Nissan’s decision to scrap a planned US$500 million investment to build electric vehicles at its Canton, Mississippi plant is the latest sign that big, traditional manufacturers are rethinking the pace of electrification.
Automotive News reported that Nissan told US suppliers it had dropped the EV plan and would instead pivot the site towards truck-based models, beginning with the revival of the Xterra SUV. In other words, a factory once positioned as an EV hub is being realigned around the products that still generate the most reliable profits in North America: pickups and rugged SUVs.
On one level, this looks like prudent capital discipline. EV demand has grown, but more slowly and unevenly than many boardroom forecasts assumed. On another level, it reinforces a perception that parts of the legacy industry remain flatfooted. Having pledged ambitious timelines, several brands are now delaying launches, resizing factories, or leaning harder into hybrids and combustion engines. The risk is that a short-term correction becomes a long-term strategic drift, especially as Chinese and newer entrants keep pushing battery-electric products down the cost curve.
Ford offers a clear case study. In August 2024, CNBC reported that Ford delayed production of a next-generation all-electric pickup planned for a new Tennessee plant and cancelled an electric three-row SUV, while shifting emphasis towards hybrids and commercial EVs. The messaging was telling: executives framed the change as a route to a more “capital-efficient” EV business. Translation: the volumes and margins needed to justify a rapid, all-in transition are not yet there, so Ford is keeping its most lucrative internal combustion franchise, the F-Series ecosystem, firmly in the foreground.
General Motors has also repeatedly adjusted its EV cadence. In July 2024, Green Car Reports, citing Bloomberg, noted GM had again delayed the ramp-up of electric pickup production at its Orion Assembly plant in Michigan. More recently, Reuters reported that GM was cutting output and delaying work at major EV factories as it aligned production with weaker demand expectations and shifting policy support, according to CNBC’s write-up of the Reuters reporting (September 2025). GM’s advantage is manufacturing flexibility: the company can move capacity between electric and internal combustion vehicles. The downside is that flexibility can become a temptation to postpone hard decisions about scale, supply chains and cost reductions in battery-electric platforms.
Honda has made a similar, if more explicitly hybrid-led, recalibration. In its May 2025 business briefing, Honda said it would realign its electrification strategy, including reassessing the timing of investments, as it no longer expected EVs to reach the share it had previously targeted by 2030 (Honda Global). The Associated Press reported that Honda Canada would postpone by about two years a major EV and battery investment project in Ontario, citing a slowdown in EV demand. The message is consistent with the broader pattern: rather than betting everything on a rapid battery-electric ramp, legacy players are building more optionality by leaning on hybrids and delaying big, irreversible factory commitments.
Stellantis has gone further, at least in the full-size pickup segment. Reuters reported in September 2025 that the group was axing its Ram 1500 battery-electric pickup, citing slow demand for full-size electric trucks. That reversal followed earlier delays, underscoring how difficult it has been to translate attention-grabbing concept vehicles into mass-market products at acceptable margins. As with Nissan’s truck pivot, the centre of gravity returns to where the money is today, not necessarily where regulation and technology are headed tomorrow.
There are real structural reasons behind the hesitancy. S&P Global Mobility noted in September 2024 that battery-electric growth had settled into a “choppy” phase in many markets, while conventional hybrids were gaining share. High interest rates have made expensive EVs harder to finance. Public charging remains patchy and often unreliable, particularly for drivers who cannot charge at home. Meanwhile, automakers still struggle to make EVs as profitable as comparable petrol models, because battery costs, software complexity and new manufacturing processes are hard to amortise at modest volumes.
None of this means electrification is over. It does suggest the industry is entering a more pragmatic phase, where hybrids, plug-in hybrids and range-extenders are treated as bridge technologies rather than distractions. The question is whether legacy manufacturers can use this pause to fix the fundamentals, including cost, quality, charging partnerships and battery supply, or whether they will simply defend today’s profit pools for too long. Nissan’s Mississippi reversal, and similar moves by Ford, GM, Honda and Stellantis, show that the EV transition is not a straight line. But in a global market that is still electrifying, being cautious is not the same as standing still.
Staff Writer
Reporting from the front lines of the automotive industry, delivering expert analysis and the technical updates that drive the South African motor sector forward.
