Economics of long range Leaf

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.

evnow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Seattle, WA
The recent leaks give us some basis to speculate about the economics of a long range Leaf.

The main number is $200/kWh.

For a 150 mile Leaf, we need 45 kWh battery, which would cost $9k. For a 200 mile Infiniti, we need 60 kWh battery, which would cost $12k.

Then the question becomes, can Nissan build rest of the Leaf for $20k or rest of Infiniti for $23k - So that they can be priced at $30k and $35k, respectively.

For that matter, can GM build rest of the 200 mile Sonic EV for $18k, for a rumored price of 30k.
 
Those numbers include margins as well as construction cost. But, battery aside, there are some cost savings to building an EV versus building an ICE car. My guess is that a motor, reduction gear drive, BMS and associated electronics, and a relatively low temperature cooling system are somewhat cheaper to design and build than engine, transmission, exhaust system, and gas tank/fuel system.

So, yes, it should be pretty easy to hit those targets.
 
There is also a lot that can be done with aerodynamics and weight to get the range up vs just putting in 45 and 60 kwhr battieres.

.22cd can be done on a production car and if they wanted to I think they could easily shed 3-400lbs out of a leaf.

Your numbers suggest a 3.63-3.66 miles/kwhr. Right now for an EPA 84miles the leaf (using 22kwhr) gets 3.82. Unless the cars get much bigger they should be looking at improving that. If they were just making a larger heavier car with current leaf parts it would probably go down to 3.33 but there should be improvments to be made in every area with a full 2nd gen.

If they could improve it by 10% for 150 miles they would need 35.70 usable kwhr so probably a 39kwhr pack. For 200 (lets say an 8% improvement because it will be heavier) 48.48 usable, 53kwhr pack likely. That's $1200 to $1400 less at $200/kwhr.

Hey a 4600lb model S can get 208 EPA miles, if they use the same % of the battery as the leaf (.91) they get 3.809 with 1300lbs more!!!
 
minispeed said:
.22cd can be done on a production car and if they wanted to I think they could easily shed 3-400lbs out of a leaf.
If they could have easily reduced weight or improved cd, they'd have.

They are not going to do anything that will make Leaf look weird - they have already talked about making it look mainstream. You can't easily get better aero in a mainstream looking car with good interior space.

Neither can they shed 3-400 lb without using more expensive material.

BMW used much lighter CF - and yet hardly got any benefit in terms of reduced battery. Reducing weight is not an inexpensive way to reduce battery size - it is cheaper to put a higher capacity battery. BMW gets 3 miles less EPA miles for some 3 kWh less of battery - in a smaller sized car. Even if we ignore the lesser EPA range and smaller size, BMW only would have saved $600 by putting a battery smaller by 3 kWh. I bet they spent more on carbon-fiber.
 
evnow said:
minispeed said:
.22cd can be done on a production car and if they wanted to I think they could easily shed 3-400lbs out of a leaf.
If they could have easily reduced weight or improved cd, they'd have.

They are not going to do anything that will make Leaf look weird - they have already talked about making it look mainstream. You can't easily get better aero in a mainstream looking car with good interior space.

Neither can they shed 3-400 lb without using more expensive material.

BMW used much lighter CF - and yet hardly got any benefit in terms of reduced battery. Reducing weight is not an inexpensive way to reduce battery size - it is cheaper to put a higher capacity battery. BMW gets 3 miles less EPA miles for some 3 kWh less of battery - in a smaller sized car. Even if we ignore the lesser EPA range and smaller size, BMW only would have saved $600 by putting a battery smaller by 3 kWh. I bet they spent more on carbon-fiber.


Look at the difference the Benz CLA can achieve in CD between models, and I appologize it's .23 that has the record now not .22
http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1608997-1-1609000-1-0-0-1609077-0-0-135-7165-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html. Then the stock model at .28 http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-CLA/model-CLA250C, and the AMG at .32 http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehic...cs&class=CLA&model=CLA45&waypoint=model-specs.

