LEAF 2 : What we know so far (2018 or later?)

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
internalaudit said:
GetOffYourGas said:
internalaudit said:
A little off-topic. I did search for discussions on winter tires and went back as far as five pages of searches on the current leaf but only got to discussions on winter tires, LSD, and someone getting stuck in snow.

I will definitely be putting decent winter tires on (Michelin or Bridgestone).

How good is the current Leaf with good winter tires in snow and ice? I guess the lower HP/torque helps reduce wheel spin and increases traction?

Just trying to be more pragmatic and not think a Model 3 Tesla with AWD is something I would really need.

If there was no appropriate thread, feel free to start a new one.

I would presume that those people who are awaiting details on the Leaf 2.0 and live in geographic areas where they have experienced snowfall and ice in their Leaf 1.0 would be willing to provide more informative posts about winter handling seeing how a lot of threads on this forum are a few months old.

I'm only interested in the Leaf 2.0 and I don't want to start a new thread asking about Leaf 1.0 handling when others, except for yourself, can provide invaluable input, not only to me but to other prospective Leaf 2.0 buyers.

Those same people are able to view other threads. This thread is supposed to be about what is known about the Leaf 2.

I'm not sure why I cannot provide input to your question, given that I live in the snowiest city in the US. That statement seems a little out of place. Feels more like an attack for having suggested you start a new thread and/or revive an older one about snow tires.

As for how the Leaf 2.0, nobody know how well it will handle the snow yet. And besides, you specifically asked about the current Leaf, but now you say you're only interested in the Leaf 2.0.
 
Given that the Leaf "Too" uses the same midsection and drive/battery configuration as the current Leaf, Winter handling should be similarly good with snow tires on cleared roads. One issue I expect to see with the 2, though, is related to less ground clearance and less wheel well clearance, so deep snow will likely be more of a problem, as will the kind of slush that builds up. People may want to look at narrower, slightly taller snow tires for the Leaf 2.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
internalaudit said:
GetOffYourGas said:
If there was no appropriate thread, feel free to start a new one.

I would presume that those people who are awaiting details on the Leaf 2.0 and live in geographic areas where they have experienced snowfall and ice in their Leaf 1.0 would be willing to provide more informative posts about winter handling seeing how a lot of threads on this forum are a few months old.

I'm only interested in the Leaf 2.0 and I don't want to start a new thread asking about Leaf 1.0 handling when others, except for yourself, can provide invaluable input, not only to me but to other prospective Leaf 2.0 buyers.

Those same people are able to view other threads. This thread is supposed to be about what is known about the Leaf 2.

I'm not sure why I cannot provide input to your question, given that I live in the snowiest city in the US. That statement seems a little out of place. Feels more like an attack for having suggested you start a new thread and/or revive an older one about snow tires.

As for how the Leaf 2.0, nobody know how well it will handle the snow yet. And besides, you specifically asked about the current Leaf, but now you say you're only interested in the Leaf 2.0.

I would like to know how well the first gen handles because surely the second gen will handle similarly if not better unless the manufacturer doesn't listen to customer feedback.

I have a driving range constraint and will only consider a 200 mile Leaf so the current one is a no go.

Nothing about what I posted is contradictory or self-defeating.

What good will it do if I necroed a few past threads? I have read a few but nothing in them said handling in snow was superb.

I know I am not entitled to a response but was hoping to get a few helpful ones.

=====

Thanks LeftieBiker. Good to know that AWD may not be a necessity. :)
 
What good will it do if I necroed a few past threads? I have read a few but nothing in them said handling in snow was superb.

Shopping for a "superb" response when the general opinions are "good" in snow isn't a great way to do research. The car is heavy but low, which means good traction but significant sliding on slippery roads. I see no reason why the Gen 2 should be better in snow, and I've already stated why I think it will be a little worse.
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
<snip>
the other; if you have ever installed a hitch, you would realize there is a LOT of extra space. In fact; one guy here installed a spare tire in that space. <snip>
Just because someone (Tony W. IIRR) installed a spare tire in that space doesn't mean that it could be used for anything else easily, as the car has to be crash-tested and that space may well be designed as crush space.

Rear of cars are not normally crush zones... the front is.

The concept is that a front of a car will hit the rear of another. That other car has a crush zone. But you won't be driving 80mph in reverse.

