GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I recently encountered a 2018 Nissan LEAF during one of my longer trips. The ambient temperatures had been over 100 F, but they had dropped to the mid-90s by the time I stopped to recharge. It appeared that the facility had been out of power for a few hours, but the DCFC units had come back online.

The LEAF was parked in regular parking at the time I came in. I'm guessing it had been sitting for some time. The owner actually pulled in and started charging about 15 minutes after I started my session (probably seeing that the chargers were back on line). Anyway, I decided to check the LEAF's charging rate in hot weather, and it was only averaging about 18 kW. Maybe I'm over reacting, but it does seem like Nissan misrepresented their product to customers.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
From the beginning, Nissan has had battery problems with Leafs in hot climates. I think there was a class action lawsuit by some owners in Arizona and New Mexico years ago to get battery replacements in cars which suffered premature battery degradation in hot climates. I'm kinda surprised they would even offer DCFC without implementing liquid cooling of the pack, based on their history. If not, at least it appears they have a temperature monitoring system to slow the charge rate rather than burn up the pack while quick charging

Personally, I would never consider a Leaf if I lived in a hot climate

IMO, buyers contemplating buying any EV need to do some research and check on the history of the manufacturer and the cars they are offering - If you don't, it's pretty much buyer beware and you get what you bought . . . . isn't it?

Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Sometime I think the misconception here is "what the car is for". It is NOT a long haul transport. It's a local commuter car, and when operated inside of it's advertised and intended range, it's a stellar performer. I have a '13 Leaf with 6.6kw charging and that thing will pretty well top itself off with a few hours charge anytime I need. If 15kw is a disapointment, get a tank of gas and to move on. EV technology isn't intended for frantic charge/run/charge applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Always curious to read about Leaf and hot climate. Our 2015 Leaf has been flawless, 25k miles driving short distances exclusively, loving every $.02/mile (wind powered source) efficiency. YMMV!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,223 Posts
Or, get a Bolt EV. It's liquid-cooled battery thermal management system is built to handle higher charging rates without burning the battery, even in hot climates. Nissan simply went the cheap route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,766 Posts
I used to see the Gen 1 Leaf vehicles all the time. I have only seen one 2018 Leaf. In that time I have seen at least 10 Model 3 vehicles. Maybe people have moved on from the Leaf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
I believe there's a lawsuit against Nissan in the UK over both this issue and misrepresented range numbers for the 2018 Leafs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
EV technology isn't intended for frantic charge/run/charge applications.
But it should be. Until it is EVs will be relegated to the fringe.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,223 Posts
Sometime I think the misconception here is "what the car is for". It is NOT a long haul transport. It's a local commuter car, and when operated inside of it's advertised and intended range, it's a stellar performer. I have a '13 Leaf with 6.6kw charging and that thing will pretty well top itself off with a few hours charge anytime I need. If 15kw is a disapointment, get a tank of gas and to move on. EV technology isn't intended for frantic charge/run/charge applications.
With my Bolt EV I can run all over the greater Chicago metro area on 238 miles of battery range without being stressed and without needing frantic charge/run/charge. For very long haul trips, I have the Volt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,490 Posts
I used to see the Gen 1 Leaf vehicles all the time. I have only seen one 2018 Leaf. In that time I have seen at least 10 Model 3 vehicles. Maybe people have moved on from the Leaf.
I see a number of Gen 1 Leafs around here, a few Sparks, A Kia Soul Ev, Fiat 500e, even another Gen1 Volt. Not seen a Model 3 yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Nissan simply went the cheap route.
I'm not sure what's different on the thermal treatment of the battery between the Leaf and our 2012 iMiEV's. We don't have water cooling either, but the Premium Editions do have air conditioning ducted into the pack during certain times. The ES and the standard SE models don't though and there are many of those with more than 100K on them and few if any issues relating to heat induced battery failure. Battery thermal problems showed up very early on with the fist and second generation Leafs

Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Sometime I think the misconception here is "what the car is for". It is NOT a long haul transport. It's a local commuter car, and when operated inside of it's advertised and intended range, it's a stellar performer. I have a '13 Leaf with 6.6kw charging and that thing will pretty well top itself off with a few hours charge anytime I need. If 15kw is a disapointment, get a tank of gas and to move on. EV technology isn't intended for frantic charge/run/charge applications.
Why "what the car is for" instead of "what a car is for"? If someone spends $30,000 on a car, they should have some very basic expectations that it functions as a car.

And in this case, it's not just assumed capabilities. It's how those capabilities were advertised.

