I Beat EPA's 2.9 Miles/KWh : Report Your Monthly Mileage

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.
TonyWilliams said:
LEAFfan said:
Yesterday, I disproved another notion: Driving at 60mph on the freeway in D will get you the same m/kW h as in ECO. This I proved to be false. If you look at the chart, driving 60mph will get you 3.9, but I hit 4.3 (20 mile trip) using ECO and Cruise.

How is that possible within the laws of physics? What is "cruise"? D mode? Is the climate control off? Were you coasting in neutral for any of this? How far did you drive? Did you start and stop at the same elevation? Was there any wind?
Can you now drive on exactly the same route in the same conditions in Drive and get 3.9? Or something else?
Sorry, it just does not make sense to me. I see that you begun your post with hypermiling techniques, which OF COURSE, you can beat that data. But then, you're not meeting the specification that generated the data.
All the techniques, yes, I use N mode a lot !!!

It's possible within the laws of physics because I use CC (Cruise/Cruise Control) and ECO. It really does lower your energy use in ECO, not just for the HVAC. I haven't done this experiment in 'D' because I figured you and others have duplicated your m/kW h figures in 'D' so I wanted to see if I could extend the range by using ECO and CC. All the other conditions are the same as for your chart with little or no wind, started and stopped with the same elevation, temps in the mid 70's, no hills/relatively flat, and no HVAC. Today, with the same conditions, ten miles of freeway going and eleven miles of freeway back@ 60mph I had 5.0m/kW h going and 4.9 coming back. At the ten mile mark coming back I did have 5.0, but lost a tenth on that extra mile back. I didn't reset my m/kW h on the dash until I was going 60mph on the freeway which was right after the ramps. Now, I will try the same route in 'D' when the conditions are the similar. I will be very surprised if I get the same m/kW h because I firmly believe it really helps to use CC and ECO.
 
drees said:
LEAFfan said:
Yesterday, I disproved another notion: Driving at 60mph on the freeway in D will get you the same m/kW h as in ECO. This I proved to be false. If you look at the chart, driving 60mph will get you 3.9, but I hit 4.3 (20 mile trip) using ECO and Cruise. ECO definitely will give you more miles driving on the freeway.
Not to discourage use of ECO mode (it's my driving mode of choice), but your conclusion is totally bogus. You can't simply compare your results to the chart - it's like comparing apples and oranges.

If you really want to test ECO vs D, go find a quiet stretch of road at least a couple miles long, then follow this procedure:

1. Accelerate up to 60 mph
2. Reset mi/kWh chart at set starting point
3. Drive X miles
4. Note mi/kWh reading

I would recommend doing this at least 2 times in each mode (4 times total) alternating between ECO/D each time. The more iterations you can perform, the more confidence you will have in your results.

It isn't bogus at all. Have you tried what I just did in the drive I did today (if you can find a 10-mile relatively flat freeway)? I've done it twice now with your procedure and had 5.0m/kW h on both runs. I'd say that's pretty conclusive for the conditions today. If I have similar conditions, it will come out the same if I do it many times or just once. I'm very confident in my results. 5.0m/kW h is much higher than the chart's 3.9. However, you are right...I haven't tried it in 'D' yet, but I really believed (without trying) that it would be what's on the chart while meeting all the conditions. No one else has said they have gotten a higher figure (driving in 'D') than 3.9 with those conditions at 60mph.
Yes, you can compare this to the chart. I'm trying to show that you can extend your miles by using ECO and CC. These two conditions are the ONLY difference in the chart's numbers and mine.
 
LEAFfan said:
... I'm trying to show that you can extend your miles by using ECO and CC. These two conditions are the ONLY difference in the chart's numbers and mine.
I'd be more inclined to credit this if anyone else could reproduce your numbers. I certainly can't, and I haven't heard anyone report duplicating your Cruise Control "technique" results.
 
LEAFfan said:
It isn't bogus at all. Have you tried what I just did in the drive I did today (if you can find a 10-mile relatively flat freeway)?
Impossible around here. There are no flat freeways, they all have subtle to moderate elevation gains and descents.

