nissan looking at 150 mile epa range, implies battery costs continuing down

You are right I think. Some idiot at Nissan did say that, but since then they have stood up and are standing by their product, even though the first ones aged too fast in the heat. Since the problems they have put out a new waranty to replace the battery if it loses more than 30% capacity in 5 years or 60,000 miles, and a $100/mo cost for battery replacement.
Nissan Leaf battery replacement will cost $100/month, offers new pack at any time


IMHO 30% is much more than it should lose, but at least they are standing up and replacing batteres that aged too fast. I'm sure if they put in a 150 mile battery they will test it even in the hot sun for less than a 20% loss in those 5 years or 60K miles.

 

Absolutely that is Nissans fault for pretending that is normal.

Nissan has changed its stance and now says 25% degradation is normal after 5 years in a hot climate like Pheonix, much less is expected in LA or the Bay Area's cooler climate. They warant it for 30% degradation for 5 years, and 8 years for other things than degradation. We should not pretend that 30% is normal or expected.

100% charge rate is 84 miles aer on a new leaf. 70% is 59 miles. The epa does account for some bad weather, but you will use more battery in bad weather.

Anyone that bought a leaf instead of leased one, has no real grounds to complain. There were many stories warning about this behaviour. With battery costs coming down, it looks like its a good move for nissan to make available a longer distance leaf.

 

You may thing that, or maybe greencars.org has a lot in common with cnw ;-(

greenercars.org | the greenest vehicles of 2013
Is a prius c really "greener" than a prius liftback? That depends on a lot, but this report says it is. Why? Why that liftback has more aluminum and a bigger nimh battery, and so the liftback must be more brown. About 4% browner acording to the scoring. What if people actually drive more miles in the liftback (market research tell us this is likely) and at the end of life that battery and aluminum are recycled (also likely)? Most would say the liftback was greener, even before considering that the liftback likely substitutes out more browner cars.

What about the tesla S? What if it is powered by wind or sun, lasts 150,000 miles and then is recycled, the batteries going to grid back up, the aluminum going to other aluminum cars, or cans, or any aluminum products. Then we may score it very differently than greenercars.org. What if we are concrned about tail pipe emissions in cities, or in destruction of the environment to get oil sands from canada. There are lots of green ideas that are different than ghg on the us average grid.

No just becasuse a website gives you a ghg definition of green, it doesn't mean its so. Now greenercars.org does a better job than cnw, but the notion that it ranked the tesla S so low is an indicator that greencars.org methodology is deeply flawed, not that the tesla is a brown car.

 

I'm sorry if that offends you but when your green criteria give an Honda Odessy gets a green score of 36, and a tesla S gets a green score of 37 something is really wrong. You have too choices. You can look and realize that like CNW things are weighted poorly, or you can claim, they have green in their name, so we should not question their methodology. If Green is your religion, and GHG is much more important than unhealthy pollution or destruction of the envvironment, yes, go with their results unquestioning. I've just shot them off an email asking them to do a sanity check on whether they mean green or something completely different? But go ahead follow blindly and defend it. I mean we definitely are charging all the Tesla S's on the national grid, and they will never be recycled.

now ofcourse Al Gore and Oil Barrons both say they are for the environment But except for the Koch Brothers I bet Gore personally uses more energy than the other other oil rich (Hamm, Kaiser, Kinder, etc). All of them use politics to enrich themselves (Gore got government money for Fisker and other of his start ups). Frankly yes they have quite different points of view, but I wouldn't trust any of them to really tell the truth. See I took the bait.

 

Hey bob,
I didn't mean this to sound as if Nissan currently had a 150 mile car for sale. They are asking cusomers about it, and the additional cost on the survey is $5000 or less which is exciting for those of us that want batteries to go down in price.

The current leaf battery is waranted for 8 years, but to retain at least 30% of its usable range for 5 years. They don't have any public prices to buy a replacement, but they will lease you a replacement after that period for $100/mo. The new higer capacity battery may be more than that lease rate, no word from nissan.

 

I may have misunderstood the waranty, and the leaf is not on my list living in a hot state, but I think it is $100/mo after your battery is out of warnaty. If you are planning to own that leaf for 13 years and expect the battery to fail at the earliest out of waranty 61 months for capacity, then yes, I don't think its a good deal. If on the otherhand you drive for 9 years, it fails and you want your car for a couple more years, that seems quite fine. Say you drive 120,000 miles in 9 years and your battary is out of waranty, then sure $2400 for a couple more years may make sense. No one knows what these batteries will cost then, other than less than today. If it needs liquid conditioning for the latest and greatest nissan can't just shove that in the car.