Leaf Gen 2 - New Nissan LEAF World Premier on Sep 5, 5:30 PM PDT

phr00t said:

They really should have had the 60kWh / 200+ mile version ready for the premier...

Click to expand...

If Nissan had announced a "60 kWh" pack option for $9,000, what TSLA said it will charge for the extra ~20 kWh (?) on its model 3, when it begins delivery, would that have been good news in your opinion?

My guess is that Nissan's "60 kWh" pack it will probably cost another ~$6k in ~a year, and relatively few will buy it at that price.

No matter how cheap, I would probably would pass on the larger Nissan pack, if it is hobbled by liquid cooling as some have speculated it might.

Some might consider it hobbling but many others will consider it an advantage. Having suffered through heat degradation with both my first and second pack, I'm firmly in the latter camp! Unless there is a future, dramatic advance in battery chemistry which make it moot, I will not again buy an EV without a TMS...

edatoakrun said:

phr00t said:

They really should have had the 60kWh / 200+ mile version ready for the premier...

Click to expand...

If Nissan had announced a "60 kWh" pack option for $9,000, what TSLA said it will charge for the extra ~20 kWh (?) on its model 3, when it begins delivery, would that have been good news in your opinion?

My guess is that Nissan's "60 kWh" pack it will probably cost another ~$6k in ~a year, and relatively few will buy it at that price.

No matter how cheap, I would probably would pass on the larger Nissan pack, if it is hobbled by liquid cooling as some have speculated it might.

Click to expand...

We have no idea what Nissan will charge for the longer range version, only that they are planning on offering it & have been teasing it for years. $9000 for a 60kWh pack would be ridiculous, since that'd put the MSRP of the base model well over the Bolt. So no, it wouldn't be good news. You are arguing that Nissan only had bad news to share, so they went with their least "bad news" option. I'm arguing Nissan shouldn't have had a world premier for their flagship EV that only had "bad news" to share when "simply amazing" was the motto. The engineers dropped the ball.

Hobbled by liquid cooling? Huh? You want liquid cooling. Not including liquid cooling is another big miss by Nissan.

Yeah, 'cause a big box of sealed batteries is a much better techno marvel...as is the capacity loss and lack of REAL fast charging. Wow, that is a funny one. hobbled describes the current Nissan TMS...or lack of one. See you in 3 years, let's see which EVs in the hotter climates are doing. or maybe Nissan wants to make disposable cars. hmmm, never thought of it that way.

phr00t said:

Bolts sales are generally low due to low availability in some markets & a lackluster advertising campaign. The Bolt is an amazing vehicle otherwise.

Click to expand...

Bolt's are easily available on lots and in some areas dealers are discounting them. They aren't flying off the lots where they are.. ;-)
I'm not saying anything bad about the Bolt, I'm counting on hopefully getting in on that myself.. ;-)

I am not anti-Bolt..

But the fact is that they aren't the magic tipping point people have been talking about..
Yes, the range is great, but it's still spendy and that is keeping people from buying...

I think Nissan is doing what they can to keep the price point down, and that's a good thing..

I'm not saying Nissan couldn't have fit the larger battery in? Maybe? I mentioned that as a possible. But I also mentioned a possible as cost.. Maybe they could have, but it would have cost as much as the Bolt (or more)? As I said, I was guessing..

I don't think either of us know for sure their reasoning.. I do tend to think that if they could have easily done it and kept the cost low, they would have..

I don't think Nissan is the end-all be-all. I don't think Chevy is.. Nor do I think either are terrible.
Both are trying to get to the spot where the average consumer looking for an average car will consider an EV.
With it's cost, the Bolt isn't yet that car. (Personally hoping for some price drops..)
With it's range, the new Leaf might not be either...

Who knows???

I'm happy there are options and excited to see what happens moving forward.. ;-)

desiv

edatoakrun said:

phr00t said:

They really should have had the 60kWh / 200+ mile version ready for the premier...

Click to expand...

If Nissan had announced a "60 kWh" pack option for $9,000, what TSLA said it will charge for the extra ~20 kWh (?) on its model 3, when it begins delivery, would that have been good news in your opinion?

My guess is that Nissan's "60 kWh" pack it will probably cost another ~$6k in ~a year, and relatively few will buy it at that price.

No matter how cheap, I would probably would pass on the larger Nissan pack, if it is hobbled by liquid cooling as some have speculated it might.

Click to expand...

