I don't really understand Nissan's Strategy

[desiv]

Tesla is the one that wants to bring about that future. Nissan just wants to be ready when they get "forced" into in - either by regulation, consumer demand, or both.

I think that's a bit hard on Nissan.
I think most of the manufacturers who are doing "compliance cars" are the ones who want to be ready when they are FORCED into it..
I think Nissan is one of the leaders for this technology. But I think they don't want to pay too much for the base that others will ride on...

Tesla is taking more of a "whatever we can do to improve the market also improves our sales" approach.
Nissan is more a "we want to be in the front of the pack with this, but we don't necessarily want to pay more than we have to" approach.
Then I think there are others who are "We will do this when we have to and someone else has laid the groundwork."

desiv

 

[mbender]

Tesla is the one that wants to bring about that future. Nissan just wants to be ready when they get "forced" into in - either by regulation, consumer demand, or both.

I think that's a bit hard on Nissan.
I think most of the manufacturers who are doing "compliance cars" are the ones who want to be ready when they are FORCED into it..
I think Nissan is one of the leaders for this technology. But I think they don't want to pay too much for the base that others will ride on...

Much as I love the Leaf, I'm not convinced that Nissan really wants to be leaders in the rEVolution. Or perhaps more accurately, their dealers don't, and since Nissan cannot force their "independent" dealers' hands, they/Nissan are sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Done right, marketed well, they should have (had) no problem selling 30, 40, 50k + per year (imho).

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Tesla is the one that wants to bring about that future. Nissan just wants to be ready when they get "forced" into in - either by regulation, consumer demand, or both.

I think that's a bit hard on Nissan.
I think most of the manufacturers who are doing "compliance cars" are the ones who want to be ready when they are FORCED into it..
I think Nissan is one of the leaders for this technology. But I think they don't want to pay too much for the base that others will ride on...

Tesla is taking more of a "whatever we can do to improve the market also improves our sales" approach.
Nissan is more a "we want to be in the front of the pack with this, but we don't necessarily want to pay more than we have to" approach.
Then I think there are others who are "We will do this when we have to and someone else has laid the groundwork."

desiv

I stand by it. Ghosn himself has said things to that effect - that through tightening governmental regulation and consumer attitude on issues such as global warming will require all OEMs to produce more and more electrics. They are definitely doing more than the bare minimum today, but I think it's more because they want to be out in front when the tides turn. That's a very different attitude from Tesla's, whose goal is to spur the transition to EVs as quickly as possible.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

I stand by it. Ghosn himself has said things to that effect - that through tightening governmental regulation and consumer attitude on issues such as global warming will require all OEMs to produce more and more electrics. They are definitely doing more than the bare minimum today, but I think it's more because they want to be out in front when the tides turn. That's a very different attitude from Tesla's, whose goal is to spur the transition to EVs as quickly as possible.

and for that reason Tesla so far sold in US about 44K with GM and Nissan about 70K each. Tesla worldwide 80K and Nissan much more than 200K. Tesla have big plans but Nissan is selling and that is the difference. It is easy to say marketing done right, should Nissan give cars for free? What exactly Tesla did to spur the transition means get common Joe on board?

 

[Nubo]

[
Sure.
By the end of 2015 Tesla expects to be building at a rate of 2,000 cars a week.
A full year's production at that rate would therefore be 100,000 cars/year.

They did not say they would build 100,000 cars IN 2015, just that by the end of 2015 they would reach that rate.

In order to build 100,000 cars in 2015, they would need to reach that rate at the beginning of the year, not the end.

For 2016 we should see guidance of 100,000 cars IF they have demand for that many (which I think we will).

Thank you. I haven't been following their quarterly reports that closely, but didn't they report 11,627 for last quarter? That seems pretty far from the goal of producing 25,000 cars per quarter, as i don't think they have any plans or infrastructure for doubling capacity rapidly. Specially if the Gigafactory for batteries is a requirement (that is batteries are a limiting factor).

