Skip to content

Nissan chooses Japan over UK to build new X-Trail car

February 4, 2019

By Paul Homewood

While there have been attempts in some quarters to blame Brexit for Nissan’s decision to cancel plans to build the new X-Trail in Sunderland, the truth is much more mundane and worrying, as even the BBC reluctantly admit:

image

Nissan has confirmed that the new X-Trail originally planned for its Sunderland plant will instead be made in Japan.

In a letter to workers, it said continued Brexit uncertainty is not helping firms to "plan for the future".

In 2016, the carmaker said it would build the new model in the UK after "assurances" from the government.

Unions described the news as "disappointing" and said they were "seriously concerned".

The government said Nissan’s decision was "a blow to the sector" but that no jobs would go as a result.

Nissan has made cars at Sunderland since 1986 and employs almost 7,000 people.

Changing environment

Commenting on its decision, Nissan also said that since 2016 "the environment for the car industry in Europe has changed dramatically", including "changing emissions regulations".

In the UK, diesel cars that fail to meet the latest emissions standards now face a levy and a number of European countries, including the UK, have announced bans on both new diesel and petrol vehicles in the future.

As a result, sales of new diesel cars in the UK tumbled by 30% in 2018, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Nissan X-Trail

Nissan was always going to produce the X-Trail model at its Kyushu production hub but decided two years ago, "there was a good business case for bringing production to Europe as well," according to the firm’s Europe chairman, Gianluca de Ficchy.

He said the company is now planning "to optimise our investments and concentrate production in Kyushu, instead of adding another production site".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47107561

Nissan’s own figures show how much sales have declined in Europe, by 12% in just the last year:

image

https://newsroom.nissan-global.com/releases/release-41181d20da4d17b77ed88d7008064d96-190130-01-e?lang=en-US

 

This is reflected in UK production data, down by 10.7%.

 image

As we have already seen, sales of diesel in the UK have plummeted in the last year or so, as a direct consequence of the government’s demonization of diesel cars, and its longer term obsession with EVs.

The UK is not alone either, with others such as France also looking to ban conventional engined cars in the not too distant future.

It is little surprise that potential buyers of diesels are thinking twice, nervous of punitive taxation, congestion charging or even outright bans from city areas. Even if these threats may not be imminent, there is still the worry about residual values.

As the Telegraph pointed out last May, Nissan may pull out of selling diesels completely in Europe. Around a quarter of Nissan’s Sunderland plant’s output is diesel-powered cars.

The X-Trail is, of course, a purely diesel model. It is hardly surprising then that Nissan are not keen on spending hundreds of millions building its new X-Trail in the UK, when there may be few potential buyers here or in Europe in ten years time.

As I commented a few months ago, the government’s obsession with EVs is putting the UK car industry at great risk. The first sign of this would a reluctance of car firms to invest in new models and assembly lines for them, when there may not be a market for them in a decade’s time.

As a result, we would start losing market share to imports.

Nissan’s decision to manufacture the X-Trail in Japan rather than here may a portent of things to come.

Advertisements
39 Comments
  1. Ian Magness permalink
    February 4, 2019 6:59 pm

    There may be another aspect to this as well – electricity cost expectations. To be clear, I don’t know what % of a car’s manufacturing cost relates to electricity. However, in a globally falling car market, anything that eats into margins has to be considered. Global companies can move production around to where costs are lowest and who in their right mind would place an energy-intensive manufacturing process in Britain with the present ruling elite’s obsession with replacing cheaper electricity with the ever-spiralling upward cost of a grid with ever-increasing percentages of renewable power, not least windmills? Companies like Nissan, of course, cannot possibly be seen to be anything other than helping save the planet, so they would not flag this up. One has, however, suspicions.

    • Duker permalink
      February 4, 2019 7:29 pm

      Large users like a car plant normally get the best of best deals for things like electricity. However it seems that the X trail and its its slightly smaller cousin the Quashqai overlap – when I see them around they seem identical. Not good for consumers when they are expected to pay more for the larger car .

