Marketing Suggestions for Nissan: Let's Get Serious

[Deleted member 1622]

Drees -

I have to say "amen" to your comments on how Nissan could improve its responsiveness and consumer confidence. My guess is that the terrible sales are causing many reorgs, rethinks, firings, and other corporate turmoil.
What I was saying before is not that range will not improve, but that it will never improve enough to be considered an equal in range to other cars on the market. I don't really believe studies about range anxiety when the N is so small and the respondents are all current EV owners/early adopters. Why would 120 vs. 300 (miles of range) be such a big psychological advantage of 70 vs. 300?
I do hope there is incremental improvement in the next 10 years (no, Moore's Law does NOT apply to EVs), but that doesn't solve the current problem of convincing the public that the Leaf is a great car in comparison to its competition.

Josh

 

[GRA]

Drees -

I have to say "amen" to your comments on how Nissan could improve its responsiveness and consumer confidence. My guess is that the terrible sales are causing many reorgs, rethinks, firings, and other corporate turmoil.
What I was saying before is not that range will not improve, but that it will never improve enough to be considered an equal in range to other cars on the market. I don't really believe studies about range anxiety when the N is so small and the respondents are all current EV owners/early adopters. Why would 120 vs. 300 (miles of range) be such a big psychological advantage of 70 vs. 300?
I do hope there is incremental improvement in the next 10 years (no, Moore's Law does NOT apply to EVs), but that doesn't solve the current problem of convincing the public that the Leaf is a great car in comparison to its competition.

Josh

A 120 mile range in the same conditions as the Leaf is credited with 73, corresponds to a worst case range of a bit over half that, say 65-70 miles. For a commute car, reliable range is far more important than maximum range, and that range needs to be high enough that you can do a commute plus run errands while not having to plan your trip as if you're Scott of the Antarctic (with or without 30-foot tall electric Penguins), and never see an LBW or need to charge in such a way as to significantly accelerate battery degradation; the battery has to do that for the entire period of a lease or a minimum of 5 years of ownership, with 10-12 preferred (at least until battery pack prices drop into the 'minor expense' range).

I've said in other posts that I think 150 miles is the magic number, but that's under ideal conditions and equates to about 96 miles under the worst case conditions I'm likely to face, or 75-85 in very cold temps. Subtract a 10-20 mile LBW reserve from that to arrive at reliable range. With a TMS keeping the battery comfy you can knock 10-20% off the max. range to achieve the same reliable range.

 

[Deleted member 1622]

I agree on all points (especially the part about posting "reliable range" rather than "max range.") What I don't agree with is that there is a "magic number" for the average consumer/Prius driver who wants to go electric. 95% of buyers will not go through the equation you just posted, with temp, battery degradation, etc., they just want to know how it stacks up to an ICE. Even your "magic number" of 150 is not qualitatively different than 73 to the person who just hears "not even close to a gas car."

JG

 

[cwerdna]

July sales were a dismal 395 for the Leaf... the lowest monthly since March 2011, and it is being far outpaced by the Volt and even the PiP.
Any reactions to this? I have to admit that I have already lost faith in something that I believed when I bought the car: that Nissan could effectively make the electric argument to the mainstream driving public.
The electric argument is this:
- Driving is not about freedom and long-range trips, it's about efficiency, smooth driving and not putting particulates in the air. The Leaf scores higher than anyone else on those three items, so it's worth paying a little more.
- A limited range car is not just "acceptable," it is very desirable when you have a second car for long-range contingencies.
...
To me, the question of poor sales in 2012 is not about the physical features of the car itself in comparison to an ICE car. Limited range and a higher sticker price are qualities that are NOT going to change about any EV on the market in the next 10 years. It's about how well Nissan and others are making the electric argument. When is someone (Mr. Ghosn?) going to make this argument publicly instead of padding range numbers or grousing about the car's limitations?

The problem is, most American drivers don't care much about what I bolded. They don't care enough about smooth driving to make the sacrifices (e.g. range limitations, usability limitations, high up front cost, etc.) esp. given the insane % of monstrosity class SUVs I see running around, almost always being driven solo or w/minimal cargo and passengers, at least in my area. I'm not sure what part of CA you live in (updating your location info would help).

Just take a look at how many battering rams of death (e.g. Escalades, Tahoe, Surburban, Yukon and all their submodels) GM sold last month in the US (http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2012/Deliveries_July_2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false from http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/sales-production.content_pages_news_us_en_2012_aug_gmsales.~content~gmcom~home~company~investors~sales-production.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

People are not willing to pay a significant premium over an ICEV for a range limited car when the cheaper ICEV doesn't have such range and fueling time/infrastructure limitations. Or, they can spend the extra money on a car w/more features, more luxury, etc.

