Nissan Honda merger off: why it's the best news this year (so far) | Opinion

As far as terrible ideas go, this one is pretty bad.

Honda and Nissan simply should not merge.

When it was announced that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed last December “for consideration of a business integration between the two companies” was terminated on February 13, many people would have breathed a sigh of relief.

In a nutshell, the CEOs reportedly could not agree on who would be top dog. An earlier MOU for collaborating on electrified vehicles and intelligence remains, but the two Japanese car giants aren’t getting hitched.

Here are five reasons why this may be the best automotive news car buyers, enthusiasts and employees of the entities concerned might hear all year.

The further dilution of Mitsubishi

Perhaps not what you might expect this list to begin with, but a cautionary tale nonetheless.

It’s been widely reported that Honda wanted the shotgun wedding primarily to access Mitsubishi Motors’ strength in utes, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) tech and South East Asian markets.

As it turns out, that could only happen by hooking up with Nissan, as the latter holds a decisive 24.53 per cent share, obtained after an ailing Mitsubishi’s crippling emissions cheating scandals from the middle of last decade brought it down to its corporate knees.

And let’s not forget about the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, created from 1999’s Renault-Nissan partnership, which led the French company to obtain a controlling share of Nissan, until a move for greater autonomy during the early 2020s resulted in Nissan and Renault having a 15 per cent stake in each other’s company.

The upshot of all this is that, since 2016, Mitsubishi has systematically killed off and not replaced most of its models in Australia. First Lancer. Then Mirage, Pajero and – from this year – Eclipse Cross and Pajero Sport.

Mitsubishi was once a formidable engineering and performance-led carmaker with a broad portfolio of models that bristled with brilliance and – occasionally – global influence.

Today, it is a shadow of its former, glorious self. It’s bad enough that virtually none of the legacy models remain. Beyond Triton, what is actually a real Mitsubishi nowadays? For us, nothing. Europe’s latest ASX due here by the end of this year is a Renault Captur, in Europe the new Colt is a Clio, and expect the Eclipse Cross to eventually become a rebadged Nissan Qashqai. Probably.

No more scavenging. Leave Mitsubishi alone.

Less choice

Marriages, mergers, acquisitions, takeovers… call them what you want. They invariably always lead to reduced choice for consumers. History is littered with dozens if not hundreds of examples over the past 139 years since Karl Benz’s motor car patent.

If the Honda-Nissan merger happened, duplication would naturally be expected to cease. The next X-Trail could become a restyled CR-V. The Qashqai a ZR-V. The Juke a HR-V, and so on. Ultimately, two often distinct choices become one. How is that even a good thing for consumers?

Less competition, less innovation, more complacency

Throughout their similar post-war timeline, Honda and Nissan often represented the best of Japan, even if the latter’s best efforts often came from the fruits of another “merger” – that of Prince (of Skyline fame) during the ‘60s.

The point is, the brands are competitors that, time and again, spurred each other on to be better and try harder.

Consider the following: Nissan Pulsar versus Honda Civic; Silvia/200SX vs. Prelude; Skyline GT-R vs. NSX; Legend vs. Infiniti Q45; Accord vs. Primera; Micra vs. Jazz/Fit. Merging these iconic carmakers will likely eliminate important competition, meaning fewer innovations.

Loss of identity

The loss of competition and reduction of choice ultimately leads to a watering down of identity.

Consider how now-defunct Saab went from heavily off-beat Scandinavian as an independent to Swedish-looking Opels in the era of the General Motors ownership from the 1990s, starting with the Vectra-based 9-3/9-5.

Australians were thankfully spared the abominations that were the rebadged Subaru Impreza 9-2 and Chevrolet Trailblazer 9-7X of the 2000s. For crying out loud… one was Japanese-built and the other American-made.

Now, Honda and Nissan obviously sire from the same country and culture, but their distinct personalities, characteristics and idiosyncrasies would dilute over time – depending on who’s boss.

Do big mergers actually ever really succeed?

Philosopher George Santayana once wrote that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Automotive historians and senior citizens with very long memories must be watching the Stellantis melodrama (made up Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Citroën, Dodge, DS Automobiles, Fiat, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Opel, Peugeot, Ram and Vauxhall) unfold with amazement, and then be reminded of the British Motor Corporation conglomerate that acquired a similar number of once-independent UK brands over a 20-year period from 1952 when it was the world’s leading exporter of cars (including Austin, Morris, Standard, Triumph, Riley, Wolseley, Jaguar, Rover, Land Rover, Austin Healey, Daimler, Leyland and MG), only to wither and implode by 2004.

Then there is the example of the ironic “merger of equals” that was the troubled union of Mercedes-Benz and Chrysler in 1998, forming DaimlerChrysler (DCX). Meant to capitalise on pooled resources and shared synergies, it also resulted in a 37.3 per cent share in Mitsubishi as access into Asia was deemed a priority, but falling sales, declining quality and skyrocketing losses – partly due to Mitsubishi embroiled in a cover-up scandal in Japan – eventually led to DCX’s dismantling in 2007. Chrysler was bankrupt by 2009, only to be rescued by Fiat.

Honda and Nissan (with Mitsubishi and stakeholder Renault in tow) merging sounds like a less-than-stellar idea.

Do you agree? Let us know in the comments below.