes from up top can still be figured in.

For starters, I'd kill the Juke and Versa. The Juke is a disappointment in every department, including sales. The Versa costs money to make and the role of subcompact could just as well be filled by the Micra. For the Micra update, globalize it. Global platforms are good.

Add a manual transmission to the Sentra to cut costs, make the CVT optional, introduce an SE-R variant by Q3 2015. Do the same for the Altima.

The Maxima's doing fine as is.

Solidify the SUV lineup under the Pathfinder marque. Pathfinder, Pathfinder Xterra, and Pathfinder Armada. Use brand sharing to take up the sales slack.

Maintain the Quest and Frontier as-is, on their current update schedules, but the Titan needs major changes, in following with the Big Three. A V6 base engine and at least one V8 option, 2 frame lengths, 2 bed lengths, 3 cab options, and a work truck variant. Expensive stuff to develop, yes, but the truck's already on its way out and it's not at all competitive with the big 3 for these reasons. We take some market share or we drop out of the market altogether. Redesign the NV van because nobody's buying it.

The 370Z is approaching end of life, and so work must begin on a new Z. The brief I put out involves major changes, including a 2+2 version, and forced induction a la the 300ZX TT. The Z35 is to be a fairly high-end sports car or GT car, depending on what test groups decide.

Of more interest here, commission the development of a new lightweight sport chassis to compete with the Toyobaru Twins, whose unchallenged presence on the market have caused Toyota and Subaru to steal huge amounts of market share in the sport segment. The brief includes using a new turbocharged 4-cylinder architecture as a global platform engine. It's time to retire the QR series anyway.

Most importantly, phase out the Infiniti line and integrate it into Nissan proper. Use a marketing campaign to the general effect of "Only the Best is Good Enough - Nissan" to bill up the internalization of the luxury lineup. "Nissan Luxury" or something. Integrate important models, such as the G-series (Skyline) and FX, under the Skyline marque. Skyline G37 and Skyline FX, respectively. On that note, we move to the next topic:

GT-R

The 2007-2013 GT-R proved what Nissan could do, but it wasn't what Nissan should do. Reintegrate the Skyline and GT-R lines as the Nissan flagship. Move away from the FM platform and onto a new R-chassis for Skyline G, Skyline FX, and Skyline GT-R. This will obviously be a controversial move, but nothing a good marketing campaign can't solve. "GT-R35. We asked if we could, but we didn't ask if we should. We've learned a lot, though. New, for 2016: Skyline GT-R." Obviously, use the VR architecture for the GT-R model, though by 2016, I almost expect the VQ to be at EOL on midrange models. (Low-end models to be equipped with 4-cylinder turbo architecture) GT-R with clever DCT stuff and carbon driveline stuff, G and FX with less expensive stuff. The GT-R would no longer be a dedicated race car with only the goal of beating the 911 GT2, but it would return to its roots as the Skyline flagship of Nissan.

Technology

I've noted, Nissan's engine architecture is aging. The VQ is already over 10 years old, the QR is older. Nissan moving forward calls for a series of 4-cylinder turbocharged engines, ranging from the mid 1.x liters to 2.3l depending  on what the engineers come up with. I imagine 3 displacements. As well, the current MR series would remain the low-end engine. The VQ replacement's tricky, but necessary for the continued success of the company- nearly every car Nissan offers has the V6 architecture, which is aging, and itself based loosely on the 30-year-old VG architecture.

I also would like to see, at the least, a contract for 2  diesels (an I4 and a V6) actually happen. The European market has been consuming diesels for decades, and the US market is opening up to the idea. Seizing this market before Toyota or Mazda do will be key. As well, truck buyers have always liked diesels, and the biggest complaint about the Titan is its lack of engine options. A light duty diesel would also go over well in the Pathfinder models.

CVTs are one of Nissan's big achievements in the automotive field, and I think they make a good fit for the efficient technologies being sought after in the new model line. I imagine CVTs replacing all but the truck and sport automatics. (P. Xterra and P. Armada as truck models) They're already on their way to this.

One place Nissan is currently lacking is in infotainment. Yes, yes, a lot of you are against it, but this is the automotive market we're talking about. There's a lot of money to be made if Nissan can take it upon itself to compete with Ford and Chrysler's infotainment systems.

