Another blow for struggling car brand as it's forced to recall over 440,000 motors due to ‘engine failure'
The manufacturer has recalled the motors in the US because of defects that could lead to engine failure.
1
Nissan identified a potential manufacturing defect in a number of its vehicle's engine components.
The company said that it could cause engine damage or complete failure, increasing the risk of crash.
The recall includes the 2021-2024 Rogue, 2019-2020 Altima, 2019-2022 Infiniti QX50 and 2022 Infiniti QX55.
All vehicles have either a three-cylinder, 1.5 litre or four-cylinder, two litre variable compression turbo engine.
A majority of the recalled motors are the 2021-2024 Nissan Rogues.
Nissan said in its announcement on the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website: "The engine bearings may have manufacturing defects that can lead to engine failure."
The company said dealers will inspect the engine oil pan for metal debris and, if needed, repair or replace the engine for free.
For vehicles with a three-cylinder, 1.5 litre VC-Turbo engine, if no debris is found during an inspection, dealers will replace the oil pan gasket, engine oil and reprogram the engine control module.
And dealers will replace the engine oil on the four-cylinder engines if no debris is found.
Nissan plans to notify dealers in the US starting from July 15 and drivers from August 25.
This comes as the struggling car brand has reportedly asked to delay payments to suppliers in a bid to free up funds.
The company's new CEO has already confirmed it will be axing hundreds of jobs at a UK factory after reporting £4 billion in losses in the last financial year.
Nissan's Sunderland factory will axe 250 jobs as part of a "voluntary leave scheme".
The manufacturer announced 20,000 job losses, seven factory closures and a pause on all post-2026 new car developments earlier this year.
New Nissan Leaf tested - it's bigger, better and goes further
It's part of a restructuring project overseen by new CEO, Ivan Espinosa, after he was appointed in April.
Reuters had reported that the company had asked suppliers to allow it to delay payments to free-up some cash in the short-term.
According to a source and emails seen by Reuters, Nissan asked suppliers in Britain and the European Union to accept delays in payments.
Nissan estimated that it could boost free cash flow by up to $59 million by extending payment terms.
It is all part of Nissan's attempt to rebuild in light of their financial difficulties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Three charts that show you're paying too much for gold
Investors are piling into gold as market volatility drives the price higher. They may, however, be overpaying. New analysis shows the precious metal has never been so expensive. Unlike other investments, gold produces no income, and its industrial uses are limited, which makes it difficult to assess its 'fair value'. But Russ Mould, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said one crude way of doing so is to measure how much metal a pay packet can buy. He explains: 'If bullion moves beyond the reach of the worker, that could at least crimp jewellery demand and one source of incremental buying.' By this measure, gold is at its most expensive level on record. Today, a blue collar worker in the US would have to work for 105 hours to buy one ounce of gold, according to AJ Bell's analysis of US Federal Reserve data. This compares to just 12 hours in the early 1970s, before president Richard Nixon broke up the Bretton Woods agreement that pegged the US dollar to the precious metal. Even when the price of gold spiked in the 1980s, one ounce peaked at just under 99 hours of earnings. Mr Mould said: 'The current score of 105 hours could be seen as ominous for gold affordability, since the best cure for high prices is high prices – they stoke supply, depress demand, prompt searches for substitutes, or all three.' Gold is also far more expensive compared to other commodities than it has been in the past. Since 1970, one ounce of gold has bought an average of 17 to 18 barrels of oil, but today it would buy 49 barrels, while one ounce of gold would buy 91 ounces of silver today, up from an average of 60. Since 1976, gold and platinum prices have been equally matched. But today, one ounce of gold buys 2.4 ounces of platinum, despite a recent surge in the price of platinum. Gold is a go-to asset during times of economic turmoil thanks to its reputation as a store of value. The price hit a record high of over £2,500 per Troy ounce in April, as investors sought safe havens from market volatility. Investors are usually advised against buying when prices are at the top, but in the case of gold, it seems newcomers have been unable to resist. In the second quarter of the year, UK buyers of the precious metal outnumbered sellers by the widest margin in four years, according to precious metals marketplace, BullionVault. Adrian Ash, of BullionVault, said: 'After taking profit on this year's earlier surge in prices, UK investors are now buying into gold's bull market. 'They're joining central banks and Asian wealth managers in building their holdings as the geopolitical shock of Trump's return to the White House persists and the UK's economic gloom worsens under Labour.' Some experts believe gold can only rise further because of geopolitical instability and inflationary pressures, but others are more apprehensive. Jock Henderson, investment analyst at Capital Gearing Asset Management, said the firm was 'cautious' about being overly exposed at current prices. The investment trust Capital Gearing has only 1pc in gold, despite its defensive positioning. Mr Henderson said: 'While gold investors have been rewarded for holding gold, there are complicated underlying dynamics which make its fundamental value hard to determine.' Advisers generally recommend that investors should not hold more than 10pc in gold. Over time, the allocations in your portfolio typically drift in favour of the highest-performing asset, so some investors may need to trim their gold exposure in order to reduce volatility across their investments.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump's big bill achieved what conservatives have been trying to do for decades
