The Nissan Pathfinder is a type of SUV, which is a bigger car good for families and some off-road driving. Nissan wants to sell two new versions of this car to compete with Toyota.
The Nissan Frontier is a medium-sized truck that people use for work and outdoor activities. The new version will have better features and improvements to make it stronger and easier to use. It's popular because it’s tough but not too big or expensive.
US manufacturing dominance means that the United States was the top country making cars and leading the car business.
LIVE
Welcome to Daily Drive, for Wednesday, February 25, 2026, I'm Kellan Walker in Las Vegas.
Today on the show, Nissan has an ambitious plan to take on Toyota with two different pathfinders.
Three major automakers pour money into a UK self-driving startup, and Aston Martin cuts
20% of its workforce.
Plus, our own Molly Boygon outlines the regulatory maze that's keeping Chinese automakers
out of the US, for now.
It's not just about the sourcing of the components and the software, it's about the company's
ties to the Chinese government, which are so broad and so up to interpretation.
Let's run through all the news you need to know to keep up in the auto industry.
Nissan plans to sell two distinct pathfinders starting mid-2029, mirroring Toyota's approach
to utility vehicles.
The automaker will offer an updated unibody version focused on affordability and comfort,
alongside a new body-on-frame model with rugged styling and greater off-road capability.
According to a person with knowledge of the plan, the truck-based variant may carry
the Pro-4X badge.
The vehicle will be built at Nissan's Canton, Mississippi plant and launch with a gasoline
engine, adding hybrid power later.
Nissan aims to capture 33 to 40% of Toyota's combined volume across the Highlander, Grand
Highlander, Forerunner, and Landcruiser.
We'll have more on this story in a minute with our own Ervash Kakaria.
Nissan, Stellantis, and Mercedes-Benz are investing in Wave, a UK self-driving startup.
It's part of a $1.2 billion funding round that values the company at $8.6 billion.
Nissan's AI technology doesn't rely on high-definition mapping.
CFO Max Warburton says that makes it faster to deploy than traditional autonomous systems.
Nissan will be first to market launching Wave software in its next-generation Pro-Pilot
systems in late 2027.
The company also plans to launch RoboTaxi Trials with Uber in London this year.
And Aston Martin is slashing another 20% of its workforce about 600 jobs after a
brutal 2025.
The luxury automaker lost nearly half a billion pounds last year hit hard by what it calls
extremely disruptive U.S. tariffs and extremely subdued demand in China.
CEO Adrian Hallmark told Bloomberg, quote, I don't want to blame Donald Trump for
all of our woes, but he was certainly a big part of the problem.
The company expects around $54 million in savings from the cuts.
Those are today's headlines.
You can find more details on all those stories at AutoNews.com.
Nissan is making an ambitious bet in a crowded segment with its plan for dual pathfinders.
Our own Urvash Kakaria broke the story and joins me now to talk about it.
Urvash, welcome back to Daily Drive.
Hi, Kel.
Thanks for having me back.
So, Urvash, you mentioned in your story that more than half of buyers might
shop both versions.
What does that tell us about Nissan's strategy here?
Are they really trying to expand their customer base?
Or are they hedging their bets because they're not sure which direction the market wants?
I think it's an interesting strategy to have two pathfinder-like vehicles.
They would both be three-row utility vehicles.
The unibody pathfinder, which is what the pathfinder is currently, is likely to be
marketed as an affordability play.
So it's a way for Nissan to keep the price of that vehicle affordable versus the
body-on-frame version that's coming in 2029.
That's going to be a more capable, more rugged, more boxy-looking vehicle.
It's also going to have more hardware and therefore have a higher price.
So this allows Nissan to cover as wide a swath of that three-row, mid-size, large, depending
on who you ask, utility segment.
So you've got the unibody being the more family-friendly, the more plush driving,
the more comfortable driving, low-priced vehicle.
And then you have the body-on-frame pathfinder, which is geared more towards
adventure seekers, someone looking for a vehicle with more attitude, more aggressive
design and obviously more towing.
So they're basically trying to cover as much of that segment as possible.
And it's hard to do that with just one vehicle.
The truck-based pathfinder will be on a new Nissan-developed platform.
What do we know about that?
Yeah, so Nissan's developing its own body-on-frame platform.
It'll support up to five models.
It'll start with the XTERRA SUV.
So they're reviving the XTERRA SUV.
That's coming in 2028.
