GM: 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicle Sales in 2012

[RegGuheert]

At the moment, I see just two areas of natural demand growth for affordable BEVs, where they are both cost-effective and extremely well-suited: urban car-sharing, and urban delivery. Everything else will require considerable battery price/density and infrastructure development to open up more mainstream usage.

That statement seems rather myopic to me.

IMO the Nissan LEAF, as designed and built today, is well-suited to a huge market of commuters driving 20-40 miles per day. Guess what? That seems to be who is buying them! And there is still a gigantic untapped market of people with similar commutes who either have not needed a new car, do not know EVs exist, are in a wait-and-see mode or simply haven't figured out that BEVs are the best fit for them. Those people will provide ongoing, growing demand for EVs over time. As range steadily increases, so will the size of this market demographic. As gasoline prices rise and battery prices drop, shorter commutes will also qualify.

I don't see the fit in either of the two markets you have mentioned, primarily because the daily driving time for a BEV is low and the recharge time is much longer than the driving time. Sure, you can quick-charge the LEAF, but if you do that many times each day, the battery will wear out too quickly. Perhaps this is why we do not see a huge number of BEVs selling into these markets.

There are government subsidies supporting both ICEVs and BEVs. The difference being that EVERY ICEV is heavily subsidized by the government, but not all BEV sales are subsidized. I think the case could be made that for many vehicle needs in the U.S., an ICEV would make very little sense in an environment with no subsidies. The same was true for photovoltaics. Because of the massive built-in subsidies for incumbent technologies, PV technology had to advance way beyond the natural break-even point in order to become affordable.

 

[GRA]

One problem with "cash for clunkers" is that to get the benefit, you had to own a "clunker". But if you're replacing a 30 mpg car with a 50 mpg hybrid, or with an EV, that probably wouldn't qualify, even though the fuel savings will be quite substantial. Why should we need to reward people for their previous ownership of gas guzzlers? I'd prefer to reward those who are trying to push the efficiency envelope by adopting the newest technologies. Many "clunkers" end up parked anyway, when their owners tire of paying to fuel them. I'd bet quite a number of clunkers traded in the previous incarnation of that program weren't even being driven significantly.

I do share your concern about the stability of markets that depend on subsidies. To me, that's an argument for using subsidies very, very carefully, not necessarily eschewing them entirely. It would behoove our country to make sure not to yank the EV subsidies prematurely.

To avoid much of the problem you mention with cash for clunkers, I'd impose a floor on the mpg of the clunker being traded in. Above that floor it can be resold, to someone who is presumably looking for a car that gets better mileage than what they're currently driving. Below the floor it goes for scrap. The floor would be adjusted upwards each year or two, to reflect the improving fleet mileage. We want everyone to benefit from improving gas mileage, and the poor tend to drive the oldest, most polluting and least-efficient cars, so there has to be a pool of more-efficient, affordable used cars for them to step up to. As to many guzzlers being parked, undoubtedly there will be some who benefit from whatever system we choose, but that's life. I did say that the car has to be driven in, so that we aren't just paying to dispose of a vehicle that's been sitting in someone's yard for years.

 

[GRA]

What a bunch of the usual GM PR spin crap. GM issues a press release (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0103_million_30mpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "GM Sells 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicles in 2012") and the press all over the place (not just GCR) picks up on it. :roll: They're referring to 30+ mpg on the EPA highway test. Not everyone lives and works on a highway. Not everyone is able to go highway speeds on their commute. Try going on a highway in a crowded metro area (e.g. LA or SF Bay Area) in the direction of rush hour traffic during rush hour. It's a parking lot w/lots of idling and stop and go.
<snippagio>

Of course it's PR. But would you prefer that they sold NO cars that got 30 mpg city, highway or combined? A few years ago, that would have been the case, with GM and virtually every other U.S. automaker - would a PR release saying "GM sells 1 million cars that get 25 mpg be preferable?" Is it as good as a Prius? Of course not, but the majority of customers aren't willing to drive Prii, or any other hybrid for that matter. As it is, the monthly fleet average MPG of all U.S. LDVs was 24.1 mpg a couple of months ago, which was a new high IIRR. Considering the large percentage of pickups that make up U.S. LDV sales, we need every 30+ MPG car sale we can get, city, highway or combined.

wow... your comment makes no sense at all. GM sold that many 30 MPG cars because they cut prices on them. I know two people driving them that would dump them in a New York second if offered a straight across trade for a Prius.

