Insulating the pack when a substantial portion of the heat is produced inside the pack is an Iffy proposition. I could however, picture a setup where the pack is both insulated and has thermo-shutters that open when if gets warm, and a blower for the incoming air. A loop from the heatpump could then cool the incoming air above a certain temperature. I suppose it could also warm it in Winter, but that's trickier.
GCC: Nissan shifting EV focus to affordability instead of range
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Insulating the pack when a substantial portion of the heat is produced inside the pack is an Iffy proposition. I could however, picture a setup where the pack is both insulated and has thermo-shutters that open when if gets warm, and a blower for the incoming air. A loop from the heatpump could then cool the incoming air above a certain temperature. I suppose it could also warm it in Winter, but that's trickier.
IssacZachary said:You are partly right. Nissan is only about 9 months behind Tesla:RonDawg said:
From https://insideevs.com/us-federal-7500-ev-credit-expiry-date-by-automaker-estimates/
I seriously doubt Nissan will do it in the timeline that the article claims. Tesla has as long as an 18 month waiting list for the Model 3, plus it has 3 plug in models to choose from to hack away at that 200k mark. Nissan only has 1: the Leaf, and there isn't an 18 month long waiting list for one. A quick check of Nissan's website shows numerous 2018 Leafs available in my little neck of SoCal at just one dealer, yet I've seen more Model 3's than 2018 Leafs in my area. If any manufacturer will do it right after Tesla (or possibly before), it will be The General.
If you look at my link above, the Leaf's best selling year in the US was 2014, when 30k were sold. The second best was 2013, when 22k were sold. The numbers have trailed off significantly since, with 2017's numbers being half of 2013's, and 2016's numbers being less than half of 2014's numbers.
Nissan's best month in 2018 so far is March, with 1500 sold. But February and especially January were dismal, and only 2500 were sold for the entire quarter. Meanwhile, GM has sold nearly 4400 Bolts and nearly 3500 Volts in that same time period. GM has probably matched by now what Nissan sold in all of 2017.
So unless they start slashing prices to make them more attractive to buyers, there's no way Nissan will hit that 200k mark by March 31, 2019 as Inside EVs is claiming. 115k sold as of end of 2017 + 2500 more for Q1 2018 = 117.5k cars sold through end of March 2018. That's 82,500 cars they have to sell in one year, nearly 6900 cars a month. And Nissan has NEVER sold 6900 Leafs in any month, that's almost 3 times their average in their best year of 2014.
Nissan has a lot more competition now than in 2014. The Hyundai Kona Electric will be especially stiff competition when it becomes available.
jlsoaz
Well-known member
GRA said:
I have seldom been more in disagreement with a statement from an auto company executive. I'm appreciative that around 2009-2010 Nissan put forth a Lithium Ion BEV that was close to affordable for me, and I leased one for awhile, but many of us really begged or pleaded or asked Nissan to make a longer range BEV, and feared that our requests or entreaties were falling on deaf ears. I think Mr. Ghosn's statement seems to confirm that our requests were not heeded or even ever really given due consideration.
It is not necessary to issue 500k electric cars to arrive at the conclusion that Nissan got the multiplier wrong - they needed to issue a vehicle with more range - a significantly higher multiplier of the daily commute. Unfortunately, when the 2019 Leaf finally comes out, they will have waited about 8 years to do this.
If nothing else, I think some automakers should reflect more deeply on the lessons of ~April 1 2016 and the amount of demand that was shown for a vehicle, without test drives, that met the specs and price of the Tesla Model 3. In my opinion, from that day forth, never again could any established automaker say "not enough people want them."
WetEV
Well-known member
jlsoaz said:
What range do you think is needed? Half of the daily trips, mostly commutes, are less than about 10 miles. Sure, the average is much higher, 29 miles, both according to the AAA. Would 8 times the daily trip be enough?
In 2011, multiply the added battery size by about $1000 and add that to the price of the Leaf. Or look ahead a few years and add $500 per kWh. For a 48kWh battery, would a Leaf at $50k sell as well? Sure, battery prices have dropped a lot since then. Which is why Nissan has increased battery sizes. I'd rather Nissan focused on reducing the price, maintaining battery life, and increasing volume at this lower price. Different than T esla, yes, and this is not saying T elsa is wrong, only that different strategies can be productive.
