2018 first real world range test- disappointed a little

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.
i didn't read everything but what are your tire pressures? I never go below 42psi (44+ normally) on mine and they wear very even at that pressure.. any thing lower and I've had outside wear too fast and Miles per kwh getting worse. My older tires that are worn to about replaceable tread give me much more range.. so new tires and if they are not at a high enough PSI might drag your new car range down.. but heater, speed and wind probably did the damage on that one.

Don't worry about the two pedantic fellows in here harping about about your terminology and correcting you all the time.. this is their hobby and lose sleep at night about their clocks being 1 min off. the rest of the things they share and help you with you are totally worth it though. loves to the OCDs.
 
DuncanCunningham said:
Don't worry about the two pedantic fellows in here harping about about your terminology and correcting you all the time.. this is their hobby and lose sleep at night about their clocks being 1 min off. the rest of the things they share and help you with you are totally worth it though. loves to the OCDs.
I'm sorry you do not understand, but I hope OP can: using correct units aids in communication. Not only does it prevent misunderstandings, it facilitates understanding. If I do not have to waste time and effort parsing a poorly communicated question I (and I presume others) are more likely to spend time and effort trying to give an informative answer.

OP can view an effort to communicate clearly as self interest.
 
The point is that the 150 mile range stated is extremely optimistic IMO because my range was 112 after making many adjustments already to increase it to that number, including driving slower, taking back roads that are slower, and using the heat sparingly. Coming up 25% short of EPA range after making all of those concessions on what is a very average typical weather situation tells me a lot of people will be disappointed in the range.

I'm fairly sure that the EPA range test doesn't involve driving 75MPH in the rain. There are people living in areas with dangerously high freeway speed limits who think that going too fast is the norm, and that this norm should apply to the rest of the country. I get that having everyone else driving 75 or 80 makes it hard to drive 65, but the problem still lies more with the speed limits and lack of enforcement than with the EPA range test, which has improved in the last few years. Although it should include a Winter rating...
 
LeaferSutherland said:
Stanton said:
LeaferSutherland said:
I will check out the speed charts. Unfortunately I can’t go any slower on this trip. Was already holding up traffic going 55-60 on back roads (which I was on in order to go slower- normally would take interstate the whole route). On interstate I was going 70-75 which is already 5-10 mph under the speed of traffic. Speed limit is 75 and traffic is usually about 5 over that. Was not worried about that speed in rain at all on interstate and it was only raining for a small part of the trip. Not a monsoon or anything. Pretty routine driving around here and we deal with much worse in winter.

You lost me at "Unfortunately I can’t go any slower on this trip". Throw in wind and rain, and any EV owner would know these are all negatives for miles/kWh. Not saying everyone should go as slow as I do on the highway (~60 mph), but you were at the extreme on many factors.

OK, I’ll rephrase it. I could go slower at the risk of my safety and adding even more time to a trip that I’ve already added a half hour of extra time to... But if I really need to make any more compromises beyond the many I already made, I would rather just pay the extra $15 and take my pickup truck. The trade off just isn’t there at that point. This isn’t my daily commute, it’s a few times a year. Also note I made it at the speed I was going without recharge so it was a success so no need to go any slower. The point is that the 150 mile range stated is extremely optimistic IMO because my range was 112 after making many adjustments already to increase it to that number, including driving slower, taking back roads that are slower, and using the heat sparingly. Coming up 25% short of EPA range after making all of those concessions on what is a very average typical weather situation tells me a lot of people will be disappointed in the range. I felt I came into this with eyes wide open. I expected that on this same trip at Christmas when it might be 10 degrees, windy and heavy snowfall I would fall short of the EPA range by about that much. With this new information I’m now wondering if I could even make it 50 miles in those conditions. Keep in mind I did a lot of reading and research first. Most people will not do that. The enthusiasts in this forum are far more educated on this subject than I am but I’m far more educated than average car consumer and I know more than any of the car sales reps that I spoke with on the subject. There is a real disconnect here.

And don’t get me wrong, still love the car. Wouldn’t trade it for anything. This trip is an anomaly for me but it was also arbitrary measuring stick for us before opting for EV. If it is not practical for this trip, I’m not going to lose any sleep. For now it works. Maybe as I learn how to save more energy I can offset future battery degradation too. If not, it’s not going to matter much to me.

