Nissan Touts Improved Aero For 2018 LEAF, Teases Side Profile – Video

5 days ago by Eric Loveday 126

Nissan is now highlighting the aerodynamic improvements of the new 2018 LEAF ahead of its debut early next month.

Nissan has slowly been teasing the new 2018 LEAF through short video clips, with this aerodynamic one being it latest.

New 2018 Nissan LEAF teaser pic of side profile (click to enlarge)

Finally we get a glimpse at the car’s form – this time from the side, which we’ve seen in various spy shots both with, and without, camo.

Nissan points out that the new LEAF is closer to the ground than the outgoing model and that “less drag and better stability enable the vehicle to drive longer distances before having to recharge.”

The Nissan LEAF will get its grand world debut in Tokyo, Japan on September 5.

Sales should commence in the U.S. starting this December.

Video description via Nissan:

It’s amazing when nothing holds you back

The new #Nissan #LEAF. Simply Amazing.

The new Nissan LEAF will feature improved aerodynamic design that makes it even more efficient, allowing drivers to travel farther on a single charge.

Aerodynamics is key to how efficiently an electric car moves. Less drag and better stability enable the vehicle to drive longer distances before having to recharge.

The redesigned next-generation Nissan LEAF is lower to the ground, helping it realize zero lift for better stability at high speeds. Other new design features significantly stabilize the car when hit by strong crosswinds.

Inspired by airplane wings, Nissan engineers recreated the ideal shape for the new LEAF, enabling a symmetric air flow that helps it slice through the air for a smoother, more efficient journey.

Nissan established itself as a pioneer in the EV movement by launching the LEAF, the world’s first mass-market electric vehicle.

Today, the Nissan LEAF is the world’s best-selling electric vehicle with more than 277,000* units sold.

For the latest updates, follow #Nissan #LEAF #ElectrifyTheWorld and join the conversation.

* Based on cumulative sales data from December 2010 – June 2017.

Tags: , , , , ,

126 responses to "Nissan Touts Improved Aero For 2018 LEAF, Teases Side Profile – Video"

  1. Hank Häberle says:

    Good to see why Nissan is hiring aerodynamic engineers these days. Great! 🙂

    I need a video which shows me ventilated cooled seats and a video with a smog sensor and automatic recirculation in the new LEAF.

    Otherwise I have to buy a huge Diesel SUV and drive through town ahead of the Leafs: I stay clean, Leaf-drivers get cancer.

    1. L'amata says:

      FINALLY they learn Aerodynamics ! Better late than never………….lol

      1. Eco says:

        The chopped off rear window with the spoiler overhanging the rear window is NOT aerodynamic … Tesla’s rear window on the Model S3X is aerodynamic … an airplane wing/fuselage is aerodynamic … a fish/bird is aerodynamic … the back end is just as important as the front and ideally should come to a point. A boxy shape on front or back is not aerodynamic.

        1. John Ray says:

          You might be surprised to find out that laminar flow is in fact worse for drag than turbulent. Having that boxed off rear end and wing can introduce turbulence which results in less drag. I am sure that Nissan wind tunnel tested the new Leaf and know what they are doing.

          1. Needale says:

            Its called a Kamm tail or Kammback…

            “The design calls for a body with smooth contours that continues to a tail that is abruptly cut off. This shape reduces the drag of the vehicle.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback

            1. John Ray says:

              Thanks. At least I remembered something from fluid dynamics.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            John Ray,

            So what your saying is a dimpled golf-ball travels further than a totally smooth one.

        2. Chester Koenig says:

          Man, you really need to get a job as an aerodynamics engineer at one of these companies.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…the back end is just as important as the front…”

          No, it’s not anywhere near as important. If I recall what I’ve read, the best you can get from improving the rear end is a 15% reduction in drag, vs. possibly a 50% improvement or even more from superior streamlining on the front end.

          1. john gilkison says:

            You are dead wrong.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Yeah, okay. That’s what I get for shooting off my mouth about something I understand so poorly.

              Reading this was educational: “Drag Reduction: The Pursuit of Better Fuel Economy”

              http://illumin.usc.edu/252/drag-reduction-the-pursuit-of-better-fuel-economy/

              1. Nix says:

                Pushy — Actually from the picture, it looks like the biggest gains were from the glowing Plutonium Paint. It’s even faster than grey primer…

                (jk’s)

              2. James says:

                Yeah, the perfect aerodynamic shape is supposed to be the teardrop.

