Of Course The Nissan CrossCabriolet Was A Mistake, But That’s What Makes It Great

It’s no secret that I spent many years writing for Jalopnik, and I absolutely loved my time there. It was an incredible place to love cars for many, many years, and the thousands of articles I wrote over there were how I found my voice as an affable dipshit who writes about cars. Now, of course, I’ve moved on to co-found The Autopian, and I couldn’t be happier, but I’ll always be fond of my old home. That doesn’t mean I won’t call them out when they say something that needs calling-outing, however, because I will. And I am.

For this particular calling-out, I think the act is necessary because it feels, well, a little directed, since the article in question is about a car that we’ve been strongly associated with all year: the Nissan Murano CrossCab. Can I definitely say that Jalopnik published a CrossCab hit piece as a means of Autopian-directed goat-acquisition? Of course not. There are plenty of reasons they could have decided to take the piss out of a limited-production Nissan that’s been out of production for over 11 years.

I mean, we’re not the only ones to notice this, too:

But can I say they weren’t trying to do that, also? No. No, I cannot. And, besides, it’s more fun to at least pretend it was a little dig, because deep down we’re all really drama royals, and this is what keeps life fun. Hence this tweet:

https://t.co/Lc84xXuWpQ pic.twitter.com/boLtTRbg7y

— The Autopian (@the_autopian) December 1, 2025

We’re just having fun! And some Jalopnik writers seem to be having fun back. But all of this is just good-natured frippery compared to the real issue I have with this article, which is suggested in the headline: The Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet Failed Because It Should Have Never Happened. 

The article itself is mostly a competent retelling of the story of the CrossCab, how it reportedly was birthed from a remark then-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn’s wife made about wanting a convertible Murano, how it is full of engineering and design compromises and some questionable ideas, and how wildly improbable it is that such a car exists at all. I can find no issue with any if those parts of the article: it absolutely is a strange car, with strange idiosyncratic origins, and it’s absolutely riddled with flaws. I’ve driven it enough to fully understand that it’s an awkwardly shaped, clumsy beast that handles like a yak on both Vicodin and roller skates and is shockingly space-inefficient. Also, that convertible top is a miserably-engineered time bomb whose only goal is biding its time to find the absolute worst time to get stuck open in the rain.

Even knowing all that, though, I would never, ever say “It Should Have Never Happened,” as Jalop’s headline states. Because I can’t think of a worse way to view the automotive world.

There’s actually not that much in article that really backs up the “should have never happened” claim, other than, say, all of the frankly accurate evidence of what a shit car the CrossCab technically is, but that stuff barely matters, because I absolutely, firmly, deliriously believe that it is wonderful that the CrossCab happened, and an automotive world where such things do not happen is the worst sort of dystopia I can imagine: a boring one.

The CrossCab came about as one person’s perhaps poorly-thought-out idea. There were no focus groups, no surveys, no market research. There were no deep, involved studies about the best way to accomplish the proposed goals of the project. And the lack of these things is why the CrossCab exists at all, because focus groups would have confirmed this was a vehicle no one really wanted, and the technical studies would have confirmed this was a vehicle that was too much trouble to produce. But since those things never happened, the CrossCab was made anyway.

And, again, that’s good.

An automotive world where there are no CrossCabs, no bad ideas realized, no strange thoughts that improbably make it to production, is an automotive world free of dreams, of imagination, of interest, of joy. It’s a rationalized world of profit and mass-market blandness, and we have plenty of that as it is. The automotive industry is one of the few global industries that is still largely driven by irrationality, and I never want to see that change.

Does the author of this post really want the carmaking world to be like, say, the file cabinet industry? Is that what they want? If so, do they have a pulse? Do they metabolize, desire, dream? I love that there are still cars in the world that are horribly conceived bad ideas, crazy idiosyncratic products of one loon’s deranged vision! That’s what makes this whole car-loving business worth it!

I want to live in a world of Volkswagen SP-2s, a sports car that looks like it could smoke a Lamborghini but is actually in danger of being outpaced by a determined jogger!

Or take the Cybertruck! Yes, personally, I think it’s sort of a steaming pile I’d never want to own, but I’m positively delighted that such a ridiculous machine exists! And for the people that love them, I hope they keep on loving them as long as possible!

The reason we love cars is because cars are not rational. They don’t always make sense, and I hope they never always make sense. That’s why the Nissan Murano Cross Cabriolet is so important: it’s wildly irrational, and it makes no sense at all, and that’s wonderful and beautiful and if Jalopnik is writing headlines that suggest that such things should never have happened then all I can offer them is my sympathy and hope that they end up happy in whatever metallic silver hellscape of indistinguishable crossovers the find themselves in as a result of this soulkilling concept.

Long live the CrossCab, and all of the other terrible cars born of wonderfully misguided ideas. I hope there are always some cars on the road that make zero sense. Always.