Don't worry, there is a huge gap in reality of speeds for those in flyover country versus the coasts. My Leaf sits in CO where the posted 75mph speed limit means the 18-wheelers are doing 80mph in the right lane of a 2 lane highway. Even in rain and snow, the traffic goes 80mph because it is normal. Compare that to places with 60mph limits on the interstate and when the ground starts to frost they declare an emergency and nobody goes above walking speed on the roads. When you live and operate a vehicle in certain conditions it can be hard to understand why it doesn't work that way in other places as a gut reaction.

In my area if I drive 80mph in the right lane, I am following the slow traffic tractor-trailers. The advice of slowing down behind a truck is being used, but the trucks aren't doing 50mph, they're doing 80mph and still holding up traffic whizzing by at 90mph+. That's just the way it is. I can't actually use my Leaf in the left lane through "the gap" in Colorado because it tops out around 94mph and it doesn't keep up with the traffic. I can't begin to imagine the consequences of driving 94mph on a coastal road in Maine or something. You'd probably be ticketed and thrown in jail forever for being so dangerously over the speed of everyone else.

I just got back from way up North (not in the USA) where the posted speed limit was 90kph but logging trucks and oversized loads with mining equipment are flying down the road at about 140kph. Some WITH police escorts for being oversized. Sometimes slowing down briefly for a corner because the entire road was ice-pack but with the spring thaw some was slushy. I was (I thought) booking it at about 130kph, but I only passed about 2 vehicles the entire trip. I was the one being passed.

For an example here is part of the road. Just ice.

p20180326121631vhdronhp___6SGuJGcp7s.jpg


The 24KWh Leaf is about a 60mi vehicle in good conditions with 75-80mph driving areas so the 30KWh Leaf would be about a 75mi vehicle. That's my rule of thumb for when I take a gasser versus the Leaf on the longer journeys.
 
SageBrush said:
DuncanCunningham said:
Don't worry about the two pedantic fellows in here harping about about your terminology and correcting you all the time.. this is their hobby and lose sleep at night about their clocks being 1 min off. the rest of the things they share and help you with you are totally worth it though. loves to the OCDs.
I'm sorry you do not understand, but I hope OP can: using correct units aids in communication. Not only does it prevent misunderstandings, it facilitates understanding. If I do not have to waste time and effort parsing a poorly communicated question I (and I presume others) are more likely to spend time and effort trying to give an informative answer.

OP can view an effort to communicate clearly as self interest.

oh, I understand you. Just let's be nice to everyone, including each other.
 
2k1Toaster said:
...I can't actually use my Leaf in the left lane through "the gap" in Colorado because it tops out around 94mph and it doesn't keep up with the traffic. ...

q9nz8cJ.gif
 
LeftieBiker said:
The point is that the 150 mile range stated is extremely optimistic IMO because my range was 112 after making many adjustments already to increase it to that number, including driving slower, taking back roads that are slower, and using the heat sparingly. Coming up 25% short of EPA range after making all of those concessions on what is a very average typical weather situation tells me a lot of people will be disappointed in the range.

I'm fairly sure that the EPA range test doesn't involve driving 75MPH in the rain. There are people living in areas with dangerously high freeway speed limits who think that going too fast is the norm, and that this norm should apply to the rest of the country. I get that having everyone else driving 75 or 80 makes it hard to drive 65, but the problem still lies more with the speed limits and lack of enforcement than with the EPA range test, which has improved in the last few years. Although it should include a Winter rating...
OP: Welcome, and thank you for driving electric. Please input your approximate location into your profile so that we can help on other questions (I'm not sure if Sutherland is suggesting NE or TX or nothing at all). So, here's the EPA test: (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml)
ftpdds.gif

As LeftieBiker said, it doesn't even get close to 70-75 mph, rain or not. Actually, I think you did pretty good for such speeds and conditions. The EPA "real world" conditions are for mixed City/Highway use in "Low speeds in stop-and-go urban traffic" and "Free-flow traffic at highway speeds" Top Speed: 56 mph city and 60 mph highway with an Average Speed 21.2 mph (city) 48.3 mph (highway). Unfortunately, those EPA numbers are NOT even close to your drive and probably will never be close to the way most people drive. The 21 mph in the city is about my average (yes, those stop lights really do cut the average down to bicycling speeds), but most free-flowing highways are at least 65 mph. I still think that on a 80 mph interstate you can still safely drive 60 mph. Don't try to give me that crap about "everybody is doing 90", cause it's not true. There are always slower drivers and trucks, even in CA.

Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to make that drive in 2-3 years (depending again on location and conditions during the drive), especially if the 40 KWh battery degrades at the same rate as the 30 KWh battery. Those are the facts sorry. Physics matter and high speeds, low temps, and wind/rain/snow cut range, sometimes in half. If that's a problem, then you have the right to send another $15 to the oil plutocracy. Personally, I will NEVER buy gas again, and I will gladly go a bit slower to make my next destination. Unfortunately, at this point in the development, no EV is really capable of long-distance travel except Tesla (which is still lacking in some areas), since such travel requires thermal protection of the battery and properly-spaced quick charge stations. This does cut down on my options, so I'm waiting with my 40-50 mi City 2011 Leaf. This weekend I'll test drive the 2018 Leaf, but I'm still waiting until the longer range 60 KWh version is available.
 
LeaferSutherland said:
So yesterday I did my first long drive with our new 2018 Leaf. I will list all the data I have and then I’m curious if this is in line with what you guys think is normal.

Trip is 100 miles. When we bought car this trip was kind of a measuring stick for us. It’s a trip we do 4-6 times a year so not a huge deal to just take ICE but at same time, this was one reason we didn’t buy prior generation Leaf. Wanted to at least be able to do this trip. There will be at least another 6-10 trips similar distance for us in a year and doing this without a charge up seemed like minimum for us for electric vehicle.

Outside temp- 34 to 42
Wind- pretty windy and gusty at times. Cross wind most of the time. Fighting it for 1/4 of trip both ways because it changed so it was directly at us but never directly behind us. 15-20 mph plus gusts up to 30 or so.

Heater- pre warmed car at start of trip while plugged in. Then ran it in defrost mode because of fog on first 1/3 of trip. Turned heater off when I could and ran it with partial recirculating mode. Seemed like got 3.0 MPK when heat was on normal but when conserving it more got up to 4.0 and averages 3.4 for trip. Kept it around 60 degrees so not warm but OK with a jacket on.

No use of heated seats or steering

Rain 1/4 of time so windshield wiper use then

Radio on medium low volume 85% of time

Average of 500 pounds total cargo including driver and passengers

Speed - expressway 70-75 for 25%, back roads at 55-60 for 60% of time. Slower speed side roads at 30-40 MPH for 15% of time.

Overall- felt like I was using minimal heat, minimal radio volume and driving slower and taking more back roads vs expressway compared to “normal” way I would drive. Got 3.4 average MPK which is pretty good for higher speeds, rain and heat IMO- at least compared to what I usually get in those conditions when I’m not trying to conserve.

So here is the only disappointing part - got back with 9% range (13 miles maybe?) on guessometer. Got warning on dash as I approached my driveway.

So it “worked” for this trip but barely. Many times of the year it’s much colder or really hot where we will need AC. I conserved everything more than normal yet looks like my useable range is around 100 miles. I would have thought before buying and testing that range would be better than that. The conditions where I could go 150 to me are so rare, that’s a fantasy number. I would think if you told average person that range was 100 miles with this car they would still be surprised / disappointed, because I had to work pretty hard to save energy to get about 110 on what I consider a typical day and I think going 100 was cutting it pretty close considering the consequences of being wrong. I guess the disconnect for me really is this- seems like 3.4 MPK would get me around 136 mile range not 113. Am I doing the math wrong or is the car doing it wrong?

This has to be one of weirder posts I've seen in a long time. Your concepts of EV usage is peculiar to say the least.

First off, let me ease your concerns. There is a significant hidden reserve so your "9%" will get you well more than you think but it also looks like you have noticed the discrepancy.

