Nissan: We Can Match Bolt

[golfcart]

That's what greater initial range gets you, and is why bigger batteries/greater range provide a large increment of owner value. It's not that people need 200 miles of range on a daily basis, it's that they need 70-80 miles of range for a decade or more while using heat/defrost/AC in inclement conditions with no worries. Until such time as a battery that suffers essentially no degradation arrives (or battery leasing with guaranteed capacity becomes widespread), a big battery that can provide 150-200 miles of initial range (or lesser guaranteed range via hiding capacity, ala' the Volt) is needed to handle people's routine needs over the long term. And not just the original owner, because unless the car has practical utility over the long-term it has little value on the used market, guaranteeing that BEVs will remain throw-away cars.

That doesn't change the fact that for now PHEVs remain the best choice for single-auto households, as well as retaining more long-term value as affordable used cars.

I don't disagree with anything you said but in the context of matching the Bolt just for the sake of doing it I still don't see why I would pay an extra $5k dollars for range I only need once in a bluemoon. That's all I'm saying, I think 150 miles should be more than enough in 90% of U.S climates to get you 100 miles of range for 10 years. What holds BEVs back is refueling time more than capacity IMO. The vast majority of peoples daily routines just don't require more than 50-60 miles of range and BEVs are great for that. But they are gonna suck for road trips whether the range is 100 or 200 miles. You'd need battery swap stations to compete with ICE over long trips charging rates aren't even close to being there. Even a Tesla supercharger takes about 15min to get 100 miles of range, my 1998 metro gets 400 miles of gas in about a minute.

I don't consider my leaf a throwaway car at all. It just is what it is, a great value as a commuter and around town car that can also be very environmentally friendly with increasingly clean electricity sources. All indications are that it will make my commute for the next 8 years or so at which point I'll either have to start charging at work, get a new battery (having saved thousands in gas and maintenance over its lifetime), or just let my wife use it with her 12 mile round trip commute. None of which are bad options.

 

[edatoakrun]

...Consumers are still skeptical about EVs, says Ghosn, due to high prices and a lack of charging infrastructure. But “when you start to see the infrastructure put in place, the range of electric cars going up, the cost of electric cars going down, I can bet that you’re going to see a major shift towards electric cars...

http://ecomento.com/2016/01/27/carlos-ghosn-expounds-on-the-future-of-electric-cars/

This and other statements by Ghosn show he understands that range is not the main limitation on BEV sales, though it may seem so to those suffering from ICEV dependency.

For those of you do want occasional longer range between refueling stops, the superior solution is a BEVx, with a battery pack adequate for daily needs, and also a range extending generator for use on longer trips, just as was true back in 2011, when I wrote:

The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

...Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt. It seems almost as ridiculous, to install an extremely expensive and heavy large battery pack (like the Tesla S long-range options) which is only occasionally required by the BEV driver.

A functional range extender would consist of:

A small displacement (200-600 CC) ICE generator, run at highest-efficiency rpm, to recharge the battery pack. Generator output would not be sufficient to drive the vehicle, just enough to extend the battery pack range to the next convenient recharge location...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

Of course, given adequate kW output from the generator and fuel capacity, A BEVx (while having much lower cost of ownership than a oversized-battery BEV) could be designed to have the same or longer range between refueling stops as any ICEV, if that really were a critical factor.

...bigger batteries/greater range provide a large increment of owner value. It's not that people need 200 miles of range on a daily basis, it's that they need 70-80 miles of range for a decade or more while using heat/defrost/AC in inclement conditions with no worries...

Since Batteries suffer from more rapid depreciation than the rest of the vehicle, as well as capacity degradation over time, only a fool would buy battery capacity today, that they will not need to use until a decade or more in the future.

The Bolt is a poorly designed BEV because the oversized battery pack insures very high operating costs, and (without additional DC infrastructure) will deliver poor utility in trips beyond the initial charge range.

In short, the Bolt is the perfect BEV for those few who want ~54 kWh of range between (slow) charges, and it has too much or too little range for the vast majority of BEV/BEVx buyers who want to be able to drive both shorter and longer trips, as quickly and at the lowest cost possible.

I certainly hope Nissan won't be suckered into a battery capacity war with GM, a company which has shown a greater interest in discrediting BEVs than in promoting them.

 

[LeftieBiker]

A) If Bolt is at least as well supported as Volt I will buy it.

B) I will never, ever buy a Model 3 (or any other Tesla product) new based on my personal principles. I don't like Elon Musk, and will never knowingly put a single dollar in his pocket. Note that still leaves me the option of buying pre-owned, though obviously not through the Tesla CPO program, so if you ever see me in a Model S someday...well, that.

