Nissan: We Can Match Bolt

[WetEV]

and its clear that LMO batteries without ATM just can't hack summer temps over the majority of the U.S. Unless you consider 3 years average to 70% to be acceptable in a vehicle that has a $30k+ MSRP.

3 years average to 70%? In Las Vegas, perhaps.

I don't think so. I don't even think that half of the 2011 LEAFs are at 70%, much less the 2013s.

http://www.electricvehiclewiki.com/Battery_Capacity_Loss

 

[edatoakrun]

="GRA"... the FFE's ATM let's the pack get and stay much too hot (and the Soul's maybe also). That's a matter of a poorly designed ATM, not the failure of ATM in general. GM and Tesla did it right...

I don't know how you formed that belief, but I suggest you base your opinions on facts, instead

For some reason Tesla doesn't seem to want outside testing of its cars' battery packs.

But the AVTA is testing the Tesla pack and drivetrain used in the B-class.

With the largest packs of any of the BEVs being tested by the AVTA (34.25 kWh average baseline) I think you should expect a lower percentage of capacity loss over the same miles driven than on BEVs equipped with smaller packs, which need to cycle their pack more times to cover the same miles.

With data for only ~three months and ~3,600 miles since baseline, the B-class ~3.1% average capacity loss doesn't tell us very much, but eventually we should see the first reliable data on Tesla pack degradation.

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-button/2015-mercedes-b-class

The Spark EVs, also after only ~3,600 miles over more than four months since baseline (on average) are losing capacity by %/miles driven slightly faster than the B-class', and show ~3.8% loss so far, but with packs just over half as large, I think this is to be expected.

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-button/2015-chevrolet-spark

In fact, so far all the BEVs being tested in Phoenix, as of these very preliminary results, seem to be losing something close to 1% of baseline capacity per month and thousand miles driven, though I expect we'll see significant divergence in performance between the different BEVs as longer-term data is posted.

More significant variations are showing up in energy efficiency, and as you would expect, there is a strong association between more active thermal management systems, and lower efficiency in m/kWh (as adjusted for other vehicle efficiency factors such as aero efficiency and vehicle weight).

And if you live in Phoenix and want an "electric vehicle" that actually uses more gas than an ICEV, AVTA testing shows a 2013 Volt could be just what you're looking for, as I posted a few days ago:

="mtndrew1
...As far as liquid TMS goes, the Volt sure looks like it holds up very well in Phoenix with a 9% measured loss over nearly 130,000 miles of driving. https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/phev/batteryVolt4313.pdf

This has been discussed on the Volt thread. Yes, if you don't use a PHEV's batteries much, and are willing to run the ICE generator to provide energy for battery cooling, even after the pack is discharged, batteries will last a lot longer than they will in a BEV, especially in Phoenix.

Those Volts were driven mostly on gas, and averaged an unimpressive 39.3 mpg.

Meaning hybrid ICEVs driven over the same routes probably could have used about the same amount of gas, without ever plugging them in.
Just a waste of both the battery pack and all the kWh used in charging, for a PHEV used in this application.
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/phev/ar2013ChevroletVoltEREV.pdf

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13531&start=1000

="GRA"... Most (or at least a plurality - 40+ %) of American BEV owners live in California, predominantly coastal regions, and we've seen degradation well above what Nissan claimed in both SoCal and the Bay Area. While both of those regions have areas which are much hotter than the average across the region, they also have areas where the temps are very moderate, and we've still seen excessive degradation. Add owners in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, plus pretty much anywhere south of the 36th parallel in summer, and its clear that LMO batteries without ATM just can't hack summer temps over the majority of the U.S. Unless you consider 3 years average to 70% to be acceptable in a vehicle that has a $30k+ MSRP.

Do you really believe 30% LBC indicated capacity loss over three years is average for California LEAFs?

I live and drive my LEAF in California, in a region with warmer-than-average-for-California-LEAF-owners Summer temperatures, and it looks like at ~five years and ~45k miles I'll have LBC-indicated Capacity loss of ~28%, which I think is also probably slightly greater than average for California LEAFs, over that amount of time and miles driven.

However, as I've mentioned before, the actual capacity loss I have experienced after five years, as measured by kWh accepted when charging, will likely indicate it retains about 18% less capacity than the 24 kWh Nissan claimed it had at delivery, and about a 15% to 16% loss from my LEAF pack's actual (lower) capacity at delivery.

So, If I keep driving my LEAF, it might well take close to five more years before my LEAFs pack lost 30% of actual available capacity from delivery.

I have no idea what My LEAFs LBC capacity report and capacity bar display would look like by then.

 

[smkettner]

Do you really believe 30% LBC indicated capacity loss over three years is average for California LEAFs?

Closer to five years in my opinion. If Bolt or Tesla degrades closer to 20% in 10 years.... who would buy a Nissan?