2nd off; you made it and even if you only had 9% left, that is a HUGE margin. You imply some how that you sacrificed a lot of energy usage and that is...well misguided. Heat at 60º is a good choice but implying that was a sacrifice? What do you want to wear? shorts and a t-shirt?

Saving on radio volume? Seat heaters? What did you think you were saving? You say that the weather was "better" than what "could be" and that will always be true but the reality is you made the trip in conditions that was HIGHLY unfavorable to EVs.

If you are that concerned, drive slower on the freeway. Its multilane, to hell with anyone else. You don't have to break the law just because everyone else is doing it.

The reality is the car will make it easily if you want it to.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
This has to be one of weirder posts I've seen in a long time. Your concepts of EV usage is peculiar to say the least.

First off, let me ease your concerns. There is a significant hidden reserve so your "9%" will get you well more than you think but it also looks like you have noticed the discrepancy.
.
Your slightly veiled accusations of OP not knowing how to drive the car and to not understand it are a bunch of hooey if the best you can do is talk about "significant" unreported range.
 
I know this makes me sound like a grandpa, but 55 is about as fast as you want to drive the leaf. On a temperate day at 55if carefully driven, no wind, no havoc, high psi, you can do 5 miles per kWh (13 leaf). The 18 should be able to do a bit better. 37kWh *5 = 185 miles in perfect conditions. But 65 or 75 is out of the question.
 
@Reddy,

Your post of the EPA test is correct but you neglected to mention that the Monrooney (sp?) sticker incorporates a 30% discount off the raw results. That is why the highway fuel economy is said to represent 65 mph driving (on dry roads, etc.)
 
People keep bringing up the 75 mph as if that was the speed of this trip. The vast majority of it was 55-60. As for rain, again, very short part of trip. Kind of funny that I get lectured about using the proper terminology yet people here can’t seem to grasp the facts that I clearly conveyed.

Regarding temp- yes, 60 is lower than what I and every other person I’ve ever met sets thermostat in winter. No, didn’t want to wear shorts. Is that shorts weather where you live really? Maybe if I’m outside being active but not just sitting in a car.

Re: conditions being “bad” because rain and a little cool outside. I’m not sure but I feel like this might be about average for me and maybe better than average for conditions. It’s hot and humid all summer and will be using AC. Winter gets much colder. Maybe AC doesn’t use much power comparatively, I will find out. This is new to me as I said.

Re: keeping radio off and heated seats / steering. Sorry, again, new to me as I said so wasn’t sure of exact power draw of these items. It seemed to me in my experiments so far that seat heat was in fact noticeable w regard to range. Must have been mistaken. But like I said, my other reason for keeping that heat off is to make it even for all occupants so I’m not warm while people in back are feeling cold. Radio was on most of trip, turned it off a couple times. Wasn’t sure of power draw of the equipment at the time.

Re: 9% being a big cushion. Not to me. Not when car becomes a brick when you run out. Not going to hitch hike up the road to a gas station.

As I’ve stated before, I feel it necessary to mention that we just love this car. Range is totally fine for us. Just a bit less than I expected at higher speeds and using heat.

Also- thank you for all of the comments and helpful suggestions. I am not an enthusiast, just a car owner. I don’t think I have any more need for anything here and don’t particularly enjoy the conversation tone so this is goodbye.
 
LeaferSutherland said:
People keep bringing up the 75 mph as if that was the speed of this trip. The vast majority of it was 55-60. As for rain, again, very short part of trip. Kind of funny that I get lectured about using the proper terminology yet people here can’t seem to grasp the facts that I clearly conveyed.

Regarding temp- yes, 60 is lower than what I and every other person I’ve ever met sets thermostat in winter. No, didn’t want to wear shorts. Is that shorts weather where you live really? Maybe if I’m outside being active but not just sitting in a car.

Re: conditions being “bad” because rain and a little cool outside. I’m not sure but I feel like this might be about average for me and maybe better than average for conditions. It’s hot and humid all summer and will be using AC. Winter gets much colder. Maybe AC doesn’t use much power comparatively, I will find out. This is new to me as I said.

