2013 range vs. 2012

[Deleted member 9549]

There are so many variables with climate control. How many people are in the cabin, how many times the doors open, solar heating (huge), humidity, cold/heat soak (huge), etc. I guess a "standard" could be made to compare cars.

I'm no statistical analysis expert, but it seems like an easier test could be devised such as:
- have two cars parked next to each other. Same weather, same location, different model years.
- measure interior temperature or make them the same by opening windows until they cool down, or closing windows and see if they heat up to the same temp inside.
- measure starting value of battery charge with whatever means is most reliable and consistent. Ie GIDs, kwh, etc.
- with the cars parked, turn on AC in both vehicles set to the same temp. If really trying to test efficiency, could set to a low interior temp. Set all AC controls the same assuming the purpose is to test efficiency and not software changes to auto setting.
- let the cars sit there and cool until either a set period of time, 15, 30, or 60 minute later or they reach the same interior temp. Measure how much electricity has been used in both cars. Measure interior temperature. Assuming interior temp is different, continue to run the vehicle with the hotter temperature until it reaches the same temp and measure electricity used.

This does get affected by the 2013 behavior of running the AC low while stopped. I don't now if that's consistent in earlier years.

It would be best to pick the same interior and exterior colors to prevent that from affecting the solar heat loading.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I have a 2013, no experience with prior years. I wonder if the AC's algorithm has changed making N1ghtrider think the AC is less efficient. I've noticed that the AC kicks on very strong (3kw+) when first starting a hot car. It also drops when stopped, ie not moving. After running a few minutes at 3kw it eventually presumably cools down and reduces its energy consumption rate. Using the AC in recirc helps to keep consumption rate low because its not having to cool hot outside air. I have seen my AC run at a trickle, especially when the cabin temperature has moderated. Has the recirc algorithm changed?...

The difference is that the AC in 2011/2012 models used very little power, both to cool the car initially, and especially in maintaining a cool temperature. On my car the AC never comes close to 3 kW at any time, even when it has been parked in the sun and is very hot. The maintenance AC power level is a speck, perhaps 0.25 kW or so. In effect, it has almost no impact on range at all.

It is a distinct possibility that the difference between 2013 SV/SL and older LEAF models is due to the new heat pump being used to cool the car instead of the dedicated AC unit used in the 2011/2012 models. If so, it could well explain the mileage hit LEAFfan has reported and, perhaps, that seen by N1ghtrider. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

It is also possible that the 2013 S model has the old AC unit; might be interesting to see it compared to a 2013 SV or SL model side-by-side on a hot day.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

The difference is that the AC in 2011/2012 models used very little power, both to cool the car initially, and especially in maintaining a cool temperature. On my car the AC never comes close to 3 kW at any time, even when it has been parked in the sun and is very hot. The maintenance AC power level is a speck, perhaps 0.25 kW or so. In effect, it has almost no impact on range at all.

It is a distinct possibility that the difference between 2013 SV/SL and older LEAF models is due to the new heat pump being used to cool the car instead of the dedicated AC unit used in the 2011/2012 models. If so, it could well explain the mileage hit LEAFfan has reported and, perhaps, that seen by N1ghtrider. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

It is also possible that the 2013 S model has the old AC unit; might be interesting to see it compared to a 2013 SV or SL model side-by-side on a hot day.

I can believe thats what the instruments show, but realistically, if its a hot day, 100+, its going to take more than .25kw to cool your car especially getting into a very hot car. I have a hard time believing the reported power consumption on 2011/12.

A heat pump typically just adds a reversing valve which doesn't (shouldn't) affect efficiency.

Of course there could be other significant changes that have affected efficiency of the AC as part of the heat pump redesign.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I can believe thats what the instruments show, but realistically, if its a hot day, 100+, its going to take more than .25kw to cool your car especially getting into a very hot car. I have a hard time believing the reported power consumption on 2011/12...

You misunderstand. The initial power use is quite a bit higher, ~1.5 kW IIRC, but nothing like the 3 kW you mentioned. It then rapidly drops to a very low level. Yes, I presume that maintaining cool would be higher in Phoenix than in a more ordinary summer climate (90s). But it was noteworthy to 2011/2012 owners how efficient the AC was and how miniscule the impact was to the range of the car. Sorry, claiming that it is just an energy gauge error in the older cars just won't cut it.

