2012 / 2013 LEAF Range Test San Diego Mar 8, 2013

[TonyWilliams]

I think most folks are gravitating to the tire/wheel combo differences between SL and S. Unfortunately, both 2013 cars in both tests score about the same low 80 mile range.

My suggestion is that Nissan lowered torque and removed rare earths from the motor, then optimized the tuning for the very low speed Japan "EPA" test to get a more than 10% improvement.

High speed tuning suffered.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think most folks are gravitating to the tire/wheel combo differences between SL and S. Unfortunately, both 2013 cars in both tests score about the same low 80 mile range.

My suggestion is that Nissan lowered torque and removed rare earths from the motor, then optimized the tuning for the very low speed Japan "EPA" test to get a more than 10% improvement.

High speed tuning suffered.

that is plausible. Nissan stated that the tuning was geared at the about 30-50 mph range where most of the driving is at

 

[habu]

Maybe the internal rolling resistance decreases a bit as the car puts on miles. New equipment quite often will have a bit more friction internally as parts begin to mesh and wear a bit it goes away. I know the Leaf does not have a transmission or drivetrain so that is a big part of potential friction losses that is not in the equation, but maybe wheel bearings and such are the problem.

Have you weighted the two cars at a truck scale to see the exact vehicle weight before passengers? Any difference between the two?

Also the battery performance may be a bit different if the battery is made at a different plant.

Whatever the reason this is a disappointing result.

 

[LEAFfan]

I think most folks are gravitating to the tire/wheel combo differences between SL and S. Unfortunately, both 2013 cars in both tests score about the same low 80 mile range.

My suggestion is that Nissan lowered torque and removed rare earths from the motor, then optimized the tuning for the very low speed Japan "EPA" test to get a more than 10% improvement.

High speed tuning suffered.

that is plausible. Nissan stated that the tuning was geared at the about 30-50 mph range where most of the driving is at

Interesting that 30-50mph is mentioned because last week, I had to drive 23 miles on 23% (dash % and BCM%) so I started out at 53mph (55 on speedo) and hit 6.0m/kW h on the dash so with about five miles to go, sped up to 58 (60 on speedo) and ended up with 12% left on both meters. Normally, I would have just barely made it to the station with 2%.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think most folks are gravitating to the tire/wheel combo differences between SL and S. Unfortunately, both 2013 cars in both tests score about the same low 80 mile range.

My suggestion is that Nissan lowered torque and removed rare earths from the motor, then optimized the tuning for the very low speed Japan "EPA" test to get a more than 10% improvement.

High speed tuning suffered.

that is plausible. Nissan stated that the tuning was geared at the about 30-50 mph range where most of the driving is at

Interesting that 30-50mph is mentioned because last week, I had to drive 23 miles on 23% (dash % and BCM%) so I started out at 53mph (55 on speedo) and hit 6.0m/kW h on the dash so with about five miles to go, sped up to 58 (60 on speedo) and ended up with 12% left on both meters. Normally, I would have just barely made it to the station with 2%.

my speed guess was exactly that a guess. we were told in Kmh and it equated to around "suburban" speed but I think i am close. remembered it being on the high end of suburban speed which is pretty much 40-45 mph in my area

 

[TonyWilliams]

Maybe the internal rolling resistance decreases a bit as the car puts on miles. New equipment quite often will have a bit more friction internally as parts begin to mesh and wear a bit it goes away. I know the Leaf does not have a transmission or drivetrain so that is a big part of potential friction losses that is not in the equation, but maybe wheel bearings and such are the problem.

If bearings are causing this difference, they would outright fail very soon. That is a LOT of heat energy !!!

You can jack up the front wheels and determine drivetrain drag... there's very, very little of it.

Have you weighted the two cars at a truck scale to see the exact vehicle weight before passengers? Any difference between the two?

Nissan tells us that the 2013 is supposed to have saved over 100 pounds !!! So, no, I didn't weigh them, but maybe somebody will some day. I doubt there's much difference, but the official word is that the poorer performing 2013 is lighter!

Also the battery performance may be a bit different if the battery is made at a different plant.
Whatever the reason this is a disappointing result.

