Not only that, they also have a fairly conservative approach to design that seems to keep a lot of the stupid bullshit out of their cars. I own multiple late model Japanese cars from different manufacturers and have had zero issues with them. The ADAS systems they do have, while arguably basic by 2025 standards, function flawlessly. All essential controls (including climate control) are physical.
To be honest, it has never been about pure brand. Every brand has had clunkers and has had great models.
Having said that, Toyota is known for their reliability, and Volvo (+ Polestar) was / are known for their safety.
Just to emphasize the point: Nissan is doomed because generally no one wants their cars, but they have perhaps one of the greatest bang-for-buck EVs outside of Chinese brands: the Leaf 2.
Nissan makes fantastic cars that develop a following, and then proceeds to change everything about the car that created a following in the first place. Mitsubishi seem to be learning this skill from them. Toyota still sells cars that have a direct lineage to the original model 40 years ago, and charges a fortune for them.
I have a 2022 model Leaf, the one with 230 miles range, and it's... boring in a good way. It just works. Zero problems whatsoever and zero noticeable battery degradation after about 27K miles. Only big downside is poor rapid charging, but we use ours as a city car and rarely if ever need it.
Put a CCS fast charge port and better battery cooling in this thing and it'd be the perfect boring reliable EV with physical dash controls (no touch screen BS).
My girlfriend has the same car and I had about the same feeling in it - it's just a cheap Nissan that happens to be electric (and I mean that in a good way). As you said, quite good as a city car, and we even did a short road trip in it, but the lack of chargers for it does produce some range anxiety.
Leaf doesn't have active cooling nor CCS... That's a big reason they have to price it like that. I'd rather take a Toyota busy forks in the current market. Chevy Equinox is pretty good bang for buck too.
New cars... but a 22 year old used Toyota, like mine, seems perfectly fine.
Sure, it'll kill me because of the comparative lack of safety, but that seems like a minor sacrifice in the face of needing to deal with a new car.
It also doesn't have pillars the thickness of an elephant's legs, like all new cars, significantly less compromising to visibility all around. It also lacks the now ubiquitous square and raised bonnet.
If you are of a certain age, have the ready cash and if new cars are truly safer than old cars, then do society a favor and buy the new car. It’s cheaper for society to make a new car that keeps the aging driver, passengers and other drivers and pedestrians safe, than to pay to fix even one broken old person.
I’ve got a 2025 sedan with all the newest safety features, and what you lose in visibility you more than gain in general situational awareness, especially with aging eyes, ears, etc.. Managing display and alarm complexities is the challenge, though, since the aging population also have issues there. A driving training simulator at the dealership for these new sedans for the elderly would be a big help, since many of the safety options are only active in a vehicle under motion. The temptation for the aged is just to shut these confusing options off as too complex, thus losing the safety advantage.
Was told by a mechanic a few months back that continuously-variable transmissions are standard in gas cars now, but have reliability problems. Old-tech automatics can (could?) still be had from Toyota and Mazda.
E-CVTs are extremely reliable and are different from CVTs (CVTs use a belt attached to 2 cones, E-CVTs are just a single planetary gear set), but a lot of car guys and even some mechanics don't realize they're completely different.
