Nissan: We Can Match Bolt

[smkettner]

The 2016 LEAF with larger battery and some tolerance of heat is what we thought we were buying in 2011.
Then fight tooth and nail to give a poor warranty to make it better. Should be giving all previous cars the larger 2016 battery at a steep discount.
Sorry Nissan I am done.

GM has been producing junk for too many years. Maybe the EV line will be different. Not holding my breath.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...Besides, I view most of Tesla's changes to be more hype that anything. Autonomous Driving? hmmm??? They must have a different definition than the one I am familiar with. Still, pretty cool but useful?...

Oh come now, "Autonomous Driving?" Set up a "straw man" and knock it down?

Tesla introduced Auto Pilot, which, similar to the aircraft namesake, keeps the car driving in a predictable direction and speed on well-marked roads. It isn't, nor does it pretend to be, "autonomous driving". Tech fans love it (they are trading in older models to get new ones with AP). I have no use for it since it would be utterly useless here, with poorly marked two lane roads and the only freeway more than 95 miles away. But I can understand how it would be fun on long freeway trips.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I personally think its pretty foolish to eliminate any brand based on past performance. There is not a manufacturer out there that has not made a lot of mistakes.

I'm talking about the recent past. It makes little sense to ignore a history of bad mistakes and bad judgements that either ends very recently or, in GM's case, hasn't actually ended yet. If we judge manufacturers as you do, we should love Fiat/Chrysler, because they haven't screwed up that PHEV minivan, yet.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

...Besides, I view most of Tesla's changes to be more hype that anything. Autonomous Driving? hmmm??? They must have a different definition than the one I am familiar with. Still, pretty cool but useful?...

Oh come now, "Autonomous Driving?" Set up a "straw man" and knock it down?

Tesla introduced Auto Pilot, which, similar to the aircraft namesake, keeps the car driving in a predictable direction and speed on well-marked roads. It isn't, nor does it pretend to be, "autonomous driving". Tech fans love it (they are trading in older models to get new ones with AP). I have no use for it since it would be utterly useless here, with poorly marked two lane roads and the only freeway more than 95 miles away. But I can understand how it would be fun on long freeway trips.

oh don't get me wrong, I love Tesla and what they are doing but when I consider reality, they have done little for me.

So they say they will have an affordable EV and it will be announced in the next 2-3 months but when can I buy it? that is the only thing that matters to me. how about we skip the energy involved in creating that announcement and move the timetable up a month instead?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I personally think its pretty foolish to eliminate any brand based on past performance. There is not a manufacturer out there that has not made a lot of mistakes.

I'm talking about the recent past. It makes little sense to ignore a history of bad mistakes and bad judgements that either ends very recently or, in GM's case, hasn't actually ended yet. If we judge manufacturers as you do, we should love Fiat/Chrysler, because they haven't screwed up that PHEV minivan, yet.

there are few companies that get it right immediately and car companies are far from it. Even the Tesla S has issues but its easy to overlook a few here and there when there is so much other things to look at. Most car designs are decisions made in a boardroom years in advance and most override engineering decisions. but no matter, who do you think has done it right? made no or very little mistakes? did not put out the car before it was ready?

 

[golfcart]

And we could have done the 80 mile round trip, or set out across the country to Seattle from Tampa with some planning and patience, if there was an adequate QC infrastructure, and not just at Nissan dealers that close at 8 p.m. and aren't open on Sundays (which stopped me from a 400 mile round trip a few years ago), or have one of their ICE vehicles blocking the EVSE. And what do you do going across the country with the 200 mile 60kwh vehicle when the QCs aren't there, but are 150 miles or 125 miles between, you're back to an essentially smaller battery pack. But of course, it would be better than starting out with a 15kwh pack and stopping every 50 miles or forced to L2 charge along the way. It really isn't the battery, it is quick charging the battery that is holding everything back. That is what Tesla has already figured out and is using to their advantage at the moment.