                Remember when Mercedes used the Boxfish as inspiration for their Bionic Concept car?

                [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/18/74/c8/1874c8aeddae4526c0f704fe41d25307.jpg[/img]

                Notice the rear taper. Ecomodder.com is one of my fave websites. Lots of people putting long pointy tails on Honda Civic hatchbacks and stuff. They test and retest their aero mods – it’s all quite fun and impressive the gains they make in mpg – which would seriously result in elongated EV ranges as well.

    2. Didier says:

      “I stay clean, Leaf-drivers get cancer”

      It depends, in *my* city you stay out, diesel are about to forbidden.

      And in your city you get cancer at the end of the day, as well as your children, because the point is the percentage of clean car, not where they are.

      But I got that you were sarcastic, so have a good ride in your EV 😉

  2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    I know many folks that after the Model 3 handover event, they now want to wait to see what the LEAF will offer.

    1. EVDrive says:

      I’m kinda set on the Model3, however, you’re right. I’m pretty interested to see what the Leaf specs are.

      The new Leaf looks to be everything I hoped my 2011 would be, namely sharper lines, no dorky headlights (frog face) and a long range battery. I am really digging the new leaf so far. Good job Nissan.

      1. Larry says:

        Interestingly, the “dorky” headlights were promoted as improving the aerodynamics, IIRC.

        1. Brian says:

          A common misconception. They were actually promoted as reducing wind noise around the side mirrors.

          1. John Ray says:

            You are correct, sir. Wind noise reduction. It looks like they kept the feature, just relocated the lights.

      2. Terawatt says:

        Relax, Nissan will disappoint as usual. They are doing a good marketing job here, but ultimately, they don’t believe in making a product that sells itself.

        I don’t think we’ll get 200 miles until 2019. 41 kWh and 150-160 miles is my guess, partly because of what Pedro over at pushevs claims to know, partly because of Nissan’s consistent failure to push the limits, instead always opting for doing the minimum required to keep afloat.

        Hope I’m wrong!

  3. Brian says:

    I have mixed feelings about the lower ground clearance. On a personal note, it is far higher than any other car I’ve ever owned. As a driver, I hate that. It makes me feel disconnected from the road. Lower is better. But as a resident of snow country, the clearance sure is nice during the winter.

    On a wider note, I want this Leaf to appeal to as many people as possible. In the US, the trend is towards mid-sized SUVs like the Rogue and away from cars and hatchbacks. So if this limits market appeal, it would be unfortunate.

    1. Dan says:

      Yes, the market is shifting away from cars. Hatchbacks Not so much. There is a dirty little marketing secret – a crossover is nothing but a hatchback sold in the US market. Whether you want to call the leaf a crossover or a hatchback will ultimately come down to a little bit of cladding and slightly raised suspension. In the case of Subaru, they have often morphed models that were known as wagons into crossovers gradually without the market even noticing the change.

      1. Brian says:

        Ok, Dan. I don’t mean to be arguing semantics here. I don’t care what you call the Leaf. My point is that people are moving away from shorter vehicles to taller ones. A crossover is similar to a Leaf, but it is typically taller/higher. The 2018 Leaf will be lower than the outgoing Leaf, which is moving in the opposite direction.

        Personally, I was planning on lowering my next car a little bit anyway to make for a better ride. With this change, I may not have to!

        1. Tom says:

          The Kia Niro is taking a page out of the Subaru playbook. And it is selling like crazy.

          1. Brian says:

            I’m not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. The Kia Niro is a larger/taller car than the Leaf. Most of my friends and family look at my Leaf and comment on how “small” it is.

            1. Warren says:

              Yes. With luck, we will see everybody driving electric SUVs and pickups by 2030. That will have as much effect as if everyone would have switched to a Prius…just 30 years too late. If we want to have any hope of impacting CO2, we need to do a lot better than that.

            2. Moon says:

              LEAF is taller and longer than NIRO. But NIRO has better interior space in its second row.

          2. Bacardi says:

            With Subaru, they discontinued their only hybrid, the Crosstrek and every vehicle they offer is AWD except for the BRZ which was co-developed with Toyota and was deemed a failure…

            Niro is a FWD hybrid which is slightly less dorky than owning a Prius…

      2. Mark says:

        heck, GM calls the Bolt an SUV.