The Tesla Model S has kids in the rear. The RAV4 had an optional third row seating that went in the rear.
Front crumple or crush zones are certainly the most common, but they aren't exclusive to the front; From the wiki:

Typically, crumple zones are located in the front part of the vehicle, in order to absorb the impact of a head-on collision, though they may be found on other parts of the vehicle as well. According to a British Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre study of where on the vehicle impact damage occurs: 65% were front impacts, 25% rear impacts, 5% left side, and 5% right side. . . .[7]

The crumple zone concept was invented and patented by the Austrian Mercedes-Benz engineer Béla Barényi originally in 1937 before he worked for Mercedes-Benz and in a more developed form in 1952.[13] . . . The Mercedes-Benz patent number 854157, granted in 1952, describes the decisive feature of passive safety. Barényi questioned the opinion prevailing until then, that a safe car had to be rigid. He divided the car body into three sections: the rigid non-deforming passenger compartment and the crumple zones in the front and the rear. They are designed to absorb the energy of an impact (kinetic energy) by deformation during collision.[15] The first Mercedes-Benz carbody developed using this patent was the 1959 Mercedes W111 “Tail Fin” Saloon.[13] The safety cell and crumple zones were achieved primarily by the design of the longitudinal members: these were straight in the centre of the vehicle and formed a rigid safety cage with the body panels, the front and rear supports were curved so they deformed in the event of an accident, absorbing part of the collision energy and preventing the full force of the impact from reaching the occupants.[13][16][17][18]

A more recent development was for these curved longitudinal members is to be weakened by vertical and lateral ribs to form telescoping 'crash can' crush structures. . . .

Volvo introduced the side crumple zone with the introduction of the SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) in the early 1990s. . . .

. . . In fact, crumple zones are typically located in front of and behind the main body of the car (which forms a rigid 'safety cell'), compacting within the space of the engine compartment or boot/trunk. Modern vehicles using what are commonly termed 'crumple zones' provide far superior protection for their occupants in severe tests against other vehicles with crumple zones and solid static objects than older models or SUVs that use a separate chassis frame and have no crumple zones.[ . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone

See the photo of a car with rear crumple zone telescoped after an accident (In Pleasanton, as it happens, so I-580 or 680):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone#/media/File:Caraccidentinpleasanton(CROPPED).jpg

That's why if it were me, I'd never put kids in either place unless I knew that the cars had been crash-tested with those seats (as I'm sure both the Model S and RAV4 were), nor would I assume that putting a metal wheel in that area wouldn't affect the behavior of the crush/crumple zone and not cause it to intrude into the passenger compartment without the same testing. I say that having spent many happy hours with my friends in the rear-facing third seat of my mom's '61 Plymouth wagon as well as the offset side-facing rear seats of my best friend's dad's Citroen wagon. Neither car had seat belts or locking seat backs, padded dashes or steering columns either, let alone air bags.
 
I don't normally get involved in internet debate but as a former leaf owner of 4 yrs waiting for a
Gen 2 Here is my 2 cents

My leaf was great in the snow, 4 good snowtires no problems here in Canada.

BUT electrics have a lot of drawbacks in snow and cold. The one thing gas cars are good at is making heat. Heat is not only good for us but for defrosting etc.

The ice buildup at the wipers drove me nuts. As for range, in snow and cold you are lucky to have half the range of summer. Just the snow tires kill 10-20 percent.

200 miles in winter no chance. You can't get that in a model S.

Still love my leaf, preheating means I never used a snow brush!
 
I didn't know there would be significant sliding as the RWD Tesla seem to handle snow/ice well but of course, it is still no comparison to the AWD version.

Good to know that it's good enough for Canadian winters (Toronto so not that bad).

I just need for the car to clear 140 miles in one go so I was guessing that 200 miles in the summer/spring with a 30% drop in range would be around 140 miles give or take but then again, in stop and go traffic on the highway, it may not even clear 120 miles when the outside temperature is frigid.

I can't complain. My wife's employer has been good to her so that once a week 130 mile driving is really not a bother.
 
The Gen 2 Leaf will probably be rated for about 150 miles EPA range. A larger pack will probably come next year, but for now a safe estimate would be 140 miles in Summer, 90 miles in frigid weather, when the heat pump loses most of its advantage. Milder Winter range should be roughly 120 miles.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Given that the Leaf "Too" uses the same midsection and drive/battery configuration as the current Leaf, Winter handling should be similarly good with snow tires on cleared roads. One issue I expect to see with the 2, though, is related to less ground clearance and less wheel well clearance, so deep snow will likely be more of a problem, as will the kind of slush that builds up. People may want to look at narrower, slightly taller snow tires for the Leaf 2.