As I've said before, if gas prices went WAY up, there was an oil crisis again or strong incentives were put into place to get people to EVs (e.g. huge taxes on massive SUVs, huge incentives on EVs, etc.), that would make people more interested in EVs.

 

[ztanos]

I agree on all points (especially the part about posting "reliable range" rather than "max range.") What I don't agree with is that there is a "magic number" for the average consumer/Prius driver who wants to go electric. 95% of buyers will not go through the equation you just posted, with temp, battery degradation, etc., they just want to know how it stacks up to an ICE. Even your "magic number" of 150 is not qualitatively different than 73 to the person who just hears "not even close to a gas car."

JG

Different cars for different people. My saturn can do 350 miles/tank, but that means that my gas light has been on for around 80 miles. Most people are not comfortable doing this, but I know I can make it due to the history of my car and keeping track of it. So for most people my car will only get around 270/tank. That isn't a great car, even when it is doing it at 35 mpg. So really not much difference between 150 and 270 either. It's all about perspective. I'd have jumped on the 2011 LEAF if it did 150 real world miles.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Drees -

I have to say "amen" to your comments on how Nissan could improve its responsiveness and consumer confidence. My guess is that the terrible sales are causing many reorgs, rethinks, firings, and other corporate turmoil.
What I was saying before is not that range will not improve, but that it will never improve enough to be considered an equal in range to other cars on the market. I don't really believe studies about range anxiety when the N is so small and the respondents are all current EV owners/early adopters. Why would 120 vs. 300 (miles of range) be such a big psychological advantage of 70 vs. 300?
I do hope there is incremental improvement in the next 10 years (no, Moore's Law does NOT apply to EVs), but that doesn't solve the current problem of convincing the public that the Leaf is a great car in comparison to its competition.

Josh

A 120 mile range in the same conditions as the Leaf is credited with 73, corresponds to a worst case range of a bit over half that, say 65-70 miles. For a commute car, reliable range is far more important than maximum range, and that range needs to be high enough that you can do a commute plus run errands while not having to plan your trip as if you're Scott of the Antarctic (with or without 30-foot tall electric Penguins), and never see an LBW or need to charge in such a way as to significantly accelerate battery degradation; the battery has to do that for the entire period of a lease or a minimum of 5 years of ownership, with 10-12 preferred (at least until battery pack prices drop into the 'minor expense' range).

I've said in other posts that I think 150 miles is the magic number, but that's under ideal conditions and equates to about 96 miles under the worst case conditions I'm likely to face, or 75-85 in very cold temps. Subtract a 10-20 mile LBW reserve from that to arrive at reliable range. With a TMS keeping the battery comfy you can knock 10-20% off the max. range to achieve the same reliable range.

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay.

or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

 

[TomT]

This is one of the reasons why I see us having an ICE as our second vehicle for some time...

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay. or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

 

[ztanos]

Drees -

I have to say "amen" to your comments on how Nissan could improve its responsiveness and consumer confidence. My guess is that the terrible sales are causing many reorgs, rethinks, firings, and other corporate turmoil.
What I was saying before is not that range will not improve, but that it will never improve enough to be considered an equal in range to other cars on the market. I don't really believe studies about range anxiety when the N is so small and the respondents are all current EV owners/early adopters. Why would 120 vs. 300 (miles of range) be such a big psychological advantage of 70 vs. 300?
I do hope there is incremental improvement in the next 10 years (no, Moore's Law does NOT apply to EVs), but that doesn't solve the current problem of convincing the public that the Leaf is a great car in comparison to its competition.

Josh

A 120 mile range in the same conditions as the Leaf is credited with 73, corresponds to a worst case range of a bit over half that, say 65-70 miles. For a commute car, reliable range is far more important than maximum range, and that range needs to be high enough that you can do a commute plus run errands while not having to plan your trip as if you're Scott of the Antarctic (with or without 30-foot tall electric Penguins), and never see an LBW or need to charge in such a way as to significantly accelerate battery degradation; the battery has to do that for the entire period of a lease or a minimum of 5 years of ownership, with 10-12 preferred (at least until battery pack prices drop into the 'minor expense' range).

I've said in other posts that I think 150 miles is the magic number, but that's under ideal conditions and equates to about 96 miles under the worst case conditions I'm likely to face, or 75-85 in very cold temps. Subtract a 10-20 mile LBW reserve from that to arrive at reliable range. With a TMS keeping the battery comfy you can knock 10-20% off the max. range to achieve the same reliable range.

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay.

or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

Why would it be an additional $12,000? Isn't that around what the cost of the entire LEAF battery costs now? Just curious if you were just throwing the Rav out there? I like the truck, just never really was a truck person. Can I even get that in Georgia? :lol:

 

[ztanos]

I want options dang it!!!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Why would it be an additional $12,000? Isn't that around what the cost of the entire LEAF battery costs now? Just curious if you were just throwing the Rav out there? I like the truck, just never really was a truck person. Can I even get that in Georgia? :lol:

You can't (easily) get the Rav4 outside of California. Yes, it's about $12,000 additional over the price of a LEAF ($38,000 vs $50,000).

