Jaguar Land Rover investigating energy-efficient vehicle heating and cooling; Air Bubbles and Air Blankets
Audi donating €1 million in emergency aid for refugees in Europe

New 2016 Nissan LEAF with available 30 kWh pack for 107-mile range

Nissan introduced the 2016 all-electric LEAF with an available 30 kWh battery that provides an EPA-estimated range of 107 miles (172 km)—a 27% increase over the previous 24 kWH battery. All LEAF models feature an 80kW AC synchronous motor that generates 80 kW (107 hp) and 254 N·m (187 lb-ft) of torque, which drives the front wheels through a single-speed reducer.

The new battery (with 25% more capacity than the 24 kWh pack) is standard for LEAF SV and LEAF SL models. LEAF S models continue to be equipped with a 24 kWh battery with an EPA-estimated range of 84 miles.The 2016 model also offers an enhanced IT system that is more user-friendly and gives drivers greater vehicle connectivity.


The new 30 kWh battery design adds capacity without increasing battery package size by improving the cell structure of the laminated lithium-ion battery cells. Improved electrode material with revised chemistry results in higher power density and contributes to enhanced battery durability upon charge and discharge.

While the 24 kWh battery is composed of four cells per module (192 cells total), the new 30 kWh battery’s modules contain eight newly designed cells per module (192 cells total). Unlike conventional cylindrical batteries, the thin, compact laminated cells offer more flexibility in packaging and design applications. The 30 kWh battery pack weighs just 46 pounds more than the 24 kWh battery pack and has the same battery pack size and footprint.

The 2016 LEAF SV and SL have MPGe ratings of 124 city, 101 highway and 112 combined fuel economy, while LEAF S has MPGe ratings of 126 city, 101 highway and 114 combined.

As in previous years, the front-wheel drive LEAF uses a dedicated Nissan EV platform with batteries housed in the floor for optimum vehicle packaging and weight distribution. The body design includes a rigid-mounted battery frame, which helps provide greater body rigidity compared to a conventional compact car.

Nissan LEAF rides on a 106.3-inch wheelbase, with a 175.0-inch overall length, 69.7-inch width and 61.0-inch height. LEAF provides room for five adults and 24 cubic feet of cargo space. Placing the batteries in the floor of the vehicle provides optimum weight distribution to help enhance handling and allows for five-passenger seating by not intruding into the cabin space.

The 2016 Nissan LEAF offers a number of charging options. A charge port is located in the front body for the 240V charger and portable trickle-charge cable (110V). A charge port light and lock are standard. The available Quick Charge Port (standard on SV and SL, optional on S) allows charging to 80% capacity in about 30 minutes at public charging stations using a CHAdeMO fast charger. There is also a standard photovoltaic solar panel spoiler on SL models, which supports charging of the 12-volt battery for vehicle accessories.

LEAF SV and SL grades feature a 6.6 kW onboard charger that, using a 240V outlet, will charge the battery to 100% in about six hours. The system is an option on LEAF S, which in standard form utilizes a 3.6 kW onboard charger. All LEAF models come with a standard portable trickle charge cable.

Smooth ride and handling are provided through use of an independent strut suspension with stabilizer bar in front and a torsion beam rear suspension with integrated stabilizer bar. Nissan LEAF utilizes a vehicle-speed-sensitive electric power steering system, while responsive braking is provided by power-assisted front vented disc/solid rear disc brakes with Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), Electronic Brake Force Distribution (EBD) and Brake Assist.

The standard regenerative braking system in LEAF helps increase range. By applying the brakes or reducing speed by letting off the accelerator, the electric motor acts as an electric generator, converting energy that would otherwise be wasted into battery energy. The “B-mode” (standard on all grades) allows the driver to engage an even more aggressive level of regenerative braking while decelerating, such as when going down hills. B-mode is offered in addition to the normal and Eco drive modes.

Standard LEAF safety systems include Nissan Advanced Air Bag System (AABS) with dual-stage supplemental front air bags with seat belt sensors and occupant classification sensor, front seat-mounted side impact supplemental air bags, roof-mounted curtain side impact supplemental air bags for front and rear-seat outboard occupant head protection, three-point ALR/ELR seat belts (driver’s seat ELR only) with pretensioners and load limiters, child seat upper tether anchor, LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren) system and child safety rear door locks. Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC) and Traction Control System (TCS) are also standard on all LEAF models.

Since Nissan LEAF launched in December 2010, we’ve become the global leaders in electric vehicle sales with an all-electric car specifically designed for the mass market. [More than 185,000 current Nissan LEAF owners world-wide. Ed.] We know that to maintain that leadership, we must continue developing battery technology that strikes that ideal balance between capacity, packaging, durability and affordability.

