mad about averaging only 67 miles per charge in last 27trips

[surfingslovak]

The main problem with this study is shown by this question.

What would the results have been, if this question had been asked:
Would you be satisfied to "settle" for 100 (or 50) miles range, if you could fuel this car (EV) for 1 to 3 cents a mile, rather than the 10 to 30 cents you now have to pay per mile for your 400 mile range (ICEV) car?

Good point, but have you looked at the survey? It's very extensive, professionally done and it covered a wide range of topics, including fuel price and fuel efficiency. While the accuracy of any study is a fair concern, it's common practice to present a series of simple questions with a common context.

It appears that the respondents were well informed. On page 4 they indicated that they were environmentally conscious, tech savvy, trendsetting, and politically active. The group of first movers claimed to be more knowledgeable of EVs and attribute a number of positive characteristics to EVs: “coolness,” convenience, safety, stylishness, and good value.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but if you look at what Renault is doing in Europe, you will see that they factor the implied battery replacement cost at about $0.16 a mile. Yes, the total cost of ownership will wary from country to country, but I would not hinge my criticism of the study on that.


Click to enlarge

 

[amtoro]

Thanks Nissan! Too bad all that "variable" information wasn't available when we reserved our car on 4-20-10. All your consumers went by was Nissans "100 mile range". Nissan never said it was a 65-138 mile range until just recently. The sticker shows a huge 99, but when we picked up the car we weren't shown it and never were informed about the difference between the EPA 73 and Nissan's 100. Until I started seeing issues with range, I never was even aware of the lower epa number. And if your variable range is even accurate - real consumers (not high milers) never get close to even 100 without using ECO (ie. making the sporty Leaf into a Yugo) or without turning off the climate control (so Nissan consumers can either freeze or boil). Even in Summer, we never went over 80 miles on a charge. Thanks tho!

I have seen this information available on the website for over a year; Nissan posted it right after they conducted their road tests in advance of delivering the first vehicles.

I think the "huge 99" you mention is the MPGe, which is calculated as the miles the car can travel in EPA cycle with the amount of energy available in one gallon of gasoline (about 130 Mega-Joules or 36kWh). With that into account, the 21kWh available from the Li-ion traction pack interpolates to 75 miles of range under EPA cycle.

Your result, if they are completely certain, are just 11% off from the test. A bit of practice and you should be able to get on track.

Efficient driving is not necessarily driving slow, is taking advantage of the energy in the system and the energy provided by slopes, using up all the kinetic energy you have before using the brakes, slowing down going up and very gradually speed up going down, shift to ECO when you can take advantage of extra regen, etc. I have driven the Demo LEAF from the dealership on extended test drives as practice a couple of times.

Good luck, you will get better with time.

Just for comparison, as I have not received my LEAF yet, I started practicing some better hyper-milling techniques a couple of months back and I have used the EV Profiler to map the changes; I have increased the fuel efficiency of my daily driving from 34.5 to 38.5 miles per gallon in a Toyota Yaris, that is 11% and it only takes me (literally) 2 or 3 minutes longer to get to work 20 miles away.

 

[Brightonuk]

By now, those of us here on MyNissanLeaf can be labeled “educated consumers”.
I read the posts constantly learning things about my upcoming car I understand that I am going to be one of the first to embrace this new “NO GAS” technology (Yes I know it’s be done before but you all know where I’m coming from).

I am so looking forward to getting the car adding all the little mods I found here and then experimenting trying to get that last mile for the battery.

I am going into this eyes wide open because of this forum and honestly if they had said 67 miles I would not have laid out my $99, but now even with that reality I want the car, I want the experience, I want to drag race Mustangs to 45mph, I want people to stop me and ask questions.
Getting this car gonna be way cool!!!

Whatever I get in mileage I am sure, I will not regret getting a Leaf (Until I run outta juice at the most inopportune moment) and beating the 67 miles (I assume I will get) one mile at time will be entertaining.

 

[edatoakrun]

"surfingslovak"

The main problem with this study is shown by this question.

