some comments on Nissan EV Strategy

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.

jlsoaz

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
849
Location
Southern Arizona, USA
Hi -

In another thread I made a comment on a point of past Nissan EV strategy, and some discussion ensued, but it was of tenuous relevance to the thread topic, so I am starting a thread here. I don't know if there are already any existing threads for discussion of Nissan EV Strategy past and present.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of those who participate in strategy decisions that have significant consequences for a major corporation, we can understand it can be challenging. So, personally, I bear this in mind.
 
I think the Nissan EV strategy was reasonable back in the day, and it is arguably reasonable today if the discussion is the LEAF and its no TMS battery.

My peeve is with the warranty and Nissan's treatment of customers. An 8 year, 30% degradation, pro-rated warranty after 8 years would be fine. The current case where Nissan tells customers to pound sound if the degradation limit is reached 1 second after the warranty expires is why I will not consider, let alone buy, another Nissan EV. If Nissan has to exclude the hottest states from the decent warranty then so be it.

Put another way, I reject the Nissan strategy that engineers an EV to fail soon after the their warranty expires, and I think the failure of the LEAF in the US marketplace is easily traced to this corporate decision. Not content to just screw their customers with the current battery warranty, Nissan tries to prevent 3rd party battery upgrades and refuses to offer an upgrade path. If Nissan can not do better warranty wise and still produce a profitable EV line then they are in the wrong business. And they really should learn to not treat their current customers like garbage.
 
I'm not sure I'd call it a "strategy". I think LEAF *project* was strategic, and was heavily advocated by Carlos Ghosn as the inevitable future direction of auto manufacturing. The subsequent reveal of the schism and intrigue between Ghosn and other Nissan execs goes a long way in my mind of explaining Nissan's oddly shizophrenic and lackluster approach to advancing their EVs ever since the launch.
 
Agreed

Carlos was trying to move the company faster than the laggards in the company. I don't think Nissan fully appreciated the number of people in ther earlier days of the Leaf (2010-2014) which came curious, and left in a Rogue or Pathfinder. Once Leaf lost that mantle of being innovator, so to did they lose audience. We would have never looked at a Nissan without the Leaf. The rest of the company lacked the vision to change or the appetite for risk to make the needed amount of change. GM and Ford have really only woken up to it recently and finding out its much harder then they had hoped. (Though the Bolt is am excellent EV and underrated due to looks)

Sadly, I am not sure I will buy another one without a bit more commitment to existing customers. I do think this is something that Tesla gets right and does reinforce the brand. Its just only something you can afford when you are in high growth mode with strong product pipeline. Thats not Nissan today.

Again, love our Leafs as high value medium range EVs. Just went downtown and back (30 mile round trip on 55mph highways) on 10% battery (68% to 58%). Sure 517 miles would be awesome, but Ia not sure i drive enough to justify more than 200 miles of range.
 
Such a welcome discussion of some of the factors that have appeared to have played a role in automaker decisions over the course of the electrification story. I'm hoping at some point they also do some discussion of The Innovator's Dilemma, or perhaps have a guest who could discuss that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nreXNspBHgQ&t=1266s
The Osborne Effect: Why Big Auto Is Lying To You | In Depth
244,705 views
•Jul 17, 2020
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Once Leaf lost that mantle of being innovator, so to did they lose audience. We would have never looked at a Nissan without the Leaf. The rest of the company lacked the vision to change or the appetite for risk to make the needed amount of change.

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
Sadly, Nissan had the edge...and lost it.
 
Years ago they had enthusiasm for the leaf now it seems like they tolerate the leaf.
Nissan had their foot in the door with the EV market and GM had the best battery tech, but barely used it. Now both are playing catch up to tesla. Tesla is so far ahead that it appears pointless and now it is uncomfortable to even watch them try.
 
Hmmm. My take is different. I think they built a car that would only ever be attractive to a very small audience. Leaf gen 1 was never going to be a crowd pleaser, even if it had had much greater range. Its styling was too provocative. Given its functional limitations, all the more so.

We won't know about the latter factor, because Tesla had redefined the market and its expectations by the time Nissan finally got around to giving the gen 1 a bigger battery. They couldn't go really big without offering a completely different driving experience ala Tesla, with a price point to match. Different vehicle and market entirely.

