Nissan's e-Power Note series hybrid ICEV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

edatoakrun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
5,222
Location
Shasta County, North California
9/8/16-thread title edited with new info.

8/16/17- thread title edited to reflect the Note e-Power is series hybrid ICEV

Now that the announcement is official, and less than a year away from sale in Japan, I think its time for a thread dedicated to Nissan's e-Power range-extended BEV (BEVx).

I hope a the USA market introduction will not come much later.

Nissan's to-do list: Range, autonomy

2 new technologies part of push to be leader


Nissan Motor Co. will introduce two new technologies this year to move the needle on CEO Carlo Ghosn's goal of making Nissan a leader in electric vehicles and self-driving cars.

The first is a new range extender that Nissan says will tackle two of the biggest hurdles confronting electric vehicles: cost and limited range.

The other is the first deployment of Nissan's upcoming autonomous-drive technologies: a single-lane self-driving steering feature.

Both technologies will debut in Japan-market vehicles in the current fiscal year ending March 31, 2017. The company will subsequently introduce the autonomous-drive function in the U.S., Europe and China.

Nissan has not announced a plan for introducing the range extender to other markets...

"It will utilize a new e-Power system that matches the agility, quietness, strong acceleration and efficiency of the Nissan Leaf."

Its biggest difference from the Leaf will be the engine. When the proposed new car's battery runs low, a gasoline engine will kick in to recharge it, giving the car a longer range...

Toshiyuki Nakajima, a manager at Nissan's advanced vehicle engineering department, said the e-Power system has several advantages.

The system should be less expensive because its battery doesn't need to store as much power as a pure EV battery does, and so it can be smaller, he said...

Similarly, the engine doesn't need to be as big as on a traditional gasoline-powered car. The engine on the range-extender hybrid will serve only as a generator and can be tuned to continuously operate within it range of peak efficiency.

"We want to simplify the system," Nakajima said...
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160625/OEM05/306279981/nissans-to-do-list-range-autonomy

Hopefully, the e-Power will be something close to what I asked for ~five years ago on the BEVx thread, a small ICE available for charge-while-you-drive use on longer trips.

But it looks like Nissan will show no more innovation about introducing an alternate hydrocarbon fuel than any other manufacture has, so I expect you will still have to gas-up your e-Power, once you drive beyond your battery + DC charge network range.

The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:50 am

...a true ICE ”range extender” for a BEV is not a bad Idea, It's just that current designs are all abysmal failures, from the point of energy efficiency and driver utility. Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt. It seems almost as ridiculous, to install an extremely expensive and heavy large battery pack (like the Tesla S long-range options) which is only occasionally required by the BEV driver.

A functional range extender would consist of:

A small displacement (200-600 CC) ICE generator, run at highest-efficiency rpm, to recharge the battery pack. Generator output would not be sufficient to drive the vehicle, just enough to extend the battery pack range to the next convenient recharge location.

It would not run on gasoline, but a less polluting, and more stable fuel, such as propane (easier refueling) or CNG (lower cost). 5 gallons of Propane, for example, would probably offer about 200 miles of range extension for a LEAF-sized BEV.

The fuel would also be available to a combustion cabin heater, the one use for which battery energy storage is particularly inefficient...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847#p151224
 
I've always wondered why the Volt needed such a large ICE(1.5L+) 200-600cc should be well enough for just a generator, which I realize the ICE in a Volt is not. Only thing is where the heck they'd fit even a 2-600cc gas engine and required fuel tank. I mean IMO the Leaf barely has enough room now, it would have to be a vehicle with a larger footprint IMO. Also wondering why use the fuel to run the heater, I mean electric heat is fine and again if the battery gets low, run the generator to charge the battery. Having both a electric and gas heater again takes more room and adds to the overall complexity.
If Nissan goes this route I'd really want at least a 50?? mile EV only range(preferably more) and ability to run the car indefinitely on gas, not just to help charge the battery at a slower rate than would be removed by normal driving. Of course maybe then 200-600cc wouldn't be large enough......I don't know.
 
DanCar said:
Hopefully they will put this on one of their larger vehicles like the Quest minivan. I need a people mover.
Previous reports were that Nissan would first e-Power a compact SUV/CUV:

edatoakrun said:
More on Nissan's BEVx plans reported below.

