EPA: Nissan Leaf gets 99 mpg equivalent

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.
My sense is that hypermiling techniques will not yield as much of a mileage improvement for EVs as they do for ICEVs since some of the techniques will not apply, such as turning off the engine at red lights. Also, some of the things that do not consume gasoline in an ICEV will consume electricity in an EV, such as heating the cabin. (Agreed, a dedicated hypermiler might opt for frostbite before turning on the heat in an EV!)

I don't think anyone is going to approach 200 miles of range with a Leaf unlesss they drive downhill with a tailwind. In both directions (opposite of the way I used to walk to school)!

Herm said:
The 30% adjustment factor of the LA4 cycle is well known in EV circles, from previous experience, for the average driver and using AC. It does not mean you cant achieve the LA4 range or even exceed it Hypermilers will aproach 200 miles of range with the LEAF.
 
more from NYT

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/the-case-of-the-nissan-leafs-unexpected-sticker/?ref=automobiles

The Case of the Nissan Leaf’s Unexpected Sticker
By MATTHEW L. WALD


2011 Nissan Leaf electric car.Two federal agencies say they know how far the new Nissan Leaf will go on a fully charged battery. They just don’t agree.

A few weeks before the Nissan Leaf is delivered to buyers, the Environmental Protection Agency, which approves the fuel economy stickers that go in the window of every new car, says it will go 73 miles. The Federal Trade Commission says the correct number is 96 to 110.

The FTC is no stranger to stickers; it approves the ones for refrigerators and dishwashers and is working on a new one for television sets, highlighting the difference between plasma and LED. Under the 1985 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, it is supposed to label all alternative-fuel vehicles, including the all-electric Leaf.

But the E.P.A. does its own testing, in laboratories built primarily to measure tailpipe pollution. It uses both the pollution test cycle, called the Federal Test Procedure, and other tests that simulate different weather conditions and driving routes. (Using the heater or air-conditioner, for example, will reduce range.)


The F.T.C. does not do its own tests; it relies on a standard set by the S.A.E., a technical group formerly known as the Society of Automotive Engineers. Automakers report their results to the F.T.C. The F.T.C. is not terribly concerned over not being able to check for itself, according to the associate director for enforcement, James A. Kohm. Manufacturers like Nissan, for the Leaf, or General Motors, for the Volt, he said, “are big legitimate companies that are generally trying to do these right.” And besides, he added, “they have competitors looking over their shoulders.”

The perils of cheating on energy efficiency were demonstrated by LG, the South Korean conglomerate, which was caught in 2008 misstating the efficiency of some of its refrigerators. These were tested by competitors and by Consumer Reports magazine.

But Mr. Kohm said that the commission does have “a long history of ensuring that the commission doesn’t engage in confusing and conflicting advice.”

Policy is set by the five commissioners, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and Mr. Kohm said he could not say what they would do. But the commission recently proposed new rules under which it would defer to the Agriculture Department in another area, whether foods could be labled as sustainable, natural or organic.

In the meantime, Nissan has taken refundable deposits on the first 20,000 Leafs, no matter what the sticker says.

.
 
My situation is similar to yours, if the 73 mile EPA range estimate is accurate the Leaf may not be for me after all. Fortunatly I do not live in a roll-out state, and I'll have a year or so of reports from first users to get a realistic idea of range before committing to my purchase or lease.

For now I'm not going to get excited about it, I'll just enjoy reading the hightened level of speculation that this is causing.

TimeHorse said:
... I need 75 mi per day. 73 would kill me out the gate, never mind 5 years from now. And I live where we have seasons.

Whatever, I'll just keep my ICE as backup and hope that I can ECO-mode and Hypermile the difference.
 
garygid said:
Maybe the EPA estimate is not based only upon "brand new" range, but upon a reduced range that accounts for the Nissan-published "expected" battery capacity loss?


Not at all likely. Perhaps it's based on the real world, as I said day one that 100 miles is a dream for real world driving. Sure constant low speeds, staying under 45, etc. My real world Leaf estimate has always been about 70 miles for regular drivers.
 
I agree.
I expect that my 75-mile trip (RT), mostly freeway, with some local city hills, will be very difficult with no re-charge, especially after some "capacity loss".

I hope to find a QC station along the roure for a quick (10-minute) "e-drink" on the way home.
 
garygid said:
I agree.
I expect that my 75-mile trip (RT), mostly freeway, with some local city hills, will be very difficult with no re-charge, especially after some "capacity loss".

I hope to find a QC station along the roure for a quick (10-minute) "e-drink" on the way home.


You will need to stay below 55 and yes, pack capacity loss will be critical in years to come.
 
I sure hope I can get 76 miles without a charge. It is mostly freeway and flat. I am also going to try what I think will be a good hyper mile driving of drive in normal drive mode and anytime someone in front of me slow down and I can't change lanes I will pop it in to ECO mode instead of using the brakes. I also think when I get off the freeway and have to stop at the bottom of the freeway ramp put it in to ECO mode to regen some more power. I know over time I will not get 75 mile but when the car is new I sure hope it will fit in to my 76 mile round trip to work.
 
Has anybody verified (with the Energy-Usage screen) that pressing very lightly on the brakes will increase Regen a lot (maybe to 30 kW), WITHOUT actually causing the mechanical brakes to engage?