        1. Big Show says:

          I finally saw a Bolt in person yesterday. Smaller than I thought, more like a Honda fit than a crossover 🙁

          1. Ziv says:

            The Bolt may be illegitimate, but there is more than a little Fit DNA in it.

            1. Tom says:

              The Fit is a mighty fine vehicle and very roomy. I test drove one and was seriously impressed.

              1. Ziv says:

                I didn’t mean that joke to be entirely negative. The Bolt uses a lot of the same ideas regarding maximizing usable space that the Fit did before it. The Fit is a very roomy, efficient subcompact car, as is the Bolt.

                1. John Ray says:

                  The automotive press loves the Fit as a package. It’s all the car you really need.

            2. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Isn’t Honda HR-V based on the Fit?

          2. speculawyer says:

            Yeah, the Bolt has nice specs but it is kinda crippled by the fact that it just looks like a typical economy hatchback. Not exactly something people want to drop $37K on.

            I’m more into the specs but appearances do matter.

        2. Bacardi says:

          “Urban CUV”…If you recall, according to their Buick focus group GM actually asked participants if their new Buick PHEV/EV vehicle looked like a SUV…Expect the Buick to have the same old dorky extreme front rake…

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…heck, GM calls the Bolt an SUV.”

          First they label CUVs as “SUVs”, and now a hatchback is an “SUV”?!?

          Let’s hear it for marketing. 🙄

          But seriously, I see Edmunds.com clearly labels it the “Chevrolet Bolt EV Hatchback”, and the Wikipedia article calls it a “subcompact hatchback”.

          Good to see that common sense is prevailing over GM’s ridiculous marketing attempt.

          1. Ambulator says:

            I was at an automotive focus group one time and I casually remarked that I preferred hatchbacks, because of the cargo room. I was told that must mean I liked SUVs, since they were roomy. I responded that hatchbacks were cheap and efficient, completely opposite to SUVs.

          2. Warren says:

            Our kid’s drive Fits, and our Bolt is even better. I don’t care what GM calls them, if people buy them.

      3. Terawatt says:

        BS. Crossover is a term that been used for ages to refer to cars that don’t really fit in one of the traditional segments, but rather sits somewhere overlapping two – or crossing over, if you like. Only when cars that were crossovers between SUVs and regular (full size) hatchbacks became so popular that they actually became a segment of their own did the term acquire this new meaning.

        If you need to quickly check if your claim is really wrong, just Google for “crossover Europe” and you’ll see that this isn’t a US-specific term. The meaning of the term however isn’t identical, because SUV segments on each side of the pond were different (many cars considered SUVs in Europe being perceived as smaller than an SUV in the US, e.g. BMW X5).

    2. Vexar says:

      Tesla Model S and X have adjustable suspension. This is what you want. No compromises.

      1. Brian says:

        Yes, the $70k+ Models S/X have a lot of features that I want. The price tag itself is the primary compromise.

        1. Tom says:

          I would say virtually EVERY $70k vehicle has lots of stuff I want.

          1. speculawyer says:

            Most $70+K cars have something I don’t want…an internal combustion engine. 🙂

    3. I see the drop in clearance as a negative. I like how much current Leaf has, it is just barely enough for me as-is. Prefer what we have on our Forester. Looks like no new Leaf for us… hoping they announce BEV Rogue at same time or shortly after.

      1. Brian says:

        Exactly. While our tastes are clearly different, this is my point. I also see it as a negative in that it will turn off potential buyers.

        1. John Ray says:

          No car will ever be perfect for everyone. Living in the South with good roads and good weather, I will take a sportier, sleeker Leaf.

      2. Terawatt says:

        It’s only a tiny portion of drivers who imagine they need a lot of clearance, as evidenced by the cars people are buying.

        You certainly can’t go for a Model 3 then. Oddly enough demand does not seem to reflect, on your theory, it’s lack of road clearance!

  4. Mil says:

    Fancy video but how about an actual drag coefficient metric so it can be compared?

    1. DNAinaGoodWay says:

      +1 more lack of detail. So, it’ll be less than the .3 something it is now, but will it be in low .2 range that the real efficient cars have?

