Mitsubishi's CEO Is Packing It In
After seeing its fortunes switch from dire to promising over the past few years, Mitsubishi Motors will gain a new chief operating officer on June 21. On Friday, the automaker announced that Osamu Masuko plans to step down as CEO, five years after taking on the job.
Under Masuko’s watch, the automaker rekindled its North American business and entered the Renault-Nissan Alliance, ensuring cost-effective technology and platform sharing in the years ahead.
Replacing Masuko in the big chair is Takao Kato, head of the automaker’s Indonesian operations.
It won’t be a complete departure for the current CEO. Masuko will remain as the company’s chairman, a position he accepted last fall following the removal of former alliance head Carlos Ghosn. At the time, Masuko said, “We believe the alliance is needed,” adding, “Where the three companies are headed is not confrontation.”
Masuko attained the position of president of Mitsubishi Motors in 2005.
While the brand’s comeback in the U.S. is well underway (despite a continued lack of new models, Eclipse Cross notwithstanding), the automaker remains on rocky financial ground — a position not unfamiliar to other automakers, including alliance partner Nissan. Trade issues, a slowing Western auto market, required investments in new technology, and a societal shift away from passenger cars are all weighing heavily on the company.
As reported by Reuters, Mitsubishi expects falling profits this year as it attempts to reposition itself for the coming decade.
Masuko and Kato will speak at a press conference on May 20th, the automaker said.
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Matzel I am hoping that Vee-Dub will improve the UX and offer additional color options for the 2024 Mk8.5 refresh for Canada. Until then, I'll be quite happy with my '21 GTI performance pack. It still puts a smile on my face going through the twisty bits.
- Stanley Steamer There have been other concepts with BYOT, that I have always thought was a great idea. Replacing bespoke parts is expensive. If I can plug in a standard 17" monitor to serve as my instrument panel, as well as speakers, radio, generic motors, batteries, I'm for it. Cheaper repair, replacement, or upgrade costs. Heck I'd even like to put in my own comfy seats. My house didn't come with a built in LaZboy. The irony is that omitting these bespoke items at the point of sale allows me to create a more bespoke car as a whole. It's hard to imagine what an empty rolling monocoque chassis would look like capable of having powertrains and accessories easily bolted on in my garage, but something like the Bollinger suv comes to mind.
- Iam65689044 Sometimes I'm glad the French don't sell in America. This is one of those times.
- SCE to AUX I was going to scoff, but the idea has some merit.The hard part would be keeping the weight and cost down. Even on the EPA cycle, this thing could probably get over 210 miles with that battery.But the cost - it's too tempting to bulk up the product for profits. What might start as a $22k car quickly becomes $30k.Resource-deprived people can't buy it then, anyway, and where will Kyle get the electricity to charge it in 2029 Los Angeles?
- SPPPP How does one under-report emissions by 115 percent? If you under-report by 100 percent, that means you said your company's products and operations cause no emissions at all, right? Were these companies claiming that their operations and products clean the air, leaving it better than when they got there?On the other hand, if someone was trying to say that the true emissions number is 115 percent higher than was reported, then the actual under-reporting value would be 53.5 percent. True emissions would be set at a nominal value of 100. The reported emissions would be 46.5. Take 115 percent of 46.5 and you get 53.5. Add 46.5 and 53.5 together and you get back to 100.A skim of the linked article indicates that the second reading is correct - meaning the EU is *actually claiming* that the worst offender (Hyundai and Kia) under-reported by 53.5 percent, and VW under-reported by 36.7 percent ((1 - (100/158))*100).I find it also funny that the EU group is basically complaining that the estimated lifetimes of Toyota vehicles are too short at 100,000km. Sure, the vehicles may be handed down from original purchasers and serve for a longer time than that. But won't that hand-me-down resale also displace an even older vehicle, which probably gets worse emissions? The concept doesn't sound that unreasonable.