  2. Philip permalink
    February 4, 2019 7:04 pm

    Perhaps the new EU-Japan trade deal also means that Nissan no longer needs to manufacture in an EU country, and since it already makes the X-Trail in Japan, why bother setting up a new line in the UK for a declining market, when there’s no longer any trading disadvantage in supplying the cars from home.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      February 4, 2019 8:35 pm

      That is more likely to be the reasoning than Brexit, though Brexit won’t have helped. If Europe is becoming a declining market for the product then it makes more sense to centralise production on home soil where the production “thermostat” can be controlled more easily.

      Added to which it makes no sense for any company to make major investment in the UK in present circumstances. And unless somebody comes to their senses very soon foreign investment in Britain will decline in direct proportion to the ever-increasing energy costs and no amount of free trade deals, “easy” or otherwise, will be enough to offset that.

    • February 4, 2019 10:01 pm

      Spot on, Philip

    • shep permalink
      February 5, 2019 8:55 am

      The EU-Japan trade deal was expdited by both sides because of the referendum result. My Japanese spouse says that Abe’s pretty much unheard of public begging of May to avoid a hard brexit, shows how deeply worried they are about the effect on UK based Japanese companies. I’m sure the Nissan decision was made for many reasons, but Brexit is an unavoidably significant factor.

  3. Charles Wardrop permalink
    February 4, 2019 7:22 pm

    Do our politicos and Euro motor mfrs not realise the terrible drawbacks of EVs, with range anxiety, charging problems, electricity shortages and explosive Li batteries needing costly replacement?
    Or are they still obsessed by futile greenery?
    Do they have, and listen to, realistic scientific advisers?

    • February 4, 2019 7:28 pm

      I sat in my car opposite a couple of Ecotricity EV charging points this morning. They looked like they were falling to pieces and rusting away from lack of use.

    • Bidefordcamel permalink
      February 4, 2019 7:40 pm

      If it’s greenery they’re after, extra CO2 should help. Plants like it.😁

    • February 4, 2019 10:30 pm

      Perfectly stated, Charles Wardrop. Couldn’t agree more. When will they ever learn ?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      February 5, 2019 1:37 pm

      No.
      Yes.
      No.

    • Tom O permalink
      February 5, 2019 1:56 pm

      Forcing EVs on people is all part of controlling the public, where it can go, what it can do, and when it can do it. The real intent of forcing EVs is to insure that everyone becomes ignorant of everything that goes on anywhere other than around them. MSM already prevents you from knowing what is going on in other parts of the country, unless you know someone there or find out through the internet. They are working towards controlling the internet – it really is just a matter of time, they are pricing you out of being able to go places to see first hand, and EVs limited range will help keep you in the dark about places outside of that range. If everyone is ignorant of what is going on elsewhere, they can more easily be manipulated and controlled. Think about how much your personal sphere of knowledge is really shrinking and you can actually see the on rushing trainwreck of world government coming at you. Just my opinion, but to me, everything that is ongoing, from the faux global warming, to the fight against sovereignty, to the rush towards an unstable energy program all points to world government and reduced populations. And if your EV range can’t get you to a safe place, then you will be caught in whatever plans they have to control population where you are.

  4. February 4, 2019 7:26 pm

    You don’t even need govt policy to destroy a perfectly good technology, in this case diesel cars, another key technology being coal/gas power stations. All you need is the threat of “Planet Savers” getting into govt, even via a tiny vote share in a coalition govt. Be very afraid.

  5. February 4, 2019 7:33 pm

    We bought a Nissan Navara 4×4 double cab pickup truck a year ago, got low mileage second hand and intend to keep for potentially 10 years so residual not really an issue for us as it will be worth nothing by then anyway. (It is a big vehicle, much bigger than the x-trail)

    It is a 190hp twin turbo diesel engine with 400Nm+ torque. We rarely if ever go into a city so don’t really care if they ban us. We do mostly rural lanes or motorway driving and carry everything from building materials to old Land Rover engines or a set of mountain bikes. Despite weighing 2 ton it still gets 50+ genuine mpg on the motorway and 35-40mpg in local driving. On a long motorway run it has a range of 700 miles.