In summation

If I were leader of Nissan, there are a lot of changes I'd make. It would be quite expensive, but there's no getting around expense at this point in time, and I believe Nissan is prepared for that already. For the most part, it would be a shift in philosophy and direction that happened right when Nissan was redeveloping its whole model line anyway. But, I think it would bring back a lot of enthusiasts' faith in Nissan, as well as expanding Nissan's reach in the market overall.

Honestly, I have no idea what to do with the Murano and Rogue. They kind of exist in an automotive limbo.

So now the question is, how would you do it? If you were chosen to be Nissan chairman, president, and CEO, what would you do?

Send them an EMail Schizo, maybe they will take you up on your ideas

rednucleus on 10:38:27 AM / 16-Apr-13Send them an EMail Schizo, maybe they will take you up on your ideas

I don't want to get into it as deep as you did Schizo, but I have long wished ANY car company would bring a car to market with the following layout.

2 door, 2+2
I-4 RWD (LSD option not dependant on a trim package)
5mt with CV available if somebody wants one as an economy car.
As light as possible using conventional materials.
Suspention configured to accomodate existing aftermarket coilover setups and associated parts.
A trim that offers as little fancy new tech as possible (no nav, traction control, stability control, heated seats, leather, etc.)
LOTS of room around the engine!
Extremely low cost.

In short, something like our beloved S12.  A small, light extremely affordable daily driver that is loads of fun in the twisties.  Something that can likely be claimed to the EPA as an economy car but can handle like a gokart with a little work.  I don't need or want all of the fancy crap that modern cars have.  Power windows and rear defrost are as fancy as I need.  I'd rather save the weight and have the vehicle fun to drive at a price point several thousand dollars lower.

I understand that I am not your typical automotive consumer, but I think there is a market (likely a fairly young market) for a vehicle like this.  Entry level in every way, but easy to work on and fun to drive.  The only options on the market today even close are all FWD and if you want any specific option like LSD you are forced into heated leather seats, nav and all the rest of the stuff I don't want or need.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: cars are the way they are now, due to a mixture of economies of scale and increasing regulations. If car companies could get away with rehashing the level of luxury of a base model car in 1986, they would. But they can't, because tooling the line for that would be too expensive for the minimal gain of the few people who would buy it.

Where this differs from putting a manual transmission on an MRA8DE is that such a transmission exists and would significantly cut costs over the CVT model.

Of course, I've been over this topic so many times, I can't expect there's another car guy out there who actually understands the concept of economies of scale, or how federal and Euro regulations affect car design.

iceageg on 11:34:03 AM / 16-Apr-13I don't want to get into it as deep as you did Schizo, but I have long wished ANY car company would bring a car to market with the following layout.

2 door, 2+2
I-4 RWD (LSD option not dependant on a trim package)
5mt with CV available if somebody wants one as an economy car.
As light as possible using conventional materials.
Suspention configured to accomodate existing aftermarket coilover setups and associated parts.
A trim that offers as little fancy new tech as possible (no nav, traction control, stability control, heated seats, leather, etc.)
LOTS of room around the engine!
Extremely low cost.

silverton on 01:45:57 PM / 16-Apr-13Let me introduce you to the Hyundai Genesis Couple R-Spec.  $26,500 for the current MY MSRP.

You can't build a RWD car in that price range in America anymore.

Adjusting for inflation, even the S13 started out around $35,000 by today's money.

$14-19,000 today will barely build a FWD econobox.

iceageg on 02:07:09 PM / 16-Apr-13I don't consider $26,500 as a starting point an entry level cost, particularly for the young market it would likely inspire.  I was thinking a price point more in the range of the Ford Fiesta, Honda Civic/Fit, Scion market.  Those run in the $14,000-$19,000 range as a base model.

And so the most inspiring thing available today at any sort of entry price is a Civic/Scion.  Seems to me that an alternative that inspired love for the Nissan brand is sorely needed.  Many people develop their brand loyalty with their first vehicle or two.  Currently Nissan offers nothing that is attainable by somebody as their first car that is remotely inspiring.  They are depending on the legacy of vehicles 15+ years old to inspire the next generation of buyers.  That and the "Maybe someday I can afford a GT-R" factor.  Meanwhile Civics, Scions and Subarus (at least in the Denver climate) are building a young customer base who is learning about cars with the absence of a Nissan competitor that isn't older than the kid buying it.
Post Merge

You can't make a RWD econobox. The chassis are too expensive to develop, and you get too many drivetrain losses.