  5. jim stack says:

    So what is the CD of it’s improved aero design? Some cars are barn doors in Cd like a Mustand ,Viper etc
    Tesla Model S: 2012-present (Cd 0.24)
    Toyota Prius, 2010-present (Cd 0.25)
    Nissan Leaf 2011-Present (Cd 0.29)
    Volkswagen Beetle (1938) (Cd 0.48)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Model 3 at 0.23

    2. Nissan Leaf CD says:

      2013 Nissan Leaf CD improved to 0.28. Source- Nissan Motors USA press release.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I certainly didn’t expect the Leaf 2.0 to have a CD near the TM3’s 0.23. I expected it to be somewhere near the Bolt EV, which GM claims to be 0.308. So if it’s 0.28, that’s roughly what I expected, or slightly better.

        Glad to see Nissan is making improvements in the Leaf, albeit belatedly and only due to competition from the Bolt EV and other newer plug-in EVs.

        Now, about the lack of active thermal management for the battery pack… 🙁

        1. Terawatt says:

          Objection, your honour. He said 2013.

    3. I am guessing the new Leaf has a Cd of about 0.25.

      The Hyundai Ioniq has a Cd of 0.24.

    4. BenG says:

      The 2016 redesign of the Prius dropped its CD to .24 according to Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2017-toyota-prius-prime-plug-in-hybrid-photos-and-info-news

  6. Courtney Vegan says:

    I want to know if it can beat the range of bolt or model 3. If it’s under 200 miles,it’s a failure.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      It won’t beat and it won’t be a failure either. It can sell very well if it’s around 180 miles range and below $30k. Price is key here.

      1. Lou Grinzo says:

        Bingo. It’s all a matter of perceived (by the consumers) cost/benefit ratio. If the smaller pack variant is 40 kWh, then the range will likely be around the 165 miles talked about earlier on this site. Will a just-barely-under $30k price be good enough? It would get me in the door, although my wife is already leaning on me for the bigger pack version to replace my 2013 Leaf.

        A big issue will be the price delta between the S (small pack) and the SV+SL (large pack). An additional 20 kWh of battery delivering about 80 more miles, plus other goodies like Nissan’s all-around camera thingie (which is fantastic on a Rogue) could make for a $6k to $7k retail spread between the S and the SL.

        1. Tom says:

          If they can slide in a base model in about that range and battery pack size at around $27-$28,000 that would likely hit a niche that needs scratching.

          1. John Ray says:

            I see what you did there.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “It can sell very well if it’s around 180 miles range and below $30k. Price is key here.”

        Right. Nissan has been successful in capturing the BEV market segment below both the Bolt EV and the TM3, and I doubt they will change strategy. Much as I’d like to see the Leaf get active thermal management for the battery pack, I think Nissan has decided that the lower cost is worth the loss of capacity over time, and the negative publicity over that.

        Nissan’s window for that is closing as the cost of EV batteries continues to drop, but I can see the advantage Nissan has with no highway-capable BEV competition in its price segment.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          “I think Nissan has decided that the lower cost is worth the loss of capacity over time, and the negative publicity over that.”
          Can you blame them? Look at the sale numbers…it’s ridiculous how many just don’t give a damn about the thermal cooling.

          1. Asak says:

            Most buyers honestly probably don’t know anything about it. How many buy a Leaf or other EV and even hit the online forums to talk about it? I bet it’s not more than 5% at most.

            I would be reluctant to buy a Leaf without active cooling, but frankly I expect I’ll be looking at either a new or used Bolt for my next car. I might snap up a new one before the tax credits run out for GM in 2019, or I’ll grab a used in 2020.

            That’s a long way off though, so who knows? Maybe I’ll still end up with a Model 3 if the tax credit lasts longer than I expect.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “…it’s ridiculous how many just don’t give a damn about the thermal cooling.”

            Well, to be fair, those leasing a Leaf don’t have to worry much about the car’s abysmal resale value. However, the lack of thermal management does also limit the ability of the Leaf to use DCFC, since charging fast overheats the battery.

            I wonder how much of this is just the fact that most Leaf owners have never used a PEV (Plug-in EV) which charges much faster at a DCFC charger, so don’t know what they’re missing.

      3. Asak says:

        Even 150 or 160 miles of range would be acceptable at the right price. While 200 is the “ideal” EV range, and I think 100 is too short for the average person (I can tolerate it for myself), somewhere in the mid 100s would still be a significant improvement. The only problem is that Bolt and Model 3 already established 200 miles as the new standard. But if you price it right, it can overcome that.

