mad about averaging only 67 miles per charge in last 27trips

[surfingslovak]

Exactly! That's over 100 miles! I can't tell when you lost your last bar, but it looks like to me that you still have some extra miles in there. You should have anywhere from 8% - 15% left. Gar needs to realize that when he has two bars left, it isn't 17% SOC like CWs says, but closer to 26% (that's what mine shows)!

Yes certainly, but how many consumers would want to keep driving the Leaf for miles and miles beyond the low battery warning? Another thing to consider is that most drivers will assume that the 12 bars on the battery gauge represent the advertised full battery capacity of 24 kWh. It's also logical to assume that they should not dip into the last two bars. They are marked red after all and something bad could happen to the expensive battery.

As someone said earlier in the thread, the majority of posters on this forum are extremely well informed. In the real world however, most folks won't even read the manual. Yes, it's their loss you might say. But that could just be the reality out there. Given this context, imagine Nissan repeatedly telegraphing that this was a 100-mile car. Something clearly does not add up. It's easy to get enthusiastic about this technology. And obviously, owner education and efficient driving would a long way. But I hope we can agree that we won't help anyone by setting unrealistic expectations.

Nissan should revise the instrument panel in the car. They could either produce a rock-solid range meter or alternatively display the remaining usable energy in kWh. Let the driver worry about running out of charge. I doubt that many people would want to get stranded recklessly. Getting towed is not fun and a waste of time.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Let the driver worry about running out of charge. I doubt that many people would want to get stranded recklessly. Getting towed is not fun and a waste of time.

That may be true if Nissan wasn't picking up the towing bill.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Exactly! That's over 100 miles! I can't tell when you lost your last bar, but it looks like to me that you still have some extra miles in there. You should have anywhere from 8% - 15% left. Gar needs to realize that when he has two bars left, it isn't 17% SOC like CWs says, but closer to 26% (that's what mine shows)!

Well, 4.8 miles/kWh multiplied by 21 is 100 miles. The last fuel bar, of course, hasn't been displayed for many miles, and this is several miles into Very Low Battery. With 94.1 miles driven, there was a couple miles left in the car; I probably wasn't going to make 100 miles; maybe about 96 or 97.

The LEAF performed almost exactly to the data that we've compiled in that range chart, BUT, it wasn't easy getting 4.8m/kWh and gaining / losing 5000 feet elevation. That was (fun) work. Many, many miles in neutral (like about 20) on the downhill. I think I drove 26 miles without losing the number 3 fuel bar!

I did video the whole thing (with three camera angles!), so once I get that edited, I'll post it. I claim "FIRST LEAF TO JULIAN, CALIFORNIA".

My point to posting this here, on this thread, is that it's clear to me that the OP doesn't have the enthusiasm or knowledge base to do this trip, or get 100 miles. Heck, I haven't done it, yet. I prefer that Nissan stop saying 100, and just say 73 miles EPA rated (that 99 MPGe throws people off, too) with up to 100 miles range.

 

[TomT]

It's still true. It can take hours and they will only tow you to the nearest Nissan Dealer... Hardly MY idea of fun!

I'd use my AAA instead, if I had to be towed, as they are faster and will take me anywhere within 100 miles.

Let the driver worry about running out of charge. I doubt that many people would want to get stranded recklessly. Getting towed is not fun and a waste of time.

That may be true if Nissan wasn't picking up the towing bill.

 

[mwalsh]

Many, many miles in neutral (like about 20) on the downhill. I think I drove 26 miles without losing the number 3 fuel bar!

Quick question, why would you not downhill taking advantage of regen? Was the grade not sufficient to maintain momentum?

 

[edatoakrun]

Well, 4.8 miles/kWh multiplied by 21 is 100 miles. The last fuel bar, of course, hasn't been displayed for many miles, and this is several miles into Very Low Battery. With 94.1 miles driven, there was a couple miles left in the car; I probably wasn't going to make 100 miles; maybe about 96 or 97.

The LEAF performed almost exactly to the data that we've compiled in that range chart, BUT, it wasn't easy getting 4.8m/kWh and gaining / losing 5000 feet elevation. That was (fun) work. Many, many miles in neutral (like about 20) on the downhill. I think I drove 26 miles without losing the number 3 fuel bar!

I did video the whole thing (with three camera angles!), so once I get that edited, I'll post it. I claim "FIRST LEAF TO JULIAN, CALIFORNIA".