Now I would like to see a good entry-level vehicle, and even a sporty version of it, on a FWD, akin to the Fiesta. More fittingly, akin to the B13 SE-R of old. Of course, you couldn't pull that off with the Sentra, but I think it'd be possible to make a nimbler version of the Micra with the Sentra engine and some suspension updates.

I really really like Ford's ST line and the philosophy behind it.

Schizo, I didn't see anything about the Leaf in your post. What you gunna do with that, cuz I want one someday when my kids are out of college and I don't have to live on rice & noodles. An all elctric car of it's current range meets 80-90% of my needs. If I need something more than it will be the Tesla.

I totally agree with iceageg,

Nissan needs to stand in front of the toyobaru twins, and for the moment, the Z is too heavy and expensive, and the next fastest model ... well, where is it ? Is that really the tiny Juke Nismo with its CVT-AWD transmission ... ? There is a gap between the Z and the juke, for sure ....

I'd build a new Silvia, why not share some parts with the toyobaru, but keep a Nissan exclusive design, close to the S15, which in my opinion was the best looking nissan ever made, especially the front end. A toyobaru sells for about 30k€, what if that hypothetical S16 was built with no A/C, LSD, HID-Xenon lights, 15,354 different radio speakers, cruise control and a ton of OEM equipment that the toyobaru have, just build a pure machine, with a 2.0 liter N/A (and maybe optional turbocharger ?) Just the 4 wheels, three pedals, a nice engine and a go-kart chassis, that is what a car is in first place.

Of course, you could complete it with all the modern technology if you wish, but let's just make a "low-end" trim available, so people could own a sportscar for the price of (yeah, maybe high-end) hatchback.

And why not, make that "low-end" trim available for all the models, 'cause people don't have money anyway, do we really need a big 16/9 gps touchscreen that we use once a year ? I mean, my daily drive is a high-end BMW series 5, which has like a million things like rain sensors, cruise-control, ride height control, heating-leather-memory seats and even progressive power steering, but hey, it's just a car, when I drive my wife's Kia Rio with power-it-yourself windows and not even central locking (although it's a 2005) do I REALLY feel the difference ? (Well yeah I feel it because that's 105 horses LESS than my car and the seats are so badly positioned that you can't find a comfortable driving posture) But despite of that, the rest are just details.

And you know what ? these are showoff details. The power-everything, color screens and talking car are just for showoff, don't lie to yourself, you know it's true.

I'd bet for just central-locking (not even R/C) power steering (good ol' reliable and cheap hydraulic pump) and power windows as the strictly minimal. All the other stuff is just showoff and more showoff to impress your friends once in a while, telling them your car is better than theirs because it can read a song stored in your smartphone .....

Man, for me a car, is something that takes you from A to B, and, still my opinion, a GOOD car is something that brings you from A to B FASTER  :cool2:

Just make sure it has a good engine, a good handling and it's plesant to drive, then you'll have a good car.  :grinwink:

Talking back, if I led Nissan, first thing would be to kill all those stupid diesel engines renault put into them, they just make Nissans weak and slow and people begin to wonder if this japanese legendary reliability is just a legend.  :glarestraight:

Then make low-cost trim available : here in europe, Dacia's (Renault's Romanian low-cost cousins) sell out by dozens. The reason ? they're cheap. They're just renaults, engineer-badged as Dacias and with all the optional stuff removed. My mom just got a Sandero 2013 for 9.000€, and the car looks like it costs 20.000€ ....  :thinking:
And finally get rid of the stupid Skyline "G" and make the R36 with GT, GTS and GTR trims and name it SKYLINE, THE ONE AND ONLY  :hahanot:

wow, that was a long post  :blink:

I pretty much second most of what everyone here has been saying. Drop the stupid cars with overlap, increase appeal to young customers and offer base models again.

I realize 15k is pretty hard to build a rwd coupe at, but even 17-18k is pretty attainable for young folks.