Its like last year a dictator killed one million dissidents but this year he only killed 100,000 so we should give him a standing ovation because he has "improved so much?"

but in a sense, you are right... it is better than nothing.

And GM and Nissan sold so many volts and Leafs because they cut prices on them, too. The question is how long can they afford to do it?

True, although an awful lot of Leaf buyers seem to have replaced a Prius, so the % improvement is minimal

cant remember the last time i read something that was so wrong

Is your disagreement with the statement that many Leaf buyers traded in a Prius, or that the the improvement was minimal?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Minimal improvement although considering the nnumber of LEAF/Prius households, i do understnd theconfusion.
Look at my signature and explain the minimalness

 

[GRA]

One problem with "cash for clunkers" is that to get the benefit, you had to own a "clunker". But if you're replacing a 30 mpg car with a 50 mpg hybrid, or with an EV, that probably wouldn't qualify, even though the fuel savings will be quite substantial. Why should we need to reward people for their previous ownership of gas guzzlers? I'd prefer to reward those who are trying to push the efficiency envelope by adopting the newest technologies. Many "clunkers" end up parked anyway, when their owners tire of paying to fuel them. I'd bet quite a number of clunkers traded in the previous incarnation of that program weren't even being driven significantly.

The 30 mpg car wouldn't qualify. Per http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/cash-for-clunkers-stimulus-bill.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, if it were a car or category 1 truck, it must get 18 mpg combined or LESS. :roll:

I agree, it was ridiculous. Why reward people who bought guzzlers in the first place?

Because many of those people who drive guzzlers can't afford to buy anything else, assuming they bought the vehicle used. But I'm all for writing the law so that you don't benefit if you bought the guzzler new, and it's less than say 20 years old. As for the law as it was written, nothing says we can't write a new one to include or exclude whatever we want; it's the idea that the subsidy should be technology-neutral that matters to me, if the point is either to reduce GHGs or bolster energy/national security.

 

[GRA]

At the moment, I see just two areas of natural demand growth for affordable BEVs, where they are both cost-effective and extremely well-suited: urban car-sharing, and urban delivery. Everything else will require considerable battery price/density and infrastructure development to open up more mainstream usage.

That statement seems rather myopic to me.

IMO the Nissan LEAF, as designed and built today, is well-suited to a huge market of commuters driving 20-40 miles per day. Guess what? That seems to be who is buying them! And there is still a gigantic untapped market of people with similar commutes who either have not needed a new car, do not know EVs exist, are in a wait-and-see mode or simply haven't figured out that BEVs are the best fit for them. Those people will provide ongoing, growing demand for EVs over time. As range steadily increases, so will the size of this market demographic. As gasoline prices rise and battery prices drop, shorter commutes will also qualify.

I don't see the fit in either of the two markets you have mentioned, primarily because the daily driving time for a BEV is low and the recharge time is much longer than the driving time. Sure, you can quick-charge the LEAF, but if you do that many times each day, the battery will wear out too quickly. Perhaps this is why we do not see a huge number of BEVs selling into these markets.

There are government subsidies supporting both ICEVs and BEVs. The difference being that EVERY ICEV is heavily subsidized by the government, but not all BEV sales are subsidized. I think the case could be made that for many vehicle needs in the U.S., an ICEV would make very little sense in an environment with no subsidies. The same was true for photovoltaics. Because of the massive built-in subsidies for incumbent technologies, PV technology had to advance way beyond the natural break-even point in order to become affordable.

