2009 Nissan Xterra 4.0l Auto Roof Rack Side Steps 48k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2013 Nissan Frontier gets substantial price drop, better fuel economy

With the competition dwindling (or dying) among compact trucks, Nissan is looking to make some minor changes to the 2013 Frontier to snag a few extra sales for its aging pickup. Pricing and fuel economy are probably two of the most important vehicle stats among new-car buyers, and the 2013 Nissan Frontier has made vast improvements in both areas over the 2012 model.
First things first: The MSRP of both the King Cab and Crew Cab models have dropped by $1,270 with new starting prices of $17,990 and $22,030 (*not including the $845 destination charge), respectively. The biggest price drop is seen on the SV Crew Cab 4x2, which dropped $1,450 to its new price of $23,990. The important thing here is that the 2013 Frontier King Cab is now priced just a few hundred dollars more than a regular cab version of the Toyota Tacoma. Nissan is also offering a new SV Value Truck Package that includes all the equipment of the previous SV Premium Utility Package (spray-on bedliner, Utili-Track in-bed cargo system with four adjustable cleats and Bluetooth) and adds in a rearview monitor and dual-zone air conditioning.
Another key change made for 2013 was to the Frontier's fuel economy. Except for the base-model truck (King Cab, inline-four, manual transmission, two-wheel drive), all other configurations have seen increases in city and/or highway fuel economy to the tune of one or two miles per gallon; the biggest improvement was to the V6 models with the automatic transmission, which saw an improvement of one mpg city and two mpg highway. Nissan accomplished this with better aerodynamics and updated internal engine components to reduce friction. Aero changes include a seal between the cab and bed, a tailgate spoiler and a new front chin spoiler. For more details on the 2013 Frontier - including a full pricing breakdown - scroll down for the official press release.

Nissan: We lose money on each Leaf replacement battery

Nissan has been playing its cards pretty close to its chest when it comes to the production costs for Leaf battery packs. The company recently put a price on replacement batteries for customers at $5,500 plus the requirement to return the old battery. If the decommissioned battery is worth $1,000 to Nissan, as they have stated, that means the battery costs about $6,500 to make, right? Maybe even less if Nissan wants to turn a profit, as automakers are wont to do? Wrong.
Green Car Reports spoke to Nissan about these battery costs, and found that the automaker actually loses money on selling the replacement battery for the Leaf at the current price. Jeff Kuhlman, Nissan's vice president of global communications said, "Nissan makes zero margin on the replacement program. In fact, we subvent every exchange." All you English majors will know that "subvent" is a fancy way to say "subsidize." Kuhlman added, though, "We have yet to sell one battery as part of the program."
The fact that Nissan offers its replacement batteries for less than it costs to manufacture them is telling of a company both cares about what its customer needs and is dedicated to the success of its product. In this case, both of those things encourage people to give up fossil fuels and adopt electric mobility, which is heartening. As more people switch to battery-powered driving, though, battery technology should become better and cheaper, and the scale of production should cause manufacturing costs to decrease. Eventually, Nissan could easily see itself breaking even selling the Leaf battery replacements.

Tier 1 suppliers call GM the worst OEM to work with

Among automakers with a big US presence, General Motors is the worst to work for, according to a new survey from Tier 1 automotive suppliers, conducted by Planning Perspectives, Inc.
The Detroit-based manufacturer, which has been under fire following the ignition switch recall and its accompanying scandal, finished behind six other automakers with big US manufacturing operations. Suppliers had issues with trust and communications, as well as intellectual property protection. GM was also the least likely to allow suppliers to raise their prices in the face of unexpected increases in material cost, all of which contributed to 55 percent of suppliers saying their relationship with GM was "poor to very poor."
GM's cross-town competitors didn't fare much better. Chrysler finished in fifth place, ahead of GM and behind Dearborn-based Ford, which was passed for third place this year by Nissan. Toyota took the top marks, while Honda captured second place.