If Regen-with-the-Brake-Pedal works as it "should", there will be no reason to pop into ECO mode for additional braking ... unless one specifically wants more foot-off Regen.
 
EVDRIVER said:
garygid said:
Maybe the EPA estimate is not based only upon "brand new" range, but upon a reduced range that accounts for the Nissan-published "expected" battery capacity loss?


Not at all likely. Perhaps it's based on the real world, as I said day one that 100 miles is a dream for real world driving. Sure constant low speeds, staying under 45, etc. My real world Leaf estimate has always been about 70 miles for regular drivers.

I actually wonder about this. EPA tests cars after break-in (5000 miles) and figures that there is not a significant loss in mileage with age over the first ten years if properly maintained. However, they stipulate that emissions need to be certified for 80,000 miles and that major emissions components be warranteed for that period. Perhaps EV range is de-rated to the anticipated range at that emissions certification mileage.
 
Gonewild said:
I sure hope I can get 76 miles without a charge. It is mostly freeway and flat. I am also going to try what I think will be a good hyper mile driving of drive in normal drive mode and anytime someone in front of me slow down and I can't change lanes I will pop it in to ECO mode instead of using the brakes. I also think when I get off the freeway and have to stop at the bottom of the freeway ramp put it in to ECO mode to regen some more power. I know over time I will not get 75 mile but when the car is new I sure hope it will fit in to my 76 mile round trip to work.


You are better off in ECO mode all the time on the freeway as it makes you more aware of your consumption via pedal feedback. Why would you switch back and forth?
 
Reason to NOT use ECO mode:
With heater and A/C not ON, so their energy consumption us not an issue, ECO mode can WASTE energy by having too-high foot-off Regen (braking) when you just want to COAST.
 
garygid said:
Reason to NOT use ECO mode:
With heater and A/C not ON, so their energy consumption us not an issue, ECO mode can WASTE energy by having too-high foot-off Regen (braking) when you just want to COAST.


The part about the heat and AC is true but the regen is so weak even in eco mode it is not going to waste energy, that is completely false. Even if the regen is increased on the accell pedal it's not going to waste energy on the freeway. This is completely WRONG.
 
lne937s said:
I actually wonder about this. EPA tests cars after break-in (5000 miles) and figures that there is not a significant loss in mileage with age over the first ten years if properly maintained. However, they stipulate that emissions need to be certified for 80,000 miles and that major emissions components be warranteed for that period. Perhaps EV range is de-rated to the anticipated range at that emissions certification mileage.
This is very bad reporting on the part of the NY Times. The issue has nothing to do with Nissan fudging the test scores. The difference between the numbers is that by regulation the FTC sticker doesn't apply the 30% deflater that the EPA applies to get a real world number from the dynamometer numbers. The FTC sticker simply gives you the dynamometer numbers. So for example the FTC sticker for the mini-E would say the range was 156 miles whereas the EPA sticker would say 100 miles. Divide the EPA range by .7 you'll roughly get the FTC number.

Nissan just gave the FTC the dyanmometer numbers and the FTC used them. The EPA doubtless got the same numbers and then massaged them according to the requirement that the numbers be reduced by 30% to reflect real world driving. The EPA number is a good real world guide. The FTC number is like the MPG numbers you'd see from 20 years ago -- optimistic. But the difference has nothing to do with Nissan making up the numbers and misleading the FTC.
 
I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but the boilerplate on range from fueleconomy.com is:

How are fuel cost estimates and miles on a tank determined?
Fuel cost estimates are based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, 15000 annual miles and a fuel cost of $ 2.88 per gallon . You may customize these values to reflect the cost of fuel in your area and your own driving patterns.

Fill-up cost and the distance you can travel on a tank are calculated based on the combined MPG and the assumption that you will re-fuel when your tank is 10% full.

If you assume the 73miles on the sticker is really 90%, then the (derated) range is 81 miles. If you assume, as stated previously, that the EPA got that 81 mile number by derating the measured results, then they actually "drove" 115.8 miles.
 
Yodrak said:
My situation is similar to yours, if the 73 mile EPA range estimate is accurate the Leaf may not be for me after all. Fortunatly I do not live in a roll-out state, and I'll have a year or so of reports from first users to get a realistic idea of range before committing to my purchase or lease.
The 73 mile range estimate will be accurate for most drivers. For example, the range for the Mini-E was 156 miles on LA4 and 100 miles on the EPA sticker. Mini-E drivers will tell you that 100 miles is a good and realistic estimate, though conditions always matter. The 156 mile range is wildly optimistic.

A quick way to calibrate would be to look at the MPG you get with your current vehicle and how that relates to the MPG on fueleconomy.gov. If it's close then the 73 mile range will be right on. If you get higher MPG than the rating then you'll get more range. If you get lower MPG then you'll get less range.
 
SanDust said:
Yodrak said:
For example, the range for the Mini-E was 156 miles on LA4 and 100 miles on the EPA sticker.
Do we know for a fact that the Mini E was tested the same as the Leaf to get those numbers? I'm just curious because it would be nice to have at least one other vehicle to compare stickers to.
mini-e-sticker.jpg
 
Back
Top