We obviously disagree on many points. IMO, BEVs with the range of the Leaf are too short-ranged to be acceptable to mainstream users, who are unwilling to accommodate themselves to the needs of the car in order to make their commute, i.e. they won't be willing to slow down/alter their commute route, nor will they be willing to do without uninhibited use of climate control or other power-using accessories. Battery prices are too high and likely to remain so for some years to allow adequate range in a car with mass-market acceptability. I think it will take something like the government's recently announced research program to triple battery energy-densities while simultaneously decreasing price/kWh by 1/3rd within 5 years, before the price/performance will be acceptable to the mainstream.

Obviously, the size of the niche in which these cars are suitable will slowly increase as battery prices decrease incrementally and gas prices rise, but I believe that only a very large battery improvement, say at least double the range at an MSRP of no more than $30k, will make the cars mainstream. Tesla has shown that it's possible to build a car that will eliminate any range anxiety in day to day driving, but the price has to come down by around 2/3rds before they will be mainstream affordable.

As to the Leaf's range being adequate today, it's still early adopters, and most of the recent lessees/buyers have demonstrated that the price is too high without Nissan incentives on top of the government ones. Until Leaf-type range increases to where almost nobody ever feels any range-anxiety in their daily driving, despite driving however they normally do and with free use of heat/defrost etc., BEVs won't be mass-market. Which is why I've said repeatedly that I think we'll only get to BEVs via PHEVs.

As to the fit in car-sharing and urban delivery, you can put enough battery in vehicles to make it possible for them to do their daily driving range with today's technology, cost-effectively and I believe, without subsidies. Businesses pay far more attention to the numbers than most private individuals, and the cars can be successful in those niches _now_, building a quiet groundswell of support for them without all the partisan political B.S.

As for the private individuals, I believe it best for the technology in the long-term to let the market grow more slowly and organically, and mainly from the top down. The initial pace is slower, but there's far less backlash when the excessive promises of the enthusiasts and promoters prove to be empty, and the vehicles get bought because they are the best fit for the job, not because of some political skewing of the playing field that could be reversed tomorrow.

Odd that you mention PVs, since my business involved designing and selling PV systems in the early nineties, and I suspect I may have more experience of the economics of that business than you do. It was that experience, and watching what happened to solar-water heating in the '80s when the incentives ended, that conditions my thinking today. Just because a technology may be superior doesn't mean it will sell; to take PVs as an example, owing to massive over-production capacity due to the Chinese government subsidizing production plants, world PV prices have plummeted in the past couple of years (and the U.S. has won a dumping judgement against China), to the point where they are cost-effective in many areas even without subsidies.

But they still aren't being installed in massive numbers on existing homes even in the very solar-supportive Bay Area, because the pay-back period is longer than most people are willing to put up with, and then there's the hassle factor. That last may be the most important of all; after all, solar water heating has been a cost-effective no-brainer for the last couple of decades, but how many systems do you see on people's roofs?

Now, this year, owing to similar Chinese and other government subsidies of battery plants as well as the over-optimistic forecast of BEV adoption rates by many entities, battery prices are likely to slump in the short-term, but there will be a massive shakeout and consolidation in the industry - we've already seen this with A123/Enerl. Unfortunately, many of the companies most heavily into BEVs, such as Nissan, make the batteries themselves or have joint ventures, so they're unlikely to benefit to as great an extent as a company that can put their battery needs out for bid, and watch the desperate companies offer below-cost prices just to keep their plants open while they hope for better times (i.e. the other guy goes out of business).

Summarizing, the tech isn't yet ready for mainstream prime time, and won't be for some years yet, so let's stop pushing it as if it is, use PHEVs and HEVs to fill the gap, and slowly grow the BEV market until the batteries we need are here.

[1/8. Edited to clean up some awkward phrasing. Edited section in bold]

 

[abasile]

Summarizing, the tech isn't yet ready for mainstream prime time, and won't be for some years yet, so let's stop pushing it as if it is, use PHEVs and HEVs to fill the gap, and slowly grow the BEV market until the batteries we need are here.

Seeing as how PHEV and HEV sales numbers are higher than BEV numbers, this might be the way the market develops.

I don't think Nissan has the illusion that their target audience for the current LEAF is "Joe Consumer". With today's technology, EV manufacturers need to target early adopters. (Marketing to environmentalists hasn't worked as well.)

