Get a quote
Opinion

Blame the Nissan Qashqai for the end of the world

by Matt Master
23 May 2022 4 min read
Blame the Nissan Qashqai for the end of the world

We were blissfully unaware of a lot of terrible things in the late 1990s. Al Qaeda, Facebook, subprime mortgages, the multi-platinum boyband Blue, all of which had a significant destabilising effect on the western world for the next couple of decades. But atop this list still sits the real catalyst of our impending societal collapse, the single most damaging creation of the new millennium: the Nissan Qashqai.

Flashback again to the Nineties, a golden era for the motor car, when petrol was cheap, cylinders plentiful and microchips only really the concern of middle-aged men still living with their mums. These were the days of the McLaren F1, the Lamborghini Diablo and Ferrari F50. But also of the Renault Clio Williams, VR6 Golf and Subaru Impreza WRX STi. It was an age of ambition but also inclusivity; performance for all. And not a soft-roader in sight.

How much is your car to insure? Find out in four easy steps.
Get a quote

Meanwhile, in a murky boardroom in the Parisian suburb of Boulogne-Billancourt, Renault CEO and escapology enthusiast Carlos Ghosn was hatching a plan that would result, in a matter of a few short years, in a paradigm shift in automotive design, the effects of which would lay waste to the entire motoring landscape forevermore.

Renault had signed a partnership with Nissan with the objective of radically overhauling its tired European product portfolio. Initial attempts at creating another hatchback would soon be abandoned in favour of an entirely new concept: a compact pseudo-off roader. Project P32L aimed to offer the styling, presence and thereby cachet of a 4×4 within the footprint of a more conventional five-door hatch. Nonsense, clearly.

Nissan Qashqai concept 2004

What would become the Qashqai was first unveiled to an unsuspecting public at the 2004 Geneva Motor Show, daft enough with its suicide doors and cumbersome Noughties concept styling to fool us all into thinking there was no-way the newly formed Renault-Nissan Alliance would actually build it. Two years later, there it was.

The name Qashqai seemed like a joke at our expense. The Nissan Cashcow? And so it would prove to be. The Qashqai, whose name actually belongs to some Iranian nomads, quickly began to move with a mania Nissan’s rapidly revamped plant in Tyne and Wear could barely keep abreast of. There had been ‘compact crossovers’ before, such as the Toyota RAV4, but they didn’t capture the public imagination across Europe in the same way the Qashqai did. The first-generation model sold almost 1.25 million units in Europe alone in its seven-year life cycle. Ghosn and his cronies had played a blinder, and in the process not just opened but ripped the lid clean from the Pandora’s box.

The original Qashqai hit its insipid brief to perfection. It was economical, affordable, practical and boring, with no rational justification for its existence. And in that, it was also the progenitor of a curious epiphany that ordinary folk had not realised they were about to have. For what the Qashqai did was convince a world of unquestioning saloon and hatchback drivers that what they really needed in their lives was a boil-washed faux-by-four. Two decades later, it’s an idea that still hasn’t gone away, that has spread, virus-like, to preoccupy the minds of buyers and therefore designers for every major car manufacturer in the world.

The Qashqai was a sea-change for the worse. Like all SUVs/soft-roaders/whatever, its excessive mass and tall centre of gravity meant it handled hopelessly compared to the hatchbacks it failed to better in terms of practicality or, indeed, off-road ability. Fuel economy was also hampered by the increased weight and drag inherent in any such design. All it had in its favour was what motoring journalists quickly chose to refer to as a ‘commanding driving position’, meaning an extra inch or so of seat height and marginally improved forward visibility. That last, and the amorphous and highly debatable ‘desirability’ that came with such disingenuous off-road status, struck an inexplicable chord.

Nissan Qashqai profile

A groundswell of copycat product followed in the Qashqai’s wake, and with it a near-universal acceptance from Joe Public. The industry quickly dug in and every conceivable small and medium-sized hatchback was soon available with a jacked-up ride height, a stupid name and bigger price tag. There are too many to list today, besides which, every trunk road, residential street and car park attests to the fact. But Volkswagen serves as a useful exemplar, with the ascending scale of Taigo, T-Roc, T-Cross, Tiguan and Touareg, the meaningful difference between the first three only really determinable by clairvoyants and VW press officers.