    2. john1701a says:

      200 miles is an arbitrary measure.

      Success is based upon sales.

      1. Terawatt says:

        It’s not arbitrary at all!

        People say that it could be successful with 150 miles “if the price is right”. Well, duh, of course! But it’s not like making it 200 miles would magically increase all sorts of costs relating to designing, testing, homologating, and selling the thing!

        We know there’s space enough for more than 60 kWh. We know it doesn’t require exotic chemistry. It’s basically just the cost of the cells – marked up by gross profit margin in order to maintain this.

        There isn’t a single sweet spot for everyone, because people use cars differently and value convenience differently. It’s not possible to say what’s optimal, even on average. But that’s not the same as being arbitrary.

        I’d argue that 200 miles is nearer the sweet spot because it allows you to go nearly as far as you’d ever want with a little in reserve so you don’t have to suffer range anxiety on the way.

        Consider the practical, real-world, anxiety-free range after a few years, when perhaps 15% of the initial capacity is gone. Say you want 20 miles in reserve. If you started with 150 miles total range, you’ll be down to 150*0.85 – 20 = 102.5 miles. But if you started with 200 miles, you’re at 200*0.85 – 20 = 150 miles. That’s a huge difference. It stands to reason the latter is worth more than the former.

        Perhaps 15% degradation is a bit high, but on the other hand this isn’t the worst case scenario. In bad weather range can drop a fair bit lower than the EPA range.

        To my mind it’s pretty clear, given the current cost of cells, that it’s worth equipping a new EV with at least two hundred miles worth of battery.

        Lastly, my calculation is actually giving unfair advantage to the shorter-range car. Since degradation is a function of cycles (all else being equal) the bigger the pack, the less it degrades in percentage terms for a given number of miles (twice the pack goes nearly twice as many miles per charge cycle, each cycle degrades the pack by equally many percent). If we assume both hypothetical cars lose the same number of miles instead, which is much closer to the truth, we get instead 102.5 miles versus 157.5 miles after the former has lost 15% of capacity. Now the initially 10% more expensive car has 54% more range. And since it’s worth more as well, the total cost is perhaps only 5% higher!

        I’m sure there are many other ways to reason about this, but I hope you can at least agree it isn’t simply arbitrary!

    3. Bacardi says:

      You could argue the Bolt which has over 200 miles of range is already a failure…

      Prime is selling well despite only being 25 miles of range…

      1. Kdawg says:

        Prime is a failure as an EV. Just a glorified gasser w/a plug. Might as well talk about Toyota Tundra sales.

        1. BenG says:

          LOL. Tundra 16 mpg combined EPA gas mileage vs the Prime’s 133 mpge during its 25 mile all-electric rang. An order of magnitude better mileage.

          And then the Prime roles on for 54 mpg as a gas-electric hybrid, which is good enough to make it a cleaner choice than some pure electrics using grid electricity in some parts of the country.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “You could argue the Bolt which has over 200 miles of range is already a failure…”

        Last month, the Bolt EV outsold every other EV in the USA on InsideEV’s list, including the Prius Prime. I was hoping for higher total sales, and find the slow ramp up in sales disappointing, but disappointing does not equal failure.

        Last month the Bolt EV was as far away from a “failure” as you can get!

        1. Terawatt says:

          The Prime is a hybrid, not an EV. The letters stand for “electric vehicle” and the Prime is no more an electric vehicle than it is a fossil-fuelled vehicle.

          Obviously the car makers who try their best to stop or at least retard EVs, simply because change is risky and they, as incumbents, likely have more to lose than gain, try to “teach” that EV can mean anything that’s at least a little bit electric. But we don’t have to accept this. We can insist on the logical terminology where “electric” means just that in precisely the same way as “ICE” is used to describe a car with ONLY internal combustion engine propulsion – NOT hybrids which use more than one propulsion technology.

      3. Asak says:

        I’m really not sure what people were expecting with the Bolt. I guess something ridiculous like 4000-5000 per month? How would that work when they’re only making about 30,000 per year (possibly higher when the factory comes back online).

        1. Kdawg says:

          Personally, I was expecting them building 22K in the first year. So far, I haven’t been disappointed.