And according to sources that I spoke with recently, Nissan is going to have a lot
of commonality in terms of parts between the different models.
So that will allow it to keep its costs down and reduce the complexity.
As much as 70% of parts will be common across all five models.
And I'm told that everything forward of the B-pillar will be common in these vehicles.
So you've got the XTERRA coming first, then the Frontier, the next generation Frontier
will move to this body-on-frame platform.
That's the Frontier pickup.
Then you're expected to have the pathfinder and the QX60, the Infinity QX60,
which is basically the same car.
And then eventually I believe that the next generation of the QX60 will also get this platform.
The fifth model would be the Infinity version of the XTERRA.
Perfect. All right, Ervash Kakarya.
Very insightful, sir.
Thank you so much for joining me.
Thanks for the time.
Coming up, a look at why the regulatory barriers facing Chinese automakers
are far more complicated than just tariffs.
And whether there's political will to change the rules.
That's next on Daily Drive.
Are you a dealer creating a workplace culture your employees are proud to be part of?
Applications are now open for the 2026 Automotive News best dealerships to work for program.
This isn't just an award.
It's a chance to get real insight into what's working at your dealership
and where you can improve.
And we've expanded the categories this year,
recognizing everything from technician experience and leadership development
to AI enablement and employee retention.
The registration deadline is April 17th.
Find out more and apply at AutoNews.com.
Welcome back to Daily Drive.
I'm Kellan Walker.
Chinese automakers have been eyeing the U.S. market for years,
but Commerce Department rules make it nearly impossible for them to sell vehicles here.
The regulations ban hardware and software tied to China
and go so far as to restrict companies that can be influenced by people
with ties to the Chinese government.
Our own Molly Boygon wrote about the complex web of restrictions
and she joined Daily Drive executive producer Jake Neer
to explain what it would take for Chinese automakers to break into the American market.
Molly Boygon, welcome back to Daily Drive.
Thanks for having me, Jake.
All right, so let's start with the Commerce Department rules
that came out at the end of the Biden administration.
What exactly do these rules prohibit when it comes to Chinese vehicles
and why are they such a big deal?
They are a big deal because they're written in such a way that they address
a lot of the sort of potential loopholes
or ways around the original intention of the rules.
So they ban hardware and software that are designed, developed,
manufactured, supplied by people associated with China
and connected vehicles that incorporate covered software.
But then the rules go even further.
They also ban completed vehicles
that are manufactured by entities tied to China
regardless of where the components or software were made.
So that introduces another problem for the Chinese manufacturers
that they had originally said,
okay, let's just tweak the supply chain
so that we are using parts and software
that are manufactured outside of China.
The other thing that's interesting is that
it's not just about where the entity is headquartered.
The rule governs companies that can be influenced even
by people with ties to the Chinese government
and they list a whole slew of connections
that these hypothetical people may have,
including board representation, proxy voting, shares,
contractual agreements, formal or informal arrangements.
So it doesn't even have to be actually documented
in some formal agreement.
And so that makes it really hard, again,
for manufacturers to kind of get around
the intention of the rule,
which is to prevent Chinese hardware and software
from coming into the United States
because of fears about how data may be shared or stolen
and how remote control may be leveraged
against the American fleet.
Yeah, and even beyond just the software and hardware,
they also prevent Chinese-owned companies
from selling completed connected vehicles here
regardless of where the components come from.
So walk us through what that means for companies
specifically like BYD or GLE
if they wanted to enter the U.S. market.
If they were like, okay, we're just going to do it.
What would they face?
I don't know that they actually could do it
because, again, it's not just about the sourcing
of the components and the software.
It's about the companies' ties to the Chinese government,
which are so broad and so up to interpretation
for example, the rule says that
if people have power direct or indirect,
whether or not excised.
So it's sort of like a schrodinger's
foreign adversary control over a Chinese entity.
I like that image sort of.
I have to wrap my mind around it a little bit.
So you do note, though,
that there is a loophole in these rules
for corporate mergers, joint ventures and acquisitions.
I think about the story we reported recently
about Jim Farley at Ford
talking with members of the Trump administration
about the possibility of joint ventures
with Chinese companies on EVs.
How realistic is that idea
that Chinese automakers could use that pathway
to get around these restrictions?
Yeah, that's a really important question.
The rules call out an exception, basically.
Importers or manufacturers can seek exemptions
to use Chinese parts and software.
And specifically in the rule,
it says that there may be exemptions
prompted by corporate mergers, investments,
acquisitions, joint ventures.