For $6k USD more, I could be a potential buyer of the 60 kWh version which could make at least 225 miles. At least it comes with 70% capacity (hopefully not based on bars but on real data) warranty good for eight years and maintenance and repairs should be cheaper. My wife drives 130-140 miles once a week to her employer's head office, which is why I probably need at least 220 miles to play safe. Her employer does seem to have a couple EV chargers but I don't think she wants to experience any major inconvenience with that. Maybe plug in when she arrives and move the car out during lunch break, for others to be able to use the stall.

For a Model 3, I would want AWD and PUP so I'm already looking at $44k USD anyway.

MSELeaf said:

Couldn't have said it better myself. This level of complacency from Nissan (and poor value for the given range: http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/111-5.png) is exactly why I am now shopping around for a Bolt. Surprisingly, the lease numbers are almost identical to what I am paying now for my 2014 LEAF lease! I absolutely love my LEAF and how forward-thinking it has been for all these years, so it makes me sad that it is now being neglected like this in terms of value.

Click to expand...

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Nubo said:

MSELeaf said:

Couldn't have said it better myself. This level of complacency from Nissan (and poor value for the given range: http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/111-5.png) is exactly why I am now shopping around for a Bolt. Surprisingly, the lease numbers are almost identical to what I am paying now for my 2014 LEAF lease! I absolutely love my LEAF and how forward-thinking it has been for all these years, so it makes me sad that it is now being neglected like this in terms of value.

Click to expand...

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Click to expand...

That is correct. That is why offering a smaller sized battery & a larger one is a good idea. The problem is, they had to significantly delay the larger size, leaving only the small option available, after much teasing and hype.

phr00t said:

edatoakrun said:

phr00t said:

They really should have had the 60kWh / 200+ mile version ready for the premier...

Click to expand...

If Nissan had announced a "60 kWh" pack option for $9,000, what TSLA said it will charge for the extra ~20 kWh (?) on its model 3, when it begins delivery, would that have been good news in your opinion?

My guess is that Nissan's "60 kWh" pack it will probably cost another ~$6k in ~a year, and relatively few will buy it at that price.

No matter how cheap, I would probably would pass on the larger Nissan pack, if it is hobbled by liquid cooling as some have speculated it might.

Click to expand...

...You are arguing that Nissan only had bad news to share, so they went with their least "bad news" option...

Click to expand...

No, the 2018 LEAF is great news, IMO, and many others seem to feel the same way.

I can't see how it would have been any better news, if Nissan had made the same announcement, but said deliveries couldn't begin until a year later, when a less-unreasonably priced "60 kWh" pack is expected to be available, which is what you seem to be saying.

internalaudit said:

...For $6k USD more, I could be a potential buyer of the 60 kWh version which could make at least 225 miles...

Click to expand...

You and many others, but still a relatively small percentage of total 2019 MY sales, between 10% and 30%, I would expect.

The lower the price, the higher percentage of buyers who will add the option.

I don't care if any of my speculations are proven wrong by events, and Nissan can always build a higher or lower percentage of LEAFs with larger packs, if that's what buyers want.

edatoakrun said:

phr00t said:

edatoakrun said:

If Nissan had announced a "60 kWh" pack option for $9,000, what TSLA said it will charge for the extra ~20 kWh (?) on its model 3, when it begins delivery, would that have been good news in your opinion?

My guess is that Nissan's "60 kWh" pack it will probably cost another ~$6k in ~a year, and relatively few will buy it at that price.

No matter how cheap, I would probably would pass on the larger Nissan pack, if it is hobbled by liquid cooling as some have speculated it might.

Click to expand...

...You are arguing that Nissan only had bad news to share, so they went with their least "bad news" option...

Click to expand...

No, the 2018 LEAF is great news, IMO, and many others seem to feel the same way.

I can't see how it would have been any better news, if Nissan had made the same announcement, but said deliveries couldn't begin until a year later, when a less-unreasonably priced "60 kWh" pack is expected to be available, which is what you seem to be saying.

Click to expand...

Saying "deliveries couldn't begin until a year later" is bad news. Saying that the 60kWh pack will be "less-unreasonably priced" is bad news. You are saying all Nissan had to say was bad news. This is the problem. That is why the 2018 Leaf is not great news.

They should have said "40kWh & 60kWh batteries are available on day one, so the frugal will get the car they need & the weekend warriors get the range they want." They also could have said the 60kWh pack is reasonably priced relative to the Bolt. But they didn't, because the engineers dropped the ball. That is my point.

