2016 Leaf: How many kWh needed, and at what price?

[GRA]

- where the heat pump should make a considerable range difference in winter, the Leaf just falls short for many people, barring ubiquitous QCs. We're getting more slowly, but we really need a minimum of 100 EPA miles, with 125 or better yet 150 miles to make the car suitable for regional trips on the freeway without anxiety, and with full use of HVAC, lights and wipers. Until we have that, we need a gas car even for shorter regional trips, unless you're willing to put up with a great deal of inconvenience.

You described the 103 EPA rated Toyota Rav4 perfectly. Nobody is buying them, with less than 400 sold in 6 months, and a net $30k price tag.

We'll have to see what the fallout is from the Tesla S people, now that the 40kWh version isn't going into production. The RAV4 EV sans Toyota incentives is just too expensive, especially given it's not AWD, and not everyone wants a CUV. Although I do expect that if it had QC capability sales would be better. But what's needed isn't a $50k MSRP RAV4 that's only affordable if you qualify for all the incentives, but a $35k or less MSRP car with that range and QC.

 

[jlsoaz]

A few comments:

The RAV4 EV more than doubled sales in March (133) from February, and the deep discounts only were announced in mid-December. At the March rate, Toyota would easily sell the supply more quickly than they have budgeted to make them (2600 over 3 years or something?). Given the severe supply and support and (at one time) price constraints that Toyota has placed on the vehicle, which all have obviously impeded sales in a big way, I don't think the March sales numbers are bad at all. Given Toyota's apparent hostility to BEVs, I don't think it's likely that selling out quickly of the extremely and artificially limited supply of RAV4's will in itself convince Toyota to make more of them, but it might help the rest of us draw lessons about demand for those specs at those prices, if we are willing to mull over and figure out the lessons.

I disagree with Dave's dismissal (I believe "BS" was the term he used) of lessons to be learned from Tesla's ending of the 40 kWh program. I think for a high percent of Tesla buyers, clearly the marginal utility of that extra 20 kWh for $10k was worth it and I don't see what the problem is with drawing some lessons from that. Such buyers are not at all representative (of course) of the broader less-well-heeled population, but I think it was a good way to understand how, more broadly, for many (but of course not all) buyers, extra kWh (if only the option was there) are worth pretty good money.

I disagree with Dave's characterization of how the "performance" supposedly "sucks" (his word, I believe) on the RAV4 and the Tesla. Even though the word "performance" usually refers to acceleration and speed, I'm assuming Dave meant the MPGE since obviously the acceleration and speed of the Model S are world-class for that type of executive sedan. I do think there is a point to his comment, that adding more weight and volume by adding more kWh creates a significant efficiency penalty we should be aware of, but I don't think I'd translate the penalty into claiming that the efficiency of a Model S "sucks".

The Infiniti LE: I thought from the moment I heard about it that the idea of a 24 kWh luxury priced BEV was not a great idea in the present market, and I still think so. There isn't much going on at present in the $40k to $60k segment for BEVs, so it's a bit hard to have this debate in a vacuum, but my guess was and is that Nissan will have to do a bit better than 24 kWh. One reason is that in North America, for some drivers, 24 kWh does not cut it as far as being able to replace a gasoline vehicle.... at present some drivers need to retain (or rent) a gasoline vehicle for longer trips. For another thing, a luxury and expensive vehicle experience involves less of the turn-the-cooling-down sacrifices that some Leaf drivers are willing to make to get higher mileage.

There are some good counter-arguments to my views, such as perhaps if quick charging becomes ubiquitous in some areas and if some vehicle models can handle a lot of that charging without undue vehicle value degradation from battery degradation. With a lot of solid QC around, I guess one could say why carry around 85 kWh (or even 40 kWh in a less expensive vehicle), but I think it may be awhile before we are there.

I must admit, all of this has me wondering if there will come a point where the roads will have some widespread charging capability in them and the vehicles will be built to handle receiving this capability and if the vehicles then could dispense with much of the kWh and associated weight. I don't know if this could be done safely (in terms of E&M field exposure), nor do I know if it could be done at some reasonable cost, but I guess we'll see.

 

[jspearman]

- where the heat pump should make a considerable range difference in winter, the Leaf just falls short for many people, barring ubiquitous QCs. We're getting more slowly, but we really need a minimum of 100 EPA miles, with 125 or better yet 150 miles to make the car suitable for regional trips on the freeway without anxiety, and with full use of HVAC, lights and wipers. Until we have that, we need a gas car even for shorter regional trips, unless you're willing to put up with a great deal of inconvenience.

You described the 103 EPA rated Toyota Rav4 perfectly. Nobody is buying them, with less than 400 sold in 6 months, and a net $30k price tag.

The RAV4 is destined to be the best car that no one's ever heard of and will sink unceremoniously into automotive history. A 40kW Tesla would have been ideal for a ton of people, but Tesla also offered the 40kW as an ugly stepchild, so no wonder it didn't sell. We were seriously looking at one, but the lack of a Supercharging option was a deal breaker. It wasn't a deal breaker for the RAV because the Toyota was around $20k cheaper, offered unique utility with it's large cargo space, plus 0% interest.

 

[Zythryn]

...
The point of that rambling in this thread is this: There isn't a huge usability gap (given the current state of charing speeds and locations) between the 24kWh LEAF and an 85kWh Model S (for me). Both are perfectly capable vehicles for 95% of the days out of the year. The over 3x capacity increase of the model S maybe buys me 2% more usability and neither would get me to 100% coverage.

So until a 300 mile range (with AC/Heat at 75mph) 5/7 passanger car can be charged in 30 minutes with charging stations available at least every 100 miles, I don't see road trippin' in a BEV. So what's the point of something over say 30kWh if its not about 100kWh?

For you, sounds like to much. For us, it makes all the difference.

For us, our average day is 57 miles. However, there are days we don't drive at all. Most weeks we have 2-3 75-85 mile days and a 100-130 mile weekly day is not unusual (say, 3 times a month).
I desperately wanted a Leaf, but we really need a 75 mile range under the worst winter conditions.
A 36kW Leaf would be sitting in our garage right now

 

[evnow]

I think for a high percent of Tesla buyers, clearly the marginal utility of that extra 20 kWh for $10k was worth it and I don't see what the problem is with drawing some lessons from that.

Tesla actively de-marketed the 40 kWh model
- No super charging
- Late builds so long wait times

And then to say few want the 40 kWh model is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[SanDust]

The statistics say that only 2.9% of daily driving involves going between 75 and 100 miles. Adding more cells at considerable cost to cover this range would be a mistake.

The problem is that the Leaf's current 73 mile range isn't really a 73 mile range. The drive cycle is tame. Most people are going to need some buffer, preferring not to drive into the garage with a VLBW. There is the loss of capacity. And there is inclimate weather which can cut range.

Looking at these factors an EPA rated 100 mile range should take care of almost all local driving even without public charging. Adding range after this would just increase the cost and cut into demand, which, given the current price, need for home charging, and cost of the EVSE, is already limited.

 

[GRA]

The statistics say that only 2.9% of daily driving involves going between 75 and 100 miles. Adding more cells at considerable cost to cover this range would be a mistake.

The problem is that the Leaf's current 73 mile range isn't really a 73 mile range. The drive cycle is tame. Most people are going to need some buffer, preferring not to drive into the garage with a VLBW. There is the loss of capacity. And there is inclimate weather which can cut range.

Looking at these factors an EPA rated 100 mile range should take care of almost all local driving even without public charging. Adding range after this would just increase the cost and cut into demand, which, given the current price, need for home charging, and cost of the EVSE, is already limited.