What truck are you talking about? The Rav4 is not a truck, and looks more like a LEAF on steroids. Don't worry, no real truck driver will confuse a Rav4 as a truck.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Why would it be an additional $12,000? Isn't that around what the cost of the entire LEAF battery costs now? Just curious if you were just throwing the Rav out there? I like the truck, just never really was a truck person. Can I even get that in Georgia? :lol:

You can't (easily) get the Rav4 outside of California. Yes, it's about $12,000 additional over the price of a LEAF ($38,000 vs $50,000).

What truck are you talking about? The Rav4 is not a truck, and looks more like a LEAF on steroids. Don't worry, no real truck driver will confuse a Rav4 as a truck.

dimensions of the EV version are supposed to be identical to the gas version so it would like a "medium-small" SUV. it has a 41.8 Kwh battery and even with the extra 500 lbs, it should easily do 120 freeway miles. drive it carefully and i am guessing i can do 155-160

 

[GRA]

I agree on all points (especially the part about posting "reliable range" rather than "max range.") What I don't agree with is that there is a "magic number" for the average consumer/Prius driver who wants to go electric. 95% of buyers will not go through the equation you just posted, with temp, battery degradation, etc., they just want to know how it stacks up to an ICE. Even your "magic number" of 150 is not qualitatively different than 73 to the person who just hears "not even close to a gas car."

JG

We'll have to disagree, then. In any large urban area, 60 or 70 miles max. is seen, rightly, as limiting. While I agree that mainstream users aren't going to go through the calculations I did, why should they have to? Give them a worst case range as well as a max. range, and they can easily decide if the car's for them. Or just the worst case range, and everything beyond is gravy.

The epigram in my sig states my philosophy, and while it means that initial growth is slower, you don't get the dissatisfied early-adopter customers such as are now being generated in hot climates. Word of mouth from them along with the car's capabilities will determine whether it 'crosses the chasm' from the early adopters to the mainstream, or remains a niche vehicle. At the moment, IMO the Leaf is only suitable for early adopters, because its capabilities aren't well suited to the mainstream.

I happen to think that most mainstream users share my typical range limits. For a day trip I'm normally unwilling to drive more than about 2 hours one-way. For a 2-day weekend, 4 hours, and for a 3-day weekend 6 hours. A 150 mile range, even if just under ideal conditions, more or less meets the day trip requirement, and with a single QC either comes close or meets the 2-day weekend requirement. That covers the vast majority of trips that people need a car for. Naturally it would be preferable if the car had a 150 mile worst cast range, but currently only the Tesla S w/85kWh battery meets that requirement, and that or even the RAV4 is far too expensive at the moment for the mainstream.

 

[GRA]

A 120 mile range in the same conditions as the Leaf is credited with 73, corresponds to a worst case range of a bit over half that, say 65-70 miles. For a commute car, reliable range is far more important than maximum range, and that range needs to be high enough that you can do a commute plus run errands while not having to plan your trip as if you're Scott of the Antarctic (with or without 30-foot tall electric Penguins), and never see an LBW or need to charge in such a way as to significantly accelerate battery degradation; the battery has to do that for the entire period of a lease or a minimum of 5 years of ownership, with 10-12 preferred (at least until battery pack prices drop into the 'minor expense' range).

I've said in other posts that I think 150 miles is the magic number, but that's under ideal conditions and equates to about 96 miles under the worst case conditions I'm likely to face, or 75-85 in very cold temps. Subtract a 10-20 mile LBW reserve from that to arrive at reliable range. With a TMS keeping the battery comfy you can knock 10-20% off the max. range to achieve the same reliable range.

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay.

or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

No, I wouldn't and neither will any mainstream user as long as it's cheaper to buy gas. Under current conditions the RAV4's price will have to come down at least $10k before mainstream users will consider it. It's certainly out of reach for me, although among current BEVs it comes closest to meeting my other needs.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

A 120 mile range in the same conditions as the Leaf is credited with 73, corresponds to a worst case range of a bit over half that, say 65-70 miles. For a commute car, reliable range is far more important than maximum range, and that range needs to be high enough that you can do a commute plus run errands while not having to plan your trip as if you're Scott of the Antarctic (with or without 30-foot tall electric Penguins), and never see an LBW or need to charge in such a way as to significantly accelerate battery degradation; the battery has to do that for the entire period of a lease or a minimum of 5 years of ownership, with 10-12 preferred (at least until battery pack prices drop into the 'minor expense' range).