But I also don't think this was lost on the strategists at Nissan in the beginning. They knew they were delivering a vehicle with serious functional constraints. I can't believe that their focus group studies would have told them otherwise. This suggests that the provocative styling was deliberate - Leaf gen 1 was never intended as a mainstream car. I think it might be considered a success if measured against those upfront expectations. The market changed out underneath them.

Which raises an interesting question. Imagine looking forward from the beginning, what were their expectations at the time? Did they think that battery tech would advance faster than it did? Were they testing the waters to gauge market acceptance (odd experiment if I'm right with my conjecture above - what can you learn about market acceptance when delivering a small niche vehicle?) Were they just wanting to mitigate the development costs while pushing battery and battery manufacturing development? Did they even consider marketing a hot EV sports car priced high end?

Innovation arises out of the creative, incremental re-combination of existing and adjacent insights and technologies. It almost never happens how Hollywood describes it. It is fundamentally a non-linear, complex process, one that defies predictability. That is, it is most amenable to experimental discovery - safe-to-fail experiments instead of fail-safe design. In a manufacturing space, particularly one that requires enormous capital expenditures and long lead times, this is a daunting challenge. All the more reason to give Tesla props. What they've accomplished is quite remarkable.

I've shared my experiences talking about EVs with a fairly wide variety of people in the Boulder-Denver area, one that enjoys a relatively strong EV market - hardly anyone would ever consider driving even our car, a reasonably recognizable small car (styling wise) available at a ridiculous price after incentives in our state, with a strong motor, a big battery, plenty of range, well above-average performance and a nice interior. Not to mention a competitive tech package. No one says, "wow that's amazing, I'll have to look into one of those." Tesla has nothing to do with it. No one says, "why not a Tesla?" either.

I have a friend who works at NREL. Her first question was, "How long does the battery last?" Not range - longevity. Nothing but skepticism. And she drives a Nissan. My point here is simply that there are many more barriers to acceptance than we commonly hear about, on this board or on other sites devoted to EVs. There's a whole range of intangibles at work.

Under such circumstances, working out a successful strategy will be difficult indeed. I'm not expecting VW or the others to break through anytime soon, barring some major catastrophe that genuinely impacts vast swaths of the population. All of the West can catch fire, and the middle of the country just shrugs its shoulders. Who knows what it will take.

I don't envy the decision makers at the major manufacturers though. They have hard jobs. A lot of people depend on them for their livelihoods too.

Edit: I like the description of our current Leafs as "high value medium range EVs". It remains to be seen whether there is a large market potential for these. So far, it seems not.
 
I was in the Global Leaf Advisory Board for several years (I passed on joining its successor when it was dissolved again recently, because it had become essentially just a very poorly paid focus group) and from what I saw of Nissan Corporate's attitudes, I believe that they are more mired in the past than most Americans would believe possible. Think GM in the Sixties. Carlos Ghosn dragged them ahead a bit with the Leaf project, but when Leaf sales in the US turned out very weak despite the Great Leasing Initiative of 2013, they just shrugged, felt that their antiquated attitudes had been validated, and turned their attention elsewhere - at least until their financial situation got really bad. Now they may have some hope that the Ariya will help save them, but they aren't going to commit any more resources to EVs than they have to in order to appear to stay competitive, at least in the North American market.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Now they may have some hope that the Ariya will help save them, but they aren't going to commit any more resources to EVs than they have to in order to appear to stay competitive, at least in the North American market.
Probably right... what they will do will likely be driven by regulatory reasons (e.g. CA/CARB ZEV emission rules, US CAFE numbers, European CO2 targets, etc.), govt incentives and new markets where there are potential growth opportunities. For those not aware, Leaf US sales are a drop in the bucket for Nissan. Sort by sales at the below. Notice Rogue is their top selling vehicle. "Crossovers" and SUVs are all the hotness now in the US.

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2019-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2020-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/ under US Quarterly Vehicle Model Sales Numbers

https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-6421e197e79460fc32ead4abcf00237f-nissan-group-reports-second-quarter-2020-us-sales
https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-103b1d052fdcd89776fbcfb58d00a83f-nissan-group-reports-december-2019-and-2019-calendar-year-us-sales
 
frontrangeleaf said:
Hmmm. My take is different.
Well said.

Back in 2010 the LEAF was the face of cheery optimism from a car manufacturer on the leading edge of technology. Ghosn had a multi-billion dollar bill to prove it. And yet fairly quickly Nissan dialed way back its EV R&D and seemed content to try and recoup its investment by squeezing the LEAF for every sale possible from lagging but cheap(er) tech.