    I’d like to see them get the same sort of economy from a tiny petrol engine which seems to be the lunatic solution these days, may get good mpg on a rolling road in a lab but not in real world driving in a heavy vehicle with a full load on board. While the x-trail is not quite so large it is still a heavy vehicle and needs a diesel engine for maximum efficiency. There won’t be many people willing to buy a petrol version that only gets 17mpg in real world driving!

    No EV currently available can get 700 mile range while carrying 2 adults, 2 kids and 500Kg of cargo and I doubt one will be available any time soon.

    This is what you get when you have clueless university graduates with no real world experience and having never done a real days work in their life becoming MP’s, they make stupid decisions and then blame everybody else when it all goes tits up! This country will be a 3rd world wasteland if we don’t get rid of the imbeciles in power soon.

    • BLACK PEARL permalink
      February 4, 2019 8:28 pm

      Normal people dont usually aspire to become a politician
      Often its some indoctrinated activist who sees the world in a different dimension to common sense normal thinkers. Oh …. the media are also full of these ‘Jack in the box’ people if thats an appropriate description. Brexit has clearly exposed this situation for all to see.

    • HotScot permalink
      February 4, 2019 11:20 pm

      mud4fun

      O/T

      Did you ever get anywhere with your new website? I’m soon to retire back home to Scotland and am interested in buying a good landy that will see me out.

      • February 5, 2019 9:14 am

        Hi HotScot, no progress so far on a new home for my blog. Too busy with the day job, the old house and the kids sadly. I’ll try and sort it out this summer. I may just have to open the existing blog back up again but add even more (image ruining) watermarks to try and prevent the photo theft. Still leaves the issue of abuse via comments (which seemed to soar after I’d mentioned I voted leave) even though it was a technical blog about restoring old Land Rovers of which I have 40 years experience, far more than the snowflakes, who decided they knew more than me about things they had no real practical experience of but had googled it so made them experts apparently…. 😉

    • Gerry, England permalink
      February 5, 2019 1:45 pm

      I am considering buying a used X-Trail partly because of its towing capacity. 2 tons with a braked trailer. Match that Mr Battery Car.

  6. MrGrimNasty permalink
    February 4, 2019 7:50 pm

    The X-Trail is not a big seller here in the EU anyway. I assume it would have used Renault diesel engines, so if there was a market for diesel X-Trails it would make sense to build them near the engine production and market. The EU/UK have killed the potential market with their green nonsense. Nissan already have production facilities for other engine variants in Japan near markets where they sell better.

    In reality it has nothing to do with Brexit at all. It’s a foretaste of the economic damage that knee-jerk green policies do.

    Most of the car companies are desperate to pull car manufacturing out of the UK – energy and labour costs are much cheaper elsewhere. They reluctantly maintain some presence for public relations/political reasons – if energy prices continue to increase, no doubt they will exit anyway.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      February 4, 2019 10:38 pm

      Someone I know had both the first & second generation X-Trails (with 2.2 & 2.0 diesels, respectively) to pull his caravans. When he went to replace the last one a couple of years back, the new 3rd Gen X-Trail – as seen in Paul’s picture above – was only available with a 1.6 diesel. He no doubt read some of the motoring press opinions that it was underpowered with a ‘van hanging on the back, and bought another make instead. Clearly, many other potential buyers did likewise, before Nissan realised they had boobed, and made it available with a 2 litre engine. Trouble is once your previously faithful customers have changed allegiance, it’s not easy to get them back…

      • Saighdear permalink
        February 4, 2019 11:48 pm

        Hmm, as an Engineer, scrutinising vehicle Specs for this n that purpose, GVWs begin to cause grief. Without going into a lot of Detail: we find that asthe Engines get “bigger ( why?) Mass of towing vehicle increases, thereby REDUCING Towing weight – all todo with Max MASS of Combo. Now since small engines can deliver MUCH MORE power than, say, 20 yrs ago, a 1.3 engine can deliver 100hp, I do WISH learned folk could speak knowledgeably about engine size. cc of engine has nothing to do with towing ability. Hulls bells, we now have Tractors up to ~150HP on $ cylinders and 4.5L Capacity. My 2.5L Transporter can do close on 200hp from 4 or 5 cyls and Max Torq. at around 1600erpm ……. AND IF Diesels are bad, then eg. WHY doesn’t Nissan make a PETROL X-trail – who ever said it should be a diesel. Landrovers andRange rovers started of with petrol – as did MOST of our road-going vehicles. …..

