LEAF 2 : What we know so far (2018 or later?)

edatoakrun said:

It's no sure thing, IMO, that Nissan would go to the effort and expense to develop and launch the "30 kWh" pack, only to discontinue it just a few years later.

Click to expand...

That would be a possibility - but the early info we saw didn't include that.

I was surprised by the intro of 30 kWh model - jut a year (I thought) away from Gen 2. I think they did it for competitive reasons (knowing Gen 2 would be late). Incremental costs for development may not have been large. It must be a continuous program to make bigger & bigger batteries.

edatoakrun said:

It's no sure thing, IMO, that Nissan would go to the effort and expense to develop and launch the "30 kWh" pack, only to discontinue it just a few years later.

Click to expand...

the pack size is far less an investment than the actual makeup of the pack itself. Going from 30 to 40 kwh if using the same electrodes, chemistry, etc is barely any investment at all. Plus we are still looking at the continuous evolving as well

webb14leafs said:

It's no sure thing, IMO, that Nissan would go to the effort and expense to develop and launch the "30 kWh" pack, only to discontinue it just a few years later.

Large numbers of BEV buyers world-wide have little need for capacity/range larger than that pack provides, and surely many of those buyers also do not suffer from the dreaded capacity anxiety which inflicts so many on this forum.

Another possibility is that the "40 kWh" pack is just ~the same assembly as the Gen one 2017 "30 kWh" pack, using cells with increased capacity, allowing pack production to continue without a large increase in costs.

Anyway, we should know in a few weeks, if not sooner

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how many people would purchase a 30kWhr Leaf if the price was ~$20K after dealer and manufacturer incentives and markdowns. I imagine it would sell better than the 40kWhr Leaf with a >$25K market price.

Click to expand...

Given the market reality that "30 kWh" Gen one LEAFs are widely available in the US today in the $10k-$15k range, net discounts, tax credits, and rebates, I think your question could be restated as:

It would be interesting to see how many people would purchase a 30 kWhr Leaf if the price was ~$15K after dealer and manufacturer incentives and markdowns. I imagine it would sell better than the 40 kWhr Leaf with a >$20K market price.

IMO, that is also the price/capacity range that will be required to make many buyers really consider BEVs an alternative to the mass-market ICEVs, as long as those vehicles continue to receive the huge tailpipe subsidy, the free use of our atmosphere as their sewer.

DaveinOlyWA said:

edatoakrun said:

It's no sure thing, IMO, that Nissan would go to the effort and expense to develop and launch the "30 kWh" pack, only to discontinue it just a few years later...

Another possibility is that the "40 kWh" pack is just ~the same assembly as the Gen one 2017 "30 kWh" pack, using cells with increased capacity, allowing pack production to continue without a large increase in costs...

Click to expand...

the pack size is far less an investment than the actual makeup of the pack itself. Going from 30 to 40 kwh if using the same electrodes, chemistry, etc is barely any investment at all. Plus we are still looking at the continuous evolving as well

Click to expand...

Did you read my entire comment, including this, before you wrote that?

It will be great news if it turns out that AESC has had a breakthrough, and has been able to increase energy density of its cells ~33% in just a few years, at ~the same production costs, but IMO that's not the most likely of the many possible upcoming announcements on the Gen two pack(s).

Given the market reality that "30 kWh" Gen one LEAFs are widely available in the US today in the $10k-$15k range, net discounts, tax credits, and rebates, I think your question could be restated as:

It would be interesting to see how many people would purchase a 30 kWhr Leaf if the price was ~$15K after dealer and manufacturer incentives and markdowns. I imagine it would sell better than the 40 kWhr Leaf with a >$20K market price.

IMO, that is also the price/capacity range that will be required to make many buyers really consider BEVs an alternative to the mass-market ICEVs, as long as those vehicles continue to receive the huge tailpipe subsidy, the free use of our atmosphere as their sewer.

Click to expand...

My comment was not considering tax rebates (because they vary for readers), but I agree with everything you said.

Durandal said:

EatsShootsandLeafs said:

Edit: Now I read about it some more I see that the clarity EV is essentially a joke, so if the leaf wants to compare favorably to that, it shouldn't be hard.

Click to expand...

No surprise you have not heard of it. It's only available in California, and it's purely a compliance car for them. I used to be a big Honda fanboy, but by the time they enter the BEV marketplace, they'll be so far behind... A shame too, because the original Honda Insight was an amazing car from an efficiency standpoint. Now instead they are selling 170hp turbocharged Honda Civics.

Click to expand...

I think most car manufacturers are just waiting for battery prices to go down.

I'm no engineer or technically-inclined but looking at a Toyota hybrid, it seems all Toyota has to do is put in a bigger battery pack and remove the gasoline engine. The transmission in its hybrids are already eCVT (planetary gearing).