You certainly could have, but why would anyone put that kind of infrastructure in place for a niche market? And even if the QC network was in place, why would the average person want to stop every hour to charge for 30 minutes (CHAdeMO) on a road trip when a $20 a day Hyundai Elantra rental car goes 400 miles on $20 worth of gas and takes 2 minutes to fill up and go?

I do give Tesla credit, the idea of putting a supercharger network at appropriate intervals on the highway is a great way to try and tackle this issue. And i get the chicken/egg arguments with infrastructure... But 170 miles of range in 30 minutes (best case scenario) isn't gonna cut it for most people. Who wants to stop every 3 hours then charge for a half hour? What if the charger is occupied when you arrive and you have to wait for someone else? When a gas pump is full you wait a few minutes then fill up, if a supercharger is occupied you might wait an hour.

Perhaps if range got up in the 400 mile range and QC was commonplace at hotels then I could see a BEV as a road trip car. But cost would be so high for the battery at that point that it still wouldn't make a lot of sense. I see nothing wrong with just renting an ICE car, taking the bus, or hopping on a train when you want to go long distances. 95% of the trips I take are more than covered by the leafs current 24kwh pack. If the range doubled, that number might jump to 97%... and that would be nice, but I wouldn't pay an extra $5k for that functionality. I think a cheaper BEV with practical range is the way to go. No need to get into a range war that will drive up costs and drive sales down.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

+1^, a 24 or 30 kWh car with MSRP below $20k before any incentives would be nice.

 

[Moof]

But 170 miles of range in 30 minutes (best case scenario) isn't gonna cut it for most people.

Most folks don't make a lot of road trips per year. In our family we do about 3 per year over a couple hundred miles. I find that 2-3 hours is an optimum point to take rest breaks, usually the 5 minute gas stops are not enough if I am doing an 800+ mile day. So I usually stop for at least 15 minutes at a rest stop to get out and walk around to restore blood flow and rest the eyes. I don't see 30 minutes every 3 hours to be a show stopper, just a little annoying. I see a Tesla being a great option as my only car if it was available for 30k. The Model 3 has a very good chance at being my wife's new car in a few years when the gasser goes (currently 12 years old and 110k miles).

The Leaf's 30 minutes for every hour of driving (with alarmingly low reserve range at that point) is a major deal breaker for going on road trips of any real distance. I have yet to use the QC port on my car, I'd rather take the gasser than deal with the delays, billing, and reliability issues for the Leaf and associated QC options.

 

[webeleafowners]

It depends a lot on the person I suppose. When we do make long trips (not really often but we do) we wold never go more than two hours without a minimum of a 15 minute exercise break, just from the health point of view. Every second stop is a small meal break so at least 30 minutes. Different strokes different folks but the Tesla we drove would more than suit our needs and never have any limitations even with the existing charging networks. We almost always bring our food with us in a 12 volt cooler which of course allows for much healthier eating. Our one vice would be stopping at Paneras or Starbucks once or twice a day on longer trips.

For what we bought our smart ED for we never use more than about half the capacity. Electric vehicles in any form are not for everybody's needs but they are probably a lot more useful than many would believe. Having an open mind to doing something a little different is a good start.

We will probably buy a Tesla or a leaf in the next three years and replace our last oil burner but it will be a car under 50,000 dollars whatever it is.

JMHO

 

[golfcart]

Most folks don't make a lot of road trips per year. In our family we do about 3 per year over a couple hundred miles. I find that 2-3 hours is an optimum point to take rest breaks, usually the 5 minute gas stops are not enough if I am doing an 800+ mile day. So I usually stop for at least 15 minutes at a rest stop to get out and walk around to restore blood flow and rest the eyes. I don't see 30 minutes every 3 hours to be a show stopper, just a little annoying. I see a Tesla being a great option as my only car if it was available for 30k. The Model 3 has a very good chance at being my wife's new car in a few years when the gasser goes (currently 12 years old and 110k miles).

