How disappointed should I be that Nissan did not include liquid battery cooling on the Leaf E-Plus?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
golfcart said:
Just out of curiosity, what does the battery coolant flush cost on a Tesla or Bolt? I see the maintenance intervals online but not how much to do it.
Does the Tesla Model 3 even have a maintenance schedule ?

I plan to continue behavior I learned with a Prius: yearly (or every other year, depending how much I drive), partial exchanges that do not require any fancy equipment or worries about introducing air into the system. The general idea is to drain while adding fluid so that the reservoir always has fluid in it. I drain and replace about 1/2 of the total system amount each time.

Easy Peasy, and cheap.

I'm not going to change any fluids on the LEAF. It just does not accumulate enough miles.
As for a brake flush, I'll get it performed when the pads are down 50%. That probably means never, although I do try and remember to use friction brakes a couple times a month during the winter to scrape off any rust starting to form.
 
SageBrush said:
golfcart said:
Just out of curiosity, what does the battery coolant flush cost on a Tesla or Bolt? I see the maintenance intervals online but not how much to do it.
Does the Tesla Model 3 even have a maintenance schedule ?

According to the Tesla page they do.

https://www.tesla.com/support/car-maintenance

It says battery coolant flush every 4 years/50k miles on the model 3.
 
golfcart said:
Just out of curiosity, what does the battery coolant flush cost on a Tesla or Bolt? I see the maintenance intervals online but not how much to do it.
If the Chevy Bolt is like every other GM car I’ve experienced, the DexCool will eat through gaskets & seals long before it needs changed. Personally skeptical this is no less of a maintenance time bomb than battery degradation with a LEAF.
 
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
golfcart said:
Just out of curiosity, what does the battery coolant flush cost on a Tesla or Bolt? I see the maintenance intervals online but not how much to do it.
Does the Tesla Model 3 even have a maintenance schedule ?

According to the Tesla page they do.

https://www.tesla.com/support/car-maintenance

It says battery coolant flush every 4 years/50k miles on the model 3.
Yeah, I found it too after I posted.

<<shrug>>
My only disappointment will be if the system does not have a drain plug. Seems highly unlikely
 
jlsoaz said:
One peripheral thought - I don't know as much about some here seem to about some claimed tendency in general for Nissan to be cheap, but I wonder if it would be a good idea for Nissan to take some folks from their GT-R program (if they haven't already done) and put them on the Leaf and other EV programs. I say this because the GT-R appears to be (from what very little I know) a vehicle where the effort was made to build to world-class standards, and leave no qualitative make-or-break "Achilles' Heel" that might bring down the long-term customer satisfaction. Even if the price to the customer was extraordinarily high, the vehicle seems to be a good halo vehicle with (as far as I know) decent durability for a vehicle of its type, and it appears to have satisfied customers. I don't say that the Leaf should be a halo vehicle (it should be a mainstream decent-volume profit-maker), but I do think it would be a good idea for Nissan to move to address the two significant make-or-break issues they put in place with the Gen1 vehicle (range and degradation). As I say, maybe they have done this, I guess we'll see.

The GT-R is a $100k plus car. If Nissan had decided to make a $100k EV, I'm rather sure it would have been different, and pleased some of those that don't like the LEAF.

The LEAF isn't a $100k car. It is a decent mid-priced, comfortable, profitable hatchback suitable for most of the USA, and most of the world. Phoenix isn't the world. People that frequently drive 200 miles plus are not that common.


jlsoaz said:
I'd also like to see them and other manufacturers of 200+ mile BEVs (Tesla, GM, Hyundai, Kia, Jaguar) put a higher price on things, if that's what they think they need to do to break even or make a profit.

Nissan is profitable on the LEAF, and has sold more LEAFs than any other electric car. I'd like to see other manufactured drop their prices and increase their volumes so they can break even or make a profit. Even if that means taking out features.
 
SageBrush said:
<<shrug>>
My only disappointment will be if the system does not have a drain plug. Seems highly unlikely
I'm just trying to quantify what a system like this would cost over 10 years in terms of the increase to the sales price as well as added maintenance cost and potential weak points that might require repair. It's just a back of the envelope kind of thing but if there coolant flushes are $500 a pop that does have an impact.

It just seemed relevant to the OPs initial question of disappointment over active cooling.
 
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
<<shrug>>
My only disappointment will be if the system does not have a drain plug. Seems highly unlikely
I'm just trying to quantify what a system like this would cost over 10 years in terms of the increase to the sales price as well as added maintenance cost and potential weak points that might require repair. It's just a back of the envelope kind of thing but if there coolant flushes are $500 a pop that does have an impact.

It just seemed relevant to the OPs initial question of disappointment over active cooling.
IIRC a coolant replacement is $240 at a Tesla Service Center. So the most expensive you can come up with would be $10 a month for that maintenance. I expect it to cost me less than $1 a month.

I'm always amused by people who count pennies but go to dealerships (or Service Centers) for simple service.
 