View attachment 155105
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Why "what the car is for" instead of "what a car is for"? If someone spends $30,000 on a car, they should have some very basic expectations that it functions as a car.
Good question. The question "what a car is for" is very broad. At that level the borad answer is "transportation".
There are several legal requirements in the safety and features categories, but you can expect to drive any car on the highway safely.

My comment was more specific in "what the car is for", referring to Electric Vehicles. I own a leaf with 100 miles range. I'm fine with it, it fits my needs. Lots of better choices with more range per charge- 200 mile Bolt, 300 mile Tesla. But that's not the actual topic here. The topic is charge rate.

Your video reviews the "very very slow" rate of charge of the 2018 leaf. That demonstrated slow rate is 15Kw. Outside of the Tesla superchargers, a consumer today can expect to charge their new EVs a a typical rate of 6.6kw, or perhaps 7.2kw. My opinion is that these rates are fine. But when you describe charge rates of 15kw as VERY VERY SLOW, it points to a motive of warning consumers away from electric vehicles. Folks who don't actually understand what these numbers mean are just going to be discouraged away from EVs. Whether intended or not, your video does not promote the advancement of EV adoption.

I look at the TCO of my cars, divided into the life expectancy. Driving at 2 cents a mile for 150,000 miles will trump (terrible word to use) any car that costs half as much to buy and 5 times more to operate. People will buy the car that's right for them. If you need rapid refiling for long haul drives, the Internal Combustion Engine is a good choice. I love both of my EVs, even though I do not recommend the Leaf because of the battery (non) thermal management. But a VERY VERY SLOW charging rates of 15Kw isn't a good argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Good question. The question "what a car is for" is very broad. At that level the borad answer is "transportation".
There are several legal requirements in the safety and features categories, but you can expect to drive any car on the highway safely.

My comment was more specific in "what the car is for", referring to Electric Vehicles. I own a leaf with 100 miles range. I'm fine with it, it fits my needs. Lots of better choices with more range per charge- 200 mile Bolt, 300 mile Tesla. But that's not the actual topic here. The topic is charge rate.

Your video reviews the "very very slow" rate of charge of the 2018 leaf. That demonstrated slow rate is 15Kw. Outside of the Tesla superchargers, a consumer today can expect to charge their new EVs a a typical rate of 6.6kw, or perhaps 7.2kw. My opinion is that these rates are fine. But when you describe charge rates of 15kw as VERY VERY SLOW, it points to a motive of warning consumers away from electric vehicles. Folks who don't actually understand what these numbers mean are just going to be discouraged away from EVs. Whether intended or not, your video does not promote the advancement of EV adoption.

I look at the TCO of my cars, divided into the life expectancy. Driving at 2 cents a mile for 150,000 miles will trump (terrible word to use) any car that costs half as much to buy and 5 times more to operate. People will buy the car that's right for them. If you need rapid refiling for long haul drives, the Internal Combustion Engine is a good choice. I love both of my EVs, even though I do not recommend the Leaf because of the battery (non) thermal management. But a VERY VERY SLOW charging rates of 15Kw isn't a good argument.
Did you even read the Nissan advertisement that I attached? This isn't just about how slow the charging rate is; this is about false advertising.

But yes, as far as the charging rate is concerned (in isolation), it is unacceptable. There's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to recharging times for EVs because, unlike ICE vehicles, you don't have to be present and engaged while recharging an EV. However, those rates should match use cases.

For an EV driven locally, where the owner rarely drives farther than the single battery charge range, sure, L1/L2 AC is a perfectly acceptable charge rate.

For an EV with longer range that is marketed as a long-range EV with fast charging, having a 1:1 driving time to refueling time ratio is completely unacceptable, especially when it is advertised to have three times faster refueling times. Most travelers would tolerate the 3:1 to 6:1 driving time to refueling time seen in modern EVs because most people, even in ICE vehicles, will stop for 1 to 2 hours over the course of 8 to 10 hours of driving anyway. So the inconvenience and sacrifices are minimal. Ask them to stop for 10 hours for every 10 hours of driving, on the other hand, and it becomes unacceptable. Especially when you told them in advertising that it would take less than 3 hours.

But you are right that no EVs (including Tesla models) can match the expectations of "road warriors" who demand the same 80:1 to 100:1 driving time to refueling time ratios ICE vehicles are capable of because they like to "splash and dash" without ever eating or using the bathroom. However, I think you are overestimating the number of people who actually would demand that out of an EV. The people who would aren't going to be interested in EVs at all anyway.

I get this response a lot from LEAF owners in particular. "Well, the person buying the car should have known better. They should know that's not the purpose of the car or how you use it." How the hell are they supposed to know that when the advertising brochure says the exact opposite? I hardly think that my calling Nissan out on false advertising would hurt EV adoption in any way.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top