You make some good points, i guess it depends on the persons need. I grew up hopping in the car before dawn and you better take a piss because were not stopping till lunch lol. I suppose 30min every 3 hours isn't terrible if u can guarantee your spot will be open when u arrive. I'm sure the tech will get there eventually but for now I'd still rather have 100 miles of range for $25k vs 200 miles for $30k. It is a second car for our family so I see no reason to pay for range I don't need. It'd be an interesting poll too see what others think.

 

[user 10599]

Where's the emoticon for "Argh, this thread has been hijacked!" :lol:

Me thinks we need a thread for the debate between the economic realities of long range BEVs vs short range BEVs. No offense, the discussion is thought provoking.

 

[golfcart]

Where's the emoticon for "Argh, this thread has been hijacked!" :lol:

Me thinks we need a thread for the debate between the economic realities of long range BEVs vs short range BEVs. No offense, the discussion is thought provoking.

My bad, I took it in this direction regarding the practicality of matching the bolts 200 mile range vs having a cheaper leaf with 100 - 150 mile range but that discussion took on a life of its own and now were talking about Teslas and road trips and QC networks. haha.

 

[sub3marathonman]

Where's the emoticon for "Argh, this thread has been hijacked!" :lol:

Me thinks we need a thread for the debate between the economic realities of long range BEVs vs short range BEVs. No offense, the discussion is thought provoking.

My bad, I took it in this direction regarding the practicality of matching the bolts 200 mile range vs having a cheaper leaf with 100 - 150 mile range but that discussion took on a life of its own and now were talking about Teslas and road trips and QC networks. haha.

No, golfcart, I'd say the discussion is right on target. Otherwise, what is the possible reason for having a 200 mile BEV vs. a 100 mile BEV, as 100 miles is probably the maximum commute 90% of the people would do in a day, then recharge at night?

I wouldn't say that QC's are necessarily a niche market though, except for the fact that Tesla has gone their way, apparently because others, including the federal government that is happy to help other industries and groups, didn't lead quickly enough. It would be as if back in the 1800s one railroad used 3' wide tracks, another used 3.5' wide tracks, and so on.

In my opinion one of the two real argument in favor of 60kwh+ battery packs would be that you'd only need one QC every 200 miles, then you've cut the infrastructure in half or even a third. But it seems that having thousands of cars with 30kwh additional battery capacity for those three road trips per year just doesn't balance the equation. Also, if QCs were more prevalent, It is also possible a large number of ICE vehicles, which can make those long trips but don't operate with great efficiency the other 90% of the time, could be replaced. And if you really think about the big picture, two vehicles with a 30kwh pack will use much less gasoline than one with a 60kwh pack and the other an ICE vehicle. And to truly focus on gasoline reduction, if all cars were similar to the Ford Energi 20 mile electric, with 7kwh pack, and is the commute range that I'm guessing a vast majority fall into, you would be close to maximum efficiency.

I'm thinking, don't bother matching the Bolt, surpass it by implementing the Vehicle-to-Grid interface so people can use the 30kwh pack they're getting in the Nissan to offset peak electric usage, and get maximum usage of a commodity that is necessarily diminishing based on time. Because the V2G is really the only other reason to be sitting on a 60kwh pack that is getting older by the day, but I still think that 30kwh ought to be plenty in this situation too.

 

[Moof]

Most folks don't make a lot of road trips per year. In our family we do about 3 per year over a couple hundred miles. I find that 2-3 hours is an optimum point to take rest breaks, usually the 5 minute gas stops are not enough if I am doing an 800+ mile day. So I usually stop for at least 15 minutes at a rest stop to get out and walk around to restore blood flow and rest the eyes. I don't see 30 minutes every 3 hours to be a show stopper, just a little annoying. I see a Tesla being a great option as my only car if it was available for 30k. The Model 3 has a very good chance at being my wife's new car in a few years when the gasser goes (currently 12 years old and 110k miles).

