Nissan and Renault re-do their marriage vows

I don’t see this as a good move for either companies . To me they seem to have very different markets and customer base .

1 Like

They actually do some product-sharing, albeit with different bodies, so that it isn’t too obvious.

And likely VERY different corporate cultures as well!

I expect Nissan employees see the Renault employees are unproductive and lazy.

1 Like

Well, in Japan, they don’t get wine breaks, so…


That’s a long used business strategy. It allows Renault to sell cars in the USA under the Nissan name. If Renault loses business, it is comforting to them that at least some is lost to their partner Nissan.

Why does this remind me of the Renault - AMC alliance?
Or maybe the Mercedes - Chrysler/Jeep alliance?

Neither ended well

1 Like

I just can’t get the LeCar out of my head. Kind of makes me want to :face_vomiting:

1 Like

Renault and Nissan have been partners since 1999. It seems to have worked so far.

This is one example of their product sharing/co-development:

This is another one:

I’d like to agree with you that a merger or alliance would work but history tends to disagree.

Besides the failures I already mentioned some additional examples …

Merger of MG/Austin/Triumph/Rover/Jaguar into BMC
Chrysler/Mitsubishi in Diamond Star Motors alliance
GM/Toyota in NUMMI alliance
GM aqusition of Lotus (Lotus now owned by Geely)
FIAT “merger” with Jeep/Chrysler creating Stellanis (Currently looking for the exits)

Clearly NOT a failure for either company. GM learned Toyota’s assembly system. Toyota learned how to do business in the US. GM improved quality and productivity and Toyota built lots of successful US car plants. The plant produced a TON of Corollas and its GM variant, the Nova and Prizm.

Another learning experience for GM. Sold because of financial pressures not because it was a failure.

This one failed for other reasons besides cultural problems. This failed because the UK car industry imploded upon itself with labor problems they could not solve.


Prior to all of those, in the '50s, Chrysler bought at least a portion of France’s Simca, and followed-up that failure with the purchase of The UK’s Rootes Motor Group–which was also a disaster.

1 Like

Hope Nissan Renault stick around for a while so I can always get parts for my 2018 Versa. Since they were made and sold in many countries under various Renault and Nissan (and other) names that shouldn’t be a problem. Mine was made in Mexico, and the Versa was the biggest selling car in Mexico at one point.

Toyota already knew how to do business here by 1984. They have been doing business here since the early 60’s.

But they were not building complete cars with an American (UAW union) workforce. A very different business than simply selling cars and distributing spare parts.

Also very different from installing truck beds onto truck chassis-cabs shipped to the US to circumvent the “Chicken Tax.”

We can discuss the specific reasons for these failures until the cows come home but it’s hard to argue that any of these joint ventures/mergers were a success.

For example, GM could have learned Toyota’s QC/Assembly System at much less cost, the same way Toyota did, by simply reading the works of the US Engineer, W. Edwards Deming.
From Toyota’s side, well BMW, Volvo, Hyundai, etc. all have managed to build successful plants in the US without the unnecessary cost of a joint venture with a domestic manufacturer.
And the proof of failure was that NUMMI was basically a “one and done” with each party going their own way.

Frankly, it’s hard to come up with any automotive joint venture/merger in the last 60 years that produced any synergy or significant benefits, to which I’d also include “turkeys” from AMC/Renault (LeCar) Jensen Motorcar/Austin Motors (Jensen Healy), Chrysler/Maserati (Chrysler TC), with the possible exception of the AC Motors/Carroll Shelby (Shelby Cobra) but the last weren’t really auto manufacturers.

Engineering and manufacturing employees at all GM divisions were taught Demming’s methods in the early 1980s. But there is no substitute to seeing in-action in person. My GM division learned how to engineer for and sell to Japanese brands and sold components to Toyota Georgetown and other Japanese transplants. And then to the Euro transplants.

From Toyota’s side, the only Japanese manufacturer in the US was Honda. Toyota decided the JV was best for them.

I don’t see that as proof of failure. The NUMMI partnership made money for both companies and built cars for 20+ years. Both benefitted from the relationship. Neither needed it to continue. I don’t see how that would be viewed as anything but a success.

1 Like

Tata Motors acquiring Jaguar and Land Rover seems pretty successful. Same for Geely and Volvo. Aston Martin Lagonda is also doing well with 30% Mercedes ownership. The Hyundai-Kia relationship seems to be going strong as is the Daewoo-GM relationship. VW and Skoda are doing well. Porsche and VW was an inevitable tie-up.


Mitsubishi provided the coupes to fill a gap in the Chrysler line-up, Mitsubishi sold more vehicles through Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealers than possible on their own. Markets change, then it is time to move on.