LEAF Range and kWh use, at 45, 60 and 70 mph DOE tests

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.

edatoakrun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
5,222
Location
Shasta County, North California
I thought the test results below might be worth a new thread since, AFAIK, these results have not been posted on MNL before, and no reputable test prior to this has correlated range at 45, 60 and 70 mph (constant) with measured kwh use, both DC out of the battery and AC from the EVSE to recharge, as well as charge time for the L2 recharge.

So there are many reference points in these documents for comparison, for any who have used various methods to try to gauge capacity.

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2011nissanleaf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is unfortunate that the test vehicle was not “new”, but the another PDF of the static capacity test here:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/batteryleaf0356.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Indicates the miles were 6,696 miles on 2011 LEAF ...00356 on that test date, May 5 2012.

Source info, Idaho National Laboratory:

http://avt.inel.gov/fsev.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both the range and capacity reports on this car may, I suspect, lead some to conclude this LEAF must have been severely “degraded” at the time the tests were done...

Nothing very surprising to me, in the recharge capacity/time results, which look fairly close to those from my LEAF, both today and (very close to the same as) ~21 months ago when I first began my own capacity and range tests.

I have assumed my LEAF would probably go farther in any of the constant speed range tests (only 65.3 miles at 60 mph?) but without a reference that included battery temperatures, I was never tempted to go to the extreme inconvenience those tests would entail.

Maybe I will now.
 
great info but cant help but wonder why test a degraded vehicle? why not test a new one? charge out was in the 17 kwh range so its lost over 15%
 
edatoakrun said:
I thought the test results below might be worth a new thread since, AFAIK, these results have not been posted on MNL before, and no reputable test prior to this has correlated range....

I was never tempted to go to the extreme inconvenience those tests would entail...

Yep, the best you do is complain.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
great info but cant help but wonder why test a degraded vehicle? why not test a new one? charge out was in the 17 kwh range so its lost over 15%

Actually, The varying results reported, averaging ~18.3 kWh DC and ~21.5 KWH AC, seem a close match to the most recent averages from Argonne:

Values are based on
13 level 2 battery
charge events from
completely depleted
to fully charged
Measurement point Average value
A) Wall Plug energy 21.722 AC kWh
C) DC energy to pack 18.529 DC kWh
E) DC Test energy * 17.957 DC kWh

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/D3/data/2012_nissan_leaf/AVTALeaftestinganalysis_Major%20summary101212.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I think your assumption that "...its lost over 15%..." could be based on unrealistic expectations of "new" capacity at a given temperature, and/or the variable recharge capacity allowed by the LEAF BMS.
 
Lots of good data in there, thanks for finding it. Some notes:

Sure looks like the pack in this car when tested is down 13% in capacity - the car was probably just over 1 year old having been tested in May 12 with VIN 356 - one of the first cars delivered to the US.

Can see why Nissan doesn't restrict power until turtle - the pack can supply 125 kW even when nearly completely discharged.

Don't look at the BMW Mini-E test results. What an extra 10 kWh of usable battery capacity will do for range will make you cry in comparison with the LEAF.

Also don't look at the Volt test results for either 2011 or 2013. The increase in capacity for 2013 GM announced as a result of chemistry tweaks was real. The 2011 lost very little of it's rated battery capacity (2.5%) despite having a similar number of miles and age as the LEAF that was tested. The 2013 was rated above capacity - but appears to be a bit newer. Both packs are capable of higher pulse charge/discharge rates than the LEAF battery despite being a much smaller pack thanks to having lower internal resistance. In terms of weight, the Volt pack weighs the same per kWh.

Interesting fact: The LEAF uses less power at 45 mph than the Volt (9.2 kW vs 10.1 kW). At 70 mph they are basically the same, but the Volt edges out the LEAF (22.8 kW vs 22.7 kW). The Volt is clearly more aerodynamic.
 
jpa2825 said:
Can anyone provide an Executive Summary for Dummies? Avg. m/kWh at 45, 60 & 70 mph maybe?