I think that 200 miles is the Magic Number that transforms an electric car from secondary to primary vehicle in most Americans' minds. And given the likely degradation, which could transform 150 miles into 90...
GRA
Well-known member
The upfront price is lower by several thousand dollars, but depending on how long a bought battery lasts (and you keep the car), you may or may not wind up paying more. Most people buy cars on credit, either because they don't want or can't afford to pay cash, and are more concerned about whether they can afford monthly payments. Battery leasing gives them long-term assurance of cost and capability, with no major surprises. Renault just started allowing Zoe buyers to purchase the battery (as well as the car) instead of leasing it, and Smart said when they introduced battery leasing they had a 97% take rate (initially - I imagine it may have fallen off after that, as the surge of people waiting for it abated). Here's the deal they offered: http://cleanfuelsutah.com/assets/smart-battery-assurance-plus-SEO.pdfSageBrush said:
So, $80/month + tax is $960/yr + tax, call it ~$1k. When introduced, the Smart's MSRP was $5k less with battery lease, so ~5 years was breakeven for purchase (if you still had adequate range, and didn't need to buy another battery).
Eventually, battery range, price, durability and customer knowledge will improve to the point that leasing may no longer make sense - more expensive, longer range BEVs with good TMS may already be at that point, but ISTM that short-range urban commute cars are a ways away yet. Limited-capability cars need a limited (up-front) price to compete, and battery leasing provides that. I believe there are a lot more potential customers for a Smart with say $15k base MSRP sans battery (plus a fixed monthly fee), with essentially a lifetime battery, than one that starts at $23,800 with a battery whose lifetime longevity is suspect. And there are even more potential customers for such a car with a $10k base MSRP, if that's even possible today with U.S. labor and other costs. It's true that few people buy the bare-bones model, but it's a question of getting them to even consider the car in the first place - if the base MSRP or down payment plus monthly payment of the base model's too high, they won't. Here's a list of the 10 cheapest cars you could buy in the U.S. for the 2014 MY:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...pg-disappointment-nissan-versa-smart/2110083/
With the possible exception of the Fit, none of these cars sold very well, as the public's attitude was starting to shift from cars to CUVs in any case even ignoring the bottom of the line nature of these offerings, so it's hard to see how limited-capability but more expensive BEVs can do better, absent government regulations that require them (which China is doing) and/or establishing ZEV-only zones. AV BEVs used for car sharing may be another story, as commercial companies place a very high value on TCO, unlike most consumers.
IssacZachary
Well-known member
WetEV said:
If you didn't use the word battery one would assume you're promoting air cooled engines over water cooled.
Sorry, but I don't see how active cooling is going to heat up the battery more even with insulation in cooler places. Pumping coolant through a battery and then through a radiator is going to keep the battery much closer to ambient temperature than air around a box. It will also allow for using the vehicle's cooling/heating system much more effectively for controlling battery temps. And a small 200-300W (maybe even less) water pump that will likely be running intermittently isn't going to drain efficiency like you imagine. Thermal insulation would be necessary to maintain battery temperatures when with the car off. That way it wouldn't matter if you parked in the sun or not.
I do like the fact that Nissan has been trying something different by not using any TMS. I really wished an EV company like Nissan could make something like a low cost high energy ultracapacitor battery that would be completely immune to temperature. Back to reality, so far it hasn't been getting better for the Leaf. Things got better with the April 2013-2014 battery and possibly a little better with the 2015-2016 24kWh battery. But after that, the 30kWh battery has proven itself to be less heat tolerant. And the 40kWh battery is already showing heat related problems to the point that people are starting to call it the the #batterygate. Now there are rumors of Nissan switching to TMS next year and at the same time focusing on making their EV's even more adorable. Coincidence?
