Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[mwalsh]

June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9

Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.

 

[Valdemar]

What's up with the capacity bars then?

 

[xtremeflyer]

June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9

Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.

If anyone wants to do the Turbo3 Battery App thingy on my recently lost 2 capacity bar Leaf, you are more than welcome. I'm actually working from home for the rest of the week. (although I have appts Thur 8-12 and Friday 1-5) Do I need it charged to 100%? 80%?

 

[mwalsh]

If anyone wants to do the Turbo3 Battery App thingy on my recently lost 2 capacity bar Leaf, you are more than welcome. I'm actually working from home for the rest of the week. (although I have appts Thur 8-12 and Friday 1-5) Do I need it charged to 100%? 80%?

Me? Not got mine yet. Phone on the way, but I've not even ordered an ELM327.

 

[Boomer23]

June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9

Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.

Yeah but I just cain't get 'er done. I'm doing well to get 4.2 and that's with careful driving with zero freeway. :roll:

 

[mwalsh]

Yeah but I just cain't get 'er done. I'm doing well to get 4.2 and that's with careful driving with zero freeway. :roll:

Maybe you need more cowbell? Err...I mean freeway.

My city economy is just pitiful. I do MUCH better on the freeway!

 

[Valdemar]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

 

[mwalsh]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

If you go to Nissan, they're FULLY able to tell you what your "Gradual Capacity Loss Coefficient" is via Consult III. I don't know why they aren't giving this information to owners. :?

 

[Valdemar]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

If you go to Nissan, they're FULLY able to tell you what your "Gradual Capacity Loss Coefficient" is via Consult III. I don't know why they aren't giving this information to owners. :?

So, if I go to a dealer and request this piece of data they are going to tell me no, we can't do it?

 

[mwalsh]

So, if I go to a dealer and request this piece of data they are going to tell me no, we can't do it?

Probably.

 

[Valdemar]

So, if I go to a dealer and request this piece of data they are going to tell me no, we can't do it?

Probably.

So wrong...

 

[mwalsh]

So wrong...

Indeed. But you could always ask. I think you'd have to be willing to pay for it though. Or one could try to find someone independent of Nissan with a Consult III machine.

 

[Boomer23]

Yeah but I just cain't get 'er done. I'm doing well to get 4.2 and that's with careful driving with zero freeway. :roll:

Maybe you need more cowbell? Err...I mean freeway.

My city economy is just pitiful. I do MUCH better on the freeway!

Really? What is your economy on the freeway and how slow are you going these days? Or did you fix the aero drag by adding rear wheel fairings and a Le Mans style elongated rear body?

 

[mwalsh]

Really? What is your economy on the freeway and how slow are you going these days? Or did you fix the aero drag by adding rear wheel fairings and a Le Mans style elongated rear body?

~65mph/ECO mode exclusively/no Cruise Control/tires at 40psi/few (if any) pit-stop starts.

 

[Valdemar]

So wrong...

Indeed. But you could always ask. I think you'd have to be willing to pay for it though. Or one could try to find someone independent of Nissan with a Consult III machine.

I'm curious if there is any grounds to believe Consult III has access to capacity data other than what is used to feed the capacity bars, perhaps at higher resolution. I'm okay with the low resolution the bars provide, however if Consult III would produce a significantly lower number, such as in Boomer's estimates vs. his capacity gauge, I'd be really concerned if I will ever be able to benefit from the new warranty as it is based on the capacity bar display which may stay too optimistic indefinitely long.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I'm calculating a loss of 19.2% of range from the 86.5 miles when new to 69.9 miles now. (Ignoring the discrepancy between 4.0 mi/kWh indicated on the 2011 new battery test and the 4.1 on the subsequent tests.)

Note: I did put Michelin Primacy MXV tires on the car this April, replacing worn out Ecopias. I suppose this could have affected the range measurement, but only if the Michelins are of different diameter to the Ecopias. I don't have data on this. If anyone does, please comment.

There are reports of the Michelin tires decreasing efficiency (and thus range) by 8-10%, so I would say your test is not valid. You are assuming the miles/kwh on the dash is accurate, which may not be true.

OK, point taken, though I tend to believe the dash energy economy display because the results of this test match well with many informal calculations that I've done using Gids on many trips down to LBW and below. And if I posit that the display is at least precise, then the change in tires would not have an effect on the data as long as I keep the dash energy economy reading constant. Unless the new tires are a different diameter than the Ecopias were when they were new, which would affect the odometer reading.

But here is some additional data of charging energy required to recharge to full from turtle using TED mounted on my breaker box:

April 2011 Turtle event with new battery: 26.1 kWh required.
June 2013 Turtle event: 20.2 kWh required.

