Nissan Leaf 2019 will have ‘over 225 miles’ of range, 100 kW fast-charging, and more, says report - Sensationalist Headlines

[t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/second-generation-nissan-leaf-specs.png[/t] [QUOTE]Nissan’s next-generation Leaf was expected to have a battery pack option to push the range over 200 miles in order to compete with Tesla’s Model 3 and GM’s Chevy Bolt EV, but it ended up with a 40 kWh battery pack enabling 150 miles of range. The Japanese automaker did say that a longer range version would come by the end of the year, but now a report claims that it will offer much more than just more range. ... Based on the report, the new version of the vehicle would feature a 60 kWh battery pack as expected, but also a new 160 kW electric motor and 11 to 22 kW onboard charger. The new battery pack would also be widely different from Nissan’s previous battery pack technology. First off, they are reportedly changing battery cells from AESC, Nissan’s own battery company which they sold this summer, to LG Chem.[/QUOTE] [url]https://electrek.co/2018/01/04/nissan-leaf-2019-specs-range-charging/[/url]

I also think they've also made it look better.. no longer has those stupid headlights and the whole 'Look at me I'm electric' thing

What is this Thermal Management System and if it's as important and serious as it sounds, why is it an option on the normal model but available on the E-Plus model as standard?

[QUOTE=snookypookums;53026076]What is this Thermal Management System and if it's as important and serious as it sounds, why is it an option on the normal model but available on the E-Plus model as standard?[/QUOTE] It's a cooling system for the battery, most EVs cool the battery but the Leaf doesn't. It's one of the only disappointing things with the Leaf really, if you live in a hot climate then the battery will degrade quite rapidly because of it. In colder countries if you rapid charge in rapid succession (about 5 times) you can get into a state where the battery hits it's thermal limit, and you essentially just have to wait a few hours before you can charge. Thermal management of the battery mitigates all these issues.

[QUOTE=Morgen;53026078]It's a cooling system for the battery, most EVs cool the battery but the Leaf doesn't. It's one of the only disappointing things with the Leaf really, if you live in a hot climate then the battery will degrade quite rapidly because of it. In colder countries if you rapid charge in rapid succession (about 5 times) you can get into a state where the battery hits it's thermal limit, and you essentially just have to wait a few hours before you can charge. Thermal management of the battery mitigates all these issues.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a pretty important piece of kit to be made optional, then. It's like Nissan is sabotaging its own EV's by keeping it optional especially if it has a lasting impact on the longevity of the vehicle - wouldn't this be kinda illegal, considering the very limited range of climates you can successfully operate the vehicle in for minimal effect on the battery if this wasn't installed?

[QUOTE=snookypookums;53026083]That sounds like a pretty important piece of kit to be made optional, then. It's like Nissan is sabotaging its own EV's by keeping it optional especially if it has a lasting impact on the longevity of the vehicle - wouldn't this be kinda illegal, considering the very limited range of climates you can successfully operate the vehicle in for minimal effect on the battery if this wasn't installed?[/QUOTE] How is a company offering a lower priced version of a car with less features at all illegal? The fact that it lacks a TMS is explicitly advertised, and it's not as if it's a software change they're deliberately holding back from some consumers. By how Morgen describes it, If I lived in a Scandinavian country or the northern Midwest in the United States, a TMS system might be an unnecessary expense that would only help me on 1000+ mile road trips where I rapidly charge in quick succession. By that logic the Model S should be illegal because Tesla charges extra for the cold weather upgrade package.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53026517]How is a company offering a lower priced version of a car with less features at all illegal? The fact that it lacks a TMS is explicitly advertised, and it's not as if it's a software change they're deliberately holding back from some consumers. By how Morgen describes it, If I lived in a Scandinavian country or the northern Midwest in the United States, a TMS system might be an unnecessary expense that would only help me on 1000+ mile road trips where I rapidly charge in quick succession. By that logic the Model S should be illegal because Tesla charges extra for the cold weather upgrade package.[/QUOTE] You will still see heightened degradation even in the cold, just not crazy degradation like you might see living in Arizona or whatever. I think they definitely should have a thermal management system as standard... it would probably extend the life of the Leaf's battery pack considerably.

