Nissan 300 Zx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota, Honda, Mazda and Nissan recall 3.4 million vehicles for faulty airbags

Most vehicle recalls that take place these days are a result of some problem that happens during the manufacturing process by the automaker, but as we see here, parts suppliers can also factor in to problematic safety issues. Automotive News is reporting that a total of 3.4 million vehicles produced by Japanese automakers between 2000 and 2004 are being recalled globally due to faulty airbags produced by an outside supplier, Takata Corp.
According to the report, vehicles from Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Mazda are being recalled because of passenger front airbags that do not inflate properly. Globally, Toyota is said to be recalling around 1.73 million cars including 510,000 in the US composed of Toyota Corolla, Matrix, Sequoia and Tundra as well as the Lexus SC430 for the 2001 through 2003 model years; this is the second time this year the 2003 Corolla and Matrix have been recalled for an airbag problem. Honda is recalling 1.14 million models, Nissan another 480,000 and Mazda 45,463. The article says that Takata supplied faulty airbags to non-Japanese automakers, but it did not specify which ones.
Honda and Toyota have released information on their own websites about the recall, while Nissan and Mazda have not yet commented. Read official press releases from Honda and Toyota, below, and look for updates as we have word from the others.

Renault, Nissan limit French government interference

Renault and Nissan are taking action to limit the influence that one can exercise over the other's operations. The measures, announced by both automakers after meetings of their respective boards in Paris and Tokyo, aim to keep each other at arm's length. But more than that, they seek to cap the degree of influence which the French government can bring to bear on either automaker. The steps are being taken in response to investment moves by the French state. While the government's investment arm – known as the Agence des Participations de l'Etat (or state participation agency) – previously controlled 15 percent of Renault's shares, it increased its holdings this April to 19.73 percent. The action sparked concerns at Renault that the French government would attempt to dictate operating procedures to both automakers, potentially to favor production in France over other locations. Given that Renault holds a 43-percent stake in Nissan, the Japanese automaker grew concerned over potential French state interference as well. To assuage those concerns, Renault, Nissan, and the French government came to an agreement with three vital clauses. Most importantly, despite its nearly 20-percent holdings, the French government will be granted only 17.9 percent of voting rights in Renault (to be extended up to 20 percent under certain exceptional circumstances). Renault (and by extension the French government) will also be prevented from interfering in Nissan's governance. With those measures in place, Nissan will not seek more voting rights based on the 15-percent stake which it, in turn, holds in Renault. Having successfully concluded the deal and hedged against the threat of government interference, the Renault board reasserted its confidence in Carlos Ghosn. Through the unique terms of their alliance, Ghosn serves as chairman and CEO of both Renault and Nissan. The two cooperate closely and share resources extending far beyond their chief executive, but remain distinct companies rather than merge, as Fiat and Chrysler have. Renault Board approves alliance stability covenant between Renault and Nissan As early as 16th April 2015, the Renault Board of Directors unanimously reiterated that the sustainability, success and resilience of the Alliance since its very inception in 1999 were based on a balance of shares held by Renault and Nissan.

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question