The rest of the story remains to be determined, so far as I can tell: Is AC energy use on 2013 SV/SL models higher than 2012/2013 models? Initial reports suggest that it is. Perhaps that will prove incorrect, but I'm guessing not. There are folks here with the tools to measure such things so it will eventually get sorted out I think.

 

[edatoakrun]

"dm33"="...A heat pump typically just adds a reversing valve which doesn't (shouldn't) affect efficiency.

Actually, I would not be at all surprised if designing optimum efficiency to meet the different load requirements of both heating and cooling probably could reduce the AC efficiency slightly.

But the idea that it could have caused the very large decrease in actual efficiency stated in the original post is, IMO, absurd.

"dm33"="...Of course there could be other significant changes that have affected efficiency of the AC as part of the heat pump redesign.

More than likely, any other design changes would have improved efficiency, as the 2011-12 AC unit, IIRC, was out of the pats bin, as designed for ICEV applications, where efficiency was probably a far lower priority than cheap.

On a more general note:

Watching you folks repeatedly whipping yourselves into a frenzy over the dash m/kWh display, when you could have instead, for almost two years now, simply have utilized your CarWings kWh use and miles driven reports to find both the miles and kWh factors used for both the dash and nav screen readouts, to find any errors in each value in each readout, long ago passed from being mildly amusing, to beyond morbidly fascinating, to, well...

I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I'd hate to say something that might be upsetting to those true believers in the infallibility of the dash...

God of the dash gauge forbid, they might even start to call me names.

 

[Stanton]

I've been following this thread with some interest, but there doesn't seem to be any definitive data as of yet. Having lived in a house in Texas without (current home) and with (previous home) a heat pump, I can tell you that heat pumps are NEITHER efficient nor effective in >90 degree temps (or <32 degrees temps for that matter), which I'm thinking some folks don't see on a regular basis. For that reason, it's not a stretch for me to believe that an (unintended) consequence of installing a "more efficient" heater in the 2013 Leafs is a "less efficient" A/C.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

I can tell you that heat pumps are NEITHER efficient nor effective in >90 degree temps (or <32 degrees temps for that matter), which I'm thinking some folks don't see on a regular basis.

I have never seen anything to indicate that heat pumps are any less efficient >90 degree temps. That is not a variable. I'd be interested in any online reference to indicate such an efficiency loss.

The only reason why heat pumps are not efficient below about <45 degrees is that the outside coil gets colder and humidity freezes on it and clogs up the coil. Air can't get through and the system stops functioning. Requires periodic use of the AC even during heating cycle to heat up the coil and melt the ice. The heat pump doesn't know if the coil has frozen up and guesses, causing defrost cycles regardless of how frozen or clear the outside coil is.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

There are so many variables with climate control. How many people are in the cabin, how many times the doors open, solar heating (huge), humidity, cold/heat soak (huge), etc. I guess a "standard" could be made to compare cars.

I'm no statistical analysis expert, but it seems like an easier test could be devised such as:
- have two cars parked next to each other. Same weather, same location, different model years.
- measure interior temperature or make them the same by opening windows until they cool down, or closing windows and see if they heat up to the same temp inside.
- measure starting value of battery charge with whatever means is most reliable and consistent. Ie GIDs, kwh, etc.
- with the cars parked, turn on AC in both vehicles set to the same temp. If really trying to test efficiency, could set to a low interior temp. Set all AC controls the same assuming the purpose is to test efficiency and not software changes to auto setting.
- let the cars sit there and cool until either a set period of time, 15, 30, or 60 minute later or they reach the same interior temp. Measure how much electricity has been used in both cars. Measure interior temperature. Assuming interior temp is different, continue to run the vehicle with the hotter temperature until it reaches the same temp and measure electricity used.

This does get affected by the 2013 behavior of running the AC low while stopped. I don't now if that's consistent in earlier years.

It would be best to pick the same interior and exterior colors to prevent that from affecting the solar heat loading.

measuring electricity used is much easier said than done.

going by the lengendary inaccuracy of the Nissan gauges?? bzzt

using a GID meter that reads those info from the same? bzzt

also would need to match (or as close to it) battery health...not an easy task

 

[edatoakrun]

BTW, If you want to find the total kWh used by the AC, on any LEAF, you might want to go to the "my driving style" page at CW, (which I just looked at for about the third time in two years!) which should allow you to see total AC kWh use, by repeating a test drive using the same accessories, at the same ambient, distance, travel time etc., once using the AC, and once without.

