The Prius PHEV gets dissed a lot here, but for this kind of trip it will beat everything out there in ICE Land for fuel economy, and only a Tesla or RAV 4 EV can work possibly on the EV side of the equation. At least test drive one that has been charged. You can run the A/C for a long time on that battery...
Is the Leaf a valid option for weekly 300 mile round trips.
- Thread starter spendlesslivebetter
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
johnrhansen
Well-known member
Too bad the elio isnt being built yet. 85 miles per gallon. Thats going to be my road trip car if they ever do. I just dont see the utility of hybrid technology on the freeway. You are running at a steady state. Not a lot of need for regen and the car doesn't idle much. Pretty hard to beat the mileage and price of a prius c though. Unless you buy an old geo metro. You'd think a small turbo diesel would be the car for this if they made one
pkulak
Well-known member
johnrhansen said:
I prefer a big van for road trips. If I'm gonna burn some gas, might as well burn some damn gas!
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
The Rav4 EV can do this without gasoline, but they are a bit difficult to buy in Washington. You would have to buy a used one and ship it to you.
For a 150 mile trip, it is possible to do that at 55mph steady speed without the cabin heater and with a pre-warmed battery before stating the trip on cold days. But, a more practical way is to plan a short stop anywhere enroute for up to an hour. Then, you could drive with traffic (65mph) and run the heater. Also, you'll be able to compensate for battery degradation over time.
For the return, this is a "no-go" if you plan to do that in less than 5-6 hours it will take to recharge. We are working on a plan to retrofit the Rav4 EV with a CHAdeMO that we call "JdeMO". That would still require about an hour and some change to charge the car (total time charging to complete the entire 300 mile round trip).
mbender
Well-known member
Depending on how many miles you'll be putting on the rest of the year, and what you pay for electricity, it might even be worth springing for a Tesla if you can in any way swing it.
The more you drive and the cheaper your electricity, the more it would "pay for itself".
300 miles x 50 weeks is 15k/year right off the top. With "normal" driving the rest of the time and cheap electricity (which I suspect your have), you could save $1-2k/year over even a Prius. The trips to Vancouver would be least "half-free", as there is a supercharger there and halfway there, as well. Moreover, if you take any long trips (which I personally would try to find any reason to do), they'd be almost completely free, "fuel-wise". You'd never have to worry about time or range or buying gas -- all big pluses. And most importantly, you'd be driving a Tesla ;-).
At the end of three or more years (say when Model III arrives), I believe they promise to buy it back for a certain "guaranteed" amount.
You'd have to do more research and "the math", but I'd do this if at all possible. And presumably (or presumptuously) your kid would so love it as well!
The more you drive and the cheaper your electricity, the more it would "pay for itself".
300 miles x 50 weeks is 15k/year right off the top. With "normal" driving the rest of the time and cheap electricity (which I suspect your have), you could save $1-2k/year over even a Prius. The trips to Vancouver would be least "half-free", as there is a supercharger there and halfway there, as well. Moreover, if you take any long trips (which I personally would try to find any reason to do), they'd be almost completely free, "fuel-wise". You'd never have to worry about time or range or buying gas -- all big pluses. And most importantly, you'd be driving a Tesla ;-).
At the end of three or more years (say when Model III arrives), I believe they promise to buy it back for a certain "guaranteed" amount.
You'd have to do more research and "the math", but I'd do this if at all possible. And presumably (or presumptuously) your kid would so love it as well!
You want to buy a 70 mile EV to save money to doing 150 mile trips? :?
Would an EV really save money?
Not only could you probably buy a much cheaper, old economy car, pocket the difference in the bank and have most of the gas paid by the interest-only from a good long term bond, but you'd not have to waste 4 hours or so a weekend hanging around charging your car. Is your time not worth anything?
When you wait while charging, you end up spending a surprising amount on 'coffee' and other entertainments that would've likely covered the gas!
