Projectile-hit HMM boxship set to leave Hormuz
HMM Namu, the box ship reportedly damaged in a projectile attack in the Strait of ...
By Alison Koo
Among everything else, the US/Israel-Iran war has disrupted Japanese vehicle exports to the Middle East.
Vessel-tracking data from SeaSearcher shows 15 Japanese-operated car carriers stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, tying up as many as 70,000 vehicles.
And Japanese shipping companies have suspended the passage of their ships through the Strait of Hormuz.
Except for Isuzu, Japan’s vehicle manufacturers have no production plants in the Middle East, meaning the region has to rely on imports. Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association figures show last year Japan exported 870,000 vehicles to the Middle East, a market share of 30% in the region.
The Middle East conflict therefore means a potential loss of 870,000 vehicle exports this year, and in response, Japanese car makers have cut production of models aimed at the market.
In March, Nissan slashed output of about 1,200 vehicles at its Kyushu plant, mainly models sold into the Middle East, such as the X-Trail and Serena. The Middle East is Nissan’s second-largest market, after North America, takeing more than 77,000 vehicleslast year, a 24% jump from 2024.
Toyota, which also reduced production of Middle East-bound vehicles in March, by 20,000, will increase this to 24,000 this month, while Mazda, which manufactures roughly 30,000 vehicles a year for the Middle East, suspended output immediately the war broke out, a pause that will continue into May.
Japanese vehicle manufacturers are disinclined to follow in the footsteps of container shipping companies that have rerouted vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. The detour doubles voyage time to 100 days and, with bunker costs doubling since the war, the higher costs and longer sailing time do not make economic sense, they say.
This article is © The Loadstar. Reproduction, rewriting, or derivative use requires a license. Contact [email protected] for licensing enquiries.
Comment on this article
Yoichiro Kai
April 22, 2026 at 3:14 amHello,
I’d like to offer a few comments on this article.
From the perspective of someone with practical knowledge of car carrier (PCC/PCTC) operations, I get the impression that the descriptions in this article reveal clear “inconsistencies” and “confusion of information.”
For example, I believe it is highly likely that the figure “100 days (twice 50 days)” and the term “container ship” reflect several misunderstandings or confusions on the part of Reporter Koo.
In particular, the fact that the article appears to be based on the premise of “container transport of finished vehicles”—an implausible business model—leaves those familiar with the field with no choice but to conclude that “the credibility of this article is questionable in terms of basic logistics principles.”
In particular, my understanding is that container transport of finished vehicles does not exist (in the Japanese market). From the perspective of maintaining transport quality and efficiency, a dedicated shipping service operated by a fully independent PCC should be considered the “optimal solution” among those involved in the Japanese automotive industry.
To be honest, even for your company, which publishes many excellent articles, this particular article is simply unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Gavin van Marle
April 23, 2026 at 8:31 amHi,
Thank you for your comment. The article certainly did not mean to convey the impression that Japanese vehicle exports are transported to the GCC states in containers. Clearly, PCCs/PCTCs are the most economic mode of shipping, the point was that since Hormuz closed it has become largely uneconomic to ship Japanese auto exports via Good Hope, across the Med and southbound through Suez to Jeddah, and then truck 5,000+ cars to the GCC markets over the landbridge (if existing truck capacity could even provide it).
I hope this clarifies the piece and my apologies for the misapprehension.
Kind regards,
Gavin