Of course, if you tested a 2011/2 against a 2013, you could also compare to see what difference in the AC kWh use between the two is, if any.

Below are reports of two trips I made to Redding last month, both of ~ 52 miles, using no AC on 6/11, and some AC on 6/13.

However, I was just trying to very roughly compare two different driving styles.

So the 6/11 trip was driven at ~5 mph average slower speeds on the ~40 miles of no-speed-limit-road, on an ~90 F day with windows open, and was 0.3 miles shorter than the 6/13 trip driven at higher speeds, windows up (after the first ~10 miles once I dropped down to the hot Valley floor) then with the AC set at ~78 F for the rest of the trip, on a ~100 f day.

So the nominal m/kWh and total kWh use (10.0 kWh on 6/11, and 10.5 on 6/13) reported do not represent only the additional Wh used by the AC, but all the variables, including additional drag from the open window(s).

But the Vehicle Accessory differential (~12.8 Wh X ~52 odometer miles = ~624 Wh over roughly ~75 to ~80 minutes total drive time in this case) is what I think you might want to take a look at, in a more precise test.

My conclusion was that, while I still prefer to drive at lower speed with windows down up to ~85-90 F (its a dry heat, as they say) since I only pay only ~5 Cents a kWh for PG&E off peak, and I easily make this trip from "80%" to ~25% SOC in the Summer I figure that the extra ~ 2.5 cents for both the AC, and/or for saving a few minutes on this trip is worth it, whenever it gets hotter than that, and or/I'm in a hurry...

Mon 06/11 Wed 06/13
Energy Economy miles/kWh 5.1 4.8

Electricity consumed by the traction motor per mile Wh 216.4 248.9

Electricity captured by regenerative braking per mile Wh 38.2 48.5

Electricity consumed by the vehicle accessories per mile Wh 19.3 6.5

1:13 Edit:

BTW, assuming both LEAFs had functional Carwings, by comparing the traction and regen results as above as well, you would also be able to compare both of those efficiency differences between a 2011/2 and 2013 LEAF.

But why would anyone want to know that?

 

[edatoakrun]

="dm33
...I have never seen anything to indicate that heat pumps are any less efficient >90 degree temps. That is not a variable. I'd be interested in any online reference to indicate such an efficiency loss...

The heat pump will always become increasingly efficient at higher ambient, just as the AC will always become increasingly efficient at lower ambient.

That said, I don't think you will find many specs for heat pumps for vehicles or buildings (other than special-purpose) published for above 90 F ambient, as I think the engineers might reasonably expect someone wanting heat to just open a window or vent instead...

 

[Deleted member 9549]

="dm33
...I have never seen anything to indicate that heat pumps are any less efficient >90 degree temps. That is not a variable. I'd be interested in any online reference to indicate such an efficiency loss...

The heat pump will always become increasingly efficient at higher ambient, just as the AC will always become increasingly efficient at lower ambient.

That said, I don't think you will find many specs for heat pumps for vehicles or buildings (other than special-purpose) published for above 90 F ambient, as I think the engineers might reasonably expect someone wanting heat to just open a window or vent instead...

This is true for heating. But thats not what was being questioned.
The statement made earlier said that heat pumps running as air conditioners are less efficient than air conditioners when its >90 degrees. I never heard of such a statement and know of no reason why this would be true. An AC and a heat pump running in AC mode are essentially the same thing.

 

[RonDawg]

More than likely, any other design changes would have improved efficiency, as the 2011-12 AC unit, IIRC, was out of the pats bin, as designed for ICEV applications, where efficiency was probably a far lower priority than cheap.

A bit O/T, but why would a manufacturer need to use an electric A/C compressor in a pure ICEV? And what Nissan models would use such a unit besides the Leaf and maybe a hybrid like the Infiniti M Hybrid?

 

[RegGuheert]

The statement made earlier said that heat pumps running as air conditioners are less efficient than air conditioners when its >90 degrees. I never heard of such a statement and know of no reason why this would be true. An AC and a heat pump running in AC mode are essentially the same thing.