What would the results have been, if this question had been asked:
Would you be satisfied to "settle" for 100 (or 50) miles range, if you could fuel this car (EV) for 1 to 3 cents a mile, rather than the 10 to 30 cents you now have to pay per mile for your 400 mile range (ICEV) car?

Good point, but have you looked at the survey? It's very extensive, professionally done and it covered a wide range of topics, including fuel price and fuel efficiency. While the accuracy of any study is a fair concern, it's common practice to present a series of simple questions with a common context...

Where in the survey, is the huge cost advantage of electricity over gasoline, addressed? I believe this is the largest advantage BEVs have over ICEVs, the one that is least understood by the general public, and the one that will be the most important factor in BEVs replacing ICEVs, once it is.

As to battery replacement costs, I believe they may or may not exceed the additional expenses for ICEV repair and maintenance, that BEV owners will not have to pay for. But we won't know the facts on this question, until 10-15 years from now, when battery life and replacement costs can be accurately assessed.

 

[surfingslovak]

Where in the survey, is the huge cost advantage of electricity over gasoline, addressed? I believe this is the largest advantage BEVs have over ICEVs, the one that is least understood by the general public, and the one that will be the most important factor in BEVs replacing ICEVs, once it is.

This is implied in the study. If you look at my previous post, you will see that Deloitte wanted to determine, at a very granular level, how expensive gasoline has to be to give prospects a reason to consider an EV. You can only answer this question if you know the delta in operational cost. Elsewhere in the study, you will see that the cost to charge an EV along with the charge time is a very important consideration for prospects. To say that these important differences have not been considered or that the respondents were not aware of them is a longshot. Obviously, I wish they would have listed the entire questionnaire along with the results, but we have to work with what we have.

As to battery replacement costs, I believe they may or may not exceed the additional expenses for ICEV repair and maintenance, that BEV owners will not have to pay for. But we won't know the facts on this question, until 10-15 years from now, when battery life and replacement costs can be accurately assessed.

Yes, agreed. Again, I don't want to go off on a tangent, but it's important to factor these costs into the equation. We can speculate all we want, but the facts speak a clear language. Renault is charging European customers about 16 cents per mile to lease the battery as a consumable item. This is significant and the lease implies battery life of about 8 years. Obviously, I don't want to defend gas cars, and you are right to say that maintenance costs are often ignored, but let's be fair. I still think that the study is excellent and that it offers a number of valuable insights.

 

[TNleaf]

Efficient driving is not necessarily driving slow, [it] is taking advantage of the energy in the system and the energy provided by slopes, using up all the kinetic energy you have before using the brakes, slowing down going up and very gradually speed up going down, shift to ECO when you can take advantage of extra regen, etc.

This is a pretty strong point. It's still true that at higher speeds, slowing down will help your efficiency quite a bit, but I don't think people realize how much energy can be saved by planning your drive and not "driving like it's an ICE."

 

[edatoakrun]

"surfingslovak"...Deloitte wanted to determine, at a very granular level, how expensive gasoline has to be to give prospects a reason to consider an EV. You can only answer this question if you know the delta in operational cost...

Well, you can only answer the question rationally. If a survey omits any mention of the advantages of one option, it will result in a biased result. The study does not report it asked any questions about how the expected reduced fuel and maintenance costs of EVs influenced prospective BEV buyers' decisions.

I expect you would get a very high BEV-positive response on any survey question asking whether EV fuel costs one third to one tenth, those of ICEVs would influence buying decisions. I see no indication that this question was ever asked in this study, while questions regarding ICEV advantages over BEVs, in purchase price, range, and charge time, obviously were.

"surfingslovak" ...Elsewhere in the study, you will see that the cost to charge an EV along with the charge time is a very important consideration for prospects..."