That's a 23% drop in energy required for refill.

Or if you like, we could calculate theoretical miles per each charge and compare with measured miles.

April 2011: 26.1 kWh minus 15% charging inefficiency = 22.2 kWh at the battery X 4.0 mi/kWh = 88.8 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 86.5

June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9

I'm inclined to believe my data, but I don't expect anyone to consider it rigorous.

you are on the right track. your car doesn't care what kind of tires you use. the dash economy reading is still computed the same way as it was when new so using it as a baseline for range loss is valid and you are right in that the only effect tires have is if they are different diameters which is partially the reason why new tires with larger diameters are less efficient than worn tires.

I am also starting to see evidence of my having less range than my level of degradation would suggest. I have tended to chalk it up to the dash readings not being accurate and have tried to manipulate them in order to magnify the error and have met with mixed results.

if you drive 20 miles and have 4 miles/kwh and drive 20 more miles and have 4.5 miles/kwh it would imply that the 2nd 20 miles were driven at 5 miles/kwh. I have noticed that when i drive a more consistent speed, the miles/kwh seem to be "more reasonable" when calculating energy used (miles driven/ miles per kwh) But when my efficiency is lower and on the rise towards the end of the day, i see a calculations that shows me having as much as 20% less energy than i should (my degradation is about 7.5 % 260 GID)

as you can imagine, getting data to support this is not easy especially when i don't really have the time to circle a parking lot or other highly controlled driving tests. add to that a time of year where the weather conditions are rapidly changing

 

[Boomer23]

I'm calculating a loss of 19.2% of range from the 86.5 miles when new to 69.9 miles now. (Ignoring the discrepancy between 4.0 mi/kWh indicated on the 2011 new battery test and the 4.1 on the subsequent tests.)

Note: I did put Michelin Primacy MXV tires on the car this April, replacing worn out Ecopias. I suppose this could have affected the range measurement, but only if the Michelins are of different diameter to the Ecopias. I don't have data on this. If anyone does, please comment.

There are reports of the Michelin tires decreasing efficiency (and thus range) by 8-10%, so I would say your test is not valid. You are assuming the miles/kwh on the dash is accurate, which may not be true.

OK, point taken, though I tend to believe the dash energy economy display because the results of this test match well with many informal calculations that I've done using Gids on many trips down to LBW and below. And if I posit that the display is at least precise, then the change in tires would not have an effect on the data as long as I keep the dash energy economy reading constant. Unless the new tires are a different diameter than the Ecopias were when they were new, which would affect the odometer reading.

But here is some additional data of charging energy required to recharge to full from turtle using TED mounted on my breaker box:

April 2011 Turtle event with new battery: 26.1 kWh required.
June 2013 Turtle event: 20.2 kWh required.

That's a 23% drop in energy required for refill.

Or if you like, we could calculate theoretical miles per each charge and compare with measured miles.

April 2011: 26.1 kWh minus 15% charging inefficiency = 22.2 kWh at the battery X 4.0 mi/kWh = 88.8 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 86.5

June 2013: 20.7 kWh minus 15% = 17.6 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 72.2 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9

I'm inclined to believe my data, but I don't expect anyone to consider it rigorous.

EDITED: I took another look at my TED readout and I see that the power used for full recharge last night was 20.7, not 20.2. I must have misread it this morning. I just wanted to be as precise as possible. The overall conclusion still holds, I think.

I re-read my TED display and realized that I was off a bit on the reading, so I edited my post. Changes are in bold above. No substantive change in the conclusion, though.

 

[cwerdna]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.

That'd be a lot faster than leaving the car in READY mode until it shuts down.

 

[Valdemar]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.

That'd be a lot faster than leaving the car in READY mode until it shuts down.

Will the car go through the same sequence of events LBW->VLBW->Turtle when not moving and the heater is running? I'm keen to do a turtle to 100% charge to see the energy consumed from the wall, but don't want to drive around risking to get stranded 100 feet from my home.

 

[GerryAZ]

So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?

I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.

That'd be a lot faster than leaving the car in READY mode until it shuts down.

Will the car go through the same sequence of events LBW->VLBW->Turtle when not moving and the heater is running? I'm keen to do a turtle to 100% charge to see the energy consumed from the wall, but don't want to drive around risking to get stranded 100 feet from my home.

Yes, the car will give LBW, then VLBW, then Turtle, and finally open the main DC contactor when it gets to the end whether it is moving or sitting still. You may want to drive around your neighborhood until you get to VLBW unless you want to run the heater (or AC) for a long time to drain the battery.

Gerry