It's probably too much to hope that the report is wrong about it using petrol as fuel.

As I mentioned in MY OP four years ago, IMO gasoline is a poor choice for fueling a rang-extended BEV.

It's pathetic that the public is so convinced that gasoline is desirable, that no BEVx manufacturer may consider using a superior fuel.

Wacky Gripz concept (vaguely) previews Nissan's next compact SUV – and its range-extender tech

...As we reported last week, Nissan will unveil its first range-extending EV as early as 2016, but it won’t be the next LEAF, so unless it’s a dedicated new ‘green’ model, the JUKE EV could be revealed earlier than expected next year.

Effectively an electric vehicle incorporating an onboard engine to power the batteries but not drive the wheels, the ‘REV’ will combine the LEAF’s large-capacity electric motor with a small-capacity petrol engine that acts as a generator to charge the batteries when they run down...
http://www.motoring.com.au/nissan-to-tone-down-next-juke-100484/
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847&start=330
 
So that it can maintain adequate performance under most-all conditions. The alternative is something liked the horribly hobbled i3 and its minuscule engine...

jjeff said:
I've always wondered why the Volt needed such a large ICE(1.5L+) 200-600cc should be well enough for just a generator, which I realize the ICE in a Volt is not.
 
The system should be less expensive because its battery doesn't need to store as much power as a pure EV battery does, and so it can be smaller, he said...

I'd say they've found a use for either the 24kwh or 30kwh packs, even after Leaf II debuts. Maybe even both.
 
TomT said:
So that it can maintain adequate performance under most-all conditions. The alternative is something liked the horribly hobbled i3 and its minuscule engine...

jjeff said:
I've always wondered why the Volt needed such a large ICE(1.5L+) 200-600cc should be well enough for just a generator, which I realize the ICE in a Volt is not.
Both the i-3 and the Volt share the essential design flaw, of over-sizing the on-board generator/charger to attempt to allow driving to continue after the battery is depleted.

Once you accept the design of a BEVx as using the ICE as a range-extender, and accept that battery depletion ends your trip until you recharge (using either a grid-connected charge site or your on-board charger) you are free to optimize its battery pack and generator size for actual driving needs, which IMO would be a twenty to thirty (accessible) kWh battery pack and a five to ten kW generator for most drivers of mid-sized passenger BEVs, and somewhat higher kWh pack capacity and/or kW output for those few drivers with atypically longer-range requirements.

Of course, larger and less efficient vehicles, like SUVs, vans, trucks, and buses, require larger packs, and/or higher kW generators, depending on their intended use.

LeftieBiker said:
The system should be less expensive because its battery doesn't need to store as much power as a pure EV battery does, and so it can be smaller, he said...

I'd say they've found a use for either the 24kwh or 30kwh packs, even after Leaf II debuts. Maybe even both.
If the LEAF 2 is available only with a 60 kWh battery pack, I expect it will probably be a failure for the same reason a Bolt or Tesla 3 likely will be.

Having a pack that large requires the BEV to be both heavy and expensive, compromising vehicle efficiency and increasing the total cost of ownership.

Such BEVs will not be competitive with ICE vehicles, unless massively subsidized by the government, or by manufactures willing to sell their BEVs at a loss.

That has been Tesla's and GM's strategy for their BEVs so far, but neither will likely be viable as BEVs move into the mass market, beyond their present status as compliance cars heavily subsidized by various government programs.
 
edatoakrun said:
Both the i-3 and the Volt share the essential design flaw, of over-sizing the on-board generator/charger to attempt to allow driving to continue after the battery is depleted.

Once you accept the design of a BEVx as using the ICE as a range-extender, and accept that battery depletion ends your trip until you recharge (using either a grid-connected charge site or your on-board charger) you are free to optimize its battery pack and generator size for actual driving needs, which IMO would be a twenty to thirty (accessible) kWh battery pack and a five to ten kW generator for most drivers of mid-sized passenger BEVs, and somewhat higher kWh pack capacity and/or kW output for those few drivers with atypically longer-range requirements.
No I don't accept that battery depletion ends your trip until you recharge. If there is an ICE onboard it needs to enable traveling further to get back home or finish your journey. You can't put life on hold and go and charge for hours at a 120V outlet.

% of people wanting a costly ICE just for a couple of miles of turtling extension is miniscule. That $5k can get you a much larger battery good for 80 or 100 extra miles.