Again, I cant find ANY mention of electricity prices, only gas prices, in the study. The study's lengthy discussions of "fuel" prices only covers gasoline, and there is no mention of m/kwh in "fuel" efficiency. I agree with you that most respondents probably had a general idea that electricity is less expensive than gasoline, but any survey omitting the results of specific questions about how EV cost advantages would influence buying decisions, does not qualify as "excellent", nor are the results very informative, IMO.

The only mention of electricity cost considerations I found is in the conclusion on p.19, where the study's mention of charging and maintenance costs of EVs as "hurdles" to consumer acceptance, rather than as the apparent advantages they are, seems unsupported by either facts, or the survey results.

 

[mwalsh]

So you are saying Nissan should use the 73 miles of range posted on the Federal Monroney sticker in their advertising?.. probably a good idea from a legal point of view, and luckily those numbers are very easy to beat as any hypermiler can tell you.

That's what Mitsubishi is doing with the i, taking the sticker range of 62 miles. I personally think it's a mistake - the i should be good for around 70 miles without much effort. Though, I suppose, the flip side of the coin is that new owners might be crowing victoriously about how they're easily beating the expected range.

 

[surfingslovak]

If a survey omits any mention of the advantages of one option, it will result in a biased result. The study does not report it asked any questions about how the expected reduced fuel and maintenance costs of EVs influenced prospective BEV buyers' decisions.

So if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that a study that strikes me as fairly balanced and quite detailed would deliberately hide the operational cost advantage of EVs to make sure that the respondents did not have proper basis to decide whether this was a good alternative for them. And this despite the fact that the study goes to great lengths to determine consumer sensitivity to gas prices and it examines a number of other economic factors that go into the decision making process. And by extension you are using this as an argument to invalidate the stated demand for incremental range in the segment between 50 and 100 miles, and to a lesser extent between 100 to 200 miles, which in my mind is quite obvious, even on this forum.

 

[edatoakrun]

If a survey omits any mention of the advantages of one option, it will result in a biased result. The study does not report it asked any questions about how the expected reduced fuel and maintenance costs of EVs influenced prospective BEV buyers' decisions.

"So if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that a study that strikes me as fairly balanced and quite detailed would deliberately hide the operational cost advantage of EVs to make sure that the respondents did not have proper basis to decide whether this was a good alternative for them..."

I did not ascribe intent or whether the study errors I pointed out were "deliberate". In fact, I believe it more likely the survey bias was not deliberate, but more likely the unintentional result of gasoline obsession, by the designers of the survey.

"...And this despite the fact that the study goes to great lengths to determine consumer sensitivity to gas prices and it examines a number of other economic factors that go into the decision making process...."

IMO, since it (apparently) did not accurately account for what will be the largest factor in the long run, operating costs of ICEVs as compared to BEVs, as largely determined by relative fuel prices, the study has low integrity.

"...And by extension you are using this as an argument to invalidate the stated demand for incremental range in the segment between 50 and 100 miles, as well as 100 to 200 miles, which in my mind is quite obvious, even on this forum."

This demand is real, of course.

So will be the demand to save up to hundreds of dollars a month in fuel costs, once this amount is quantified, and consumers (and survey respondents) understand how much more (longer range) ICEV vehicles actually cost to operate.

Can we call this off-topic horse dead?

 

[GPowers]

That's what Mitsubishi is doing with the i, taking the sticker range of 62 miles. I personally think it's a mistake - the i should be good for around 70 miles without much effort. Though, I suppose, the flip side of the coin is that new owners might be crowing victoriously about how they're easily beating the expected range.

Always better to OVER deliver then under deliver. An over delivered customer will be much happier and possibly turn in to a product evangelist.

 

[daggad]

That's what Mitsubishi is doing with the i, taking the sticker range of 62 miles. I personally think it's a mistake - the i should be good for around 70 miles without much effort. Though, I suppose, the flip side of the coin is that new owners might be crowing victoriously about how they're easily beating the expected range.

The iMiev was sold this spring in Norway claiming 150km range, about 94 miles. They had a storm from customers claiming they only got about half this distance. Mitsubishi from this point also had a warning that use of heater, AC, driving styles, etc would decrease this number.
I have tried the iMiev and even 62 miles can be tough in Norway. 94 miles is almost impossible..

