There is no definition, there is a handful of loosely agreed upon conventions. Mine is an *EV that leverages tax credits to satisfy CARB but is otherwise a money loser for the manufacturer. It then follows that production numbers are ~ what is required to satisfy CARB.LeftieBiker wrote:Compliance cars are defined as existing ICE cars that are modified to accept EV drivetrains. The Leaf uses some parts from existing vehicles, but isn't a conversion of one. Call it something else with the same definition you give above.
And compliance cars are often available (looking at US only) only in California or California + a limited number (as few as one) of CARB emission states. The high end would be all CARB emission states.SageBrush wrote:There is no definition, there is a handful of loosely agreed upon conventions. Mine is an *EV that leverages tax credits to satisfy CARB but is otherwise a money loser for the manufacturer. It then follows that production numbers are ~ what is required to satisfy CARB.LeftieBiker wrote:Compliance cars are defined as existing ICE cars that are modified to accept EV drivetrains. The Leaf uses some parts from existing vehicles, but isn't a conversion of one. Call it something else with the same definition you give above.
It is easy to identify a compliance car when it is only sold in CARB states but that is not a hard line in the sand. Marketing, PR, and COGS can push the boundaries and then it becomes a judgement call.cwerdna wrote: In comparison, Leaf is available in virtually every US state including a ton where it earns no CA ZEV credit. And, this doesn't include the many countries outside the US that it's available in w/Japan and Europe combined having more of them than the US.
Interesting view but then again, everyone has one. Nissan built the car assuming the US would do what Japan did by providing an "effective" public charging network to support what was perceived to be a great idea with no downside.fotajoye wrote:For those who haven't figured it out by now: The Leaf is a compliance car that Nissan used as a vehicle for Government money; they just built more of them than Toyota or Honda; and, they used U.S. taxpayer money to build EV assembly plants they now use to build ICE cars. They even sold their Battery business built using Federal loans. I can't speak for others but based on their actions to date, I feel they are definitely an opportunistic company with an abysmal record for customer satisfaction.
This is the only part that I wonder about now/today; guess we shall see now that both are gone.DaveinOlyWA wrote: Considering all that is happening with Nissan now, its becoming clear to me that beyond Ghosn and Palmer, there appears to be a very tough battle over EV decisions both big and small. I guess Nissan is more like Toyota after all.
It will likely take some time to see what effect Ghosn's ouster will have on Nissan's future plans and without knowing any of those future plans, we will likely never know. But its definitely starting to appear not everyone at Nissan was completely onboard with Ghosn's vision.Stanton wrote:This is the only part that I wonder about now/today; guess we shall see now that both are gone.DaveinOlyWA wrote: Considering all that is happening with Nissan now, its becoming clear to me that beyond Ghosn and Palmer, there appears to be a very tough battle over EV decisions both big and small. I guess Nissan is more like Toyota after all.
However, claiming a car that's sold 300,000+ units world-wide over the last 9 years...and was available in pretty much the entire US (including) Hawaii...is disingenuous. The Leaf put commercially available, mass-produced BEVs on the map.