I will say that when we purchased a high-end Trane heat pump for our home in 2006, there were two top-of-the-line models available: one optimized for the best heating performance and one optimized for the best cooling performance. IIRC, the unit optimized for cooling featured a SEER rating of 21 and an HSPF of 8.0 while the unit optimized for heating offered a SEER rating of 18 and an HSPF of 8.2. Since we use our heat pump mainly for heating, we opted for the latter option. The point being that if Nissan has optimized the new heat pump to give the best heating efficiency (which I believe they should have done), they may have had to give up some efficiency on the cooling side.

OTOH, in the case of the Trane heat pump, the hit to cooling efficiency does not seem to be as pronounced as what LEAFfan has been seeing. But I will note that I am not comparing a pure air conditioner to a heat pump in my case. Perhaps that makes a bit of a difference, also.

More than likely, any other design changes would have improved efficiency, as the 2011-12 AC unit, IIRC, was out of the pats bin, as designed for ICEV applications, where efficiency was probably a far lower priority than cheap.

A bit O/T, but why would a manufacturer need to use an electric A/C compressor in a pure ICEV? And what Nissan models would use such a unit besides the Leaf and maybe a hybrid like the Infiniti M Hybrid?

+1. I was going to make the same point, particularly since the A/C compressor in the LEAF runs off 400 VDC! Simply put, most ICE vehicles do not have enough electricity available to run the A/C compressor. That is the reason why they are run from the engine via an accessory belt.

 

[edatoakrun]

="dm33"...A bit O/T, but why would a manufacturer need to use an electric A/C compressor in a pure ICEV? And what Nissan models would use such a unit besides the Leaf and maybe a hybrid like the Infiniti M Hybrid?

+1. I was going to make the same point, particularly since the A/C compressor in the LEAF runs off 400 VDC! Simply put, most ICE vehicles do not have enough electricity available to run the A/C compressor. That is the reason why they are run from the engine via an accessory belt.

Thanks for the corrections. Yes, I had noticed that belt replacement is not on the LEAF service schedule.

There have many threads on the subject of why the 2011's didn't have a heat pump in the first place, going back over ~three years, and I was just working on memory, that one explanation was that much of the 2011-12 AC system was out of the parts bin, and I could well be wrong about that, as well.

IIRC stands for too lazy to do a search...

Off topic edit.

Well, you made me look.

Common parts number seemed to indicate it at least one (hybrid) ICEV has the same compressor.

http://www.infinitipartsusa.com/Item-14-2012-M35H-Compressor-p/926001mg0a-1501649-336064.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nissanpartsdiscounts.com/oem-part/nissan/leaf-parts/2011/sl/electric/hvac/compressor/compressor/92600-1mg0a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I would say ~$700 is pretty cheap, about what I was quoted for my 95 dodge, about 10 years ago,

...IIRC

 

[RegGuheert]

Common parts number seemed to indicate it at least one (hybrid) ICEV has the same compressor.

http://www.infinitipartsusa.com/Item-14-2012-M35H-Compressor-p/926001mg0a-1501649-336064.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nissanpartsdiscounts.com/oem-part/nissan/leaf-parts/2011/sl/electric/hvac/compressor/compressor/92600-1mg0a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I would say ~$700 is pretty cheap, about what I was quoted for my 95 dodge, about 10 years ago,

...IIRC

Thanks, Ed.

However, finding that Nissan used the compressor from the 2011 LEAF in the 2012 Infinity M35H hardly supports the idea that much of the 2011 LEAF A/C system came out of the parts bin since that car was likely released nearly a year after the LEAF. It seems clear that this compressor was designed for the LEAF and then later used on the Infinity.

The fact that the compressor price is cheap is irrelevant.

 

[N1ghtrider]

On a more general note:

Watching you folks repeatedly whipping yourselves into a frenzy over the dash m/kWh display, when you could have instead, for almost two years now, simply have utilized your CarWings kWh use and miles driven reports to find both the miles and kWh factors used for both the dash and nav screen readouts, to find any errors in each value in each readout, long ago passed from being mildly amusing, to beyond morbidly fascinating, to, well...

I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I'd hate to say something that might be upsetting to those true believers in the infallibility of the dash...