The new battery is just one of several enhancements for the 2016 LEAF. We’re also bringing audio and connectivity upgrades by adding NissanConnect with Mobile Apps with 5.0-inch color display as standard features for LEAF S models, and for SV and SL grades we are offering NissanConnect with Navigation and Mobile Apps–featuring a 7.0-inch color display with multi-touch control and Nissan Voice Recognition as standard features.

—Andrew Speaker, director, Nissan Electric Vehicle (EV) Sales & Marketing

The NissanConnect with Mobile Apps system for 2016 LEAF S includes Bluetooth Hands-free Phone System, Streaming audio via Bluetooth, Hands-free Text Messaging Assistant and USB connection port for iPod interface and other compatible devices.

NissanConnect with Navigation and Mobile Apps for SV and SL grades include a 7.0-inch color display with multi-touch control, Nissan Voice Recognition for navigation and audio, HD radio, and SiriusXM Travel Link for weather, fuel prices, movie listings, stock info and sports (SiriusXM subscription required, sold separately).

The menu screen graphics and customization process have been improved and charging screen information is now automatically updated every time the ignition is turned on and with every 12 miles (19 km) of driving.

The NissanConnect EV system (no-charge subscription required), also standard on SV and SL grades, allows remote connection to the vehicle, providing monitoring of battery state-of-charge, start charging event control and turning on the heating and air conditioning system prior to entering the vehicle.

Nissan LEAF and its battery are assembled in the United States at Nissan’s Smyrna, Tenn., assembly plant.

The 2016 Nissan LEAF has a starting price of $26,700 after the federal tax credit of $7,500 for the SV model and $29,290 for LEAF SL after the federal tax credit. Starting price for 2016 Nissan LEAF S grade remains $21,510 after the federal tax incentive.



It's something to see the number of apologists for the liquid-fuels industry.  The reason to push liquid fuels (including ethanol) is to maintain the market for petroleum, which will sell most of the fuel such vehicles burn.  Each sale of an EV is a 100% loss for the FF industry.

FWIW, a 60% cut in CO2 emissions is nowhere near sufficient to neutralize the atmospheric effect; we need closer to 95%.  The electric grid can get there by a variety of means (we have options); ethanol relies on so much fossil fuel for nitrogen fertilizer etc. that it cannot get there period.


Most of the electricity generated in the US is derived from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. The question is whether hydro-electric, wind, (nuclear?), and huge centralized solar farms can replace fossil fuel sources, especially if all vehicles are all-battery BEVs and excessive electricity consumption overall is left unaddressed. Most advocates for BEVs are missing the big picture. PHEVs have more potential to reduce fuel/electricity consumption than BEVs.


Sirkulat, that's only true so long as battery production is a major constraint.  Once most of the fleet is PHEV, then going BEV chews into the remaining fuel demand.


As an old codger ;-) may I make a plea for lengthy posts to be separated into paragraphs?

Or even less, for those of us with a fallible [aged] short term memory.





I smell a conspiracy, America's hat(Canada) has us addicted to oil!!!!

Alternative fuels such as: CNG, Propane and fuels from biomass will play a significant role in our transportation future.

Fuels from waste are very beneficial.

Emily you make several good points, $7500 in rebates does nothing but line the pockets of those who can afford the cars anyway, if it were on the front end...maybe I'd feel different about it... But most of the money went to the wealthier of Americans(there is an article here on gcc).

Gas, don't recite averages of "cars" being 30k... Which includes trucks SUVs and probably exotics. For apples to apple comparison, only the Tesla model S P85D looks inline with its competition with luxury sports cars/exotics on price. 30k+ for a sub compact with 70-120miles range is pretty absurd at this point in time.

I personally wouldn't push ethanol, but rather isobutanol.

I feel that over the next few decades it will fall out this way. Heavy freight will gravitate towards Propane, H2, and renewable forms of diesel, with a smattering of EVs on fixed or short route operations where infrastructure can be in place.(CNG isn't really ideal, LNG isn't either, propane is cheaper and easier to handle. Infrastructure is going to be CNGs problem.)I know some very large fleets that use CNG, and its sourced on site, and is supplemental to the gasoline on board.

Consumers will probably see 200mile+ EVs sedans, trucks and SUVs will gravitate to hybrids, and FC designs.

Liquid fuels will probably be around after I'm long gone.

There is this balance of platform I see when I envision this. Batteries will be costly in both materials and size, restricting them to smaller quantities. Eventually necessity arises where the battery is too large/too expensive for the job at hand, like towing a 15,000lbs trailer 100miles+. The utility/effectiveness in a vehicle such as a truck needs to be there, and batteries only at a certain point are not ideal, lending way to FCs /ICE generators that allow for long ranges without burdensome downtimes or loss of utility. With a 100kw stack/engine you could realistically drive most any light duty vehicle coast to coast, as long as you have fuel/h2. On board generators don't have to be massive if batteries are sized right.

