GCC: Nissan shifting EV focus to affordability instead of range

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.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/201080424-nissan.html


. . .in a media session in Hong Kong, Carlos Ghosn . . . said that the group is shifting is focus on EVs to affordability, having addressed the range issue.

Ghosn said the companies only recently determined that 300km was the key milestone, as car owners on average drive just around 50km a day. “You could not have guessed this [result] through studies,” he said. “You had to have 500,000 [electric] cars on the ground to understand that consumers do not put autonomy on top of their concerns any more when you cross 300km.”

For the Chinese market in particular, price is now the key issue, Ghosn said. “When you look what are the electric Chinese cars that are selling, they are very, very affordable cars,” he said. “The price point of the Leaf today is not adequate for the Chinese market.”
 
Personally, I think the industry needs to focus more on the sub $30k market (even if it means a reduced range model) to get more people into EV's. Right now the only EV occupying that space is the Smart ForTwo ED, though we did have the Chevy Spark EV for a while.

Nissan missed an opportunity here; they could have kept the old-bodystyle Leaf, with the 30 kWH battery, decontented it even further (no proximity key), no options other than color, and priced it at $25k. They've done such a thing before with the Rogue Select, and GM does this a lot (though GM tends to sell these to fleets rather than individuals).
 
...with the 30 kWH battery...

So you want that fraud to continue??? They would do better to offer the old S or SV, cold weather package (with heatpump) extra as with the new SV, and the Lizard version of the 24kwh pack. By year three it would have as much or more range as the S30. Clearly, though, Nissan prefers to give enough range when the car is new, and to hell with the customer after two years.
 
My take on the Nissan missive:

They are not able to make a good EV that will compete with ICE on price, but they know how to make a crap EV very cheaply that they hope will appeal to China. Perhaps they intend to continue buying the battery production from the factory they sold to the Chinese. It certainly does not bode well for that factory improving its product.
 
LeftieBiker said:
...with the 30 kWH battery...

So you want that fraud to continue??? They would do better to offer the old S or SV, cold weather package (with heatpump) extra as with the new SV, and the Lizard version of the 24kwh pack. By year three it would have as much or more range as the S30. Clearly, though, Nissan prefers to give enough range when the car is new, and to hell with the customer after two years.
A 30 kWh LEAF in the US is good for 30*0.65 ~ 19 kWh minimum for 8 yrs/100k miles.

This forum is chock full of 24 kWh LEAF owners who would be delighted to have what the 30 kWh LEAF offers.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
...with the 30 kWH battery...

So you want that fraud to continue??? They would do better to offer the old S or SV, cold weather package (with heatpump) extra as with the new SV, and the Lizard version of the 24kwh pack. By year three it would have as much or more range as the S30. Clearly, though, Nissan prefers to give enough range when the car is new, and to hell with the customer after two years.
A 30 kWh LEAF in the US is good for 30*0.65 ~ 19 kWh minimum for 8 yrs/100k miles.

This forum is chock full of 24 kWh LEAF owners who would be delighted to have what the 30 kWh LEAF offers.
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
So you want that fraud to continue??? They would do better to offer the old S or SV, cold weather package (with heatpump) extra as with the new SV, and the Lizard version of the 24kwh pack. By year three it would have as much or more range as the S30. Clearly, though, Nissan prefers to give enough range when the car is new, and to hell with the customer after two years.
A 30 kWh LEAF in the US is good for 30*0.65 ~ 19 kWh minimum for 8 yrs/100k miles.

This forum is chock full of 24 kWh LEAF owners who would be delighted to have what the 30 kWh LEAF offers.
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.
It actually presumes 63% of new battery capacity when the 9th bar drops*.
That is my impression from reports here.

The major change Nissan made to the capacity bars correlation to capacity is in the first bar, presumably to have more cars at "12 bars" when the lease is up. Very Nissan-like, I grant you; but not relevant to the warranty. As for your argument that Nissan can change the capacity bar thing on a whim, that holds true for any generation LEAF so far.

*It always surprises me that there is so little noise over that tidbit since Nissan has put out quite a lot of written material stating that the 9th bar drops at around 70%. Must be a trump phenomenon: when outrageous crap happens frequently, people do not have time to be outraged over everything.
 
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.

This may surprise some here, but few people want to buy or lease a car with a 107 mile range, have that range immediately start to drop, have to wait roughly two years (or three, or four) for it to lose enough capacity for a warranty replacement (all the while losing more and more range), and then find that not only does the replacement pack behave exactly the same way, but that it may be made from used cells with 80% the capacity (and range!) of the original. That's a starting range of 88 miles. I think that more people would remain happy with their Leaf if it had an advertised 83 mile range, and 5 years later could still go 70+ miles.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
A 30 kWh LEAF in the US is good for 30*0.65 ~ 19 kWh minimum for 8 yrs/100k miles.