      • Gerry, England permalink
        February 5, 2019 1:50 pm

        2.2 2007 X-Trail can tow a braked load of 2 tons. My 1.8 Transit Connect can only do 700kg max and this is due to the max vehicle weight set by Ford leaving little left over.

  7. February 4, 2019 8:38 pm

    What good practical reasons do the UK have to justify decarbonisation attempts and wht would happen were that deliberately abandoned?
    Who in government realises that is the way to proceed?

  8. HotScot permalink
    February 4, 2019 11:14 pm

    Evidently the £60m taxpayer investment in Nissan UK will continue anyway. Evidently it was for EV research.

    If EV’s are such wonder vehicles why are taxpayers ‘invited’ to invest in them?

    • Charles Wardrop permalink
      February 5, 2019 7:53 am

      No good reason, just mere fashionable, wrong -headed thinking and so utter waste.

  9. February 5, 2019 8:34 am

    @Saighdear

    “Without going into a lot of Detail: we find that as the Engines get “bigger ( why?) Mass of towing vehicle increases”

    Engines haven’t really got bigger, in like for like applications they haven’t got much smaller either.

    My 1960 Land Rover has a 2.3 diesel engine, my 2016 Nissan Navara (a modern like for like equivalent pickup truck) also has a 2.3 diesel engine.

    My 1986 Rover Metro had a 1.3 engine, my modern Corsa had a 1.4 engine

    I have owned approx. 200 cars over the last 40 years and I see no trend for larger engines? The trend is for smaller engines that are turbocharged or supercharged. The bulk of modern day pickup trucks and SUV’s have engines that are same size or smaller than engines from 30 years ago.

    Vehicles have got heavier though, in most part due to increased sound insulation, safety systems and interior refinements not because of the weight of engines or transmissions. If anything transmissions have become lighter and more compact with less power loss, engines have also become lighter with alloy or composite blocks and alloy heads.

    “Now since small engines can deliver MUCH MORE power than, say, 20 yrs ago, a 1.3 engine can deliver 100hp”

    Sorry, but you are mistaken, hp is largely irrelevent when talking about a heavy 4×4 towing, off roading or even economy in slow speed driving. It is TORQUE that is more important. A diesel produces far more torque than a petrol at very low revs. The manufactures often choose to state hp because these modern smaller engines can indeed produce high hp for their modest size but at very high rpm’s! Having to scream your engine to pull away with a 2 ton load on tow causes premature wear to engine, transmission and clutch. A diesel can pull the same load away at half the revs.

    I recently owned a 2015MY 1.4 turbo petrol Corsa. It had 100hp and 200Nm of torque. As small engines go it was actually very good however that power wasn’t delivered until 4K rpm and the torque from 2K rpm. The smaller 1.0 turbo 3 cylinder is actually quoted as having 115hp but it only delivers 150Nm of torque and its power is achieved at 5.5K rpm!! I did 45K miles in that Corsa and can assure you that its power delivery is not suitable for a large 4×4. It struggled to pull the skin of a rice pudding at very low revs and would stall constantly if you tried to drive it like a diesel (low revs to pull away), the torque was not delivered until the turbos kicked in and that wasn’t until at least 1800rpm. In comparison my 1960 Land Rover diesel has been tested on a rolling road and achieves its peak torque at 1100rpm and my brand new 2.3 diesel jap pickup delivers its 400Nm of torque at 1500rpm – both diesels delivering over 50% of their max torque at just 1000rpm, almost impossible in a small turbo petrol engine.