It's not like the are trying to salvage their engine and transmission (lots of third party sourcing) business / engineering department when all they care about are margins and profits.

It's not that many people can't see that Tesla vehicles are not really low maintenance EVs post-warranty and so far most other BEVs have been out in the market for too short a time to comment on their long-term reliability. After all, car manufacturers have not perfect a lot of components outside of the engine/transmission and BEV batteries and drive units can be the main culprit for reliability concerns.

I concur that those who are not able to adapt will find their market share shrink but many car manufacturers do have the technology or know how to create BEVs. It's just that the bigger battery packs seem to cost much more than the manufacturing of the engines and drive units. Can't blame them for trying to keep their margins up.

cwerdna said:

25 kW is about 33.5 hp. It's obvious that by itself is woefully insufficient for highway speeds up steep grades.

Click to expand...

I don't want to appear bickering, as we agree more than we disagree on many things, but again, a BEV with a Rex will have at least 30 kWh storage. Whoever is going to climb mountains should turn on their Rex before they even get on the highway, so that by the time the Rex reaches the steep section, it is at 100% SoC (currently disallowed by CARB and BMW). Assume 10% grade, and travelling at 70 mph which on flat ground will require 20 kW. Lifting the EV at 2,000 kg up 1 meter requires 2000*9.8 = 19,600 Ws. The EV is climbing at the rate of 70 mph on 10% grade or 11,200 m/h or 3.11 m/s. Thus power required is 61 kW. 61+20-25 = 56 kW battery depletion rate. With 30 kWh of storage, the battery is depleted in 32 minutes (and 60 minutes for a 60 kWh battery). In 32 minutes, the EV climbs 6,000 meters (almost 4 miles) vertical. How many highways are there in the US that have 6 km elevation gain at 10% grade? Probably none. So we conclude that if the Rex could turn on at 100% SoC, the i3 would be capable of keeping up at 70 mph climbing speed everywhere.

GRA said:

Yes, it's true and it was widely discussed at the time here. The blame doesn't lie with CARB, it's with BMW for choosing the route they did solely to maximize their credits. There simply wouldn't be a BEVx category if they hadn't asked CARB to create it, although as it turns out they were given green rather than white stickers.

Click to expand...

-- You mean BMW voluntarily chose to limit Rex to 6.5% SoC? Why would they do that? Did BMW need a bullet in the head? Let's face it. They were arm twisted by CARB due to some enviro-activist who wanted to reduce CO2 but was so incompetent that he/she could not see how his/her bad decision would hurt EV adoption. This is what happens when some activist who just graduated from a free university in sociology is given the power to decide on life and death matters. That is why there is a class action suit against CARB, for forcing range-anxiety on the masses with this nasty 6.5% decision. The proper solution was to limit the power of the Rex to let's say 10 kW to discourage long-distance traveling, but allow Rex to turn on at 100% SoC so there would be no range anxiety. The way it is now, the i3 can drive 70 mph without any charge, forever, and thus become an ICE. So it can easily be abused. And BMW can discourage BEV adoption by claiming that a 70 mph Rex is needed, which can only be found on a super expensive i3. A Rex should be for finding a charger, not for travelling 500 miles on gasoline at 70 mph.

@GRA
"Yes, it's true and it was widely discussed at the time here. The blame doesn't lie with CARB, it's with BMW for choosing the route they did solely to maximize their credits. There simply wouldn't be a BEVx category if they hadn't asked CARB to create it, although as it turns out they were given green rather than white stickers. Here's some history:"

Are you saying that BMW could have certified the car as a plug-in, like the Volt ?

Bevx is an ignorant standard that should be abused.

There are two metrics California cares about

1. Traffic congestion ->smaller cars relieve congestion

2. Energy efficiency, higher efficiency inherently creates less CO2 and pollution by itself

If they wanted to create BEVx it should have had requirements to address both concerns, 80mpg on fossil fuels is easily accomplished on most any smaller ICE car with the right drivetrain.

Let the fuel economy requirement drive the manufacturers BEVx offering and limitations, in effect it would either be slow and bigger/less aero or small and sleek but faster on ICe.

Don't regulate the gas tank or operational standards as they don't matter.

Interleaf said:

The problem is that enviro-fascist socialist in CARB, .

Click to expand...

With name calling skills like yours, you have a bright future in Alt-right circles.

rmay635703 said:

Bevx is an ignorant standard that should be abused.

There are two metrics California cares about

1. Traffic congestion ->smaller cars relieve congestion

2. Energy efficiency, higher efficiency inherently creates less CO2 and pollution by itself
.

Click to expand...

