Nissan Leaf - Car of the year 2011

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexGTV
  • 82 comments
  • 5,623 views

AlexGTV

(Banned)
Messages
1,547
Greece
Salonica
Nissan Leaf. The first fully electric to win it came first after a heated contest with Alfa Romeo Giulietta and Opel/Vauxhall Meriva coming a close 2nd and 3rd respectively.

1_nissan_leaf_1.jpg


The official website and full coverage: http://www.caroftheyear.org/winner/2011_52/coty

I think it's a fabulous city car. Starting with the design, it has a very successful name referring both to its shape, headlights, windows etc. and the fact that it produces zero emissions. Electric engine and a single gear with a seamless delivery of torque mean that, although not fast, it makes for a very relaxing city ride with all the stop&go traffic.

Seing as a similar car, the Chevrolet Volt, won the Auto Trend's award we see where this is going. Do you have any objections, would you like a piston-powered car to win it, which other car of this year would you want to win this?
 
Far too expensive to own to be a peoples car though.
 
It will be mass marketed starting 2012. Prices should drop. I would like to have more electric cars. For one, the roads would be quieter and life in the city more tolerable.
 
Far too expensive to own to be a peoples car though.

It's not really supposed to be a "peoples car" and nobody has claimed it as such. It's also not that expensive in the scheme of things. Once you take into account the various incentives around the world, it's no more than you'd pay for a Toyota Prius.
 
It's not really supposed to be a "peoples car" and nobody has claimed it as such. It's also not that expensive in the scheme of things. Once you take into account the various incentives around the world, it's no more than you'd pay for a Toyota Prius.

Exactly, not to mention cheaper to run.
 
I'm afraid the motoring press and industry pricing experts disagree, they say it will be practically worthless after 5 years of ownership.
It's common knowledge that its money being burned for this vehicle, they only recommend it for the kudos of being early adopters, the novelty and for the benefit to the local environment/air quality. It is in no possible way aimed at people wishing to save money or make a value motoring investment.

I said it wasn't a car for the people as city cars generally full-fill that purpose as economic transport. This type of car has a very different remit. It's a product for the wealthy elite.
I'm not saying i dislike it mind you. If i had one for free i would keep it.
 
Exactly, not to mention cheaper to run.

Cheaper to run? What kind of choices do you have when it breaks down; take it to Best Buy?

There's a reason for the term stealership.
 
Seing as a similar car, the Chevrolet Volt, won the Auto Trend's award we see where this is going. Do you have any objections, would you like a piston-powered car to win it, which other car of this year would you want to win this?
Motor Trend magazine and Automobile magazine. Car and Driver also put it in their 10 Best list.

I mean, we get the Leaf here too and it didn't win...

On a side note, how the hell does Top Gear come up with their Best list? Do they just pick the most expensive and oddball car from every category and call it a winner?
 
The thing is the 3 year value may hold up ok compared to rivals, but it's 7 year value maybe close to nothing.
Owners will have to hope that by 2017 the battery packs will come down in price in order to replace the worn out ones.
 
I'm afraid the motoring press and industry pricing experts disagree, they say it will be practically worthless after 5 years of ownership.
It's common knowledge that its money being burned for this vehicle, they only recommend it for the kudos of being early adopters, the novelty and for the benefit to the local environment/air quality. It is in no possible way aimed at people wishing to save money or make a value motoring investment.

The thing is the 3 year value may hold up ok compared to rivals, but it's 7 year value maybe close to nothing.
Owners will have to hope that by 2017 the battery packs will come down in price in order to replace the worn out ones.

You do realise that there's absolutely zero evidence as of yet to say that the battery will have worn out five plus years down the line, right? In fact, the only evidence there is points to the opposite being the case.

And when they do wear out, Lithium-ion packs can actually be refurbished for a fraction of the cost of buying a new one, which is obviously more environmentally friendly too (it's something people love to bring up, the environmental impact when all those batteries get chucked away - not realising that they won't get chucked away).

As for the residual value arguement, that one's old too. Toyota's RAV4 EVs from the late 90s are still changing hands for $30k today. Doesn't sound like steep depreciation to me. Hybrid cars already depreciate no more than an equivalent ICE car so there's no reason to expect EVs to be any different.

Incidentally, some of those original RAV4 EVs are still on their original battery packs at 200,000 miles...