Re: keeping radio off and heated seats / steering. Sorry, again, new to me as I said so wasn’t sure of exact power draw of these items. It seemed to me in my experiments so far that seat heat was in fact noticeable w regard to range. Must have been mistaken. But like I said, my other reason for keeping that heat off is to make it even for all occupants so I’m not warm while people in back are feeling cold. Radio was on most of trip, turned it off a couple times. Wasn’t sure of power draw of the equipment at the time.

Re: 9% being a big cushion. Not to me. Not when car becomes a brick when you run out. Not going to hitch hike up the road to a gas station.

As I’ve stated before, I feel it necessary to mention that we just love this car. Range is totally fine for us. Just a bit less than I expected at higher speeds and using heat.

Also- thank you for all of the comments and helpful suggestions. I am not an enthusiast, just a car owner. I don’t think I have any more need for anything here and don’t particularly enjoy the conversation tone so this is goodbye.


I have to agree with "LeaferSutherland", so many on this site are quick to jump on someone's opinion and not make this a friendly and constructive site. Everyone wants to point out they are right in some aspect and get nasty and tone is not nice.

Certainly makes me think twice about posting anything relevant or what I think might be helpful or cause for thought.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I know this makes me sound like a grandpa, but 55 is about as fast as you want to drive the leaf. On a temperate day at 55if carefully driven, no wind, no havoc, high psi, you can do 5 miles per kWh (13 leaf). The 18 should be able to do a bit better. 37kWh *5 = 185 miles in perfect conditions. But 65 or 75 is out of the question.

I did a bit of a road test yesterday and hit 4.5 miles per kwh. Weather was mostly good. some rain in the morning. 75% of trip down with Cruise control set to 65 mph (or about 67 on the analog speedometer :roll: )

Granted had some slow downs driving thru Portland but that only involved about 30-35 miles of the trip and yeah, had a bunch of 75 mph as well ;)
 
People keep bringing up the 75 mph as if that was the speed of this trip. The vast majority of it was 55-60. As for rain, again, very short part of trip. Kind of funny that I get lectured about using the proper terminology yet people here can’t seem to grasp the facts that I clearly conveyed.

It's true that you made it clear that you only did 75MPH for 25% of the time. It's also true, though, that if you had done 65MPH that 9% cushion would have been more like 15%. It was the combination of pushing the car to a point where energy consumption was high, and complaining that 9% left wasn't enough, that led to the negative response here. It also didn't help that you left the seat and wheel heaters off while complaining about the car being cold. (Nissan needs to make it clear in their literature that the seat and wheel heaters don't cost range.) It was probably too negative, though, and at least some of us will try to be nicer in the future.
 
I don’t think I complained about being cold. I hope it didn’t come off that way. I think I indicated that I set temp lower than what I normally would as a sacrifice to get more range. I really done care, I can handle any temp. The point was that the range was what it was AND I was doing things different than I would in ICE vehicle already. All the advice about how to get more range, etc was never asked for. I got plenty of range, made it no problem. I get how this stuff works. I can perform experiments. I understand the variables involved. I’m just saying that I hoped real world range would be better than it is. And it’s also totally fine that it’s lower than I expected, won’t impact me at all.

I also think I mentioned that running seat heat so that I’m comfortable at a lower temperature to save energy while my children in the back seat that doesn’t have heated seats (not an option on 2018) are then colder comparatively is not something I want to do. I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that I totally get the idea of using that localized heat to save energy overall and when nobody is in the back that’s what I do, yet here we are on page 4 and someone is pointing this out again. This is kind of my point, can’t seem to get my information out to this group without people getting the wrong idea or misunderstanding me. I’ve been involved for decades in various online discussion groups with various hobbies. Don’t have this problem anywhere else.

Lastly, would you really do that? Run an uncomfortable cabin temp for other passengers while you’re nice and warm using seat heat that they don’t have available to them? Seems like a dick move to me.
 
Lastly, would you really do that? Run an uncomfortable cabin temp for other passengers while you’re nice and warm using seat heat that they don’t have available to them? Seems like a dick move to me.

This is the sort of prose that gets you negative responses. In my case, if I used only seat heat and low cabin heat, my feet would freeze - I have bad circulation. You raise an interesting question, though: is it selfish to run your seat heater in an EV if someone in the back seat has none? I guess I'd respond with "Is it wise for the driver of an EV to lower his or her body temperature in order to not seem a "dick"? Cold is sort of like weak beer: it slows your responses down without it being obvious enough for you to notice.