Nubo said:

MSELeaf said:

Couldn't have said it better myself. This level of complacency from Nissan (and poor value for the given range: http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/111-5.png) is exactly why I am now shopping around for a Bolt. Surprisingly, the lease numbers are almost identical to what I am paying now for my 2014 LEAF lease! I absolutely love my LEAF and how forward-thinking it has been for all these years, so it makes me sad that it is now being neglected like this in terms of value.

Click to expand...

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Click to expand...

I agree that makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just a bit bitter that I waited over a year (2 lease extensions) and the new LEAF really doesn't seem all that "new". Yes it looks better and has more supplementary features, but I don't feel enough effort was put in to improve the "guts" of the vehicle to really justify the cost relative to the perceived value of a 1st gen LEAF.

MSELeaf said:

Nubo said:

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Click to expand...

I agree that makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just a bit bitter that I waited over a year (2 lease extensions) and the new LEAF really doesn't seem all that "new". Yes it looks better and has more supplementary features, but I don't feel enough effort was put in to improve the "guts" of the vehicle to really justify the cost relative to the perceived value of a 1st gen LEAF.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

It all centers around expectations I suppose. On the one hand you have a vehicle that significantly increases range over its predecessor, while offering more advanced driving tech, and at a lower price point. That would seem amazing in and of itself.

On the other hand, it seems Tesla have increased the expectations of what EVs can do; bringing a vehicle to market with at least some plausible price overlap with Nissan.

It's all good, I think. There's going to be some real competition going on. Not only will that lead to further improvements, but will spark public interest. "Chevy guy VS Ford guy" arguments become "Nissan guy VS Tesla guy" ones! This is really good news!

Nubo said:

MSELeaf said:

Nubo said:

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Click to expand...

I agree that makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just a bit bitter that I waited over a year (2 lease extensions) and the new LEAF really doesn't seem all that "new". Yes it looks better and has more supplementary features, but I don't feel enough effort was put in to improve the "guts" of the vehicle to really justify the cost relative to the perceived value of a 1st gen LEAF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It all centers around expectations I suppose. On the one hand you have a vehicle that significantly increases range over its predecessor, while offering more advanced driving tech, and at a lower price point. That would seem amazing in and of itself.

On the other hand, it seems Tesla have increased the expectations of what EVs can do; bringing a vehicle to market with at least some plausible price overlap with Nissan.

It's all good, I think. There's going to be some real competition going on. Not only will that lead to further improvements, but will spark public interest. "Chevy guy VS Ford guy" arguments become "Nissan guy VS Tesla guy" ones! This is really good news! [/quote][/quote][/quote]

I think we all can agree with that.

I want more competition, though. I know these EV "leaders" can do better. EVs need faster adoption & EV leaders can't be dragging their feet.

Nubo said:

MSELeaf said:

Nubo said:

That value calculation is useful but not necessarily compelling. Dollars per mile of range is only meaningful if you need to consume that much range. Sort of like buying a 5-gallon drum of mayonnaise at Costco. Sure, it's a hell of a deal -- if you NEED that much mayonnaise. If you're only going to use a quart before it goes bad, then it's a big waste of money.

Click to expand...

I agree that makes perfect sense. I guess I'm just a bit bitter that I waited over a year (2 lease extensions) and the new LEAF really doesn't seem all that "new". Yes it looks better and has more supplementary features, but I don't feel enough effort was put in to improve the "guts" of the vehicle to really justify the cost relative to the perceived value of a 1st gen LEAF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It all centers around expectations I suppose. On the one hand you have a vehicle that significantly increases range over its predecessor, while offering more advanced driving tech, and at a lower price point. That would seem amazing in and of itself.

On the other hand, it seems Tesla have increased the expectations of what EVs can do; bringing a vehicle to market with at least some plausible price overlap with Nissan.

It's all good, I think. There's going to be some real competition going on. Not only will that lead to further improvements, but will spark public interest. "Chevy guy VS Ford guy" arguments become "Nissan guy VS Tesla guy" ones! This is really good news! [/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

True, it does all center around expectations. I definitely don't fall in the majority of LEAF drivers since I have it as my only car for all trips. From this viewpoint, my primary expectation was a car with the best cost/range under $35K. If the new LEAF was $5K cheaper, I would have been content with the value from the range standpoint that it offered.

finman100 said:

... hobbled describes the current Nissan TMS...or lack of one. See you in 3 years, let's see which EVs in the hotter climates are doing...