From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)
 
Sublime said:
jpa2825 said:
Can anyone provide an Executive Summary for Dummies? Avg. m/kWh at 45, 60 & 70 mph maybe?

From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)

I was about to do that, thanks!

IMO, this is some of the most interesting data from this report, that the m/kWh seemed to test out considerably lower than that most have guessed.


drees

Lots of good data in there, thanks for finding it. Some notes:

Sure looks like the pack in this car when tested is down 13% in capacity - the car was probably just over 1 year old having been tested in May 12 with VIN 356 - one of the first cars delivered to the US...

Which is ~exactly what the LEAF app is now showing for my car, ~27 months, in a fairly warm climate, and ~19,000 fairly hard miles, from the factory.

But as I've mentioned before, if my LEAF ever actually had (or more precisely, allowed me to access) "100%" capacity (which I now doubt) the large majority of the loss seems to have occurred in only the first few months and few thousand miles before I began collecting range and (unfortunately, rather skimpy in the early months) recharge capacity data.
 
The first exhibit states regarding the battery, "Manufacturer: Automotive Energy Supply Corporation". Is that some subsidiary of Nissan? I thought Nissan made its own batteries.
 
ERG4ALL said:
The first exhibit states regarding the battery, "Manufacturer: Automotive Energy Supply Corporation". Is that some subsidiary of Nissan? I thought Nissan made its own batteries.
AESC is a joint venture between Nissan and NEC Group.

http://www.eco-aesc-lb.com/en/aboutus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
ERG4ALL said:
The first exhibit states regarding the battery, "Manufacturer: Automotive Energy Supply Corporation". Is that some subsidiary of Nissan? I thought Nissan made its own batteries.
AESC is a joint venture of Nissan and NEC. However, in the US factory, the batteries for the LEAF are manufactured by Nissan, not AESC.
 
Sublime said:
jpa2825 said:
Can anyone provide an Executive Summary for Dummies? Avg. m/kWh at 45, 60 & 70 mph maybe?

From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)

That's, of course, different than what we read on the dash. I didn't see if the speed was actual or indicated (big difference).

65mph = 4.0mi/kWh (65 mph indicated on the dash, 62 mph actual)
 
TonyWilliams said:
Sublime said:
From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)
That's, of course, different than what we read on the dash. I didn't see if the speed was actual or indicated (big difference).

65mph = 4.0mi/kWh (65 mph indicated on the dash, 62 mph actual)
Can you explain that discrepancy, Tony? I would expect only slightly less energy coming out of the battery than goes in, but the apparent mileage gain you show would seem to indicate roughly (1 - 3.7/4.0) = 8.5% loss in the battery, not even allowing for the 2 mph difference you assume. If I interpolate the speeds in the report that becomes a (1 - 3.62/4.0) = 9.5% loss. In our many discussions of charging efficiencies we have, so far as I can remember, treated losses in the battery itself as negligible. But is it really nearly 10%?

Ray
 
planet4ever said:
TonyWilliams said:
Sublime said:
From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)
That's, of course, different than what we read on the dash. I didn't see if the speed was actual or indicated (big difference).

65mph = 4.0mi/kWh (65 mph indicated on the dash, 62 mph actual)
Can you explain that discrepancy, Tony? I would expect only slightly less energy coming out of the battery than goes in, but the apparent mileage gain you show would seem to indicate roughly (1 - 3.7/4.0) = 8.5% loss in the battery, not even allowing for the 2 mph difference you assume. If I interpolate the speeds in the report that becomes a (1 - 3.62/4.0) = 9.5% loss. In our many discussions of charging efficiencies we have, so far as I can remember, treated losses in the battery itself as negligible. But is it really nearly 10%?