They very much have plans to increase production. The Model X is about to start production. Tesla installed a very large amount of capital equipment into their factory last year to get the line ready for dual production. They recently brought a new paint facility online. I also saw mention that they are beginning to hire more line workers at the plant. From what I've read, cell deliveries from their partners are increasing. You have to take what they say very literally. For example, Model X to start deliveries in "summer 2015"; I expect that may mean 1 or 2 vehicles by Sept 21. Likewise, 100K/year production capacity may mean that by 31 Dec 2015 they will have the capacity to produce at that rate. It certainly doesn't mean they will be producing 100K vehicles THIS year, or even 25K vehicles in fourth quarter.

Personally, if Model X turns out as good as I hope, I expect Model X sales to surpass Model S. Lots of people just don't care for sedans.

 

[desiv]

Or perhaps more accurately, their dealers don't, and since Nissan cannot force their "independent" dealers' hands, they/Nissan are sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

+1
Totally agree here..
It's another huge advantage Tesla has, in that they don't have to worry about dealing with their dealers.
(Of course, they have to worry about being allowed to sell without dealerships in some states, so it's not just roses for them.. ;-) )

I think Nissan made 2 big mistakes/assumptions.
1: I think they thought people needing 30-50 miles would be fine with a car with 80 (or so ) mile range. When in reality, people want more range to be comfortable (and yes, more range is good anyway). Cost wise, adding more battery probably wouldn't have been good, so more infrastructure is the other way to help that... Which leads to the second issue.
2: Nissan thought their dealers would embrace dealer charging as a good will / good for EVs / good for customers marketing and EV support deal. In reality, many dealers look at this is problematic and make it difficult for EV customers. The result is that in some areas, this has had a negative effect on customers. Not only not positive, but actively negative.. ;-(

Oh well..

I stand by it. Ghosn himself has said things to that effect - that through tightening governmental regulation and consumer attitude on issues such as global warming will require all OEMs to produce more and more electrics.

I don't think it matters whether or not Nissan wants EVs to be successful. ;-)
I think Nissan thinks they will be and wants to be out front. The "compliance car" groups aren't sure and are waiting to see what happens and will go when they have to go...

So, while not Tesla, Nissan isn't waiting to be forced into it. That said, they (and Tesla) will take advantage of the forcing as it happens, and hope for more..

desiv

 

[Nubo]

I stand by it. Ghosn himself has said things to that effect - that through tightening governmental regulation and consumer attitude on issues such as global warming will require all OEMs to produce more and more electrics. They are definitely doing more than the bare minimum today, but I think it's more because they want to be out in front when the tides turn. That's a very different attitude from Tesla's, whose goal is to spur the transition to EVs as quickly as possible.

Since LEAF was released, to me Nissan seems to be of 2 minds. I think Ghosn definitely has made the big push, and part of Nissan is proud and excited to be part of it. I also get the feeling that other parts of Nissan are ambivalent or even decidedly opposed. And of course the dealers are hit-or-miss. I think this is why the strategy sometimes seems confused.

 

[keydiver]

Come late 2016/early 2017 if Tesla is looking like they won't be able to get the Model 3 to market while the credit is still available, I'll go buy a Bolt, or a Leaf2, or whatever else is out there that still has the credit available.

My 2012 SL was $35,000 AFTER the tax credit, so to me its no big deal if the tax credits are gone by that time. However, I'll never buy another Leaf after seeing how non-supportive the Nissan dealers are of EV, (not to mention AGAIN this battery fiasco I'm having to deal with), and the Volt/Bolt are out if they can't comfortably seat 4-5 adults. At this point, Tesla is the only option that fits my parameters, so I'm rooting for them.

 

[epirali]

Back on topic...

There has been a lot of good conversation on this thread, with lots of good insight. Let's also remember that Nissan seems to have misjudged the market space back in 2009. At that time, they expected to sell ~30k Leafs / year. They didn't hit that number until 2014. They also expected others to join the fray and for governments to - at least partially - fund the roll out of infrastructure.

While both Nissan and Tesla believe that the future will be electric, Tesla is the one that wants to bring about that future. Nissan just wants to be ready when they get "forced" into in - either by regulation, consumer demand, or both.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Teslas survival depends on realizing their plan, Nissan has very little skin in the game as it were.