 

[tkdbrusco]

Do you really believe 30% LBC indicated capacity loss over three years is average for California LEAFs?

Closer to five years in my opinion. If Bolt or Tesla degrades closer to 20% in 10 years.... who would buy a Nissan?

I'm pretty happy with the limited degradation on my 2015 Leaf. I'm down about 5% after 2 years and 27K miles. Assuming there's no tricks, hidden capacity or rapid (non-linear) declines, that puts me at about 20% loss for 100K miles. I'd be shocked if that's all I experience, but for now, that's the path.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Ford chooses not to play:

Ford Is Not Planning an EV with 200-Mile Range, Says It Would Be Too Heavy - autoevolution
https://apple.news/AvPN6mwHMN8u1hLApC7iIsQ

 

[edatoakrun]

Ford chooses not to play:

Ford Is Not Planning an EV with 200-Mile Range, Says It Would Be Too Heavy - autoevolution
https://apple.news/AvPN6mwHMN8u1hLApC7iIsQ

Original source article:

Ford Motor Co. has no immediate plans to chase General Motors, Nissan and Tesla in the electric car range race.

Kevin Layden, Ford's director of electrification programs and engineering, said the 100-mile range coming this fall in the 2017 Focus Electric -- up from the 2016 model's 76 miles -- is enough distance to cover the daily commute of most drivers.

Speaking on the sidelines of the SAE World Congress last week here, Layden said keeping the car's range at 100 miles will help rein in weight and cost. The lower range enables the use of a smaller, lighter and less expensive battery pack, Layden said...

"I think right now with the launch of the Focus Electric at 100 miles, it is going to satisfy a big chunk of the population," said Layden. "It's going to be really affordable and a step up from where we are now."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160418/OEM05/304189970/no-200-mile-electric-car-in-fords-immediate-future

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Ford chooses not to play:

Ford Is Not Planning an EV with 200-Mile Range, Says It Would Be Too Heavy - autoevolution
https://apple.news/AvPN6mwHMN8u1hLApC7iIsQ

Original source article:

Ford Motor Co. has no immediate plans to chase General Motors, Nissan and Tesla in the electric car range race.

Kevin Layden, Ford's director of electrification programs and engineering, said the 100-mile range coming this fall in the 2017 Focus Electric -- up from the 2016 model's 76 miles -- is enough distance to cover the daily commute of most drivers.

Speaking on the sidelines of the SAE World Congress last week here, Layden said keeping the car's range at 100 miles will help rein in weight and cost. The lower range enables the use of a smaller, lighter and less expensive battery pack, Layden said...

"I think right now with the launch of the Focus Electric at 100 miles, it is going to satisfy a big chunk of the population," said Layden. "It's going to be really affordable and a step up from where we are now."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160418/OEM05/304189970/no-200-mile-electric-car-in-fords-immediate-future

it will be really affordable only because they still have a few years left of the full tax benefit but he is right. 100 "real" miles is all most people need but degradation happens NO MATTER WHAT and starting at the borderline means a car that starts to lose effectiveness in less than 3 years.

This is the reason why I think someone coming in at 150-175 mile range at $30,000 will be the big winner here

 

[mihird]

The primary reason, I did not chase the Model 3.
I am waiting for that 130-150 mile range commuter car, that future proofs me to be able to do the 100 mile range for 6-10 years. That's all what I really need.

 

[minispeed]

The 2017 i3 will probably be the perfect formula, over 100 miles all electric with a small back up ICE. Now I know there are some other issues using the ICE on highspeed (70+) freeways and mountains but if you really are just using it as an oh sh*t device or a winter weather back up and not trying to replace a Tesla or Volt then it works fine.

Other than that I think hitting 140miles and driving price down is more important than chasing 200. At the very least I don't see a need to have 200 in the base car.

 

[LKK]

This is the reason why I think someone coming in at 150-175 mile range at $30,000 will be the big winner here

Yeah man! A 100 mile EV for 30 grand means an after tax credit cost of $22.5 K. The Model 3 and the Bolt sound good but they both will depleat their eligibility for the tax credit pretty early in the game. State incentives would drop the cost even more. For this you get a vehicle that will satisfy something around 95% of your needs, use no gas, and will have a very high level of reliability. Oh, and one more thing, it will be fun to drive. Just buy a used Prius for those rare trips where you need longer range.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

This is the reason why I think someone coming in at 150-175 mile range at $30,000 will be the big winner here

Yeah man! A 100 mile EV for 30 grand means an after tax credit cost of $22.5 K. The Model 3 and the Bolt sound good but they both will depleat their eligibility for the tax credit pretty early in the game. State incentives would drop the cost even more. For this you get a vehicle that will satisfy something around 95% of your needs, use no gas, and will have a very high level of reliability. Oh, and one more thing, it will be fun to drive. Just buy a used Prius for those rare trips where you need longer range.

which every new (or previously pathetic) manufacturer will enjoy based on the shortsightedness of the law. I am actually talking long term. I would love to see 100 miles for $25,000; 150 miles for $30,000 and 200 miles for $35,000ish... I think that is where the market will eventually settle and stay for years

 

[smkettner]

The primary reason, I did not chase the Model 3.
I am waiting for that 130-150 mile range commuter car, that future proofs me to be able to do the 100 mile range for 6-10 years. That's all what I really need.