Oh, and stop filling up the interiors of your BIG compact cars, making them have less head/leg/shoulder etc room than they did in the 80s. God damn its hard to fit in 'midsize' cars these days. And TELESCOPIC STEERING WHEELS. If nissan thinks it cant be done, all they need to do is go down to their local VW dealer and drive a golf.

Engineering is the main thing keeping RWD out of the 15-20k range. You have to engineer a platform that will sell enough units to cover cost of engineering. Well, the only way anyone's been successful in that as of late is to either create a midsize luxury sport sedan platform and put a sports car on that (Nissan FM platform, Ford SN platform, Chrysler LX platform, et cetera). The only exclusions to the rule have been Mazda and Toyota, who each engineered the Miata and FT86 chassis respectively. Each is sold in the mid-20k range, and each has high enough sales to justify the cost. Ever since the 300ZX was pulled in 1996, Nissan hasn't had enough market share to pull off a dedicated RWD sport platform. If  they did, and I think they could for an entry-level sport coupe, it'd still be in the mid-20s and competitive with the pricing of the direct competitors: Miata, Toyobaru, Genesis, and Mustang V6.

As far as the debate about "why so many features? waah" goes, suck it up. Any US market car is going to have standard air conditioning, power steering, power windows, and FM radio. ABS and ETC are federally mandated, for that matter. The only way for a manufacturer to ensure sales is to offer features a majority of people expect to be standard (you people are a tiny, sad minority compared to the millions of average car buyers out there). Cutting price by not having features will attract some buyers who couldn't otherwise afford it, but will put off buyers who think those things should be standard, and will increase the price of cars equipped with the features, due to the effects of economies of scale. I'm sorry guys, the day of the no-frills car in the US are over.

And if you haven't been in a car with power seats, automatic climate control, and a good infotainment system, you haven't lived. Sure, a no-frills race car can be fun, but I hold no illusions. Most people can only afford one car, a daily driver, and if I was gonna pick a new no-frills or a bit more expensive car with some nice features, you better believe I'd take the air conditioner and power seats. If I wanted to drive a race car, I'd race in LeMons. The reality is, I have traffic, shitty weather, and long commutes to deal with.

What it seems most of you want from the next SX is something it never was: a stripped out race car. SX stands for Sport Luxury. These cars have always been a bit premium for their time.

As for the Leaf...

SchizophrenicMC on 08:54:36 PM / 16-Apr-13And if you haven't been in a car with power seats, automatic climate control, and a good infotainment system, you haven't lived. Sure, a no-frills race car can be fun, but I hold no illusions. Most people can only afford one car, a daily driver, and if I was gonna pick a new no-frills or a bit more expensive car with some nice features, you better believe I'd take the air conditioner and power seats. If I wanted to drive a race car, I'd race in LeMons. The reality is, I have traffic, shitty weather, and long commutes to deal with.

What it seems most of you want from the next SX is something it never was: a stripped out race car. SX stands for Sport Luxury. These cars have always been a bit premium for their time.

By corporate success, I wouldn't tell you how I would run it. Instead I will tell you that it will be a great success.

I'm sure I would run it straight into the ground.

StephenG on 10:25:12 PM / 16-Apr-13Bullshit. 90% of people are just going to plug their Ipod/phone into the aux port anyways. BT audio, a nice aux in port and convenient charge ports are pretty much what 90% of people are going to really use. Navigation? I dunno, maybe some people really would like that. But I think it is stupid to make the touch sceen nav system also control the stereo, A/C, and a dozen other systems in the car. Its needlessly complicated, most people never touch the other settings, its EXPENSIVE and incredibly expensive to fix/replace. Also, it means you have to develop TWO sets of controls if you want to have the option of not having the touch nav.

Personally I think it should be illegal to have A/C and Radio controls that are on a touch screen where they require you to look at them to operate. We already have enough idiots incapable of keeping their eyes on the road.

Hey watch the "old" remarks young man - you're coming close to crossing the ban line lol

I took the topic of this thread and translated it into "How would you drag Nissan out of the shadow of the other Japanese manufacturers." This can only be done by creating excitement around the brand.  To do that they will have to spend money developing something new because other than the 370z and GT-R there isn't anything exceptional on a Nissan lot these days.  With that in mind what does Nissan have to build off of? One obvious thing is their legacy of fun rear wheel drive cars!  If anybody has the ability to pull of a design like we are discussing it is Nissan.  Let's go over it in more detail.

