Leaf Price / Discount discussion thread

[WetEV]

Buying a Leaf with an EPA range of 150 miles because you need most of that range is a big mistake

Buying any car with an EPA range of X because you need most of that range is a big mistake

We agree.

when the car is likely to lose much of it.

Ah, but when? That's the question. And you don't know. I don't know. Sure, you have opinions, and you are welcome to have any opinions you want. But opinions are not facts.

Sure, Nissan will replace the battery when the car gets to ~90 miles EPA range, but that isn't much comfort to someone who needs 100

It would be a lot of comfort to someone who needs 75 miles of EPA range.

[WetEV]

You missed a picture:

Yes, of the only Leaf fire that I'm aware of. Not counting a few Leafs burned in forest fires.

The traction battery isn't involved in this fire.

I'm hopeful that Nissan got their battery life issues under control ... maybe being a bit naive, but let's wait and see until after the summer.

Yes, me too.

[WetEV]

I am bothered by our newbie education of "required range." We should be pointing out
1. Degradation
2. Climate effects on range
3. Reasonable reserve. It is just not reasonable to expect people to drive the battery down to turtle.
4. Driving habits

I use the following:
1. 40%
2. 25%
3. 10%
4. 0% (EPA type driver)

Starting from 150 mi, adequate range works out to ~ 40 miles for an owner who has no alternative charging or transportation choices.

150 miles * 60% * 75% * 90% = 60.75 miles.

How do you get to 40 miles?

Otherwise fairly reasonable for a severe climate with no charging other than at home.

[SageBrush]

Starting from 150 mi, adequate range works out to ~ 40 miles for an owner who has no alternative charging or transportation choices.

150 miles * 60% * 75% * 90% = 60.75 miles.

How do you get to 40 miles?

Otherwise fairly reasonable for a severe climate with no charging other than at home.

Right you are. Thanks for the correction
I'm not sure how to define "severe climate." I was thinking of cold, rain, snow and wind. Two of any four are enough.

[SageBrush]

The car fire photos are a great example of FUD.

Tell people to stop driving ICE because of fire risk and show them pictures. They will laugh at you.
Why ? because the overall fatality risk in driving a risk is about 1 per 85 million VMT. Fire is only a fraction of that amount.


Now tell us the relative risk of a fire in a Tesla compared to ICE cars.
And that is not even close to a fair comparison since ICE fires tend to be explosions while the handful of Tesla fires have been slow burns.

Addendum:
The latest stats from Tesla for AP enabled cars is 1 fatality every 320 million VMT, while the average for all other non commercial vehicles is almost 4x higher.
I know what car I want to be in. And I know who is spreading FUD

[LeftieBiker]

(Re: range loss in 2018 leaf)

Ah, but when? That's the question. And you don't know. I don't know. Sure, you have opinions, and you are welcome to have any opinions you want. But opinions are not facts.

No, but educated opinions based on known facts are better than those based on wishful thinking - as in 'Sure this pack is very much like the earlier pack that is degrading very quickly, but I'm very hopeful that Nissan has fixed the problem this time (In spite of there being no evidence of such a fix in the pack's structure or composition). So go ahead and buy one!'

[SageBrush]

^^ 1+

It looks this way to me (impression of average pack longevity to 65% in the US):
Gen 1: 5 years
Gen 1.2: 6-7 years
30 kWh pack: Perhaps 4 years ?
40 kWh pack: Someone else can be the guinea pig

[WetEV]

No, but educated opinions based on known facts are better than those based on wishful thinking - as in 'Sure this pack is very much like the earlier pack that is degrading very quickly, but I'm very hopeful that Nissan has fixed the problem this time (In spite of there being no evidence of such a fix in the pack's structure or composition). So go ahead and buy one!'

The warranty takes a way a large amount of the risk to you. 8 years and 100k miles. Funny you don't mention that.

As for "evidence of such a fix", I know what you want. You want water cooled batteries.

I don't want that.

Why? Water cooled batteries increase the risk of fires. Like this:

[LeftieBiker]

The warranty takes a way a large amount of the risk to you. 8 years and 100k miles. Funny you don't mention that.

I did mention it, and do regularly. Get glasses. The warranty will replace the battery once the range drops below roughly 90 miles, but Nissan reserves the right to use a refurbished pack made up of used cells with "at least" 80% capacity. They would likely be the same fast-degrading cells, so there goes the 150 mile range. This is why I tell people that if they need more than 100 miles of range they should look elsewhere.

You are the kind of quasi-Troll who will doggedly continue to misrepresent opponents' arguments. Since you have little to offer in the way of useful information or advice, I'm going to filter you. You can have the last word - which I won't see.

[DaveinOlyWA]

The warranty takes a way a large amount of the risk to you. 8 years and 100k miles. Funny you don't mention that.

I did mention it, and do regularly. Get glasses. The warranty will replace the battery once the range drops below roughly 90 miles, but Nissan reserves the right to use a refurbished pack made up of used cells with "at least" 80% capacity. They would likely be the same fast-degrading cells, so there goes the 150 mile range. This is why I tell people that if they need more than 100 miles of range they should look elsewhere.

You are the kind of quasi-Troll who will doggedly continue to misrepresent opponents' arguments. Since you have little to offer in the way of useful information or advice, I'm going to filter you. You can have the last word - which I won't see.

speaking of which; what evidence do you have that Nissan will honor degradation warranty with a used, not "as new" pack?