If the LEAF 2 is available only with a 60 kWh battery pack, I expect it will probably be a failure for the same reason a Bolt or Tesla 3 likely will be.
LOL. If you think Tesla 3 will be a "failure" because of 60 kWh you obviously live in a different country. I can see this argument to hold some water in developing economies - not here.
 
edatoakrun said:
TomT said:
So that it can maintain adequate performance under most-all conditions. The alternative is something liked the horribly hobbled i3 and its minuscule engine...

jjeff said:
I've always wondered why the Volt needed such a large ICE(1.5L+) 200-600cc should be well enough for just a generator, which I realize the ICE in a Volt is not.
Both the i-3 and the Volt share the essential design flaw, of over-sizing the on-board generator/charger to attempt to allow driving to continue after the battery is depleted.

Once you accept the design of a BEVx as using the ICE as a range-extender, and accept that battery depletion ends your trip until you recharge (using either a grid-connected charge site or your on-board charger) you are free to optimize its battery pack and generator size for actual driving needs, which IMO would be a twenty to thirty (accessible) kWh battery pack and a five to ten kW generator for most drivers of mid-sized passenger BEVs, and somewhat higher kWh pack capacity and/or kW output for those few drivers with atypically longer-range requirements.

Of course, larger and less efficient vehicles, like SUVs, vans, trucks, and buses, require larger packs, and/or higher kW generators, depending on their intended use.

LeftieBiker said:
The system should be less expensive because its battery doesn't need to store as much power as a pure EV battery does, and so it can be smaller, he said...

I'd say they've found a use for either the 24kwh or 30kwh packs, even after Leaf II debuts. Maybe even both.
If the LEAF 2 is available only with a 60 kWh battery pack, I expect it will probably be a failure for the same reason a Bolt or Tesla 3 likely will be.

Having a pack that large requires the BEV to be both heavy and expensive, compromising vehicle efficiency and increasing the total cost of ownership.

Such BEVs will not be competitive with ICE vehicles, unless massively subsidized by the government, or by manufactures willing to sell their BEVs at a loss.

That has been Tesla's and GM's strategy for their BEVs so far, but neither will likely be viable as BEVs move into the mass market, beyond their present status as compliance cars heavily subsidized by various government programs.
Thank goodness the manufacturers aren't listening to you! I don't want a small battery, or a range extender that limits range. Most drivers probably don't either.
 
evnow said:
edatoakrun said:
Both the i-3 and the Volt share the essential design flaw, of over-sizing the on-board generator/charger to attempt to allow driving to continue after the battery is depleted.

Once you accept the design of a BEVx as using the ICE as a range-extender, and accept that battery depletion ends your trip until you recharge (using either a grid-connected charge site or your on-board charger) you are free to optimize its battery pack and generator size for actual driving needs, which IMO would be a twenty to thirty (accessible) kWh battery pack and a five to ten kW generator for most drivers of mid-sized passenger BEVs, and somewhat higher kWh pack capacity and/or kW output for those few drivers with atypically longer-range requirements.
...% of people wanting a costly ICE just for a couple of miles of turtling extension is miniscule.....
Assuming ~4 m/kWh average efficiency while driving at ~60 mph, a ~5 kW on-board generator will increase the range and drive time between stops required for for recharges of a ~20 kWh pack (accessible) BEV from ~80 miles and 1.3 hours to ~120 miles and 2 hours, using ~30 kWh in total.

Assuming ~4 m/kWh average efficiency while driving at ~60 mph, a ~10 kW on-board generator will increase the range between stops for recharges for a ~30 kWh (accessible) BEV from ~120 miles and 2 hours, to ~280 miles and four hours, using ~70 kWh in total.

These increases in range, are certainly not "just ...a couple of miles".

="evnow"...That $5k can get you a much larger battery good for 80 or 100 extra miles...
A five to ten kW on-board generator should not cost anywhere near "$5K", nor will such a BEVx suffer the more rapid depreciation/degradation and higher operating costs that is inevitable for any BEV with an oversized battery pack.

Firetruck41 said:
... I don't want a small battery, or a range extender that limits range. Most drivers probably don't either.
What you seem to want is a BEV with the range from a very large battery pack, that doesn't cost you an excessive amount to operate.