I've said in other posts that I think 150 miles is the magic number, but that's under ideal conditions and equates to about 96 miles under the worst case conditions I'm likely to face, or 75-85 in very cold temps. Subtract a 10-20 mile LBW reserve from that to arrive at reliable range. With a TMS keeping the battery comfy you can knock 10-20% off the max. range to achieve the same reliable range.

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay.

or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

No, I wouldn't and neither will any mainstream user as long as it's cheaper to buy gas. Under current conditions the RAV4's price will have to come down at least $10k before mainstream users will consider it. It's certainly out of reach for me, although among current BEVs it comes closest to meeting my other needs.

funny because the "$50,000" is not the unreachable part of this equation. its the "this car MUST do 100% of my needs" part that is not reachable so the previous poster is correct in saying that it does not matter if its 75 miles or 150 miles EV range, people will still find excuses.

i look at the vehicles today you can buy for $43,000 (OH WAIT where did that price come from??) and we see a LOT of mainstream vehicles that are bought by the tens of thousands today so saying $50,000 minus incentives is too much money DOES not apply to a large percentage of new car buyers today.


so lets price a Ford Explorer or an Edge or a F-150 all of which easily get into that price range. now (in WA only) add $3800 in sales tax and an extra $100-200 a month in higher fuel cost and.... hmmm?? lost my train of thought. now what was cheaper again...

 

[ztanos]

Why would it be an additional $12,000? Isn't that around what the cost of the entire LEAF battery costs now? Just curious if you were just throwing the Rav out there? I like the truck, just never really was a truck person. Can I even get that in Georgia? :lol:

You can't (easily) get the Rav4 outside of California. Yes, it's about $12,000 additional over the price of a LEAF ($38,000 vs $50,000).

What truck are you talking about? The Rav4 is not a truck, and looks more like a LEAF on steroids. Don't worry, no real truck driver will confuse a Rav4 as a truck.

Agreed that it isn't much bigger than the LEAF, but it is still on a truck frame and looks like a truck. But that is semantics... I wouldn't drive the normal Rav either... just not an SUV person as they feel too top heavy. Maybe the EV version would fix that though. :?

 

[GRA]

would you pay $12,000 to get that 120 "real highway" miles? if so, get the RAV EV because that is exactly what it will do and that is how much more money you will have to pay.

or get a QC installed in a convenient location and pay $10 a charge for nearly 6 years.

No, I wouldn't and neither will any mainstream user as long as it's cheaper to buy gas. Under current conditions the RAV4's price will have to come down at least $10k before mainstream users will consider it. It's certainly out of reach for me, although among current BEVs it comes closest to meeting my other needs.

funny because the "$50,000" is not the unreachable part of this equation. its the "this car MUST do 100% of my needs" part that is not reachable so the previous poster is correct in saying that it does not matter if its 75 miles or 150 miles EV range, people will still find excuses.

i look at the vehicles today you can buy for $43,000 (OH WAIT where did that price come from??) and we see a LOT of mainstream vehicles that are bought by the tens of thousands today so saying $50,000 minus incentives is too much money DOES not apply to a large percentage of new car buyers today.

so lets price a Ford Explorer or an Edge or a F-150 all of which easily get into that price range. now (in WA only) add $3800 in sales tax and an extra $100-200 a month in higher fuel cost and.... hmmm?? lost my train of thought. now what was cheaper again...

I certainly agree that people who regularly take their SUVs on out-of-town trips need the range that a RAV4EV can't provide much of the time. But let's look at the price of that RAV4 EV: $50k before subsidies, some or all of which people may not qualify for depending on where they live, vs. say $30k for a fairly well tricked out gas RAV4 (see, e.g. the September Car & Driver issue for a small SUV comparison test). You can buy a hell of a lot of gas for the money you save, plus not have to deal with any of the inconvenience (for longer trips) of the EV.

Large sales of the RAV4EV aren't going to happen at that price. Even at $40k MSRP it's a tough sell, but the subsidies may may it work for enough people, especially if it's mostly used as a daily driver. Higher gas prices will help.

 

[Train]

Agreed that it isn't much bigger than the LEAF, but it is still on a truck frame and looks like a truck. But that is semantics...

From what I understand, the Rav4 has a unitized body. Not body on frame.

 

[Train]

An EV Rav4 for $50K. And they hope to sell 2600?

You can get a Rav4 Limited for $25,000. And have a 300+ mile range.

 

[cwerdna]

An EV Rav4 for $50K. And they hope to sell 2600?

:lol:

It's pretty quick, judging by the reviews I've seen so far. Due to the Federal and CA tax incentives, I think they'll be able to sell 2600 in the 3 years I've seen mentioned.

 

[Train]

Perhaps. By that time, Tesla should have production up to 100 per month.

Oh, and you sold your Z-car, Mr. Cwerda? Shame on you! :evil: