Consumer Reports recommends used LEAFs

[cwerdna]

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/06/want-a-cheap-reliable-car-consider-a-used-nissan-leaf/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is CR's URL of this.

They will *really* be scratching their heads - and worse - after trying to get 80 miles from a 10 bar 2012 Leaf in normal driving.

hah, I had to do 40-45 mph through NC/TN to get 80 miles or so out of a 11 bar 2012 Leaf. And I had leafspy app on board.

They'll be super frustrated the first time they hear "low battery" warning from the speakers when they've only done 40 miles.

Yeah.... I agreed that the article is too superficial and not warning folks about battery degradation, winter driving, etc. can really set people up for extreme disappointment, esp. if they know nothing about the capacity bars, importance of where the car resided before and that the BMS possibly be reset too.

Heck, I've met Leaf drivers who had Leafs for more than a year and lost capacity bars but didn't know it (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=16446" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false. One guy at my work had a Leaf (never got around to posting the story or starting a new thread for folks like him) was glad to get rid of his '12 (or possibly '11) Leaf due to what seemed like battery degradation. He didn't know how many capacity bars he lost and I didn't know he got rid of it until 1-2 months after it happened. He no longer has any BEVs nor (AFAIK) any PHEVs.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Ultimately I don't care, all I need is a higher demand for used Leafs, and articles like this can only help.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of pretending it was a good piece?

EDIT: I take that back. You didn't really pretend it was a good piece. That was someone else.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ah you were probably talking about me then and I said it was a good piece for what it was intended for and that is not much as I stated.

Anyone who buys a used EV would be completely foolish to do so based on this article alone. The article assumes you already know about EVs and were interested in one but could not pull the trigger on a $30,000+ purchase decision.

It is not for someone who knows nothing about EVs... Is this not obvious to anyone here but me??

 

[TimLee]

...
It is not for someone who knows nothing about EVs... Is this not obvious to anyone here but me??

Yes, pretty obvious to those reading mynissanleaf.com.
But not near as obvious to a LOT of the people reading Consumer Reports.
That is what is so bad about the article.
Consumer Reports is supposed to be far better than that.

 

[DaveInAvl]

I think half the truth information no matter who is dispersing it does a disservice to the adoption of electric vehicles.

Could I seek a clarification? Did you mean "out in the mainstream media", or also in forums such as this one? Because I'm having trouble squaring repeated use of "disposable" with this:

I plan to tell the whole story, not half.

But it's probably not reasonable to expect every post by every person to present every aspect of a given situation. Guess that's where the old saying that "All of us are smarter than any of us" came from

 

[TimLee]

My use of "disposable" is to a degree hyperbole.

Nissan said the vehicle would likely have 70% capacity at ten years.
Instead it is unlikely my LEAF will drop to 66.25 by the five year mark, but it will already be below 70%.

And in the market it may have a value less than $3,000.

Of course Nissan will put a new and supposedly improved battery in it for $6,000.
So it isn't technically disposable.
But it certainly feels kind of disposable to have to spend $6,000 on a vehicle worth $3,000 in order to be able to get another 35,000 miles out of it (hopefully a lot more than that if the new battery degrades markedly slower).

Does that help clarify my "disposable" hyperbole :roll: :?:

 

[GRA]

...
It is not for someone who knows nothing about EVs... Is this not obvious to anyone here but me??

Yes, pretty obvious to those reading mynissanleaf.com.
But not near as obvious to a LOT of the people reading Consumer Reports.
That is what is so bad about the article.
Consumer Reports is supposed to be far better than that.

+1. [Edit] I submitted the following letter to the editor at CR, and I recommend that others who feel the same way also contact them, either via a letter to the editor or a comment, at http://web.consumerreports.org/customerservice/customer-service.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Eric Evarts' recent article recommending used Nissan LEAFs does a major disservice to your readers by omitting to mention the largest cause of the price drop for used LEAFs - serious battery degradation. The 75 to 80 miles of range 'on a good day' mentioned in the article is only true of a new LEAF; used ones are often suffering from 20-30% of battery degradation and will be more likely to get 40-60 miles of range 'on a good day', only 30-35 miles a day or even less in a cold winter climate, while using heat. Enthusiasts who follow EV websites (especially mynissanleaf.com) are aware of this and how to check for it; those more casual but EV-interested readers of your website are unlikely to be, setting them up for major disappointment if they were to purchase a car based on the information in the article. The article, by omitting crucial information about the real-world utility of a typical used LEAF, is far below the standard that its customers expect from CR.

A used LEAF can be a good purchase for those who fully understand its limitations and find them acceptable, but not for the average car driver whose needs are greater.

 

[KD7LRJ]

I was surprised to see the CR article recommending a Leaf since in one of their recent magazines, they said that they could no longer recommend them based on recent crash test results. I guess they changed their mind.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I was surprised to see the CR article recommending a Leaf since in one of their recent magazines, they said that they could no longer recommend them based on recent crash test results. I guess they changed their mind.

IIRC the Prius also failed that new test.

 

[cwerdna]

I was surprised to see the CR article recommending a Leaf since in one of their recent magazines, they said that they could no longer recommend them based on recent crash test results. I guess they changed their mind.

IIRC the Prius also failed that new test.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/07/mazda5-and-nissan-leaf-lose-their-consumer-reports-recommendation-iihs-crash-test/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe you're referring to the Prius v wagon, which is larger than the Prius liftback (aka regular Prius) and I guess (after some digging), the Prius c (smaller (than the liftback), cheaper Yaris based car).
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/11/why-consumer-reports-pulled-its-recommendation-on-certain-toyotas/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/most-small-cars-bomb-new-small-overlap-crash-test/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/toyota/prius-v.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 2015 model scores a Good in the IIHS small-overlap crash test; the original V scored a Poor, which prevented us from recommending it. A larger

It was a case of IIHS moving the goal posts: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=381151#p381151" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[ishiyakazuo]

Here's the thing about all this... I don't see a problem with what CR wrote at all, and I recently purchased my used LEAF (which, I should state, started with CR mentioning it as a great used car under $20k in the car issue a few months back). They clearly say it'll only get 75-80 miles on a good day. This is true if you get a decent used LEAF, of which there are plenty on the market today. The one I bought can go 70-80 miles if I'm careful. Saying, "but what about battery degradation?" could be applied to ANY USED CAR. What if there's a leaky head gasket? What if there's a problem with the emissions system? What if? That's why you should thoroughly check out any used car you purchase. In this case, that means Leaf Spy and any other bit of due diligence that makes sense.
Do you really expect CR to write a custom article on exactly every step you should follow when purchasing a used LEAF? I know I don't. Maybe someone with knowledge about it should write up a Used EV Buying Guide that EV owners can point others to for help with such things, but I wouldn't expect it to come out of Consumer Reports.

 

[desiv]

The 75 to 80 miles of range 'on a good day' mentioned in the article is only true of a new LEAF..

Except, that's not true..

My used Leaf does 60 miles on a full charge twice daily, and I have room after (rarely (but sometimes) hit LBW coming in to work), and that's highway speeds. (For me, Highway speeds is 60ish, not 70ish! When I need the heater, I do hit LBW coming into work.. so maybe not 70 on a bad day.. ;-) )

So my 2012 will do 70+ miles on a good day, and I'm sure at non-highway speeds, it could hit 75 miles..
The same it true for lots of low mileage used Leafs in the right areas...
Heck, we just saw a report of a 100,000 mile 12-bar Leaf in the UK..

I'm not saying that it isn't the case tho in a lot of situations. It is. Especially in certain climates. I have the benefit of being in a moderate climate.

This article isn't inaccurate, and makes some valid points.

Yes, it doesn't mention every possible negative.
But if every article mentioned every possible positive/negative, they would all be too long to read for the consumer.. ;-)

What I think this article should do is get people thinking about a Leaf as a viable option, which it can be..

But it's still up to the consumer to do their own research..
It's a used car after all...
Consumer Reports should be a good point of information, but not the only one..
And it takes VERY LITTLE googling to learn more specifics on range and degradation...

desiv

 

[GRA]

The 75 to 80 miles of range 'on a good day' mentioned in the article is only true of a new LEAF..

Except, that's not true..

My used Leaf does 60 miles on a full charge twice daily, and I have room after (rarely (but sometimes) hit LBW coming in to work), and that's highway speeds. (For me, Highway speeds is 60ish, not 70ish! When I need the heater, I do hit LBW coming into work.. so maybe not 70 on a bad day.. ;-) )

So my 2012 will do 70+ miles on a good day, and I'm sure at non-highway speeds, it could hit 75 miles..
The same it true for lots of low mileage used Leafs in the right areas...
Heck, we just saw a report of a 100,000 mile 12-bar Leaf in the UK..

I'm not saying that it isn't the case tho in a lot of situations. It is. Especially in certain climates. I have the benefit of being in a moderate climate.

This article isn't inaccurate, and makes some valid points.

Yes, it doesn't mention every possible negative.
But if every article mentioned every possible positive/negative, they would all be too long to read for the consumer.. ;-)

What I think this article should do is get people thinking about a Leaf as a viable option, which it can be..

But it's still up to the consumer to do their own research..
It's a used car after all...
Consumer Reports should be a good point of information, but not the only one..
And it takes VERY LITTLE googling to learn more specifics on range and degradation...

desiv

I disagree with your comment that the article isn't inaccurate; any article which omits mentioning such a major issue when recommending a used car is IMO inherently inaccurate. It's kind of like giving a positive review of the play "Our American Cousin" in the Washington papers on April 15, 1865, without mentioning that anything out of the ordinary happened: "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" If Consumer Reports had recommended Ford Pintos or Explorers of certain vintages, any GM car with the faulty ignition lock, or any used car with recalled Takata airbags without mentioning those issues, it would be equally inaccurate, just as it would be if CR had quoted original EPA mileage on certain recent Fords and Hyundais even after it was known that the MPG numbers were inaccurate and were going to be reduced, and that their own testing had shown a greater than normal deviation between CR's and the EPA's numbers.

BTW, in my letter I should have mentioned something about the effect of the non-pro-rated battery warranty making a potential difference of ~$6,000 in the value of two used LEAFs with approximately the same mileage/age - not exactly something easy to find out other than at an EV website, especially this one.

 

[desiv]

It's kind of like giving a positive review of the play "Our American Cousin" in the Washington papers on April 15, 1865, without mentioning that anything out of the ordinary happened: "other than _that_, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?".

Er..
I don't think those are even slightly similar.. in any way.. :shock:

As for the Fords (Pinto was my first car growing up, as an unrelated comment.. ) or GMs or whatever..
Those all killed people...

A battery not holding it's charge isn't quite in the same arena there... At least in my opinion..

I get that some people think basically every mention of the Leaf should include the caveat about degradation.
I agree it's an important part of the car, that should be covered. And as people research (if they do), they will discover that.
But I don't think every mention of the Leaf has to include that bit of info..

If I wrote an article about Pete Rose being a great hitter, I don't think it would have to include anything about his gambling..
(Sorry, no one died in my metaphor..)

desiv

 

[GRA]

It's kind of like giving a positive review of the play "Our American Cousin" in the Washington papers on April 15, 1865, without mentioning that anything out of the ordinary happened: "other than _that_, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?".

Er..
I don't think those are even slightly similar.. in any way.. :shock:

As for the Fords (Pinto was my first car growing up, as an unrelated comment.. ) or GMs or whatever..
Those all killed people...

A battery not holding it's charge isn't quite in the same arena there... At least in my opinion..

I get that some people think basically every mention of the Leaf should include the caveat about degradation.
I agree it's an important part of the car, that should be covered. And as people research (if they do), they will discover that.
But I don't think every mention of the Leaf has to include that bit of info..

If I wrote an article about Pete Rose being a great hitter, I don't think it would have to include anything about his gambling..
(Sorry, no one died in my metaphor..)

desiv

Sure, I was using hyperbole to make the point that omitting major information is inherently inaccurate. And, to leave out information about Pete Rose's gambling may not be important about his hitting record, but it sure as hell would be if you were thinking of hiring him, especially as a bookkeeper or treasurer - his hitting record is safely in the past, but the gambling has the potential to be a problem now and into the future. CR exists to give people objective information about utility, reliability, durability and value; failure to mention any factor that seriously impacts one or more of those is inaccurate by _their_ standards [emphasis added]:

When confronted with critical decisions about the products and services that matter most, consumers are bombarded with an onslaught of marketing, advertising, opinions, and options. That’s why for nearly 80 years, Consumer Reports has empowered consumers with the knowledge they need to make better and more informed choices—and has battled in the public and private sectors for safer products and fair market practices.