SageBrush said:
For one reason or another though (BEV vs PHEV, long range Vs short range, climate, physics), an air cooled system is something of a hack

Correct on the physics. Water is a much more efficient way to remove heat. Air cooling will need to either move lots of air, or cool the air down a lot. Cooling the air down a lot reduces efficiency even in dry air, and with any significant humidity a large fraction of the cooling goes to removing the water from the air. Moving a lot of air is best handled by moving the car, aka passive cooling.

The risk with using water is that batteries burn if water leaks into them. Not sealing outside water is a problem, see Zero Motorcycle year 2012. Or cooling water in a Tesla, a possible cause of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKGot04cE8

If the battery system is well engineered, the risk from gasoline is higher, of course.
 
SageBrush said:
I'm always amused by people who count pennies but go to dealerships (or Service Centers) for simple service.

I'm amused by the fact that you can't have a simple conversation without trying to take a shot at someone... but I guess different things amuse different people.

The $240 seems plausible for a dealer to do it, thanks for the number... I could do without the commentary.
 
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
<<shrug>>
My only disappointment will be if the system does not have a drain plug. Seems highly unlikely
I'm just trying to quantify what a system like this would cost over 10 years in terms of the increase to the sales price as well as added maintenance cost and potential weak points that might require repair. It's just a back of the envelope kind of thing but if there coolant flushes are $500 a pop that does have an impact.

It just seemed relevant to the OPs initial question of disappointment over active cooling.

Yes, seems relevant. I'm chagrined that I didn't keep the receipts ready at hand for recent work on my Volt which I do think included a battery coolant flush, but I'll see if I can find them later, out of curiousity. I'll say that overall the first 1.5 years of ownership of the used Volt has probably cost me something on the order of $1,000 in routine maintenance and minor repairs, along with time to get to a dealer an hour away (neither the closer chevy dealer nor any of the local mechanics will undertake any of the work on a Volt, other than very minor stuff).
 
Correct on the physics. Water is a much more efficient way to remove heat. Air cooling will need to either move lots of air, or cool the air down a lot. Cooling the air down a lot reduces efficiency even in dry air, and with any significant humidity a large fraction of the cooling goes to removing the water from the air. Moving a lot of air is best handled by moving the car, aka passive cooling.

If I understand you correctly, you think that the ePlus will have a pack cooled by chilled air (while charging)? No. The A/C will cool the battery directly by conduction, with no forced air. If you are talking about future systems, they are also unlikely to use chilled air. Texas leaf, IIRC, is using a hack that involves chilled air.
 
WetEV said:
LeftieBiker said:
you think that the ePlus will have a pack cooled by chilled air (while charging)? No.

No, I didn't think that. I was trying to explain in simple words why chilled air isn't a good idea.

Any particular reason you edited out the first part of that sentence, where I also wrote "If I understand you correctly"...?
 
LeftieBiker said:
WetEV said:
LeftieBiker said:
you think that the ePlus will have a pack cooled by chilled air (while charging)? No.

No, I didn't think that. I was trying to explain in simple words why chilled air isn't a good idea.

Any particular reason you edited out the first part of that sentence, where I also wrote "If I understand you correctly"...?

I try to just quote what I'm responding to.
 
WetEV said:
jlsoaz said:
One peripheral thought - I don't know as much about some here seem to about some claimed tendency in general for Nissan to be cheap, but I wonder if it would be a good idea for Nissan to take some folks from their GT-R program (if they haven't already done) and put them on the Leaf and other EV programs. I say this because the GT-R appears to be (from what very little I know) a vehicle where the effort was made to build to world-class standards, and leave no qualitative make-or-break "Achilles' Heel" that might bring down the long-term customer satisfaction. Even if the price to the customer was extraordinarily high, the vehicle seems to be a good halo vehicle with (as far as I know) decent durability for a vehicle of its type, and it appears to have satisfied customers. I don't say that the Leaf should be a halo vehicle (it should be a mainstream decent-volume profit-maker), but I do think it would be a good idea for Nissan to move to address the two significant make-or-break issues they put in place with the Gen1 vehicle (range and degradation). As I say, maybe they have done this, I guess we'll see.

The GT-R is a $100k plus car. If Nissan had decided to make a $100k EV, I'm rather sure it would have been different, and pleased some of those that don't like the LEAF.

The LEAF isn't a $100k car. It is a decent mid-priced, comfortable, profitable hatchback suitable for most of the USA, and most of the world. Phoenix isn't the world. People that frequently drive 200 miles plus are not that common.

Some here on this forum had mentioned Nissan has some sort of reputation for going the cheap low-quality route. I don't know much about that reputation, but we can see that it is at least partly not true if we look at the true world-class GT-R. And indeed, I think that outside of the two awful Achilles Heels with the Leaf (range and degradation) it was not an effort dogged by penny-pinching. So, the point I meant to convey here is that some at Nissan worked on the GT-R must really get the idea of anticipating issues, addressing them, and exceeding the expectations of the customer. Such an attitude is also of use on less-expensive cars including the Leaf. The expectations of customers for a $30k or $40k vehicle are not the same as those for a vehicle costing $100k, but I think it is reasonable to expect some good quality and durability in key components, particularly if the state of the technology does allow for it.