LEAFfan said:
I've done it twice now with your procedure and had 5.0m/kW h on both runs. I'd say that's pretty conclusive for the conditions today. If I have similar conditions, it will come out the same if I do it many times or just once. I'm very confident in my results. 5.0m/kW h is much higher than the chart's 3.9. However, you are right...I haven't tried it in 'D' yet,
Let us know when you've tried it in "D".
 
This 93 mile day is nothing compared to one of Tony's heroic trips. (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=6842) but it's one of my highest mileage days. It was remarked about Tony's 212 mile trip that "people wonder why mainstream consumers haven't jumped on-board BEVs." But my travels were definitely mainstream, and driven without the meticulous planning that Tony does.

It started of course with the range chart Tony produced :) via his meticulous planning and experiments, with inputs from others. I added up the miles, looked at the clock, and decided it was feasible if I kept my miles per kWh up to 4.0, with a couple of hours of charging, leaving me a margin of about 20 miles. Yes, I confess I've never even hit low battery warning. (What an EV wimp.)

First leg was Carmel Valley to Chula Vista for shopping, 32 miles, freeway almost all the way. On the highway I use D instead of ECO because I don't want minor speed corrections to alternately draw power and regen. When there was no car in front of me I'd drive the speed limit, 65, which still of course made me the slowest car on the road. But safe enough in the right lane. For much of the way I found a big truck going 55-60. I fell in behind him. Not close enough for drafting, but close enough to give me a splendid excuse for driving slowly. The slow speed cost me 6 minutes over the cars weaving the lanes at 75. It also kept my miles/kWh up to 4.4.

Next leg, Chula Vista to Broadway Pier to see the Americas Cup racing catamarans. 17 miles. Half freeway, and then the Nav system led me off onto Harbor Drive past the naval base for some new sights. It's worth noting that my preferred parking location, Ace, was no good because the Blink smartphone app showed all 3 J1772's being in use. (In fact it still shows them all as in-use, so I wonder if it's a bug in the Blink software rather than cars actually charging all the time.) If there had been available public charging downtown then even my little adventure would have been no adventure at all.

Next was 18 miles home for lunch, with 2 bars remaining, plugging in for some very rare on-peak electricity - which still costs a heck of a lot less than gasoline. Time to check my calculations. I figured I'd have enough energy for the next trip if I charged for at least 1.5 hours, and I'd have plenty of time for the drive if I left in 2 hours. 1.75 hours later we were off, back up to 5 bars, with a DTE of 45 miles and trip odometer B reset to 0.

Final trip was home to Qualcomm to watch the SDSU Boise State game, 31 miles round trip but it was a bit cold and there was light rain on the way home. I told my 11 year old we were fine so long as the sum of the DTE meter and the trip odometer stayed above 31. He enjoyed watching the sum slowly climb as much as I did. My route was about half freeway and half surface streets. It occurred to me to park at Ikea, walk to the stadium, and return to a 100% charged car. All chargers were available. But #1 it wouldn't have been very nice of me to tie up a scarce EV parking space all that time, even if there were adjacent spaces to which someone else could switch the cord - and there aren't. And #2 that shopping center really doesn't like people parking there for stadium events, and they will tow. So again, no destination charging which would have taken away all the drama.

With my bars and my DTE+trip looking good on the way home, I used plenty of heat to stay comfortable and keep the windows defrosted. Speedometer miles/kWh fell to 4.2. We made it back with 2 bars and 18 miles DTE. That's DTE+trip of 49 miles, 4 better than we started with. Total recharge time plus the charging at lunch implied use of 22.6 kWh for a total of 93 miles, or 4.1 miles/kWh.

Yeah, Tony could have made the same trip easily with no mid-day recharging, and driven at least another 28 miles on that last 18 miles DTE. But I didn't have to do anything special besides a couple of rule-of-thumb calculations from Tony's chart, and driving in the right lane.
 
LEAFfan said:
TonyWilliams said:
LEAFfan said:
Yesterday, I disproved another notion: Driving at 60mph on the freeway in D will get you the same m/kW h as in ECO. This I proved to be false. If you look at the chart, driving 60mph will get you 3.9, but I hit 4.3 (20 mile trip) using ECO and Cruise.