That will probably be possible someday, but would be possible in the USA in the next few years, only if the already-large government incentives for BEVs were greatly increased.
 
edatoakrun said:
Assuming ~4 m/kWh average efficiency while driving at ~60 mph, a ~5 kW on-board generator will increase the range and drive time between stops required for for recharges of a ~20 kWh pack (accessible) BEV from ~80 miles and 1.3 hours to ~120 miles and 2 hours, using ~30 kWh in total.
You want to burn gas all the time while driving - and yet get only 120 miles of range ? No thanks. I'll take 200 mile Model 3 and super charger instead.

Moreover, tiny little ICE is not useful as a true range extender in cases where it might be needed when someone falls 10 or 20 miles short of needed range on freeway across passes or even the steep hills around here. I think enough has been said about this when discussing i3.
 
My question is then, what size(kWh and ~cc) would the generator need to be to actually power the car assuming 4 m/kWh? Not talking about powering the car and charging the battery, just enough generator to overcome normal driving loses. I just can't believe that one would need a 1.5L+ ICE like the Volt uses, but maybe I'm wrong.
I looked at a i3 and one of the reasons I wasn't so interested was the miniscule size of the gas tank, IMO if it was going to have a generator and gas tank I'd like it to be able to take me 100s(300+) miles between fill ups and only be required to power the car after the battery was near depleted, not running the whole time I'm using the battery, but thats just me :)
 
quote="evnow"
...You want to burn gas all the time while driving - and yet get only 120 miles of range ?...
Wrong, on all counts.

A BEVx only needs to use the range extender on occasional trips beyond battery range, not "all the time".

So, even using the example you chose of what would be a very inexpensive BEVx with a small pack and generator, only ~20 kWh accessible and ~5 kW, the driver would never have to use the ICE on trips under ~80 miles at freeway speed, or for much longer trips at slower average speeds.

As to burning "gas", since Nissan has already announced that it is developing ethanol-based FCVs:

Nissan to develop ethanol-based fuel cell technology by 2020

...Nissan said its technology would be ready for use in vehicles in 2020, adding it could be used to extend the range of larger, electric vehicles such as delivery vans.

It would target a cruising range of around 800 kilometers per fuelling, more than the range for gasoline-powered vehicles of just over 600 kilometers.

The automaker said running costs for the FCVs would be roughly similar to those of electric vehicles, while declining to give details on vehicle pricing...

Unlike its rivals' offerings, Nissan's technology does not require hydrogen to be stored in vehicles, reducing the need for expensive bulky hydrogen tanks, and would not require fuelling stations, which have been slow to spread globally...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-nissan-fuelcells-idUSKCN0Z01BG

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22107

I think it is highly likely Nissan will design its e-Power BEVxs to have flex-fuel capability, so that they can eventually be fueled with the same 100% ethanol required by BEVxs using FC range extenders, but can be fueled by gasoline until the ethanol infrastructure becomes available.

="evnow"
...No thanks. I'll take 200 mile Model 3 and super charger instead...
Well if you want an overpriced overweight and inefficient BEV, one that is both a kWh guzzler and a cash guzzler, feel free to buy one...

But a ~30 kWh available BEVx with a ~10 kW range extender (using a gasoline/ethanol fueled ICE ~next year, replaced by an ethanol fuel cell a few years later) would not only have a longer range between refueling, but also cost much less to operate, weigh less, and have significantly higher efficiency.

edatoakrun:

Assuming ~4 m/kWh average efficiency while driving at ~60 mph, a ~10 kW on-board generator will increase the range between stops for recharges for a ~30 kWh (accessible) BEV from ~120 miles and 2 hours, to ~280 miles and four hours, using ~70 kWh in total.
My own preference would actually be a BEVx with a smaller pack, more like ~20 kWh accessible, and with a ~10 kW range extender.

That would probably be the ideal configuration for an intermountain driver like me, who has normal daily driving needs of ~80 miles or less, doesn't want pay for the extra battery weight I'd need to haul around winding roads, and also wants to be able to take occasional long trips (usually at lower-than freeway speeds) through areas presently devoid of DC charge sites.
 
edatoakrun said:
My own preference would actually be a BEVx with a smaller pack, more like ~20 kWh accessible, and with a ~10 kW range extender.

