Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[Stoaty]

Huh. The best one has lost 14%? Was that "best" car in the test? Which one was it? I wonder who the Nissan rep was who told the owner that...? And I wonder how many miles that Leaf had on its odometer...? Sure sounds like Nissan's left hand (whoever said that) doesn't know what its right hand (Palmer) is saying.

If that quote is indeed accurate, I'll be very curious to see what Nissan says, when it says it. "In the near term." "Very soon."

No, but I believe that opossum was the one that reported being given that figure. Nissan told him he had 85% capacity remaining. His car was one of the 9 bar cars in the test. I am not sure which one. Given that his car tested at either 80% or 82.5% in the range test, and the fact that his Leaf endured another 6 weeks of hot Phoenix summer after Nissan tested it, I would say that the results from the range test agree remarkably well with what Nissan found when testing his car. They certainly didn't tell him that the problem was just "instrument error".

[surfingslovak]

Nissan's own tests don't agree with your conclusions. One of the affected owners was told that of the 7 cars tested at Casa Grande, the best one had lost 14% of capacity from new. That doesn't sound like they are on track to lose 20% in five years.

Huh. The best one has lost 14%? Was that "best" car in the test? Which one was it? I wonder who the Nissan rep was who told the owner that...? And I wonder how many miles that Leaf had on its odometer...? Sure sounds like Nissan's left hand (whoever said that) doesn't know what its right hand (Palmer) is saying.

That would be azdre's/opossum's car (Red500). TickTock's car (White626) allegedly tested at 87%, best of the group in Casa Grande.

If that quote is indeed accurate, I'll be very curious to see what Nissan says, when it says it. "In the near term." "Very soon."

Me too!

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

30&t=8802&p=218767#p218767]azdre's/opossum's car[/url] (Red429). TickTock's car (White626) allegedly tested at 87% in Casa Grande.

Reviewing this against the first post it appears that those two cars are 1.5 and .5% off from what Nissan said then? If so, the test was remarkably accurate for at least those two cars!

[surfingslovak]

30&t=8802&p=218767#p218767]azdre's/opossum's car[/url] (Red429). TickTock's car (White626) allegedly tested at 87% in Casa Grande.

Reviewing this against the first post it appears that those two cars are 1.5 and .5% off from what Nissan said then? If so, the test was remarkably accurate for at least those two cars!

YES!

[TonyWilliams]

I would have chosen the middle of the range of mileage-to-empty for 4 miles/kWh, rather than the bottom of the range, as the reference point for any discussion. In other words, 80 miles rather than 76 miles.

You're welcome to choose whatever you wish. Nissan publishes 76-84 miles, and we know the car will do either, depending on how new it is, and then how much climate control is used. You'll note, that climate control is NOT included as a limit in the Nissan chart, so unless you believe that the cars go the same distance with climate control on or off, then I guess it would be easy to believe 76 is "the" number.

The very same new car that will go 84 miles, will go some value less than that with climate control (at the same 4.0 miles/kWh). Maybe even, oh say, 76 miles.

I probably will just run another car or two just to eliminate this "guess", 'cuz that's all it is (either 76 or 84) until we run the car that can do it in the same conditions.

[TonyWilliams]

And, in fact, the temperatures were slightly higher than in Nissan's bulletin, so the adage that YMMV seems to favor the lower estimate.

You've got an number of factual errors in your review, and this is just wrong also. The car will go FARTHER in warmer conditions with climate control off, with all other variables the same. The density altitude increases (goes through the air with less drag) and the battery has more stored capacity the hotter it is (up to 50C+). We don't want the battery that hot because it degrades, not because it will have less capacity or power.

Drag race electrics bake their batteries !!!

The same car that will do 84 miles at sea level (funny, about the same numbers on my range chart before Nissan produced that bulletin) will go farther, maybe 86-87 miles at 2600 feet density altitude and the same temp. Increasing temperature, but lowering elevation to match density altitude will go farther yet, maybe 88 miles, for instance. Same air density, hotter battery, slightly larger stored capacity, slightly longer range.

[TonyWilliams]

Unfortunately this particular test can only be done on the same route, if we want to use the numbers from the AZ test.

Not true. This test can be duplicated anyplace you can match the conditions. We have all the data to do that.

The LEAF won't know it's in Arizona, or California, if the air is 92% dense, with 80F-ish temps, and 1200-ish elevation, and flat, concrete or asphalt hard, dry roadbed with light winds, and a two way course to compensate for those winds.

All is not lost, and I suspect we'll just continue to have "84 mile deniers" until we "prove it". It's certainly the logical approach, and the one that we WOULD HAVE DONE, had we had a car that could.

[mksE55]

My simplistic view. The car is freakin broke. Whether its the battery or the gauge ,( NIssan should be figuring this out not US) it has problems that need to be addressed and repaired. How hard is it to say some new issues have been brought to our attention and we currently have a Team of experts working on the problem and the solution, Please give us 30-60 days and we will address the problem. I really dont understand people who are not driving a Leaf with bars lost and noticeable mileage lost try to tell us YOUR wrong. Get down here and drive my car 76 miles,or 84 if your good. I promise you , you will be walking last 10-14 miles ( like to use ranges like Nissan) home. As other have pointed out, if Nissan is leaving 15-20% of the range in the last bar then they are the ones shooting themselves in the foot. Who drives their car past empty every day to go the published range. ok off soap box

[TonyWilliams]

Indeed, they openly stated in Green Car Reports on September 12 that “Nissan appears to be in complete denial at the highest levels,” and even that “it appears on the surface that an outright fraud may have been committed.” Whoa! Now those are fighting words.

Wow! Just read your trash piece. I'll state for the record that the "they" is me. Since you know that, you also know that the "fraud" I was referring to was taking a car with reduced range, and an instrument that indicates 21% - 27% battery capacity reduction, and then resetting that instrument to show "like new" readings, and not doing ANYTHING to change the capacity of the battery... THAT'S FRAUD.

In my opinion, they are now fudging their conclusions.

In my opinion, you're on my blow hard list who doesn't even get the basic facts right.

From what I can see in the data, they are skewing and exaggerating their interpretation of the results.

Imagine what I think about yours!!

I purport that apologies to Nissan are now in order for the accusations of being "in complete denial" and committing "outright fraud."

I purport that won't happen. I also purport that you've done a great job of making clear your shortcomings in the LEAF knowledge area, but no shortcomings in BS. Hey, but it's good entertainment.

[Yanquetino]

You've got an number of factual errors in your review, and this is just wrong also.

Could be! I am as prone to error as anyone, no question.

Tell ya what, though, Tony: please include what, in fact, Nissan projects to be the normal capacity loss according to an odometer's mileage. I have merely taken my best guess by extrapolating from the admittedly limited parameters Nissan provides. If you have more accurate, reliable figures for expected range losses according to mileage, please post them alongside the actual ranges achieved in the test. Without knowing what Nissan considers normal capacity losses, it is impossible to substantiate abnormal losses —as the owners continue to assert via the news media.

Oh... and thanks, once again, for attacking and insulting the messenger when you do not like the message. Sorry to have to tell you this, Tony, but people skills are not exactly your forté.