It's not totally clear to me.
I guess the government would just issue an exemption
that would allow someone like a Ford
to partner with someone like a...
Well, I mean, Ford is already partnering with CATL,
licensing their battery technology.
So I think that that's how that would work.
Basically, the companies would just have to seek an exemption.
The other way to do it would be if a BYD, for example,
fully divested from a U.S. subsidiary,
basically created a U.S. subsidiary
and then sold it off.
And it was an operation that was exclusively in the United States
without any revenue sharing,
without any board control associated with the Chinese government,
which I think is probably the lesser likely of the two situations.
The other thing that's interesting about the Ford situation
is there's further complexities to this,
even beyond the Commerce Department rule,
not so much prohibitively, but in terms of incentives.
So actually, Representative John Moulinar,
who's a Republican from Michigan,
wrote to Ford last month asking about how Ford
and CATL's licensing agreement works
because of the way that Ford may or may not be seeking
battery manufacturing tax credits from the U.S. government,
which have prohibitions on associations
with foreign entities of concern.
So it's both about whether they can physically do it,
whether it's physically allowed
via the Commerce Department rule,
and whether it's financially feasible,
and the constraints imposed for the battery manufacturing tax credit.
That is, I think, a big point here is about,
we think about Chinese vehicles and affordability.
They're a lot more affordable in other markets
than EVs are generally here in the U.S.,
and it can be a pretty big gap.
But it seems like there are lots of things that,
like you said, dealing with these rules,
with tariffs, with all these things,
do we know how much that would eat into that affordability gap
if they were able to actually make it here?
I mean, right now, I mean, it's sort of impossible, right?
So it's kind of hard to tell.
Maybe the total difference in pricing.
It's hard to tell, but I do have sort of some sense
of what this may cost to American consumers
because I spoke to somebody who works
at a Chinese EV importing platform,
and the CEO of this platform told me
that with the cheapest model available,
which, as an aside, he said that the people
who are importing Chinese EVs to the U.S.
are not purchasing the cheapest models
because they're interested in teardowns and benchmarking,
so they're usually actually going for the most expensive.
But just for sake of exercise,
the cheapest model would incur a cost
to the U.S. consumer of at least $90,000.
So that's to the consumer.
And then in terms of any potential cost savings
to manufacturers that collaborate with Chinese,
either vehicle or parts manufacturers,
I think the picture gets a little bit more complicated.
In terms of Chinese parts and vehicle
manufacturing partnerships,
I think the picture gets a little bit more complicated
because the people that I spoke to said,
actually, in some ways, the American manufacturers
or even foreign companies that have
domestic manufacturing footprints
can't afford not to work with the Chinese manufacturers
because they have such a vertically integrated supply chain.
They have an intense advantage on raw materials
and processing price.
It's basically like a kind of symbiotic relationship.
The Chinese manufacturers need the U.S. market.
The U.S. manufacturers need Chinese parts in particular.
And so it's hard to sort of extricate
the cost savings from that because,
you know, you'd have to measure
how much is a vertically integrated supply chain worth.
Right, right.
It's interesting to me because there's also like,
you know, this issue here where there's really two tracks to this, right?
I mean, there's what you're really focusing on here
is EVs coming into the retail market in the U.S.
And there's also the issue of Chinese manufacturers
building a factory here in the United States.
Two different issues but related to each other.
And I'm curious, you know, I think back to when
President Trump was right here in Detroit,
the Motor City, the home of the American automobile industry,
and said that he would love for Chinese manufacturers
to build a plant here and hire American workers,
which was pretty notable to me sitting here again in Detroit.
How does that square with these Commerce Department rules
and could we see a policy shift that makes it easier
for Chinese automakers to invest in U.S. manufacturing?
I think there would have to be a change to the Commerce Department rule
in order for that to be possible.
But it was actually surprising to me how many people I spoke to
who said that there is the political will to make that change.
And I think the key thing about the Trump administration
is that the president has illustrated a willingness
to touch otherwise sort of red lines
in American politics with the focus on garnering
foreign investment in domestic manufacturing.
So I don't think that it's so out of the question
based on the conversations that I've had
that the Trump administration would say,
okay, again, a BYD or a Xiaomi or whoever
come here, set up manufacturing, hire American workers
and we will create an exemption for you to manufacture vehicles
and parts in the United States.
Or I mean, even scrapping the Commerce Department rule
altogether.
