# Coming in December: a new and improved Nissan Leaf



## CHARGED EVs Magazine (Nov 14, 2011)

The Detroit News reported today that Nissan plans several upgrades for the Leaf when it releases a new version in December, including leather seats, a redesigned interior and a more efficient heater... Newswire >


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

What it needs is a bigger pack. 20-30 mile range reduction using the heater? Ack...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The new model with have an improved range with the heat on compared to the old one.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> The new model with have an improved range with the heat on compared to the old one.


Yeah, I got that - so now it only "loses" 10 miles of range instead of 20. Still needs more max range to be a real commuter replacement.

Maybe the gen 3 batteries will be that solution.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well since most people drive less than 40 miles per day the current LEAF really is a commuter replacement. Obviously more range will appeal to a larger audience. What would have been nice is a more aggressive pack preheating option. Cost would have been minimal and would have allowed starting out with a toasty pack whenever you are plugged in.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Well since most people drive less than 40 miles per day the current LEAF really is a commuter replacement. Obviously more range will appeal to a larger audience. What would have been nice is a more aggressive pack preheating option. Cost would have been minimal and would have allowed starting out with a toasty pack whenever you are plugged in.


Sounds like there might be a market for an after-market mod.

Entrepreneurs, anyone?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I've built it in my head at least


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

> Also it needs to utilize the air-conditioning system as a heat pump for those times you need extra heat while on the road. It will use less pack power to do that.


Exactly what the new model is doing.


----------



## The Toecutter (May 30, 2010)

It could certainly use improved aerodynamics; the Solectria Sunrise had a real-world 200+ mile highway range on a 27 kWh NiMH pack(Cd may be somewhere around 0.2, the Sunrise was more than 900 lbs lighter than the Leaf, could seat 4 with the level of passenger room expected from a Ford Taurus, was NHTSA approved at the time, and would have been $20,000 in volume). The first generation Leaf has a 24 kWh LiFePO4 pack. Their ranges are worlds apart from each other, meaning that one could be improved upon quite dramatically without adding a larger battery and increasing the cost. There are a lot of improvements to be made on the drag coefficient of the Leaf(0.28 Cd). The current generation of Prius has a 0.25 Cd, being close to the Leaf in length. The Renault Twingo SmILE, being much shorter than the Leaf, has a 0.25 Cd(it is generally more difficult to design a shorter car for a low Cd than it is a longer car, while still maintaining consumer expectations with regard to passenger space, cargo volume, and ergonomics). With the Leaf's amount of length, it should be able to have a similar outline to the GM Ultralite(0.19 Cd) if turned into a type of sedan, or Mercedes Bionic(0.19 Cd) if it were to remain a compact, or perhaps a sports car variant similar to the Opel Eco Speedster(0.20 Cd, 15.8 sq ft area). A change in body design similar to such fore-mentioned low drag cars could dramatically benefit Nissan's gasoline cars as well in both performance and fuel efficiency, nevermind dramatically improving the highway range of an EV on a given pack size. Such a large change could easily give a streamlined Leaf a real-world 150+ miles highway range with the heater or AC on, without causing an increase in the cost of the battery pack. In city driving, range isn't as important.

I hope that Nissan goes in the streamlined direction for their future EVs, as that will put having an EV with a decent range in the "affordable" price territory. The current 2012 Leaf is scarcely better than the 1999 Toyota Echo(0.29 Cd), with regard to drag, and _worse_ than the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagon(0.27 Cd).

This is an improvement they should not miss, as it would put them well ahead of the competition.


----------



## Tatsushige (Mar 24, 2011)

gottdi said:


> I am hoping that there will be an aftermarket fix for the early Leafs like mine. It won't be enough. It needs a heat sink that can hold lots of heat for the winter drive and to be well insulated so not to loose much heat during the day while at work. That way you can have enough for a drive home or at least warm enough to keep the windshield clear of fog in foul weather. A heat sink could be installed somewhere under the seats or in the cargo area. Something should be done. A small system could be done I think.



Question in the US the LEAF is the same all over the country?

Because in Japan a LEAF in Kumamoto (South) is different to Hokkaido (North) because of the weather conditions.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The Toecutter said:


> It could certainly use improved aerodynamics...