        2. Terawatt says:

          I for one didn’t have a clear expectation in terms of sales volume. But I had some expectations regarding GMs will and ability to stimulate demand, or at the very least meet demand. All the way back in January 2016 CEO Mary Barra stated that the Bolt would not be production constrained; GM could and would meet demand even if it proved much higher than the planned volume of 30K cars (since delayed to 2018 btw).

          But what actually happened? The entire 2017 stick to South Korea sold out in *minutes*, but they haven’t got another vehicle. Over 4000 are waiting in the tiny market of Norway, only about 400 have been delivered (Opel badged) and noone knows how many more would buy if the car was available. Likewise we don’t know how many would buy in Opel’s home market Germany, with twenty times the car market of Norway (EV share obviously a lot smaller, but also growing fast). Or anywhere else in Europe. What we do know is GM isn’t meeting demand in any of these markets, and seems not to be trying either.

          In short: I expected GM to want to get into the electric car business. Instead it looks like they just wanted to make another compliance car that they can sell in the US to attain fleet emissions targets. If so, expect GM to ramp up production and (eventually) lower the Bolt price only by enough each year to meet the regulatory requirements so they can keep selling F-150s in CARB states!

          Maybe I’m totally wrong, I’m certainly open to that possibility. But I really would like to see a convincing explanation of GMs behavior here. It’s undeniable that they aren’t meeting demand outside the US market, and this doesn’t seem to be due to an inability to do so.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I don’t want to step on your freedom of speech, but wouldn’t it have been better to post that to an article with subject related in some way to politics?

  7. Jimmy says:

    Does it have a better battery cooling system than 1st gen Leafs? (Leaves?) Will it get a better rating on the small overlap frontal crash test? Even though used 1st gen leafs are very cheap, those two things keep me from buying one.

    1. It will have a much more robust battery chemistry, so it should improve on the so-called lizard battery, which was a big improvement over the original.

      We’ll see crash test results fairly soon, I think.

      1. BenG says:

        I’ll be shocked if they don’t solve that problem with small frontal overlap collisions. Should be a very safe car being a new design.

        I hope the battery is in the floor.

  8. The roofline does look much better than the current Leaf, and the underside shown in the profile, also has a slight rise, which looks consistent with what it should be, for lower a Cd. It would also be consistent with neutral lift.

    I think they have kept the quieter air flow around the side mirrors – the arched chines on the hood seem like they are doing that job.

    The wheels and the wheel openings look tighter and close to flush, which will also help lower the Cd, as well. And the trailing edges are crisp (rather than curved away from the air flow, like the current Leaf) is critical for lower drag.

    1. Terawatt says:

      Sigh. The roofline looks the same! And the current one has a rear diffuser as well.

      It’s the front and back, including lights, and paint job that has changed much. And it all sits a little closer to the ground.

      The effect is no doubt a huge improvement, but you should Google up a profile shot of the current LEAF and you’ll see the roofline, while probably not identical, is actually very similar!

  9. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Nissan used to claim a Cd of 0.28 but independent lab (Car and Driver) showed it was 0.32.

    So, now it will be 0.26 according to Nissan but measured to be 0.3?

    LOL.

    1. John Ray says:

      The C&D test was of a 2012. As pointed out above the 2013 improved to .28.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Which improvement was that?

        Did anyone verify that?

        The only thing I heard was that 2013 was slower, had less regen and lost 1 star on the government crash test.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Yes, it would be better to cite the manufacturer’s spec as “claimed CD” rather than just “CD”.

      I’m rather disappointed that auto makers so frequently seem to lie fudge the numbers there. A tendency to be dishonest whenever they can get away with it… well, the corporate attitude displayed by such mendacity goes hand-in-glove with the dieselgate cheating scandal. 🙁

      1. Terawatt says:

        Well, yes. But this is hardly unique to the industry. Many computer monitors are marketed as having impossibly high contrast ratios, like 2,000,000:1, while test labs measure them to be 500:1, for example. Stereo amplifiers have maximum power ratings, but where one maker says maximum power is when a pink noise signal reaches 0.001% total harmonic distortion (THD), while another defines it as the power level where a 1 kHz since wave reaches 1% THD. And so on.

        In the absence of well-defined measurement standards any number can be meaningless. A coastline had no objectively correct length; it depends on the measurement resolution (because it’s basically a fractal). Even with well-defined standards and scrupulous adherence to them the measurement is only sure to be comparable under the standard conditions. For example, maximum power at the weeks after the DIN standard (Deutsche Industri-Norme) is well-defined, but literally any power curve that peaks at that level gets the same result.

