*** Super Clean 1986 Nissan 300zx *** 5 -spd *** T-tops !!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is 120 miles just about perfect for EV range?

When it comes to battery-electric vehicles, our friend Brad Berman over at Plug In Cars says 40 miles makes all the difference in the world. That's the approximate difference in single-charge range between the battery-electric version of the Toyota RAV4 and the Nissan Leaf. It's also the difference between the appearance or disappearance of range anxiety. The 50-percent battery increase has zapped any lingering range anxiety, Berman writes. The RAV4 EV possesses a 40-kilowatt-hour pack, compared to the 24-kWh pack in the Leaf. After factoring in differences in size, weight and other issues, that means the compact SUV gets about 120 miles on a single charge in realistic driving conditions, compared to about 80 miles in the Leaf. "The 50 percent increase in battery size from Leaf to RAV has zapped any lingering range anxiety," Berman writes. His observations further feed the notion that drivers need substantial backup juice in order to feel comfortable driving EVs. Late last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), along with the Consumers Union estimated that about 42 percent of US households could drive plug-in vehicles with "little or no change" in their driving habits, and that almost 70 percent of US commuters drive fewer than 60 miles per weekday. That would imply that a substantial swath of the country should be comfortable using a car like the Leaf as their daily driver - with first-quarter Leaf sales jumping 46 percent from a year before, more Americans certainly are. Still, the implication here is that EV sales will continue to be on the margins until an automaker steps up battery capabilities to 120 or so miles while keeping the price in the $30,000 range. Think that's a reasonable goal to shoot for?

PSA shares rise following FCA's breakup with Renault

Shares in Groupe PSA, parent company of automakers Peugeot, Citroen and the DS brand, rose on Thursday as analysts considered the possibility that Fiat Chrysler could turn back to PSA after withdrawing its $35 billion merger offer for Renault. "Both parties have acknowledged the need for scale or [mergers and acquisitions] and may pursue other opportunities. If Nissan was an obstacle (to an FCA-Renault deal) PSA-FCA discussions could resume," wrote brokerage Jefferies. Back in March at the Geneva Motor Show, rumors started swirling that PSA was interested in a potential merger with FCA. Mike Manley, who took over at the helm of Fiat Chrysler following the death of Sergio Marchionne, had indicated a willingness to look into potential partnership options. Of course, that was all before FCA proposed a merger with Renault — with that deal now off the table, attention naturally turns back to PSA, which is also based in France. "We expect both shares to react negatively but see FCA having wider strategic options and Renault shares more downside risk near-term," said Jefferies. According to Reuters, PSA shares were up 1.5% at the time this was published, making it the top-performing stock on France's benchmark CAC-40 Index. Renault saw its shares slump 7%. Shares for FCA fell 3% in early trading on the Milan Stock Exchange. Considering that FCA said in its statement confirming the withdraw of its merger offer with Renault that "political conditions in France do not currently exist for such a combination to proceed successfully," we have to wonder how keen the company is to begin negotiations with another French automaker like PSA. Those thoughts were similarly voiced by Bernstein Research analyst Max Warburton, who said (via Forbes), "Expect PSA to rise on unrealistic hopes it may be FCA's next date." Earnings/Financials Chrysler Fiat Mitsubishi Nissan Citroen Peugeot Renault FCA renault-nissan

Ghosn's legacy: one of the auto industry's most effective execs

"Bob Lutz ... estimated that carrying out the Nissan operation would be the equivalent, for Renault, of putting $5 billion in a container ship and sinking it in the middle of the ocean." So wrote Carlos Ghosn in "SHIFT: Inside Nissan's Historic Revival," which was published in the U.S. in late 2004. Two points about that observation: It is in keeping with Lutz's "Often wrong but never in doubt." It shows that Ghosn is a remarkable executive, given that he was able to take Nissan from the edge of financial oblivion to one of the foremost automotive companies (although with alliance partners Renault and, more recently, Mitsubishi). In 1999, Ghosn created what was named the "Nissan Revival Plan." It could have just as well been called the "Nissan Resuscitation Plan." Things were that bad. Now Ghosn is in the midst of legal trouble, accused of financial improprieties of some sort. There is no indication that this is at anything near the scale of what happened at Volkswagen Group. There's malfeasance. And then there's malfeasance. It is likely that this is going to be the end of Ghosn's career, but at age 64, and as a man who has spent nearly the past quarter-century essentially on airplanes, it is probably a good time to leave the stage. What his next act will be — to court or even prison — is an open question. But arguably, Ghosn's performance in the transformation of Nissan and Renault, which also needed some strong medicine to keep it from collapse in the early '00s (although one suspects that the French government would have done its damnedest to keep it propped up), makes him one of the all-time most-notable executives in the auto industry. Ghosn closed plants in both France and Japan and he worked to dismantle the Nissan keiretsu network of interlocked companies, things that were absolutely unthinkable. He established plans with stretch goals in their titles, like the "20 Billion Franc Cost-Reduction Plan," and worked with his people to achieve them, despite the pushback that seemed to come along with the announcement of the plan. As in, as he recalled in SHIFT, "Some people said, 'He's off the deep end. He's raving mad. Doesn't he know that at Renault you set the most conservative goals possible so you can be certain to reach them?' My answer to that sort of thinking was 'You're going to get what you ask for. If you set the bar too low, you'll be a low-level performance.