Negative Leaf article by LA newspaper editor

[RikiTiki]

Nissan should just add a few more optional packs into the trunk so the car can reach 105-110 miles at 65-mph with A/C on guaranteed as an optional range extender package. End controversy.

RikiTiki

 

[surfingslovak]

Nissan should just add a few more optional packs into the trunk so the car can reach 105-110 miles at 65-mph with A/C on guaranteed as an optional range extender package. End controversy.

Riki, yes that would be one approach. A simpler solution would be to start advertising the Leaf with its official EPA estimate, just like Mitsubishi and GM are doing with their vehicles.

 

[Herm]

Riki, yes that would be one approach. A simpler solution would be to start advertising the Leaf with its official EPA estimate, just like Mitsubishi and GM are doing with their vehicles.

I think that is the law, but perhaps it only applies to ICE cars and MPG claims.

 

[Armand]

You nailed it. I have noticed that the folks that really push their daily range are the ones who really know how far they can go. I only have a 12 RT mile commute, and my wife has a 20 mile RT. We have not had the occasion or the need to really push to see how far we can go. So I honestly don't know what my range is. But I have tons of respect for those that have long commutes and get into the garage at the end of the day with low battery warning. Those are the people with range credibility.

I'm in pretty much the same situation as you for daily commutes, although we've done a few trips that are at the limit of the range. I would not want to be in that situation where a person comes home every day with a low battery warning. That is a problem because the car's range will decline over time not to mention the possibility of a detour.

With a 60 mile round trip commute, our leaf gets a full charge each week night. The car often Arrives home with 15-25 miles of range. All freeway miles and Hov lane use which means freeway speeds.

I seem to have the perfect scenario for premature battery failure. I will let everyone know if/when that happens. Personally I have no issues. Will gladly pay for a replacement or recondition when time comes.

 

[SanDust]

Some guy is angry cause he thinks he was lied to. He was. This backlash was so predicable. The only thing which isn't predictable is that Nissan continues to push the "100 mile range on LA4". At some point you have to wonder if anyone in Nissan management has any integrity.

Someone mentioned that he "ripped the car". He didn't. He ripped the claims Nissan made for the car. That's a big difference.

As for those blaming the victim, get your heads out of the sand. Don't say he needs to drive the car differently than he would drive an ICE and so on. There is a standard EPA test. People are used to it and can calibrate their expectations to it. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 25 MPG and you, knowing that you're not the most eco minded driver gets 22 MPG, that's one thing. You have to live with your driving habits. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 40 MPG "on LA4" and you get 22 MPG that's another. You shouldn't have to live with misrepresentations based on technical uses of obscure and obsolete drive cycles.

 

[thankyouOB]

Someone mentioned that he "ripped the car". He didn't. He ripped the claims Nissan made for the car. That's a big difference.

As for those blaming the victim, get your heads out of the sand. Don't say he needs to drive the car differently than he would drive an ICE and so on. There is a standard EPA test. People are used to it and can calibrate their expectations to it. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 25 MPG and you, knowing that you're not the most eco minded driver gets 22 MPG, that's one thing. You have to live with your driving habits. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 40 MPG "on LA4" and you get 22 MPG that's another. You shouldn't have to live with misrepresentations based on technical uses of obscure and obsolete drive cycles.

Uh, NO!
He said he was going to get RID of it and made up a story that the dealer''s have lots on their lots.
Leafs — which the company had expected to sell out — are piling up on dealer lots like, well, fallen leaves.

You think that is praise?
get real, brother.
maybe you read the below as more praise. I didnt. He is getting rid of it.

Here’s what I tell them: I am ready to turn over a new Leaf — my own.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... _20111026/

As to Nissan's claims, I recall signing a very exact disclaimer covering the range issue.
He is like the guy who drives down a road in a truck and ignores the sign saying: low clearance, 10 feet. Then, he wonders why the top of his truck hit the overhead.

 

[surfingslovak]

As to Nissan's claims, I recall signing a very exact disclaimer covering the range issue.
He is like the guy who drives down a road in a truck and ignores the sign saying: low clearance, 10 feet. Then, he wonders why the top of his truck hit the overhead.

Yes, well, one approach is to market EVs with their official EPA energy economy and range estimates. And another approach is to market them with a range estimate based on an arbitrary test cycle picked by the manufacturer, with an asterisk and four pages of legal disclaimers. I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear to me, which approach is preferable. The only reason Nissan can get away with this is the lack of clear regulation, and an apparent disagreement among the regulatory bodies (FTC and the EPA).

Aside from the range issue, I hope that EV manufacturers will be obligated to disclose the available battery capacity number, not just the rated total. They should not be allowed to reduce this number by a software update unless there was a safety concern or some other legitimate issue.

As to the article. Yes, it's over the top, but that journal is probably not a great bastion of journalism. Who knows, perhaps the author will keep his Leaf despite his apparent indignation until a better EV comes along. I suspect that the majority of buyers put up and shut up.

