That might come out to around 83 miles range on the EPA cycle.
It also helps a bit in concerns about battery life, as for a given number of miles the battery would cycle less often, and in addition even after those miles more range would remain, so that more use should be got out of the battery before it hasn't got enough range to be practical.

Putting the numbers together, according to Palmer Nissan rated the old Leaf at 60,000 miles on the lenient LA4 cycle to 80% capacity, on average.
That comes to only 45,000 miles or so on the EPA to 80% of the nominal 73 mile range, and if you charge to the recommended 80% level to get a longer life then after that 45,000 miles you would only normally get about 73*0.8*0.8 miles of range after that = 46.7 miles

For the new car you might get around 45,000/0.8 miles to the same level of battery capacity depletion, or around 56,250 miles.

After that you would have remaining 83*0.8*0.8 miles of normal range, or 53 miles.

Since the depletion curve flattens, it would then be quite a few miles down to the 46.7 miles of normal capacity of the old battery.

In my view the battery capacity would need to be increased to something like 30kwh to give an acceptable level of battery capacity loss and remaining available range after a few years, and even then it would be far worse than in other available chemistries, but it would at any rate start making financial sense.

The figures in the article are odd.
The range shows a 14% improvement on the JC08, up from 200km to 228km, whilst the figures for Wh/km are given as down from 120Wk/km to 114Wh/km, only a 9.5% drop on the same battery size.
One or the other is wrong.

It looks like the 114Wh/km is in error, as 24000Wh divided by 200km is 120Wh/km, whereas 24000Wh divided by 228 is 105Wh/km, not 114Wh/km.

Davemart, the capacity loss issues are limited to hot places such as Phoenix (4.3 years to 70% capacity) and Texas.. but everything is ok in the NE and NW, there you will easily reach 10 years.

Battery performance and pack capacity have to be improved by 3X to 5X for extended range BEVs. That will take another 5+ years to come around.

Meanwhile, for a few extra dollars, there are a few very good HEVs on the market for those who really want to reduce fuel consumption by more than 50%.

For those with more $$$, there are a few more acceptable PHEVs to further reduce fuel consumption.

So, 73 mile range down to 80% is 58 miles still. If I have a 30 mile commute, even at 80% I still have a usable car. However, if my typical drive is 30 miles, I would hardly ever cycle the battery below 50% and would therefore expect less battery degradation. Sure, we don't want consumers learning that there are ways for them to maximize their value in products, and that small changes to their habits don't necessarily mean a decreased living style (if you really think about what's important). We want them to consume to their maximum capability, always having some debt thus forcing them into jobs that will never get them ahead but allow there owners (excuse me, I mean employers) to get wealthy. I really fear that they would take a car like the leaf and continue to run it until it only had about 30 miles range, and thus not consume like we would prefer them to. I fear too, the after market and do-it-yourselfers that would take a used leaf and modify or upgrade it. How will we ever get rich on EVs? It's going to be difficult. We better stick to gasoline cars. That way we get the side benefit of having the need for a military industrial complex, that is very profitable, to police the oil fields of the world. Both the military industries and oil are very profitable. An added benefit is that as the price of oil goes up, profits go up on oil and the need for the military goes up. So, invest in oil and bombs, it's the best return on your money.

Brotherkenny:
I'm not quite sure what most of that has to do with the article.
Leaving aside the socio-political musings, or perhaps lifestyle instructions, the issue is how much the car costs and whether depreciation will hit too hard.
To be comfortable although the average distance travelled per day may be only 33 miles, you clearly need a margin over this.
How much is more debatable, but I would suggest that many may be looking for around double that to allow for longer runs, cold weather reducing range, etc.
So something like 66 miles may be a reasonable target for an electric vehicle, with some cars such as the Smart EV which are clearly very much town run arounds perhaps being able to get a bit less.
The Nissan using the present battery pack looses too much of its range after too few miles, so the cost per mile is way too high.

Why anyone would buy one, instead of perhaps lease, escapes me, even if they happen to go along with your metaphysics, as they can buy a perfectly good Energi which is unlikely to suffer from the same defect, and which would still do many of its miles on electricity, or indeed by the Volt.

It may be way off, but couldn't a fan bring down heat extremes? If necessary, duct some AC, trading 10% of the 14% range gain for battery longevity?

From 1st hand account of owners (and ex owners): apparently the average mileage for Phoenix for one and one half years is down to 80% capacity.

Similarly 2010 Civic in Warner Robins Georgia is on its second battery pack (now out of warranty) - as the battery deteriorates the mileage resembles the non-hybrid version.

Maybe the geometry as much as the airflow, is the problem - maybe the CONDUCTION to the surface of the pack (or lack of internal air passages), more so than the airflow available, is at fault.

A few positives: less weight of about 175 lbs, consolidation of units and more efficient units, a new battery chemistry from Hitachi (LiFePo, I believe) with better temperature specs...all translates to Nissan trying to reduce the cost of the car and at the same time increasing the range. When I bought my car, #669, I figured that this would be the case, i.e., that Nissan would continue to make improvements in each generation of the car.

I am disappointed at the progress of their battery technology because I fear it is still too expensive and their attempts to increase the car's range have been pretty weak. It seems to me they need to improve the range to an honest 100 miles at freeway speeds of 65 mph; never mind the fancy EPA specs, they mean nothing unless they can meet this practical requirement. That means a more energy dense battery; I don't see it yet and until they listen to the early adopters and can do this, they will not meet the expectations of most U.S. drivers.

What remarkable nonsense just to drive an over priced electric vehicle. The consumer is now put into the position to worry about a stable supply of dysprosium, lithium, vehicle range, and battery life. Who needs it? It's going from the frying pan into the fire. When the enabling technology finally arrives call me, in the meantime go back to the lab.

"It seems to me they need to improve the range to an honest 100 miles at freeway speeds of 65 mph; never mind the fancy EPA specs, they mean nothing unless they can meet this practical requirement."

"..and until they listen to the early adopters and can do this, they will not meet the expectations of most U.S. drivers."

Makes a lot of sense, esp. with US distances.

Another 20% range improvement could meet this minimum.

With web sites announcing multi-factor battery improvements weekly for years/decades - no problem.

Since gas prices have often doubled in weeks - repeated gas prices doubling during 5 or 10 years of future vehicle ownership seems likely.

Also, electric hardware costs fall over the years and a one moving part power train is cheaper to maintain then a thousand ICE moving parts.

Pay for batteries or fuel.

The replacement cost for the batteries will be included in the lease payments, so you pay for that anyway. It is the residual value that matters, I would not say Nissan is likely to go "belly up".