This forum is chock full of 24 kWh LEAF owners who would be delighted to have what the 30 kWh LEAF offers.
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.
It actually presumes 63% of new battery capacity when the 9th bar drops*.
That is my impression from reports here.

The major change Nissan made to the capacity bars correlation to capacity is in the first bar, presumably to have more cars at "12 bars" when the lease is up. Very Nissan-like, I grant you; but not relevant to the warranty. As for your argument that Nissan can change the capacity bar thing on a whim, that holds true for any generation LEAF so far.

*It always surprises me that there is so little noise over that tidbit since Nissan has put out quite a lot of written material stating that the 9th bar drops at around 70%. Must be a trump phenomenon: when outrageous crap happens frequently, people do not have time to be outraged over everything.
AFAIR, the only time when Nissan was required to legally define the value of a bar was in the warranty for 20121-2012 24kWh cars agreed to as part of the class action settlement. That's when I recall the "about 70%' claim, even though it was actually 66.25% (15% + (3 x 6.25%)).
 
LeftieBiker said:
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.

This may surprise some here, but few people want to buy or lease a car with a 107 mile range, have that range immediately start to drop, have to wait roughly two years (or three, or four) for it to lose enough capacity for a warranty replacement (all the while losing more and more range), and then find that not only does the replacement pack behave exactly the same way, but that it may be made from used cells with 80% the capacity of the original. I think that more people would remain happy with their Leaf if it had an advertised 83 mile range, and 5 years later could still go 70+ miles.
I've always been a big fan of battery leasing. Not only does it drop the up front price of the car, which is one of the main barriers to BEV adoption, but you could also do it so that you get the same guaranteed capacity for as long as you lease it. Most current battery leases just guarantee some lower % (Smart uses 80%) of original before replacement, but I'd like to see if there would be many takers with a lower fixed value that would never decline. First gen Volt owners have had a pack that acts very similarly, and you just don't hear them bitching about degradation.

This would require carrying around extra battery with hidden capacity, which would increase the rental price and decrease the efficiency, but it would simplify sales no end. People wouldn't need to be told to allow for degradation, and it would reduce disappointment if they've calculated wrong; just like an ICE, the range (capacity) you start with is the capacity you end with - when it falls below that, you take the car in and they swap the pack for you. Repeat as needed. For a commute car, having a guaranteed capacity is probably more valuable than starting with more and having it constantly decline. I wonder too if customers would prefer that capacity be guaranteed regardless of conditions, simplifying things even more by not having to factor temperature effects on capacity into whether or not you can make it to work and back.. After all, the amount of energy my gas tank can hold doesn't change with the temperature (well, it does, but so minimally it can be and is ignored).

Battery rental also allows upgrades (or downgrades) in capacity as tech evolves or your needs change; you pay more or less depending on the capacity you choose. The downside is that it would be brand-specific, barring an agreement among manufacturers to adopt standardized packs, and they've had enough trouble agreeing on standardized connectors.
 
I don't disagree with the above, but I think that it makes much more sense to either understate the capacity and range when new, or to set a high threshold for replacement - say 90%, than to carry a second pack.
 
GRA said:
LeftieBiker said:
Which assumes that 8 bars represents 65% on the 30kWh LEAF now, and that Nissan doesn't choose to reduce it in the future. The first seems questionable given some of the owner reports of when the 9th bar drops, and the last, given Nissan's unwillingness to provide a capacity warranty with a defined hard value as well as their past behavior is not something many informed buyers would trust.

This may surprise some here, but few people want to buy or lease a car with a 107 mile range, have that range immediately start to drop, have to wait roughly two years (or three, or four) for it to lose enough capacity for a warranty replacement (all the while losing more and more range), and then find that not only does the replacement pack behave exactly the same way, but that it may be made from used cells with 80% the capacity of the original. I think that more people would remain happy with their Leaf if it had an advertised 83 mile range, and 5 years later could still go 70+ miles.
I've always been a big fan of battery leasing. Not only does it drop the up front price of the car, which is one of the main barriers to BEV adoption, but you could also do it so that you get the same guaranteed capacity for as long as you lease it. Most current battery leases just guarantee some lower % (Smart uses 80%) of original before replacement, but I'd like to see if there would be many takers with a lower fixed value that would never decline. First gen Volt owners have had a pack that acts very similarly, and you just don't hear them bitching about degradation.

