2019 Leaf specs revealed

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Agreed: I will definitely be "kicking the tires" on a 2019 Leaf. I've seen bits and pieces of everything there except the TMS: if it's for more than just "fast charging", I will be amazed.
 
rcm4453 said:
The 0-60 in 6.5 seconds is pretty impressive for a Leaf!

Yes, when you start off as one of the slowest EVs 6.5 is better but not exactly impressive.
 
EVDRIVER said:
rcm4453 said:
The 0-60 in 6.5 seconds is pretty impressive for a Leaf!

Yes, when you start off as one of the slowest EVs 6.5 is better but not exactly impressive.

We are so spoiled nowadays! When I first started driving, 6.5 second 0-60 time would have been solidly in the "sports car" category. Now it's makes for an unimpressive family car. :roll: :lol:

Some 1970's times (http://www.autosnout.com/Cars-0-60mph-List-1970s.php)

Aston-Martin Lagonda Series 1 5.3L V8 - [1974]- 6.5 seconds
Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS 454 425bhp - [1971]- 6.5 seconds
Ford Falcon 4th Gen 351 V8 4-speed - [1970]- 6.5 seconds
Lamborghini Urraco 2.5L V8 P250 - [1972] 6.5 seconds
Lotus Esprit S1 2.0 - 6.5 seconds
Maserati Bora 4.7 V8 - 6.5 seconds
Chevrolet Malibu 5.7 V8 Turbo Hydra-Matic - [1970] 6.7 seconds
Ferrari 308 GT/4 3.0L V8 - 6.7 seconds
Ferrari 308 GTB - 6.7 seconds
Jaguar XJ S V12 - 6.7 seconds
Lamborghini Jarama 3.9 V12 - 6.7 seconds
Lamborghini Miura P4000 SV - 6.7 seconds
Renault 5 Turbo Phase 1 - 6.7 seconds
Jaguar E Type 5.3L V12 2+2 - 6.8 seconds
Porsche 928 4.5 V8 - [1977]- 6.8 seconds
Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale 7.5L V8 - [1970] 6.9 seconds
Pontiac Firebird 6.6L Trans Am - 6.9 seconds
Aston-Martin Lagonda Series 2 - 7.0 seconds
 
Nubo said:
EVDRIVER said:
rcm4453 said:
The 0-60 in 6.5 seconds is pretty impressive for a Leaf!

Yes, when you start off as one of the slowest EVs 6.5 is better but not exactly impressive.

We are so spoiled nowadays! When I first started driving, 6.5 second 0-60 time would have been solidly in the "sports car" category. Now it's makes for an unimpressive family car. :roll: :lol:

Some 1970's times (http://www.autosnout.com/Cars-0-60mph-List-1970s.php)

Aston-Martin Lagonda Series 1 5.3L V8 - [1974]- 6.5 seconds
Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS 454 425bhp - [1971]- 6.5 seconds
Ford Falcon 4th Gen 351 V8 4-speed - [1970]- 6.5 seconds
Lamborghini Urraco 2.5L V8 P250 - [1972] 6.5 seconds
Lotus Esprit S1 2.0 - 6.5 seconds
Maserati Bora 4.7 V8 - 6.5 seconds
Chevrolet Malibu 5.7 V8 Turbo Hydra-Matic - [1970] 6.7 seconds
Ferrari 308 GT/4 3.0L V8 - 6.7 seconds
Ferrari 308 GTB - 6.7 seconds
Jaguar XJ S V12 - 6.7 seconds
Lamborghini Jarama 3.9 V12 - 6.7 seconds
Lamborghini Miura P4000 SV - 6.7 seconds
Renault 5 Turbo Phase 1 - 6.7 seconds
Jaguar E Type 5.3L V12 2+2 - 6.8 seconds
Porsche 928 4.5 V8 - [1977]- 6.8 seconds
Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale 7.5L V8 - [1970] 6.9 seconds
Pontiac Firebird 6.6L Trans Am - 6.9 seconds
Aston-Martin Lagonda Series 2 - 7.0 seconds


Classic!
 