Well my personal preference would be a ~30kWh BEV with 100kW charging available anywhere I could possibly need it (i.e. as common as a gas station). That clearly isn't going to happen. Nor is it likely to be very popular with the general public.

IMHO, the more important thing is getting as many x-EVs on the road as possible. Get people familiar with them, and then see what formula works best. I don't claim to have the insight to know what that is. So while my initial reaction was that Nissan is "going the wrong way" by bringing a range-extender to market, I'm starting to think maybe it's not such a bad idea.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
... my personal preference would be a ~30kWh BEV with 100kW charging available anywhere I could possibly need it (i.e. as common as a gas station). That clearly isn't going to happen...
On the contrary, I think this probably will happen, but not until ~2030.

And since by that time that ~30 kWh (accessible) battery pack will probably weigh under 300 lbs., cost under $3,000, and be installed in a mid-sized BEV that exceeds five miles per kWh at freeway speeds, ICEVs and PHEVs will have long been obsolete, and have ceased production.

The hard part is managing the transition from our present hydrocarbon ICEV refueling infrastructure to the future BEV infrastructure that supplies > 90% of its kWh at opportunity sites (wherever the vehicle is parked for long periods of time, such as overnight) where off-peak electricity can be distributed at very low cost, with reliable (but much higher cost per kWh) public DC charge sites, which are only needed to deliver the small fraction of kWh the BEVs need to make trips exceeding their opportunity charge pack capacity.

And IMO, during this public infrastructure transition, a BEVx that can utilize the legacy ICEV infrastructure only for occasional longer trips, while taking immediate advantage of existing low-cost opportunity charging while parked for > 90% of its kWh throughput, makes a lot of sense.
 
A BEV is probably too scary of a proposition for most people. That's where a range extended EV makes sense. It can provide the mobility of a regular car but up to 90% of miles driven will be electric. People will then learn that an EV is more fun to drive and cheaper to operate and the proposition of a full EV won't be so scary.

In order for this to happen, the range extended EV must not demand big changes. The Volt comes close, the I3 is a great EV but in its REX version I think demands too much. I hope Nissan's version will have the capabilities to attract ordinary buyers away from their full ICE vehicles.
 
Hi all,

I haven't seen a poll for this but here's my vote nonetheless: NO! The one reason I put up with the Leaf's ugly face and suspension is because it's pure electric. Take that away and have me put gas in my electric vehicle and I'll pass.

In my view this is a huge step back. Faced with the challenge, Nissan threw in the towel and ran for the ICE hill. Tesla saw the same and it is making the Model 3.

Yes, sometimes it can be a pain that you have to stop and charge your battery for 30 minutes. Sometimes it is frustrating that the charger can't be found, it doesn't work or it's too expensive to use. But these are small issues to contend with compared with loading your "EV" with a combustion engine and spreading poison as you putt along.

An electric car with a battery that's too small for the desired range and that is has to carry around an ICE while in EV mode and then an ICE car with a too small of an engine that has to carry around a dead battery after it's depleted is not that great of a concept, in my view. So no, I won't be buying an electric car that needs gasoline, thank you.

JR
 
="JRoque"
I haven't seen a poll for this but here's my vote nonetheless: NO! The one reason I put up with the Leaf's ugly face and suspension is because it's pure electric. Take that away and have me put gas in my electric vehicle and I'll pass.

In my view this is a huge step back. Faced with the challenge, Nissan threw in the towel and ran for the ICE hill...
Nissan has stated that it plans to continue to produce multiple BEVs, including the LEAF, as well as at least one BEVx, which is the subject of this thread, should you care to read it before you comment...
 
And I went the opposite way after my Leaf as I wanted the flexibility of range (and a Tesla was out of my price range)... I now have 7,700 miles on my 2017 Volt, about 5,500 of which are all-electric, and love that we have been able to take it on long trips to obscure places with no thoughts about range or having to recharge to be able to make it there or back...

Oh, and I have yet to get less than 60 miles on a charge, even at freeway speeds, and average about 45 MPG on gas... I couldn't be happier with the decision considering the price (which was highly discounted)!

JRoque said:
I haven't seen a poll for this but here's my vote nonetheless: NO! The one reason I put up with the Leaf's ugly face and suspension is because it's pure electric. Take that away and have me put gas in my electric vehicle and I'll pass.
 
Back
Top