1991 Nissan 300zx Turbo Coupe 2-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Infiniti puts EV plans on hold again

Think of it as the green-automotive industry's version of Groundhog Day. Nissan's Infiniti division is putting plans for its first mass-production electric vehicle on hold. Again. The Infiniti LE, whose concept version was unveiled 2012's New York Auto Show, is again being put up on the proverbial blocks, USA Today says, citing a presentation by Infiniti executive Michael Bartsch at a recent company event in Detroit. Essentially, the Nissan division has bigger fish to fry, in the form of boosting overall Infiniti sales, and doesn't yet want to put the effort into introducing the Infiniti LE. The Infiniti EV plans were first postponed by then-Infiniti President Johan de Nysschen during the summer of 2013, as de Nysschen wasn't quite buying into Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn's ambitious electric vehicle sales projections. De Nysschen resigned last summer to join General Motors' Cadillac division. One issue may be the fact that the Infiniti wouldn't be all that different from the Nissan Leaf. Despite the fact that US sales of that EV surged 34 percent last year compared to 2013, to 30,200 vehicles, an Infiniti version was apparently not enough of a selling point within the company. While the Infiniti is sportier looking than the Leaf and would boast inductive, wireless charging, it would have a similar power output and single-charge range as the Leaf.

How Nissan's NYC Taxi of Tomorrow has turned into a nightmare

"Why can't we have competition? Why did the city think there had to be exclusivity?" – Taxi Association Nissan's takeover of the lucrative New York City taxi market hasn't exactly gone according to script. An agreement that should have seen the company become the exclusive supplier of taxis for the next ten years has resulted in nothing but headaches, controversy and legal challenges, despite the $1 billion deal between the Japanese marque and the Big Apple. The opposition to the Nissan deal has been fierce since day one, Automotive News reports in a sweeping writeup of the Taxi of Tomorrow saga, with the Greater New York Taxi Association – which represents nearly a third of the city's taxi owners – putting up a fight against the new van cabs. Whether it's the monopolistic nature of the Nissan deal – as we said, under the terms of the deal Nissan would become the sole distributor of taxis for New York cabbies – the NV200 taxi's limited reliability record, or concerns over the company's ability to supply the cabs, the Taxi Association has fought tooth and nail against the so-called Taxi of Tomorrow, AN reports. "Look, Nissan is a good company. And the NV200 is not a bad car. If it turns out that people like it, then great – they should be able to sell them here," Ethan Gerber, an attorney for the Taxi Association told Automotive News. "But why can't we have competition? Why did the city think there had to be exclusivity? It stifles competition and stops innovation." "Why couldn't we just have standards for the taxi, and if Toyota and Ford wanted to offer an identical vehicle that might be somehow better or more competitive, why can't they?" Gerber asked. "Obviously, there is always disappointment, but I trust that there is fairness." – Carlos Ghosn The biggest source of opposition, though, focused around how the NV200 was approved in the first place, because it doesn't subscribe to one of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's requirements for the next-generation taxi – that it would be available as a hybrid. It was that last point that initially got Nissan in trouble with the courts. In May 2013, New York County Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton ruled the deal void, declaring that cab operators were free to shop for non-Nissan hybrids, though cab owners still had to go through Nissan if they wanted a standard, gas-powered taxi. Or, they would have.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.