You make some good points, i guess it depends on the persons need. I grew up hopping in the car before dawn and you better take a piss because were not stopping till lunch lol. I suppose 30min every 3 hours isn't terrible if u can guarantee your spot will be open when u arrive. I'm sure the tech will get there eventually but for now I'd still rather have 100 miles of range for $25k vs 200 miles for $30k. It is a second car for our family so I see no reason to pay for range I don't need. It'd be an interesting poll too see what others think.

Our 11 bar Leaf already hits LBW gently driving to the Airport to get Grandma and back (56 miles round trip) in warm weather, and requires plugging in for an hour at the airport if it is cold and wet like it has for the last 5 months or we get down to --- which is not my preferred kind of adventure with a toddler and grandma in the back. I would gladly pay $5k more for double the capacity to be able to bop around town in all weather without fear or hassle.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

I'm thinking, don't bother matching the Bolt, surpass it by implementing the Vehicle-to-Grid interface so people can use the 30kwh pack they're getting in the Nissan to offset peak electric usage, and get maximum usage of a commodity that is necessarily diminishing based on time. Because the V2G is really the only other reason to be sitting on a 60kwh pack that is getting older by the day, but I still think that 30kwh ought to be plenty in this situation too.

I like the idea. It would save me from getting a Tesla wall or similar storage for emergencies instead of a backup generator. Would need some type of transfer switch for the house, I suppose. Would V2G work with inductive charging?

 

[OakLeaf]

It would be as if back in the 1800s one railroad used 3' wide tracks, another used 3.5' wide tracks, and so on.

Not really wanting to sound like a geek here, but for the early railroads, the lack of a standard gauge was indeed a problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge_in_the_United_States#Towards_standardization


It's interesting to see how there are similar parallels to today's QC situation as there was back then with railway spacing.

Eventually, there will be one QC standard, mostly.

 

[GRA]

Where's the emoticon for "Argh, this thread has been hijacked!" :lol:

Me thinks we need a thread for the debate between the economic realities of long range BEVs vs short range BEVs. No offense, the discussion is thought provoking.

My bad, I took it in this direction regarding the practicality of matching the bolts 200 mile range vs having a cheaper leaf with 100 - 150 mile range but that discussion took on a life of its own and now were talking about Teslas and road trips and QC networks. haha.

No, golfcart, I'd say the discussion is right on target. Otherwise, what is the possible reason for having a 200 mile BEV vs. a 100 mile BEV, as 100 miles is probably the maximum commute 90% of the people would do in a day, then recharge at night?

I wouldn't say that QC's are necessarily a niche market though, except for the fact that Tesla has gone their way, apparently because others, including the federal government that is happy to help other industries and groups, didn't lead quickly enough. It would be as if back in the 1800s one railroad used 3' wide tracks, another used 3.5' wide tracks, and so on.

In my opinion one of the two real argument in favor of 60kwh+ battery packs would be that you'd only need one QC every 200 miles, then you've cut the infrastructure in half or even a third. But it seems that having thousands of cars with 30kwh additional battery capacity for those three road trips per year just doesn't balance the equation. Also, if QCs were more prevalent, It is also possible a large number of ICE vehicles, which can make those long trips but don't operate with great efficiency the other 90% of the time, could be replaced. And if you really think about the big picture, two vehicles with a 30kwh pack will use much less gasoline than one with a 60kwh pack and the other an ICE vehicle. And to truly focus on gasoline reduction, if all cars were similar to the Ford Energi 20 mile electric, with 7kwh pack, and is the commute range that I'm guessing a vast majority fall into, you would be close to maximum efficiency.

I'm thinking, don't bother matching the Bolt, surpass it by implementing the Vehicle-to-Grid interface so people can use the 30kwh pack they're getting in the Nissan to offset peak electric usage, and get maximum usage of a commodity that is necessarily diminishing based on time. Because the V2G is really the only other reason to be sitting on a 60kwh pack that is getting older by the day, but I still think that 30kwh ought to be plenty in this situation too.

