I traded in my 2010 WRX for a 2014 BRZ in October of 2014, the BRZ is a better driver’s car by a wide margin. The only thing the WRX did better was accelerate and carry people.

The BRZ always was, and always will be, a niche car for a specific type of enthusiast. A WRX isn't even on the same plane of performance when you compare it to what the BRZ was designed to do.

Agreed. Frustrates me that people see it so either or. Ghosn isn’t an angel but he brought Nissan back from the brink of death, without question. And with the way the industry and Nissan are headed, it’s gonna take the kind of merger only Ghosn could broker to save it from the brink it’s headed to again.

Japan’s legal strategy is to ensure its conviction rates remain high by trying to torture people, pre trial, into taking a guilty plea just to make it stop. Then the “trial” is just them confessing and explaining how the police did such a wonderful job in investigating the crime. Their pre trial detention rates and…

Here’s a different angle from NY Magazine (it might be behind a paywall so here’s the whole thing):

The Japanese judicial system is so tilted (99% conviction rates) that it’s hard to see how he’d get a fair trial, especially since the evidence points toward a contrived set of charges drummed up by MITI to protect Nissan from falling into French government control. This was a set-up, pure and simple.

This is the same problem with both Hyundai and Kia.

Seems to be that the majority of Jalopnik commentors don’t understand the Japanese legal system

“...but it will probably also end with, if Nissan is really lucky, a humiliating public scrutiny of some sleazy practices and if it’s unlucky, a bunch of its execs joining him in jail.”

That’s your opinion. The truth is this is far more political than just Carlos Ghosn. First he was not only leaving in Japan but also in France as he was sharing his life between both countries. What is troublesome is we all know that the Japanese government did not want the French government (through Renault) to take…

It is easy to stand by that argument when you are not the one in jail.

I don’t think it was even an electoral move. California made his pee-pee feel small SO THEY MUST PAY. So glad my tax dollars are getting wasted because people insecure about their masculinity want to piss away money on a truck they don’t need.

This argument is pervasive among people of a certain age. My dad was a big fan of it until one of his friends was almost killed in a minor fender bender while driving a classic sports car. He was also cool with me getting a 60s Mustang as a first car (in the late 2000s) because “more metal is more safe.”

...there’s also some risk he could be arrested in France...

WRT the Trump emissions rollback thing: hasn’t his only argument (outside of “I’m the boss, so you have to do what I say”) been “new cars are unsafe because they have crumple zones?”  It’s amazing to me the mental gymnastics Trump supporters go through to rationalize the bats--t ideas coming out of the Oval Office. 

I’m quite sure he’s not going back there. Presumably he does hope to be able to travel the world without fear of extradition (there’s also some risk he could be arrested in France as Renault has reported irregularities as well). Still, even if he’s stuck in Lebanon, that’s presumably preferable to spending 15 years in…

The whole Trump lowering of the fuel economy standards was nothing more than a election political move to appease his voters so he can claim he shoved it to CA. Even if it went to court and he lost, he can double down and claim liberal activist judges.

I credit him for the fact that Nissan still exists.