Says the guy from Colorado! Maybe they can try offering A/C as an expensive option again, too. ;-)
IssacZachary
Well-known member
Read my posts again. I'm not saying they should continue to make non-TMS batteries. But that what Nissan has done so far has been educational and proof that we really need TMS. Even if a TMS costs $6,000 and only doubles the life of the batteries Nissan should do it. That's a lot cheaper than several more $6,000 bills down the road. Actually I'd be willing to bet that it they invested $6,000 per car to maintain proper battery temps all Leaf batteries should see way past 10 years of life.LeftieBiker said:
You want to talk Colorado and from the other point of view on TMS? This last winter in my 11 bar Leaf, without any heat, scraping my own breath from off the windshield and freezing to death at -15°F, driving along at 40mph trying to make it to my destination, I only made it 30 miles by the time my battery gave out and I had to call a tow truck.
Nissan didn't share the fact that they were experimenting with cost-cutting measures when they opted to not have TMS. I don't think you fully understand how much trouble they caused for people, and how much ill will they generated. If you did you would have added a qualifier or three to what you wrote.
IssacZachary
Well-known member
Perhaps I don't fully understand the damage that has been caused. I do know that my own Leaf had a MSRP of over $40,000 and is now worth 1/10 that less than 5 years later. And like I've said, both value and practicality would increase greatly with longer living batteries (or batteries as they are but that cost 10¢ a piece).LeftieBiker said:
The way I look at cost cutting measures is that they aren't always that bad in the long run. Look at the history of the VW. A lot of people around the world would never had had the opportunity to own and drive a car had it not been for that little pregnant roller skate. Many would contend they were one of the worst cars ever built, but in the end they changed the world forever in a rather positive way.
The Leaf is far from perfect. You'd think by now with the 2018 Leaf Nissan would have fixed this major flaw. The Leaf could be called one of the worst EV's in history. But on the other hand I wonder where the EV market would be by now without them? Strictly from an EV viewpoint, how many people would have had the chance to own and drive an EV without the Leaf? Yes, it may soon fade into inexistence as the air cooled Beetle did. And I do believe that unlike the Beetle they are a way over priced for what they are.
But there's some hope in the title of this thread. Maybe Nissan will keep making them as they are, but make both the car price and they batteries more affordable. If they could cut the cost of their cars and batteries in half without sacrificing the battery longevity any worse than a Lizard battery that would do the trick. I really doubt that they will, but hey, it's a possibility even if it's far fetched. Someone should, I really think the market needs something like that. Long range EV's with lasting batteries like Tesla are coming down in price to close to that of the Leaf filling in what the Leaf should be doing in it's price range. A much cheaper EV with much cheaper batteries would fill in a lower price bracket.
WetEV
Well-known member
IssacZachary said:
An active cooling system doesn't double the life of batteries everywhere. Might do more than triple the life in hot places. Would do nothing at best for cool places. I think Nissan should make better batteries, not an active cooling TMS. The "Lizard" 24kWh has been the best, and I'm really disappointed with the reports on the life of the 30kWh battery. But the 30kWh battery problem isn't a TMS problem, it is a battery problem. Fix the right problem.
IssacZachary said:
Cool places see lower battery temperatures than an active cooling system could maintain, almost all the time. Not all Leaf batteries will make it to 10 years of life in cool places. This car, a 2014, (from Facebook) probably will not get to 10 years. 8 years and 160k miles at best.
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
WetEV said:
The trouble with this reasoning is that the Leaf is a world car. It sells world-wide, and the same design needs to survive in Phoenix, Seattle, Madrid, and Tokyo. Saying that cool climates don't need TMS doesn't address this issue.
Also, saying that "some" cars won't make it to 10 years ignores the fact that most cars on the road live far beyond that. The average age of cars on US roads is over 10 years. Average. Think about that. For every new car sold, there's a car out there that's 20 years old to compensate. Or maybe two that are 15 years each. Any way you slice it, many many cars live beyond 10 years, and the Leaf should too.
IssacZachary
Well-known member
Exactly! For an example, I have a 1985 VW Golf diesel that has over 500,000 miles on it. If the engine blew up tomorrow it would make economical (but not ecological) sense to spend $6,000 on another engine that would last another 500,000 miles and 30 years.GetOffYourGas said:
But the Leaf can be ten times more costly to keep on the road if you live where you have to change the battery every 50,000 miles or 3 years. Sure, there's the 8 year, 100,000 mile warranty. But once that's up your car is worth a bucket of bolts. And even if you live where it's cool the fact that these cars don't last in Phoenix affects their resell value everywhere.