Why the change of heart from innovator to bean counter ? Lots of guesses, perhaps some of them have merit:
1. The passive battery under performed its roadmap and Nissan could not/ would not change direction (read: hot climate failure)
2. The NEC/Nissan battery alliance fell behind in the battery tech front
3. Ghosn over-estimated the EV adoption curve kinetics in general, and the ~ $30k market specifically for commuter cars
4. A roadmap predicated on step-wise improvement in the LEAF battery was a market failuret

---
I was at a Chevy dealer last week checking out the Bolt. The salesperson saw us drive up (important detail for them) and commented on my 'Tesla hybrid.' He had no idea of the details about fast charging and could not estimate miles of range added per minute for the Bolt. He made me realize just how far out of mainstream EVs still are. You have to leave the forum and talk to average folk TODAY to grasp just how silly they think a $30k, 75 - 150 mile range EV is. To them it is a joke. Now dial that back 10 years.
 
SageBrush said:
Back in 2010 the LEAF was the face of cheery optimism from a car manufacturer on the leading edge of technology. Ghosn had a multi-billion dollar bill to prove it. And yet fairly quickly Nissan dialed way back its EV R&D and seemed content to try and recoup its investment by squeezing the LEAF for every sale possible from lagging but cheap(er) tech.

Why the change of heart from innovator to bean counter ? Lots of guesses, perhaps some of them have merit:
1. The passive battery under performed its roadmap and Nissan could not/ would not change direction (read: hot climate failure)
2. The NEC/Nissan battery alliance fell behind in the battery tech front
3. Ghosn over-estimated the EV adoption curve kinetics in general, and the ~ $30k market specifically for commuter cars
Agreed on this.

On the recouping investment front, I believe the e-Power series hybrids (https://insideevs.com/news/342021/nissan-e-power-a-huge-sales-success-why-not-add-a-plug/) use the same motor as Leaf. Also, notice the e-Power versions use the same shifter as Leaf: https://www3.nissan.co.jp/vehicles/new/note/interior.html. (I saw and sat in these in Japan before.)

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/10/20171024-serena.html and https://www3.nissan.co.jp/vehicles/new/note/specifications.html mention EM57. EM57 seems to be the motor used for '13+ Leaf including current Leaf Plus (https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=552277#p552277). 40 and 62 kWh tabs of https://www3.nissan.co.jp/vehicles/new/leaf/specifications.html confirm this.
 
"Tesla hybrid" is good. Wow. Talk about clueless. How can anyone actually in the car business be that far under a rock?

Sadly, I have encountered far too many sales people at dealers of various brands who have absolutely no idea what their products can do, how they work, what they might be good for or not. It's astonishing. I used to do technical sales, in another life. Our products sold for 1/20th what a car goes for, and we knew them inside and out. People came to us for our expertise.

At this point, if you don't know your product, I refuse to deal with you. I'm done with that. The world is full of car dealers. And cars. No need to put up with that.
 
frontrangeleaf said:
"Tesla hybrid" is good. Wow. Talk about clueless. How can anyone actually in the car business be that far under a rock?

I took it in stride and just commented that the car is an EV. We had a much longer discussion when he told me that the Bolt is eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit. I presumed that he was just misinformed rather than lying. It was actually a bit funny (and sad) because he kept showing me google results on his phone and I kept telling him that his search results were outdated. I think he finally realized I knew what I was talking about after I described in detail the tax credit allowance and phase-out. It probably also helped him to hear that GM and Tesla are in the same boat.
 
Question. Why do Nissan and GM keep their MSRP so high, if they are just going to massively discount. They would sell many more with a 25/30k msrp vs a 38/44k msrp. Same purchase price out the door.
 
I agree with you Doug, I hear all the time that it costs as much as a model 3 but in reality there are many discounts that Tesla does not have. I think they would sell many more just setting a lower price in the first place.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Question. Why do Nissan and GM keep their MSRP so high, if they are just going to massively discount. They would sell many more with a 25/30k msrp vs a 38/44k msrp. Same purchase price out the door.
I agree, esp. when https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev/build-and-price/trim already assumes an $8500 discount (which is the minimum discount now) and that GM EVs/PHEVs are no longer eligible for $7500 Federal tax credit unlike all non-Teslas.