I agree that a true 75 mile reliable range would be useful, but I disagree that an EPA range of 100 miles would achieve it, at least not for people who plan to buy and keep their car. Assuming that it's valuable to routinely charge the battery to 80% for longevity, and keep your DoD to 80% or less for the same reason (i.e. no less than 20% SoC routinely), then add in an allowance for HVAC/lights/wipers for your climate, at best you've got say 50 miles of dependable, routine range from your 100 mile EPA range when new. Allowing for the battery at EOL of 70%, you're down to a maximum of 40 miles routine range, less in cold climates. What's needed is either a chemistry that has much slower cycle and calendar degradation that the LiMn2O4 chemistry used by the Leaf (LiFePO4 looks most promising at the moment), or else battery warranty/leasing with >= 75% guaranteed.

 

[jlsoaz]

[...]
For you, sounds like to much. For us, it makes all the difference.

For us, our average day is 57 miles. However, there are days we don't drive at all. Most weeks we have 2-3 75-85 mile days and a 100-130 mile weekly day is not unusual (say, 3 times a month).
I desperately wanted a Leaf, but we really need a 75 mile range under the worst winter conditions.
A 36kW Leaf would be sitting in our garage right now

Zythryn -
Thanks for weighing in. I bet it is useful for some at Nissan to be aware of those who tried to consider getting a Leaf but who found that they were not able to choose it. I think you did a good job of keeping in mind the difference between your needs and others'.

In my case, if I had needed to economize a bit more, I would never have been able to afford to my Leaf Lease. This is because the significantly-shorter-than-I need Leaf range forced me to retain my old ICV. In a way, even though we made different choices, I think I have a somewhat similar view to you of the number of kWh I was really expecting and looking for.

I kind of realized all of this as it was happening, but as the months have passed and I have had to expend a bit more money in order to retain two vehicles, it really comes home (even though the 2nd vehicle is a beater that I own, so I don't want to exaggerate the lesson).

So, this is a reason I want to make sure to communicate constructively to Nissan that for me, when my lease is up, the present Leaf range will not be acceptable at these MSRPs and Lease prices. I do hope that Nissan and at least one Nissan competitor will offer what I need, in the price range I need, but if they don't, I'll consider trading everything in for a decent PHEV.

 

[jlsoaz]

I think for a high percent of Tesla buyers, clearly the marginal utility of that extra 20 kWh for $10k was worth it and I don't see what the problem is with drawing some lessons from that.

Tesla actively de-marketed the 40 kWh model
- No super charging
- Late builds so long wait times

And then to say few want the 40 kWh model is disingenuous to say the least.

Thanks evnow, here is Dave's comment that I was responding to:

....and this thing about Tesla dropping the 40 Kwh car is a testament that "we" are willing to pay more for the range is... ah, quite frankly total BS...

I'm not quite sure where Dave is getting the "we" from.

I think your point is something I hadn't thought about .... that Tesla might have been masking demand for the 40 kWh version that is higher than what they represented in their cancellation decision announcement. I think it was clear some quarters ago that they wouldn't soon be delivering 40 kWh versions if they were prioritizing the most expensive deliveries, and I can see how someone wanting and waiting for a lower kWh version would be frustrated in getting crowded out. So, there might have been more orders for it if the reality had been that the car would be delivered in a reasonable amount of time (and with supercharger capability). Some of the 60 kWh orders might have been from those who would have preferred 40 kWh.

I don't want to go too far down the road of defending Tesla on this, but I will say they've made it clear for some years ago they were building toward 20,000 vehicle per year manufacturing capability. So, even if they had wanted to make more of an effort than they made to satisfy demand for 40 kwh variants of the Model S, I don't think they could have satisfied that demand readily last year. Maybe now. Maybe what they should have done was state (with more ingenuousness) that there was and is decent demand for the 40 kWh variant, but at present they choose to be focused on meeting considerable demand for the higher-revenue variants, and there are some serious questions of whether they have manufacturing capability to meet demand for all variants at this time. I don't think this would fully let them off the hook of choosing to turn away those who wanted the 40 kWh variants and then somewhat misrepresenting the situation (which, if the case, is somewhat reminiscent of the old ICEV manufacturers from ZEV I era) but would remove the "misrepresenting the situation" part of it.