In short, we are dedicated to one enduring idea: Unleashing the world-changing power of consumers.

Formed as an independent, nonprofit organization in 1936, Consumer Reports serves consumers through unbiased product testing and ratings, research, journalism, public education, and advocacy. We stand firmly behind the principle that consumer products and services must be safe, effective, reliable, and fairly priced. We insist that manufacturers, retailers, government agencies, and others be clear and honest. We advocate for truth and transparency wherever information is hidden or unclear. We push companies to quickly address and remedy issues with their products and services.

https://consumersunion.org/about/mission/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If people want to read marketing fluff, they can get that from the manufacturers and dealers. What are the odds that any car salesperson or owner will tell a potential buyer about degradation (even assuming they know about it themselves, which is only somewhat likely), how much that particular car has and how to check it? Nil. How about the warranty drop-dead effect on the car's value? Also nil.

As shown by the quote from their mission statement, Consumer's Union exists to provide exactly that kind of info, if the manufacturers and retailers won't (and also to try and force them to provide it). If they aren't going to do so in such a critical situation as this one, what purpose do they serve? If CR is going to recommend a used car, they owe it to their customers to mention all major issues that car type has had that might influence the decision. The article as written fails that test.

 

[ishiyakazuo]

It's kind of like giving a positive review of the play "Our American Cousin" in the Washington papers on April 15, 1865, without mentioning that anything out of the ordinary happened: "other than _that_, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?".

Er..
I don't think those are even slightly similar.. in any way.. :shock:

As for the Fords (Pinto was my first car growing up, as an unrelated comment.. ) or GMs or whatever..
Those all killed people...

A battery not holding it's charge isn't quite in the same arena there... At least in my opinion..

I get that some people think basically every mention of the Leaf should include the caveat about degradation.
I agree it's an important part of the car, that should be covered. And as people research (if they do), they will discover that.
But I don't think every mention of the Leaf has to include that bit of info..

If I wrote an article about Pete Rose being a great hitter, I don't think it would have to include anything about his gambling..
(Sorry, no one died in my metaphor..)

desiv

Sure, I was using hyperbole to make the point that omitting major information is inherently inaccurate. And, to leave out information about Pete Rose's gambling may not be important about his hitting record, but it sure as hell would be if you were thinking of hiring him, especially as a bookkeeper or treasurer - his hitting record is safely in the past, but the gambling has the potential to be a problem now and into the future. CR exists to give people objective information about utility, reliability, durability and value; failure to mention any factor that seriously impacts one or more of those is inaccurate by _their_ standards [emphasis added]:

When confronted with critical decisions about the products and services that matter most, consumers are bombarded with an onslaught of marketing, advertising, opinions, and options. That’s why for nearly 80 years, Consumer Reports has empowered consumers with the knowledge they need to make better and more informed choices—and has battled in the public and private sectors for safer products and fair market practices.

In short, we are dedicated to one enduring idea: Unleashing the world-changing power of consumers.

Formed as an independent, nonprofit organization in 1936, Consumer Reports serves consumers through unbiased product testing and ratings, research, journalism, public education, and advocacy. We stand firmly behind the principle that consumer products and services must be safe, effective, reliable, and fairly priced. We insist that manufacturers, retailers, government agencies, and others be clear and honest. We advocate for truth and transparency wherever information is hidden or unclear. We push companies to quickly address and remedy issues with their products and services.

https://consumersunion.org/about/mission/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If people want to read marketing fluff, they can get that from the manufacturers and dealers. What are the odds that any car salesperson or owner will tell a potential buyer about degradation (even assuming they know about it themselves, which is only somewhat likely), how much that particular car has and how to check it? Nil. How about the warranty drop-dead effect on the car's value? Also nil.

As shown by the quote from their mission statement, Consumer's Union exists to provide exactly that kind of info, if the manufacturers and retailers won't (and also to try and force them to provide it). If they aren't going to do so in such a critical situation as this one, what purpose do they serve? If CR is going to recommend a used car, they owe it to their customers to mention all major issues that car type has had that might influence the decision. The article as written fails that test.