My point to posting this here, on this thread, is that it's clear to me that the OP doesn't have the enthusiasm or knowledge base to do this trip, or get 100 miles. Heck, I haven't done it, yet. I prefer that Nissan stop saying 100, and just say 73 miles EPA rated (that 99 MPGe throws people off, too) with up to 100 miles range.

Actually, it IS easy to get 4.8 m/kwh in a long drive with a great deal of ascent and descent (or 4.9, as your console screen probably showed, and Carwings calculated for my 93.4 mile drive, below).

You do not need to use neutral to “coast”, the efficiency gains are negligible. Just put the LEAF in eco, and let the car do the “work” as I did.

Both your drive, and mine, reflect about 80% recovery of ascent energy, in descent. You should revise your range chart to reflect this reality.

On 9/7 I drove the same route from my home to Burney Falls State Park again at slightly higher speed with more (still not much) AC use. When I reached my driveway, at 87 miles, I still had (less than) one bar, so I drove until I got the "very low battery" warning and simultaneously lost the last bar, at 91.5 miles. I got home with 93.4 miles, and between 5,500 and 6,000 ft. of ascent and descent, at an average speed of about 40 mph (those last 6.4 miles were up and down a hill at low speed). Since the last 1.9 miles after the "very low battery” warning were at about 20 mph and required about 150 ft. net descent with regen, I was probably still very close to the VLBW point capacity, when I parked.

According to CW, on this drive I used 18.7 kWh to drive 91.1 (2.5% CW error?) miles at average energy economy of 4.9 m/kWh...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5423&start=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Brightonuk]

This may be a silly question buy why 100miles this seems to be an erroneous number at best, was it just a tidy number everyone could relate to?

"100 that's a nice number totally unobtainable in the real world but as a marketing buzz word perfect".

If the Nissan marketing team was to use 69 miles it would not be so glamorous, maybe more realistic in the real world, with heaters or AC blowing and driving at 65-70 mph (and that's lower than the average speed here in Florida) I mean who would buy this car?

I still want my Leaf but I am not expecting to get more than 75 miles ABSOLUTE maximum (I mean one more mile I am down to turtle) if I get a few more great, but I have set that as a realistic number for me in Florida.

It would be great is Carwings (who I understand monitors all the Leafs connected to them?) offered an average mileage based on 12 months of data.

 

[surfingslovak]

This may be a silly question buy why 100miles this seems to be an erroneous number at best, was it just a tidy number everyone could relate to?

"100 that's a nice number totally unobtainable in the real world but as a marketing buzz word perfect".

If the Nissan marketing team was to use 69 miles it would not be so glamorous, maybe more realistic in the real world, with heaters or AC blowing and driving at 65-70 mph (and that's lower than the average speed here in Florida) I mean who would buy this car?

Interesting point of view. It's difficult to speculate, but one could imagine that the 100 mile number came from a market study, which indicated that this is what most consumers would settle for and Nissan wanted to have a chance to compete for that target audience. Whatever the reason, it likely became part of an internal requirements document and the marketing department picked up on it while they were preparing the vehicle for public launch.

I have heard a Nissan engineer mention that weight was the main gating factor, and it very well might have been another item in the requirements document. The total price of the vehicle certainly was another consideration and the Leaf ended up getting the smallest possible battery pack while still reaching 100 miles on the LA4 test cycle.

Look at the MINI-E for example, which is a small car too, with a comparable battery that weighs 573 pounds (vs 660 pounds in the Leaf). Its rated battery capacity is 35 kWh and the Leaf's rated capacity is 24 kWh. The MINI reportedly has an ideal range of about 150 miles and most drivers said that they reliably could get 100 miles on a charge most of the time with the exception of the winter months. BMW says the following in their spec sheet: 156 miles under ideal conditions and 109/96/104 estimate under normal driving conditions. This seems to be a fairly honest assessment of the vehicle's true range, and the MINI has about 50% more total battery capacity than the Leaf.

Take a look at what GM did with the Volt. According to the Volt forum, the vehicle has about 10.4 kWh of usable battery capacity. This is about half of what Nissan allows us to use, although they never confirmed this number. To my knowledge, GM did not advertise Volt's EV range to be 50 miles, which they certainly could have. It's a nice round number and hypermilers have reportedly driven the car for 70 miles in electric mode on one charge. Instead, GM said that the Volt had 40 miles of EV range, which was their internal design target, and they reverted to using the official EPA number of 35 miles on their website now.