LeafPowerIsIxE said:
Very impressive. I'm interested. Surprised they released this data. Maybe push some to avoid the current 2018 offering?


Yeah I agree when you look at the specs of the 2019 you have to wonder why anyone would go for the 2018?!

I understand the 2018 is a little cheaper but it's well worth paying a little more to get a vastly superior car IMHO. Plus the 2018 will have the crappy AESC battery without a TMS, no thanks!
 
We don't know if the 2018 40kwh version will be a "little cheaper" or a "LOT cheaper" than the 2019 60kwh version. I'll be at my spending limit paying $356 a month for my 2018 SV; another 20kwh I don't need, but that costs me another hundred a month, that doesn't interest me. The active cooling does, though, and I'm very concerned about degradation in the 40kwh pack...
 
I might be interested if active cooling is only for charging, but I don't want a battery that requires cooling while parked for extended time without being plugged in. I don't want to return to the office or airport after parking for 2 or 3 weeks to a car that discharged itself trying to keep its battery cool. The other specifications look really interesting.
 
^ ^ ^ THIS

Based on comments by Nissan at the time, it seemed as though "no TMS" was part of the original system design spec (for those of you who can relate) for the Leaf platform.
 
GerryAZ said:
I might be interested if active cooling is only for charging, but I don't want a battery that requires cooling while parked for extended time without being plugged in. I don't want to return to the office or airport after parking for 2 or 3 weeks to a car that discharged itself trying to keep its battery cool. The other specifications look really interesting.


How often would this scenario play out for most Leaf drivers? Wouldn't you think having a battery that degrades less quickly because it has an active TMS is the better way to go? It's a small price to pay to protect a battery that costs several thousand dollars.
 
Stanton said:
^ ^ ^ THIS

Based on comments by Nissan at the time, it seemed as though "no TMS" was part of the original system design spec (for those of you who can relate) for the Leaf platform.

Yeah and look how well this "no TMS" has worked out for them. How many batteries has Nissan had to replace under warranty since the Leaf launched?!
 
rcm4453 said:
Stanton said:
^ ^ ^ THIS

Based on comments by Nissan at the time, it seemed as though "no TMS" was part of the original system design spec (for those of you who can relate) for the Leaf platform.

Yeah and look how well this "no TMS" has worked out for them. How many batteries has Nissan had to replace under warranty since the Leaf launched?!

A lot...and I'm one of them. However, that's not the point. If the battery design/testing/whatever had been more heat tolerant and/or initial battery pack capacities had been larger, the system design objectives would have most likely been met. The simple fact that Nissan is going with another battery design (LG Chem) tells you that they (finally) learned a very expensive lesson.
 
Stanton said:
rcm4453 said:
Stanton said:
^ ^ ^ THIS

Based on comments by Nissan at the time, it seemed as though "no TMS" was part of the original system design spec (for those of you who can relate) for the Leaf platform.

Yeah and look how well this "no TMS" has worked out for them. How many batteries has Nissan had to replace under warranty since the Leaf launched?!

A lot...and I'm one of them. However, that's not the point. If the battery design/testing/whatever had been more heat tolerant and/or initial battery pack capacities had been larger, the system design objectives would have most likely been met. The simple fact that Nissan is going with another battery design (LG Chem) tells you that they (finally) learned a very expensive lesson.

I sincerely doubt your estimation of "a lot". Not all Leafs were sold in Phoenix or places like that, but when you are the one being inconvenienced, it would seem that the whole world is caving in. I'm over 41,000 miles in the Atlanta suburbs, and I am getting 86 miles in this frozen weather. Yes, I still have 12 bars, but I may lose a bar within the next 12 months. By then I will be in the 50s. Also, I have not seen any numbers or reports that say that Nissan is losing on a Leaf. Maybe making their own battery took away the overhead-and-profit of a separate manufacturer, so there must have been cost savings there. And in doing so, they could pass the savings along. Now that they reused many of the original parts, they can now look to LG Chem.

We all read this thread and hear of some of us going to the dealer for a replacement and being told, "...this is our first...". I believe the only "a lot" were the people that came here to voice their complaint.
 
