July 16 Survey Email

[evnow]

The financial case for owning this car is pretty ugly even if the battery has a strong warranty, and some scenarios are downright horrifying for an owner.

This is really the case with any car. Just that with decades of ICE experience we know cars (I guess from certain manufacturers !) don't break down in a hurry soon after 3 year warranty.

I think for anyone risk-averse - lease is the way to go. You may pay a little more (depends on residual value) - but postpones the decision by 3 years when we will have a better sense of how things are ...

 

[garygid]

VSP?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

This is really the case with any car. Just that with decades of ICE experience we know cars (I guess from certain manufacturers !) don't break down in a hurry soon after 3 year warranty.

True, I was thinking from the perspective of a Nissan or Honda owner though. BMW owners are accustomed to being socked with repair bills in the thousands, so this would be nothing new.

I think for anyone risk-averse - lease is the way to go. You may pay a little more (depends on residual value) - but postpones the decision by 3 years when we will have a better sense of how things are ...

No doubt. And this little survey makes me think that much more so.

 

[Yanquetino]

VSP?

'V'ehicle 'S'ound for 'P'edestrians, i.e., the "noise" issue. The last reply I received from Nissan customer service told me that they "have proactively implemented the VSP" and that "this decision is final." In other words, like it or lump it. No "customer survey" there, obviously.

 

[evnow]

VSP?

'V'ehicle 'S'ound for 'P'edestrians, i.e., the "noise" issue. The last reply I received from Nissan customer service told me that they "have proactively implemented the VSP" and that "this decision is final." In other words, like it or lump it. No "customer survey" there, obviously.

VSP is baked into law (in Japan) and going to be in the upcoming US law. No point fighting with Nissan over it - need to take it up with our representatives ...

 

[LakeLeaf]

I think Nissan is wondering (and rightly so) how the batteries will last when in the hands of your average, everyday driver.

Asking first adopters of this kind of technology what they can live with, at least to me, is very different then trying to determine what the warranty needs to be to get the car in the hands of the "average, everyday driver". Nissan is clearly trying to ramp up the production of the vehicle to be a common, everyday car for the average commuter - they clearly are marketing to this segment and not to just the enthusiast segment.

Because of that - I would think that the average buyer would look for Nissan to at least match the Prius California battery warranty - 10 years or 150,000 miles. That is certainly what I am looking for.

To think about spending $37k on a car (car, tax, title, license - forget the tax break as it will only be in place for very early buyers) that might end up being drivable for only 40-50 miles in real world situations (varied weather and roads) and then may lose more then 25% of that range within just a couple of years - it's a no brainer to pass on it. People need a car to get them where they are going every trip - not just when the weather is perfect and the roads are flat. Most folks don't have the luxury of spending this type of coin for a fair weather only car.

What's the point of talking about how little maintenance the car will need because it has no engine, no transmission, etc. etc. etc. when you have to spend $10-$15k on new batteries after only 5 years. I'm not interested buying such a vehicle. I'm glad this car is better for the environment - but in order to convince the average person to buy it - it has to be better for their environment. The average person is not going to increase their transportation budget by 50% just for the inconvenience of buying a car that only goes around the block a few times. I bought a 2010 Prius and expect to drive it for at least 10 years and expect to not incur any significant maintenance costs over that time period. Between the low cost of the Prius, and the savings in gas, and the strong warranty - I expect that car to be good for my bottom line as well as the environments. If Nissan can convince me the same is true of the Leaf, I will be that too. If, on the other hand, the Leaf costs more to run then a Prius, or another hybrid or ICE, I'm out.

If Nissan wants to truly make this an everyday car for the average person - they need to really step up to the plate on the warranty. To cover their bases - if this means increasing the number of batteries in the car at time of sale to be sure a minimum range is still there after 1, 5, 8, 10 years - so be it. Selling a car that may barely be enough to get the job done on day one under ideal conditions, and then degrading from there isn't going to get Nissan where they want to be. Selling a car that over-delivers for those willing to drive it nicely will certainly help. So far, we have no indications that the Leaf will over-deliver. Some of the allure of the Prius is reading how person after person is able to get 55, 60, 65, and better MPG with the car - heck I've even bettered those numbers so it can't be too hard to do. This encourages everyone to to try to drive it a manner that it exceeds it's advertisement. With the Prius - even if you just get in and drive - it's pretty hard to not get the EPA mileage rating (unless of course you are my wife). If Nissan wants the Leaf to be a success - the average Joe needs to be able to get in and regularly achieve 100 miles to a charge - and enthusiasts need to be able to get significantly more then that. If only the hardcore EV'ers can get 100 miles to a charge, and the batteries degrade quickly, the car will be a miserable failure.