        It’s actually an interesting problem to ponder. People want simplification that often goes far beyond Einstein’s famous ideal that “everything should be made as simple as possible – but no simpler”.

  10. Mister G says:

    WTF NISSAN…22k miles on my 2016 Leaf SV ans I lost 3 bars of range…I hope 2018 Leaf has better batteries

    1. Bill Howland says:

      !!!!! 3 bars of range lost on a 1 year old car with 22,000 miles? !!!!!

      I said I’m only driving about 20,000 miles a year on my BOlt ev, but recalculating, it will be more like 22,000 miles a year, and you are saying that on a LEAF you lose 3 out of 13 bars? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Even living in a cold locale most of the year, I simply cannot take that risk that simply driving an EV too much would kill the battery to that extent.

      Nissan must think people are dumb. They won’t be so easily fooled next time around.

      1. Brian says:

        Hey Bill,

        I’m not sure where Mister G lives, but I seem to recall PA? Maybe I’m way off. But if that’s true, this is a shocking loss of capacity. My Leaf has only lost 1 of 12 capacity bars in 5.5 years / 44k miles.

        I am very interested in the 2018 Leaf. But my next EV will hopefully be a truly long-term vehicle (10+ years). Maybe I’ll wait a year or two to see how well they really hold up.

        1. John Ray says:

          Yeah, color me skeptical. I am in GA and it took 4.5 years and 49,000 miles for my 2012 Leaf to lose 4 bars. I charged to 100% every night and used the car almost daily in the GA heat. I doubt a 2016 would degrade that quickly. If true, he should be happy. He’s on his way to a new battery under warranty.

          1. Mister G says:

            How do I post a picture on this site?

            1. Jay Cole says:

              Just drop the URL, it’ll auto pic it up/re-size, but it can take anywhere from 10 mins to a couple hours..depending on when it is doing an auto-pass

              1. Mister G says:

                I have no idea how to drop url lol I have a picture on my android phone that I want to share how do I do that step by step please LOL

                1. Jay Cole says:

                  Just copy & paste the picture address into the comment box…like this (will spell out .com so you can see it) and you are done:

                  http://insideevsDOTcom/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/levc-tx.jpg

                  …and it will end up like this (in a little bit):

                  1. Mister G says:

                    Let’s see if this works picture of 2016 Leaf with 3 bars of range lost

                    1. James says:

                      Thanks Jay!

                      Maybe I should’ve read this before adding the [img] bracket thingies!

          2. Mister G says:

            Picture of dash 2016 Leaf with 3 bars lost

        2. Bill Howland says:

          Brian probably the reason is you watch the temperature of your battery closely and will not charge at even slow rates when the battery is warm…. 3600 watts I wouldn’t think would harm anything, although GM products will even turn on the fan if necessary at a 960 watt charging rate, and at higher rates will add in the refrigeration compressor if the car is sitting in the sun.

          I didn’t think it did it, but even at 120 volts in the garage my ELR will run the fan after fully charged to precool the battery as your ENERGI does.

        3. Mister G says:

          I’m in central Florida and if I knew how to post a picture of my dashboard I would do it.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            What? Lizard battery can’t handle FL humidity? =)

            1. William says:

              The Florida Reptillian Leaf Battery Humidity Conundrum.

    2. Jason says:

      Sounds like you got a dud battery. At least you should hit the warranty period easily at this rate, and get a hopefully better battery as a replacement.
      Seems like we hear the Leaf outlier examples, can only assume the other 250k+ vehicles are actually doing pretty well. For myself, 2012 Leaf with 33,000km and LeafSpy reports 79%SoH, maybe a bit worse than I was hoping for, but not really outrageous by all reports.

    3. Bacardi says:

      More than half lease…Clearly you can’t beat them so you have no choice but to join them…Ha ha

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      High humidity is one factor in premature Leaf battery aging, so I would guess that’s a factor if you live in central Florida.

      But 3 bars lost in such a short time seems to be an outlier data point. I’m not at all questioning your claim, just saying I think it’s rather unusual, and therefore anecdotal evidence rather than an indication of the norm.

      Maybe you got a lemon?