I believe almost every vehicle overtime will get to the plugin stage.


Carbon fees on fuel will hit over-the-road trucking hard and drive traffic to rail.  Rail is easy to electrify (technically) and might spur re-use of idle rail rights-of-way.  For applications off the grid, ammonia is a very likely fuel.  It is 17% hydrogen by weight and can be used in either fuel cells (SOFC directly, PEMFC by conversion to hydrogen) or in combustion engines.

The various -ols require carbon capture to make from non-fossil resources.  That's great when you're using something you're otherwise throwing away and need to dispose of (e.g. MSW) but heavy reliance runs directly into either natural limits on net primary productivity or the cost of carbon capture from air.  It's going to be a lot easier and cheaper to work with the 78% fraction of air than the 0.04% fraction.


Finding better/cheaper ways to split water and produce H2 with clean lower cost REs and storing/distributing large quantities of it, may become one way to reduce GHG, pollution while ensuring 24/7 an unlimited clean enery source for industries, homes, offices, vehicles, trains etc.

Many posters will claim that it will cost more than accumulated polluting fossil fuels and bio-fuels. That may be correct when pollution and other (many) harmful side effects cost are not factored in.


EP, Rail is one of the most efficient means of travel we have... that is why the US pulled up almost all of the tracks after WWII.

Currently rail shipments wait for weeks in a queue. Its not by any means timely when you want it to be.

The current system is just too small to handle that sort of freight load.

Electrifying trains get tricky... I mean a single long freight train might travel from California to Illinois... they aren't for short trips... you could be talking about 10,000Kw-20,000Kw needed depending on grade and length of the train over several hundred miles. (and it would have to possibly support multiple trains (multiple directions and consecutive trains)

I would love to see trucks replaced by trains, but the trend is fading away from rails to roads.

This is where the government could step in and do something productive. Re-lay some tracks, place high tension power lines above it and run the trains off of 50Kv or whatever they can manage.

Rather go for some infrastructure like this than for some $7500 tax credit for an EV that isn't ripe yet.

Rail is one of the most efficient means of travel we have... that is why the US pulled up almost all of the tracks after WWII.

A lot of rail didn't get pulled up until the consolidations of the 1980's or 90's.  The double-track through my home town went down to single track; I remember riding the valley road, seeing all the pulled-up ties in piles.  This was feasible because the consolidated lines could run their reverse paths hundreds of miles away on rails that used to be the exclusive territory of competitors, and it cut property taxes.

All rights-of-way still in use could be re-provisioned with track if needed.

Currently rail shipments wait for weeks in a queue.

If it became profitable enough to have sufficient spare capacity to slash those wait times, it's still possible.

Electrifying trains get tricky... I mean a single long freight train might travel from California to Illinois... they aren't for short trips... you could be talking about 10,000Kw-20,000Kw needed depending on grade and length of the train over several hundred miles.

The most powerful GE locomotives still in production are the Evolution ES44 series with 3.2 MW.  The biggest GE electric locos were the E60's at 4.5 MW each and the VGN EL-2B's at 5.1 MW per set (neither in production).  The major issue is the cost for property taxes in each jurisdiction the line passes through.  If the new hardware was exempted from tax, the RRs would probably jump at the chance to take revenue away from trucking firms.

This is where the government could step in and do something productive.

Like taking tax considerations out of play?

Rather go for some infrastructure like this

I'd like to see rail laid down freeway medians, so that dual-mode trucks could use it.  Imagine the benefits of getting the lion's share of long-haul truck traffic out of lane competition with passenger cars!  Adding electric power is a no-brainer.  But that requires a vision, while a tax exemption only requires lobbying.


So says EngineerPoet, "Sirkulat, that's only true (fossil fuel-fired grid power) so long as battery production is a major constraint.

The problem isn't battery production as much as recharging much larger BEV batteries to maintain routine long-distance driving.

"Once most of the fleet is PHEV, then going BEV chews into the remaining fuel demand."

Is this nonsense or what? I ask that someone here address the advantages of PHEVs but only spout dubious logic biased toward BEVs and the status quo of driving ad infinitem. Driverless tech too changes nothing. Why not foresee a world with less time spent driving? Are all techno-fix wannabees on the google payroll?


I was referring to the ability of PHEVs to reduce (liquid) fuel consumption.  We're a long way from that point (right now hybrids pay off more than PHEVs) but once most suitable applications are PHEV, it makes sense to add more battery until the ICE becomes more burden than benefit.


@Emily Remember, the $7500 is a tax credit, just like the type of credit taxpayers get for their house. This credit is micro compared to the subsidies that fossil fuel companies get.

The comments to this entry are closed.