How we arrived here is for the history books, but the 100 miles are a mythical number now. While still attainable under the right circumstances, this number absolutely should not be front and center on Nissan's marketing material, as most drivers will never achieve it without making significant adjustments to their driving style.

 

[evnow]

This may be a silly question buy why 100miles this seems to be an erroneous number at best, was it just a tidy number everyone could relate to?

Yes - but Leaf will give 100 or more miles in LA04 cycle. That is what Nissan talked about all the time.

"100 that's a nice number totally unobtainable in the real world but as a marketing buzz word perfect".

Well, apparently I've been obtaining this unobtainable through out the summer. If you get more than 4.8 m/kwh, you are getting more than 100 miles of range.

 

[surfingslovak]

Well, apparently I've been obtaining this unobtainable through out the summer. If you get more than 4.8 m/kwh, you are getting more than 100 miles of range.

Good for you! Would you entertain a few question from the curious? How many freeway miles does your daily routine include? How often have you seen the low or the very low battery warning? And finally, what does the guess-o-meter say at the end of the day, assuming your drove on one charge?

 

[Brightonuk]

Well, apparently I've been obtaining this unobtainable through out the summer. If you get more than 4.8 m/kwh, you are getting more than 100 miles of range.

I guess you did not undersatnd what I was saying

 

[SteveInSeattle]

Gary, didn't your dealer make you sign an 8 page legal disclosure form from Nissan with all the fine print about the battery capacity? Mine did and it informed me of every adverse factor and the limits of range.

It seems that your leaf is getting your wife round trip to work and back with capacity to spare.. so there is no problem yet. You anticipate a problem with the temperature drops, but I am pretty sure that ECO mode will offset that and she will still do fine. As far as heat, No, it isn't necessary or reasonable to expect to have to freeze in the winter. The car has the same power with ECO mode, that is correct, but the regenerative braking is better and the climate control uses less energy.

 

[SanDust]

Yes - but Leaf will give 100 or more miles in LA04 cycle. That is what Nissan talked about all the time.

By this reasoning any manufacturer could advertise any MPG they wanted so long as they found some cycle for which that MPG would hold. The Toyota Prius probably gets 71 MPG on the LA04 drive cycle, but if Toyota started advertising that the Prius got 71 MPG everyone would recognize it for the misrepresentation that it was. However, that 71 MPG claim would be just as valid as Nissan's claim that the Leaf would go 100 miles, or, more realistically put, it would be just as misleading.

The truth is that using a range or MPG claim based on LA04 is per se misleading. No one knows what LA04 is and everyone expects claims to be based on the same established drive cycles that all other manufacturers use. Why even mention LA04? It represents how people in Los Angeles drove in 1964 and has nothing to do with how far people driving a Leaf in 2011 could expect a Leaf to travel on a full charge. Obviously Nissan dug around until they found an obscure drive cycle that allowed them to stretch the range to 100 miles. This is so plainly obvious on its face you don't even have to wonder why Nissan skipped over just about every drive cycle known in the US, including the LA92 drive cycle which is from 1992, and used LA04.

 

[planet4ever]

Obviously Nissan dug around until they found an obscure drive cycle that allowed them to stretch the range to 100 miles.

Perhaps you would feel better if Nissan had used the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This was used for all city driving MPG estimates for all cars until 2008 when they added three more tests to the mix.

I could be remembering wrong, but I believe LA04 was just another name for UDDS.

Ray

 

[DaveEV]

I could be remembering wrong, but I believe LA04 was just another name for UDDS.

I believe you're right.

My range experience today: Drove 65 miles (according to odometer) at mostly 65 mph on the freeway. A bit of AC for half the trip. Got home with 4.1 mi/kWh on the dash, 1 bar and GOM reading 9 miles. Could I have squeezed out another 21 miles before turtle? Maybe, but 13 (for a total of 78 mi) should be possible at the same 4.1 mi/kWh. Will charge back up to 100% tonight and see what the Blink reports in the morning - not that it really indicates how much more charge I had - really need a Gid-meter.

 

[SanDust]

Perhaps you would feel better if Nissan had used the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) as defined by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This was used for all city driving MPG estimates for all cars until 2008 when they added three more tests to the mix.

I could be remembering wrong, but I believe LA04 was just another name for UDDS.