If you knew that in a particular ICEV the $6,000 engine or transmission needed replacing as often as every three years would it make sense to buy that car?
Why not fix both problems? Whatever increase on initial cost would likely be made up for in both resell value and cost-per-mile after the warranty period for everyone except those who live in Juneau.WetEV said:
goldbrick
Well-known member
What is the average cost of maintenance for those 20 year old cars? I have cars built in 2000, 2001, 2002 at home and I've had to replace a head, an automatic transmission, timing belts, fuel injectors, water pumps, etc, etc, I do all my own wrenching so I only pay for parts and tools but if I had to pay a shop $100+ per hour to do this work it would add up quickly. Add in gas, oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, catalytic converters and all the other 'normal maintenance' parts of an ICE vehicle and having a 20 year old car can get expensive.
I fully expect my 2017 S Leaf to last 10 years with virtually no maintenance costs. Time will tell of course but complaining that an EV won't last 20 years with $0 maintenance costs is a bit unrealistic. I'd put the odds of a warranty battery replacement in the next 9 years at about 75% based on what I've seen so far but that is Nissan's problem, not mine.
I fully expect my 2017 S Leaf to last 10 years with virtually no maintenance costs. Time will tell of course but complaining that an EV won't last 20 years with $0 maintenance costs is a bit unrealistic. I'd put the odds of a warranty battery replacement in the next 9 years at about 75% based on what I've seen so far but that is Nissan's problem, not mine.
IssacZachary
Well-known member
10 years would be awesome if all Leafs lasted like that! I don't think at this point expecting 20 years is necessary or practical. But at least half that would be great. You seem to be an exception. Most 2017 owners are having terrible problems with battery longevity.goldbrick said:
About maintenance, you have to take into consideration that if you go by the manual the maintenance costs on a Leaf at a dealer isn't all that cheap either. Edmunds puts it a nearly $700 average per year. Yes, a lot of us Leaf owners just drive the car and don't do any of the maintenance items, and if we do we don't go to a dealer or even a regular mechanic unless it's absolutely necessary. But along the same line of reasoning I've also known a few ICEV drivers that have gone for over 100,000 miles without changing the oil, filters or sparkplugs and are getting away with it!
The Beetle was self-evidently a cheap little deathtrap. The Leaf was not. There was no way to tell by looking at the Leaf that it would lose battery life much faster than Nissan predicted. Your Leaf has lost most of its value (because of the battery issues) but has not lost most of its range. You really don't know what it's like to pay that much for a car that loses both its resale value AND its utility.
Not to pick on anyone, just using your quotes as a place to start the discussion:
Yes, I personally spent full MSRP because there were NO other incentives out here in the sticks. CA had some dealers providing some additional incentives ($1000-$2000 off, IIRC). Today, in hindsight, it looks rather comical now, but back then many people had experienced the GM EV1 lease/crush fiasco. For me personally, the Leaf was about the same as buying a new $25K ICE, so "not" too bad. I could afford to pay cash for the vehicle since I'd been waiting and saving for a "real" (not DIY) BEV since the 1990s, I just didn't think I'd need to wait 20 years! When I factor in the $10,000 savings on gas/oil/maintenance, it becomes much more palatable. My electricity is 100% hydro and $0.06-$0.07/KWh, so essentially zero emission and cost. Sticking my finger to the oil industry: Priceless :twisted:
Furthermore, if one purchased a BEV with degradation in mind (like I did because my commute is 8 mi, or about 10% or the original 73 mi EPA range of the Leaf), then the 10 yo BEV works just the same as the newly purchased BEV. I intend to drive my 2011 Leaf with the original battery until I can't make it to the grocery store (2 mi RT), or Nissan sells me a new battery for less than the value of the car (I'm pretty sure that's not happening). I'm making sure that Nissan gets absolutely NO VALUE from my used battery even if I have to drive it another 30 yrs! Last summer I sold the only ICE vehicle (1992) that I've ever purchase after 25 yrs of faithful service. I will never buy another ICE vehicle and the oil industry can waste all of their money pounding sand (hmmm, I guess that's what they're doing).
