2015 LEAF specs - no range increase

[gsleaf]

Haha, up here we don't care about the "hot" battery. I see six temperature bars for about 4 days a year.

I have to keep my Leaf in a somewhat hot garage so I do care about the "hot" battery. I thought even 5 bars can be damaging to the battery in the high range. I think I see 6 bars a bit more than you. Eventually I may have to finish/cool my garage.

Have you tracked your degradation at all? The 2012 I picked up in Aug 2013 is down to 88% SOH already.

 

[Nubo]

The 2015 continues to have the same temperature management system as the earlier models: None.
As far as the battery itself, mums the word on whether it will have the so-called "Hot Battery..."

I'm going to take the minority opinion on that and say "Bravo"!

Here's to no TMS. No vampire drain and not wasting energy moving heat around. Here's to leaving the car with 7 bars and coming back 2 weeks later to.... 7 bars. The 12V battery is another story and I wish Nissan would pull their heads out, but it's something that's not that hard to deal with once you know about it.

No added range is somewhat of a disappointment, but if they do release the HIP battery (Happy in Phoenix) that will at least equate to a range boost in years 2,3,4....

I'm still pretty happy with our 2012 and as things stand now I'd go with another lease next year. As I see it the LEAF still has no real competition. Tesla Model E is still a twinkle in Elon's eye, and I don't count compliance cars; I have no desire to buy a car from a company that is just going through the motions. Nissan has certainly made some mistakes but they at least took the leap to a genuine EV effort. I far rather transact with them than a company that views their EV as the red-headed stepchild.

As far as replacing our other ICE and getting us completely off of gasoline, a Tesla Model X is reserved.

 

[evnow]

Apparently, in survey-speak, "Would you like an EPA range of ~150 miles for an extra ~$5000?" actually means "Would you like a different shade of blue?"

Really - shame on them for not going from survey to product in 2 months. Which OEM wouldn't do that !!

 

[TomT]

Excuse me, they have had four years...

Really - shame on them for not going from survey to product in 2 months. Which OEM wouldn't do that !!

 

[LeftieBiker]

It will never be worth more than the lease buyout. If you want to keep it, that is one thing. If you want to make a profit on it, well, that likely won't happen... The residual values are simply too high for that. And it will only get worse with a ton of cars starting to come off of lease...

This unfortunate development (or lack thereof) would seem to make my '13 SV more valuable at lease's end.

Maybe, maybe not. If dealers are selling similar cars with more miles on them, and no spare, for $1995, then I have a chance. I doubt I'll see used 2013 Leafs on dealer lots for much less than $18k. I've been writing the ad in my head for months, and I can make the car seem much more attractive than an unmodified SV with more miles on it. I've done the button swap, added a battery maintainer and grille block, and done a real spare tire mount. I may insulate the heating lines for next Winter. When people know a car comes with no spare, they tend to get skittish...

EDIT: I forgot to mention the "Charge to 80%" option that was dropped after the '13 model year. This will make the 2013 more appealing as it becomes more widely known that the pack is vulnerable to degradation. I realize that not many people will want to pay extra just to buy a used Leaf, but I only need one person in my area who will pay a premium for what I hope will be the nicest, lowest mileage used Leaf available.

 

[evnow]

Excuse me, they have had four years...

Really - shame on them for not going from survey to product in 2 months. Which OEM wouldn't do that !!

But the reference was the survey. To expect a product based on a survey conducted 2 months back is ridiculous.

 

[TomT]

Do you really believe that didn't know what the predominant answer would be LONG before they sent out the survey (which I never received, FYI)?

Excuse me, they have had four years...

Really - shame on them for not going from survey to product in 2 months. Which OEM wouldn't do that !!

But the reference was the survey. To expect a product based on a survey conducted 2 months back is ridiculous.

 

[NYLEAF]

Excuse me, they have had four years...

Really - shame on them for not going from survey to product in 2 months. Which OEM wouldn't do that !!

But the reference was the survey. To expect a product based on a survey conducted 2 months back is ridiculous.

Part of the point that I was trying to make was that no one expected the 2015 Leaf to appear 2 months after the survey. They just released the 2014 a few months ago -- it seems awfully soon for the 2015 to show up. No wonder all they changed was a color!

As for the survey itself, I didn't receive it, either. But from what others wrote about it, it sure sounded like they had already developed a Leaf with a 150 Mile EPA range and were simply trying to decide how much they could get away with charging for the extra range, with the max they were considering being $5000.

Based on the content and timing of the survey, I was anticipating that the 2015 Leaf w/150 Mile EPA Range would make an appearance in November/December 2014, maybe at the LA Auto Show, with cars hitting dealers in early January 2015. However, if the Leaf is now going to have 5 month long model years, perhaps we will see the 2016 Leaf before Halloween? <To anyone who is going to take that last quip seriously, I know they can't legally release a 2016 model until Jan 1st, 2015...>

 

[LeftieBiker]

If for whatever reason they can't improve the battery pack to increase range, why not the drivetrain? Give the car a two or three speed transaxle, or a CVT, with the choice of range, power, or a compromise, with both Normal and Eco modes available for each ratio or CVT range. I'm fairly sure they could tweak the drivetrain to give the car an actual 100 mile range, by limiting both acceleration and top speed to reasonable figures, and keeping the motor near peak efficiency at most speeds.