Not to mention that an electric motor is a rather simple device so you're less likely to expect big costs buying one second hand, which can't be said for many regular cars. I can't wait for the day I can afford a brand new car and rest easy that the previous owner hasn't thrashed the hell out of the engine and gearbox.

On a side note, how the hell does Top Gear come up with their Best list? Do they just pick the most expensive and oddball car from every category and call it a winner?

Pretty much I think. Always worth remembering with TG: "Entertainment". For solid consumer advice, go elsewhere.

Cheaper to run? What kind of choices do you have when it breaks down; take it to Best Buy?

EVs don't have any drivetrain consumables. No oil, no plugs, no belts, no filters. And with regenerative braking they're easier on braking components too. Chuck in the lower cost of powering them and I'd suggest that Jon's assertion is pretty much correct.
 
It will be mass marketed starting 2012. Prices should drop. I would like to have more electric cars. For one, the roads would be quieter and life in the city more tolerable.
.... and the air less toxic.

In Belgium we get a 30%, with a maximum of €9000 tax reduction if you buy an electric car.
 
They say you can drive how many miles with it? 100? 120? Put the airco on and it's 60-80 miles, drive a little bit faster than you should do for a little moment and another 10 miles are lost.
 
They say you can drive how many miles with it? 100? 120? Put the airco on and it's 60-80 miles, drive a little bit faster than you should do for a little moment and another 10 miles are lost.

Most of the journalists on the launch in Portugal managed just under 100 miles in normal (non-hypermiling) driving, with the climate control on. Once again, the loss in range you're mentioning is completely overstated.

That said, why range matters for a car intended for city trips I'm not sure. People who regularly do longer distances won't buy one anyway because they already know it's not suitable, just like I don't buy MPVs because I don't have half a dozen kids.

The only affect on range we're not sure on yet is how it reacts in very cold climates, since unlike the Tesla Roadster or Chevy Volt the Leaf doesn't cool/heat its batteries to take account of changes in temperature.
 
Extreme cold will have a big effect on battery life (and range), if the car doesn't have some sort of battery warmer.

Batteries also have a certain number of charges in them before they start losing power/not holding a charge, which will affect range as well.

This thing still has the downfalls of electric cars. Short range, (~100 miles) and long charge time. (~16 hours @ 110V., ~8 hours @ 220V.)
 
I'll be honest. I cried a little when I saw this.

I originally had more, but...pah. I don't Debate.
 
Last edited:
That said, why range matters for a car intended for city trips I'm not sure.
I drive 1.2 miles to work, just like the other 3% of America. Most people would nearly absorb the Leaf's entire range simply going to and from work, much less having enough juice to run errands afterward. Charging it up at work? On who's electric bill? Many people who live close to work also live in big cities with mass transit. Millions of individuals ride New York's train and subway system every day because it's not cost effective or practical to own any car at all. People who live in the country have a long way to drive to get anywhere so a car with a 100 mile range is a ridiculous idea.

If Nissan were riding the Leaf for profit in America they'd be on the road to failure. The Volt on the other hand will get me back and forth to work for a week without firing the engine, and if I don't bother to charge it I can go another month on the engine before filling it up. There is no urgency. I strongly believe the Volt will be much more successful here than the Leaf.
 
I drive 1.2 miles to work, just like the other 3% of America. Most people would nearly absorb the Leaf's entire range simply going to and from work, much less having enough juice to run errands afterward.

Research by Chevrolet of all companies reckons that the vast majority of U.S. commutes are less than 40 miles per day.

That's why the Volt only has enough battery capacity to do about 50 miles max before the range extender kicks in.

100 miles is more than enough, especially as a second car.

I won't even mention how lazy it is that you drive 1.2 miles to work :sly: I walk two miles each way every day...

Charging it up at work? On who's electric bill?

Most companies will spend more on desserts for the work canteen than they'd spend on electricity to charge a few cars in the parking lot.

And if you live within 50 miles each way, you wouldn't need to charge it at work anyway.

Many people who live close to work also live in big cities with mass transit. Millions of individuals ride New York's train and subway system every day because it's not cost effective or practical to own any car at all.

Right, so they aren't going to buy the Leaf then, are they? Just like they already don't buy every other car on the market.

People who live in the country have a long way to drive to get anywhere so a car with a 100 mile range is a ridiculous idea.

I get it, so everyone in the States either lives within subway range or more than 100 miles from where they work.

It's daft to think that, oh, I dunno, millions of Americans will live between 10-100 miles of their workplace...