OK, you take a risk that the car you buy needs repairs, but the car you have might already be good enough, but with the Leaf you run the risk that someone else's charger doesn't need repairs. You could quite easily end up well and truly stranded, and if your son is along sometimes, do you want to risk that? It strikes me as a near certainty at this stage in EV infrastructure development that you'll end up stuck a few times in each year. Just one overnight hotel stop would blow your supposed cost savings, if any.
When you have an EV and commute daily within the EVs range, the notion of burning up gas does feel a very antiquated idea. And it still is for long trips, but the functions you're asking for aren't really reliable yet to do the run with the short commuter cars that EVs are.
Nice idea, and it will be a very sensible option to consider when there is a choice of 200 mile range new and 2nd hand EVs in the market. Right now, looks like a non-starter to me.
Keep the idea in mind, look out for new vehicle and charger-infrastructure developments, and the time will come. It's just not the right time for you yet.
Would an EV really save money?
Not only could you probably buy a much cheaper, old economy car, pocket the difference in the bank and have most of the gas paid by the interest-only from a good long term bond, but you'd not have to waste 4 hours or so a weekend hanging around charging your car. Is your time not worth anything?
When you wait while charging, you end up spending a surprising amount on 'coffee' and other entertainments that would've likely covered the gas!
OK, you take a risk that the car you buy needs repairs, but the car you have might already be good enough, but with the Leaf you run the risk that someone else's charger doesn't need repairs. You could quite easily end up well and truly stranded, and if your son is along sometimes, do you want to risk that? It strikes me as a near certainty at this stage in EV infrastructure development that you'll end up stuck a few times in each year. Just one overnight hotel stop would blow your supposed cost savings, if any.
When you have an EV and commute daily within the EVs range, the notion of burning up gas does feel a very antiquated idea. And it still is for long trips, but the functions you're asking for aren't really reliable yet to do the run with the short commuter cars that EVs are.
Nice idea, and it will be a very sensible option to consider when there is a choice of 200 mile range new and 2nd hand EVs in the market. Right now, looks like a non-starter to me.
Keep the idea in mind, look out for new vehicle and charger-infrastructure developments, and the time will come. It's just not the right time for you yet.
minispeed
Well-known member
johnrhansen said:
Hybrid technology lets the ICE run in an atkinson cycle and allows it to use a wider range of that cycle than if a non hybrid uses atkinson. I've heard that using the atkinson cycle at highway cruise is part of the Mazda Skyactiv package. Also the hybrid system is pretty active on the highway. Most driving is not really steady state, with elevation changes and traffic there is still assist and regen. You can even get the engine to switch off on long downhills but it takes some practice.
The prius also has much better aero than any diesel car.
All 2014, all auto, from fueleconomy.gov, hwy then city
prius 48 51
prius c 46 53
jetta 42 30
cruze 46 27
fusion 41 44
Even if a 1.5tdi could give us 52 35 the prius would still beat it. Everyone always looks at the hybrid vs regular ice, see's how much better it is in the city and thinks that's where all the benefit is, also no car will every be driven pure hwy, you have to consider the city driving, even if it's 10% it's frikin double some diesel choices!
I used to get 85 mpg imp (70 mpg US) from my 2000 model diesel Skoda Octavia (like a VW Passat size) on my commute, albeit at a gentle pace sitting bang on the engine's peak BMEP for 36 motorway miles of the 45 mile journey, though that's what I always did on my commute anyhow. (Best was 89 mpg.)minispeed said:
I got a Nissan Note 1.5dCi as a loaner during a service recently and did the 50 mile trip from and back to the dealer with the dial showing 98 mpg (81 mpg US) by the time I got back, and wasn't particularly hypermiling, just going at ~60mph, neither hurrying or hesitating. I would have probably got more but at 60mph it was topping out at over 99mpg which was as much as the gauge read, so I couldn't really judge the most efficient modes of driving.