It could be that the changes to the chemistry made to mitigate heat issues in the USA also caused a decrease in performance. All guesses at this point.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

Don't the new batteries increase capacity after a few cycles, then start their decline?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Don't the new batteries increase capacity after a few cycles, then start their decline?

I think there are folks who want to believe that, but no, that has not been my observation. The 2013 showed the same 21kWh usable as any other LEAF.

I'm confident that the batteries are built with matching cell pairs.

 

[IBELEAF]

Surprised no one has done a more interesting test yet with the heater on.

 

[planet4ever]

I keep thinking of the statement Nissan made:

the amount of the rare earth element dysprosium used in the newly designed motor of the updated Nissan LEAF has been reduced by about 40 percent compared to the previous model—without sacrificing performance.

I'm no expert, but I had the impression that dysprosium was perhaps the best material available for high magnetism with low weight. Presumably the change was made to save cost. The claim that it wouldn't sacrifice performance is somewhat surprising. Could they perhaps mean that improvements elsewhere compensate for performance losses in the motor, so they haven't sacrificed overall vehicle performance?

Ray

 

[TonyWilliams]

Surprised no one has done a more interesting test yet with the heater on.

Maybe you're the guy to do it ?!?!?!

 

[Sasparilla]

Tony, thanks for making this test happen and posting the results.

100lbs less weight and it turns out we get less range in real world tests for the 2013's, ugh. I was thinking of the cheaper lower torque motor and associated tuning as well when I saw those results.

Bummer.

 

[fotajoye]

Interesting results; perhaps Nissan should tell the line guy, working on the wheel bearings, he's over torquing the nuts.

I think the two MYs have enough differences, including a motor redesign, that one would be hard-pressed to find a single reason for the decrease.

But, if I were a Nissan engineer, I would want to know.

 

[Graffi]

Based on what I have read in other threads, is it now established that the 2013 has "Hidden Range Reserve" below VLBW? Can we now factor this in to show what the 2013 range should have been on this test if you had taken both Leafs down to turtle? I have enjoyed reading this thread.

Tony, if there is additional range, could you edit first post with a note indicating the 2013 range increase from this hidden reserve? Thanks.

 

[DaveEV]

Based on what I have read in other threads, is it now established that the 2013 has "Hidden Range Reserve" below VLBW? Can we now factor this in to show what the 2013 range should have been on this test if you had taken both Leafs down to turtle?

Depends on the car. Cars have that low GID readings out of the box appear to have the hidden reserve, cars that don't appear to be normal. I don't know if we've confirmed that cars that recalibrate their GID counts start behaving normally, but I suspect they do.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Based on what I have read in other threads, is it now established that the 2013 has "Hidden Range Reserve" below VLBW? Can we now factor this in to show what the 2013 range should have been on this test if you had taken both Leafs down to turtle? I have enjoyed reading this thread.

Tony, if there is additional range, could you edit first post with a note indicating the 2013 range increase from this hidden reserve? Thanks.

I'm not a believer in the "2013 hidden range" phenomenon. We observed the same issues in at least 2 of the 2011-2012 cars in the 12 cars we tested to Turtle on 15 Sept 2012 in Phoenix.

Some cars just do that.

 

[Graffi]

If I can get access to the Mossy Nissan Kearny Mesa DCQC key fob overnight, I plan to finally do the distance test this Saturday night / Sunday morning. First high speed ( 65 mph freeway) down to turtle just to get it down that low, charge up 80% DCQC, then 100% L2, then go again at low speed (25 - 35 mph street driving until I get to turtle again. I am confident to join the 100 mile club, and hope to get into the 200 km and maybe the 300 km club. We shall see. Graffi finally reached 8,000 miles tonight on the way home.

I still show low gids so we will see if it resets after turtle.

 

[HyperMiler]

Thank you for the great data.

At the average speeds used, aerodynamic drag is probably the determining factor for energy consumption. So without a defect, results should be identical, as they were?

In our 2012, there is palpable break-in of tires and vehicle. The distances rolling down the slight elevation on the way home without power increased over time, both with the run-in summer and fresh winter tires.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Thank you for the great data.

At the average speeds used, aerodynamic drag is probably the determining factor for energy consumption. So without a defect, results should be identical, as they were?

Just to be clear, the speeds are not average, but constant.

You're welcome.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Graffi,

What were your results?