I doubt they are going to do a body redesign for the 2013 model, though I do agree they need one.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I am hoping that there will be an aftermarket fix for the early Leafs like mine. It won't be enough. It needs a heat sink that can hold lots of heat for the winter drive and to be well insulated so not to loose much heat during the day while at work. That way you can have enough for a drive home or at least warm enough to keep the windshield clear of fog in foul weather. A heat sink could be installed somewhere under the seats or in the cargo area. Something should be done. A small system could be done I think.


A heat sink system with enough mass to be effective would be too bulky and heavy. The easiest fix would be an insulated and heated battery enclosure and preheating the pack and cabin from the wall. More public charging points will also give you more opportunity to plug in and pre heat while charging. I doubt you'll see anything beyond that unless you build it yourself.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What I had in mind was an insulated heated shell that would just attach to the bottom of the battery area.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Tatsushige said:


> Question in the US the LEAF is the same all over the country?
> 
> Because in Japan a LEAF in Kumamoto (South) is different to Hokkaido (North) because of the weather conditions.


I guess for 2012 the cold weather package is standard for all US Leafs(Leaves?). It includes a battery heater, heated outside mirrors, heated steering wheel, heated front and rear seats and an HVAC duct to the rear seating area.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/06/1...ailable-this-fall-cold-weather-package-now-s/


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Streamlining, schmemelining...

Batteries will eventually be good enough to push around a block of bricks for 300 miles, and cost less than a full tank of gas. 

I don't for a second buy into this idea that our future involves tiny econobox cars. What we need is EV Sequoias for the masses!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Wasting energy in any form is not really sustainable, and is a rather foolish goal to pursue. Using ridiculous amounts of electricity to move a single person down the highway in a 5000lb vehicle is no better than doing it with gasoline. They don't have to be econoboxes but they don't have to be a rolling brick wall either. Getting the most out of the materials we have just makes good sense, and is really the only way forward as the rest of the world clamors for more and more of the same resources.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> Using ridiculous amounts of electricity to move a single person down the highway in a 5000lb vehicle is no better than doing it with gasoline.


False, electricity is easier to generate because it's not dependent on any one source.

Additionally, the price is also far more stable.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> We are fully aware that electricity is renewable and stable but still using ridiculous amounts to move a 5000 lb vehicle down the highway to move one person to work is just as crazy as using gasoline to do the same.


Let's all be nice so we don't have to move this to chit-chat... 

Seriously, what is a "ridiculous amount of power?" If the best conceivable mileage for a one-person commuter vehicle is around 100 mpg (at highway speeds), and a Sequoia gets 20mph, we have a baseline between "the most ridiculously efficient" and "crude, but utilitarian." As the cost per watt of solar panels goes down and efficiency goes up, the energy is essentially free - so questions about efficiency are really a matter of personal preference. 

I for one would rather have my wife driving in an SUV than an MG Midget made of porous plastic weighing 800 lbs. I'm more than willing to pay a slight premium for the safety that simply cannot be packed into such a small, lightweight package.



> We not only need a better form of energy but we also need to change our way and stop being so damn greedy.


Define greed. P.S. - it's a trick question because there is no such thing. There are only wants - and we will never agree on what we want, let alone whether or not you have any right to decide what I can have. 



> You can do the same with less if you try.


Yes, you can - but it's less pleasant, harder, and often more costly. So, why try?



> It is not about reverting to the stone age but you need to be smart.


Exactly. If we are smart, we can have everything we want without destroying the earth. You can have your moped; I can have my Sequoia. 



> We went solar and we went electric vehicle too. We do not suffer but we did change our habits to help. We still have our goodies in our home. We are just smarter on how we use them. We don't' willy nilly just gulp the power because we can.


I've gone all LED on lights, and am working on a trench to convert our AC to a geothermal heat pump. House is already super-insulated, so we already use less energy in our ginormous 6,000' + home than a typical 2,000' home in New England. I am waiting on practical solar shingles to go solar, because our neighborhood covenants won't allow anything like a ground-mounted array right now. Patience - it's not more than a few years off. Once we get our new shingles, we will be off the grid.

There's no point in being the pinnacle intelligence on the planet if we simply use that intelligence to live like the monkeys.



> Just because you can does not mean you should.


Au contraire - there's no point in being able unless you do! 



> So just because you can use electricity to move that 5000 or 8000 lb vehicle down the road to the grocery store does not mean you should.


