2018 Nissan Leaf - $29,990. 40kWh battery

[DurandalAI]

Does the new leaf battery have an Active Thermal Management system unlike the passively managed gen1 leafs?

It boggles my mind that on the mynissan leaf forums that people think the passive pack design is somehow an advantage in that it is more stable, less parts to break, and no vampire losses. At the same time a huge number of threads are about how many bars are lost or left on the pack meter.

I don't get it, so they'd accept the possibility in hot climates to PERMANENTLY lose 10-20+% of capacity in a few years, than to use 1 - 5% of the pack on a active thermal management system when needed?

They're just busy trying to convince themselves that it's a problem. Even if they live in a super cold climate, it affects resale values nationally which impacts them if they want to sell. People don't want to admit that they made a "bad decision" even if all the data presented to them at time of purchase said it was a good decision, so they're not really at fault. Instead they just dig in further into their self-denial. I see it all the time with coal/gas heads who say things like, "What are you going to do when they shut down all the coal plants?" Nonsensical statements.

 

[cwerdna]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed with my post and scaesare haven't looked at Tesla's SEC filings and seen what expenditures are actually causing losses and what are not.

The problem with that analysis is that it ignores the fact that the loss has been to significant CapEx spending on tooling up the factory, building the GF, building out the Supercharging network, R&D on Model 3 etc...

The bolded portions do not contribute in a large way to Tesla's losses each quarter. Those expenditures come out of cash. Then there's depreciation on capital expenditures (spread out over time) that do contribute to cost of revenues. Look at what I pointed to, realized and received an explanation about below.

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion
2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion
2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

Seriously, those 5 of you, look! It's a bit tiring to see Tesla (loss) defenders bringing up items such as those in bolded as primary reasons why Tesla loses $ when they are not. This isn't the first time it's happened. I've had it happen recently at least 2-3 times on other forums and maybe once recently here.

From page 34 of Tesla - Quarterly Report

Cost of automotive revenue includes direct parts, material and labor costs, manufacturing overhead, including depreciation costs of tooling and machinery, shipping and logistic costs, vehicle connectivity costs, allocations of electricity and infrastructure costs related to our Supercharger network and reserves for estimated warranty expenses. Cost of automotive revenue also includes adjustments to warranty expense and charges to write-down the carrying value of our inventory when it exceeds its estimated net realizable value and to provide for obsolete or excess inventory.

Then go back to page 5, look at the revenues and then all the expenses that follow.

 

[DurandalAI]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed with my post and scaesare haven't looked at Tesla's SEC filings and seen what expenditures are actually causing losses and what are not.

The bolded portions do not contribute in a large way to Tesla's losses each quarter. Those expenditures come out of cash. Then there's depreciation on capital expenditures (spread out over time) that do contribute to cost of revenues. Look at what I pointed to, realized and received an explanation about below.

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion
2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion
2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

Seriously, those 5 of you, look! It's a bit tiring to see Tesla (loss) defenders bringing up items such as those in bolded as primary reasons why Tesla loses $ when they are not. This isn't the first time it's happened. I've had it happen recently at least 2-3 times on other forums and maybe once recently here.

From page 34 of Tesla - Quarterly Report


Then go back to page 5, look at the revenues and then all the expenses that follow.

A key note on this topic, is that we are not made aware of the discreet method of depreciation that Tesla employs on each asset.
As VA posted in the last link you provide, there are production method depreciation, straight line depreciation, and double depreciation, etc... The methods chosen can be due to investment reasons, tax reasons, and others.

I believe the reason you're getting dislikes on your posts is mostly out of a disagreement on semantics. Essentially long term the CapEx does translate to a hit on net profit in the end if not directly, but to be fair, trying to blame any of it simply on any one reason is disingenuous. For large growth companies such as Tesla (and a great example would be Amazon a few years ago) your operating expenses are based upon where you will be tomorrow instead of where you are today. As such you can never achieve profitability until your growth slows to a more organic level. That's not just depreciation of assets, but operational expenses such as staff, utilities, etc. Again, you're not paying for where you are today, but where you will be tomorrow. That's why people say "But CapEx!" when people point out that Tesla as a whole isn't profitable. If they were to stop all growth and just make product at the levels they are now, they WOULD be profitable in a very short order.

 

[techmaven]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed with my post and scaesare haven't looked at Tesla's SEC filings and seen what expenditures are actually causing losses and what are not.