With respect to my overall points, as to drawing inferences not about what I want or other individuals want, but as to trying to gauge the overall market: I'll say that my basic points stand as:

- I think there were and are many potential present-day buyers and lessees for whom the marginal utility of a 30 or 35 or 40 (or so) kWh BEV would be well worth an extra $500 to $800 per kWh (assuming mpkWh efficiency roughly within the ranges presently offered by the major OEMs). This picture is clouded by a few things, including the near total lack of data (no major or minor credible manufacturer having chosen to make a BEV widely available in the US in the 24 to 40 kWh range, and now that is changed to nothing widely available in the 24 to 60 kWh range).

- I do think this principle extends above 40 kWh so. Even if the mpkWh efficiency drops at higher amounts, as Dave points out, this does not necessarily mean that buyers in the 40 to 85 kWh class are not interested in the added kWh, at a price. I think some decent number seems willing to pay more.

To round out the picture: I agreed with at least one of Dave's points:

I believe Nissan will offer longer range EVs... just wont be a LEAF, simple as that. The LEAF platform cant really handle it, pure and simple.

I'm not sure if this has been widely understood. My impression (certainly fallible) is that within the present chemistry or minor variations thereof, the overall car system has a certain amount of battery volume and weight designed in, and so I am thinking that upping the kWh on a Leaf to 30 or 36 kWh is not as simple as dropping in another x number of hundreds of pounds of batteries. How would this affect the vehicle in terms of battery cooling? Dynamics in a crash? Handling? etc. I suppose it could be done, but I think it would be very difficult or (perhaps) not possible, in terms of the way that Nissan is approaching this model.

If that is correct, then another possibility for substantially upping the kWh on a Leaf without straying too far from the present design would be to substitute in a bold new chemistry. In that scenario, what I want to say is that over the decades fancy, safe, reliable, effective excellent new battery chemistries make for nice news stories, and they can finally make it to the traction battery market, and they will. I also think that there is now (compared to 5-10-20 years ago) arguably more concerted work going on in this area and trying to actually bring them to vehicle market and get them on the road, and so it wouldn't completely shock me to see not only some chemistry minor evolution but also a few stronger change efforts.... still, it bears keeping in mind the principle of not equating news stories and reports out of the lab with actually bringing a much higher volumetric and-or gravimetric energy-density chemistry to consumers on the road.

Another possibility as Dave and others have discussed is that Nissan could and will offer other models with higher kWh. It could be argued that it is just semantics as to whether they call this a Leaf or something else. A reason I was so disappointed with Nissan for the early Infiniti LE announcements is that the company (if I recall) was indicating the same 24 kWh. For heaven's sake, I thought, one of the first things, if not the first thing they consider in bringing one of their next BEVS to market is taking the opportunity to up the kWh. Will no major auto OEMs step into the 24-40-60 kWh void?

As mentioned before, sure there is a counter-argument that potential buyers in this area (which I think is a sweet-spot) might change their minds to some extent with substantial recharging infrastructure build-out which would reduce much of the need to carry so many miles onboard. (In the very long term we may move toward even less onboard if there is reliable road-based charging, but I think that's a ways away, if it will ever come).

After ZEV I in 1997-2003, I had thought that roughly 30 to 45 kWh was a sweet-spot that we would see explored aggressively. If we look at the 1997-2003 era BEVs, the manufacturers and CARB researchers indicated that some progress would be made in battery specs and costs (if I recall). Wasn't the NiMH EV1 a higher number of kWh than the present Leaf or Chevy Spark or Ford FFE? The early kWh numbers of the Leaf and the FFE etc. have been disappointments to me in this context, whether as a driver or industry watcher, but not so bad disappointments that they kept me away from driving. Still, I think it's worth shouting out to Nissan and other manufacturers if some (how much is hard to say) of us would absolutely be willing to pay more, especially since at present they are all refusing to offer this option to us (from 24 to 60 kWh) here in the US, at any price. (I think there may be one or two less-well-known manufacturers in Europe which have offerings in this area?).

