The 2010s saw several mainstream car companies pivot upmarket. Hyundai and Kia entered a new era with the Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride, two vehicles focused on delivering value based on feature content, not price. Similarly, Mazda redesigned their lineup with premium interiors on par with Acura. But not all brands were able to position themselves more favorably. Nissan chased market share, and as a result, seriously compromised their profitability in America. Many would agree that their lineup contains too much rental car fodder. With the redesigned Sentra, Nissan hopes to put their downmarket past behind them.
The current generation Sentra is arguably the weakest product in Nissan’s lineup. But it’s not the only model that could use improvement. The Rogue and Rogue Sport, Pathfinder, Titan, and Frontier are all outdated, mediocre, or both. Until recently the company didn’t really care about those problem vehicles, as the solution simply involved fleet sales and generous incentives to move the metal. Those corrosive tactics came back to bite Nissan. They’re struggling to make money in North America. Sales are down by double digits. Every Nissan model with the exception of the Kicks and NV van lineup is down when compared to this same period in 2018.
Nissan essentially reached its nadir in 2019. The fallout from the Ghosn debacle exposed the frailty of the partnership between Nissan and Renault. That fraught relationship contributed to the aborted merger between FCA and Renault. Nissan also experienced several leadership changes this year. Fortunately, it seems like CEO Makoto Uchida understands the challenges at hand.
Uchida has billed himself as a “product guy.” Basically, he believes product is paramount to a healthy car company. Although Uchida recently presided over Nissan’s Chinese operations, it’s unclear if he has ever made any product-related decisions. That being said, if he follows the current formula established by the company’s recent debuts, he just might be able to bring the automaker back from the brink.
The latest Sentra follows the footsteps of the Altima, Kicks, and Versa with its chiseled appearance and adoption of the new Nissan design language. Gone is the boxy yet bloated aesthetic of the previous generation. But the changes are more than skin deep. The interior received a hefty dose of premium materials thus far not seen in any compact Nissan. The dash is now clad in leather and satin-chrome aluminum accents are spread throughout the cabin. Nissan also introduced their Zero Gravity seats into the Sentra, making it the least expensive model with the technology.
And the new platform brought with it the usual benefits of increased NVH and body rigidity. More importantly, the redesign also included an independent rear suspension, an addition conspicuously absent on rivals like the Mazda 3. A new dual pinion rack power steering system was similarly engineered to improve the sedan’s driving dynamics. Nissan benchmarked the Volkswagen Golf for handling. Could you picture them doing that five years ago?
In terms of pricing, the company seems to have also benchmarked the competition. At $19,090, the Sentra starts out cheaper than the Toyota Corolla ($19,600) and Honda Civic ($19,750) but more expensive than the Kia Forte ($17,790) and Hyundai Elantra ($18,950).
Nissan seems to be taking the middle road when it comes to brand rejuvenation. Unlike Hyundai and Kia, their approach to interior quality will likely go beyond a mere aesthetic upgrade. It also appears Nissan paid attention to driving dynamics as well. But those changes have not resulted in a substantial increase in price like we see at Mazda. The company isn’t out of the woods just yet, but if they stay the course and apply the lessons learned from the 2020 Sentra to other models, they might just make it.
It may take awhile to dig out from under their stigma and the bland product line of the last decade. The new Altima and this Sentra do look very nice for mainstream sedans, and that top end saddle brown interior is far above what the brand was doing before. The Altima is a good looking car out on the road.
This may work for people who haven’t had the CVT fail on them, but between the Civic, new Corolla, Forte, and Mazda3 there’s a lot of competitive competition for those of us with the lingering taste of Jatco in our mouths. I’d feel better about a NISMO version with a stick shift.
The auto industry seems to be paralleling the housing market.
Today, half of all American households can no longer afford to buy a home. (Down from 70%).
Given what has been described above, the auto industry also seems to be targeting the upper half of American households.
These major sectors of the economy pretend that the lower half no longer exists.
Just one more example of the growing divide between the haves and have-nots.
I think in Nissan’s case it might be a matter of segmentation. With Mitsubishi in the fold they didn’t need *two* bargain brands.
And I expect the take rate for that quilted-leather interior in the top Sentra to be low but they’d be remiss not to go after higher-end buyers early in the product cycle while the design is fresh.
I still think Nissan’s current design language works better on the Leaf than any other car, and they should pivot to non-raised hatchbacks both for that reason and as a statement that Nissan is back in the business of building cars that aren’t easily-categorized default fleet fodder for inside-the-box thinkers again.
“easily-categorized default fleet fodder for inside-the-box thinkers ”
For the typical 2010s car buyer, traditional sedans, hatchbacks and wagons fit this definition.