Many of us here are quite familiar with Tesla’s finances. We know that R&D and SG&A expenses are high. And without a long legacy of other models while also growing dramatically, Tesla can't take the profits of prior models at high volume in multiple segments and plow them into replacements models. Instead, there is high R&D and SG&A costs associated with building out new models, production, service and multiple new non-automotive business units. It isn't only capex, although that obviously impacts cash. If you look at how much it costs major automakers to develop new models and build out new factories and compare against Tesla, you will notice that Tesla is actually quite capital efficient. Also, as the unit volume grows dramatically, the fixed costs are divided across many more units. The growth of SG&A and R&D are less than the expected unit volume growth. Further, right before the expected unit volume growth, the financials will necessarily look the worst because a significant amount of R&D, SG&A, as well as capex has been expended to make that unit growth possible. It usually costs a major automaker around $1 billion to develop a new platform in a segment for which it is already competing with only incremental changes in technology and features. Tesla has been doing far more for far less.

There is a unit volume build level for which Tesla achieves cash flow from operations positive with the Model 3 at well under the 5,000/week target. And there is another build level for which they achieve GAAP profitability which can be in the 5000/week target, but with either less hinderance or help from other business units. The target next year is for 10,000/week and they may, at that point, be consistently cash flow from operations positive, if not GAAP positive which depends on other business units. Further, the capital markets have shown that Tesla can raise money pretty easily since major investors do understand the dynamics.

In terms of scale, Tesla is shipping more GWh of cells than another else on the planet. And they will continue to do so into the next 2-3 years at least and I say that only because it is hard to project beyond 3 years. They ship more kW of inverters and rectifiers... than any other automaker. Remember, Tesla Superchargers and stationary storage products also have power electronics and are shared with the car in some cases. If you go look at the most expensive parts of a BEV... the cells, the BMS, the power electronics (inverter, rectifiers, etc.), motors and so forth, Tesla has the highest volume and the highest capability and often at the lowest price.

Instead, if you look at the other automakers, you have to ask what are they going to do if the transition to EVs, and especially BEVs is faster than they had planned. Add on autonomous driving ramifications and it isn't Tesla that is in trouble.

 

[scaesare]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed with my post and scaesare haven't looked at Tesla's SEC filings and seen what expenditures are actually causing losses and what are not.

As @DurandalAI and @techmaven have also commented on, there's certainly a variety of factors contributing to Tesla operating a net loss today. No doubt there's a bunch of CapEx quarter of quarter as well.

However, some of them are due to depreciation associated with the items I mentioned, others due to direct operational expenses etc..., as you quoted from the quarterly report:

Cost of automotive revenue includes direct parts, material and labor costs, manufacturing overhead, including depreciation costs of tooling and machinery, shipping and logistic costs, vehicle connectivity costs, allocations of electricity and infrastructure costs related to our Supercharger network and reserves for estimated warranty expenses. Cost of automotive revenue also includes adjustments to warranty expense and charges to write-down the carrying value of our inventory when it exceeds its estimated net realizable value and to provide for obsolete or excess inventory

The point I am making is that Tesla's current cars are profitable, with a healthy gross margin. The 3, after ramp up, will also have a good GM. Tesla has been close to profitable as a whole a couple of quarters, despite the significant cost associated with their growth.

This isn't like somebody selling a compliance car at a loss *cough*Bolt*cough*. They could be profitable today if they were content to crank out S and X models at a relatively moderate volume. They aren't.

 

[techmaven]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed with my post and scaesare haven't looked at Tesla's SEC filings and seen what expenditures are actually causing losses and what are not.

To put it another way... All EV's are encouraged by governments at various levels in the United States and other parts of the world to varying degrees. In the United States, there are 4 primary incentive programs. CAFE fuel mileage standards, CARB ZEV credits, federal tax credit for alternative fueled vehicles, and various state level incentives that might or might not exist that include purchase tax credits, HOV lane access, and so forth.

