Summary
- Nissan’s pride and denial hindered merger talks, sources say
- Honda pushed Nissan for deeper cuts to jobs, factory capacity, sources say
- Nissan unwilling to consider factory closures, sources say
- Honda’s proposal to make Nissan a subsidiary caused tensions, sources say
Disagree, they are exactly the type of EV we should be building: inexpensive, enough range for around town, pretty dependable. The first couple model years had crappy range, but the later ones were fine.
What Nissan needed was to expand the EV product line. Ideas:
Don’t compete on range at all, that’s R&D you don’t want to deal with. Just make great cars for urban and suburban use.
Except the chevy volt is cheaper and has a longer range. Nissan has also done nothing with battery tech or chemistry. That’s all been being advanced by Samsung, toyota and panasonic. There’s nothing the leaf has to offer on a technology front, and there’s no reason to buy one today. Even a decade ago it was a poor choice for 95% of the US market.
Right, which is why I said they should’ve focused on price and reliability. They’re not going to lead on battery tech, so they should experiment with things like sodium ion batteries, which are much cheaper, have less fire risk, and they don’t need the range anyway for a commuter/around town car.
Find a niche and fill it.
Sodium ion is a dead end for ev. Heavy and not even remotely close to energy dense enough. It never will be.
I thought it was something like 75% as energy dense? If you’re targeting a commuter with a max needed range of 150 miles, it seems more than sufficient.
It’s not going to solve the range anxiety problem, but it’s inexpensive, which is perfect for a cheap, around-town second car, which is precisely what the Leaf should be.
Usability wise for energy storage by weight, it’s more like 150wh compared to 250. They also don’t handle moving around as well, which is bad for vehicles. Then because sodium is a larger ion, they’re also always going to take up more space. So heavier and bigger makes them even less power efficient to move a vehicle and means heavier suspension and more tire wear.
They weren’t dependable is the problem. There were a lot of problems with early deterioration of the battery, supposedly from not having very good temperature control on the battery pack.
Sure, and battery deterioration is largely only a problem if you don’t have much range to begin with. They put larger batteries in after a year or two, which largely solved the problem for the intended use case: around town car.
But that’s also why I mentioned reliability and price should be the focus. They’re not going to be leading R&D on better battery range, so they might as well focus on a niche.
Range anxiety is not an illegitimate concern though. Sure I probably don’t need that capacity more than maybe once every year but what about when I do need it?
How am I supposed to be able to drive halfway across the country to see my family every Christmas if my car only has 150 miles of range and it takes 4 hours to fully recharge. That’s going to turn a 3-hour road trip into 10 hours if we have to stop and wait for it to recharge. My problem with the leaf was that it had hardly any range at all so that problem was massively exacerbated.
It’s great in a multi-car household where the other car is something with a bit more range but as you’re only vehicle you better hope that no family emergency crop up.
To be clear I would have the same issues with an ICE only had 150 miles of range but in some ways that would be better because it “recharges” faster.
Hence why I focused on vehicle classes more common as a second car. We have two cars, and one never goes further than 100 miles in a given day.
That’s the niche EVs should focus on, especially while battery tech makes >400 mile range impractical. I think Nissan (or any car company) could do quite well focusing on the second car market.