So, depreciation happens and it happens fast with fast-moving technology. Deal with it. As an example, how much should someone pay for the hottest new Apple MacBook Air from 2010? $1800? Nope, I found a refurbished one on Amazon for $300 (I'm not sure if it's even usable). Surprisingly, that's about the SAME depreciation (80-90%) as the 2010 Leaf (both were announced and released about the same time).
While I do believe that Nissan should focus on affordability, a TMS could greatly improve battery function in much of the world. Yes, the Puget Sound, the UK and a few other areas might not see "significant" improvement in battery function when using a TMS, but the rest of the world, and those marine areas during inclement weather, would see some improvements. A heat pump TMS system, combined with the cabin, could improve battery function and durability. I'd like to see such a system available as an option. Perhaps we could have the option to purchase without TMS for marine environments, with cold-weather TMS (resistive heating only) for northern/arctic environments, and hot-weather TMS (heat pump) for more southerly areas. I would certainly love to see batteries capable of handling 10 C charge/discharge rates without a TMS, last 20 yrs (to 80%), cost less than $100/KWh, and work the same from -50C to +50C. Unfortunately, we aren't there yet.
Yes, depreciation has been bad, but "not quite" that bad. The original MSRP was $34-35K, plus almost all early adopters received the $7500 tax credit and some form of state incentive (e.g, $5000 in CA and no sales tax in WA). https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/auto/2011-nissan-leaf/review/IssacZachary said:
Yes, I personally spent full MSRP because there were NO other incentives out here in the sticks. CA had some dealers providing some additional incentives ($1000-$2000 off, IIRC). Today, in hindsight, it looks rather comical now, but back then many people had experienced the GM EV1 lease/crush fiasco. For me personally, the Leaf was about the same as buying a new $25K ICE, so "not" too bad. I could afford to pay cash for the vehicle since I'd been waiting and saving for a "real" (not DIY) BEV since the 1990s, I just didn't think I'd need to wait 20 years! When I factor in the $10,000 savings on gas/oil/maintenance, it becomes much more palatable. My electricity is 100% hydro and $0.06-$0.07/KWh, so essentially zero emission and cost. Sticking my finger to the oil industry: Priceless :twisted:
Furthermore, if one purchased a BEV with degradation in mind (like I did because my commute is 8 mi, or about 10% or the original 73 mi EPA range of the Leaf), then the 10 yo BEV works just the same as the newly purchased BEV. I intend to drive my 2011 Leaf with the original battery until I can't make it to the grocery store (2 mi RT), or Nissan sells me a new battery for less than the value of the car (I'm pretty sure that's not happening). I'm making sure that Nissan gets absolutely NO VALUE from my used battery even if I have to drive it another 30 yrs! Last summer I sold the only ICE vehicle (1992) that I've ever purchase after 25 yrs of faithful service. I will never buy another ICE vehicle and the oil industry can waste all of their money pounding sand (hmmm, I guess that's what they're doing).
So, depreciation happens and it happens fast with fast-moving technology. Deal with it. As an example, how much should someone pay for the hottest new Apple MacBook Air from 2010? $1800? Nope, I found a refurbished one on Amazon for $300 (I'm not sure if it's even usable). Surprisingly, that's about the SAME depreciation (80-90%) as the 2010 Leaf (both were announced and released about the same time).
While I mostly agree with this, I'm not sure if the 24 KWh "Lizard" battery is really that much better. It might just be a bigger battery (say 26-28 KWh) that is software limited to only use 21-22 KWh, thus allowing hidden degradation. For example, 20% degradation on 28 KWh works out to 22 KWh. Most folks took about 2 years to see 20% degradation on the 24 KWh battery (highly variable depending on location). Since, the 2016/2017 "30 KWh" battery is just about 2 yo, we should start to see similar degradation in non-Arizona environments. There are probably a whole host of other factors involved (yes, changes in chemistry, but also density, cycle depth, exterior conductance, insulation, etc. may also play a roll).WetEV said:
While I do believe that Nissan should focus on affordability, a TMS could greatly improve battery function in much of the world. Yes, the Puget Sound, the UK and a few other areas might not see "significant" improvement in battery function when using a TMS, but the rest of the world, and those marine areas during inclement weather, would see some improvements. A heat pump TMS system, combined with the cabin, could improve battery function and durability. I'd like to see such a system available as an option. Perhaps we could have the option to purchase without TMS for marine environments, with cold-weather TMS (resistive heating only) for northern/arctic environments, and hot-weather TMS (heat pump) for more southerly areas. I would certainly love to see batteries capable of handling 10 C charge/discharge rates without a TMS, last 20 yrs (to 80%), cost less than $100/KWh, and work the same from -50C to +50C. Unfortunately, we aren't there yet.