How is that possible within the laws of physics? What is "cruise"? D mode? Is the climate control off? Were you coasting in neutral for any of this? How far did you drive? Did you start and stop at the same elevation? Was there any wind?
Can you now drive on exactly the same route in the same conditions in Drive and get 3.9? Or something else?
Sorry, it just does not make sense to me. I see that you begun your post with hypermiling techniques, which OF COURSE, you can beat that data. But then, you're not meeting the specification that generated the data.
All the techniques, yes, I use N mode a lot !!!

It's possible within the laws of physics because I use CC (Cruise/Cruise Control) and ECO. It really does lower your energy use in ECO, not just for the HVAC. I haven't done this experiment in 'D' because I figured you and others have duplicated your m/kW h figures in 'D' so I wanted to see if I could extend the range by using ECO and CC. All the other conditions are the same as for your chart with little or no wind, started and stopped with the same elevation, temps in the mid 70's, no hills/relatively flat, and no HVAC. Today, with the same conditions, ten miles of freeway going and eleven miles of freeway back@ 60mph I had 5.0m/kW h going and 4.9 coming back. At the ten mile mark coming back I did have 5.0, but lost a tenth on that extra mile back. I didn't reset my m/kW h on the dash until I was going 60mph on the freeway which was right after the ramps. Now, I will try the same route in 'D' when the conditions are the similar. I will be very surprised if I get the same m/kW h because I firmly believe it really helps to use CC and ECO.

The real world use of D and ECO modes are not being represented in these tests, at least not in the real world that I experience. If you need to slow for traffic and use a light foot in ECO you may be able to reduce the drag it creates to the same level as D, but if you can't, every time you slow for traffic and then speed back up you lose energy you would not have had to if you had been in D. It will always cost more energy to regain speed than you can regenerate through slowing the vehicle, so a reduced drag can often be a more efficient way to operate the vehicle. When a larger drag will aid the slowing need, ECO is the way to go, without a doubt.

In addition, watch the power usage meter while in CC at any speed. Switch to the other mode and it will not alter a thing, you will still be drawing/regening the same power to maintain the speed. Extreme downhills would be an exception perhaps, but I doubt it. On steep downgrades I always use my own judgement, alternating between D, N, and Eco to get the most out of it, which CC will never be able to match.
 
Caracalover said:
If you need to slow for traffic and use a light foot in ECO you may be able to reduce the drag it creates to the same level as D, but if you can't, every time you slow for traffic and then speed back up you lose energy you would not have had to if you had been in D.
In addition, watch the power usage meter while in CC at any speed. Switch to the other mode and it will not alter a thing, you will still be drawing/regening the same power to maintain the speed.

Sorry, but I have the m/kW h to prove that ECO and CC DO help to give better m/kW h. It's real world driving. And you're forgetting, that if you use 'D' without the extra regen, you will be using your brakes much more and replacing them much sooner. My brakes will last the life of the car! And I disagree about switching to 'D' and it won't alter a thing because your trees will not grow as fast in 'D' which shows you are using more energy in 'D' than ECO. And you definitely get more regen in ECO than you do in 'D' which gives you more efficiency. When you get 6.5-6.8m/kW h using your methods, please let me know.
 
LEAFfan said:
that if you use 'D' without the extra regen, you will be using your brakes much more and replacing them much sooner. My brakes will last the life of the car!

You assume that there's only D or ECO. I actually use both regularly; D mode works "best" (meaning I like it best) for me in general acceleration, and cruising along. ECO works great when you must slow down. It's easy to switch between the two, and I generally switch back to D before I press the gas pedal again, after a stop.


And I disagree about switching to 'D' and it won't alter a thing because your trees will not grow as fast in 'D' which shows you are using more energy in 'D' than ECO.


I think you're making a connection that can't be proven, or disproven. We don't know the parameters that build those trees.
 
LEAFfan said:
It's possible within the laws of physics because I use CC (Cruise/Cruise Control) and ECO. It really does lower your energy use in ECO, not just for the HVAC. I haven't done this experiment in 'D' because I figured you and others have duplicated your m/kW h figures in 'D' so I wanted to see if I could extend the range by using ECO and CC.

Law of physics do not include a change in energy which keeps the same speed and all other parameters stay the same. Something has to give.
 