 

[GRA]

Minimal improvement although considering the nnumber of LEAF/Prius households, i do understnd theconfusion.
Look at my signature and explain the minimalness

Sure. About 50% (varies depending on the makeup of the local grid) of a BEV's lifetime emissions are embodied in producing the car, so while a BEv has far lower operating emissions (especially in areas like the PNW, with abundant, cheap hydro), it takes several years to overcome the additional emissions from building the extra car. If you can keep the car for a number of years you'll come out ahead, and in your area you probably can. In other areas, with dirtier grids and/or higher temps, the improvement is minimal and possibly even negative.

And then there's the (lack of) convenience factor. ISTR you were one of the people who was saying that not having to spend 20 minutes a week getting gas was a big deal, but either because you've changed jobs and have a longer commute or it's winter (forget which), you're now having to go out of your way and spend 10 minutes or so quick charging at least a couple of times a week, eliminating any convenience advantage; anything more than twice a week and you're spending more time charging than you would getting gas.

Which is why I don't believe current affordable BEVs are acceptable to mainstream users. Until charging infrastructure is ubiquitous, to be acceptable to the mainstream BEVs will need to have sufficient range to do a full day's round-trip commute plus errands and a reserve in worst case conditions (EOL @ 70%, max. heat & defrost/lights/wipers, cold temps, freeway driving), for at least 90-95% of commutes. When I say charging infrastructure has to be ubiquitous, I mean there will be an open charging station within 1 or 2 blocks of all work, errands and recreation, and we're probably 30 years away from that.

 

[GRA]

Summarizing, the tech isn't yet ready for mainstream prime time, and won't be for some years yet, so let's stop pushing it as if it is, use PHEVs and HEVs to fill the gap, and slowly grow the BEV market until the batteries we need are here.

Seeing as how PHEV and HEV sales numbers are higher than BEV numbers, this might be the way the market develops.

I don't think Nissan has the illusion that their target audience for the current LEAF is "Joe Consumer". With today's technology, EV manufacturers need to target early adopters. (Marketing to environmentalists hasn't worked as well.)

Unfortunately, Nissan's marketing has been addressed to the mainstream consumer; that's been a big part of the problem. They've been trying to convince people that it's just another car (with "100-mile range!"), when in fact it requires far more owner knowledge and accommodation than a mainstream vehicle. Let's look at how their marketing could have been changed, provided they were willing to tell the whole truth and aim solely at a tiny, well-informed early-adopter market:

"The New 2011 Nissan Leaf has a guaranteed minimum range in worst-case conditions (GVWR, battery at EOL retaining 70% of original capacity, 23 deg. F/-5C, max. heat, defrost and fan, lights and wipers, 10 mile reserve, cruising at 65 mph) of 25 miles on flat ground, with range under ideal conditions (70 deg. F/21C, no climate control or accessories, 180 lb. driver only, flat ground, using slow speeds and hypermiling techniques) of 100-120 miles, Typical range for the first two years when new is 60-70 miles in summer, 40-50 miles in winter, both with a 10 mile reserve and moderate use of C/C, average driving techniques, and employing pre-conditioning. Climbing will radically reduce range, descending will moderately increase it. Much more rapid degradation can be expected in areas with hot climates such as the desert southwest, where battery EOL may be reached in two-three years instead of 5-10 years. for the type of range you can expect in your conditions, consult the charts in the owner's manual or on the Nissan Leaf website. The 2011 Nissan Leaf, starting at $33,700."

Not likely to cause of stampede of mainstream buyers, is it?

 

[GRA]

At the moment, I see just two areas of natural demand growth for affordable BEVs, where they are both cost-effective and extremely well-suited: urban car-sharing, and urban delivery. Everything else will require considerable battery price/density and infrastructure development to open up more mainstream usage.

That statement seems rather myopic to me.
<snip>

I don't see the fit in either of the two markets you have mentioned, primarily because the daily driving time for a BEV is low and the recharge time is much longer than the driving time. Sure, you can quick-charge the LEAF, but if you do that many times each day, the battery will wear out too quickly. Perhaps this is why we do not see a huge number of BEVs selling into these markets.