Meanwhile, the saloon was quietly being put to the sword and even the ubiquitous city car earmarked for extinction. Ford of Europe announced in April of this year that it is dropping the three-door Fiesta, a car that has been keeping the regular British motorist moving for 45 years. What are people buying instead? You guessed it…

What the Qashqai did was land upon a winning formula that simultaneously ruined the car industry while deftly accelerating mankind’s premature demise. Creating a fashion for large, inefficient cars as the spectre of global warming morphed into climate change and a full-blown climate crisis, Nissan was running gleefully onto the fist of Fate. And everyone else simply followed suit.

Now in its third generation and grown unrecognisably from the dumpy little novelty act of 16 years ago, the Qashqai continues to shift hundreds of thousands of units worldwide each year as just another generic lifestyle statement alongside the scores of identikit products it has inspired. Today, SUVs account for roughly half of all car sales in Europe at precisely the moment when everything they represent – excessive size, consumption and emissions – has become plain wrong thinking.

The public gets what the public wants, and it wanted the Qashqai. But almost two decades in, this hollow edifice of style over substance has at best set the evolution of the car back for generations, at worst created an existential crisis from which it will never recover. With fuel in increasingly short and pricey supply, the appetite for internal combustion all but lost and the path to electrification effectively enshrined, the ubiquity of the SUV is as ridiculous as it real. Up a blind alley and running out of time to reverse, we have the Qashqai to thank.

Read more

Opinion: Super SUV? Give me a fast estate car any day
Why do I have to pick a side in the EV v ICE debate?
Toyota RAV4 driven: The ideal all-weather budget classic?

You may also like

1978 Datsun 120Y
Unexceptional Classifieds: Datsun 120Y
Future classic: Nissan GT-R
Future classic: Nissan GT-R
Cammisa Icons Nissan Z
Nissan Z vs Toyota Supra | Jason Cammisa on the Icons
A story about

Your weekly dose of car news from Hagerty in your inbox

Comments

  • Simon Andrews says:

    Spot on Matt. Funny/True/Tragic.

  • J leyton says:

    Brilliant observation – although the (grammatically incorrect) Qashqai is outgunned in the absurdity stakes by the even smaller Juke (I can’t help but think there’s something telling in the name that mixes puke and joke)

  • Christopher Baglin says:

    I will stick up for the Qasqai- as boring as it is (and I’ve driven dozens) it is actually a very practical family car, unlike the even uglier Juke, which has little to recommend it (driven dozens of those too- I was a delivery driver for a company that had the UK demonstrator fleets for Nissan/Infiniti UK, Mazda UK and Vauxhall UK).

    Would I buy one? Hell no…

  • Brian Bremer says:

    Whist yes I drive an SUV, being Disabled I need space for my Mobility scooter and hoist. However I also drive a Mercedes ML 4X4, there’s no comparison to road behaviour and manners. The Mercedes may drink more fuel, but in difficult driving conditions the SUV has no chance.

  • Andrew says:

    I honestly don’t understand the use cases for which SUVs are better than estate cars. Are there many? Any?

    I almost have to hand it to the car industry on this one though, they’ve managed to persuade the majority of new car buyers into buying something dynamically worse than the proper car equivalent, for about 20% more cash. Bizarre behaviour.

  • Owen W says:

    Totally agree and often thought the same. Had one as a hire car once and it was dreadful (diesel auto). On pressing the accelerator at motorway speeds the noise levels increased materially but nothing much else happened. I’ve had to bite my tongue over the years though as a sibling bought one….. He redeemed himself by replacing it with a VRS!

  • Matt says:

    Brilliant piece!

  • Pierre Noir says:

    So glad to know I’m not the only one to think/feel this way.

    Very well-written; chapeau, Matt.

