hmmm that take away from TickTock is very disconcerning for me. While Texas is not as harsh as Phoenix or other parts of Arizona, we do have it pretty hot here. I do exceed the 50 miles per day and go, on average 55 - this assumes to work and back only, not any additional side trips to the store or anything. I average about 1700 per month, which is around 55 miles per day (including weekends). To know that my car will be at end life in ~5 years is very troubling. I am assuming that Nissan is still sticking with end-life being 70% capacity remaining in the battery.
The scary part on that is I took out a 6 year loan for my car (yes, I know shame on me, but I am quite young and this is my first real car purchase I didn't have the luxury of a higher income from years of experience in the workforce
, I scrapped to afford the car but, at the time, was worth it because of the new tech of an EV!). So the idea that my car will be at the end of life and I could STILL owe on it...thats bad. I usually expect any car to last about 10 years if you do all the regular maintence, etc. You shouldn't have to baby any car to get to 10 years, but you can't ignore things like spark plug failures and check engine lights. Anything beyond 10 is icing on the car with usually my goal to hit 200k.
1700 mi/month = 20k mi / year = 100k mi after 5 years and 200k mi after 10 years.
I think we all agree that the EPA range of 73 miles is possible to hit when the car is new while maintaining a small bit of buffer (typically get there around LBW or a bit after that if you drive a sedate 60-65 mph at most with a bit of surface street driving mixed in). So let's call the "new" range to turtle 84 miles and subtract 16 miles to LBW since people in general don't like to go much below LBW if they can help it for "new" range of 68 miles without too much anxiety.
Nissan's original claims is that you'll have 80% after 5 years and 70% after 10 years.
80% of 68 miles = 54 miles
70% of 68 miles = 48 miles
But that assumes that LBW scales down as total capacity decreases, which it doesn't. At 80% capacity remaining you'll get LBW around 51 miles and at 70% you'll get LBW around 43 miles (total range 67 mi / 59 mi respectively).
And don't forget that this is range in ideal conditions and using whatever crazy annual miles Nissan has used for their estimates. We have assumed 12k mi/year (reasonable assumption since the 8-year/100k mi warranty against defects works around to 12.5k mi/year) - but some of Nissan's statements indicate that they are assuming many, many less. In which case we might as well throw the 80%/70% numbers out the window.
Certainly if you are driving 20k mi/year, you should not be expecting 80% capacity remaining after 5 years unless perhaps you life in Seattle or some other cool place. You probably should be expecting 70%. If replacing the pack some around the 5 year mark is going to present you a financial hardship - frankly you are up sh*t creek without a paddle at this point. You can only hope that the battery is cheap to replace. Personally, I'm hoping that the $5k replacement price that is rumored to exist is accurate - that would make the replacement price $0.05/mi over 100k mi which is reasonable. But I'm afraid this is likely to be optimistic by $3-5k unless Nissan is able to eat some of the cost (maybe they will be able to recover a good amount of the cost by using the old batteries in a stationary application?).
If you expect to keep the car for 10 years driving 12k mi/year - don't expect to comfortably exceed much more than 45 miles/charge unless you are able to top-off during the day. And certainly if you drive a lot, it's quite clear that you should not be buying this car until Nissan provides actual cost to replace the pack and real data on how the pack will last.
Nissan needs to disclose this type of information up front in a reasonable manner that people can use to reliably estimate battery pack life for their usage patterns. It's very clear that they have their own internal data which they aren't sharing, and apparently real-life usage is matching up fairly well with that data.
Managing customer expectations of actual range and capacity loss over time is absolutely critical to keeping customers happy. People will also assume that any generally stated degradation figures are worst case - it's human nature to be an optimist.
Nissan's complete failure in this regard has resulted in really the worst case scenario - an angry mob of LEAF owners wielding pitchforks demanding that things be made right when if they had provided the information up front - those angry owners never would have bought the LEAF in the first place - or at least they would have expected the capacity and range loss they are seeing now.