Certainly you should expect to be able to do things to kill the mileage and the battery life - but those activities should be outside the general operating curve of the car for the average person. If Nissan has some way to measure that type of driving and take it into account in the warranty - great. (How they do that, I don't know).

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. Range needs to be at least 100 miles under normal - not ideal - driving conditions, and the range can't degrade more then 10% over 10 years. If that means that more batteries need to be added to insure the average person will be getting 90 miles on a charge after 10 years, then that is what is needed.

 

[planet4ever]

If someone wants an EV...

In the real world I agee that's there's some overlap. That's unfortunate, because the Volt isn't an EV - it's a hybrid. It's competition is the Prius and Insight and other hybrids. Only the GM marketing machine is trying to wrap a hybrid in EV clothes and sell it to us. :evil:

If I'm shopping for an EV I know enough to shop for something without a tailpipe.

I don't think it's in EVers best interest to fall-into GM's marketing and lump the Volt into the pool with 'real' EVs.

I disagree strongly. The Volt is both a 'real' EV and a hybrid. Most days I drive less than 40 miles. On those days the Volt, should I get one, would be a pure EV. If I were to drive 100 miles one day, the Volt would be an EV for 40 miles and a hybrid for 60 miles.

Now, the truth is, I have decided not to get a Volt, and I am going to get a Leaf. But I know in my heart that if I expect I may drive as much as 100 miles in one day, I am going to leave the Leaf at home and take my wife's Prius. That means I would use more gas on that day by having a Leaf than I would by having a Volt. (Unless the Volt uses as much gas in 60 miles as the Prius in 100 miles, which I doubt.)

I believe a large number of potential customers exists for which a Volt is is preferable to a Leaf.
- Some of them drive long distances every day
- Some of them have strong biases against "foreign" cars
- Some of them just aren't ready to face their "range anxiety" paranoia

For virtually all of them, I would argue that we, and the planet, will be better off if they decide to get a Volt rather than a plain old hybrid. Now, as other pluggable hybrids come on the market they are going to crowd the Volt's advantages, but as of early 2011, the Volt and the Leaf are about your only real EV choices if you want something built by an established auto manufacturer.

So stop knocking the Volt. I want it to succeed. I just don't happen to want it for myself.

 

[evnow]

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. Range needs to be at least 100 miles under normal - not ideal - driving conditions, and the range can't degrade more then 10% over 10 years. If that means that more batteries need to be added to insure the average person will be getting 90 miles on a charge after 10 years, then that is what is needed.

We are definitely not there today in terms of technology. To get all the things you want - you would have to pay substantially more for the car - not $25K.

ps : This is like saying you would buy a gas car only if it gives 100 mpg.

 

[planet4ever]

Selling a car that may barely be enough to get the job done on day one under ideal conditions, and then degrading from there isn't going to get Nissan where they want to be.

Have I just been teleported to a different world somewhere? I thought most people drove their cars less than 15,000 miles per year, especially people that keep their cars for ten years or more. Even if you assume the car just sits in the garage for two months out of the year, that's only 50 miles a day. The Leaf range is way more than "barely enough" for most of their potential customers.

 

[LEAFfan]

I filled out my survey and said I would cancel my reservation if it is announced at 5 year/ 60,000 miles. I told them I would buy the car in 3 months if it had a 8 year/100,000 mile warranty and would pay for a warranty 10 year/150,000 mile warranty no more then $1,000.

I was surprised and had to laugh when they listed '3 mos.' as an answer. That would only be October and they won't even be selling them until Dec.

 

[LEAFfan]

VSP?

'V'ehicle 'S'ound for 'P'edestrians, i.e., the "noise" issue. The last reply I received from Nissan customer service told me that they "have proactively implemented the VSP" and that "this decision is final." In other words, like it or lump it. No "customer survey" there, obviously.

But I also read that the VSP can be turned OFF, so I don't think it's that big a deal.

 

[LEAFfan]

I think Nissan is wondering (and rightly so) how the batteries will last when in the hands of your average, everyday driver.

Asking first adopters of this kind of technology what they can live with, at least to me, is very different then trying to determine what the warranty needs to be to get the car in the hands of the "average, everyday driver". Nissan is clearly trying to ramp up the production of the vehicle to be a common, everyday car for the average commuter - they clearly are marketing to this segment and not to just the enthusiast segment.

Because of that - I would think that the average buyer would look for Nissan to at least match the Prius California battery warranty - 10 years or 150,000 miles. That is certainly what I am looking for.

To think about spending $37k on a car (car, tax, title, license - forget the tax break as it will only be in place for very early buyers) that might end up being drivable for only 40-50 miles in real world situations (varied weather and roads) and then may lose more then 25% of that range within just a couple of years - it's a no brainer to pass on it. People need a car to get them where they are going every trip - not just when the weather is perfect and the roads are flat. Most folks don't have the luxury of spending this type of coin for a fair weather only car.