If Nissan were riding the Leaf for profit in America they'd be on the road to failure. The Volt on the other hand will get me back and forth to work for a week without firing the engine, and if I don't bother to charge it I can go another month on the engine before filling it up.

Right!

So if a Volt with a 40-50 mile EV range will get you back and forth to work for a week, then d'you reckon 100 miles would be enough?! :dunce:

There is no urgency. I strongly believe the Volt will be much more successful here than the Leaf.

Very probably.

That doesn't mean that the Leaf is somehow a stupid idea though.
 
Seeing as this is an European institution I wonder if that has anything to do with the Volt not even making it on to the candidates. Instead from Chevrolet they picked the Spark...
 
What about the Opel Ampera? they still doing that one?
 
What about the Opel Ampera? they still doing that one?

Yup. Only problem with that one is that it's going to cost a fortune. About the equivalent of $60,000...

Seeing as this is an European institution I wonder if that has anything to do with the Volt not even making it on to the candidates. Instead from Chevrolet they picked the Spark...

The Volt isn't sold in Europe and the Ampera won't be out for a while yet, so it couldn't be included.
 
Yup. Only problem with that one is that it's going to cost a fortune. About the equivalent of $60,000...

Christ! I knew the Volt was gonna run about $40,000, but, geez! Gotta be some crazy exchange rates at play, or if they're to build it over there...well...

I'm starting to wonder if exchange rates are even accurate when it comes to cars any more.
 
That doesn't mean that the Leaf is somehow a stupid idea though.
We will let Jeremy Clarkson decide whether or not it is a good idea.

I'd much rather have a Mazda Miata - Even a Fiat Pajama - than a Leaf, as I'm sure you would also.
 
The problem over here isn't the price as such, more that for significantly less you can get diesels that are way cheaper, quicker and equally as economical.

We will let Jeremy Clarkson decide whether or not it is a good idea.

Worked with Tesla.

Oh, wait...

I'd much rather have a Mazda Miata - Even a Fiat Pajama - than a Leaf, as I'm sure you would also.

Of course. I've often said that I'd only ever have an electric car as a second car. There are too many other cars with regular engines that I'd have first.

I would genuinely have an EV as a second car though, money permitting.
 
Diesels in America would be cheaper, quicker, and equally as economical if manufacturers had the cojones to ram them down our throats. Our diesel fuel isn't too awful crazy expensive, especially compared to yours. But then, we do have millions of enormous trucks chugging gazillions of gallons of it and the price would only go up if all the sudden a bunch of people wanted to buy it for their cars.
 
And when they do wear out, Lithium-ion packs can actually be refurbished for a fraction of the cost of buying a new one, which is obviously more environmentally friendly too (it's something people love to bring up, the environmental impact when all those batteries get chucked away - not realising that they won't get chucked away).

I see a couple problems with that.

A re-furb anything has a lower value, much like a rebuilt engine will lower a value of a car despite it being a good build.

Secondly, a re-furb battery probably cannot be processed and manufactured very quickly. So, the car is out of commission for a bit of time. Some sort of 'battery exchange' program can alleviate this, but, you'd have to wait until the fleet starts needing new batteries so you have some turnover.

But at this point, the well-to-do will simply buy another car and the people who really need to save buck or 2 probably don't have the scratch to repair, replace, refurb a battery.

Besides being a niche product or a 2nd vehicle; EVs exchange one 'polluting' source of energy for another. With CO2 regulations coming, electricity will not get cleaner...just more expensive...perhaps much more expensive. And only a fool would think a gov't would abandon this new revenue stream despite any and all evidence calling CO2 emissions a farce.

Look at cigarettes. The regulators tax the hell out of them, yet, they're still legal. For the children right? I fear they (governments) will do the same thing with CO2 emissions. A new boogieman to tax, if you will.

So while EVs might be all neat-o and whatnot, they do not solve the problems that really don't exist in the 1st place. I feel that everything 'green' is either seeing significant diminishing returns or just taking water from one side of the pool and placing it at the other.
 
Diesels in America would be cheaper, quicker, and equally as economical if manufacturers had the cojones to ram them down our throats. Our diesel fuel isn't too awful crazy expensive, especially compared to yours. But then, we do have millions of enormous trucks chugging gazillions of gallons of it and the price would only go up if all the sudden a bunch of people wanted to buy it for their cars.

Those enormous trucks are basically the reason America has never taken to diesel in the first place. It's a commercial vehicle fuel, rather than a personal transportation one, at least in the eyes of many.