 

[Zythryn]

... They [Nissan] are definitely doing more than the bare minimum today, but I think it's more because they want to be out in front when the tides turn. That's a very different attitude from Tesla's, whose goal is to spur the transition to EVs as quickly as possible.

and for that reason Tesla so far sold in US about 44K with GM and Nissan about 70K each. Tesla worldwide 80K and Nissan much more than 200K. Tesla have big plans but Nissan is selling and that is the difference. It is easy to say marketing done right, should Nissan give cars for free? What exactly Tesla did to spur the transition means get common Joe on board?

With a base price 2 1/2 times larger, don't you think that is the bigger reason?
Tesla is making more money on the Model S than Nissan is on the Leaf.

Without Tesla, the Volt would not exist.
Tesla has also resulted in additional sales of Leafs and Volts. People who were not interested in EVs, all of a sudden started looking.
So yes, Tesla has contributed to EV sales and they are selling them as fast as they can make them.

 

[tkdbrusco]

Back on topic...

There has been a lot of good conversation on this thread, with lots of good insight. Let's also remember that Nissan seems to have misjudged the market space back in 2009. At that time, they expected to sell ~30k Leafs / year. They didn't hit that number until 2014. They also expected others to join the fray and for governments to - at least partially - fund the roll out of infrastructure.

While both Nissan and Tesla believe that the future will be electric, Tesla is the one that wants to bring about that future. Nissan just wants to be ready when they get "forced" into in - either by regulation, consumer demand, or both.

Nissan was not forced into it. They jumped in early before anyone else was, led the charge (along with Tesla) and seem to be committed to EVs for the long term. If anything they are going to get penalized for doing this because they will be losing out on the 200K cap for the credit just when EVs go mainstream.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Without Tesla, the Volt would not exist.

If I remember correctly GM developed Volt without Tesla help and sold 2 x more Volts in US comparing Tesla EV.

Tesla has also resulted in additional sales of Leafs and Volts. People who were not interested in EVs, all of a sudden started looking.

I am not sure how this happened. Tesla does not advertise their cars and I do not believe they recommended purchase of either Volt or Leaf to potential customers.

So yes, Tesla has contributed to EV sales and they are selling them as fast as they can make them.

As previously discussed Tesla have additional capacity, but probably because slowing demand they adjusted production level already to 55K or less globally, so it is not surprising that wait from order to delivery is very short now, about a month or less as recently reported at TMCF. There are also good number of inventory cars that can be purchased without any wait. I want all EV producing companies to be a big success, however it seems that demand still not there.

 

[Zythryn]

Without Tesla, the Volt would not exist.

If I remember correctly GM developed Volt without Tesla help and sold 2 x more Volts in US comparing Tesla EV.

Tesla has also resulted in additional sales of Leafs and Volts. People who were not interested in EVs, all of a sudden started looking.

I am not sure how this happened. Tesla does not advertise their cars and I do not believe they recommended purchase of either Volt or Leaf to potential customers.

So yes, Tesla has contributed to EV sales and they are selling them as fast as they can make them.

As previously discussed Tesla have additional capacity, but probably because slowing demand they adjusted production level already to 55K or less globally, so it is not surprising that wait from order to delivery is very short now, about a month or less as recently reported at TMCF. There are also good number of inventory cars that can be purchased without any wait. I want all EV producing companies to be a big success, however it seems that demand still not there.

Bob Lutz himself has stated that the GM board of directors turned down the Volt project.
Bob went back a second time using the Roadster as leverage and got the Volt project approved.

I myself have sold a number of Leafs and Volts (and Teslas). People come to see the Model S, and then take a look at other electric options.

And as I implied up thread, but will be more clear. Tesla has not lowered their production estimates for 2015.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I stand by it. Ghosn himself has said things to that effect - that through tightening governmental regulation and consumer attitude on issues such as global warming will require all OEMs to produce more and more electrics.

I don't think it matters whether or not Nissan wants EVs to be successful. ;-)
I think Nissan thinks they will be and wants to be out front. The "compliance car" groups aren't sure and are waiting to see what happens and will go when they have to go...