<snip>

As to the fit in car-sharing and urban delivery, you can put enough battery in vehicles to make it possible for them to do their daily driving range with today's technology, cost-effectively and I believe, without subsidies. Businesses pay far more attention to the numbers than most private individuals, and the cars can be successful in those niches _now_, building a quiet groundswell of support for them without all the partisan political B.S.

I wanted to expand on the car-sharing angle a little bit. Where I see the real synergy in car-sharing is between BEVs, inductive charging, and self-driving cars. Assuming that we're say 5 years away from the latter moving from the current test/demonstration phase to public availability, I think this will have a huge impact on urban apartment living and traffic congestion. Of course, you have to be able to get to work via some means other than a car, but for the occasional car-share the ability to call a car with your smart phone from some central charge/parking point and have it arrive at your door will eliminate the last inconvenience of car-sharing; the need to pick-up/drop it off somewhere away from you, and the need to plug/un-plug it. If you can use a smaller number of centralized garages outfitted with inductive charging, then aside from needing humans to clean the cars and do routine maintenance, the car-sharing companies will be able to reduce their costs as they won't need employees to re-position cars. And their income will rise (especially if they charge by the mile), because the cars will be traveling farther.

Naturally, taxi and livery drivers will fight self-driving cars with everything they've got, because it will destroy their livelihood.

 

[GRA]

What a bunch of the usual GM PR spin crap. GM issues a press release (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0103_million_30mpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "GM Sells 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicles in 2012") and the press all over the place (not just GCR) picks up on it. :roll: They're referring to 30+ mpg on the EPA highway test. Not everyone lives and works on a highway. Not everyone is able to go highway speeds on their commute. Try going on a highway in a crowded metro area (e.g. LA or SF Bay Area) in the direction of rush hour traffic during rush hour. It's a parking lot w/lots of idling and stop and go.
<snippagio>

Of course it's PR. But would you prefer that they sold NO cars that got 30 mpg city, highway or combined? A few years ago, that would have been the case, with GM and virtually every other U.S. automaker - would a PR release saying "GM sells 1 million cars that get 25 mpg" be preferable? Is it as good as a Prius? Of course not, but the majority of customers aren't willing to drive Prii, or any other hybrid for that matter. As it is, the monthly fleet average MPG of all U.S. LDVs was 24.1 mpg a couple of months ago, which was a new high IIRR. Considering the large percentage of pickups that make up U.S. LDV sales, we need every 30+ MPG car sale we can get, city, highway or combined.

Further to the above:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081502_gas-mileage-keeps-rising-record-23-8-mpg-average-in-2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Summarizing, the tech isn't yet ready for mainstream prime time, and won't be for some years yet, so let's stop pushing it as if it is, use PHEVs and HEVs to fill the gap, and slowly grow the BEV market until the batteries we need are here.

Seeing as how PHEV and HEV sales numbers are higher than BEV numbers, this might be the way the market develops.
<snip>

Further to the above, here's VW's plans:


http://www.plugincars.com/vw-ev-chief-we-want-lead-electrification-125999.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mitsubishi also seems to be abandoning BEVs in favor of PHEVs. Sure, PHEVs are an interim solution, but they're a good interim solution.

 

[GRA]

Re urban delivery BEVs, here's a three year old study on the suitability of electric delivery vehicles for the USPS. Costs have come down since then, but the USPS is even more broke, so outside money would still be needed:

http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/da-wp-09-001.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UPS, FedEx and /Frito-Lay also seem to be ready to move beyond the DemVal phase to regular operations:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-05/fedexs-electric-vehicle-experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2012/03/30/electric-vehicles-corporate-fleet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[abasile]