Nissan needs to offer a 10 yr/100k warranty similar to Hyundai/Kia. I mean, they can redesign all they want, but when major components start failing shortly after the warranty expires, consumers notice. I get the feeling Nissan won’t do this because they know how long their products were designed to last.
Hyundai’s 10 year warranty is a marketing ploy and it’s worked. First of all it’s not transferable, second, there’s a lot of fine print in their. If you don’t adhere to a strict service policy or miss just one it voids the warranty. Nissan has a 5 year 60,000 power train warranty also. Hyundai’s warranty is also handled by a 3rd party. It’s not what it’s all cracked up to be.
How is the warranty handled by a third party? You have an issue, you take it to your local Hyundai dealer and they fix it without a deductible. Sure, if you skip all maintenance they may have an issue with it but that’s obvious, I would too if I offered a warranty.
It also isn’t VOIDED when you sell the car but the 100k miles reduces to 50k or 60k for the second buyer. However their engine issue on the 2.4l for which they have been replacing engines has now extended the warranty to 120k and IS transferable to future purchasers.
I think Kevin’s right. Hyundai has thrown in a lot of language that gives them plenty of wiggle room for service departments to deny warranty claims when the mileage and years start adding up. Things might be okay up to the industry standard 3-year/36k mile level, but past that, there might be some issues.
It’s been known since the hoary old Chrysler ‘Forward Look’ days that offering a big warranty is a desperate attempt by a manufacturer to remedy an awful build quality reputation.
Enthusiasts, or at least enthusiasts who know history, should understand that car companies, even ones who once produced very good product, can and do die. And sometimes, that is for the best.
All signs are pointing to the fact that we reached peak car, in terms of new product being built and sold. New cars are becoming more and more unobtainable to a large percentage of the population, production capacity is well over what is needed, and the impending shift to alternate energy sources for power are shaking up the market.
Sergio Marchionne was correct in thinking that consolidation was the future. We are seeing that becoming reality, both in mergers and in sharing of platforms and technologies between competitors. All of this means that there will be fewer OEMs, fewer brands, and only the strong (and not the best) will survive.
Take Packard, a quality builder of great cars, who finally got taken over by Studebaker and promptly died within a few years. And not without the indignities of the 1957 and 1958 models being Studebakers in Packard drag. It really came down to the company falling behind and never being able to catch back up. The similarities to Nissan are there, albeit in a different market. Nissan went from desired to fleet fodder, and was a merger candidate just as Packard was, only not falling prey to that (yet). With Renault not the most stable of possible partners, it is not as dire as the situation was with Studebaker, but one sees the parallels if one looks.
I am not saying Nissan should throw in the towel, but I have to wonder how they really think that they can fully recover from their (self-inflicted) wounds on their own. Yes, new product, new quality product, will help a lot, but they just do not have enough in the bank to fully fund a full line of new product, and they need just that. Not one or two models, but a full refresh. It’s like remodeling a bathroom in a house and expecting it to make the whole house now worth tons more to a potential buyer. Ask any real estate agent how that works…
At this point, I also have to wonder if the Japanese government is willing to allow Nissan to die. They have a declining population, fewer workers, and plenty of other car companies producing, so would it be a gamble worth taking for Nissan to end? It may be better for Japan to have one less company to keep the others strong.
Add all these factors in, and one really has to wonder why should Nissan live? I am not advocating the demise, but I can see where a Do Not Resuscitate order be noted for this patient.
Sometimes companies can go from being in deep decline to being major fighters again by making just one line of good products.
Look at Volkswagen. In the 70s they were close to becoming a one-hit wonder that died when the rear-engined aircooled range ran out of time, and yet they scored a big hit with the new transverse FWD cars, which allowed them to proceed with further expansion.
Or BMW with the Neu Klasse of ’63 (albeit via a saviour’s injection of cash from the Quandts, perhaps akin to a new alliance/partner today).
I’m not sure you could really call Renault not the most stable of partners. So far this year, they’ve sold about 1.8million Renaults, 600,000 Dacias, 350,000 Ladas, and 70,000 Samsungs. On top of that, their commercial vehicle operation is huge, I believe the biggest in Europe. The total comes in close to 4 million vehicles. Last year, they returned 6.5% on 58 billion in sales, a year when they were hit by the Ghosn business. That’s a pretty damn sold business, surely? If perhaps you mean the Ghosn stuff, it’s not entirely clear that politics didn’t play a part there, my point being it’s a pretty effective operator who can turn around two massive companies as he did while doubtless squashing many toes. The Nissan strategies in NA might certainly have failed, but that not the case in other markets. (As examples, I’m fairly sure Nissan is the biggest automaker in the UK, and they’re not regarded as bargain-basement things in Australia). It would seem Renault’s management is quite stable of itself.