They did all that without changing the over all look of the car. The leaf could easily use active shutters and a lower ride height. Also ditching the odd headlights which create an air bubble over the mirrors for noise purposes would probably drop the cd too. The tail end of a hatch back is also horrible for aerodynamics, the infinity will be a sedan I understand which will give some points. If they want mainstream in the US, then they may ditch the hatch for the leaf.

"You can't easily get better aero in a mainstream looking car with good interior space." Tesla gets the same cda as a prius in a much larger car and I think if you asked anyone off the street they would say the prius is odd and the tesla is more mainstream. Longer is also better for aero and that gives interior space.


When you are talking about a new platform you can't say "If they could have easily reduced weight or improved cd, they'd have". It's a NEW PLATFORM, it's all about improving anything they want to.

As for weight from 12 to 13 they lost the aluminum panels and the weight still went down 60lbs and the cost went down too. Yes the light weight material is more expensive so removing the aluminum had something to do with the price drop but it shows that it is possible to get lighter for cheaper. Also light weight materials are cheaper than they were when they made the first leaf, steel itself has made huge gains in strength to weight ratio too. Investment in light weight material also have the benefit of sharing either the part, material supply, engineering costs, manufacturing experience with all of their ICE vehicles.

Yes BMW went the light weight route with the i3, but the car is also higher and wider than the leaf with a higher cd as well. You said it was smaller, but only in length and as mentioned earlier, it's easier to be more aerodynic with a longer car. Look at all the race cars that have special "lemans" tails just because of the high speed back straight. If it had been more aerodynamic as well it's range would be a leaf blower with the size of battery they chose. BMW also didn't go with carbon just because they wanted it for range, they are investing in carbon big time as a future material for all their cars.
 
minispeed said:
They did all that without changing the over all look of the car.
But, did they do all this without spending more ? That is the point. Leaf is going to be on a very tight budget. Battery under the floor raises the car height - and you can't compare with Model S which is a much larger car.

If doing something costs $x, gets them 10 more miles they save some 3 kWh of battery or $600. The question really is whether that $x they have to spend is more or less than $600.

Tesla is going to have the same issue - in a C class car how do you achieve good aero & lot of interior space - while reserving a lot of space for batteries.

Look at Model S & Camry. Camry, despite being several inches shorter has a higher interior space than Model S.

The other thing I didn't mention is that - the new Leaf battery is going to be heavier. I don't think it will have twice the density of the current one. So, Nissan will actually have tough time trying to get the same efficiency they get now - hopefully they can. But 10% better than current Leaf would be a big stretch.
 
evnow said:
minispeed said:
BMW used much lighter CF - and yet hardly got any benefit in terms of reduced battery. Reducing weight is not an inexpensive way to reduce battery size - it is cheaper to put a higher capacity battery. BMW gets 3 miles less EPA miles for some 3 kWh less of battery - in a smaller sized car. Even if we ignore the lesser EPA range and smaller size, BMW only would have saved $600 by putting a battery smaller by 3 kWh. I bet they spent more on carbon-fiber.

True. But as they say, "to increase performance, add lightness".

I believe BMW i3 is the fastest accelerating car they sell from 0-30km/h. They brag about that in a few videos I've watched.
When you are trying to sell an electric car in a gas dominated field, there are advantages to "standing out".

Contrast that to the Mercedes B Class ED, which went with a totally different approach, namely, throw money at the battery, and change/compromise practically nothing on the things MB does well, namely, luxury without needing to innovate hardly at all (no special materials, no lightness, no fast charger).

Both sell for the same price. The MB has more luxury and range, but the BMW performs better.
 
smkettner said:
Having an optional larger battery solves the issue. Build and see what is bought.

Agreed. In order to fully replace the one gas car left in my garage, it needs to go >300km ten times every winter, and for that, I don't want to count on the maximum range of the car or availability of charging, I want some buffer, so make it 400km round trip range.

For most people who don't own an EV, a 250km range would likely get them to consider an EV for their second car.