    5. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “22k miles on my 2016 Leaf SV ans I lost 3 bars of range”

      So, Mister G, are you implying that your “lizard” battery pack is just another “lie” that Nissan told you?

      I guess “Lizard” is really just a “toad”… LOL.

    6. William says:

      My 2016 Nissan Leaf SV has a build date of 10/15. Almost 10k miles in the last 10 months, and I can’t find any single % of battery degradation or loss, with my Leaf Spy Pro app. At exactly 50% charge it is 14 kWh of juice, and at 100% charge it is at 28 kWh available.

      Are you ONLY charging your Leaf using a Level 1 charger at home? That may be part of the problem. I have noticed that NEVER using Level 2, and/or NEVER sometimes intermittently using Level 3 charging, has on other Nissan Leafs, helped rapidly degraded their 24 kWh batteries.

      It is counterintuitive to say the least, but when shopping for used 2013-2015 (24 kWh) Leafs, the batteries WITHOUT any Level 3 charging events, (as in ZERO) on Leaf Spy Pro, are the ones that have lost or dropped more bars given the same mileage and build dates as the ones that have been Level 3 charged more than a few times.

      Kind of a head scratcher in the discrepancy. Haven’t yet figured it out yet.

      1. Mister G says:

        My build date is also 10/15 and I only use level 2 with occasional chademo charging

    7. Asak says:

      I think your battery might just have something wrong with it. The good news is you’ll likely get a replacement if it’s degrading that quickly.

      I have a used Leaf with close to 30K miles and it’s only dropped a single bar so far. That’s in Southern California too, so it’s fairly hot, although not insanely hot like in Arizona or maybe Georgia.

    8. Bryan says:

      Hmm. I have a 2015 Leaf with very nearly 30K miles and I haven’t lost any bars. I still get 101 to 108 miles in the AM on the GOM.

      1. Jeff Songster says:

        2013 30k 1 bar lost…2015 35k all bars present. Both driven daily, both live in garage in SF Bay Area. Both charged on 120, 240 and DCFC. Great cars. We love them. Can’t wait for Sept.

      2. Bob W says:

        Another data point. 2014 SV, no DCFC, 36,000 miles in 35 months. No bars lost yet. I think the last time I checked Leaf Spy Pro I had about 96% SOH.

        1. Bob W says:

          Forgot to mention upstate NY climate, so no brutally hot weather. Also, while less ground clearance will work for most, I live on a rutted dirt road so I appreciate the clearance relative to the Volt or CMax which were on my short list at the time.

  11. William says:

    Pushi has not chimed in yet, what gives?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Sorry to keep my fans waiting. 🙂

      …but sometimes real life offline interferes with my pastime here.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        I thought this website was your real life…

        1. William says:

          This Website can’t be his real life, because he let the above Nissan “slippery aero” Leaf article, hang out to dry for at least over 8 hours, before offering up his own two cents into the mix.

  12. speculawyer says:

    What people want to know is the range and price. Those are the two paramount metrics.

    I’d also like to see Nissan transition from Chademo to SAE-CCS but they seem stubbornly committed. Why not put BOTH on their car and slowly transition over?

    1. Jason says:

      Couldn’t agree more. Take advantage of the current CHAdeMO infrastructure, plus be ready for the new CCS that are coming in the future.

      1. William says:

        “BOTH” CCS & CHAdeMO, with a pathway to upgrade to 150 kw quick charge 2.0 in 2020!
        Almost too good to be true!
        Probably a bit spendy, for most of the current Leaf Loving aficionados.

  13. Nix says:

    Lots of good cars in the pipeline now. And real ones, not just concept cars for maybe 2022 or 2025. I think 2018 is going to be a huge boom to EV’s, with 2019 sales numbers just flying through the roof.

    This is like 2012 all over again, but with all the cars that people really wanted to buy in the first place back in 2012 — instead of the (mostly) short range compliance cars we got.

  14. James says:

    Worth noting that an ICEmaker car company is actually finding clever ways to advertise it’s EV product without stepping on it’s high margin gas product’s toes.

    They have to do this in order to sell EVs, so good job Nissan – far better approaches than a huge Polar Bear!*

    * Full disclosure: I did love the Polar Bear ads though

  15. Don Zenga says:

    If they add another motor and make it an AWD, then Leaf will qualify to be a Crossover.

    We expect at least 150 mile range, 160 mile will be better.

Leave a Reply