    “who ever said it should be a diesel. Land Rovers and Range rovers started of with petrol – as did MOST of our road-going vehicles”

    Partly correct. The first Land Rovers used a 1.6 rover petrol engine simply because that was all that was available within the Rover group post war and didn’t require any development costs or development time. They were in a rush to get a vehicle ready for exporting to allow them to meet export quota to get steel quota in return (for their rover cars division). The later Land Rover 2.25 petrol engine was actually based on a 2.25 diesel engine, it utilised the same block and many other components. The petrol engine was thus vastly over engineered and had a reputation as bullet proof, as it should, it was designed to cope with double the compression ratio that it was being used for! As it happened anybody that used the Land Rover for agricultural use, towing or carrying heavy loads demanded a diesel. This is why Land Rover developed the 2.25 diesel. While it only produced a modest 60hp/170Nm torque, it was way ahead of its time and even today in perfect condition can achieve 33mpg on a long run and 28mpg around town. Its 23:1 compression ratio gives incredible engine braking (making it ideal for slow speed off road work on slippy surfaces or for towing). The bulk of working Land Rovers were fitted with diesel engines from 1957 onwards. The petrol engine was a superb unit, much quieter than the diesel and in perfect condition was very refined so was more often chosen for private transport purposes (at a time when petrol was cheap), however the petrol engine could barely better 18mpg, 40% less than the diesel of the same capacity. The Range Rover started out with the Buick fireball all alloy V8, it only deliver 100hp but had masses of torque at low revs. I owned one and can assure you, it struggled to better 18mpg in local driving. As fuel costs soared, petrols were replaced with diesels even in private motoring. The diesel though has always been there for working vehicles almost from the very start of Land Rover history. In countries like the US, petrol vehicles were more popular but that is largely due to cheaper fuel prices and a mentality of the yanks who seem to dislike having to do oil changes every few thousand miles.

    • February 5, 2019 10:06 am

      PS. My last pickup truck, a 115hp/240Nm 2.5 turbo diesel (Mazda B2500) did 280,000 miles on its engine requiring nothing but routine oil changes. It was disposed of after 10 years due to heavy corrosion in the body/chassis, the mechanicals were still in very good shape. It averaged 34mpg over its life (despite only having 5 spd gearbox and low geared diff)

      While I agree that you can get a small 1.4 turbo petrol engine that on paper produces the same peak power and torque figures, I would honestly suggest that it would be virtually undrivable in a large 4×4 pickup truck, would return far inferior economy and engine longevity would be nowhere near a match for the larger diesel. Hell I’d go as far as saying it would struggle to make 100K miles, let alone the 300K that the big diesel could do in the same application.

      You would probably have to put very low gearing in to overcome the lack of low down torque at low speeds (and for towing etc) and add more gears, maybe an 8 or even 10 speed gearbox in order to maintain any semblance of motorway cruising speeds at low revs (for best economy and low noise).

    • thedude permalink
      February 5, 2019 5:55 pm

      As a yank, I believe the EPA had more to do with it than oil changes. We had several VW and MB diesel cars that seemed to sell well in the 70s and 80s. Diesel fuel used to be a lot cheaper too (it surpassed regular back around ’06 in my area). Since then (early-mid 90s?), EPA rules in general tightened up quite a bit, so I think it was more of an issue where mfgs just couldn’t hit the EPA numbers. There is also this “rolling coal” stigma where people look down their noses at that filthy, poisonous, rapey, evil exhaust – similar to how they see thermal power plants. There is certainly no lack of diesel trucks though. I’m somewhat ignorant of the rules, but there are regs based on year and GVW of the truck regarding what type of cat or particulate filter has to be installed and if you need to use DEF (diesel-wee) or not, and then commercial use is even worse. If you’re still committed to that truck, they (California) will still hit you with a $1500+/year additional registration fee. They are currently trying to apply these rules to off-road, tractors, and farm equipment also.

      • February 5, 2019 7:32 pm

        yeah, because fuel was so much cheaper in the US you could run a V8 petrol engine in a large 4×4, get the same torque as a diesel but have much lower NOx. I believe the EPA ignored CO2 (which is non toxic) and concentrated on the more toxic elements of the exhaust gases? meaning a 2.5 diesel would come out worse than V8 petrol.