UDDS aka FTP-72 hasn't been used for a decade. It was superseded by FTP-75. However, the more important bit is that UDDS was never used as a standalone drive cycle. In the bad old days it was combined with HWFET. Currently, and since 2007, FTP-75 is only one of several drive cycles, including HWFET, the much more aggressive US06, and SC03. Until the 2011 MY manufacturers could use a combination of the FTP-75 and HWFET drive cycles, but they had to apply a 30% reduction factor to account for the absence of the more aggressive drive cycles.

Here is the problem. There is a standard. Under the most favorable reading for Nissan that standard is FTP-75 and HWFET adjusted by the reduction factor. People are used to this standard and every manufacturer uses this standard when advertising MPG. If you're going to advertise an EV range then everyone has a right to expect that you're using the same standard as everyone else. They don't expect your stated range to be based on part of a standard that no manufacturer currently uses. They just don't.

Do you seriously doubt that Nissan cherry picked the FTP-72 cycle because it produced the magical 100 mile range number? And do you seriously doubt 99.9% of everyone who heard the 100 mile claim assumed it was based on the same basic drive cycle that all manufacturers use when deriving MPG? When answering keep in mind that Nissan could have said the range was "100 miles on the old City Cycle", or, even better, it could have said "70 miles on the current EPA drive cycle". That it didn't speaks volumes about its intentions.

And then we have the problem that the range is based on 100% charging but Nissan recommends 80%.

 

[Herm]

So you are saying Nissan should use the 73 miles of range posted on the Federal Monroney sticker in their advertising?.. probably a good idea from a legal point of view, and luckily those numbers are very easy to beat as any hypermiler can tell you.

 

[Brightonuk]

So you are saying Nissan should use the 73 miles of range posted on the Federal Monroney sticker in their advertising?.. Probably a good idea from a legal point of view, and luckily those numbers are very easy to beat as any hypermiler can tell you.

But in the real world driving (which I would assume is the style of the OP) the majority of us are not hypermilers, and honestly trying to hypermile on I95 will get you shot and I guarantee trying to coast to a light will get you rear ended while it makes sense to us the other 99.99% do not see it that way.

I was drawn to the Leaf like most of you because I thought I would make a difference. I just wanted out of the oil circus and when the Leaf email came in I was immediately drawn to the car because of the number 100 (defiantly not the styling) if it had said 73 or 67 or any number more realistic to everyday driving I may of had second thoughts, any odd number just is not a good buzz word:

"your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge*"
"your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 67 miles on a single charge**"

* If you drive no more than 35mph all the time
** If you drive like everyone else

Even now, I still want my Leaf and I will try to get the best mileage I can but 100mpc No way

 

[surfingslovak]

I was drawn to the Leaf like most of you because I thought I would make a difference. I just wanted out of the oil circus and when the Leaf email came in I was immediately drawn to the car because of the number 100 (defiantly not the styling) if it had said 73 or 67 or any number more realistic to everyday driving I may of had second thoughts, any odd number just is not a good buzz word:

"your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge*"
"your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 67 miles on a single charge**"

Brightonuk, thank you for that honest assessment. It really made me think and I remembered the excellent Deloitte study I saw on plugincars.com last week. I opened it on page 6 and crunched the numbers presented in Figure 4. If you average the percentage of prospects willing to settle for 50 miles of range across 8 countries, you will end up with about 6%. The percentage of prospects willing to settle for 100 miles range is 24%, which means that doubling the range will quadruple the addressable market. Going from 100 miles to 200 miles roughly double the market opportunity to 62%.

Unfortunately, they didn't ask how many prospects were willing to accept 73 miles of range, but it should be clear that every additional bit of range between 50 and 100 miles will significantly increase the sales opportunity.


Click to enlarge

 

[edatoakrun]

surfingslovak"[...I remembered the excellent Deloitte study I saw on plugincars.com last week. I opened it on page 6 and crunched the numbers presented in Figure 4. If you average the percentage of prospects willing to settle for 50 miles of range across 8 countries, you will end up with about 6%. The percentage of prospects willing to settle for 100 miles range is 24%, which means that doubling the range will quadruple the addressable market. Going from 100 miles to 200 miles roughly double the market opportunity to 62%...

The main problem with this study is shown by this question.

What would the results have been, if this question had been asked:

Would you be satisfied to "settle" for 100 (or 50) miles range, if you could fuel this car (EV) for 1 to 3 cents a mile, rather than the 10 to 30 cents you now have to pay per mile for your 400 mile range (ICEV) car?