So the deaths that GM has knowingly caused with their faulty ignition switches don't trump the quality of their product, but Musk's personality trumps the quality of his...? I write that as someone who would consider leasing a Volt, but not without serious misgivings.

 

[user 10599]

A) If Bolt is at least as well supported as Volt I will buy it.

B) I will never, ever buy a Model 3 (or any other Tesla product) new based on my personal principles. I don't like Elon Musk, and will never knowingly put a single dollar in his pocket. Note that still leaves me the option of buying pre-owned, though obviously not through the Tesla CPO program, so if you ever see me in a Model S someday...well, that.

So the deaths that GM has knowingly caused with their faulty ignition switches don't trump the quality of their product, but Musk's personality trumps the quality of his...? I write that as someone who would consider leasing a Volt, but not without serious misgivings.

Good point.

Sadly, I suspect that most of the automakers have had their turn in the role of knowingly causing deaths at some point in their lengthy history. If that is the criterion for selecting, then one can only buy Tesla. Though perhaps only because they haven't been around long enough to get caught.

 

[user 10599]

I admit I'm too lazy to do the research. Anyone out there know if there is a major automaker with a squeaky clean history? Perhaps, cough, cough, VW?

 

[TomT]

That was the old GM but, frankly, no it doesn't influence whether or not I'd buy or recommend one of their products... Every manufacturer has had a similar issue at some time in their history... It's how they learn from it and change that truly matters...

So the deaths that GM has knowingly caused with their faulty ignition switches don't trump the quality of their product, but Musk's personality trumps the quality of his?

 

[GRA]

<snip>
For those of you do want occasional longer range between refueling stops, the superior solution is a BEVx, with a battery pack adequate for daily needs, and also a range extending generator for use on longer trips, just as was true back in 2011, when I wrote:

The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

...Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt. It seems almost as ridiculous, to install an extremely expensive and heavy large battery pack (like the Tesla S long-range options) which is only occasionally required by the BEV driver.

A functional range extender would consist of:

A small displacement (200-600 CC) ICE generator, run at highest-efficiency rpm, to recharge the battery pack. Generator output would not be sufficient to drive the vehicle, just enough to extend the battery pack range to the next convenient recharge location...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847

Of course, given adequate kW output from the generator and fuel capacity, A BEVx (while having much lower cost of ownership than a oversized-battery BEV) could be designed to have the same or longer range between refueling stops as any ICEV, if that really were a critical factor.

...bigger batteries/greater range provide a large increment of owner value. It's not that people need 200 miles of range on a daily basis, it's that they need 70-80 miles of range for a decade or more while using heat/defrost/AC in inclement conditions with no worries...

Since Batteries suffer from more rapid depreciation than the rest of the vehicle, as well as capacity degradation over time, only a fool would buy battery capacity today, that they will not need to use until a decade or more in the future.

The Bolt is a poorly designed BEV because the oversized battery pack insures very high operating costs, and (without additional DC infrastructure) will deliver poor utility in trips beyond the initial charge range.

In short, the Bolt is the perfect BEV for those few who want ~54 kWh of range between (slow) charges, and it has too much or too little range for the vast majority of BEV/BEVx buyers who want to be able to drive both shorter and longer trips, as quickly and at the lowest cost possible.

I certainly hope Nissan won't be suckered into a battery capacity war with GM, a company which has shown a greater interest in discrediting BEVs than in promoting them.

While we agree that until the infrastructure is improved, BEVs are of limited practical usage beyond a single QC's range compared to liquid-fueled ICEs, I disagree that a BEVx as currently available is 'better' from a sales perspective than a Volt-like PHEV. While it may or may not be more energy efficient (the i3 isn't), tiny motors sized only for battery charging tend to be loud and vibrate. Customer acceptability is just as (actually more, if we want PEVs to be mainstream) important than efficiency, which is why I think GM took exactly the right approach with Volt 2 by increasing the size of the engine. Not only did this improve NVH, but it's also more energy efficient than the smaller engine in Volt 1. Given that the latter was more off-the-shelf, it's possible that a purpose-designed smaller engine would have shown better efficiency, but in the real world bigger, less-stressed engines often have better gas mileage than the more-efficient (in lab tests) smaller engines.

 

[evnow]

I don't disagree with anything you said but in the context of matching the Bolt just for the sake of doing it I still don't see why I would pay an extra $5k dollars for range I only need once in a bluemoon. That's all I'm saying, I think 150 miles should be more than enough in 90% of U.S climates to get you 100 miles of range for 10 years.

That is why Leaf will have multiple battery sizes (like it does in '16).