 

[davewill]

Tesla actively de-marketed the 40 kWh model
- No super charging
- Late builds so long wait times

And then to say few want the 40 kWh model is disingenuous to say the least.

Are you suggesting there were more orders than they said? I didn't think so. Look at it from their POV. Here they are getting ready to setup an assembly line for 40kWh packs, but the orders look nothing like the numbers for the 60kWh and 85kWh cars. Are you going to set it up anyway, and just hope the orders come? Are you going to sweeten the pot and try to create a market for the 40kWh? No, you're going to do what Tesla did, cut the model before you disappoint too many would be 40kWh owners. I actually give them a lot of credit. They could easily have told those people, "Sorry, there's not going to be a 40kWh car, would you like to upgrade or should we cancel your order?" They were under no obligation to deliver the car once they decided not to build them. Instead they did something classy.

I do think the notion that a bigger battery is worth money is indisputable. The Tesla example may not be indicative of how much of a premium a 32kWh LEAF could command, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of people would pay more for such an option.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

Range is the number 1 question people ask. More is better. For me it's enough now. 50% more would be much nicer; I could use it for all my Saturday miles even when it's winter time (which I can't always do now). For some they'd need 2X more, though, or 3X to consider buying one.

Personally the current capacity is enough almost all the time and so I'd prefer a further reduction in price.

 

[johnqh]

It only needs to cover most people's daily activities. There is no need to put in additional battery for significant cost increase for the occasional longer trips.

The rental car companies, if they are smart, should install EV chargers at their customer long term parking. Rent a gas car if you need to take long trips.

Medium trips beyond EV range can be covered by ZipCar.

Yes, zipcar and rental cost money, but it costs less than to pay $5000 extra for those occasional trips.

 

[nosuchthing]

Here is the truth: We leave the charging station 100% charged when ICE drivers pull into the gas station because they are low on fuel.

This is why 40kW Tesla is not selling too well.

What I would like to know is...what would happen in terms of sales if there was a 24kW Leaf and a 50kW Leaf? I'd be sitting in a 50 today. No doubt.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Here is the truth: We leave the charging station 100% charged when ICE drivers pull into the gas station because they are low on fuel.

This is why 40kW Tesla is not selling too well.

What I would like to know is...what would happen in terms of sales if there was a 24kW Leaf and a 50kW Leaf? I'd be sitting in a 50 today. No doubt.

Even if the 50 kWh LEAF cost $55K?

If batteries were really inexpensive, then it wouldn't be an issue. Since that isn't the case, there are tradeoffs to be considered:

A lot depends on what range one typically needs. Those who need more than the current 70 or so miles on a daily basis are fewer than those who drive less than that distance each day. For the majority who have short range needs, why carry around extra, very expensive, and heavy batteries that aren't necessary most of the time? And remember that the 50 kWh LEAF would need to be completely redesigned to handle the extra battery size and weight; at some point it is a different car and not a "LEAF".

Meanwhile, you do have an option that is pretty close to what you want: the 60 kWh Tesla Model S. No need to wait for Nissan to offer an EV with double the battery pack, if they ever do: the Model S is already here. And, since you live in California, you can also get closer to your desired 50 kWh EV with the Toyota RAV4-EV.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Here is the truth: We leave the charging station 100% charged when ICE drivers pull into the gas station because they are low on fuel.

This is why 40kW Tesla is not selling too well.

What I would like to know is...what would happen in terms of sales if there was a 24kW Leaf and a 50kW Leaf? I'd be sitting in a 50 today. No doubt.

**edited** wanted to delete but could not. dpgcolorado said what I said but did it much better

 

[nosuchthing]

If RAV was something smaller than a truck I'd buy it. There is no car out there other than a Tesla for me right now. That is the problem.

I bought the car to commute 84 miles. Nissan called it a 100 mile car when I bought it. Now it's wife's car if you know what I mean. Job will not let me charge. I tried and they kicked me right out as soon as they found out (I paid for the juice - 60 cents a day).
Let us NOT go there...