  10. Adam Gallon permalink
    February 5, 2019 9:39 am

    The threat of a No deal Brexit, doubtless hasn’t helped. All you need to do, is look at the appropriate EU legislation covering type approvals. https://ec.europa.eu/info/brexit/brexit-preparedness/preparedness-notices_en#grow to see that.

  11. February 5, 2019 12:06 pm

    Blaming Brexit for this decision is almost entirely a red herring, just another project fear story.

    The main reason that all car manufacturers are facing issues at the moment is the inane decisions made by government and green lobby groups with regards environmental concerns over diesels.

    Sadly too many people (including politicians and greens) put too much faith in paper specifications and do not understand that in real world driving vehicles will often produce very different results than those achieved in labs.

    The vilification of diesels is not just causing issues with manufacturers, it will potentially lead to worse emissions and damage to health and environment than ‘on paper’ results show.

    It has been shown in numerous studies and confirmed by my own experience that larger diesels are more environmentally cleaner than small petrol engines in certain applications or types of use. A small petrol engine in some circumstance can emit DOUBLE the CO2 and HIGHER NOx!! Hardly a ‘greener’ solution and yet we now have the general public switching to petrols in droves regardless of intended use. Some people (including some journalists) even believe that petrols do not produce NOx!

    There is not a one size fits all solution to vehicle engines and fuels. People should be buying a vehicle/engine/fuel based on their real world requirements and all engines need to be regularly serviced and tuned to keep them at their peak.

    If you do mostly motorway driving then you will probably be better in a larger capacity diesel as it will produce lower CO2 and NOx emissions than a smaller capacity petrol engine (regardless as to whether they have the same claimed peak power). Even particulates are minimal in a diesel on a motorway as the DPF’s will be operating at peak efficiency.

    If you tow 2 tons, carry 1 ton+ payloads or do off road driving you are also better with a larger capacity diesel than a smaller petrol engine.

    If however you mostly drive a few miles to the shops in town and rarely go on the motorway then you should be in a small petrol, hybrid or electric car (or just walk/cycle/use the bus).

    The government needs to make this clear because their dithering and lack of understanding on the real world emissions is causing confusion, uncertainty and potentially causing more harm than good.

    It just beggars belief that we now have numpties driving along doing 35mpg in a petrol car thinking that they are being more environmentally friendly than doing 60mpg in a diesel……

    • Tom O permalink
      February 5, 2019 2:17 pm

      My guess would be it’s the range, not the particulates, that is the problem with diesels. You can’t be “compartmentalized” if you can get in your vehicle and drive outside of an EVs standard range. You will know what is happening elsewhere, thus a threat to the control system.

    • February 5, 2019 2:28 pm

      PS. It would also help manufacturers like Nissan/Land Rover etc if the green obsessed media did not lie or mislead about proposed government legislation. The claimed Diesel/Petrol ban in 2025/2032/2040 (depending on who you listen to) is not a ban at all!!!!

      I have had it confirmed by an MP that new diesel and petrol vehicles will still be available even under the proposals (that have been declared a ban by the media), it is just that they will have to have an ancillary electric motor installed to allow them to travel short distance on battery alone for use in town/city, which makes perfect sense to me. (eg. basic hybrid).

      Existing diesel and petrol vehicles will continue to be allowed on the roads long after the legislation comes into force. The expectancy is that diesel and petrol fuel will still be in widespread use for many decades to come. There is no need for mass panic and no need for people to stop buying cars.

      Also the scare stories about diesel being taxed out of use are just that, scare stories. The reality is fuel duty will be replaced by pay per mile road charging by 2040 as HMRC start to lose billions in road fuel duty as people switch to EV’s or hybrids. Those EV’s will then be paying far more than they do currently. As governments can never allow themselves to lose the current £28 billion a year in fuel duty and the £5 billion in VED it is likely that come 2040 you’ll find it more expensive to run an EV at peak time than a diesel car off peak as they move that £34 billion in tax to road charges and electric prices ….. 😉

  12. ThinkingScientist permalink
    February 5, 2019 2:39 pm

    I own a Landrover Discovery 4 and use it to tow our Airstream 684 trailer (caravan).