Here's my two cents:

1) Consumers Union (at least the portion of it that does Consumer Reports) is based in Massachusetts. How much of an issue is battery degradation in MA? Pretty much none. Likewise, I'm in Chicago and my LEAF came off-lease from Michigan. You are in California. Therefore, our mindsets are completely different on the matter.

2) All this article is saying is "Whoa! A used LEAF can be a great deal compared to other late-model used cars because of the glut of them on the market currently and the low demand! You should look into if it works for you." They are providing information. Is a used LEAF safe, effective, reliable, and fairly priced? Yes. Yes, it is, especially if you're not in a hot climate or it's not winter or you have a short commute.

In short, this is valuable info for many people, and they are indeed providing a service. Could they have mentioned battery degradation or temperature sensitivity in the article? Sure. But does every other article about the LEAF everywhere mention it? Yeah, pretty much. Who reads one article and says, "Wow, I need to go to the car dealer and buy one!"? Hopefully no one, and the people who do likely need to be taught a lesson anyway.

 

[dhanson865]

saying it's a $6000 difference if a leaf drops 4 bars under warranty vs 1 day / 1 mile too late is disingenuous unless you are also stupid enough to not know that battery costs/prices drop over time.

Nissan might not adjust the price of a replacement pack yearly but they will change that price. Some think there will be an announcement after the 2016 reveal. Maybe it doesn't happen until after and is done quietly, maybe they hold a press conference.

I don't know when or how it will happen but I fully expect there to be a cheaper way to replace the battery pack in my used 2012 Leaf before it degrades enough that I can't make my commute to work in the winter time.

I guarantee you that Tesla, Ford, Kia, etcetera won't sit still and let Nissan keep what leadership they have in this market without progress.

You can nay say it if you want. We don't know and it's so easy to dismiss what you can't prove. But if you do I'll say you are nearsighted or willfully blind to the coming price changes.

 

[GRA]

saying it's a $6000 difference if a leaf drops 4 bars under warranty vs 1 day / 1 mile too late is disingenuous unless you are also stupid enough to not know that battery costs/prices drop over time.

Nissan might not adjust the price of a replacement pack yearly but they will change that price. Some think there will be an announcement after the 2016 reveal. Maybe it doesn't happen until after and is done quietly, maybe they hold a press conference.

I don't know when or how it will happen but I fully expect there to be a cheaper way to replace the battery pack in my used 2012 Leaf before it degrades enough that I can't make my commute to work in the winter time.

I guarantee you that Tesla, Ford, Kia, etcetera won't sit still and let Nissan keep what leadership they have in this market without progress.

You can nay say it if you want. We don't know and it's so easy to dismiss what you can't prove. But if you do I'll say you are nearsighted or willfully blind to the coming price changes.

I'll happily base my 'blindness' on Nissan's past behavior. Until it happens, it's vaporware and wishful thinking, based on what Nissan should do to keep their customers happy, not what they've repeatedly demonstrated that they will do, which is as little as they feel they can get away with. If you are more willing to believe in their good faith than I am, you are welcome to do so. I base my judgement on their past behavior and general attitude.

 

[ishiyakazuo]

I think you're basically calling used LEAF buyers stupid (or, at least, incapable of educating themselves) by saying such things. Could you go out and find a crappy used LEAF if you aren't educated about what to look out for? Absolutely. How likely is that to happen? Not very. The LEAF isn't the sort of car that people spontaneously go out and buy. People go in with the intent to purchase it.
So you can argue all you want that some LEAFs are worth $6000 less than others, but let's be honest -- those are the ones that people aren't going to drive off the lots, when there are ones with 12 bars to be had.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I'm beginning to wonder about paid posting here... the crux of the matter is that CR misrepresented or was ignorant of (unlikely, but the low quality of modern "journalism" never ceases to amaze me, so maybe) the single biggest reason not to buy a gen 1.1 Leaf, and as a result published a very misleading article.

If you want an accurate analogy, it would be suggesting that people buy a certain used full-sized pickup truck, and mentioning that it gets 29MPG "on a good day", when in fact that figure only applies to highway driving at 55MPH under ideal conditions (flat road, no load, mild temps), and the actual overall average fuel economy is 17MPG. Any argument about how people will find this out on their own ignores the reason that people read CR recommendations in the first place.