So, while not Tesla, Nissan isn't waiting to be forced into it. That said, they (and Tesla) will take advantage of the forcing as it happens, and hope for more..

desiv

I think we agree more than we disagree here. I'm probably just not articulating my point well enough.

So if Nissan thinks that EVs will be successful in the long run (and it appears that they do), what would cause that transition? In my mind, there are two main factors at play here.

The first is government regulations, in North America, Europe, and Asia. Governments are forcing cars to be more and more efficient and to pollute less and less.

The second is consumer demand. To a lesser degree, consumers are starting to demand that their cars are greener and cheaper to operate.

Either way, Nissan is "pulled" into the market while Tesla is actively "pushing" the market forward. I don't see Nissan as having created the market but rather taking advantage of what they see as a major growth opportunity.

 

[desiv]

I think we agree more than we disagree here.

I'd agree with that.. ;-)

I don't see Nissan as having created the market but rather taking advantage of what they see as a major growth opportunity.

In the U.S. I could maybe see that, but Nissan has been a leader in markets without Tesla to drive it..
(At least without Tesla initially)
So, I don't think Nissan is blazing new ground for the good of the Earth, creating a market at the time. ;-)
I do agree that they see the market is coming and that is driving them.

But again, this market is slow coming (slower than Nissan had hoped, but they knew it would be slow) and Nissan isn't waiting for others to create it first.
I like to give them credit for that.. ;-)

desiv

 

[ydnas7]

So, I don't think Nissan is blazing new ground for the good of the Earth, creating a market at the time. ;-)
I do agree that they see the market is coming and that is driving them.

But again, this market is slow coming (slower than Nissan had hoped, but they knew it would be slow) and Nissan isn't waiting for others to create it first.
I like to give them credit for that.. ;-)

desiv

I read Nissan's motivations is simple, real simple
there are 7 billion people on earth, how can the auto industry provide a car for every household?
Ans: they can't if its oil based.

There are 3 basic types of humans on earth.
those who normally eat with fingers
those who normally eat with forks and knives
those who normally eat with chopsticks
Nissan may market the LEAF due to environmental considerations.
Nissan may justify the LEAF due to regulatory considerations.
Nissan pursued the LEAF due to market considerations, it is only fair that all people on earth have the right to their own car. Including a boy from Porto Velho, Rondônia http://www.rondoniaovivo.com/noticias/a-cheia-em-imagens-porto-velho-e-guajara-mirim/112501#.VV6L-1IZajc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its only fair that all families on earth have their own car. For some, its a matter of global fairness.

There are very few people on earth whose life path lead them to be naturally all three basic types of human. Carlos Chosn is one them.

 

[mjblazin]

One contradiction is the same people that need a low maintenance low cost vehicle also need a high quality electrical network. EVs can satisfy third world needs, but need first world infrastructure.

 

[ydnas7]

One contradiction is the same people that need a low maintenance low cost vehicle also need a high quality electrical network. EVs can satisfy third world needs, but need first world infrastructure.

do EVs assist or hinder electrical infrastructure?
People need electricity before they need cars, the electricity generally arrives first.

 

[ishiyakazuo]

One contradiction is the same people that need a low maintenance low cost vehicle also need a high quality electrical network. EVs can satisfy third world needs, but need first world infrastructure.

What about "LEAF to Home"? Japan was having rolling blackouts because of the Tohoku Earthquake of 2011, and the LEAF was touted to be a way to help solve that problem. In other words, the LEAF can help stabilize the electricity of one's home due to unstable grids, if the right infrastructure is installed alongside it.

 

[TomHuffman]

I think is about time to get real. Where is the big crowd of potential customers waiting to buy BEV? Nissan manage to sell relatively big number of Leaf, but price that people pay is near close to $35K after fed tax credit. I wish Tesla all the best, but to me expectation for Tesla economy car are way too high, and unfortunately there is not that much profit margin there. Nissan limited involvement in building infrastructure make a lot of financial sense.

Since currently there is no affordable BEV with a reasonable range, it is pointless to speculate about the size of the market. You can only know what the market is when the product is available, and it just isn't yet.