If all of these were removed, then vehicles like the Leaf and the Bolt wouldn't exist. Tesla would try to exist, but it would be much harder. If it were 3 years ago, then Tesla would have a very hard time.. but with the achievement of the Model 3, Tesla may become immune pretty soon. All Tesla vehicles are pretty competitive at their price points... the federal tax credit does help, but not a back breaker. Tesla does get CARB ZEV credits, but can only monetize them at roughly 50% the amount that major automakers can due to not having ICE vehicle sales to book against. Tesla isn't affected by the CAFE fuel mileage standards directly... the removal wouldn't cause a financial impact, but other automakers would have less incentives to push higher mileage vehicles. It may increase Tesla's competitive position. The CARB ZEV credits and CAFE fuel standards compliance baked into the accounting for vehicles like the Leaf and the Bolt. They can afford to have negative gross margins on both vehicles because of the effects selling these have on the overall CAFE fuel mileage average and the CARB ZEV credit mandate. They need to sell somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000 ZEVs or many more TZEV/PZEVs in accordance to how many non-EVs they sell.

The Bolt is price competitive at roughly a $25,000 to $28,000 price point. Given the unit volume, they can't amortize the typical $1 billion in platform development costs across a large number of vehicles. If they can achieve 225,000 vehicles sold across 5 years, an average of 45,000/year, that's $4,500 in R&D costs per vehicle. That means COGS has to be less than $20,000. And clearly, that's not the case. And 45,000/year is about double what they will do in 2017. That's why Nissan has been reluctant to make large changes to the Leaf. The 2018 Leaf is really Leaf 1.5. Their original development costs are spread across ~300,000 vehicles... or if you take the entire Renault-Nissan alliance, across ~425,000 vehicles. It took them about 7 years. The new Nissan Leaf will apparently have a build plan of about 90,000 vehicles worldwide. Nissan is hoping that the relatively modest changes they made can have a big impact on the overall financials for the Leaf, especially if they can reduce the massive amount of cash on the hood they've bee offering for the older models.

The Model 3 is price competitive against the Audi A4, BMW 3 series, and Mercedes C-class straight up without federal or state purchase tax credits. We can argue about whether the Model 3 is a mass market vehicle and what mass market vehicle even means, but at least the Model 3 is a true straight up competitor in its segment and that segment can support millions of vehicles of volume worldwide. The Leaf and the Bolt are not price competitive against their segment competitors. But due to the CAFE and CARB ZEV credit situation, both GM and Nissan have been willing to put a lot of cash on the hood to move these vehicles.

That's why the Model 3 is a big achievement. It isn't just the vehicle itself, but a vehicle that is both feature and price competitive against ICE vehicles within the same segment and with sufficient volume to amortize the investments to be profitable overall. The build plan for the Model 3 is roughly 1,750,000 units over 5 years. That's a big difference than even the most optimistic projections for the new Leaf over 5 years. The Bolt's build plan is not even close... roughly 30-40% of the build plan for the Leaf and maybe 15% of the Model 3. Of course, these are all comparing rosy projections for which the companies are actually investing to achieve.

 

[Electroman]

I bet those 4 people who disagreed

Make that 5.

It is simply inconceivable that any new automaker that is building a brand new platform with brand new technologies that is relatively selling in low volumes and expanding at Amazonish-pace, and running its own sales and service networks, can produce profits so soon.

 

[Rowan256]

I just watched this:

With a 30kW battery and he makes about a 100 mile with a 30kW battery (while driving fast).
So in other words, 220 miles with a 40kW battery is slightly optimistic.
Also, when I see a model 3 with a drag coefficient of 0.23 and a 80kW battery makes about 300 miles.
Then 200 miles with a 0.29 and a 40kW battery sounds very optimistic and 300 miles with 80kW and a lower drag coefficient much more realistic.

 

[googlepeakoil]

Remember folks weve only seen the model 3 with the $5000 trim. How cheap will the base level look? No centre console storage. No wood finish. Real bare interior. Manual seats. Think Tesla will do all they can to push u to the 45-50k car with long delays on 35k version.
In the uk the stupid brexit will make the 3 cost £40k. The leaf2 might be 20k with dealer offers. 3 not due till 2019 if ramp goes ok! but leaf2 in early 2018
Only 1 screen in the 3 and no cluster. Few buttons
Leaf actually has an analogue speedo and a digital cluster beside it. Lots of tactile buttons + a screen. I think Elon was taking us for granted to say if u want 2 screens buy an S or X
Apple carplay + android auto
Leaf is a hatchback which for me is more practical
It doesnt look like a carp fish any more - thank god!!
The leafs might not have thermal mgmt. But in northern europe 0-20c is more common
The leaf has a more efficient cabin heater. Captures energy from the air so improving winter range.
3 or 6kw is fine for overnight 10hr charge. I have 4kw solar so ideally will charge during work from home days for free.
50kw chademo not much worse than the 70ish in the 3s 50kwh pack
Leaf2 will sell very very well in europe and japan i feel
Carlos Ghosn nissanRenault president featured in Revenge of the Electric car - he believes in electric. Cant believe ppl calling Leaf a compliance car. Very dissapointed in those ppls lack of electric car history

 

[McRat]

Like all threads on this site, the GM hate is to the point of psychosis here. It's not a Bolt EV thread.