I like your take on their future, but I reckon politics and culture will ensure Nissan does not go under.
I keep reading conflicting reports with one saying the 2020 Sentra will have a stick shift while other sources say it will not. Personally, I do not much care for these photos of the fanciest of Sentras and will wait to see what the base model looks like. Honestly, I have no interest in buying a Nissan and like others have talked about I cannot afford a new car anyway or want to deal with a balky CVT.
I have heard the base model will have a stick shift at least in Canada.
Aaaahhh, thanks!
I think putting their eggs into the Sentra basket is a mistake. CUVs seem to be what people want and they should have gone there first. Attempt to create a hit compact or mid size CUV and build your brand from there.
That said the Sentra looks really nice. Perhaps only an average engine and image will hold it back.
Well, a new Rogue/Qashqai/X-Trail is in the pipeline, and so are new Murano and Pathfinder.
In addition, we’ve just had a new Juke in Europe. Reviewers say that the handling is neat, though comfort and build quality suffer a bit.
It may not be a bad idea. The CUV market is completely saturated with models, and yet another generic compact CUV would just get lost in the crowd. Other automakers are abandoning the sedan market, and not all those buyers are going to want to jump over in a CUV.
Besides, it’s not like Nissan doesn’t have the Kicks, Rogue, and Juke…
Build a Sentra wagon. Or better yet, a Sentra AWD Outback. Or for the trifecta, a HYBRID Sentra AWD Outback.
They already have (had?) the Rogue Hybrid and the Altima AWD. How hard could it be, at least people might talk about it, get the buzz going.
I agree with Todd. Essentially, Nissan is in the same boat as the old independents like Studebaker and AMC. They could try to go mano-a-mano with the big boys and eek out a sliver of the crowded CUV pie with a product nowhere near as good as the guys with the money.
Or they could either develop a completely new niche or stay with upgrading a segment that everyone else has abandoned and hope for the best.
Of those three options, the most cost-effective is the last. Only time will tell if it works. So far, Mitsubishi has done okay with the surprise hit of the bottom-feeder Mirage.
So what car should be the fleet fodder ? Rental companies need thousands of new cars every year yet it seems people put down the cars that are a good economic choice for these companies. This would be a good opportunity for a Chinese company to get its foot in the door in the American market.
The problem is people get in their rental-spec Sentra, and think “So this is a Nissan?”. And then when it’s time to buy a new car, they just write off Nissan completely and don’t even bother to look at Nissan’s other offerings.
As much as I think sub brands are kind of silly, this seems to be one of the good uses of one. If I was Nissan, I’d probably try to move the Nissan brand upmarket too. If they still wanted to chase the rental market, that could be a good use for Mitsubisihi.
Leather clad dash?
I wonder what that will look like after cooking in the sun for a few years?
That alone would keep me from buying that car.
But to each his own.
Partnership with Renault is certain death. Look at AMC. Oh…you can’t. AMC was so wounded by Renault influence that they fell into bed with Chrysler. Who recently tried to fall into bed with…Renault. And probably will fall into bed with PSA. The French are nothing but trouble. I thought it was bad when Chrysler merged with Fiat. At least they weren’t French.
If Nissan had continued to build desirable cars, they wouldn’t be in trouble. They diverted too much time, money, effort, and enthusiasm into the Leaf (political correctness) instead of something worthwhile (actual, desirable vehicles.) Don’t get me started on the Jukebox.
AS USUAL, some moron “decision maker” or a “corporate board” ruins it for the rest of the workers (and consumers.)
I pine for the days of the B210 and 240Z/260Z Nissan has gone downhill beginning with the 280Z.
I prefer to call the Juke the “joke”.
“puke”
In the late 90’s, Nissan was a severe financial trouble. If Renault hadn’t bought a controlling share, Nissan would not have survived.
https://money.cnn.com/1999/03/27/deals/nissan/
Quote from above article circa 1999. The line about making inexpensive cars is relevant to this post about the Sentra, 20 years later.
What’s interesting about this deal is that each brings what the other lacks. Renault has financial expertise and, industrially, it knows how to develop successful vehicles,” said Patrice Solaro, auto analyst at Julius Baer.
“Nissan has worldwide know-how, which Renault is looking for, and it is one of the most efficient manufacturers — along with Toyota — in terms of developing cars rapidly that are inexpensive to assemble,” he added.
Didn’t realize the Nissan/Renault merger was 1999, fittingly about the last year I thought Nissan had any interesting product, before styling went off the deep end with goofy arch shapes and godawful CVT transmissions.