Jedlacks said:
Stanton said:
rcm4453 said:
Yeah and look how well this "no TMS" has worked out for them. How many batteries has Nissan had to replace under warranty since the Leaf launched?!

A lot...and I'm one of them. However, that's not the point. If the battery design/testing/whatever had been more heat tolerant and/or initial battery pack capacities had been larger, the system design objectives would have most likely been met. The simple fact that Nissan is going with another battery design (LG Chem) tells you that they (finally) learned a very expensive lesson.

I sincerely doubt your estimation of "a lot". Not all Leafs were sold in Phoenix or places like that, but when you are the one being inconvenienced, it would seem that the whole world is caving in. I'm over 41,000 miles in the Atlanta suburbs, and I am getting 86 miles in this frozen weather. Yes, I still have 12 bars, but I may lose a bar within the next 12 months. By then I will be in the 50s. Also, I have not seen any numbers or reports that say that Nissan is losing on a Leaf. Maybe making their own battery took away the overhead-and-profit of a separate manufacturer, so there must have been cost savings there. And in doing so, they could pass the savings along. Now that they reused many of the original parts, they can now look to LG Chem.

We all read this thread and hear of some of us going to the dealer for a replacement and being told, "...this is our first...". I believe the only "a lot" were the people that came here to voice their complaint.


You have a relatively good battery (the lizard battery) but those of us who have either a 30kwh pack or a 2011, 2012 pack it's a whole different story! Have you seen all the threads(posts) over the years of bar losers and capacity losses? This forum is just a small sample of total Leaf owners, imagine how many other owners that don't post on this forum that have had severe battery degradation?!

I live in Minnesota and lost my first bar at 19k miles so it doesn't only effect people in hot climates.
 
rcm4453 said:
GerryAZ said:
I might be interested if active cooling is only for charging, but I don't want a battery that requires cooling while parked for extended time without being plugged in. I don't want to return to the office or airport after parking for 2 or 3 weeks to a car that discharged itself trying to keep its battery cool. The other specifications look really interesting.

How often would this scenario play out for most Leaf drivers? Wouldn't you think having a battery that degrades less quickly because it has an active TMS is the better way to go? It's a small price to pay to protect a battery that costs several thousand dollars.

It happens a bit for Tesla drivers, as it's common to lose between 2.5km/.5kWh - 15km/3.1kWh a day, the latter being when the car is NOT in power-saving mode:
https://youtu.be/iAaRXgmAOIc

- Doctor, doctor...it hurts when I do that...
- Well then, don't do that.

The solution is to park it with 70-80% charge and in power-saving mode; that way you're not storing a full charge and the car has enough to allow for sitting and pre-warming. I'm sure Nissan will have a similar mode. Also, try to park indoors, if possible. Every bit of cover helps.
 
LeafPowerIsIxE said:
Very impressive. I'm interested. Surprised they released this data. Maybe push some to avoid the current 2018 offering?
Other than the 1st slide that was shown which was shown from the Sunnyvale EVent in Sept 2017 (discussed at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=515631#p515631), I really wonder how credible the other stuff in the table is. I was at that EVent along w/numerous other MNLers, including some at least 2 non-local folks who flew in and apparently, one who drove down from WA in his Kia Soul EV.

I have no idea if PushEVs is credible.
 
I think the 225 miles of range is important. Especially considering what harsh winter temperatures do to range. I also think if people know a superior model is coming out in a year, that would greatly reduce 2018 model sales.

So, what is the truth with the Level 3 charging standards? My understanding is that there is the Tesla standard, the Chademo that few automakers use, and the one that Chevy uses that has the two extra holes under the normal port. As you can tell, I'm not up on this. I would prefer that Nissan goes to whatever the more common standard is.
 
What standard is more common depends on where you are. There is as yet no clear winner in the charging standard war, although it's looking like the SAE Combo will eventually dominate over ChaDeMo. In the meantime many newer QC stations offer both charging cables.

Yes, I know I didn't get the silly capitalization right.
 
Back
Top