But for existing city range (150km) EV owners like me who have two cars, one of which is gas, a 250km range may not be enough to replace their other gas car...
 
minispeed said:
evnow said:
minispeed said:
.22cd can be done on a production car and As for weight from 12 to 13 they lost the aluminum panels and the weight still went down 60lbs and the cost went down too. Yes the light weight material is more expensive so removing the aluminum had something to do with the price drop but it shows that it is possible to get lighter for cheaper. Also light weight materials are cheaper than they were when they made the first leaf, steel itself has made huge gains in strength to weight ratio too. Investment in light weight material also have the benefit of sharing either the part, material supply, engineering costs, manufacturing experience with all of their ICE vehicles.

The weight went down because they dropped 300 pounds (IIRC) from the battery due to a more dense chemistry. Going from aluminum to steel (and perhaps other changes) increased the weight of the rest of the car.
 
Hey if Ford can make the F150 over 300 pounds lighter by going all aluminum and only increase the cost of the truck by $150, then Nissan can do a lot better for the Leaf.
 
I've split the topic from the post that started talking about REx. Sorry for all the on topic posts being moved out too ...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=18192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us keep this thread to long range Leaf (i.e. BEV only).
 
evnow said:
The main number is $200/kWh.

For a 150 mile Leaf, we need 45 kWh battery, which would cost $9k.
...can Nissan build rest of the Leaf for $20k

...but isn't the question whether they can build the rest of the car for...
45kWh - 24kWh = 21kWh * $200 => $4,200 less?

In fact if you argue that the cost per kWh of the existing 24kWh battery is higher than any future 45kWh battery, the delta is even less.
 
kikngas said:
evnow said:
The main number is $200/kWh.

For a 150 mile Leaf, we need 45 kWh battery, which would cost $9k.
...can Nissan build rest of the Leaf for $20k

...but isn't the question whether they can build the rest of the car for...
45kWh - 24kWh = 21kWh * $200 => $4,200 less?

In fact if you argue that the cost per kWh of the existing 24kWh battery is higher than any future 45kWh battery, the delta is even less.
You cannot sell at cost. Better double that battery cost to be realistic retail price.
 
smkettner said:
kikngas said:
evnow said:
The main number is $200/kWh.

For a 150 mile Leaf, we need 45 kWh battery, which would cost $9k.
...can Nissan build rest of the Leaf for $20k

...but isn't the question whether they can build the rest of the car for...
45kWh - 24kWh = 21kWh * $200 => $4,200 less?

In fact if you argue that the cost per kWh of the existing 24kWh battery is higher than any future 45kWh battery, the delta is even less.
You cannot sell at cost. Better double that battery cost to be realistic retail price.

Cars have been sold at or below cost for years. The 1st gen leaf is an engineering exercise, same as the volt, 1st prius, 1st insight and many other cars (mostly high performance halo or race cars). None of them turned a profit. They are taking a risk to get a reputation that will allow them to have more market share. That reputation is very very valuable. Look at the sales numbers for the F150, Camry or Civic. The Civic for example had a redesign in 2012 that people hated. The press trashed the car. It lasted 1 year with another redesign in 2013 but due to the reputation it still sold really well.

The 2nd gen prius took a gamble and increased the tech/cost without turning a profit at first and look how well it turned out for them? The 2nd gen insight went cheap, used similar tech with known problems and probably turned a profit early on (if they actually sold enough since it sucked) and that car died off.
 
I think an infiniti EV will be priced closer to the Q50 Hybrid, minus gas engine + 50-60 Kwh pack. I'd also expect premium features like all aluminum body and maybe an "autopilot" feature. This car will eventually have to compete with the Tesla model III.
 
Since the Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' can go 220+ miles on a 33kWh pack, the price of the pack is highly dependent on how efficient the car is.

For reference, the IMW 'Seven' consumes just ~130Wh / mile at 60-70MPH. It achieves this by lower aerodynamic drag, higher plug-to-wheel efficiency (~92%), which includes no BMS and low loss mechanical drivetrain.

To "only" go 150 miles, the battery would barely need to be any larger than the current Leaf.

Longer range by better design = smaller battery = lower cost.
 
bbrowncods said:
Hey if Ford can make the F150 over 300 pounds lighter by going all aluminum and only increase the cost of the truck by $150, then Nissan can do a lot better for the Leaf.


Estimates in the automotive press range from $700 to $1000 on the cost of the aluminum upgrade on the Ford F Series.
 
Back
Top