Nissan Ariya to be announced for the JDM July 15, 2020

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.
johnlocke said:
alozzy said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
TMS. All ya gotta do is test them all on a cold day.

Doesn't the Model 3 use a resistive heater, rather than a heat pump? That could explain some of the difference too
CD is only half of the equation. You also need to know what the cross-section area is. A car with a lower CD but larger cross-section could get worse mileage then a smaller car with a higher CD.

I'd.be very surprised if the Model 3 has a larger surface area on it's front end than the LEAF, so I still contend that the larger spread between "real world" and EPA for the Model 3 comes must be due to more aggressive driving vs the results for the LEAF.
 
alozzy said:
johnlocke said:
alozzy said:
Doesn't the Model 3 use a resistive heater, rather than a heat pump? That could explain some of the difference too
CD is only half of the equation. You also need to know what the cross-section area is. A car with a lower CD but larger cross-section could get worse mileage then a smaller car with a higher CD.

I'd.be very surprised if the Model 3 has a larger surface area on it's front end than the LEAF, so I still contend that the larger spread between "real world" and EPA for the Model 3 comes must be due to more aggressive driving vs the results for the LEAF.


LEAF: 71"W x 61-62"H = 4331- 4,402in.^2

Model 3: 73"W x 56-57"H = 4,088-4,161 in. ^2.

I suspect it has more to do with different temps and winds.
 
LeftieBiker said:
People actually need to take delivery of a vehicle by a certain time to be eligible for the tax credit during that time. Orders/pre-orders w/o vehicle being handed over don't count.

Not even if the car is pre-purchased? Dang...
I'm 90% sure that you must take delivery by the various cutoff dates. This is why there were always scrambles before each of them for Teslas.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf for line 3 asks "Enter date vehicle was placed in service (MM/DD/YYYY)". https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8936 talks about in service but doesn't say anything about line 3.

I don't think one would want to take a chance with an audit to put down an earlier date than actual delivery and as specified on paperwork/receipt to get more tax credit $.

Tesla supposedly has tried to help out customers before certain cuttoffs. Examples:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-refund-customers-cant-get-tax-credit-before-deadline-2018-12
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/12/tesla-to-pay-tax-credit-difference-on-cars-that-miss-year-end-delivery/

While doing some searching, I stumbled across https://www.carnichiwa.com/car-news/2021-nissan-ariya-preview-miho-noguchi-hosts-world-premiere-of-new-electric-crossover/ with some behind the scenes pics. Seems like the host is a professional voiceover actress: https://voice123.com/miho/
 
alozzy said:
I'd.be very surprised if the Model 3 has a larger surface area on it's front end than the LEAF, so I still contend that the larger spread between "real world" and EPA for the Model 3 comes must be due to more aggressive driving vs the results for the LEAF.

Leaf sits right between the 3 and Y for frontal surface area.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I too remember the 55MPH limit, and driving 60 was the practical limit before you got ticketed.

Out here it was 65, as the CHP hated the law as much as everyone else did, and acted accordingly.


LeftieBiker said:
You and all the other 80MPH dopes think the laws of physics get changed with the speed limits. They don't.

I can't speak for the other 'dopes', but I've never suffered from that delusion
I'm just willing to accept the risk, in a car that's far safer than the one I learned to drive in when the CA interstate speed limit was 65 (pre-1974).

Similarly, I've been willing to ride my bike in heavy street traffic for 51 years now. Can't say I enjoy it, but I've long since accepted the risk when it provides with a more direct if not the only route to get where I'm going.

(OT) OTOH, I've also been participating for the past couple of years in my city's surveys/focus groups etc. to update our bike/pedestrian plan, pointing out the absolute need to provide either separate bike paths or protected bike lanes if they ever hope to get the rider demographic described as "interested but concerned" to commute/do errands by bike. Every survey I've ever seen of this demographic group says they simply won't ride in the street with fast moving car traffic unless protected.

In fact, the only demographic group who will do so in numbers are adolescent males, and people like me who've been doing so since we started to as adolescent males.

The city has been listening, and yesterday I had the opportunity to ride along a section of a major arterial (35-50 mph speed limits) that had recently been modified to provide protected bike lanes; it used to just have painted lines, but now there are narrow traffic islands with raised curbs and plantings, with marked gaps every so often to allow cars to enter/exit driveways.