I can barely make SF and back in the Leaf. I have to avoid the Sausalito hill via side road through town to save a kW. Ridiculous. Bay Area does need at least 120-mile car.

Tesla is too expensive and I definitely do not like the "TV everything" operation controls. I like buttons and knobs because they make sense. And if that TV goes dark for whatever reason you have nothing except for a red button (mandated by the fed). Believe it or not, I'd never buy a Tesla because of that. I use the buttons and knobs in my car a lot like everyone else and I need those things simple and tactile.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

If RAV was something smaller than a truck I'd buy it. There is no car out there other than a Tesla for me right now. That is the problem.

I bought the car to commute 84 miles. Nissan called it a 100 mile car when I bought it. Now it's wife's car if you know what I mean. Job will not let me charge. I tried and they kicked me right out as soon as they found out (I paid for the juice - 60 cents a day).
Let us NOT go there...

I can barely make SF and back in the Leaf. I have to avoid the Sausalito hill via side road through town to save a kW. Ridiculous. Bay Area does need at least 120-mile car.

Tesla is too expensive and I definitely do not like the "TV everything" operation controls. I like buttons and knobs because they make sense. And if that TV goes dark for whatever reason you have nothing except for a red button (mandated by the fed). Believe it or not, I'd never buy a Tesla because of that. I use the buttons and knobs in my car a lot like everyone else and I need those things simple and tactile.

Sounds like the RAV would have been perfect for you.

 

[nosuchthing]

I like sedans that sit low. Wife could use a truck. Not me. I need to be nimble when doing my commute. I maneuver a lot. Now, an electric Prelude. That would be my kind of a car.

I really wonder when Honda (the so-called innovator) is going to wake up from its slumber and actually make an exciting EV you don't have to spend 500 bucks a month just to lease. I put on 22,000 miles a year. I cannot lease a Fit.

And I can't use my "100-mile" Leaf to commute to work as I was planning to do. So, I'm stuck. Wife drives the car if it's 10 miles up and down the freeway, and refuses to feel range-unsafe. So, no more Marin to SF and back (60 miles). Now she's saying she hates the car because I always want to make sure she drives it. Women - they hate to be controlled.

That's why I'm eagerly awaiting anything with 120-mile range that is not a truck.

If stupid Sutter Health let me charge at work I'd be in good shape. I did it for a few months, got outed, written up, and told to forget it by the administrator. The message was clear: not 'appenin'. I will published that person's missive once I quit. That was 60 cents worth of juice a day. And I did pay it. Sutter is no Google/Yahoo. I'll tell you that.

 

[jlsoaz]

If RAV was something smaller than a truck I'd buy it. There is no car out there other than a Tesla for me right now. That is the problem.

I bought the car to commute 84 miles. Nissan called it a 100 mile car when I bought it. Now it's wife's car if you know what I mean. Job will not let me charge. I tried and they kicked me right out as soon as they found out (I paid for the juice - 60 cents a day).
Let us NOT go there...

I can barely make SF and back in the Leaf. I have to avoid the Sausalito hill via side road through town to save a kW. Ridiculous. Bay Area does need at least 120-mile car.

Tesla is too expensive and I definitely do not like the "TV everything" operation controls. I like buttons and knobs because they make sense. And if that TV goes dark for whatever reason you have nothing except for a red button (mandated by the fed). Believe it or not, I'd never buy a Tesla because of that. I use the buttons and knobs in my car a lot like everyone else and I need those things simple and tactile.

As Dave says, I think the RAV4 EV would have been a good choice, in that sweet spot as to kWh. It was a bit of a bridge too far for me when I went to buy or lease because of the added inhibition of a much higher lease cost at the time, and a lack of confidence I had about being outside of California.