What's the point of talking about how little maintenance the car will need because it has no engine, no transmission, etc. etc. etc. when you have to spend $10-$15k on new batteries after only 5 years. I'm not interested buying such a vehicle. I'm glad this car is better for the environment - but in order to convince the average person to buy it - it has to be better for their environment. The average person is not going to increase their transportation budget by 50% just for the inconvenience of buying a car that only goes around the block a few times. I bought a 2010 Prius and expect to drive it for at least 10 years and expect to not incur any significant maintenance costs over that time period. Between the low cost of the Prius, and the savings in gas, and the strong warranty - I expect that car to be good for my bottom line as well as the environments. If Nissan can convince me the same is true of the Leaf, I will be that too. If, on the other hand, the Leaf costs more to run then a Prius, or another hybrid or ICE, I'm out.

If Nissan wants to truly make this an everyday car for the average person - they need to really step up to the plate on the warranty. To cover their bases - if this means increasing the number of batteries in the car at time of sale to be sure a minimum range is still there after 1, 5, 8, 10 years - so be it. Selling a car that may barely be enough to get the job done on day one under ideal conditions, and then degrading from there isn't going to get Nissan where they want to be. Selling a car that over-delivers for those willing to drive it nicely will certainly help. So far, we have no indications that the Leaf will over-deliver. Some of the allure of the Prius is reading how person after person is able to get 55, 60, 65, and better MPG with the car - heck I've even bettered those numbers so it can't be too hard to do. This encourages everyone to to try to drive it a manner that it exceeds it's advertisement. With the Prius - even if you just get in and drive - it's pretty hard to not get the EPA mileage rating (unless of course you are my wife). If Nissan wants the Leaf to be a success - the average Joe needs to be able to get in and regularly achieve 100 miles to a charge - and enthusiasts need to be able to get significantly more then that. If only the hardcore EV'ers can get 100 miles to a charge, and the batteries degrade quickly, the car will be a miserable failure.

Certainly you should expect to be able to do things to kill the mileage and the battery life - but those activities should be outside the general operating curve of the car for the average person. If Nissan has some way to measure that type of driving and take it into account in the warranty - great. (How they do that, I don't know).

So I say - battery warranty needs to be at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. Range needs to be at least 100 miles under normal - not ideal - driving conditions, and the range can't degrade more then 10% over 10 years. If that means that more batteries need to be added to insure the average person will be getting 90 miles on a charge after 10 years, then that is what is needed.

Those are all moot points when a person leases. It makes no difference on the battery warranty at all. And it doesn't matter to me if you get 80 mpg with a Prius or whatever...because it uses gasoline and you're just putting money into the pockets of BIG OIL. I'll pay extra any day for a LEAF or other BEV so I never have to use ANY liquid/gaseous fuel.

 

[AndyH]

VSP?

'V'ehicle 'S'ound for 'P'edestrians, i.e., the "noise" issue. The last reply I received from Nissan customer service told me that they "have proactively implemented the VSP" and that "this decision is final." In other words, like it or lump it. No "customer survey" there, obviously.

VSP is baked into law (in Japan) and going to be in the upcoming US law. No point fighting with Nissan over it - need to take it up with our representatives ...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10944#p10944

PIA is on the case - Anyone else here part of PIA?

Finally, there's the proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which contains an amendment that would require hybrids and EVs to make noise for pedestrians. We are working to modify this bill as it moves through Congress so that there is time to weigh the impact of noise pollution as well as pedestrian safety.

 

[efusco]

Here's the bottom line, Nissan, if you're listening.

The car MUST succeed as far as sales and customer satisfaction. You can't withstand it being a flop.

Thus, you have to match the 8/100k warranty on the battery and key components (inverter, motor).

You 'should' offer a battery replacement option. If the warranty is 8/100k that 'should' afford you the luxury of charging something closer to actual replacement cost. That way long term buyer/owners will be comfortable that should they want/need to replace the battery at 5-6 years in that they'll be able to do so. Short term buyers and leasers will probably forego the battery replacement cost.

Will you lose money on a bunch of these cars if the battery fails earlier than you want them to...yup. Bite the bullet, take the financial hit, make things right with your customers without muss/fuss--keep them satisfied. If they're satisfied they'll spread the word. If they're not satisfied they'll also spread that word....and your product will fail. Unless you want another EV1, a car built to fail to prove that 'people don't want them'...then you need satisfied customers at any cost.

If your customers/early adopters are satisfied you will, in the same manner Toyota did with Prius, recoup your initial losses and then some and can become the market leader in consumer affordable EVs.