[QUOTE=Morgen;53026581]You will still see heightened degradation even in the cold, just not crazy degradation like you might see living in Arizona or whatever. I think they definitely should have a thermal management system as standard... it would probably extend the life of the Leaf's battery pack considerably.[/QUOTE] Ah, alright. Still, they're letting all of their consumers know. It's not as if they're being deceptive about their designs or practices. Definitely not illegal.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53026517]How is a company offering a lower priced version of a car with less features at all illegal? The fact that it lacks a TMS is explicitly advertised, and it's not as if it's a software change they're deliberately holding back from some consumers. By how Morgen describes it, If I lived in a Scandinavian country or the northern Midwest in the United States, a TMS system might be an unnecessary expense that would only help me on 1000+ mile road trips where I rapidly charge in quick succession.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between offering "optional" features that do not significantly impact the performance and longevity of the car but improve experience, vs. ones that do. By doing this, Nissan is basically fucking over anyone's entry level into their possible first electric vehicle by not just giving them a lower powered motor, diminished battery capacity [I]and[/I] charging capacity, but also the deliberate removal of something that is vital for the performance of that car in varying climates and over a longer period of time, over the possible lifetime of the car. That's basically Nissan saying "You could choose this fucked up version we made because you [I]really[/I]want to be a cheapskate and don't quite understand the importance of a TMS because we show it as an option.....[I]or[/I] you can choose the actual version we want to sell for more money, that comes with it as an option.". If a TMS is what's required for the longevity of an investment like an electric car, it [I]should[/I]be a standard feature if directly impacts the life of the battery in the car. It would be another matter entirely if it was something like aircon, heating system, adjustable steering column. But the TMS? [QUOTE=Harbie;53026517]By that logic the Model S should be illegal because Tesla charges extra for the cold weather upgrade package.[/QUOTE] There is a [B][U]vast[/U][/B] difference between a nominal price that has a [I]direct impact[/I] on a car that retails starting at [B]75000[/B] USD or thereabouts vs. removing something that should be standard on a car that is a long term investment that costs 30,000 Euros. What kind of fucked comparison is that? That's like asking why someone should pay for better quality tyres on a Lamborghini.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;53026611]There's a difference between offering "optional" features that do not significantly impact the performance and longevity of the car but improve experience, vs. ones that do. By doing this, Nissan is basically fucking over anyone's entry level into their possible first electric vehicle by not just giving them a lower powered motor, diminished battery capacity [I]and[/I] charging capacity, but also the deliberate removal of something that is vital for the performance of that car in varying climates and over a longer period of time, over the possible lifetime of the car. That's basically Nissan saying "You could choose this fucked up version we made because you [I]really[/I]want to be a cheapskate and don't quite understand the importance of a TMS because we show it as an option.....[I]or[/I] you can choose the actual version we want to sell for more money, that comes with it as an option.". If a TMS is what's required for the longevity of an investment like an electric car, it [I]should[/I]be a standard feature if directly impacts the life of the battery in the car. It would be another matter entirely if it was something like aircon, heating system, adjustable steering column. But the TMS? There is a [B][U]vast[/U][/B] difference between a nominal price that has a [I]direct impact[/I] on a car that retails starting at [B]75000[/B] USD or thereabouts vs. removing something that should be standard on a car that is a long term investment that costs 30,000 Euros. What kind of fucked comparison is that? That's like asking why someone should pay for better quality tyres on a Lamborghini.[/QUOTE] My point is they're simply offering you an additional option. Sorry if it came off as hostile. They've done the math and figured out that 35k euros gives them an acceptable profit margin for a version of the car with a TMS. Offering a version without the TMS at 30k doesn't hurt anyone. They tell the customer exactly what the difference is, so if the customer thinks the lack of a TMS system is worth saving 5k, they can buy it. If they're informed about their purchase (which you should be if you're buying something like a car) they know exactly what they're getting into. Would you rather them just offer the 35k version only? Because they're not going to cut it's price by 15% and keep all of those extra features. My main point with your argument was that it might be illegal. It's definitely not, since they're upfront about the differences.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53026626]My point is they're simply offering you an additional option. Sorry if it came off as hostile. They've done the math and figured out that 35k euros gives them an acceptable profit margin for a version of the car with a TMS. Offering a version without the TMS at 30k doesn't hurt anyone. They tell the customer exactly what the difference is, so if the customer thinks the lack of a TMS system is worth saving 5k, they can buy it. If they're informed about their purchase (which you should be if you're buying something like a car) they know exactly what they're getting into. Would you rather them just offer the 35k version only? Because they're not going to cut it's price by 15% and keep all of those extra features. My main point with your argument was that it might be illegal. It's definitely not, since they're upfront about the differences.[/QUOTE] See, the thing is the profit likely accommodates both, because more or less every single thing that's installed in this particular instance is likely swappable within the same shell. So the TMS being optional is, in terms of sheer volume, a small fraction of the profit margin they're making out of this. But it's something that has a strong impact on the car. The other thing is, unlike what you've said, I don't trust with this picture is that the intent from the company and what goes down at the dealerships when the commissions are being decided per model can be very different. If the commission on the base model, for whatever reason, is higher (more units sold = better quarterly report), then Nissan dealerships are going to rub their hands with glee and sell the fuck out of them, 'educating the masses about TMS' or not - they'll push this thing like a fat man on a shitter. I'm currently in the market to buy a car now and holy shit do most of these guys say the darnedest things to get you to buy what they want you to buy. Some of these guys dealing with ICE can barely explain what most of the modern features on current generation cars are, I'll be goddamn surprised if they are going to explain what the TMS is in a way that'll let the consumer consider the most expensive model, considering that EV cars are a relatively new space in the consumer market and this car is likely to be babby's first EV because Teslas are (for now) atleast, out of the reach of most mortals whether by slow deliveries or just price point. I suppose it's a good thing that Nissan's sticking their necks out there for the sake of EV's (which I'm happy and hyped about), but this is not the way to go and sets a bad precedent (and possible future case study) for the dangers of 'optionalizing' components to save money that impact the longevity of a relatively new type of consumer-grade car. Ultimately it's going to come back to bite them on the ass if anything whatsoever should happen to those batteries (like a defective batch of them right out of the factory whose issues compounded due to the lack of a TMS, for example). Anyway, it's their noose - I just thought it was very disingenuous for a company to be doing it with what is going to be new tech for a lot of consumers out there.