"The New 2011 Nissan Leaf has a guaranteed minimum range in worst-case conditions (GVWR, battery at EOL retaining 70% of original capacity, 23 deg. F/-5C, max. heat, defrost and fan, lights and wipers, 10 mile reserve, cruising at 65 mph) of 25 miles on flat ground, with range under ideal conditions (70 deg. F/21C, no climate control or accessories, 180 lb. driver only, flat ground, using slow speeds and hypermiling techniques) of 100-120 miles, Typical range for the first two years when new is 60-70 miles in summer, 40-50 miles in winter, both with a 10 mile reserve and moderate use of C/C, average driving techniques, and employing pre-conditioning. Climbing will radically reduce range, descending will moderately increase it. Much more rapid degradation can be expected in areas with hot climates such as the desert southwest, where battery EOL may be reached in two-three years instead of 5-10 years. for the type of range you can expect in your conditions, consult the charts in the owner's manual or on the Nissan Leaf website. The 2011 Nissan Leaf, starting at $33,700."

It's good to know the true capabilities of the LEAF, but there's no need to fixate on worst-case scenarios. To be worth buying, the LEAF (or any other EV) does not need to be capable of meeting every need. A limited range BEV is, in general, best purchased by multi-car households with access to a longer range vehicle. Still, in such households, it is clear that a LEAF can meet a large fraction, perhaps even most, of the family's driving needs. It isn't that hard to swap cars here and there. Occasionally I drive a different car when the LEAF cannot reasonably meet my needs, and let other family members use the LEAF for miscellaneous, short distance errands.

 

[RegGuheert]

It's good to know the true capabilities of the LEAF, but there's no need to fixate on worst-case scenarios. To be worth buying, the LEAF (or any other EV) does not need to be capable of meeting every need. A limited range BEV is, in general, best purchased by multi-car households with access to a longer range vehicle. Still, in such households, it is clear that a LEAF can meet a large fraction, perhaps even most, of the family's driving needs. It isn't that hard to swap cars here and there. Occasionally I drive a different car when the LEAF cannot reasonably meet my needs, and let other family members use the LEAF for miscellaneous, short distance errands.

+1

We have four vehicles in our household pool and we select which vehicle to drive for any given trip based on which can perform the task at the lowest marginal cost. Using this approach, the LEAF is used for around 90% of the miles we drive. It has never left us stranded on the side of the road. So far this week (three days), the LEAF has been driven four times (14, 40, 26, and 68.4 miles) the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid has been driven once (14 miles) and the two vans have been parked. The marginal cost of driving the LEAF is about 30% of driving our HCH right now because we did not bank enough solar electricity to get us through this winter. (It is about 15% of our 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager and about 8% of our 2002 Ford E350.) However, with our recent addition of a heat pump water heater, we may be in a situation beginning in March where the marginal cost of driving the LEAF drops very close to zero (maintenance only), even through next winter. Either way, it is our preferred vehicle when it can make the trip.

Before tax incentives, the LEAF cost us $35,000 on the road. After taxes, the LEAF cost us $27,500 on the road. By way of comparison, our 2003 HCH, which was purchased almost exactly 10 years earlier, cost $22,000 before tax incentives and $20,000 after. After 11 years and 90,000 miles at an estimated $2.50/mile for fuel plus about $1000 in maintenance, the HCH has cost us a total of about $25,700. The HCH has been a very affordable car! The dreaded battery light has been on once, so we expect our lifetime maintenance cost for the Honda to triple within the next two years, but it will stay on the road. If we get that many years and miles out of the LEAF, it will cost us about $29,000 total, which is probably cheaper than a current HCH given that the vehicle, the fuel and the maintenance have all gone up in price after 10 years. Without the incentives, both vehicles would probably cost about the same if purchased today and driven that far. BTW, insurance costs are similar. The HCH cost us $2900 total for 11 years of insurance and the LEAF currently costs us $250/year.)

Our LEAF includes several features that were not included in our 2003 HCH including navigation, hands-free, MP3 player, fancy key system (which we like!)!, traction control, a back-up camera and remote control of the climate-control system. And that all ignores the benefit of being able to refuel the LEAF at home, which is one reason we chose to buy an electric vehicle.