I see a couple problems with that.

A re-furb anything has a lower value, much like a rebuilt engine will lower a value of a car despite it being a good build.

Secondly, a re-furb battery probably cannot be processed and manufactured very quickly. So, the car is out of commission for a bit of time. Some sort of 'battery exchange' program can alleviate this, but, you'd have to wait until the fleet starts needing new batteries so you have some turnover.

But at this point, the well-to-do will simply buy another car and the people who really need to save buck or 2 probably don't have the scratch to repair, replace, refurb a battery.

I know what you mean. In all honesty, I don't know much about battery refurbishing technology other than that it exists, and that it's surely a cleaner way of extending battery life than chucking them out and getting new ones.

Besides being a niche product or a 2nd vehicle; EVs exchange one 'polluting' source of energy for another.

Whilst this is true, it's also massively over-simplifying things.

  • Pollution from a power station is largely localised
  • Power stations that have been there for years can be upgraded and constantly made cleaner. As cars get older, they'll generally pollute more as the engine and other components wear. Electric cars can therefore get cleaner throughout their lives, especially as we switch to greener sources of energy
  • The best estimates at the moment are that the average electric car, when power station pollution is taken into consideration, produce between 40-80 grams per kilometer of CO2, and nothing from the tailpipe obviously. A Prius, which is pretty clean, produces about 80g/km tailpipe, plus other emissions. EVs are already cleaner then.
  • That's an average, too. Some States in the US are worse - North Dakota is almost entirely coal-fuelled, I seem to remember. Not great. Coastal states are generally a lot better as many use hydro power. Hawaii, which is surrounded by the stuff, is on the path to being even better. And then you've got Nuclear, which isn't perfect obviously, but it's still better than coal. On nuclear an EV's CO2 is reckoned to be below 20g/km.
  • Also worth noting that an internal combustion car's CO2 figures also don't include the chain of production of their fuel, wheras it does for EVs. The average 120g/km car in Europe rises to 400+ g/km of CO2 when you take into account the whole fuel process, from drilling oil to transporting, storing, transporting again, storing again, refining, transporting and then finally storing again. I'm sure you'll agree it's not a clean process...

With CO2 regulations coming, electricity will not get cleaner...just more expensive...perhaps much more expensive. And only a fool would think a gov't would abandon this new revenue stream despite any and all evidence calling CO2 emissions a farce.

I'm not sure I understand - how will electricity not get cleaner, when countries are actively searching for better and cleaner ways in which to produce electricity? Surely the production of power will get even cleaner than it is already.

And as the "easy" sources of crude oil start running out, the production process for motor vehicle fuels will only get even less clean, much more difficult (think drilling a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico, for example) and more expensive (ditto).

Look at cigarettes. The regulators tax the hell out of them, yet, they're still legal. For the children right? I fear they (governments) will do the same thing with CO2 emissions. A new boogieman to tax, if you will.

There's always that risk. Indeed, the UK road tax is already CO2 emissions based.

But then, an EV doesn't produce any tailpipe CO2, so I'm not sure what you're implying when you say they'll tax it. Surely any tax like that would raise the cost of gasoline, not electricity.

Though I am aware that electricity is potentially taxable, too.

So while EVs might be all neat-o and whatnot, they do not solve the problems that really don't exist in the 1st place. I feel that everything 'green' is either seeing significant diminishing returns or just taking water from one side of the pool and placing it at the other.

Again, I see your point, though I respectfully disagree.

The main problem with EVs isn't the technology (as that's improving) and it's not their environmental impact, which is undoubtably less than that of a normal car.

The scepticism I think for most people is more down to the feeling that people are being greenwashed and that we'll all be forced into using a technology that we don't want to use.

This is the bit I also have a problem with. I'm a big fan of the environmental and technological credentials of EVs (lets face it, running a car on electricity, and the potential benefits and design challenges it brings is pretty damn cool), but I am entirely not a fan of electric vehicle politics.

That's why in my view we just need a few really cool, genuinely good and usable EVs to hit the market, ones that can do their job on merit. This way, people won't feel like they're being forced to plump for an inferior product to the one they've got used to.

Although I've not driven the production LEAF yet (only a prototype), general consensus is that it's a very good car in its own right. Obviously the range can't suit everyone, but in every other aspect of the car (subjectiveness of styling aside) it's equally as good as the nearest petrol or diesel competitor, and better in some areas (refinement being a good example).