According to whom? If I want to pay the premium, and contribute enough to society to pay for it, I should be able to drive whatever I please - and you should stick to making your own decisions about what you do rather than sticking your nose into other people's business. The latter is not liable to change the behavior of others, but is likely to result in a shorter nose... 

But in the end it won't matter what either of us says. Once it becomes both possible and cheap, there will be a stampede on the "Giant EV Store." I predict that RVs, nearly extinct today, will once again form giant caravans across the country (stopping at every football stadium for tailgate parties).


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or abstract things of value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.
> As a secular psychological concept, greed is, similarly, an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves. It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.


Who defines "inordinate?" Who decides how much we "need?" Who decides what "far beyond the dictates of basic survival" are?

My questions here, as were the ones in the previous post, are rhetorical. The word greed is actually only ever used hypocritically, as expressed by this definition:

"Greed: A label frequently applied to those who have managed, through whatever means, to gather wealth that is larger to a statistically significant degree than the norm, by those who cannot or will not do what is necessary to obtain a similar wealth, as an excuse for simultaneously demonizing the wealthy while demanding that those same wealthy submit to those making the demands their wealth, in whole or in part. It should be noted that in so demanding, those doing the demanding and accusing are exhibiting an *inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than they need or deserve.*"

In other words, greed is only a point of view and as such is a nonsensical word.

But if you've got a few extra minutes,* here's a great video of Milton Friedman explaining "greed."*


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

somanywelps said:


> False, electricity is easier to generate because it's not dependent on any one source.
> 
> Additionally, the price is also far more stable.


If you care about emissions, a coal powered EV has higher "well to wheel" emissions than a Prius. Most marginal loads at night, will come from coal, which is how we propose to charge a fleet of EV's without huge upgrades to the grid. 
Sure there are benefits from an EV Hummer over a gas Hummer, but they are both ridiculously inefficient vehicles. I don't buy the safety aspect either since large vehicles like that are prone to rollover, which is not safe. Lighter more aerodynamic vehicles do not have to equate to unsafe vehicles. Tesla Roadsters have been in some pretty horrible crashes, I've heard of no deaths or severe injuries.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> It is interesting your response further down kinda does not follow this response. Actually the cost to do with less has been less and has been quite pleasant. That is why you try. Do what you can. It is not about going with less but doing the same with less and being just as comfortable. It amazes me how many think it will be less comfortable and more costly. Up front costs like going with lithium maybe but in the end it will be far less. Our solar panels have paid off and so has our electric car. Yes the leaf was expensive but in the end will be much cheaper. It does help to have some money. But no need to be greedy about it either. I like the large SUV but realize it is not a smart thing for normal daily driving needs. For the occasional need to tow something or a very very long trip it is fine.
> 
> Pete
> 
> ...


I try. My house was a repo - $0.50 on the dollar, 7 years old, someone else's tragedy but my dream retirement home. I don't see my answers as conflicting as you do - what I see is that technology advances so rapidly that what seems like a great deal will be less tomorrow. Thus, while I will doubtless get an EV (and maybe do a conversion before that for a project) I think it is perfectly acceptable to maximize my ROI by waiting a few years. Following that philosophy, I have managed to keep or expand my lifestyle with less relative expenditure over many decades. Could I go even smaller? Sure, but why when the world is bountiful? 

So, my only point is that as humans we are learning to balance our environment - and with that balance one can enjoy what was once considered excess without guilt or shame - and THAT is what I consider true advancement, not "hunkering down and living on less while we wait for entropy to consume us."


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> If you lay off workers and give yourself a raise your greedy. Hows that for an explanation.


Really? I didn't go into business to make money for my workers, I went into business to make money for myself. They are free to go into business for themselves, take the same risks I took, and to make whatever decisions they feel are in their best interests, too.

I would say that it is greedy of the workers to claim that I have some unwritten obligation to provide them a job. 

Like I said, a hypocritical matter of perspective and otherwise useless word.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> This is well put.


Thanks.

And for the record, despite my sometimes sarcastic counter-examples I absolutely agree that some "rich people" are nearly psychotically greedy, and will try almost any trick to maximize their profits. I just also happen to believe that many poor people are psychotically greedy, too, and since their avarice far outreaches their skills and personal drive they play the "victim" card to try to change the outcome of the game.