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

 

[Packet]

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

Not all of us! I'm in a state that's full of mountains and cold rain.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The iMiev was sold this spring in Norway claiming 150km range, about 94 miles. They had a storm from customers claiming they only got about half this distance. Mitsubishi from this point also had a warning that use of heater, AC, driving styles, etc would decrease this number.
I have tried the iMiev and even 62 miles can be tough in Norway. 94 miles is almost impossible..

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

So, they settled on 100km, which just happens to be 62 miles.

 

[Reddy]

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

Not all of us! I'm in a state that's full of mountains and cold rain.

Funny, I'm from the same State, but it's 3/4 dry and desert-like

 

[cwerdna]

We're calculating the percentage used by charging the Leaf to 100% and checking the ending percentage and miles driven - so if the percentage charge goes from 100 to 20, that's 80% used and we drove 45 miles... that is 45/80 = 56 miles for a 100% charge. Obviously Nissan knows we cannot take the car to 0% and they actually want us to only charge to 80%, which makes any calculation harder to do. We're still keeping mileage records (and Nissan gets all of these by wifi, so it shouldn't be any surprise) and will really start worrying when temperatures get below 50 degrees. By the way, the main driver of our Leaf is a 57 year old 1st grade teacher, we build leaves all over the place (history says 3.9 miles per kwh whatever that means), but only achieved 67 miles per charge and falling.

Where EXACTLY are you getting this percentage number?

I haven't followed this thread closely but it seems to have drifted a lot and the OP's last post was on 10/15 at 8:23 pm Pacific. I suspect a # of questions folks here have posed for the OP haven't been answered, such as the above...

 

[SanDust]

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

Of course you are right about cold weather and hilly terrain killing the range. It's not BTW a co-incidence that most users are from states where the weather is hospitable to EVs. Not being stupid, Nissan didn't first roll out the Leaf starting in cold weather states.

Once the Leaf does make it to regions with nasty climes we'll see some drivers getting less than 60 or even 50 miles of range when the battery is new. My opinion is that, in order to avoid dealing with some very angry people, Nissan may hold off rolling out the Leaf in all fifty states until the next gen battery is available. It will also have to abandon the crackhead 100 mile range claim.

 

[SanDust]

I haven't followed this thread closely but it seems to have drifted a lot and the OP's last post was on 10/15 at 8:23 pm Pacific. I suspect a # of questions folks here have posed for the OP haven't been answered, such as the above...

I thought he answered it by saying he multiplied the number of miles driven by the number of total bars divided by the number of bars used. For example, if you went 50 miles using six bars on the SOC meter you'd assume 100 miles on 12 bars. (50 X 12/6 = 100).

His experience with range doesn't seem extraordinary for the type of driving many people do. I suspect I could get a range of 40 miles by going 75 MPH. I've never thought to try it but the range really drops if you go above 60 MPH.

 

[scottf200]

I think the users of this forum is mainly from the dry and hot states in US that are perfect for EV's. Local terrain and temperatures is a very important factor in milage.

It's not BTW a co-incidence that most users are from states where the weather is hospitable to EVs. Not being stupid, Nissan didn't first roll out the Leaf starting in cold weather states.

An often forgotten fact ... dare I say ... is that the Volt went out in Dec/Jan in hot and COLD states with real winters. See red 1st Quarter 2011.
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Michigan. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chevrolet-volt-adds-four-states-to-launch-97595844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That proved their confidence in the engineering for cold weather and a car that would meet the needs around the nation (and world ie. Europe [Opel Ampera]/Canada/etc).

 

[davewill]

An often forgotten fact ... dare I say ... is that the Volt ...

OK, I've just about had it. I defended you were posting this stuff in the Volt threads, but now it seems like you post huge Volt crap in any and all threads. I couldn't care less that your ICE car can go farther than my EV in the cold. If I'd wanted a gas car, I'd have bought one.