jlsoaz
Well-known member
WetEV said:
Nearly 10 years ago I was speaking with an EV advocate and he voiced to me that in his view EVS would not really take off in broader interest until they hit 150 miles range. Sure, you get some sales under that, but he was referring to (and I am referring to, and Ghosn is referring to), the question of what range is necessary to reach a more mainstream broader addressable market. Some of us asked or begged Nissan and Mr. Ghosn to give us a choice of a larger more expensive battery in the Leaf or another BEV, but it took quite some time before larger battery Leafs started coming out, and they did not seem to keep pace with the best of the competition (the Bolt, the Model 3).
Some of us knew, or suspected, when we watched Mr. Ghosn following this reasoning (did he talk about this in Revenge of the Electric Car?), that he was too set in his ways. Some of us feared that Nissan and Mr. Ghosn were relying overly much on an argument we had employed in the 90s and 2000s in California to get Gen1 EV explorers to realize that the average commute is a short distance and can be served in theory by a shorter-range BEV. We knew that this argument is limited, and does not get at the heart of the matter when trying to reach a broader addressable market. If I recall, Nissan had aspirations of building the Leaf at higher volumes, when it first came out. If they had wanted to, maybe they should have offered a longer-range option and given consumers the choice of whether they would pay more. Instead, for a very long time, nobody offered a widely-available choice, in the range between the shorter ranges of ~24-30 kWh or so, and 60kWh or so.
Couldn't Nissan's luxury infiniti line have stepped up to compete with Tesla during this time? Perhaps a contributing factor here was Nissan's commitment to shorter range and less-well-cooled battery technology, and (apparent) refusal to consider options more quickly.
Anyway, what stands out is not just Mr. Ghosn's contention as to this 300 km (or thereabouts) number, but that he claims nobody could have predicted something along these lines without selling 500,000 vehicles. I am disappointed, but not surprised, to hear him saying this, and I have to call it into question. Had he consulted broader opinions, or even listened more closely and acted with greater urgency on the surveys that his own organization conducted, Nissan Leaf sales might have followed a different trajectory. As it stands, I'm glad that Nissan has finally come out with a 40 kWh Leaf, and when they finally bring a 60 kWh (or so) Leaf to the US, that will amount to the righting of a wrong, but it will not change that others recognized this market sweet spot before he did, even if few would have been able to act on producing the vehicles, even if nobody did act on this in any sorts of numbers, and even if buyers were unable to vote with their dollars since there were no vehicles widely available in that part of the market.
GRA
Well-known member
The argument is considerably older than the 1990s. Exactly the same arguments about how limited BEV range was all you needed for a city (read commute) car, that they could handle 95% (or more) of people's trips, etc. were being made by US EV advocates in the 19-oughts and (increasingly desperately) in the early 19-teens. It was just as true then as it is now, but the car-buying public didn't see things that way in either period. They wanted the range to be able to tour and not be 'tethered to a wire,' even though they'd rarely do so (the roads outside of cities weren't hard-surfaced, and were either dusty or mud furrows), and as the price of cars came down and the middle class could afford one (but only one), they wanted a universal car rather than a limited one. While many more households in the U.S. can afford multiple cars with considerable specialization now, as was only the case with the rich when cars first debuted, there is still a lot of resistance to the idea of limited vehicles, and that will continue as long as they are more expensive than unlimited ones.jlsoaz said:
Probably the easiest way out of this is when AV car sharing arrives in the not too distant future, as that will allow the public to have routine access to specialized fleets rather than having to specialize on a household basis, and do so at much lower cost.