BUT, don't assume what is more than enough for others.

My commute is 10 miles one way. But I'd gladly take 200 mile over 150. The difference should be more like $3k. It just eliminates range anxiety for my wife for a lot of scenarios (forgot to charge, need to go somewhere soon after coming back from work, go to far off places etc). She likes having 200% of the needed range on the GOM, if not 300%

 

[LeftieBiker]

That was the old GM but, frankly, no it doesn't influence whether or not I'd buy or recommend one of their products... Every manufacturer has had a similar issue at some time in their history... It's how they learn from it and change that truly matters...

So the deaths that GM has knowingly caused with their faulty ignition switches don't trump the quality of their product, but Musk's personality trumps the quality of his?

Was that a joke? Did we just get a genuinely "new" GM in the last few years, and I missed it? Anyway, to address this and darth's comments, I think GM and Toyota are similar, in that they are both huge corporations that are indifferent to human life - at least since Toyota passed from father to son. Both, however, have buried within their soulless hierarchies, little divisions that seem devoted to producing a superior, environmentally better car. In the case of Toyota it's the Prius team, and with GM it's the Volt team. Both cars get extra attention to both design detail and build quality. For that reason I might buy either a Prius or a Volt, but nothing else from either company - especially not from GM.

 

[golfcart]

That is why Leaf will have multiple battery sizes (like it does in '16).

BUT, don't assume what is more than enough for others.

My commute is 10 miles one way. But I'd gladly take 200 mile over 150. The difference should be more like $3k. It just eliminates range anxiety for my wife for a lot of scenarios (forgot to charge, need to go somewhere soon after coming back from work, go to far off places etc). She likes having 200% of the needed range on the GOM, if not 300%

No doubt different people value range differently, its nice to accommodate as many as possible.

 

[edatoakrun]

="evnow"...

Leaf will have multiple battery sizes (like it does in '16).

To be clear, most future BEVs with variable capacities will probably still carry batteries packs of similar size, as is true for The LEAF and the Tesla S.

Both manufacturers have seen benefits to using lower density cells in their lower-priced versions, giving all versions of a single model packs of ~the same size, and that is likely to continue in most future BEVs, IMO.

="evnow"...My commute is 10 miles one way. But I'd gladly take 200 mile over 150. The difference should be more like $3k...

I think that's probably an under-estimate of the 2017 cost for adding ~15 kWh of capacity, and delivering it in a pack of ~the same size and weight.

But even if your assumption were correct, it would still result in a far larger increase in operating costs than only a ~10% increase in sales price (net subsidies) implies.

BEV buyers will see these added costs in the prices received, when (and if) they re-sell.

Lessees will see these higher costs every month, when they make their higher payments.

It's easy to bury the added costs of battery depreciation in a high-priced luxury/near luxury BEV like a Tesla S.

Buyers/lessees of low-cost BEVs will probably find the additional costs from larger capacity packs much more noticeable.

 

[Stoaty]

But even if your assumption were correct, it would still result in a far larger increase in operating costs than only a ~10% increase in sales price (net subsidies) implies.

How would it cost more to operate an EV with a larger battery? The price of electricity doesn't change based on battery size.

 

[edatoakrun]

But even if your assumption were correct, it would still result in a far larger increase in operating costs than only a ~10% increase in sales price (net subsidies) implies.

How would it cost more to operate an EV with a larger battery? The price of electricity doesn't change based on battery size.

In recent history, the most rapidly depreciating component of any BEV has been the battery, and IMO, this will likely continue as battery costs continue to fall in the in the future.

As I mentioned in a previous post, that you have already commented on, both page 13:

="edatoakrun"

...the Bolt itself looks likely to be a demonstration of the proof-of failure of the concept, costing ~twice as much as a comparably-sized ICEV, and still having only ~half the range, and much longer public refueling times, at much higher cost.

Many seem to be completely oblivious that the rapid decline in BEV prices of ~30% over the last ~five years is primarily due to the rapid drop in battery prices.

Amazing that so many spend so much time complaining about the depreciation of the ~24 kWh LEAF, and yet say they would want to buy a ~60 kWh-battery-pack-with-wheels-attached like the Bolt, that is sure to depreciate much faster, as it's oversized pack inevitably depreciates rapidly in the future...

 

[Stoaty]

In recent history, the most rapidly depreciating component of any BEV has been the battery, and IMO, this will likely continue as battery costs continue to fall in the in the future.

That is only true if you want to sell the car, otherwise it doesn't matter. If you have a 200 mile BEV with thermal management the car will probably be useful for 15 years, assuming 70% capacity remaining at 10 years. It is certainly a lot cheaper to continue to operate that car than buying a new BEV or replacing the battery.