Toyota RAV4-EV is right in that zone.
Drove 130 freeway miles last weekend running the air conditioner. Still showing 15 miles left.
Mine has 29,000 miles so far.

 

[user 10599]

The primary reason, I did not chase the Model 3.
I am waiting for that 130-150 mile range commuter car, that future proofs me to be able to do the 100 mile range for 6-10 years. That's all what I really need.

Toyota RAV4-EV is right in that zone.
Drove 130 freeway miles last weekend running the air conditioner. Still showing 15 miles left.
Mine has 29,000 miles so far.

Wasn't that $50k before incentives? I was thinking the focus here was the sub-$40k pre-incentives market.

I agree, there can be a good market for lower priced cars with under 200 mile range. I hope we don't have to choose between 100 mile compliance cars and 200+ mile real cars. When I got my Leaf, it was great for my commute. But then I changed jobs and now have a commute that doesn't work for it. 125 mile range would be minimum, with 150 mile appropriate factoring in degradation over time. Sadly, if the only choices are 100 mile cars or 200+ mile cars, I would have to go with the 200+ mile option and buy more battery than I need.

 

[smkettner]

RAV4-EV is now a $25,000 to $30,000 vehicle.

http://www.carmax.com/search?ANa=42...8-2e63259549de&Ep=search:results:results page

 

[edatoakrun]

RAV4-EV is now a $25,000 to $30,000 vehicle.

http://www.carmax.com/search?ANa=42...8-2e63259549de&Ep=search:results:results page

And you should probably expect RAV4-EVs to sell for about 1/2 that much in a year, once the Bolt is widely available.

 

[smkettner]

Very possible. RAV I believe has far more cargo area in the back vs Bolt. For that reason I cannot trade.

I do hope the Bolt battery holds up as well as the Volt has been reported.
I honestly think Tesla (including RAV4-EV) and GM have a superior battery system to Nissan.

 

[pweisel]

Quite the thread on this. Maybe, just maybe, the Leaf 2 will impress us the way the current Leaf did enough for us to bother to obtain one? Lots of speculation on this thread - and some good ideas!

I will say that spy photos and info leaks are generally part of the promotion from the manufacturer. Clearly Nissan is not promoting... yet. But it's April. Nissan clearly wants to dominate this segment long term, or else we would not see the Leaf proliferation that we have, even if sales have dropped off lately, all at a calculated and huge loss (or is that, a long term investment?) for Nissan

Leaf may not be the everyman's dream EV car, but compared to all the EV's I sat in at last years national EV event, it is solid, well built, reliable. Not perfect, room for improvement, sure. So was the apple MacIntosh, which didn't do well, but look at them apples now.

GM? Come on. Spark EV is a huge POS compared to most everything, EV or not. Bolt? It's a hyped unknown with a big battery.

If Nissan is smart, they are playing us consumers to let the tension build before the big reveal... For sale in September. I guess we will see...

 

[BernieTx]

... Maybe, just maybe, the Leaf 2 will impress us ...Leaf may not be the everyman's dream EV car, but compared to all the EV's I sat in at last years national EV event, it is solid, well built, reliable. Not perfect, room for improvement, sure.
...
If Nissan is smart, they are playing us consumers to let the tension build before the big reveal... For sale in September. I guess we will see...

The current Leaf SV with the 30kwh battery seems overpriced, with a list price starting at $34k. That's a tad bit higher than the gen2 Volt, and too close to the prices for the Bolt and the model3, although the model3 is farther out in time. But the Bolt is supposed to ship late 2016.

I suppose Nissan's answer is that the 24kwh Leaf S is $29k. I wonder what the 60kwh Leaf will be priced at?

 

[mihird]

The 60Kwh battery from Nissan will have to price out to match the Bolt/Model 3, if Nissan wants to remain in the game. Both the Bolt and Model 3 are going to be well received cars.

 

[reeler]

Additionally, the LEAF will have to look amazing to compete with the Tesla Model 3. The Bolt will sell okay for a year, but will be forgotten next to a Model 3. The LEAF being released about the same time as the Model 3 must look Infiniti amazing.

That or Chevy and Nissan will slot their offering in at $25K base. That will be tough with no vertically-integrated battery factory and selling wholesale to a dealer network.

When you fall asleep at the wheel . . . you wake up in pain.