For decades, Republicans have argued that the US would be better off if taxes were low, and programs to help low-income Americans were harder to access. With Donald Trump's marquee tax and spending bill now set to become law, the country will find out what it's like to live under that sort of system. The massive legislation that Trump plans to sign Friday will make his campaign promises a reality by extending tax cuts enacted during his first term, and creating new deductions aimed at the working-class voters who backed his re-election. But it will also fundamentally reorder two major social safety net programs, slashing funding and imposing new work requirements that nonpartisan estimates say will cost millions of people their benefits. The ripple effects, experts say, will be felt across the country, and not just by the poor. 'Sometimes people like to feel like this is an us versus them [issue], but this is really all of us. It is the people that your kids are going to school with it, is your neighbor, the people that you play soccer with,' said Lelaine Bigelow, executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality 'This is going to have a massive effect on a lot of people around this country.' The 'one big, beautiful bill', as Trump calls it, won final approval by the House of Representatives on Thursday, in time for his signature on 4 July, the US Independence Day holiday. In addition to the tax cuts, it will also channel tens of billions in dollars towards immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexican border. To cut costs, Republicans included provisions to end green energy incentives created under Joe Biden, but the bulk of the savings will come from changes to two programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps low-income Americans afford food. Both programs will face new and stricter work requirements, and states will be forced to share part of the cost of Snap for the first time ever. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill's Medicaid changes could cost as many as 11.8 million people their healthcare, and the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities forecasts about 8 million people, or one in five recipients, may lose their Snap benefits. The GOP argues that the bill will not cut Medicaid or Snap, but weed out 'waste, fraud and abuse' thereby making the programs more efficient. At one point, House speaker Mike Johnson circulated research from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that, after sleeping, playing video games was how Medicaid recipients who do not work spend most of their time. If they did not act, Republicans warned, the 2017 tax cuts would expire this year, many Americans would be forced to pay more, and economic growth would suffer. However, analyses of the law found that it was the highest earners who felt most of the benefit from the tax regimen. Bigelow warns that the benefit cuts will be the most widespread effect of the bill. Her center's research found that 34% of the country's population will be negatively affected by the bill, mostly through the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while just under 2% of taxpayers are in the income bracket that will get most of the tax relief. And though the bill cuts taxes on tips, overtime and car loan interest, they only to last through 2028. Even Americans who do not interact with federal safety programs could feel the economic effects of its retrenchment. Fewer Snap enrollees could mean less business for grocery stores, while rural hospitals could be hard hit by the Medicaid cuts, even with a $50bn fund included in the bill to help those in poor financial shape. Robert Manduca, a University of Michigan sociology professor, forecast a $120bn per year hit to local economies from the benefit cuts. Employees and business owners, he warned, 'might see their job become less secure because the demand in their local economy is getting reduced'. Paradoxically, the bill is still hugely expensive. The CBO forecasts it will add $3.3tn to the deficit through 2034, mostly due to the tax cuts. For fiscal hawks concerned about the sustainability of the country's budget deficit, which has yawned higher in recent years as Washington DC battled the Covid-19 pandemic with massive fiscal stimulus, there's little beauty in Trump's bill. 'Yes, the economy may well enjoy a sugar-high the next couple of years, as borrowing stimulates near-term consumption,' said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for lowering the deficit. 'But a sugar-high won't be sustained, it will do real damage, and often what comes next is the crash. The longer-term health of our economy, American families, and our children will be worse off due to this debt-financed bill.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Right now, Trump can do no wrong – except in Washington DC
