Eternal Underdog: Mitsubishi May Not Sell Enough Cars in the U.S. to Worry About Tariffs

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

While still an industrial giant on the global scene, Mitsubishi is a shadow of its former self in the United States. After leaning a bit too hard on its status as a value brand, annual deliveries went from about 346,000 units to just 58,000 between 2002 and 2012. Meaningful progress has been made since then, but the road to redemption has been a hard one.

The looming threat of tariffs isn’t making things any easier for Mitsubishi. The automaker doesn’t have a single production facility in the U.S., meaning it will receive the full force of whatever percentage is tacked onto the import fee. There is hope, however. Bizarrely, the brand’s biggest weakness (U.S. sales) is also its greatest strength when it comes to enduring import tariffs.

In an interview with Automotive News, Mitsubishi COO Trevor Mann says the company is well positioned to handle the problem. “It’s not going to be a corporate disaster for us,” he said. “The impact on us would be less than on many other brands. It’s a bump in the road that we’re going to have to repair.”

Presently, the United States accounts for just 10 percent of Mitsubishi’s worldwide sales and even less in profits. That’s beneficial in the short term, easing the overall impact of tax-based losses, but Mitsubishi intends to increase North American sales 23 percent to 190,000 vehicles by the fiscal year ending in March 2020. If those cars come from Asia, the brand will end up tossing a significant portion of its profits to the U.S. government.

However, that’s not the plan. If Mitsubishi can bolster U.S. volume to 70,000 on a single nameplate, Mann says it can justify local output. But something like the Outlander, one of Mitsubishi’s best-sellers worldwide, might eek by with less if it shares underpinnings with Nissan.

“It would probably be unlikely that we’d build a factory of our own,” Mann said. But sharing one with Nissan is far more likely thanks to alliance synergies. The COO also said Mitsubishi will re-examine North American production regardless of tariffs. There is also a chance a deal could be worked out to perform join-production with Renault in South Korea — a nation which currently enjoys a free-trade agreement with the United States.

The automotive alliance has already worked magic on Mitsubishi. The brand reported a 36 percent jump in operating profit on rising sales in every key market this month and worldwide retail sales grew 21 percent to 292,000 vehicles in the fiscal first quarter ending on June 30th.

“Mitsubishi was a bit of a sleeping giant. As a brand, we have great potential,” said Mann. “I think we’re demonstrating that we’re waking up.”

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 11 comments
  • Peter Gazis Peter Gazis on Aug 14, 2018

    If Mitsubishi builds a new factory in the U.S. It better be in Normal Illinois to replace the factory they closed down less than 2 years ago. And it better be a union factory.

    • See 1 previous
    • JohnTaurus JohnTaurus on Aug 15, 2018

      You tell 'em! And unleash all of your elitist rage and furious anger upon them if they don't!

  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Aug 14, 2018

    Ford beware! Mitsubishi and his big bro Nissan are coming after you with baseball bats! With cars. MAD.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next