A Skoda Fabia 1.2dti greenline was recently taken on a 2000 km drive and made it on one tank of fuel. That worked out at 125 mpg (100 mpg US).
minispeed
Well-known member
donald said:
Yes but up until next month European standards allowed much higher NOx output than the EPA would. So you can't just compare apples to oranges. I had a 2000 tdi jetta and could get really good fuel economy out of it, and that was back in the day that I never tried. A diesel on the highway gets it's advantage from running lean. Most modern diesels in the US will not run lean enough to see those savings. That's the same technology when applied to gas engines by Honda meant you could run a gas hybrid to 100mpg easily. That was back in 2000. If they had been able to keep working lean burn the way they have worked diesel in europe I'm sure they would have advanced.
I'm no expert, and the info on the EPA site isn't that straight forward but right now I think they have a max of bin 8 emissions, that allows .14 g/mi, or .087 g/km. Right now the Euro 5 standard allows .18 g/km, more than double. Next month it will go down to .08. This change has been referenced by many auto magazines to suggest that any euro diesel will automatically pass EPA tests from then on so we may see more of them.
Back in 2006 VW actually stopped selling a TDI here for a model year or 2 around the same time that the Bin 9-11 standards were removed. Bin 11 was .22 g/km and the euro standard till 2005 was .25 g/km. I've read on the TDI forums when I was looking into one that the newer engines no matter how easy you are on it will hit a minimum fuel consuption that you just can't break through by going easy on the engine where as the older pre 2006 tdi would get better and better fuel economy the easier you were on it.
Diesel is subsdised a lot in Europe, and some have been calling to put an end to it. It isn't so in the US and the supply ratio of diesel/gas out of refineries is pretty much set. It would cost a lot to change it. If we introduce enough diesel passenger cars to change the demand enough it will mean increases in diesel cost. They also cost more to make with expensive fancy emission systems, add extra service cost and routine maintanence. This past winter that was Fin cold is a big example of how supply and demand can shift. Diesel is still used in a lot of the US as a heating oil, many peple would have had to fill the tank a lot more this winter and because of that diesel prices were a lot higher, on the other hand to make diesel you have to make gas too, so if the demand hasn't gone up for gas then the price will go down.
Hybrids on the other hand remove maintanence and high failure parts (transmission) from the car and will also have a lower over all cost of ownership because of it. Failure rates in ecvts (not a real transmisson) and the battery are much lower than comparable ICE cars, not to mention easy on brake pads too.
A Mazda 3 with skyactive gets 1mpg less on the hwy than a TDI jetta, with an automatic the cheapest starts at 19000, a TDI auto jetta is 23500.....
JeremyW
Well-known member
While I wish Honda had continued to work on lean burn, having a 2000 Insight I find that it's not *as great* as many on the insight central forum believe. The engine only outputs around 20 hp during lean burn, which seems to be enough for 55-60mph cruse on flat ground. 65+ forget about it. Now, for a hypermiler this is OK, but for everyone else who wants to go 75 mph.... :roll:
That said, the Gen 1 insight is a slippery little thing and I managed to get 54 mpg going 80+ mph from LA to Sacramento. I've also gotten 62 mpg on another trip staying in the right lane.
Sounds like you just changed the goal posts to prove a point. You were talking about fuel consumption a moment ago, not a mention of pollution control.minispeed said:
Anyhow, Prius doesn't appear to give better fuel consumption than the most economical petrol cars in the UK, and nor does the most aerodynamic give the best fuel consumption (that'll be the Merc CLA, whose 0.22Cd beats Prius' 0.25 but is not more economical).
Worse still! Quite a tangent to the thread.
Back to the topic... How much is a bus ticket?
cwerdna
Well-known member
OP doesn't live in the UK. I haven't read this thread carefully, but the vehicles you mentioned don't exist in the US (nor do some of the brands such as Skoda) and likely also wouldn't meet the emissions requirements in many states like California.donald said:
Besides on the EPA test cycle, on Consumer Reports' tests, the most efficient non-plugin mass-market car sold in the US as new on the highway (their test is run at a steady 65 mph) and overall is still the Prius:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/best-city-highway-mpg/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/best-worst-fuel-economy/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some high level info about their test and the old EPA test on the last page of https://web.archive.org/web/20050701000000*/http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Bwilson4web at Priuschat has plotted some mpg vs. mph graphs on the Gen 3 Prius (aka ZVW30). I found these quickly:
http://priuschat.com/threads/consumer-reports-mph-vs-mpg.68731/#post-954643" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://priuschat.com/threads/graphics-of-average-fuel-economy-vs-speed.80794/#post-1128966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(The NHW11 was the Gen 1 Prius that US got, which looked like a Toyota Echo on the outside. NHW20 was the Gen 2 that covered 04-09 model years, marking the beginning of the iconic hatchback design.)