This would require carrying around extra battery with hidden capacity, which would increase the rental price and decrease the efficiency, but it would simplify sales no end. People wouldn't need to be told to allow for degradation, and it would reduce disappointment if they've calculated wrong; just like an ICE, the range (capacity) you start with is the capacity you end with - when it falls below that, you take the car in and they swap the pack for you. Repeat as needed. For a commute car, having a guaranteed capacity is probably more valuable than starting with more and having it constantly decline. I wonder too if customers would prefer that capacity be guaranteed regardless of conditions, simplifying things even more by not having to factor temperature effects on capacity into whether or not you can make it to work and back.. After all, the amount of energy my gas tank can hold doesn't change with the temperature (well, it does, but so minimally it can be and is ignored).

Battery rental also allows upgrades (or downgrades) in capacity as tech evolves or your needs change; you pay more or less depending on the capacity you choose. The downside is that it would be brand-specific, barring an agreement among manufacturers to adopt standardized packs, and they've had enough trouble agreeing on standardized connectors.
One small problem -- the price
 
Messing with some numbers the other day, I discovered that in the ICE world there have been some cars that have notable reoccurring transmission or engine problems. Yet even after the warranty expires with having to pay to fix these defects from time to time, the overall cost to own and operate such cars was still much cheaper than a lot of the better built cars out there.

If Nissan could do that, make the overall cost to own and operate the car much lower than cars like Tesla or Bolt, even with having to change the battery after the warranty expires, that would make sense to me. But as it stands now, after the battery warranty expires, if I live in a hot climate and have to change a $6,000 every 3 years that doesn't make any sense. That means saving up $2,000 per year, or about $180 per month just for batteries.

But if they could work the price of that same battery down to $1,000, I wouldn't care about having to change it every 3 years. I could live with that.

Or, what would be the same, if I could lease the battery for a low price of $50 or less per month, that would be ok too.
 
IssacZachary said:
Or, what would be the same, if I could lease the battery for a low price of $50 or less per month, that would be ok too.
The same would be ~ $30 a month
 
SageBrush said:
IssacZachary said:
Or, what would be the same, if I could lease the battery for a low price of $50 or less per month, that would be ok too.
The same would be ~ $30 a month
I know that. But $50 or less would do it for me. In other words $30 per month would be fine. $40 ok. But I wouldn't want to spend more than $50 per month.
 
IssacZachary said:
SageBrush said:
IssacZachary said:
Or, what would be the same, if I could lease the battery for a low price of $50 or less per month, that would be ok too.
The same would be ~ $30 a month
I know that. But $50 or less would do it for me. In other words $30 per month would be fine. $40 ok. But I wouldn't want to spend more than $50 per month.
Then shouldn't you be willing to spend $1800 every 3 years ? Just save $50 a month into a piggy bank

By the way, $1800 for a 30 kWh pack is $60 a kWh retail. That is years and years away
 
SageBrush said:
Then shouldn't you be willing to spend $1800 every 3 years ? Just save $50 a month into a piggy bank
That's easier said than done. On the other hand, Pa always said it's better to save up than go into debt. :D

SageBrush said:
By the way, $1800 for a 30 kWh pack is $60 a kWh retail. That is years and years away
True, unless like many have said, if you could extend the life of the battery.

If done correctly, the "30kWh battery" would start out with 42kWh but be limited to only 30kWh until it hits 70% of it's capacity and is considered end of life. It would reach that point after 12 years or 150,000 miles and either cost $6000 outright or could be leased at $50 per month, although you could be charged extra miles for more than 12,000 miles per year during the lease. I think that would be possible in the near future, or at least it's a goal. If possible it would work out to $142 per kWh.

If Nissan can't extend battery life then prices need to come down to where it's $60 per kWh. But it would seem easier to extend the battery life than to lower the price. I read somewhere that those that own Leafs in cold regions can expect their batteries to last as many as 10 years. Sounds like a well designed TMS would fix that for all regions.

But on the other hand you have to wonder why Nissan hasn't done a TMS in a Leaf yet? Is it cheaper to replace those batteries under warranty than to put thermal management systems in new Leafs? If that's the case, that would either mean those batteries are much cheaper to build than Nissan leads us to believe or they made a bad business decision to not include TMS. But if the former is the case, the possibility of getting cheap batteries in our own hands may be closer than we think.

Unless the battery degradation problem isn't as bad as many believe except in hot areas. That would mean that for most of us living outside out Phoenix may see more than 8 years on our batteries.

Anyhow, that's my dos centavos.
 
IssacZachary said:
If done correctly, the "30kWh battery" would start out with 42kWh but be limited to only 30kWh until it hits 70% of it's capacity and is considered end of life. It would reach that point after 12 years or 150,000 miles.
If a 30 kWh pack reaches 70% (21 kWh) after 3 years, then a 42 kWh pack reaches the same 21 kWh in about 3*42/30 = 4.2 years all else being equal.

Though perhaps with Nissan engineering at the helm the 42 kWh pack degrades faster.
 
Back
Top