Summary
- Nissan’s pride and denial hindered merger talks, sources say
- Honda pushed Nissan for deeper cuts to jobs, factory capacity, sources say
- Nissan unwilling to consider factory closures, sources say
- Honda’s proposal to make Nissan a subsidiary caused tensions, sources say
Exactly. The whole point was to help farmers, but it was broad enough that car manufacturers could include SUVs under the rule.
We should’ve just allowed an exemption for models sold exclusively to farmers if that was a concern. Or just, don’t do it.
There are a lot of other personal uses for vans and pickups and other heavier duty vehicles in rural areas which require more power to haul things beyond farmers. Moving large amounts of wood and cleared brush, having off road capabilities that include lots of torque, and other stuff that has nothing to do with highway driving are common outside of cities.
The exemptions should be handled in a way that discourages owning such a vehicle for personal use in an urban setting without being tied to a business. Hell, that could involve who the vehicles are being advertised/targeted to for in addition to literal vehicle types.
The problem was not changing up when it became apparent that the outcome was discouraging high mileage small cars for commuting. Overthinking the how to discourage laerger trucks misses the point that car companies leaned into large vehicles and advertised to convince the population that they needed larger vehicles. They could have been barred from advertising large vehicles.
100% agreed. There are multiple ways to solve this problem, yet we looked at none of them. A work truck shouldn’t be concerned much w/ fuel economy, since it’s a very small group of people that need them. Just like we have special farm diesel, we should have special vehicles that are only available to that demographic, and they can be stripped down versions of similar/same vehicles intended for regular consumers (who will pay a premium for the privilege).