  • C says:

    One of the reasons for preferring a higher car is that is much easier to get babies and their seats in and out of them without killing your back, but maybe the writers of car reviews haven’t experienced that problem yet.

  • Andy Brown says:

    I have 2 must be good one for me and one for her

  • Laurence T says:

    Fantastic article. Sadly you neglect to mention how dangerous SUVs and CUVs are for pedestrians – a person hit by one is 2 to 3 times more likely to be killed than one hit by a car, a fact made more tragic by knowing that they don’t brake as well, either.
    The one justification I can think of for them is people with disabilities or old-age afflictions, but there are (or were) plenty of other vehicles that worked better for them. The Renault Modus, Ford Fusion, Honda Jazz etc. were all excellent for this and nowhere near as dangerous or inefficient as SUVs or CUVs are.
    Glad to see someone writing against this awful trend – most journalists seem to know which side their bread is buttered on, regardless of their actual feelings.

  • B dunster says:

    The new qashqai is very noisy becouse of the tyres and the sound system is so very bad ill neverget another qashqai.

  • William Phillips says:

    Had 2 Quasqui s happy with both petrol and diesel .. however the petrol car was auto and very unresponsive not powerful enough .. found out its belt driven gearbox … also seats not very comfortable .. wouldn’t buy another one

  • Angela says:

    Matt Master, what a depressing read.

  • Fotis says:

    Have ordered a Tekna automatic for next motabilty car. Had a test drive was very pleased with how it performed and in my opinion responded very well. Have owned 3 previous Qashqais and I found all 3 very reliable. Have owned saloons in the past but now find it much easier to get in and out of a higher vehicle as does my partner who is disabled.

  • Ap says:

    I own a Qashqai diesel 1.6 I get on average 5.2 liters per 100km which is better than most other cars. I probably achieve this as I normally drive at the speed limit which for some people and possibly this author a boring drive, and the reason we’re heading away from the Otto motor is because primarily of the VW scandal which involved not only SUVs but also small hatchbacks and saloons. And as an other commenter wrote an SUV is more likely to kill a pedestrian I disagree a youngster in a cheap hatchback is probably just as capable of that. The point is SUVs are to big they take up to much space blah blah it was only a few years ago they said almost the same about people, to big for aircraft to heavy must pay for two seats ect. Ect. Sounds like the same shakers moving on to the next group.

  • Chrissie says:

    I still have mine, had it 6yrs and its cost me dearly, MOT always needs something, approx £450 every year, unfortunately I need a high driving position being disabled only thing I can say it’s comfortable, but times up now looking for another car…

  • Andy porter says:

    I own a Qashqai diesel 1.6 I get on average 5.2 liters per 100km which is better than most other cars. I probably achieve this as I normally drive at the speed limit which for some people and possibly this author a boring drive, and the reason we’re heading away from the Otto motor is because primarily of the VW scandal which involved not only SUVs but also small hatchbacks and saloons. And as an other commenter wrote an SUV is more likely to kill a pedestrian I disagree a youngster in a cheap hatchback is probably just as capable of that. The point is SUVs are to big they take up to much space blah blah it was only a few years ago they said almost the same about people, to big for aircraft to heavy must pay for two seats ect. Ect. Sounds like the same shakers moving on to the next group.

  • Carroll BARHAM says:

    The rise of the ‘small’ 2WD SUV over a similarly-sized, usually bigger-booted saloon/hatch/estate is just another example of how unthinking/daft the ‘general public’ is. Just taking a look at the sort of people they vote into power is another.

  • John Colebrook says:

    The SUV provided 3 things in the public imagination. 1. They stop the bulling behavior of real 4×4 such as the range rovers and the big bread of pickup trucks.
    2. Owners feel they are safer.
    3. Status, it appears more expensive.

  • Trevor says:

    It also helped to kill off the MPV. Not sure if thus is a good thing or not…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More on this topic
Hagerty Newsletter
Get your weekly dose of car news from Hagerty UK in your inbox
Share

Thanks for signing up!

Your request will be handled as soon as possible