And another thing that came up in my conversations
for this article was that that's not maybe as dire
a possibility as it sounded to me pre-reporting.
I think the way that people have been talking about this
is that it would mean the end of the Detroit 3
or the end of US manufacturing dominance
in the automotive industry.
But the way it's been compared to me is actually
like if you think about the sort of fear
and anxiety around the entry of Japanese manufacturers
to the American market, what ended up happening
is that outside of their names and their headquarters,
these are functionally US manufacturing companies.
I mean, they have facilities here.
They have offices here.
They employ American workers.
There's licensing agreements with their foreign entities.
But overall, it's not as big of a kind of sea change
as I anticipated based on the reporting that I did
for this article.
So anything that we should be thinking about moving forward
with this issue, obviously it's a huge, it's the topic
du jour both at CES and NADA this year.
What are the biggest things that we should be kind of
considering as this issue sort of moves forward?
That's a good question.
I think you mentioned NADA and that's going to be a big part of it.
I mean, what is the relationship going to be between Chinese
manufacturers and the franchise dealer network?
They also have to navigate all kinds of state level dealer
laws and protections in addition to the Commerce Department
rules.
So I think I'm definitely watching to see what is going to
happen with the Commerce Department rule.
There's also pressure I should mention on the US
because of the ways that Canada and Mexico have allowed
Chinese vehicles and manufacturing to establish
footprints there.
So I'm definitely watching that.
I'll also be watching what happens with the restrictions
added to battery manufacturing tax credits under the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer.
And I think in general, I'm also really curious to see
how the just tenor of the conversation changes
because you have, for example, the House Select Committee on
China holding hearings on the dangers of Chinese dominance
in electric vehicles.
And it was also a thread that came up in a House hearing
earlier this year on affordability, you know, concerns
about whether the US is ceding autonomous vehicle
dominance to China, which may ultimately have dire
economic and national security implications for the
country.
I'm really curious to see if the way that the way that
President Trump has been talking about this ultimately
changes the way that the rest of the American political
machine starts to look at the role of China, Chinese
automakers and whether it becomes less of a us versus
them conversation and more of a sort of partnership
conversation as some of the sources that I spoke to
predicted it would.
Molly Boygon is tech and innovation reporter here at
Automotive News.
Of course, you're the cohost of the Shift podcast here
at Automotive News and you've got some interesting
conversation coming up on this week's episode of Shift.
Talk about that.
This Sunday's episode of Shift will feature an
interview with Lei Sheng, who's an independent
analyst covering the Chinese auto industry.
I spoke to him for the article that I wrote
and we get into a little bit more of the nitty-gritty
and some of the implications of all of this Sunday
on Shift.
So check it out.
And that article that you mentioned is titled
Daunting Obstacles Stand in the Way of Chinese
Vehicles Reaching U.S. Customers.
You can find that at AutoNews.com.
Molly Boygon, tech and innovation reporter for us.
Thank you so much for joining us here on Daily Drive.
Thanks, Jake.
That's Daily Drive for today.
I'm Kellen Walker.
Thanks to our own Urvash Krakaria for his
reporting for today's podcast.
We also have reporting from Peter Siegel of our
sibling publication Automotive News Europe.
You can get the latest news on trade regulations,
product strategies, and everything happening in the auto
industry at AutoNews.com.
Come back tomorrow for a conversation with attorney
Chauncey Mayfield of Haunigman about what the
Supreme Court tariff really means for the industry
and what comes next.
Companies are probably kind of in a wait-and-see
approach as to when that process of the refunds
will come out.
And once that is clarified, it could result
in some disputes among companies about those
issues and when the money is going to come back.
We'd love to hear from you.
Let us know what you think of the show and the topics
we covered today.
Send us an email at dailydrive at autonews.com
or leave us a voicemail at 313-444-2774.
And if you enjoy the podcast, remember to like,
leave a review, and subscribe so you never miss
an episode.
About this episode
Nissan is making a bold move with plans to launch two distinct Pathfinder models by 2029: a unibody version focused on affordability and comfort, and a rugged body-on-frame variant aimed at adventure seekers. This strategy aims to capture a larger share of the competitive three-row SUV market. Meanwhile, Chinese automakers face complex U.S. regulatory barriers that go beyond tariffs, including restrictions on hardware, software, and corporate ties to the Chinese government, making market entry challenging. The episode also covers major automaker investments in UK self-driving tech and Aston Martin's workforce cuts due to tariffs and demand issues.