 

[Herm]

Aside from the range issue, I hope that EV manufacturers will be obligated to disclose the available battery capacity number, not just the rated total. They should not be allowed to reduce this number by a software update unless there was a safety concern or some other legitimate issue.

Whoa!.. thats a big statement you slipped in. Lets say the Leaf has a 24kWh pack, but the software reduces that to 21kWh usable to prolong battery life, then in 4 years they start seeing a bunch of premature failures and then issue a software update to further restrict usable capacity to 19kWh. Yes that would burn.. a lot of people suspect Honda did something similar with their hybrids and the battery failure saga.

Perhaps actual battery capacity is 27kWh and Nissan has restricted usable to around 21kWh to extend life.. thats about 80% of total capacity and a number that is used often in the industry. Its all a guess, no one has instrumented the battery pack and actually measured anything yet, I'm very surprised about that.

Good luck fighting this since you never got and documented actual capacity reports. Should be fun selling a used 5 year old Leaf.

 

[JimSouCal]

Should be fun selling a used 5 year old Leaf.

In my suggestions to the Nissan in the thread on the engineering page, I suggested Nissan, as a company strategy, view the owner of a LEAF in the context of an ongoing company customer relationship, and make upgrades and service to current owners as smartly as possible. That would include standardized battery pack dimensions, so that upgrading and/or replacing would make sense from a cost standpoint. Failing that, I suspect that 3rd party folks will step in to fill that role.

As to me, I keep my cars; with the LEAF I rarely use more than half of the capacity of the battery on my longest round trip excursions, so I think I am good. Given the statistics of charging patterns of the overwhelming LEAF owner base, I am in the majority...

My LEAF will get run into the ground. How long that will take, I do not know. As I inferred in an earlier comment, the psychographics of the original writer of the article indicates he may be somewhat technically challenged, and more of an affective personality type, rather than a researching type, which is not a bad thing, but just leaves him open to success in some areas and falling into traps in others.

 

[adric22]

I think Nissan was being fairly straight forward on the range. They made me sign some paper stating that I understood the different ranges under different conditions and most of those conditions, such as highway driving showed a range much lower than the EPA estimate. Sorry I can't remember what that was. For me it was a non issue since I knew I'd be putting about 10 miles per day on the Leaf. But had I been somebody who was really counting on that 100 miles range number, I think when I got into sign the papers I would have realized something wasn't right at that point.

However, I'm convinced that I could get 100 miles out of my Leaf if I needed to. But that is because I know how to hyper mile and turn off the A/C. Your typical driver does not.

 

[JimSouCal]

'm convinced that I could get 100 miles out of my Leaf if I needed to. But that is because I know how to hyper mile and turn off the A/C. Your typical driver does not.

Same here--but as we all know, not at safe freeway speeds--which runs counter to ICE entrained thinking.

 

[bowthom]

Hello,
REMARKABLE, we had our first 95 mile day. Had to detour back home to put in the last 10 miles to complete our errands. Dang, just couldn't do the whole trip.

That being said, yesterday we used 8 bars (#10 to # 2) and drove 42 miles with 16 showing on the GOM. Then it only took 11.6 kWh to charge up back to 10 bars. At 89% charging efficiency (my to-date average) that's 10.3 kWh of battery, my typical ~1.3 kWh / bar in the GOM.

If he didn't actually drive the whole battery out (full to reserve) and is guesstimating the usage I can see why he would be disappointed.

 

[johnr]

I have observed lower energy draw at 60 mph by keeping the windows down and the A/C turned off. I know in an ICE car this has been proven untrue, but I think the A/C energy draw in an EV is more.

I had planned to do some scientific experiments to determine exactly what the difference was but never got a chance and now Summer is gone and it is cold outside. So I guess next Summer I'll try again.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about days where the temperature was 105 degrees outside. If it is 75 or 80 degrees outside, I'm sure the A/C cycles on and off and probably doesn't draw nearly as much power.

I'd have to disagree. My observations watching the power meters are that less energy is used running the A/C than having the windows open, at highway speeds. This is assuming the A/C has already been running for a few minutes to reach the desired temperature. And this was on about a 95 degree day.

 

[mwalsh]

I wasn't going to post anything on his page, but after his whining was picked up by another site, I felt I had to:

Oy vey! Such kvetching! You should have done your homework properly before purchase instead of whining about it now. I guess that’s what you deserve for only listening to the marketing guys. No-one out of those of us who did our homework expected 100 miles out of the LEAF UNLESS we duplicated the LA4 city/highway loop precisely. As it is, I get about 85 miles out of a charge, and that’s almost exclusively at highway speeds (between 65 and 70mph). So you must be really pushing the the go pedal through the floorboards a lot.

To his credit, he did post my comment after previewing it.