DaveinOlyWA said:
i also think we need to take a step back here. Not sure that a complete reliance on what the EPA tells us is a good idea... :?
we are dissing Nissan's progress based on the EPA which has been questioned by us extensively in the past. have we forgotten that?
I for one will wait until we get some real people in the seats. as mentioned before, the improvements will be most beneficial to the North. If I take my "reasonable" range I am getting about 88 in Summer, 75 in Winter which is a weighted average of about 81.5 which is 8.5 above the EPA and that is attributable to the level of compromise I have personally accepted.
if we take that 8 off then its 66.5 in Winter, 80.5 in Summer. now, in real terms the 66.5 is more like 60 with heat and what not. Now, if the 2013 allows 70 miles in Winter with a reasonable amount of heat, I consider that to be huge.
now, we can make some assumptions (which I am sure will get me in more trouble and not less...) and figure the EPA test is not designed to differentiate between Winter performance and Summer performance but anyone with a Prius puzzling over their 42 mpg in Winter can tell us all about that issue, I have to think that the EPA's should be taken with a very small...no, make that a very very very small grain of Salt
Ok Dave, let's take a look at it from a non-EPA estimate perspective: "What is there about the 2013 LEAF that should lead to a significant increase in range versus the 2011/2012 version?"
• Battery? The size is reported to be the same, the weight
slightly less due to packaging, the chemistry tweaked only slightly. No expectations of significant improvements there.
• Aerodynamics? They removed the side running lights but otherwise the car appears to be unchanged in size and shape. No improvements there.
• Mass? The USA 2013 models are only slightly lighter than the earlier ones. That could help mileage slightly in stop-and-go traffic but ought not to lead to any significant improvements when driving at constant velocity, especially at highway speeds. Might lead to a tiny improvement in energy use when climbing hills.
• Improved L2 charging speed? Helps with wall efficiency but has no effect on range.
• Improved motor, using fewer rare earth elements? May help with cost but the experts here—of whom I am
not one—contend that the drive train is already highly efficient and that such improvements in motor efficiency would likely be small.
• Improvements in wheels/tires? The SL reportedly has 17 inch wheels which would have
greater angular momentum that would lead to
reduced mileage/range. The SV and S seem to have wheel/tire combinations similar to the older models, so no improvement to range.
• Thermal Management of Battery? None reported. No improvement in range.
• Heat pump heater? Will lead to improved range only for drivers who use the cabin heater a lot in moderate climates. And that is user discretionary for the current model LEAF so improvement depends on the driver preferences and climate. Some improvement in range for some drivers, almost none at all for drivers who don't use the cabin heater much, such as me.
• Headlights? The S model has
less efficient headlights; the SV and SL have the same headlights. No improvement to range.
Ok, I give up, just where is this magical significant improvement to range supposed to come from? As I said before: I don't get it. Whether the EPA numbers are revised slightly upward or downward, whether they are based on a different protocol seems irrelevant to me. There just isn't anything about the 2013 LEAF that ought to lead to a
significantly improved range versus the 2011 or 2012 models, save for the batteries being newer and less degraded, which doesn't count.