Although I never think about it normally, I'm always surprised at just how much less stressful it is to ride in a protected vice unprotected lane next to fast moving traffic. Next step is to extend it 3 miles to downtown. They'll probably have to use parking-protected lanes for that bit, as they'd have to forego too much on-street parking otherwise. (end OT)
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
cwerdna said:
Table seems to come from https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32603216/ev-range-explained/. It says they tested at 75 mph and unfortunately under varied climate conditions like the with the Model 3 around freezing temps.

ok, so crap reporting at best.
BTW, since we're discussing speed limits, I just remembered this 1000 mile on a tank "highway" challenge in Japan at https://priuschat.com/threads/1000-mile-tank-highway-challenge-by-japanese-hybrid-drivers.62944/page-2#post-871358. One guy in Portugal was slamming the low speeds. A Japanese Priuchatter said "A 70km/h speed is too slow at Japanese highway, so he drove 74km/h or above for the 1000 miles." And, he said "Do you know the speed limit on the most mountain area is 80km/h in Japan?"

https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2022.html claims "The typical speed limits are 80 to 100 km/h on expressways, 40 km/h in urban areas, 30 km/h in side streets and 50 to 60 km/h elsewhere; however, drivers tend to go a little over the posted speed limits."

100 kph is about 62 mph. 80 kph is about 50 mph.

Side note: I do like this special fueling technique: https://priuschat.com/threads/1000-mile-tank-highway-challenge-by-japanese-hybrid-drivers.62944/#post-868854. :D

I'm also reminded of this from George Carlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWPCE2tTLZQ
 
^^^ Carlin. I'd forgotten that one, but it's absolutely true. I miss George.

Lest we forget, one of our very own members here set what I believe remains the 24kWh LEAF distance record, at 186 or 188 miles, forget which. Took him something like 10 hours. As with Tony Williams' BC2BC, this has absolutely nothing to do with practical use of the car, it just shows what's possible if you ignore most of the major reasons people use cars instead of some other transportation.
 
Curtis who lives in Colorado Springs has a gen 1 LEAF and went from there to Rapid City SD. http://evtrail.com/about.html I don't remember if he has the 30 or the 24. You can see it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuhh92npD38
 
GRA said:
alozzy said:
johnlocke said:
CD is only half of the equation. You also need to know what the cross-section area is. A car with a lower CD but larger cross-section could get worse mileage then a smaller car with a higher CD.

I'd.be very surprised if the Model 3 has a larger surface area on it's front end than the LEAF, so I still contend that the larger spread between "real world" and EPA for the Model 3 comes must be due to more aggressive driving vs the results for the LEAF.


LEAF: 71"W x 61-62"H = 4331- 4,402in.^2

Model 3: 73"W x 56-57"H = 4,088-4,161 in. ^2.

I suspect it has more to do with different temps and winds.
The numbers above don't reflect ground clearance or body shape. the Leaf is rather square in cross-section while the Tesla is more ovoid. Cross-section data for most cars is surprisingly hard to find. I suspect that it has to do more with the different temperature ranges during the drive tests. Colder weather while driving the Tesla would tip the scales. Different cars on different days and different weather. Not surprising that the results differ from the EPA numbers. The Tesla hit 74% of it's EPA range while the Leaf got about 85% it's EPA range. At 75 MPH that is surprisingly good and the Tesla still went 50 miles further than the Leaf.
 
johnlocke said:
GRA said:
alozzy said:
I'd.be very surprised if the Model 3 has a larger surface area on it's front end than the LEAF, so I still contend that the larger spread between "real world" and EPA for the Model 3 comes must be due to more aggressive driving vs the results for the LEAF.


LEAF: 71"W x 61-62"H = 4331- 4,402in.^2

Model 3: 73"W x 56-57"H = 4,088-4,161 in. ^2.

I suspect it has more to do with different temps and winds.
The numbers above don't reflect ground clearance or body shape. the Leaf is rather square in cross-section while the Tesla is more ovoid. Cross-section data for most cars is surprisingly hard to find. I suspect that it has to do more with the different temperature ranges during the drive tests. Colder weather while driving the Tesla would tip the scales. Different cars on different days and different weather. Not surprising that the results differ from the EPA numbers. The Tesla hit 74% of it's EPA range while the Leaf got about 85% it's EPA range. At 75 MPH that is surprisingly good and the Tesla still went 50 miles further than the Leaf.