One can probably find more by Googling for mph vs mpg bwilson4web site
riuschat.com.Again, another goal post move - the discussion was only examining limiting efficiencies of cars, and the supposition made was that the Prius looked like it was as good as it gets. It does well, but the Prius is not the last word in fuel economy. It seems there is more to it than just a good Cd and an Atkinson cycle.cwerdna said:
Again, back to the topic, the cheapest car the op can probably run is more likely to be the car he already has. You usually have to really get a hugely more economical car before the purchase costs can be amortised based on fuel savings in a relatively short period.
minispeed
Well-known member
Sorry if I didn't make it clear but, I'll expand my point. Part of the diesel low load efficiency that you get from steady state highway cruising is because the engine can run very very lean. In an old mechanical diesel the gas pedal is the fuel control, not a throttle like in a gasoline car. At low load the lean mixture will give great fuel economy. It will also need a very strong heavy over built engine and it will be loud and rough producing a lot of NOx. In a modern computer controlled diesel which is needed because of the NOx limits the computer will never let the car run as lean. As the diesel engine evolves with emission standards it's ability to reward a light foot driver with huge numbers will decrease. It will still score high on the tests still but when people say you can get x% better than the rating in an old diesel you probably won't be able to beat the test to the same level in the new one.donald said:
If you read up on the cla the normal version has no where near that cd.
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/the-slipperiest-car-on-the-road.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There are a lot of reasons why company A's wind tunnel numbers can't be compared to B's. These are all from the same tunnel.
It's not a tangent, he said he will look at diesel, I advise against that, others told him why their euro diesels give good fuel economy and I told him why I think he may not see the same out of a us spec diesel.
I'll also take this opportunity to remind him that if he's got an hour wait at the boarder , 30min each way and he wants heat and ac then nothing (with an ICE) will beat a hybrid. A diesel will be 0% efficient that whole time.
johnrhansen
Well-known member
I read somewhere that an otto cycle engine is actually more efficient than a diesel because most of the combustion takes place on the compression stroke and all of the expansion during the power stroke is available to remove heat, whereas on a diesel, fuel is being burned during the power stroke which costs efficiency. A diesel is more efficient in real life however because it is more efficient at reduced power because it does not throttle the air. But the Atkinson cycle negates all of that. I stand corrected. My vote is on the prius.
'Lean' is not a term you use with compression ignition engines, as there is no stoichiometric mixture for such combustion. Makes no sense to describe it as such. It's be like saying a log fire is burning 'lean'. It burns what you throw in there.
What you might mean is that they run at high manifold pressures as there is no 'throttle', which means they do not suffer from the zero load pumping losses of a system with a throttled intake track. This is why they are so well suited to turbocharging because any compression of the intake gases serves to improve the engine efficiency, and the turbo itself is recovering energy from the exhaust.
In a good design of diesel engine you'd fit a variable geometry turbo to maximise energy recovery from the exhaust, and it'd come out into the exhaust little hotter than ambient when it is running at maximum efficiency. I could get home from work and the exhaust on the Octavia was still cooler than body temperature.
But the primary reason diesels are more efficient is because the combustion happens at a higher temperature. Twice the compression ratio of petrol cars. Higher combustion temperature pushes the Carnot curve higher. Any combustion performed at higher temperatures results in higher efficiency, but the flip-side is that you also start, literally, burning the nitrogen in the air charge which produces the NOx.
If you ran a lean petrol engine to the same levels of combustion temperature, thus improve the thermal efficiency, you would generate just as much NOx as diesels.
NOx is purely a function of higher, and thus more efficient, combustion temperatures.