The slush/ice buildup in the wheel wells of my 2012 is awful. I have never had a car this bad. Your theory is that the Gen 2, with less wheel well clearance, will likely be more of a problem. In my experience, that's not necessarily true. Before the Leaf, I had a Honda Civic and a Gen2 Honda Insight (4-door version). Both had less wheel well clearance, and much less slush/ice buildup. I've come to wonder if the large gap in the Leaf is just begging for more to gather up there. Then when it compacts and freezes into a large ice block, it's a real pain.

Also, the Leaf has decent ground clearance for a car of its size. You must be comparing it to an SUV or CUV. Compared to a sedan, the Leaf is great - high clearance, low center of gravity. The weight is good and bad - more traction to get moving, more momentum making it hard to stop.

Again, this is all with regards to a Gen 1 Leaf. Sure, a Leaf 2 should be similar, but in the vein of this thread, it's simply unknown. We are just speculating future performance based on past results, and you know what they say about that...
 
If you need 130-140 miles in winter Toronto commuting this is not the car for you.

Even with no heat on you will not get that kind of range.

Sitting for an hour + in the cold with no heat, no defrost is a miserable experience. I have been there.

And relying on a level 3 charge on a regular basis in winter, forget about that too. On a cold day when there are a couple of cars ahead of you it is a long wait, over 1/2 hr each car with the smaller batteries. A quick charge on a 40kwh is at least an hour.
 
I agree with the slush ice buildup on my leaf, I think lower suspension will help.

My bmw wagon with sports package suspension is much lower and never had a problem...
 
Put good winter tires on the Leaf, and it does very well. We had Nokian Hakka R2 on our 2015 S and had zero problems - and we live on a steep hill in New England.

We will see the Leaf 2 in less than 2 weeks!
 
Goodtohave said:
If you need 130-140 miles in winter Toronto commuting this is not the car for you.

Even with no heat on you will not get that kind of range.

Sitting for an hour + in the cold with no heat, no defrost is a miserable experience. I have been there.

And relying on a level 3 charge on a regular basis in winter, forget about that too. On a cold day when there are a couple of cars ahead of you it is a long wait, over 1/2 hr each car with the smaller batteries. A quick charge on a 40kwh is at least an hour.

I'll wait for the update/information on the 60 kWh and how people with the base battery fare this coming winter but maybe even the 60 will be insufficient during winter.

If that's the case, I will have no choice but to get the long-range Model 3. :(

No point getting an EV if the longest commute to work cannot be covered and with wife not wanting to be bothered with charging. Electricity might mess up the hair...??? :)
 
Also, the Leaf has decent ground clearance for a car of its size. You must be comparing it to an SUV or CUV.

I was talking about Leaf 2, if you read it again. They have apparently reduced the ground clearance for better highway economy.
 
OrientExpress said:
If that's the case, I will have no choice but to get the long-range Model 3. :(

Great idea, plan on delivery in 2020! :D

Mine says delivery estimate of Late 2018 but you are right, it might come in 2020, lol I'm not counting on Tesla to deliver and I don't want to be a guinea pig anyway

but seriously, I think I will wait maybe until Spring 2019 to research on the other BEV alternatives (Honda non-Clarity, Leaf 2.0 60 kWh, Hyundai/Kia Niro/Kona) since I need something that will go 140 miles during winter.

If there is any announcement that the provincial incentive we have of around $11k USD before tax is going to be removed, then I may have to rush and get a BEV that doesn't go as far.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Also, the Leaf has decent ground clearance for a car of its size. You must be comparing it to an SUV or CUV.

I was talking about Leaf 2, if you read it again. They have apparently reduced the ground clearance for better highway economy.

True, they have more or less shown us that the Leaf 2 has less ground clearance. It's a valid concern. I'm not sure how much less clearance it will have - probably still more than my old Insight! (Which admittedly had some issues in deep snow...)
 
but seriously, I think I will wait maybe until Spring 2019 to research on the other BEV alternatives (Honda non-Clarity, Leaf 2.0 60 kWh, Hyundai/Kia Niro/Kona) since I need something that will go 140 miles during winter.

I think that by the fall of 2018 there is going to be quite a selection of 200 to 300 mile cars available from all the major players.
 
OrientExpress said:
but seriously, I think I will wait maybe until Spring 2019 to research on the other BEV alternatives (Honda non-Clarity, Leaf 2.0 60 kWh, Hyundai/Kia Niro/Kona) since I need something that will go 140 miles during winter.

I think that by the fall of 2018 there is going to be quite a selection of 200 to 300 mile cars available from all the major players.

I'll take that bet. I would love to see that happen, but I just can't see it in that time frame. Maybe 2020.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top