Ray

it probably is negligible if only considering energy from battery to wheels but there is always going to be accessories running that will use power too. notice the faster you go the better the ratio? probably due to less running time, less overhead? dk. if that was the case, how can people drive 150 miles?
 
edatoakrun said:
I thought the test results below might be worth a new thread since, AFAIK, these results have not been posted on MNL before, and no reputable test prior to this has correlated range at 45, 60 and 70 mph (constant) with measured kwh use, both DC out of the battery and AC from the EVSE to recharge, as well as charge time for the L2 recharge.

So there are many reference points in these documents for comparison, for any who have used various methods to try to gauge capacity.

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2011nissanleaf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Excellent - finally we have some numbers from the lab.

What we still don't know is - how the m/kWh that Leaf shows on the dash compares to what they calculated. What Tony and others (including me) have done is to just use Leaf's instrumentation for miles driven and m/kWh.

BTW, the battery roundtrip efficiency is calculated to be between 95% and 98%.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
it probably is negligible if only considering energy from battery to wheels but there is always going to be accessories running that will use power too.
So you are claiming that accessories are not included in m/kWh? That is possible, though I think we can say very confidently that climate control is.

DaveinOlyWA said:
notice the faster you go the better the ratio? probably due to less running time, less overhead? dk. if that was the case, how can people drive 150 miles?
Now that you mention it, that makes no sense at all. The ratio of wall to battery should only depend on how fast you charge, not how fast you drive. But the differences are small enough that perhaps they are only rounding errors.

Ray
 
planet4ever said:
TonyWilliams said:
Sublime said:
From the battery (from the wall):
45mph = 4.85mi/kWh (3.94mi/kWh)
60mph = 3.70mi/kWh (3.04mi/kWh)
70mph = 2.92mi/kWh (2.48mi/kWh)
That's, of course, different than what we read on the dash. I didn't see if the speed was actual or indicated (big difference).

65mph = 4.0mi/kWh (65 mph indicated on the dash, 62 mph actual)
Can you explain that discrepancy, Tony?

My gut feeling is they have the climate control on. I don't see where it was specified off.

If they did have that off, then I would just argue lab grade equipment versus lowest bidder instruments on the LEAF.
 
planet4ever said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
it probably is negligible if only considering energy from battery to wheels but there is always going to be accessories running that will use power too.
So you are claiming that accessories are not included in m/kWh? That is possible, though I think we can say very confidently that climate control is.

oh they most definitely are included. i have seen my miles/kwh drop when stationary. seeing it once, i would chalk up to the car "adjusting" but have seen it drop at least twice a few times so there is power being consumed enough to make a difference

DaveinOlyWA said:
notice the faster you go the better the ratio? probably due to less running time, less overhead? dk. if that was the case, how can people drive 150 miles?
Now that you mention it, that makes no sense at all. The ratio of wall to battery should only depend on how fast you charge, not how fast you drive. But the differences are small enough that perhaps they are only rounding errors.

Ray[/quote]

how fast you drive verses how fast you charge? there is real no difference. only the direction the electrons are flowing. so the ratio is better while driving faster only because the duration of the drive is lower so the "somewhat" static overhead the car needs to operate support systems is less of an impact but only because the drive time is lower at higher speeds. But the same overhead experienced when charging is also present while driving right? the pumps that run the water to cool the inverter, etc at least part of the time.

Like Tony, i think there is something missing from the report (since there is very little said about how the test was done) that might be more important than the testers realized?
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Like Tony, i think there is something missing from the report (since there is very little said about how the test was done) that might be more important than the testers realized?

It's a gigantic oversight in the test. Oh well, it's just tax money.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
how fast you drive verses how fast you charge? there is real no difference. only the direction the electrons are flowing. so the ratio is better while driving faster only because the duration of the drive is lower so the "somewhat" static overhead the car needs to operate support systems is less of an impact but only because the drive time is lower at higher speeds. But the same overhead experienced when charging is also present while driving right? the pumps that run the water to cool the inverter, etc at least part of the time.
The other thing that can contribute to in/out battery efficiency is the power consumption. Lower power should actually result in lower losses.
 
Back
Top