The reason for having a 200 mile (EPA) vice 100 mile BEV is that it's not only a no-worries all-weather daily driver for many years, but it's also a Regional Plus car for several years, useful for inter-regional one-way trips up to 200-300 miles with a single en route QC, plus destination charging. That's to say, it can handle the typical weekend getaway with only a single stop each way to charge and eat. Arranging to stop and eat once en route isn't a big deal; many people do it now. For instance, for the typical Friday night - Sunday afternoon ski (or any other type of) weekend here in the Bay Area, it's around 160-200 miles and 7,000 feet of climb to most ski areas. People with ICEs often stop at the base of the foothills Friday night after work about 100-130 miles out to gas up (cheaper gas, and you want a nearly full tank in case there are road closures coming back), and also have dinner. Coming back, having dinner on the way is also quite common. 200 miles EPA (say 133 no worries) plus a QC to 80 or 90% get's you to your destination. You're coming back downhill so you can often make the return non-stop, but a QC along the way with or without food is an option.

It also allows regional round trips with no need for en route or destination charging, making the car a lot more convenient and flexible. To take one trip I occasionally make, I'll drive out to Pt. Reyes to whale watch. It's 77 miles one-way, about half that on freeways and the rest either on rural 2-lane or urban streets. It's often windy or foggy, and normally cool or cold. There's only a single place to charge (QC and L2) in the rural area, 57 miles from home (Pt Reyes Station). 200 miles EPA means this trip and many similar ones can be done either without a special stop for charging, or else only a short one. The increase in flexibility and convenience over a 100 mile BEV (at best 67 no-worries) is huge, and well worth the extra money for most people.

For Monterey (inter-regional, 100 miles out) or Napa (67 miles) the advantages of 200 miles are much the same. Only in the case of people who have short commutes, and who have another car (or are willing to rent) any time they leave the local area does a lower-priced 100 mile car make sense. For everyone else, 200 miles makes all but multi-state or week-long road trips practical. Beyond that, IMO you need either an ICE/HEV/PHEV/FCEV, or a BEV with at least 330 miles of range at freeway speeds plus QCs, to come close to matching the utility and time savings of the longer-range with rapid fueling group.

 

[user 10599]

The argument that they shouldn't develop cars with 60kwh batteries ignores market realities. Spend some time reading through this forum and you will see lots of early adopters lamenting the range limitations and degradation issues. Range anxiety is a big factor in why BEVs haven't sold more. And the mass market, non-early adopters are less tolerant of range issues.

Yes, there are people who are dedicated to efficiency who will shun a car with a 60kwh battery and go with one with 7kwh - 24kwh on the principles of efficiency. But that is the small niche. If it wasn't small, BEV sales would be a lot higher than they are as we already have a number of options that meet those criteria. Engineers deciding what would be the most efficient solution for people's commutes don't drive very many car purchasers' decisions. The consumers want x, if the car makers want to sell BEVs to these consumers, they will need to deliver x.

 

[smkettner]

Range anxiety is a big factor in why BEVs haven't sold more.

Not anxiety so much as many of us need more ACTUAL range.

When you need to go 50 miles and the GOM is down to 10 there is no anxiety except that you cannot go at all.

 

[golfcart]

I'm not advocating never developing longer range vehicles, just that there is a market for lower range lower priced BEVs as well and it would serve Nissan well to consider that market rather than getting into a range war that keeps their cheapest model over $30k.

I would never have bought a leaf at $35k I don't care if it went 500 miles between charges. I bought a leaf because I got it for $23k ($15.5k after the tax credit) and it costs about half of what a Prius would to commute even at $1.50 a gallon. I couldn't even buy a comparably featured versa or focus for that cheap. Lower emissions, at home charging, low maintenance, and any time hov access are just bonuses.

Of course when battery costs come down you'd want more range, but at this point I think a 200 mile BEV at $35k is a tough sell unless it is a luxury car. They'd be smart to get a 30kwh - 40kwh model under $30k before tax breaks it would be the perfect second car for families and help get more BEVs on the road which leads to better infrastructure and support.