Donald Trump set the Fourth of July as his deadline for the passage of his 'Big Beautiful Bill', which provides for tax cuts and a slew of other measures. With the odds seemingly stacked against him at the start of the week, Trump nonetheless met his goal with hours to spare. The Bill was passed by the Senate thanks to the Vice-President's casting vote after a Republican revolt faded away; it then cleared the House of Representatives late on Thursday by four votes, after a Democrat attempt to talk the Bill out failed. Expect a ceremonial signing on Independence Day, in another act of Trumpian political theatre. Assuming no last-minute hitches, the 'Big Beautiful Bill" will set the seal on six months that have left Trump with considerably more policy wins than losses – a tally that may not be fully appreciated on the European side of the Atlantic, where mis-steps loom larger than they do on the home front. There has been no end to the Ukraine war in the promised 24 hours, or indeed 24 weeks; no durable ceasefire in the Middle East; in place of a pledge to keep the US out of foreign wars, a military strike on Iran; an early exit from the G7 summit; and an ill-tempered split with his one-time guru, Elon Musk. Add the up-ending of the international trading order with an ever-changing set of tariffs, and some measures that seem very alien to many Europeans – such as seizing and summarily deporting undocumented migrants, with back-up from the National Guard and the Marines – and the impression might well be of disorder, inconsistency, maladministration and failure. For the most part, however, this is not how the balance looks from the Trump side of the Atlantic, where I have just bucked the international tourism trend by venturing on holiday. From there, it is clear that Trump has been testing the limits of presidential power, but also that, more often than not, he has been coming out on top. Add the up-ending of the international trading order with an ever-changing set of tariffs, and some measures that seem very alien to many Europeans – such as seizing and summarily deporting undocumented migrants, with back-up from the National Guard and the Marines – and the impression might well be of disorder, inconsistency, maladministration and failure. That is not, for the most part, however, how it looks from the Trump side of the Atlantic, where I have just bucked the international tourism trend by venturing on holiday. And it would probably be wise for Europeans to accept the truth: Trump has been testing the limits of presidential power and, more often than not, coming out on top. Exactly a year ago, before he had even been re-elected president, a Supreme Court judgment upheld immunity from prosecution for past presidents. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has largely upheld the scope of the executive orders that he issued by the dozen in his first days in power, as it also upheld his right to abolish so-called birthright citizenship – that anyone born in the US was a US citizen by right. (A similar provision in the UK was abolished back in the early 1980s.) He has won more cases than he has lost on his right to abolish whole government departments. An exception was a recent federal court ruling about the Department of Health, which had the effect of protecting those agencies set up by Congress. This could set a pattern for further defeats over the abolition of other Congress-approved agencies. But the ruling could also go to the Supreme Court, where there could be a different outcome. So far, though, the contrast with Trump's first term could hardly be sharper. Where in 2017 he seemed to meet obstructions at every step, and from every branch of power, 2025 has, so far, given him a relatively smooth ride. This is partly explained by the weakness of the Democrats, Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, and the timidity of Republican opposition, along with the recognition that Trump won the popular vote. It is also because, so far, negative fallout from his decisions has been localised. It has been felt most in Washington itself, a staunchly Democrat city anyway, with the federal government a dominant employer. It is here where the job losses, the dissolution of departments and agencies have been most keenly felt. Swingeing cuts have also affected foreign service and aid programmes. But none of this has great resonance elsewhere in the US – except to be lauded as part of what Trump in his first term dubbed 'draining the swamp'. There was resistance in Los Angeles, New York and a few other places to the immigration raids, but again, broad popular sympathy is on the president's side. The same goes for the opening of a new pre-deportation facility in the southern Florida swamps, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, after the notorious prison. Its accommodation would be decried in most of Europe; for many, though not all, Americans, serried ranks of metal bunks and fences like wire cages are the acceptable face of law enforcement. Overall, Trump is being given credit for doing what he said he would do, and doing it fast – that includes extracting more defence cash from the Europeans and trying to 'level the field' for US trade. His approval ratings fall short of a majority, hovering around 45 per cent. But that is still a lot higher than for many national leaders in this time of high public distrust of politicians. These are early days, of course. New trade tariffs have yet to be finalised, let alone fed into US consumer prices. There may be adverse effects of the 'Big Beautiful Bill', which include poorer people losing health cover and states reducing the provision of food stamps, well before any macro effect, such as stoking the national debt, is felt. But a hard-nosed ethic of self-help limits the obligation many people feel towards their poorer compatriots. In this, as in many other ways, the US is very far from Europe. With Trump's possibly most controversial action – bombing Iran's nuclear facilities – being successfully sold to his domestic constituency as a one-off American triumph, Trump can celebrate the first Independence Day of his second term riding high, and the opposition from Democrats, small-L liberals, federal employees past and present, and sections of the judiciary is not – at least not yet – on a scale to impede him. The only clue as to where US politics might possibly go (a) next and (b) to oppose Trumpism came from last week's surprise victory of a young left-wing populist in the recent Democratic primary contest for New York City mayor. It may mean nothing, or it could be a glimpse of where popular discontent might go, should Trumpism fail its current followers.