But in the true form of an EV Evangelist, I will refute anti-EV crappola wherever it appears.

Bolt EV:
2018 specs are being deliberately withheld. All GM products except of the Bolt EV have the 2018 specs. So the following is from Dec 2016

• It does go more than 200 miles on a charge. In fact, the press drivers noticed this again and again and again, as did Bjorn.
• It is bigger than a Yaris inside. Again, noted by all neutral parties who are not virtual humans, but real ones who have driven cars before as well as the Bolt EV.
• It is sold in non-compliance states and has more battery than is required for compliance by about 4:1. If the engineers were focused on Compliance they should all be fired. They put in 44kWh too much battery, too big of an EV motor, made the interior too big, and forgot to put a hinge in the middle to make it feel like a Nissan or Toyota.
• It will charge faster than 45kW. Proven. If will charge faster than 50kW. Proven. Peak charging speed for the 2018 is unknown, and very little is known about 2017.
• @techmaven, he does not work for General Motors. His data comes almost entirely from regurgitating anti-GM or anti-EV Blogs. He is more often wrong about the Bolt EV than right, but does write great fiction essays.

 

[SmartElectric]

Lack of thermal management affects DC charge speed. Leaf 2 can claim 50 kW, but that's theoretical in a world where the charging can heat the battery quickly enough that thermal protection needs to kick in to prevent throttling AMPs to slow charging down to protect the battery.

I rather like the Leaf 2, and it's on my list, as a third car...

I think the range is perfect for the price point, the tech is OK, but the plethora of buttons for every conceivable setting still bugs me.

 

[renim]

what the Nissan LEAF really is

vs
middle 5 trims of Toyota Prius

 

[renim]

I think the key vehicle that Nissan is benchmarking is not the Tesla 3, or GM Bolt or even a Toyota Prius Prime.
Its the mass market Toyota Prius HEV.

Reportably Nissan significantly updated the 'body in white' while keeping the same hardpoints.
"In all, the Leaf’s body in white is about 100 pounds lighter than before,"
may not seem like much, but its a major change, so perhaps 600 pounds reduced to 500 pounds for BIW, and with improved stiffness and safety.

It feels like Nissan has updated the LEAF from 2008/2010 era body to 2015/2017 era body. Which in Nissan terms was/is a big jump (compare weight of a 2010 Altima to a 2015 Altima),

 

[MotoEvCA]

Remember folks weve only seen the model 3 with the $5000 trim. How cheap will the base level look? No centre console storage. No wood finish. Real bare interior. Manual seats. Think Tesla will do all they can to push u to the 45-50k car with long delays on 35k version.
In the uk the stupid brexit will make the 3 cost £40k. The leaf2 might be 20k with dealer offers. 3 not due till 2019 if ramp goes ok! but leaf2 in early 2018
Only 1 screen in the 3 and no cluster. Few buttons
Leaf actually has an analogue speedo and a digital cluster beside it. Lots of tactile buttons + a screen. I think Elon was taking us for granted to say if u want 2 screens buy an S or X
Apple carplay + android auto
Leaf is a hatchback which for me is more practical
It doesnt look like a carp fish any more - thank god!!
The leafs might not have thermal mgmt. But in northern europe 0-20c is more common
The leaf has a more efficient cabin heater. Captures energy from the air so improving winter range.
3 or 6kw is fine for overnight 10hr charge. I have 4kw solar so ideally will charge during work from home days for free.
50kw chademo not much worse than the 70ish in the 3s 50kwh pack
Leaf2 will sell very very well in europe and japan i feel
Carlos Ghosn nissanRenault president featured in Revenge of the Electric car - he believes in electric. Cant believe ppl calling Leaf a compliance car. Very dissapointed in those ppls lack of electric car history

People continue to claim Tesla is trying to 'anti sell' the Model 3 and I do not believe it. if that were true, they would:

1. Place high-resolution pictures of the BASE Model 3 Exterior and Interior
2. We would have a Base Model 3 at stores for viewing only with a clear sign of $35K as shown
3. Tesla would be more transparent on the type of lease offerings that will not be available on the Base model

I suspect the Base Model 3 is a loss leader (zero or minimal profit) for Tesla therefore, the company will make every effort to incentivize customers to accept high margin option packages (Enhanced Autopilot - $5,000).