For someone who throws out the "ignorant" label, you are not doing so well

CARB's mandate is improved air quality in non-attainment areas. This loosely translated into tailpipe emissions when applied to cars, and BEV was easy to calculate. Any car able to drive in both EV and ICE modes became an exercise is guessing (bickering) how much of each was likely to result.

As an aside, energy efficiency correlates VERY poorly with tailpipe emissions. Have you ever heard of diesel ? Or cat converters, which reduce exhaust emissions and efficiency at the same time ?

<soapbox>Through the retro-spectroscope, I would have much preferred that CARB offer a performance based carrot via car monitoring and reporting of EV/ICE miles. Then the actual use profile determines the ZEV credits. </soapbox>

Interleaf said:

Assume 10% grade, and travelling at 70 mph which on flat ground will require 20 kW. Lifting the EV at 2,000 kg up 1 meter requires 2000*9.8 = 19,600 Ws. The EV is climbing at the rate of 70 mph on 10% grade or 11,200 m/h or 3.11 m/s. Thus power required is 61 kW. 61+20-25 = 56 kW battery depletion rate. .

Click to expand...

The climb rate is ~ 3 meters per second
So 3*9.8*2000 J/s = 59 kW
The horizontal movement adds another 20 - 25 kW*

Total power for your example is 79 - 84 kW .
And that is before drivetrain and battery energy losses are factored in for the climb. Close to 90 kW total is ballpark.

*It is more than 20 kW:
20 kWh = 20/33.7 = 0.593 Petrol Gallons equivalent
70/0.593 = 117 MPGe. At 70 mph in an I3 ? Nope

Moderator:

Can you move the BEVx comments clogging this thread to another?

As my request of ~a week ago was not successful...

edatoakrun said:

...Yes, CARB's idiotic BEVx regulations, and prejudice shown in favor of high subsidies for both HFCVs and oversized-pack BEVs, have effectively blocked the rational development of BEVs equipped with useful ICE ”range extenders”.

You might want to read, and comment (on-topic) at this thread that preceded CARB's misguidance:

The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered...

Click to expand...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

Back on-topic....

Click to expand...

edatoakrun said:

Moderator:

Can you move the BEVx comments clogging this thread to another?

Click to expand...

Seconded!

There have been rumors that the Gen 2 might be on display in the US, shortly after the 9/5 intro in Japan.

Any chance there will be a real-live-Gen-two-LEAF at Sunnyvalle on 9/14?

Anyone heard about other Gen two appearances?

Maybe at?

http://www.pluginday.org/events.php


Thank you, BayLEAFs, for the invitation (it now appears to be already sold out ) and I will attempt to show more restraint in grilling the Nissan Reps than I did at your event last year...

You are invited to attend Thursday, September 14th!

LOCATION: Nissan Silicon Valley Research Center – 1215 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089

SPACE IS LIMITED - REGISTER TO ATTEND:

AGENDA:

6:00 pm Reception / Hors d’oeuvres
6:30 pm Dinner Served
6:45 pm Guest Speaker
7:00 pm Key Note Speaker – Brian Maragno, Director of EV Marketing & Sales Strategy
7:30 pm Question and Answer Session
8:00 pm Event End

Click to expand...

Three weeks from today, we will have a whole lot more to talk about on this thread. In the meantime, Nissan will provide us another teaser image or two. Maybe even a promotional video that shows an attractive woman smiling as she drives her Leaf.

The photos are pretty solid evidence of what we'll see, but what are the odds that the leaked configurator was a ruse to throw us off and the reality will be much better, maximizing the wow factor for the reveal?

DNAinaGoodWay said:

.....but what are the odds that the leaked configurator was a ruse to throw us off and the reality will be much better, maximizing the wow factor for the reveal?

Click to expand...

I'm gonna say.... 1,000,000:1

In my mind the only critical "open" at this point is the range. I truly hate to think this but my gut says many here will be very disappointed with the G2 final specs vs MSRP. But I'm positive Nissan can build it, launch it, get it to the dealerships, scale production, and service it. At the end of the day that's what matters in an auto manufacturer.

DNAinaGoodWay said:

The photos are pretty solid evidence of what we'll see, but what are the odds that the leaked configurator was a ruse to throw us off and the reality will be much better, maximizing the wow factor for the reveal?

Click to expand...

Nissan doesn't play that kind of game.

Remember the leak about 30 kwh model - turned out to be perfectly correct.

SageBrush said:

With name calling skills like yours, you have a bright future in Alt-right circles.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Can't face the facts, so attack the messenger.
Have you ever dealt with regulatory personnel and their ideology driven methodology in government agencies? Probably never. Or maybe you work for government in such a capacity? I have worked with a range of personnel in government agencies on environmental assessment matters, and can report to you that by and large they are ideological leftwing fascists.