So diesels are more efficient because, in order of significance:
a) they run with much higher combustion temperatures,
b) they have low, or virtually non-existent, zero load induction losses, and
c) for turbo diesels, which are the norm now, they recover waste exhaust energy.
What you might mean is that they run at high manifold pressures as there is no 'throttle', which means they do not suffer from the zero load pumping losses of a system with a throttled intake track. This is why they are so well suited to turbocharging because any compression of the intake gases serves to improve the engine efficiency, and the turbo itself is recovering energy from the exhaust.
In a good design of diesel engine you'd fit a variable geometry turbo to maximise energy recovery from the exhaust, and it'd come out into the exhaust little hotter than ambient when it is running at maximum efficiency. I could get home from work and the exhaust on the Octavia was still cooler than body temperature.
But the primary reason diesels are more efficient is because the combustion happens at a higher temperature. Twice the compression ratio of petrol cars. Higher combustion temperature pushes the Carnot curve higher. Any combustion performed at higher temperatures results in higher efficiency, but the flip-side is that you also start, literally, burning the nitrogen in the air charge which produces the NOx.
If you ran a lean petrol engine to the same levels of combustion temperature, thus improve the thermal efficiency, you would generate just as much NOx as diesels.
NOx is purely a function of higher, and thus more efficient, combustion temperatures.
So diesels are more efficient because, in order of significance:
a) they run with much higher combustion temperatures,
b) they have low, or virtually non-existent, zero load induction losses, and
c) for turbo diesels, which are the norm now, they recover waste exhaust energy.
I've not heard of a diesel engine that runs something other than an Otto cycle, but it could run an Atkinson cycle too.johnrhansen said:
What do you think the Otto cycle is?
The only difference between 'diesel' and 'petrol' in regards the mechanics is that the former is a compression ignition system and the latter is a spark ignition.
The Atkinson cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle because it runs an over-expansion power stroke.
Both Atkinson and Otto cycles are defined independently of the ignition means, i.e. you can have petrol or diesel in either type of engine.
A variable geometry turbo diesel Atkinson cycle engine with a common rail 2000 bar multi-injection pattern fuel system would be the most efficient.
TimLee
Well-known member
What the OP is considering is a really BAD idea.
I have driven the 2011 LEAF 39 months.
Took it on one 95 mile one way trip and was lucky the three stops free DCFC all worked.
Average speed from home to destination at 95 miles was 38 mph.
Was slower coming home as I took my time because I had no deadline.
Why would anyone decide to do a long trip in a LEAF weekly??????
I have driven the 2011 LEAF 39 months.
Took it on one 95 mile one way trip and was lucky the three stops free DCFC all worked.
Average speed from home to destination at 95 miles was 38 mph.
Was slower coming home as I took my time because I had no deadline.
Why would anyone decide to do a long trip in a LEAF weekly??????
minispeed
Well-known member
donald said:
You obviously know more about diesel than me, but all you're telling us is why they can burn less fuel if engineered to do so. However none of those can be sold to the OP because his country won't let them do that. Look at the post and the original question asked. Regardless of wheater lean is a term for diesel or not the new one's (VW TDI since it's the only car he would likely buy in diesel in new or used in the US) use more fuel than they use to. People know that if you say the old engine can run lean it uses less fuel and if the new engine is rich it will use more.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=15861&id=15862&id=25262&id=25263
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=15861&id=15862&id=25262&id=25263
In the auto the old 2000 4spd and newer 2009 6spd score the same, the newer 2014 is a very small improvment but has a much more efficent transmission.
The over all combined leader is still the 2000 5spd manual, the 2014 cruze gets 2mpg better hwy but at a huge 8mpg city loss.
If you would like to present your points to show why a diesel car (that can be bought in his state) would be better for the OP than a hybrid go ahead.
If you want to talk in theorectical ways an engine can be designed your ABC up above as to why diesels are more efficent are all things that you can apply to cleaner cheaper gasoline too. We can always tell the OP that an HCCI gasoline engine is the best but that's not going to help him decide which is better to lease for 3 years now.