I also suspect Tesla will move to offering higher spec Model 3's produced or in production at a pre-delivery discount to move customers into higher spec trims with greater profit. Tesla will be under pressure to be profitable from each of their core centers (sales, service, etc.) and not unlike the other quasi luxury brands have to take market share from rivals who use leases to retain customers.

I spoke to my local Tesla agent this weekend and I suspect (as Elon has stated in the past) the Superchargers will be blocked from locals using them for high speed charging and more Destination chargers (lower power) will be available for Model S/X and Model 3 (fee) owners.

 

[scaesare]

I suspect the Base Model 3 is a loss leader (zero or minimal profit)

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

 

[MotoEvCA]

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I stand corrected. I don't want to characterize the Base model III as a 'bait and switch' or 'vaporware' or 'teaser' because I cannot speak to the intent of Tesla marketing or management.

However we have seen with other EVs where the cost to produce > the asking price, the manufacturer takes great effort to reduce availability of teaser price and build the more profitable trims.

 

[Electroman]

Cant believe ppl calling Leaf a compliance car. Very dissapointed in those ppls lack of electric car history

Agree with you. Leaf is anything but a compliance car. In fact it is the best city EV hands down for the price. With the hatchback it is a winner. There will be a lot of folks that have a back up ICE car, will love the Leaf

 

[SmartElectric]

it is the best city EV hands down for the price

Agreed. For the price, Leaf wins.
Then again, in Canada, the new Smart ED is 30% cheaper than the new base Leaf.
So, for price alone, there is only one...at least for me. ;-)

 

[googlepeakoil]

Agree with you. Leaf is anything but a compliance car. In fact it is the best city EV hands down for the price. With the hatchback it is a winner. There will be a lot of folks that have a back up ICE car, will love the Leaf

Carlos Ghosn (Nissan+Renault president) was featured prominently in that doc "Revenge of the Electric car". He was one of the 3 people followed (Elon and a startup guy were another). The doc gave him and the Leaf a good 20mins of screen time, followed him into board rooms / design meetings - had him talking to executives (wasn't just a long Leaf advert). You could tell he strongly wanted electric cars to succeed, and I recall him talking up his hope that it would sell 300,000 a year - remember they even built their own Gigafactory to manufacture the batteries. He wanted to do it for environmental reasons and even fought the board to push for it. The Leaf was also made to be manufactured in all 3 of Nissan's main factories, (USA, Sunderland England and Japan) - not just one factory (although the production line could change to vary with demand). Of course it never sold that many. It's looks, short range and cheap petrol/gasoline didn't help. As symbolic of how much the company wanted it to succeed look at the ads. No grim / rubbish ads like the EV1 had. Nissan have tried to sell the car, and have kept updating it. So I am definitely very happy to support the Leaf if I do buy one in Spring 2018.
The Leaf also launched as far back as 2010 - it beat the Model S to market by a year or so.

The fact it will be manufactured in the UK is likely to mean we will get one at a decent price where we're not screwed by exchange rates. Currently the UK pound is suffering due to Brexit. So I'm serious that a $35k (really $37k model 3 with destination and non-black colour) will be well over £40k and the Leaf 2 might be £25k (dealer discounts) before incentives (currently £4500 government discount on new electrics). The early UK models will also be the long range one with the $5000 interior so their price will be actually £50-55k. Tesla likes to sell only the high-end ones first to increase the average sales price. Next quarter - new market. New top-end cars only. Look at our great margins! Not until they hit big volumes wiil the base 3 be available / profitable for Tesla to make.

I do have £1000 (again we got screwed - not $1000) tied in a model 3 reservation and a nice A4 poster... I will probably keep the reservation. I might still get a model 3...

 

[Candleflame]

when huyundai is the only manufacturer who can build a proper electric car (apart from tesla) then you have a real problem....