As to your digs about Phoenix and 200 miles, a fair amount has already been said to you by others in response to some of your basic approach to this. To it I'll add that if you want to argue that the Leaf, including its remaining possible Achilles Heel, should only be sold into some situations, I suppose some may consider that a defensible argument for where they should go as a company. My own is that I'm disappointed not only on a personal buying level that I may not be able to consider making my next EV a Nissan, but as well that Nissan may have chosen the wrong answer for them, as a company. I hope I'm wrong in that I hope that the newer measures they've taken do work about as well as state-of-the-art liquid cooling to protect the battery (and the vehicle value) in warmer climates.
 
jlsoaz said:
Some here on this forum had mentioned Nissan has some sort of reputation for going the cheap low-quality route.

I took it more like Nissan choosing to be the lowest priced, nationally available, EV... And they've made some design compromises which have allowed then to do so and still be profitable overall with the car (according to numbers that others have posted).

By the time the e+ comes out the Chevy credit will have dropped in half (the timing is probably not a coincidence) making the e+ the only nationwide EV with 200 mile range that is under $30k net for most of 2019.

By the time there are other nationally available EV in that price range with 200+ miles range (likely late 2020 based on reports) Nissan is expected to introduce a new BEV platform which may address those battery issues (see some of the posts by Orientexpress).

It just is what it is, they have managed to consistently be the cheapest initial cost EV option offered nationally. It is certainly possible they've killed their reputation with parts of the EV enthusiast community due to degradation issues, but it probably won't matter once EVs become more mainstream in the next 5 years (my personal prediction).
 
LeftieBiker said:
And they were by far the first to offer a BEV at prices the average Joe could afford.

Nope. That is arguably either the CityCar or the iMiev, if you want to exclude two seaters.

U got me... It really wasn't central to my argument so I just removed it lol. I should have said they were well ahead of Chevy or Tesla in getting nationally available sub $40k BEV to market.
 
jlsoaz said:
WetEV said:
The GT-R is a $100k plus car. If Nissan had decided to make a $100k EV, I'm rather sure it would have been different, and pleased some of those that don't like the LEAF.

The LEAF isn't a $100k car. It is a decent mid-priced, comfortable, profitable hatchback suitable for most of the USA, and most of the world. Phoenix isn't the world. People that frequently drive 200 miles plus are not that common.

Some here on this forum had mentioned Nissan has some sort of reputation for going the cheap low-quality route. I don't know much about that reputation, but we can see that it is at least partly not true if we look at the true world-class GT-R. And indeed, I think that outside of the two awful Achilles Heels with the Leaf (range and degradation) it was not an effort dogged by penny-pinching. So, the point I meant to convey here is that some at Nissan worked on the GT-R must really get the idea of anticipating issues, addressing them, and exceeding the expectations of the customer. Such an attitude is also of use on less-expensive cars including the Leaf. The expectations of customers for a $30k or $40k vehicle are not the same as those for a vehicle costing $100k, but I think it is reasonable to expect some good quality and durability in key components, particularly if the state of the technology does allow for it.

As to your digs about Phoenix and 200 miles, a fair amount has already been said to you by others in response to some of your basic approach to this. To it I'll add that if you want to argue that the Leaf, including its remaining possible Achilles Heel, should only be sold into some situations, I suppose some may consider that a defensible argument for where they should go as a company. My own is that I'm disappointed not only on a personal buying level that I may not be able to consider making my next EV a Nissan, but as well that Nissan may have chosen the wrong answer for them, as a company. I hope I'm wrong in that I hope that the newer measures they've taken do work about as well as state-of-the-art liquid cooling to protect the battery (and the vehicle value) in warmer climates.

Not everyone is the same as you.

Not everyone wants the things you want.

I'd prefer a passively cooled BEV. I know, down market and not elitist. Go ahead and make fun. There are good reasons why other people would want other things. I get that. But there are good reasons why I would prefer a passively cooled BEV.

A passively cooled BEV is simpler and more reliable. Yes, there is a trade-off, probably more expensive to operate in hot places. And slower while driving long range with multiple DCQCs.

A passively cooled BEV is safer. Keep water away from the batteries. Yes, an actively cooled BEV is safer than a gasoline car.

A passive cooling system isn't an "Achilles Heel", it is a design decision. A trade-off between competing goals.

I have different goals that you do. And different circumstances. I'd like to make my own choices.
 
golfcart said:
U got me... It really wasn't central to my argument so I just removed it lol. I should have said they were well ahead of Chevy or Tesla in getting nationally available sub $40k BEV to market.
You can put that on their tombstone
 
Back
Top