 

[edatoakrun]

In recent history, the most rapidly depreciating component of any BEV has been the battery, and IMO, this will likely continue as battery costs continue to fall in the in the future.

That is only true if you want to sell the car, otherwise it doesn't matter...

Do you actually believe that?

Those who bought TSLA at close to $290 a share would probably find that point of view quite reassuring today...

="Stoaty"
...If you have a 200 mile BEV with thermal management the car will probably be useful for 15 years, assuming 70% capacity remaining at 10 years. It is certainly a lot cheaper to continue to operate that car than buying a new BEV or replacing the battery.

It will almost always be far less expensive to buy a BEV or BEVx with a lower capacity kWh pack, and operate it over any time period.

The only exception being if you need to use the entire "200 mile" capacity of the BEV when new, and are also sure you will be satisfied with the shorter range you will have with your initial pack capacity, as it degrades over time.

And if you believe (active) thermal management reduces operating costs, I doubt you've considered the large inefficiencies and additional operating costs ATM imposes on A BEV, BEVx or PHEV.

 

[Stoaty]

And if you believe (active) thermal management reduces operating costs, I doubt you've considered the large inefficiencies and additional operating costs ATM imposes on A BEV, BEVx or PHEV.

That extra cost will be not much compared to the savings on insurance as the car gets older. It will always be cheaper to run a car for many years than to buy or lease a new one. I expect my Leaf (with limited initial range and a crappy battery that degrades way too quickly) to last 6.5 to 7 years (total) and still meet my needs. A 200 mile BEV will probably last until I get tired of it. At 50% capacity loss I might want to trade up.

 

[Nubo]

Wow, people here seem to really like Nissan and hate GM or like GM and hate Nissan. Not much middle ground.

For me, I grew up witnessing (and later repairing) the absolute freak parade of US auto manufacture that my parents ended up with during the 60's '70's and '80s. I've never really made a conscious decision to not buy American cars but I've yet to do so. I suppose I could be swayed some day.

 

[sub3marathonman]

But even if your assumption were correct, it would still result in a far larger increase in operating costs than only a ~10% increase in sales price (net subsidies) implies.

How would it cost more to operate an EV with a larger battery? The price of electricity doesn't change based on battery size.

In recent history, the most rapidly depreciating component of any BEV has been the battery, and IMO, this will likely continue as battery costs continue to fall in the in the future.

As I mentioned in a previous post, that you have already commented on, both page 13:

="edatoakrun"

...the Bolt itself looks likely to be a demonstration of the proof-of failure of the concept, costing ~twice as much as a comparably-sized ICEV, and still having only ~half the range, and much longer public refueling times, at much higher cost.

Many seem to be completely oblivious that the rapid decline in BEV prices of ~30% over the last ~five years is primarily due to the rapid drop in battery prices.

Amazing that so many spend so much time complaining about the depreciation of the ~24 kWh LEAF, and yet say they would want to buy a ~60 kWh-battery-pack-with-wheels-attached like the Bolt, that is sure to depreciate much faster, as it's oversized pack inevitably depreciates rapidly in the future...

Wow, I hate to step in between edatoakrun and Stoaty, as both have stated excellent points. However, as I'm watching the battery degredation of the LEAF, and also of every other car with a battery, I'm seeing things more as edatoakrun states. And at some point the $7500 government subsidy skewing things toward the BEVs is going to end, and edatoakrun's statements will, I believe, be more validated then.

The dilemma is that the LEAF, even with the 24kwh battery and without thermal management, has proven to be adequate for our needs, and a vast majority of people here, so really Nissan has done a fairly excellent job. They've somewhat been forced to, but they've also stepped up and are honoring their initial battery claims, although not on a completely fair basis. Yes, some drive 50 miles to work, without heat or a/c, and can't make it after a few years of ownership. Just the other day, we had to use the Prius (arrg) to do an 80 mile round trip because the 2011 LEAF couldn't do it now, although when new it might have. But, the situation is summed up by the following exchange:

That's what greater initial range gets you, and is why bigger batteries/greater range provide a large increment of owner value. It's not that people need 200 miles of range on a daily basis, it's that they need 70-80 miles of range for a decade or more while using heat/defrost/AC in inclement conditions with no worries. Until such time as a battery that suffers essentially no degradation arrives (or battery leasing with guaranteed capacity becomes widespread), a big battery that can provide 150-200 miles of initial range (or lesser guaranteed range via hiding capacity, ala' the Volt) is needed to handle people's routine needs over the long term. And not just the original owner, because unless the car has practical utility over the long-term it has little value on the used market, guaranteeing that BEVs will remain throw-away cars.