And because of that, and because it's a game-changer, I reckon it fully deserves to be European car of the year.
 
Those enormous trucks are basically the reason America has never taken to diesel in the first place. It's a commercial vehicle fuel, rather than a personal transportation one, at least in the eyes of many.

Pretty sure it goes back to the 70's when had diesel cars. They were noisy, underpowered (even compared to emissions choked gas engines), and unreliable. (GM's 350 diesel)

Today, the cars are much better. However there is a price premium for diesel engines, and diesel fuel typically costs 50¢-$1.00/gal more.

I thought I also read a while back that European diesels for some reason did not count toward US CAFE if they were brought over here. May have been under the old CAFE rules. Could be mistaken though.

The leaf is all about the "green" image. For 98% of car buyers this won't be able to be a primary vehicle replacement. In this economy, not many are able to buy a 2nd car solely for commuting to and from work.
 
Pretty sure it goes back to the 70's when had diesel cars. They were noisy, underpowered (even compared to emissions choked gas engines), and unreliable. (GM's 350 diesel)

Yeah, it's definitely routed in what people think diesels are like based on outdated assumptions rather than what they actually are like.

Today, the cars are much better. However there is a price premium for diesel engines, and diesel fuel typically costs 50¢-$1.00/gal more.

I thought I also read a while back that European diesels for some reason did not count toward US CAFE if they were brought over here. May have been under the old CAFE rules. Could be mistaken though.

There's definitely some emissions regulation that stops manufacturers bringing more diesels in. I don't think it's CO2 or particulates, since modern diesels with particulate filters are pretty good on both now, so it must be something else. And it's very expensive to convert the cars so that they comply.

Not sure about the CAFE criteria though.

The leaf is all about the "green" image. For 98% of car buyers this won't be able to be a primary vehicle replacement. In this economy, not many are able to buy a 2nd car solely for commuting to and from work.

I agree, at this stage it's mainly designed as a second car, though the first batch of owners who've taken delivery have bought them as their sole car, so there are people out there for whom it's their only vehicle.

I actually think the "green image" thing applies less to the LEAF than it does to the Prius or Volt, say, mainly because of the compromise you have to make. A Prius is no different really to any other car which means you can drive it around however you like and people will think you're being green. It doesn't even matter if you thrash it everywhere (like most of the ones that I see) because people think of it as being somehow eco-friendly.

A Leaf may well be chosen because someone has discovered they don't actually need any more than a 100 mile range so it can genuinely do the job of being their motorised transportation. And if you thrash it, you're not using an inordinate amount of fuel, you're just reducing your range which you'll have to then top up at comparatively little environmental cost with electricity.

And lets face it, if things like style and performance aren't major concerns, the more cars not using gasoline on the roads the better. It's certainly more of a conceited move to reduce energy consumption than the token four miles you get in EV mode in a Prius. It's the difference between not needing any petrol for half of your Monday commute and not needing any petrol all week.
 
Diesels: The U.S. has a HUGE thing on Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) emissions, which I've never figured why Europe didnt' do the same - that alone would clean up urban european air a ton. Even with soot filters, the euro diesel car has that obstacle to overcome...as well as those pesky crash safety ratings, though I assume that's no problem for "world cars" already sold here.

Nuclear: while CO2 is fine, how many rads/km does it put out? any research into that?

((Semi serious on that one. another issue which i think is slightly overplayed.))
 
Diesels: The U.S. has a HUGE thing on Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) emissions, which I've never figured why Europe didnt' do the same - that alone would clean up urban european air a ton. Even with soot filters, the euro diesel car has that obstacle to overcome...as well as those pesky crash safety ratings, though I assume that's no problem for "world cars" already sold here.

NOX, that's the one I couldn't remember.

Modern diesels are certainly better in that respect than older ones which is why I suspect we've not yet gone to the same lengths as the States to curb their emissions.

Much worse on that front are goods vehicles, and over here, taxis. There are 18,000 taxis on the streets of London, many of which use fairly old-tech diesels. Ditto the buses around here. Rather than cars, those vehicles are the main contributors as far as NOX and particulates go.

The next London red double-deckers will still be diesel, but they're using them as generators like you get in the Volt. It'll drive with electric power, and the engine will run at optimal revs and be much cleaner and quieter.

Localised air quality improvement is probably one of the main selling points of EVs, incidentally. It's something that you can't really argue against.
 
Back