I think it would help them a lot to drop the price so that it looks more price competitive vs. Model 3. Also, would make Bolt look better vs. all non-GM and non-Tesla EV/PHEVs.

Right now, Bolt base MSRP is a nutty $37,495 and $41,895 for Premier trim. Nobody in the right mind is paying anywhere near that.
 
High msrp and discounts is typical for cars, and not just EVs. Governments certainly appreciate it since taxes are higher.
As for why the manufacturers act this way, I'm not sure.

Part of it is that most consumers do not really have much of a clue regarding fair value and instead rely of getting a "deal." That can be a lower cost than across the street, or simply less than the initial asking price. Starting from a high price gives the salesperson room to maneuver. It would be a rare consumer who gives a first offer of $15k for a $35k msrp car, even though that would be ~ symmetric.

Another part of this has to do with leases. Manufacturers are highly motivated to set the game starting from msrp.
 
frontrangeleaf said:
Hmmm. My take is different. I think they built a car that would only ever be attractive to a very small audience. Leaf gen 1 was never going to be a crowd pleaser, even if it had had much greater range. Its styling was too provocative. Given its functional limitations, all the more so.
[...]

My recollection is they were pretty clear that they anticipated a certain number of sales, and the numbers, overall, were well below those anticipations.

frontrangeleaf said:
We won't know about the latter factor, because Tesla had redefined the market and its expectations by the time Nissan finally got around to giving the gen 1 a bigger battery. They couldn't go really big without offering a completely different driving experience ala Tesla, with a price point to match. Different vehicle and market entirely.

But I also don't think this was lost on the strategists at Nissan in the beginning. They knew they were delivering a vehicle with serious functional constraints. I can't believe that their focus group studies would have told them otherwise. This suggests that the provocative styling was deliberate - Leaf gen 1 was never intended as a mainstream car. I think it might be considered a success if measured against those upfront expectations. The market changed out underneath them.
Notwithstanding styling considerations, again, strategists at Nissan anticipated sales that did not materialize.

frontrangeleaf said:
Which raises an interesting question. Imagine looking forward from the beginning, what were their expectations at the time? Did they think that battery tech would advance faster than it did? Were they testing the waters to gauge market acceptance (odd experiment if I'm right with my conjecture above - what can you learn about market acceptance when delivering a small niche vehicle?) Were they just wanting to mitigate the development costs while pushing battery and battery manufacturing development? Did they even consider marketing a hot EV sports car priced high end?

Innovation arises out of the creative, incremental re-combination of existing and adjacent insights and technologies. It almost never happens how Hollywood describes it. It is fundamentally a non-linear, complex process, one that defies predictability. That is, it is most amenable to experimental discovery - safe-to-fail experiments instead of fail-safe design. In a manufacturing space, particularly one that requires enormous capital expenditures and long lead times, this is a daunting challenge. All the more reason to give Tesla props. What they've accomplished is quite remarkable.
[....]

Ghosn at some point years later went on record as indicating that he didn't think folks could have anticipated, without selling the cars and getting the feedback, that a key point was that the range needed to be beyond a certain point. I think it was 300 km or so. I thought this was telling. He actually didn't get it up front, and he actually thought in the old school way that you had to [edited] sell a lot of vehicles [/ end edit] do to understand your customer on such a basic point.... there was no other way to anticipate the needs of the customers. At the time I thought to myself that they sort of slightly seemed to understand that longer range might have high marginal utility to some customers, but they also seemed to think that it was ok to drag that question out for years and years, instead of getting on top of it with a greater sense of urgency.

If I recall, they did experiment at some point in the early 2010s I think with a 2x24 kWh pack configuration but that never made it, at the time. They also talked up (around 2013?) Infiniti North America offering a luxury BEV, but it became clear (at least, in my view) that the leaders at Infiniti did not really understand what that nascent market was about and why it might be important for them to pursue it. I'm also not sure that Nissan thought it was capable of the battery pack technology to achieve ranges that customers would pay luxury sedan prices for. I don't know if this was a matter of having the vision to commit resources to that key point, at the time, or whether they did try to do that.
 
The reason that the Gen I Leaf failed to sell well is simple: it was promoted by Nissan salescreatures as a "100 mile range" car, and it was not anything like that in normal driving - more like 60 miles, with even less in frigid weather. Then, when the capacity loss issue became known, that was the last nail in the coffin for good sales figures, as bad word of mouth takes a while, but it does work to hurt sales.
 
Back
Top