I tend to agree with your inclination away from a flat touch-screen - which requires looking away from the road and therefore is a safety hazard. I considered it a safety issue when I got my new Leaf and I still do, but have got used to it of necessity. (Worse, the permission nag asks one to look away from the road ***every time one begins a trip, within 10 seconds of starting the car, and right around the time one is about to back out***). It's not as make or break for me as for you, but I like your raising of the point.

I think it's kind of bizarre that after all the battles of the 2000-era ZEV I cars, and after all the excuses of the automakers including some general argument of the batteries needing to progress a bit, that there is still no widely-available BEV under $50k with more than 24 kWh. The CODA is limited in some ways in marketplace established credibility, and in distribution, and now in corporate viability questions, and the RAV4 EV being limited in distribution and artificially supply-limited by the manufacturer, and originally not at all being in the range of $40k. The Wheego LiFe seems like another candidate, limited also in various ways. Not sure about others. If I recall correctly the NiMH EV1 had something like 27 kWh (and wasn't this originally conceived in 1990-1991 or did they intend lead-acid at that time?) So.... we were there... why the conspicuous hole in the US marketplace between 24 kWh and 60 kWh? (In France I think the Bollore is in the high 20s, so there is at least one difference there in what is available to consumers).

The present-day vacuum between 24 kWh and 60 kWh will I suspect be filled by someone in a decent-quality way over the next few years (just as competition is heating up in PHEVs and expanding the different prices and mile-ranges available to folks). I guess I titled the thread to make it Leaf-specific in part to bring some attention in a hopefully helpful way to the idea that Nissan would need to make some adjustments in what they offer or unfortunately not be able to win business from some of us next time out.

Some people here are great with 24 kWh or less, some are not, and for some it depends on the price, with different personalized marginal utility comments as to how much we might pay for more kWh, more miles, and more high-speed and full-comfort miles rather than the usual BEV compromises to reach the longer ranges.

I think that none of these views about personal needs is in any way any more legitimate than the next, nor is there such a thing as a wrong answer (except insofar as sometimes a person may have difficulty articulating accurately what they really want), since they are after all comments about one's personal needs and will necessarily vary from person to person. Again: in my view, none is in any way any more legitimate than the next.

There is a very different question as to trying to figure out in aggregate what the marketplace of many millions of vehicle-buyers will communicate to Nissan and other automakers. I think this question is more difficult and, in my view, should not be confused with stating one's personal needs. While there are no wrong answers as to stating one's needs, as to estimating the market, there are ultimately some answers that, in some ways, can be counted as roughly correct or incorrect as to gauging the market whether in 2011 or 2013 or in the future.

It is perhaps natural for some of us to work from our thinking about our personal needs and then project this to our view of projecting the market, but some of us seem to have difficulty with the concept that the two are not equivalent.

I suppose some might say this of me for example because the complaint I had and have with Nissan even before I leased is that they simply were not offering the option of more kWh. For me this complaint stands, and by 2016 I reckon will result in my getting rid of my Leaf. What choices will I have: either a Nissan BEV with more kWh (whether labeled a Leaf or something else, I don't care), getting a competing OEM BEV with more kWh, buying an after-market conversion, getting a PHEV, or some other solution (moving to a city and making use of mass transit, joining a car-sharing service, etc.).

None of my personal driving needs necessarily translate to my estimate of trying to gauge the present and future markets, *but* I do think that there have been, are, and will be perhaps more potential BEV buyers/lessees out there in the 24 kWh to 60 kWh area than Nissan presently seems to be aware. I was really surprised that they seemed to propose a luxury (Infiniti, which I assume means luxury) BEV with only 24 kWh. In my very fallible view, if Nissan doesn't watch out, Tesla et. al. is going to render some of this discussion moot by the time Nissan gets around to thinking maybe they should offer more kWh to those willing to pay for it.

 

[N952JL]

Here is the truth: We leave the charging station 100% charged when ICE drivers pull into the gas station because they are low on fuel.

This is why 40kW Tesla is not selling too well.

What I would like to know is...what would happen in terms of sales if there was a 24kW Leaf and a 50kW Leaf? I'd be sitting in a 50 today. No doubt.