Employees are not stupid. They can recognize a greedy manager, and they can choose to work elsewhere. Where to the rich go to set things right when greedy workers abuse the system and steal their hard-earned gains through extortion or the courts?

The bottom line is, I think the word is simply an attention getter and that we should not design our whole system around a few edge-case nuts. Most ultra-wealthy are extremely generous. Most of the folks who go around screaming, "Greedy Bastage!" are not.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> If it were not for the worker you'd not have a business.


Yes - they agreed to work for a wage. We both benefit. It is not extortion nor exploitation unless I am somehow preventing them from finding other gainful work and am also so all-powerful that I can somehow prevent them from starting a competing business.

Bill Gates started in a garage. It's not that hard, if you truly want to be a business overlord, unless your gubermint steps in and MAKES it hard.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I know one personally and I rocked the boat and took 7 of the workers with me and they were shut down for a time when they were busted for hiring illegals. Cheap greedy SOB he was and so was his manager. Just plain assholes.


Sounds like you did the right thing. Did you coordinate the workers to service his old customers? If not, you missed a great opportunity. Chances are, they already knew he was a neurotic jerk...


----------



## lowcrawler (Jun 27, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> I for one would rather have my wife driving in an SUV than an MG Midget made of porous plastic weighing 800 lbs. I'm more than willing to pay a slight premium for the safety that simply cannot be packed into such a small, lightweight package.


Your wife driving into another similar car is more likely to survive if they are both smaller/lighter cars than if they are both huge massive cars.
In the end, larger cars beget larger cars by the selfish masses... resulting in less safe roads for all involved.


----------



## Mark C (Jun 25, 2010)

If I don't put this in here, I may have trouble getting back to it. While a great bit of it was not very related to a new and improved Leaf, the discourse back and forth was hugely entertaining. So my sincere thanks to gottdi and PhantomPholly for the argument. {Not argument as in hostility, but as used to describe a legal dispute where both sides present their cases.}

For the record, I agree with much of what was said on both sides of the argument. I am retired USAF where I was an F-4, then T-38 and finally F-16 aircraft mechanic. After the AF career, I went back to school and got a degree in accounting. Now I do accounting and bookkeeping work and am much happier.  IMHO, I have a medium sized house {1519 sf heated} and have a small solar array that I am in the process of expanding. I am also working very hard to minimize my energy consumption, mostly as {real} retirement planning, and I like the expression "PV + EV." That's the direction my wife and I are heading.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Anyway I think I kinda went on a rant here.
> 
> Later.
> 
> ...


lol - "Rant approved." I've changed careers at least 6 times in my life. I volunteer with a non-profit networking group and spend a good deal of time helping people find work, as well as helping them understand which of their skills are transferable to other work and how to quickly add a few extra skills to qualify them for something different.

The idea of a "job that lasts" is relatively new in human terms. People were either serfs, or did whatever work they could find. The day my time with the Air Farce officially ended, the cover of Newsweek had a picture of a beefy arm wielding a large hammer and the title proclaimed, "The Job is Dead!" While perhaps a bit sensationalist, the article was clear: To remain employable in the future, people will either need to be proactive about retraining or consign themselves to whatever menial labor position they can find.

The real answer to this, of course, would be to encourage "better humans." That gets to be political dynamite because any attempt at all to suggest that drooling idiots not procreate incites waves of demagogueing from every direction and instant claims of "Eugenics!!!" Hitler, of course, made this famous through his plans to kill all "non-pure races;" however the concept of encouraging all people to consider carefully whether to have children is actually good for their probable progeny, and is not in and of itself evil. Unfortunately it is such an emotional and genetically preprogrammed minefield that it is almost impossible to even discuss.

Point being: If we were to provide positive incentives (maybe $1,000?) to the truly stupid & those with the worst genetic defects simply to not have children on a voluntary basis, mathematicians have already figured out that within only two generations we would shift the average IQ 10-20 points and narrow the distribution. The result would be far fewer people in the bottom brackets, creating greater competition (higher wages) for labor jobs (accomplishing what the Liberals want, which is a better minimum standard of living, without the massive Welfare programs).

Of course, that is all hypothetical for the political reasons I've mentioned. People are, as a rule, far too self-destructive...


----------