LEAFfan said:
... And you're forgetting, that if you use 'D' without the extra regen, you will be using your brakes much more and replacing them much sooner. ...
Untrue. Using the brake pedal engages regen first. So, there's no basis for this claim. BTW, when are you going to repeat your constant speed test in "D"?
 
davewill said:
Untrue. Using the brake pedal engages regen first. So, there's no basis for this claim.
Not really - 'D' will use friction more than Eco. Watch the instantaneous "green" driving circle above the "tree". This is the main reason I started driving in Eco.
 
davewill said:
LEAFfan said:
... And you're forgetting, that if you use 'D' without the extra regen, you will be using your brakes much more and replacing them much sooner. ...
Untrue. Using the brake pedal engages regen first. So, there's no basis for this claim. BTW, when are you going to repeat your constant speed test in "D"?

I've met LEAF drivers who won't charge to 100% even if they plan a long journey, 'because it will use the brake pads'.

All this talk of brake pads mystifies me. So what. Before we had regenerative braking we used brake pads 100% of the time and didn't have to run down to the repair shop too often. WITH regenerative braking whether we choose eco, drive, 100%, 80%, who cares its all gonna be much better than *no* regenerative braking. I have better use for my time than worrying about the delta in brake wear between different modes of operation. In my book it's all good.
 
evnow said:
Not really - 'D' will use friction more than Eco. Watch the instantaneous "green" driving circle above the "tree". This is the main reason I started driving in Eco.
I would if anyone had any clue what it really meant. I'm convinced the tree algorithm is simply programmed to be higher because you're in ECO mode, like the GOM is.

You're saying that even small amounts of brake pedal is blending in friction braking? Do we have any indication of that besides your interpretation of the "tree" scale?
 
davewill said:
evnow said:
Not really - 'D' will use friction more than Eco. Watch the instantaneous "green" driving circle above the "tree". This is the main reason I started driving in Eco.
I would if anyone had any clue what it really meant. I'm convinced the tree algorithm is simply programmed to be higher because you're in ECO mode, like the GOM is.

You're saying that even small amounts of brake pedal is blending in friction braking? Do we have any indication of that besides your interpretation of the "tree" scale?

no. the eco braking mode applies friction braking later than D mode. keep in mind that simply coasting in eco mode applies a significant amount of regen already which lowers speed making any additional need for deceleration less likely.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
no. the eco braking mode applies friction braking later than D mode. keep in mind that simply coasting in eco mode applies a significant amount of regen already which lowers speed making any additional need for deceleration less likely.
Are we talking about the behavior of the brake pedal, or are we talking about driving tendencies? If the latter, count me out of the discussion, as these always end up as pie fights with people essentially arguing their own assumptions are the valid ones. As far as the pedal goes, I would think that ECO would have to apply friction SOONER than D since you already have significant regen braking before you even press the pedal.

BTW, I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just asking if there's data beyond the tree display.
 
davewill said:
You're saying that even small amounts of brake pedal is blending in friction braking? Do we have any indication of that besides your interpretation of the "tree" scale?
I'm talking about the semi-circle above the "tree". Search for threads on this - not just "my interpretation".
 
davewill said:
You're saying that even small amounts of brake pedal is blending in friction braking? Do we have any indication of that besides your interpretation of the "tree" scale?
evnow said:
I'm talking about the semi-circle above the "tree". Search for threads on this - not just "my interpretation".
The semi-circle is part of the tree display. It has no clear meaning, and seems even less useful than the GOM. Anyway, I'll take this answer as a "no" you don't have anything but this.
 
i am semi reasonably sort of sure there were graphs posted here waaay back showing regen/braking force percentage curves for various pedal responses in eco and D mode and it shows that friction braking starts later in Eco mode for all but emergency braking situations
 
davewill said:
davewill said:
You're saying that even small amounts of brake pedal is blending in friction braking? Do we have any indication of that besides your interpretation of the "tree" scale?
evnow said:
I'm talking about the semi-circle above the "tree". Search for threads on this - not just "my interpretation".
The semi-circle is part of the tree display. It has no clear meaning, and seems even less useful than the GOM. Anyway, I'll take this answer as a "no" you don't have anything but this.

To support the idea of the circle being meaningless try this. While coasting in N, step on the accelerator, and the semi-circle drops as if you were in D and using more power.
 
Back
Top