 

[Larry]

With my lease expiring in January 2015 and improved Leaf (if any) not expected until Fall 2015 and extended range Volt also not expected until the same time frame, I'm about done for. My lease terms are so bad ($315/month) and the buyout so high ($16,000), it looks like keeping my 2012 Leaf is not an appealing option. I guess it's back to the back-up ICE for the rest of 2015.

 

[TomT]

If you look at the plot of efficiency versus motor rpm elsewhere on the forum, you'll see that the efficiency gain would be miniscule. It simply is not worth it to gain, at best, a few percent... With the additional loss of a CVT or multi-speed transaxle you might actually loss efficiency...

If for whatever reason they can't improve the battery pack to increase range, why not the drivetrain? Give the car a two or three speed transaxle, or a CVT, with the choice of range, power, or a compromise, with both Normal and Eco modes available for each ratio or CVT range.

 

[pkulak]

If you look at the plot of efficiency versus motor rpm elsewhere on the forum, you'll see that the efficiency gain would be miniscule. It simply is not worth it to gain, at best, a few percent... With the additional loss of a CVT or multi-speed transaxle you might actually loss efficiency...

If for whatever reason they can't improve the battery pack to increase range, why not the drivetrain? Give the car a two or three speed transaxle, or a CVT, with the choice of range, power, or a compromise, with both Normal and Eco modes available for each ratio or CVT range.

You don't know where that graph is, do you? I've always wondered about losses when that motor is spinning so fast.

 

[Nubo]

You don't know where that graph is, do you? I've always wondered about losses when that motor is spinning so fast.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=84124" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LeftieBiker]

That graph would seem to indicate that a two speed transmission, with a low gear for city driving, would help significantly by reducing 'lugging' of the drive motor. It would help to see a graph of consumption vs speed as well. A simple two-speed, low-friction transaxle, combined with more sophisticated software management of power consumption, could still add range. In that case the higher gear ratio could also be somewhat higher, allowing less consumption at freeway (65-75MPH) speeds. So instead of having a compromise sweet spot of about 45MPH, you'd have one at about 30MPH and one at, hopefully, 55-60MPH...

 

[davidcary]

That graph would seem to indicate that a two speed transmission, with a low gear for city driving, would help significantly by reducing 'lugging' of the drive motor. It would help to see a graph of consumption vs speed as well. A simple two-speed, low-friction transaxle, combined with more sophisticated software management of power consumption, could still add range. In that case the higher gear ratio could also be somewhat higher, allowing less consumption at freeway (65-75MPH) speeds. So instead of having a compromise sweet spot of about 45MPH, you'd have one at about 30MPH and one at, hopefully, 55-60MPH...

I don't know - it looks like 3% would be the best gain you would have at real speeds and the tranny would take that away. Yes you could make 15mph runs more efficient but they are already so efficient because aero is so low.

Add weight, complexity, possible maintenance....

For me - aerodynamics is everything but needs a relatively big body change. For in town driving, the range is pretty darn good. I ran around all day yesterday and didn't give it a thought. But when I get on the highway and the efficiency tanks, that is when I have to think about it. The way of making 60 mph like 45 mph is aerodynamics....

 

[TomT]

At the top speed of the vehicle (94 mph) the motor is turning slightly over 10,000 rpm so you can interpolate from that.

It would help to see a graph of consumption vs speed as well.

 

[dgpcolorado]

As for the survey itself, I didn't receive it, either. But from what others wrote about it, it sure sounded like they had already developed a Leaf with a 150 Mile EPA range and were simply trying to decide how much they could get away with charging for the extra range, with the max they were considering being $5000...

I got the survey and it didn't have anything like that "feel" to it. I thought that they were trying to gauge the market for a longer range car someday by seeing if present LEAF owners would pay more for a double range version and, if so, how much. That some took that survey to mean that a double range LEAF was coming in MY 2015 has me utterly baffled. It will take a huge redesign of the LEAF to double the batteries in it and this is a major undertaking that would take several years at least for design and testing. The current focus should be on the lizard battery, assuming that it did pan out in testing. Then they can work on a new LEAF with larger battery options.

 

[Stanton]

For me - aerodynamics is everything but needs a relatively big body change. For in town driving, the range is pretty darn good. I ran around all day yesterday and didn't give it a thought. But when I get on the highway and the efficiency tanks, that is when I have to think about it. The way of making 60 mph like 45 mph is aerodynamics....

Totally agree! It really is a good commuter car...which is what it's marketed as.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

So in four generations Nissan hasn't improved the range by a single mile (or km).

Yay, Nissan!!

Ok, lets actually review your statement. Nissan announced better range for 2013. A test was run and Nissan's claim was disputed because the battery capacity was not increased. then a test was run covering one single aspect of the driving experience and it was concluded that Nissan lied to us or misled us in some way. everyone was on board with that test result EXCEPT people who actually DRIVE THE 'EFFING CAR EVERY DAY.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

That graph would seem to indicate that a two speed transmission, with a low gear for city driving, would help significantly by reducing 'lugging' of the drive motor. It would help to see a graph of consumption vs speed as well. A simple two-speed, low-friction transaxle, combined with more sophisticated software management of power consumption, could still add range. In that case the higher gear ratio could also be somewhat higher, allowing less consumption at freeway (65-75MPH) speeds. So instead of having a compromise sweet spot of about 45MPH, you'd have one at about 30MPH and one at, hopefully, 55-60MPH...

even at low speeds, the RPM of the motor is still pretty high. I rarely see it below 2000 RPM