As Schizo stated earlier the I-4 needs a reworking anyway.  Make sure it is configured to bolt up in both FWD and RWD configurations and save some development expense there.  Use the same basic suspention as the S14 or S15 and you have next to no development there. You also have a pre-existing aftermarket.  The R180/R200 rear end does not need a redesign for this application so that is a win too.  A refresh of their 5MT may be in order anyway so thet expense may be required regardless of this theoretical chassis.  So other than body/fram/interior the only expense unigue to this vehicle could be a few considerations when designing the new I-4 engine.

I completely disregard all the comments about "it is too expensive to design". That is complete crap. You want to talk expensive? Try to design an entry level FWD car that will come on the market and steal a significant market share from the Civic. There is a loosing battle.  Nissan has the resources to pull this type of design off and needs an offering that their competition does not have if it is going to grab any of the young, enthusiastic customer base.

While I don't care for the styling in general, that is good news.  Definitly a step closer to what I proposed back on page 1 but I fear it will be priced the same as the toyobaru though making it out of reach for most first time car buyers.  Something lighter with less tech and a lower price point to grab at the Civic crowd and teach a new generation about all the goodness that is RWD.

I heard about the Esflow thing and I don't buy the rumors. Nissan have said time and again, explicitly, that they believe the Juke is the way to go when appealing to the target market of the Toyobaru.

Iceage, you're exactly correct: Nissan's only chance is to come out of the shadow of Toyota and Honda. It has to prove itself, once again, as the maker of sporty products, to shine once more. Nissan, until its bankruptcy, was Japan's premier sporty make. Their legacy is in motorsport. In fact, their test of reliability to encourage new markets, was to rally two of their cars in the 1950s. However, since the Renault takeover, Nissan has taken a position firmly in what is safe, economically. The only risk they've taken has been in the Leaf, ironically enough. But the Leaf leads Nissan in the opposite direction of their past.

Nissan is about performance, even when it doesn't necessarily make full economic sense. It worked until circumstances beyond Nissan's control broke their system. They never bothered to put it back together, and just adopted a French model.

In my opinion, Nissan's future is in a return to its roots, in sport and performance. As well, they must develop global chassis and engine platforms in order to reduce cost and improve efficiency.

The safe economic stuff is absolutely mandatory to stay in business.  I don't fault them for that.  The problem is that the safe economic model makes them only avaiable to people who are already established financially.  That is all fine and dandy except that Toyota and Honda make good quality (although boring FWD) cars that teach young drivers brand loyalty.  I don't care what product you make.  If your business model is to hope your competitor falls on their face so you can steal their legacy customers, your financial future will never be bright.

Safe economic stuff is cool- I fully support the basic lineup of small, midsize, and full size sedans, backed by 2 SUVs, a minivan, and a couple others. Those are the meat of the sales. But my point is, they've stayed completely within what is safe. Nissan haven't taken any real risks in over 10 years, the Leaf aside. In the meantime, Honda made the S2000 and are making a new NSX, and Toyota has bet a whole helluva lot on the GT86, and expanding the Lexus sport line. And it's not just sporty cars, either. Honda and Toyota have both played some serious risks in hybrids, trucks, SUVs, and the like. They've taken risks with reshaping their brand image, and they've met varying degrees of success.

In the meantime, Nissan has retreated into its safe generic lineup, trying to leach off what brand loyalty they have left from the 90s, and Honda customers who were nonplussed by the poor quality of the last Civic and Accord. Where Nissan once took bold risks, leading the way to great things, now they cower in the shadow of the first two of the Japanese Big Three. And Nissan's always been the third member of the Japanese Big Three, but at least they had a niche in the past.

There's a sense of uncomfortable familiarity, here: Nissan is Japanese Chrysler.

Same point I was trying to make with fewer words.  Nissan has a good opportunity to introduce something like I described earlier, steal some current entry level market share and build a future repeat customer base.  I just see a cheap RWD being more realistic as an option, particularly for Nissan than trying to compete with another cheap FWD that has no chance of any real impact on the market.