AIUI, Cd is the factor that modifies frontal area, with 1.0 essentially being a rectangle normal to the airflow (the reference below shows a cube @ 1.05), although skin friction also has an effect (individual Model 3 panel gaps might hurt it as well):

The reference area depends on what type of drag coefficient is being measured. For automobiles and many other objects, the reference area is the projected frontal area of the vehicle. This may not necessarily be the cross-sectional area of the vehicle, depending on where the cross-section is taken.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient


The practical way to know is to drive both cars in the same conditions and accurately measure power consumption, after first trying to take account of differences in rolling resistance (tires etc.). And unless testing takes place in the same wind tunnel, Cd will vary considerably for the same car.

To the extent possible, C&D does their range tests under the same conditions, but those obviously can vary.

They also tested their long-term Model 3 at the test track at Chrysler's proving grounds, which eliminates any altitude effects and reduces the effects of winds. I'm guessing the Model 3 was hurt by the lack of a heat pump, as C&D found heater use (they test all cars with the climate control set to 72 deg.) could knock over 60 miles off the Model 3's range @ 70 mph, with seats and heater both on:

How Much Does Climate Control Affect EV Range?

We cranked up the heat in our Tesla Model 3 to find out just how much of an impact it has.


https://www-caranddriver-com.cdn.am...ow-much-does-climate-control-affect-ev-range/
 
johnlocke said:
The numbers above don't reflect ground clearance or body shape.
Those variable are reflected in the Cd.
The other car variable in calculating aero drag is frontal area, not surface area

width * height can be a pretty good approximation of frontal area but it is not exact and the error varies between cars. I'll guess that the main error comes from how the side mirrors are included in the width, and how much clearance varies between cars.
 
SageBrush2 said:
johnlocke said:
The numbers above don't reflect ground clearance or body shape.
Those variable are reflected in the Cd.
The other car variable in calculating aero drag is frontal area, not surface area

width * height can be a pretty good approximation of frontal area but it is not exact and the error varies between cars. I'll guess that the main error comes from how the side mirrors are included in the width, and how much clearance varies between cars.
Which is why I specified cross section, not overall dimensions. In classic aerodynamics, a flat plate has a CD of 1,28 while a teardrop shape could be as low as .04, Reference: NASA
The size and shape of the mirrors (as well as the rest of the car) would be reflected in the cross-section while CD reflects how slippery the object is. By the way, rotating wheels have a lower CD then stationary wheels, so even a wind tunnel test might not be accurate.
 
I remain of the opinion that heat pump/no heat pump can easily explain the difference in this case. I'd like C&D to test a Model Y in similar temps at the proving grounds, to see the effect vs. the Model 3.
 
@salyavin

No frunk on the Ariya. They say that they moved the air handling system forward to give more cabin space. And it's front wheel drive

The Single engine model has front wheel drive with front engine. The AWD has one front engine and one rear engine.

Sue C
 
cwerdna said:
Table seems to come from https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32603216/ev-range-explained/. It says they tested at 75 mph and unfortunately under varied climate conditions like the with the Model 3 around freezing temps.
Maybe we should start a new thread for this?

The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers
How Tesla puts distance between itself and the competition while still playing by the EPA's rules
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a33824052/adjustment-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

(https://priuschat.com/threads/car-and-driver-the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates.67235/ has some other background info about EPA mileage tests w/the C&D article written before Leaf existed.)
 
Can anyone explain the 14-16 cu ft of cargo space in the specs? That's not only less than the Kona, it's on par with a sedan. What's the point of an SUV that has 14 ft of cargo space? Is this a typo? Who would have use for an SUV that can fit several large adults in the front and back seats but can't fit any of their stuff? Unless this car is being used as a taxi, or to drive around politicians whose only cargo is some folded up paper in their pockets, I literally don't see the point. Why not just put the 90 kWh battery in a sedan and then you have an E-Maxima or E-Altima with 350-400 miles of range?
 
Back
Top