Even if the 50 kWh LEAF cost $55K?

If batteries were really inexpensive, then it wouldn't be an issue. Since that isn't the case, there are tradeoffs to be considered:

A lot depends on what range one typically needs. Those who need more than the current 70 or so miles on a daily basis are fewer than those who drive less than that distance each day. For the majority who have short range needs, why carry around extra, very expensive, and heavy batteries that aren't necessary most of the time? And remember that the 50 kWh LEAF would need to be completely redesigned to handle the extra battery size and weight; at some point it is a different car and not a "LEAF".

Meanwhile, you do have an option that is pretty close to what you want: the 60 kWh Tesla Model S. No need to wait for Nissan to offer an EV with double the battery pack, if they ever do: the Model S is already here. And, since you live in California, you can also get closer to your desired 50 kWh EV with the Toyota RAV4-EV.

I have just read through all ten pages of this topic. And it is clear we have a very divers group of drivers on this topic. I have been driving my leaf since Dec 2011. I was the first leaf reserved for GA and the second one deliviered. As elsewhere mentioned the number one question I am asked is "range". I tell them the EPA estimates are honest. Without hypermilling you can achieve the EPA estimates in normal day to day city driving. Then I go on to tell them I have never ran out of juice, and the Leaf handles 97 to 98% of all my trips, but only 65 to 70% of my yearly milage. Yes a full 30% of my milage is made up of 3% of my trips. That stops people cold.

You see with the current range limits, while very well for day to day driving will not fit the need of the adverage driver. He doesn't buy a car for his day to day work comute. A big part of his purchase decision is "freedom". The freedom to leave town on a three day weekend. To just hop in the car and drive up to Atlanta for a special concer. Wait, can't no range. To plan a trip to Vegas, Nope, can't drive to the airport no range. We do not have any charging structure between Warner Robins and the Atlanta Airport and besides you don't have the time to wait 6 hrs for a level 2 to recharge anyway.

You talk about a "sweet point" and all you think about is your normal driving day will sometimes exceed 100 miles and you need extra. that is all well and good but unless your range includes the drop of the hat weekend road trip you are not being real.

Now to me the sweet point is a honest to God 250 mile interstate speed range. About 4 hrs at 70 (about 280) would be perfect. As most will want to stop for something by that time and having a QC near every 100 to 150 miles would fit nicely. It gives you a four to one ration of drive to charge time while on the road. Now do you need this every day of the year? No. But if the car is going to meet your driving requirements, you will need it. Or have a second ICE to fit your other driving requirements and that is not something the adverage person wants.

OK, so what do I see happening. It is possible that between now and 2020 we could have a 96kWh battery that is the same size and weight as the current 24. I believe it would need to have a good active TMS for long life. And I believe the price would be no more than twice what the current battery pack cost. Leave 6 kWh as a reserver much like the current 24kWh battery only has 23 usuable. This still gives us 90 kWh at arround 4 miles/kWh would give us a 360 mile range, much more than is needed. Now of course this assumes a break through in batteries giving us 4x more power at the same rate while only costing 2x more. In addition to the battery we will need a corresponding increase in charger so as to be able to recharge this batter within six hrs at night.

Now many of you are correct in that this is an over kill and we don't need to haul that much weight around when most of the time we don't need the range. You do that with your ICE car. Each gal of gas weights about six lbs per gal.

I didn't like the volt because of the weight and complexity of the volts ice engine. The volt is not a true BEV with the gas engine to recharge the batter. The ICE engine does contribute it's share to the drive wheels whenever they are on the road.

Why cary that engine around when you don't need it? I agree so I also see a range extender gen set business being created. Ether battery trailers or small micro gensets designed to put out 30 to 40 kWh and small/light enough to sit on a platform and can slide into a trailer receiver. Running of of a LP cylinder with a two to three hour range would be ideal. Then just swapp out the LP bottle and go on your way.

This is just my two cents worth but it seems to be back up by the numbers in the telsa S,.