Click to expand...

I happen to already own a Gen one LEAF that has already been through seven hot Summers, and been driven close to 9k miles each year, and a lot more miles in Summer, than the rest of the year.

Actual capacity loss is now ~20%, down from (~23 kWh total on) delivery.

My pack capacity loss might be a few percent lower today with liquid cooling, but that is not enough of a benefit to outweigh the high costs in price and efficiency.

The average error in my LEAF LBC's over-report of capacity loss as measured from the grid presently seems to be ~11.5%, but ~the same LBC error shows up only much more erratically from range/capacity tests, such as in the ~17% under-report error in kWh use shown in the LBC report from this 104.2 mile trip last week:

100 Mile Club...

Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:59 pm

It was looking like my LEAF's OE battery's streak of over-100-mile trips using only capacity above the VLBW was probably over, but I picked up # thirty-three last week.

kWh use reports, ranked from LEAST to most credible:

8/29/17

LBC report: 12 kWh used, 104.2 miles (accurate odometer) 8.7 m/kWh!!!Why oh why does anyone take LBC data seriously?

8.1 m/kWh shown on the Nav screen.

Carwings/Nissan connect: 12.9 kWh 101.7 miles (~2.5% under-report) 7.9 m/kWh (identical to dash m/kWh display) .

Actual: 14.4 kWh (est.) 104.2 miles (odometer)~7.3 m/kWh (est.)

Not too bad, for a LEAF pack with ~55k miles, after seven North Valley hot Summers, and due to lose capacity bar # nine, any day now...

Click to expand...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7022&start=870

edatoakrun said:

finman100 said:

My pack capacity loss might be a few percent lower today with liquid cooling, but that is not enough of a benefit to outweigh the high costs in price and efficiency.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Huh? The Model 3 & Bolt, with their liquid cooling, are both more efficient than the first generation Leaf. The 2018 eGolf with air cooling & a lighter weight is just as efficient as the Bolt.

The Bolt & Model 3 cost less per mile of range & less per battery kWh.

Not sure where you are getting these claims from, but liquid cooling certainly isn't significantly less efficient or more expensive.

edatoakrun said:

I happen to already own a Gen one LEAF that has already been through seven hot Summers, and been driven close to 9k miles each year, and a lot more miles in Summer, than the rest of the year.

Click to expand...

You happen to live in an area with a average annual temperature of 62.4F

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/shasta/california/united-states/usca1045

Off -topic reply:

SageBrush said:

edatoakrun said:

I happen to already own a Gen one LEAF that has already been through seven hot Summers, and been driven close to 9k miles each year, and a lot more miles in Summer, than the rest of the year.

Click to expand...

You happen to live in an area with a average annual temperature of 62.4F
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/shasta/california/united-states/usca1045

Click to expand...

Which is an essentially meaningless statistic regarding pack life, as only Summer ambient temperatures are high enough in most of the USA (including Shasta County) to increase pack temperatures enough to have significant effects in increasing capacity loss.

I wish it weren't so damn cold here in the Winter. That's when my LEAF has real problems with capacity and range loss.

But yes, annual average for the Shasta County (my LEAF's average ambient temperature could be one to two F higher than County average) is nearly 15 F cooler than the 77.15 F average, for Death Valley.

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/death-valley/california/united-states/usca0286

So, your point is?

edatoakrun said:

Which is an essentially meaningless statistic regarding pack life,

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought that was kind of silly..
I spent some time in Redding for a while in Shasta County, and there were some of the hottest days I'd ever spent... (I grew up in Los Angeles)
Quick google shows:
10 All-Time Hottest Weather Temperature Days in Redding
July 20, 1988 - 118 degrees
June 25, 2006 - 117 degrees
July 29, 2003 - 116 degrees
September 3, 1988 - 116 degrees
July 19, 1988 - 116 degrees
July 10, 2002 - 115 degrees
July 12, 1999 - 115 degrees
July 3, 1991 - 115 degrees
August 6, 1990 - 115 degrees
September 4, 1988 - 115 degrees

It gets plenty hot enough in places in Shasta County to bother the batteries...

desiv

"Wow - you have freeways that go at 7-75 mph in rush hour traffic ? "

Here the freeway quickly goes 75-7 mph in rush hour traffic.