God of the dash gauge forbid, they might even start to call me names.

I must add that my dash and Carwings m/kWh displays are remarkably close to one another in the 2013, with any higher readings on the dash, which is the opposite of the case in my 2012. All-in-all they are the same over a long trip.

 

[edatoakrun]

I must add that my dash and Carwings m/kWh displays are remarkably close to one another in the 2013, with any higher readings on the dash, which is the opposite of the case in my 2012. All-in-all they are the same over a long trip.

Roy,

Does your LEAF display the same dash/nav screen m/kWh error as described below?

...All 2011-2 LEAFs (with functional and updated CarWings), AFAIK, have reported the same Carwings odometer and Dash m/kWh error of consistently under-reporting by ~2.5%.

So if your CW miles driven is ~2.5% lower than your dash odometer miles, and your dash m/kWh is showing ~2.5% less than your nav screen m/kWh (0.1 m/kWh lower below ~6 m/kWh, and 0.2 m/kWh lower when you are getting over ~6 m/kWh) this is "normal" for 2011-2012 LEAFs.

Hopefully, Nissan has fixed this error in the 2013s. Any readers have a CW equipped 2013? Please check and report back.

If you are "missing" more miles than this, go to the "rate simulation" page at the CW site.

Here, each "trip" (each start/stop cycle) will be individually reported. Make sure that each of the "trips"you have made each day, is showing up. Each trip will show the same ~2.5% under-report of miles driven as your daily total, and each m/kWh report there will match your dash (if you reset it) for the corresponding trip, again showing the same ~2.5% under-report error.

The Dash, nav screen and CW m/kWh all are mathematically "correct" as a function of the total kWh use reported by CW for every trip, day, or months driving.

It's just that the dash uses the same ~2.5% understated miles to make its calculation of m/kWh as CW does, while the nav screen is always accurate as a function of reported kWh use, as it uses the dash odometer miles, for the m/kWh calculation.

Got it?

BTW, while every LEAF driver, AFAIK, has reported the dash odometer as very close to correct, while using stock tires and wheels, IMO it wouldn't hurt to confirm your dash odometer is correct, by checking with another source, such as Google maps...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=11769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The primary reason (there are several) IMO, why neither the dash or Nav screen can be depended on to display even the mathematically correct m/kWh with precision at any given time is that they are designed not to.

Our tiny human brains would be disturbed by m/kWh displays constantly flashing back and forth by 0.1 m/kWh every time we adjusted the A/D pedal. So an unknown level of buffering of kWh use and/or limitation in the frequency of updates is used in both m/KWh displays.

The CarWings m/kWh does not have these limitations, and is always mathematically correct as a function of the CarWings reported kWh use and miles driven (even though both those numbers contain errors) while my dash screen m/kWh (using the same odometer error, and the same kWh use error) never varies from the CarWings m/kWh (on longer trips) by more than +/- 0.1 kWh.

Is that what you describe as "remarkably close"?

Only once you determine the relevant odometer errors in any or all of your three m/kWh displays, can move on to determining your reported kWh use error (if any) that in my LEAF is common to all three sources.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

Only once you determine the relevant odometer errors in any or all of your three m/kWh displays, can move on to determining your reported kWh use error (if any) that in my LEAF is common to all three sources.

Haven't read through the debate, but in my limited testing, I think I've seen Carwings be off. I assume thats because the garage where the car is parked has especially poor AT&T coverage. When the car uploads mileage information, I don't know if its timestamped. It appears (although I haven't rigorously tested) that the mileage may end up getting reported as having occurred when it can successfully upload rather than on the day it occurred.
Meanwhile the mi/kwh reading does match exactly (rounding) with the odometer reported miles driven and the % SOC reported on the car display WHEN I account for the already degraded battery as reported by the Leaf Android app.

 

[edatoakrun]

...mi/kwh reading does match exactly (rounding) with the odometer reported miles driven and the % SOC reported on the car display WHEN I account for the already degraded battery as reported by the Leaf Android app.

I believe you would expect the dash and nav screen to replicate any app-reported error of available battery capacity (and perhaps the app can also report "degradation") since they use the same energy data generated by what is apparently the crappy instrumentation of the LEAFs BMS, the phenomenon AKA "gauge error".