- The argument that PHEVs will be successful is a non sequitur, since that does not preclude the success of BEVs. Both will be successful in the near term.
- The argument that many EV offerings are being dropped is also a non sequitur, since the Nissan LEAF is not being dropped. Some of those same manufacturers will soon discover that the PHEV market is about to become very crowded while Nissan will continue to enjoy being the king of the hill.
- All of our arguments about what would happen in a world without government intervention are moot. It ain't gonna happen!

 

[GRA]

"The New 2011 Nissan Leaf has a guaranteed minimum range in worst-case conditions (GVWR, battery at EOL retaining 70% of original capacity, 23 deg. F/-5C, max. heat, defrost and fan, lights and wipers, 10 mile reserve, cruising at 65 mph) of 25 miles on flat ground, with range under ideal conditions (70 deg. F/21C, no climate control or accessories, 180 lb. driver only, flat ground, using slow speeds and hypermiling techniques) of 100-120 miles, Typical range for the first two years when new is 60-70 miles in summer, 40-50 miles in winter, both with a 10 mile reserve and moderate use of C/C, average driving techniques, and employing pre-conditioning. Climbing will radically reduce range, descending will moderately increase it. Much more rapid degradation can be expected in areas with hot climates such as the desert southwest, where battery EOL may be reached in two-three years instead of 5-10 years. for the type of range you can expect in your conditions, consult the charts in the owner's manual or on the Nissan Leaf website. The 2011 Nissan Leaf, starting at $33,700."

It's good to know the true capabilities of the LEAF, but there's no need to fixate on worst-case scenarios. To be worth buying, the LEAF (or any other EV) does not need to be capable of meeting every need. A limited range BEV is, in general, best purchased by multi-car households with access to a longer range vehicle. Still, in such households, it is clear that a LEAF can meet a large fraction, perhaps even most, of the family's driving needs. It isn't that hard to swap cars here and there. Occasionally I drive a different car when the LEAF cannot reasonably meet my needs, and let other family members use the LEAF for miscellaneous, short distance errands.

Apologies for the delayed reply. Life and a nasty flu bug have interfered with my internet recreational posting

I'm not fixating on worst-case, worst-case is just a range guaranty, analogous to a battery capacity warranty: "If you're range is X or less, you'll never have a problem. If your range is between X and 5X (5X being Nissan Fantasyland range), the more you exceed X the more limited the conditions under which that range will be achievable, and the more precisely you need to calculate all the variables." It's just honest information, the sort of thing that I used to tell my AE customers, and the sort of information that, if Nissan had provided it to all its customers before they'd bought, would have avoided all the angst and anger. Of course, there would have been far fewer customers initially, but that's the whole point. Start slow, make happy customers, let them bring in more through word of mouth and let sales grow organically, instead of over-selling at the start and pissing a bunch of people off who never should have been sold the cars in the first place.

As to a limited range BEV being able to meet the needs of many households (multi-car home-owning as you state), I've never argued that it can't. My argument is that mainstream consumers don't see the value for money in such a vehicle, especially with all the limitations and conditions, i.e. hassle, that may apply. If limited range BEVs sold for $15k (no incentives) instead of $35k, matters would be very different.

 

[GRA]

<snip reasons why Leaf works for you>

- The argument that PHEVs will be successful is a non sequitur, since that does not preclude the success of BEVs. Both will be successful in the near term.
- The argument that many EV offerings are being dropped is also a non sequitur, since the Nissan LEAF is not being dropped. Some of those same manufacturers will soon discover that the PHEV market is about to become very crowded while Nissan will continue to enjoy being the king of the hill.
- All of our arguments about what would happen in a world without government intervention are moot. It ain't gonna happen!

I disagree that BEVs will be mass-market successes in the near-term, or even the medium term (barring some major oil supply disruption, like war with Iran). PHEVs won't be a mass-market success either in the near-term, but I think over the next few years they will grow to the point where HEVs are now, a few % of the market, while I expect HEVs will grow from their current approx. 3% of the (U.S.) market to 5% in the next two years, and maybe 10% within 5 years.