And needless to say, those of us who grew up before the Eighties also tend to chuckle at the idea of our parents - especially our fathers - being so solicitous of our comfort. My father felt no need for A/C, or even fans, so I grew up with none in the house or the cars. For my 10th birthday, I asked - nay, BEGGED - for an electric fan. I still have that fan. I wouldn't willingly deprive my hypothetical children of heat, but if necessary I'd make sure they they were wearing winter clothes, including warm socks. The driver is the most important person in the car when it comes to safety.
 
I didn’t lead off with saying, dick move, just getting frustrated at this point in the thread.

I didn’t make myself or passengers colder, I kept temperature cooler than I normally would in ICE vehicle. I told family before we started trip to dress warm because I wasn’t sure about range and we might need to keep temp lower than we usually do.

But that’s a good point on lower temp for driver.

For seat heat my rule is that I use it when car is cold to get me warmer faster. I don’t see any reason for me to not take advantage of the quicker warm up just because it’s not available for all passengers. On a longer trip, I won’t use it when others are in the car that don’t have it. As the driver and “host” I’m in control of the climate so I want it to feel the same for me as it does for my passengers so that I will adjust temp controls so that we are all comfortable. If it gets to warm or cold, I will feel it like they do and adjust.
 
SageBrush said:
DuncanCunningham said:
Don't worry about the two pedantic fellows in here harping about about your terminology and correcting you all the time.. this is their hobby and lose sleep at night about their clocks being 1 min off. the rest of the things they share and help you with you are totally worth it though. loves to the OCDs.
I'm sorry you do not understand, but I hope OP can: using correct units aids in communication. Not only does it prevent misunderstandings, it facilitates understanding. If I do not have to waste time and effort parsing a poorly communicated question I (and I presume others) are more likely to spend time and effort trying to give an informative answer.

OP can view an effort to communicate clearly as self interest.
Mixing up kw and kWh is very common when ICE folks discuss EVs. It is important to keep them straight. It causes major confusion when they're mixed up. Its not always clear from context. The LEAFs battery has a capacity of 40kwh while chademo has a max charge rate around 45kw. Since the values are close, if context is left out major confusion results. Another example, Tesla Model S can have a battery capacity of 100 kWh while superchargers charge at a rate of something over 100 kw.

Its similar to the difference between gallons and miles per gallon. Someone saying my car takes 10 gallons would clearly mean gas tank size, but if someone accidentally says my car gets 10 miles per gallon is completely different. The comparison doesn't exactly match, but close enough. kw indicates rate of power transfer, either use as in power consumed by motor or heat (equivalent of gallons consumed per hour, ie a rate of use), or replenished as in recharging or filling up the tank (gallons per minute to fill the tank).

There's a huge difference between using cabin heat vs seat heaters. Running AC & cabin heat (defrost) can consume more than 100x the energy of using seat heaters. Radio use is not in any way a significant power drain regardless of volume.

Defrost is so much of an issue in EVs that some manufacturers (I think Mercedes) have looked at windshield heaters.

Air friction is directly proportional to speed. If you drive twice the speed to cover the same distance, it will take twice the power. Physics. Works the same way in an ICE.

Electric motors are actually very efficient regardless of power or acceleration. Stop light racing doesn't hurt range that much as long as you use regenerative braking (not friction brakes) and keep the same top speed. ICE are much less efficient at higher power output and particularly quickly changing desired power, ie suddenly hitting the gas.
 
dm33 said:
directly proportional to speed. If you drive twice the speed to cover the same distance, it will take twice the power. Physics. Works the same way in an ICE.
The energy requirement per distance needed to overcome air friction as speed changes is indeed a quadratic relationship but the tyres stay about the same and the drive train is linear. At the speeds we are usually discussing (60 - 80 mph) a graph of Wh/mile Vs speed has a somewhat surprisingly quite shallow curve. If you just look at 5 mph differences and are not paying attention you might wrongly state that the change is linear.
 
Back
Top