As I posted a year ago, based on the early gid reports we had back then:

Ever since TickTock fist suggested the topic of gid variability, the implications of his observations have been setting in.

TickTock

1 gid *mostly* equals 80Wh

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If “gids” do reflect a variable amount of Wh, and they are the values used by the LEAF to calculate kWh use, then the capacity bar displays, dash and nav screen displays of m/kWh, as well as the Carwings calculations based on these same “gid” values, might be expected to be incorrect as well.

I now believe that this quite possibly could be the case.

I have been noticing an unexplained increase in my dash, nav Screen, and Carwings m/kWh results for a few months now, not only on this test trip, but on other trips, and my long term m/kWh averages.

Before I questioned the accuracies both of the screens and of Carwings, I thought the likely explanations for increased efficiency results, were increased efficiency, in either the driver or vehicle.

I am skeptical of any significant increase in my own driving efficiency, other than that resulting from driving more slowly.

I considered the possibility of increasing vehicle efficiency, and I would not be surprised if drivetrain friction is reduced a bit due to “break-in” of the drivetrain.

But if either of these efficiency factors were improving, I would expect them both to be relatively minor, and self limiting.

This does not seem to be what I am seeing.

I think that my range tests may indicate that whatever method my LEAF uses to calculate kWh, is variable, and has been significantly understating the recent amounts of kWh use, and has probably increasingly inflated all my m/kWh reports, from the dash, nav screen, and CW.

And of course, this could reflect with Tick Tocks observations of variable “gid” Wh values. Gids with higher Wh content could lower the calculated kWh numbers, and raise all the m/kWh results.

Maybe this is what I am seeing, from yesterdays range test. I tried to replicate as accurately as possible, my earliest range test,of almost a year, and almost 10,000 miles ago, to test this hypothesis.

I chose a day with very close to the original temperature condition, and drove the exact same route over the first 87 miles of the trip, using the same mode (eco) and used my original trip logs to closely replicate the same elapsed times for each of the three (same distance) legs of the trip.

The results from 8/30/12 were:

97.3 miles to VLB, 98.9 miles in total, by the odometer.

CW: 96.5 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 5.7 m/kWh, 16.8 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW.

Compare this test with my first test on 9/7/11:

91.5 miles to VLB, 93.4 in total, by the odometer

CW: 91.1 (~2.5% under-report) total miles, at 4.9 m/kWh, 18.7 kWh used from 100% to about the same capacity level, slightly past VLBW.

I do not believe that the slight increase in range over the last year reflects any increase in battery capacity. On the contrary, I expect that my total capacity ( though maybe not the amount of kWh that the BMS is allowing me to access) has declined by an undetermined amount, but it cannot be detected due to the “noise” of uncontrolled variables in a range test.

But I think the decrease of over 10% of reported kWh use, is simply too great to be consistent...


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


BTW, I repeated this same route on a test last Sunday, getting a very good match of all known efficiency variables, and my annual range as tested, increased again, to 100.4 miles from "100%" to the VLBW, 101.9 miles in total (both correct odometer) to the end of the route.

Still waiting on the CarWings numbers, for the full report, and what I believe I can conclude from it about my change in available battery capacity over the last ~2 years.

Yes, CarWings takes ~ one to three days to update, and maybe slower for me than most, as I have very poor cell reception, and CarWings often seems to require a trip to an area with better coverage to get the update.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

="dm33
...I have never seen anything to indicate that heat pumps are any less efficient >90 degree temps. That is not a variable. I'd be interested in any online reference to indicate such an efficiency loss...

The heat pump will always become increasingly efficient at higher ambient, just as the AC will always become increasingly efficient at lower ambient.

That said, I don't think you will find many specs for heat pumps for vehicles or buildings (other than special-purpose) published for above 90 F ambient, as I think the engineers might reasonably expect someone wanting heat to just open a window or vent instead...

This is true for heating. But thats not what was being questioned.
The statement made earlier said that heat pumps running as air conditioners are less efficient than air conditioners when its >90 degrees. I never heard of such a statement and know of no reason why this would be true. An AC and a heat pump running in AC mode are essentially the same thing.

your statement would imply they were equally efficient. that is far from the case. a heat pump is better than resistive heating but still not as efficient as A/C...