Edit. FWIW: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081448_how-bad-were-the-nissan-and-gm-electric-car-sales-shortfalls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/01/kpmg-20130110.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, the PHEV market is becoming crowded, and that's a good thing! More options means being able to find a car that fits more people, and that can only affect infrastructure and the market as a whole in a positive way. Nissan risks being King of a very small hill, and until they put a TMS or an improved battery chemistry in their cars, I believe their U.S. market acceptability will remain even more limited than it already is.

Finally, re government intervention always being here, sure, but the nature and direction of that intervention can change quite radically in short periods of time; just ask German solar companies, since their government realized that subsidizing solar installations in NW Europe was an incredibly dumb way to waste money.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think we are all saying that "not every car is fit for every situation" in about a dozen different ways.

GRA is fixated on the LEAF as a "all or nothing" car although he grudgingly admits there could be a small role for a LEAF in a multi car household.

then there is actual LEAF owners who have learned (the learning curve is really not steep) how best to incorporate the LEAF into the daily scheme of things.

RegGuheert has it right. about 97+% of the time, the LEAF is taken for the longest planned drive of the day. The Prius (or whatever we replace it with) takes the shortest simply because it costs so much more to drive it.

When I drive the LEAF in Winter, my range is a comfortable (as in no range anxiety) 70 miles but when SO drives it, the range is about 50 miles and she is comfortable even on days like today when it was 20º this morning.

so we really get back to price and all indications suggest the price will be much more favorable this year. but gas prices are expected to be low due to low demand and ample supply. Unfortunately the US will be unlikely to take advantage of that fact by raising gas taxes to help support governmental operations so the end result is we Americans will be a bit more poorer and the oil companies will become a LOT more richer

 

[abasile]

I think we all agree that over-promising is bad. In other words, Nissan should stop trying to sell the LEAF as a 100 mile car, and do their best to provide a realistic picture of the car's capabilities.

As a LEAF owner, I feel that I have gotten good value from the car thus far, and obviously many other owners feel the same way. It also seems to be almost universally true that after using a BEV as one's primary mode of transportation, it is hard to go back to gasoline. The experience of driving an EV is really nice. I think the EV will catch on, but whether sooner or later, I don't know...

 

[RegGuheert]

Nissan risks being King of a very small hill,...

Sure they do. I think nearly everyone agrees that is their big risk. But so far it appears the Nissan LEAF has grown this "hill" faster than the Toyota Prius grew the hybrid "hill". Both "hills" have been subsidized by the government and it is clear Nissan is leasing (and perhaps selling) LEAFs at a loss. New MNL member OldMike tells of how the LEAFs at local dealerships are being scarfed up by dealership employees:

My wife had known about the killer lease programs on the Leafs for a while. She works at a couple of Nissan dealerships, and most of the sales guys were leasing the 2012 Leafs. She knew that I was interested in getting another vehicle so that I could park the truck, but she didn't even mention the deals going on with the Leaf and the fact that there was a run on them at the dealership by the sales guys (which means that the deals were complete steals).

Our dealership is similarly filled with many LEAF lessees. So, is Nissan making money on these deals? Certainly not! But they are investing in educating the employees in their dealerships. I can tell you there are LEAF evangelists at our Nissan dealership today who were sorely missing when we purchased our LEAF!

Much like the Toyota Prius, the Nissan LEAF is undergoing a steady process of evolution. The 2013 is not a huge change from the 2011/2012, but it lowers the entry point and likely gives a few more miles of range. Dealerships are more comfortable selling EVs and Nissan is now producing them in the local currency. All of these things will grow the market. Still no "Holy Grail" battery, but IMO that is not required for sales growth except in the hot climates.

...and until they put a TMS or an improved battery chemistry in their cars, I believe their U.S. market acceptability will remain even more limited than it already is.

We certainly agree on this point! I'm pretty sure I was the first one on here to express that Nissan should not be selling the LEAF in Phoenix. They should only lease it there in recognition thhat the battery will wear out prematurely. But I do think the bettery capacity warranty is a step in the right direction if only to warn future LEAF customers. Owner loyalty aside, as built, the Nissan LEAF simply is not a good fit for very hot climates because the battery wears out so fast that it becomes quite harmful to the environment.

As always, I vote for a better battery instead of TMS.