    My Disco has a 3.0 L diesel engine, 8 speed auto box and can legally tow 3.5 tons. Tow bar is rated for 250 kg nose weight. Our Airstream is 2.65 tons in full running order and is 8.25 m long. Total all up weight when towing on holiday is circa 5.6 tons and length (car+trailer) is around 42 feet. And we can still carry up to 7 adults (usually just 2 adults and 2 dogs)..

    My Disco 4 really needs replacing in the next year, but what with? The price between a Disco 4 and a Disco 5 jumped from £46K to £66K. What else has the tow capacity and a reasonable price that you can use as an everyday vehicle but can also tow a 2.65 ton trailer off a damp field? And with the future demise of diesel through government diktat, what EV car is going to tow that Airstream?

    • February 5, 2019 3:08 pm

      A jap double cab pickup? Our Nissan Navara can tow 3.5 tons and carry 4 adults in reasonable comfort. You can get a nice comfy bedrug in the bed for the dogs too 🙂

      True, a pickup is nowhere near the refinement level of a Disco but seriously, even a top spec pickup is 10K+ cheaper than the disco and they aren’t that uncomfortable or unrefined. We have been using our double cab pickups as work vehicle during the week and family transport at weekends. The Navara is not quite as nice to drive as our old Mazda but it is comfortable (all round coils), has a 197hp twin turbo diesel with oodles of torque, can cruise at 70+mph on motorway all day long or can cruise at 60mph and return 50+mpg even carrying the whole family and cargo. We do have our old Land Rovers for serious winter use but the jap trucks (we are on our 7th) are pretty good all round vehicles.

      • February 5, 2019 3:22 pm

        I started a blog about the Navara although haven’t updated it for ages, you should read the highs and lows pages before considering one. I know no vehicle is perfect and the Discos have their own list of faults but if you do consider a pickup truck it may be worth a read. The lows pages seems like it is an awful vehicle but I’m just being honest about its faults as I see them.

        https://wordpress.com/view/np300navara.wordpress.com

        and you can see the actual fuel economy tracked here

        http://www.fuelly.com/car/nissan/np300/2016/mud4fun/717227

        if you expand the notes sections on the individual fuel up records you’ll see what sort of driving was done on that tank and what the trip computer claimed mpg was which you can compare to the actual (usually 10% high)

      • February 5, 2019 3:52 pm

        aarggh, the url for the blog was wrong, it should have been https://np300navara.wordpress.com/

  13. Mike H permalink
    February 5, 2019 8:40 pm

    A smart journalist would have asked Nissan whether the decision would still have happened if we had voted to stay (probably yes, imho).
    Oh, silly me, this is the BBC.

  14. February 5, 2019 9:46 pm

    Of course the funny thing with the vilification of diesels is that the government has basically admitted it is happy to see a 40%+ increase of CO2 from people switching from diesel to petrol engines to save 3% on a tiny (and already reducing) amount of NOx emissions.

    The bulk of their environmental policy is based on CO2 being the cause of CAGW. If they are so quickly able to support massive increases in CO2 by actively encouraging people to switch to petrols then it leaves the entire CAGW movement in the UK in a pretty dodgy situation. Why are power power stations being closed down, industry closed down and the general public facing higher taxes all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions when the governments own actions seem to suggest they do not believe CO2 is a real problem!

    I think this will start to sink in soon and we’ll see this more widely reported in the ‘less green biased’ media. It was not long ago that the green brigade were telling us that personal transportation was one of the major sources of CO2 emissions in UK (after they had finished off our manufacturing industry), if so then once we all migrate to petrol those emissions will be substantially higher.

    I even watched Kay Burley proudly announce on Sky News the other day that she had junked her diesel car in favour of a petrol because it was better for the environment – so let me see, a petrol engine producing 40%+ more CO2 is better for environment? clearly she has seen the light and realised that CO2 is no longer a cause for concern and the whole CAGW scam is laid bare 😉 😉

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: