people getting rid of their Leafs/EVs/PHEVs and going back to ICEVs

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Actually this is an issue that has been "growing" significantly. I know at least 3 and possibly 4 families that love their LEAFs but have added at least one family member making the size of the vehicle untenable.

In two cases, an X is within their financial reach but neither feels its a good long term expense. So a medium SUV like vehicle in the $40's seems to be the next hot item.
 
GRA said:
Well, there's the Pacifica (Plug-in) Hybrid, at 33 miles AER it will do most of your commute. Course, it is a van, so you might feel the need to always wear a hoodie, ball cap and shades to avoid being recognized while driving it :lol: Base priced at $40k, but that's still more than $8k less than an i3Rex :eek: :shock: :?
DaveinOlyWA said:
Actually this is an issue that has been "growing" significantly. I know at least 3 and possibly 4 families that love their LEAFs but have added at least one family member making the size of the vehicle untenable.

In two cases, an X is within their financial reach but neither feels its a good long term expense. So a medium SUV like vehicle in the $40's seems to be the next hot item.
Ya, I didn't get a Prime simply because it didn't have 5 seats.

I would prefer a Pacifica to an X. And I hope Tesla comes out with an electric minivan some day. To bad the Nissan electric minivan isn't available in the US that I know of.

To me, the SUV craze is just a fad that makes no sense. I fail to see how they're better. People seem to use anything as an excuse as to why they should buy one. Some say they just look better. I don't see how they do. Some say they are more comfortable. I've been in plenty of sedans and minivans that are plenty comfortable. Some say they are safer. Well, take a look at the statistics and come back and explain to me why I'm 5 times more likely to die in an accident in a 4WD Suburban than a Toyota Corolla.

My wife would prefer a minivan too. But right now I'm driving to far to make paying for fuel for a minivan worth it. So a sedan seemed to be the best middle ground. If I could, I'd get a Model S with rear kiddy seats. But even used Model S's are just a bit too far out of my price range.
 
The Pacifica PHEV has a terrible track record so far. Recalls for drive system failures, and they stopped making them many months early last year because of issues with the batteries. Think of them as having the reliability of a Sixties Fiat, with the build quality of a Plymouth Volare...
 
LeftieBiker said:
The Pacifica PHEV has a terrible track record so far. Recalls for drive system failures, and they stopped making them many months early last year because of issues with the batteries. Think of them as having the reliability of a Sixties Fiat, with the build quality of a Plymouth Volare...
Thanks! I never really checked into them since I never saw the feasibility of owning one for what I do. Getting only 10% to 20% electric range out of a plugin hybrid just doesn't sound like it's worth it to me, especially for a $40,000 vehicle.

But as far as which type of car generally fits the purpose needed, I like how this article puts it: What's the Right New Vehicle for Me?
 
IssacZachary said:
To me, the SUV craze is just a fad that makes no sense.
It is simple: An ever fatter populace with bad backs are so common that they set the bar for car and driver height.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Aside from incorrectly claiming that AWD doesn't ever help with turning in slippery conditions, that's a good piece.

All wheel drive helps you to move. Almost all cars have four wheel brakes, and two wheel steering.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/09/do-you-really-need-awd-in-the-snow/index.htm
 
LeftieBiker said:
Aside from incorrectly claiming that AWD doesn't ever help with turning in slippery conditions, that's a good piece.
With modern traction control and antilock braking, AWD hardly does anything to improve cornering. In fact I've driven vehicles that the AWD/4WD versions cornered worse than the 2WD versions.

If you want good traction in snow and ice, the right tires do a whole lot better job than AWD.
 
IssacZachary said:
LeftieBiker said:
Aside from incorrectly claiming that AWD doesn't ever help with turning in slippery conditions, that's a good piece.
With modern traction control and antilock braking, AWD hardly does anything to improve cornering. In fact I've driven vehicles that the AWD/4WD versions cornered worse than the 2WD versions.

If you want good traction in snow and ice, the right tires do a whole lot better job than AWD.

I never wrote that AWD is equal to or better than snow tires. The improved cornering I'm talking about is when a RWD vehicle has an AWD option. Care to argue with that? Sheesh.
 
LeftieBiker said:
IssacZachary said:
LeftieBiker said:
Aside from incorrectly claiming that AWD doesn't ever help with turning in slippery conditions, that's a good piece.
With modern traction control and antilock braking, AWD hardly does anything to improve cornering. In fact I've driven vehicles that the AWD/4WD versions cornered worse than the 2WD versions.

If you want good traction in snow and ice, the right tires do a whole lot better job than AWD.

I never wrote that AWD is equal to or better than snow tires. The improved cornering I'm talking about is when a RWD vehicle has an AWD option. Care to argue with that? Sheesh.
And I never said you were wrong in every occasion. Agreed, AWD at times can improve traction during cornering. But only if we're talking about something like an older pickup truck that has a terrible weight ratio between the front and rear wheels.

Generally speaking, RWD is not desireable to the novice driver in the snow because when the rear wheels will start to slide first, leading to the natural reaction of the novice driver of taking his foot of the accelerator pedal, then all the weight shifts forward off the wheels that are sliding, and the next thing you know he's pointed backwards off the road in a ditch.

But I would prefer a RWD vehicle with good weight proportioning and precise pedal control because to me some oversteer is desirable. Ever wonder why race cars are always set up to oversteer? Oversteer means the front wheels lose traction last, which is important to controlling the vehicle to a professional driver because those are the wheels you steer with. As long as you don't lose it so bad that the rear swings out past the radius you can turn with the front wheels you can control the vehicle around a corner by giving it a slight bit of acceleration or simply maintaining close to zero torque at the rear wheels and pointing the front wheels where you need to go.

But for a novice driver the FWD and AWD cars with more weight in the front are better. Those cars understeer, that is, lose traction on the front wheels first. The natural reaction is to let off the accelerator which may put enough weight over the front wheels to correct the understeer. Under many circumstances the car will still be uncontrollable because your steering wheels don't have traction. But at least you slide straight into whatever you're going to slide into. Hopefully it's a snowbank and not an 18 wheeler.

But regardless. Anyone thinking of buying an AWD for driving in the snow, unless they need to tow a trailer or plow snow, would do better buying a cheaper more fuel efficient 2WD car and putting the extra money towards a set of snow tires.
 
^^^ While I agree with the above post, there are exceptions for regulatory rather than performance reasons to have AWD, like here in California. As most of the state's population lives below 1,000 feet and only has to deal with snow if they go skiing, the highway patrol normally skips right from 'no chains' (R0) to "Chains or 4/AWD with snow tires" (R2), so 2WD with snow tires doesn't eliminate the (legal) need for chains. As accessing some of the ski areas may require ascents followed by descents enroute, you may have to chain and de-chain more than once (sometimes each way), or else wreck your chains and/or tires by driving on bare pavement for considerable distances. BTDT, and bought my first Subaru 4WD wagon 30 years ago as a result. The lack of hassle was easily worth the $1,500 or so extra for 4WD plus a couple mpg less (but still better than the car I was using before that), as I skiied a lot.

That was followed by my current AWD Forester tall wagon/short CUV, for the same reason. I'd personally prefer an AWD wagon (like a Golf All-Road Sportwagen) to a CUV as I almost never drive on unplowed roads and don't drive on jeep trails, so have no need for the extra ground clearance - my first Subie had just 4.5" and only once was that an issue, when I decided to try driving on a road with about 6" or so of fresh snow on it just to see what happened, i.e. I didn't need to. Gave that up as a bad job within 1/4 mile or so (had to back it the whole way). I have benefited from 4/AWD a couple of times getting up steeper snow-covered driveways/roads. My Forester has 7.5" of clearance which is excess for my needs, although it may have allowed me to drive a bit faster on a dirt road or two. I'd be fine with splitting the difference, say 5" to 6" of ground clearance.

There is one other advantage that CUVs may provide compared to more aerodynamic cars (like the Prime/Volt), although it depends heavily on how much the manufacturer emphasizes the 'U' over styling, and that's outwards visibility. Large window area matters to eliminate blindspots at the rear and (right) rear quarters. Some CUV manufacturers throw this advantage away by adding steeper-sloped beltlines and thick and/or sloped B and C pillars, I suspect in many cases for style rather than strength (I'm talking to you, Buick Encore). This may make the vehicles look less boxy, but reduces their safety. Others (e.g. Model X) also slope the rear hatch glass closer to horizontal than vertical, which helps drag/looks but eliminates cargo space and makes looking rearwards (past/around big headrests) often like peering down a long obstructed tunnel. Subaru wagons/CUVs tend to be short on style compared to many of their competitors precisely because the company knows that their customers care more about being able to see out than they care about the vehicle's external appearance - Volvo wagons tended to have the same emphasis. See:https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-cars-with-the-best-and-worst-visibility/

Aerodynamic cars like the Prime/Volt/Ioniq, with rear hatches and windows that are closer to horizontal than vertical provide some of the worst rearward visibility I've seen, and I really hate rear windows split by a horizontal bar. Rear view cameras, especially like the one in the Bolt which can be displayed on the rear view mirror, are one solution to rear view, although that makes you dependent on expensive tech. Eventually AVs and/or 360 deg. cameras with some level of virtual reality may eliminate the visibility issues, but most people who think about safety when driving in snow tend to weigh outward visibility and other safety features a lot higher than exterior styling.
 
GRA said:
^^^ While I agree with the above post, there are exceptions for regulatory rather than performance reasons to have AWD, like here in California. As most of the state's population lives below 1,000 feet and only has to deal with snow if they go skiing, the highway patrol normally skips right from 'no chains' (R0) to "Chains or 4/AWD with snow tires" (R2), so 2WD with snow tires doesn't eliminate the (legal) need for chains.
Well, at least that's better than what I've seen in Colorado. The law here at times will allow a 2WD car with snow tires or chains, but an AWD with any tires. So you could have nearly bald summer tires on an AWD and still be legal whereas the 2WD cars have to chain up. Mind you I've pulled a few AWD cars out of snow banks, including a Ford Expedition, in my FWD 1985 VW Golf with either snow tires or chains on. Leave it to law makers to make laws that make no sense. AWD is great and all, and I'm not saying don't get one. But it is a bit overrated in my opinion.

I'd hate having to chain and unchain for several passes, although I have had to many of times. For that reason I once had an Astro van I wanted to put automatic chains on. If I could only figure out how to put automatic chains on a FWD car, I'd do it! I loved driving bus over the Rockies with automatic chains. You just drive by the chain station, flip the switch, and keep on going "chained up". Then once over the pass, flip the switch again and chains off. Chains on... chains off! It was wonderful! The only problem was they didn't work too well in deep snow.
 
Ever wonder why race cars are always set up to oversteer? Oversteer means the front wheels lose traction last, which is important to controlling the vehicle to a professional driver because those are the wheels you steer with. As long as you don't lose it so bad that the rear swings out past the radius you can turn with the front wheels you can control the vehicle around a corner by giving it a slight bit of acceleration or simply maintaining close to zero torque at the rear wheels and pointing the front wheels where you need to go.

I think that anyone who knows what oversteer is understands why "race cars" (I don't think that Formula racing cars are set to oversteer, or to understeer, except with driver input) are set up that way. And I started with RWD as a teen, and did some extra-legal racing with RWD. Rather than show how much we know, maybe we should try to stick with more helpful info, like snow tires alone being better than AWD alone.
 
I'm considering selling my '16 over battery replacement cost concerns. I'll be out of battery warranty 2-3 years before my car loan is paid off and can't afford an $8000 battery while paying the car loan.
The back seat is a little too small now. Both of my kids have grown quite a bit taller in the last 14 months.
I'm either getting a Prius or a roomier sedan, something like a 4cyl Accord. If I could afford a model 3 or model S I wouldn't hesitate to replace the Leaf with one of those. I love driving an EV.
 
Tsiah said:
I'm considering selling my '16 over battery replacement cost concerns. I'll be out of battery warranty 2-3 years before my car loan is paid off and can't afford an $8000 battery while paying the car loan.
Ah, the '16s have an 8 year battery warranty. You have an 10/11 year auto loan?!? That is a damned expensive way to buy a car, any car.
 
Dooglas said:
Tsiah said:
I'm considering selling my '16 over battery replacement cost concerns. I'll be out of battery warranty 2-3 years before my car loan is paid off and can't afford an $8000 battery while paying the car loan.
Ah, the '16s have an 8 year battery warranty. You an 10/11 year auto loan?!? That is a damned expensive way to buy a car, any car.
The 30 kWh battery warranty is 8 years/100K miles.

In http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=27293, he says he's put on 36K miles in 14 months.
 
cwerdna said:
The 30 kWh battery warranty is 8 years/100K miles.
In http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=27293, he says he's put on 36K miles in 14 months.
If Tsiah gets 100,000+ miles out of his battery pack, hasn't he gotten his money's worth? He just decided to harvest that value somewhat more quickly than most of us. ;)
 
Dooglas said:
cwerdna said:
The 30 kWh battery warranty is 8 years/100K miles.
In http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=27293, he says he's put on 36K miles in 14 months.
If Tsiah gets 100,000+ miles out of his battery pack, hasn't he gotten his money's worth? He just decided to harvest that value somewhat more quickly than most of us. ;)
Probably not in his case.. Basically the car is being spent faster that it's being paid off, at least the battery is expected to degrade to a capacity level that is not usable for this owner without a workable exit plan. His case is not much different than mine at the end of the lease. Mine was relatively healthy with 45K miles and likely soon to loose it's 1st bar. But, was returned because the usable range had dropped just enough to no longer meet my needs and the buyout was over double what I was willing to pay given the resale value and likelihood of needing to replace the pack just to meet my own needs.
 
Dooglas said:
Tsiah said:
I'm considering selling my '16 over battery replacement cost concerns. I'll be out of battery warranty 2-3 years before my car loan is paid off and can't afford an $8000 battery while paying the car loan.
Ah, the '16s have an 8 year battery warranty. You have an 10/11 year auto loan?!? That is a damned expensive way to buy a car, any car.
I have 5 years left of my loan and about 3 years left of my battery warranty, if I'm conservative with my driving.
 
Tsiah said:
I have 5 years left of my loan and about 3 years left of my battery warranty, if I'm conservative with my driving.
That doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to "use up" your vehicle over a shorter period of time by the way you use it. Taking out a loan with a longer duration than the likely life of your vehicle was a choice you made. It is a choice anyone could make of course. Suppose you planned to put on 30-40K miles per year and bought a gas vehicle on a 7 year loan. The car might well reach the end of its useful life well before that, or at least reach the point at which it required a major repair or rebuild. What is the solution to that? Think about the intended use before deciding on a method and terms of purchase or lease.
 
Back
Top