 

[Dav]

Unless you want another EV1, a car built to fail to prove that 'people don't want them'...

Where in the world did you come up with that? The EV1 was built to succeed. Which management did not want it to do. It was so wildly successful the only way GM could hide that was to confiscate and crush every (almost) one of them!

But built to fail? No way.

 

[sjfotos]

Unless you want another EV1, a car built to fail to prove that 'people don't want them'...

Where in the world did you come up with that? The EV1 was built to succeed. Which management did not want it to do. It was so wildly successful the only way GM could hide that was to confiscate and crush every (almost) one of them!

But built to fail? No way.

The EV1 was a specific response to a specific need. The need was the mandate of California to produce electric vehicles if a manufacturer wanted to sell vehicles in California. When that law expired, so did the EV1. When the vehicle manufacturers were successful in eliminating this requirement, the need for the EV1 was also eliminated. It cost GM too much for the limited number of leases they expected to have. It was a distraction in a niche that they had no basic commitment to.

That may have been a an error on their part, but the decision for them, at the time, was not hard to make.

 

[AndyH]

Grab a copy of "The Car That Could" by Michael Shnayerson, ISBN 067942105 The author was inside GM covering the program from 1992 thru 1996.

GM announced that they could absolutely build an EV, California called them on it, and then GM in it's bipolar splendor fought itself to bring an amazing car to market while also fighting to get the mandate killed.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...gonerlegacy_04bus.State.Edition1.15ed876.html

Wagoner has said the biggest mistake he ever made as CEO was killing the EV1, GM's revolutionary electric car, and failing to direct more resources to hybrid gas-electric research. This admission is acutely painful for green-car advocates who know that GM squandered its early lead in electric-hybrid technology.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Unless you want another EV1, a car built to fail to prove that 'people don't want them'...

Where in the world did you come up with that? The EV1 was built to succeed. Which management did not want it to do. It was so wildly successful the only way GM could hide that was to confiscate and crush every (almost) one of them!

But built to fail? No way.

u should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" there is little doubt that GM was not behind the EV1. they only built it because they had to and as soon as they legally could, they not only stopped building the car, they did whatever they could to completely eradicates its memory from the public conscious.

 

[planet4ever]

Hey, guys, STOP! Let's not get sidetracked on another EV-1 war. efusco's comment may have been unfortunate, but it was one phrase in a long post. There are a lot of things I could disagree with in that post, but I'm going to focus here:

The car MUST succeed as far as sales and customer satisfaction. You can't withstand it being a flop.

OK, I'll bet most of us agree on that.

Thus, you have to match the 8/100k warranty on the battery and key components (inverter, motor).

Whoa! That conclusion does not follow from the predicate. There are many aspects to sales and customer satisfaction.

ITEM: Nissan has been in frequent communication with potential customers, and is leading them step by step to commitment. GM doesn't even have an official wait list, and refuses to give any credence to the many who signed up on an unofficial list. They send a generic advertising blurb every three or four weeks to people who gave them an email address.

ITEM: Nissan has been specific about prices, and they are surprisingly reasonable. GM just occasionally says "under 40K" which is much higher and an extremely frustrating sales tactic.

ITEM: Nissan has put together a sales program that virtually guarantees everyone will be able to purchase a Leaf at MSRP, despite heavy demand. GM has turned this over to its dealers, who are highly motivated to set prices far above MSRP.

ITEM: Nissan has been upfront about variations in range, giving a wide variety of real-life scenarios. GM just keeps waving its arms and saying "40 miles".

ITEM: We have just learned the the Volt won't meet the CARB AT-PZEV requirements, which even the plug-in Prius is expected to satisfy. That means GM has cut customers off from rebates in California and some other states. Leaf customers, of course, will have no problem qualifying for such rebates.

Last fall I was a gung-ho Volt advocate. Thanks in good part to Nissan's focus on sales and customer satisfaction, and GM's lack of such focus, I am now committed to the Leaf.

No, I see no reason at all that Nissan needs to match GM's battery warranty in the name of customer satisfaction. I actually think it is somewhat commendable that Nissan is concerned about its own financial viability. I want them to be around in ten years to maintain my Leaf.

 

[Nubo]

...That's why you see all those questions basically trying to determine just how devoted a tree hugger your are...

I admit I was speculating along those lines at first, but it's just as likely that there are still engineering decisions to be made. Engineering is a balance of compromises. Battery longevity could be traded for various other goals: range, acceleration, weight, etc.. These would be modified though the battery management system, and are things that can wait to be finalized until just before production. Nissan seem seriously committed to making the shift to EVs. So I'd rather say that these engineering aspects are more plausible than them trying to screw the customer at this stage.