After Nissan announced plans to exit the full-size pickup segment in 2024, rumors have continued to circulate about the automaker’s consideration of a light-duty electric truck. While the Japanese automaker doesn’t expect to enter the electric pickup market anytime soon, company executives say Nissan will eventually need to go electric in the truck segment.
During the Japan Mobility Show on Wednesday, Nissan Global Product Strategy Executive Ivan Espinosa told Automotive News that the automaker plans to continue investing in a future pickup. However, Espinosa says an electric pickup won’t hit the market anytime soon — despite the company’s continued investments.
“One thing you can be sure about is we’re going to keep investing in the truck segment,” Espinosa said. “How do we evolve … is the question that we are discussing internally. Eventually, we will have to electrify the truck.”
Despite the statements, Espinosa refused to formally comment on product plans. Instead, he pointed to the fact that U.S. automakers have been hard to beat in the full-size pickup market.
“You have competitors doing 700,000 trucks a year,” Espinosa said. “So it’s a bit of a difficult space to play now.”
Nissan sold 76,183 Frontier mid-size trucks in the U.S. last year, so a future electric Frontier wouldn’t seem beyond the automaker’s long-term ambitions.
However, electric pickups won’t be the first EVs to roll out, according to Espinosa. Additionally, previous rumors have suggested that the automaker wouldn’t bring an electric pickup to market until 2030.
“The demand for electrification is concentrating today much more on the C-SUV and D-SUV [segments],” Espinosa added. “These are the ones that you will start seeing rolling into first. And I see trucks a little bit on the later stage.”
I really hope the future of cars is actually close to the concept cars big auto makes. Look at this Nissan car just unveiled here in Tokyo. #nissan #JapanMoblityShow pic.twitter.com/Nwga7qTrV1
— WHAT'S INSIDE? (@whatsinside) October 25, 2023
The statements come as the electric pickup segment emerges with new contributions like the Rivian R1T and the forthcoming Tesla Cybertruck, as well as larger electrified trucks from Ford, Chevrolet and GMC, among others. It also comes as Nissan has unveiled a few concept EVs at Japan Mobility, including the above-pictured Nissan Hyper Force.
Along with ending production of the Titan in 2024, Nissan has announced plans to phase out the Leaf electric vehicle (EV), which was one of the earliest battery-electric cars to be introduced to global markets.
The automaker has also faced production stalls and other issues with the production of the Nissan Ariya, though it increased the number of EVs it hopes to debut by 2030 to 19 from 15 earlier this year.
With plans to make 40 percent of its sales fully electric in the U.S. by 2030 and a renewed ambition in the EV space, many have speculated around the subject of an electric pickup from the automaker. Nissan was also reportedly considering the idea of a Titan EV back in 2020, though the automaker will now exit the full-size pickup market with the Titan ending production next year.
Nissan Dealer Board Chairman Tyler Slade told Automotive News a few months ago that the automaker would want to make a $40,000 electric pickup rather than competing directly with more expensive, larger EV trucks.
“They don’t want to be in the Rivian or the [Tesla] Cybertruck space,” Slade said. “They want to be in the affordable $40,000 range.”
Tesla and Nissan agree to NACS compatibility in most recent adoption
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