That doesn't change the fact that for now PHEVs remain the best choice for single-auto households, as well as retaining more long-term value as affordable used cars.

I don't disagree with anything you said but in the context of matching the Bolt just for the sake of doing it I still don't see why I would pay an extra $5k dollars for range I only need once in a bluemoon. That's all I'm saying, I think 150 miles should be more than enough in 90% of U.S climates to get you 100 miles of range for 10 years. What holds BEVs back is refueling time more than capacity IMO. The vast majority of peoples daily routines just don't require more than 50-60 miles of range and BEVs are great for that. But they are gonna suck for road trips whether the range is 100 or 200 miles. You'd need battery swap stations to compete with ICE over long trips charging rates aren't even close to being there. Even a Tesla supercharger takes about 15min to get 100 miles of range, my 1998 metro gets 400 miles of gas in about a minute.

And we could have done the 80 mile round trip, or set out across the country to Seattle from Tampa with some planning and patience, if there was an adequate QC infrastructure, and not just at Nissan dealers that close at 8 p.m. and aren't open on Sundays (which stopped me from a 400 mile round trip a few years ago), or have one of their ICE vehicles blocking the EVSE. And what do you do going across the country with the 200 mile 60kwh vehicle when the QCs aren't there, but are 150 miles or 125 miles between, you're back to an essentially smaller battery pack. But of course, it would be better than starting out with a 15kwh pack and stopping every 50 miles or forced to L2 charge along the way. It really isn't the battery, it is quick charging the battery that is holding everything back. That is what Tesla has already figured out and is using to their advantage at the moment.

So will that 200 mile 60kwh battery in that $40K or $50K car continue to work down to 50% or 30% capacity, or will it at some point suffer death? And what to do then, pay $20K or even just $10K for the new battery which will then essentially be worth as much as the used car? Or find it impossible to buy at any price, as I have with the old 1997 S10EV that I owned and GM absolutely refused to sell the batteries for, even as they were going bankrupt. I was lured to the LEAF and the BEV by the additional luxury of no ICE maintenance and oil changes and stops at the gas station, but now I'm shifting to thinking that a minimally used "range extender" ICE and even replacing a small 10kwh or 15kwh battery pack just might be the best long-term situation, even with the reduction in efficiency as edatoakrun points out. The real savings starts at the "reset" when you'd be buying another ICE vehicle, but instead just restoring the BEV or PHEV to as new with a replacement battery, thus the massive savings as Stoaty points out. But, as edatoakrun points out, that cost is much less if you've got a much smaller battery.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The model S can attribute its success to appealing to people who like fast cars and/or luxury sport sedans. If it had the same motor as the Leaf it would be dead on arrival.

I know 3 Tesla drivers personally and they all bought for other reasons... but there are several reasons to buy and I am sure yours does fit someone

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

My only comment is that when I am ready to change which will be anywhere from about Dec 2016 to late Spring 2017, I will make the evaluation as to what is out there that best fits my needs with my budget.

I personally think its pretty foolish to eliminate any brand based on past performance. There is not a manufacturer out there that has not made a lot of mistakes.

GM; well, ok they have earned a slightly larger piece of the "Crow Pie" but their handling of the Volt from year to year has impressed me. "That" is something not easily done with me, I can assure you.

Tesla; What some seem to perceive as proactive with lots of updates, I perceive as putting out a car that they knew ahead of time, was not ready for primetime but they needed the cash flow. Bad? maybe. Acceptable? no. Normal? Most definitely. Look at Microsoft product launches along with the timing of their first SW fixes... Normally happens on the same day. Now that does not mean that Tesla is not stretching the boundaries and pushing the line because they very much are but with a company that does not have the baggage that other Auto Manufacturers have to put up with, it should be expected... Besides, I view most of Tesla's changes to be more hype that anything. Autonomous Driving? hmmm??? They must have a different definition than the one I am familiar with. Still, pretty cool but useful?

Nissan; Still has the edge in an even matchup in my book because they were first and they did push Chevy and others into acting sooner rather than later. The initial product offerings from everyone is good evidence to support that statement. And like EVERYONE, Nissan made mistakes. They have reacted and made changes and the only real complaint I have with them is that they are simply taking way too long.

Yes, they have improved every year but 5 years before a major capacity change is way too long especially when they knew in 2009 that 24 kwh was not going to be enough. Taking until year 6 to offer capacity "options" was a major marketing blunder and 2015 sales pretty much proved that. Tesla should have been proof enough that there is a significant niche of buyers out there that would have paid a hefty premium on a LEAF with a larger pack.