Excellent LEAF Test Drive Video

[indyflick]

Here's a 14 minute LEAF test drive video which also walks through all the gauges as well as the NAV & info center. It's not a real polished professional video but is very informative IMHO.

 

[hodad66]

great vid.... thanx

 

[hodad66]

certainly has a comment on the added drive noise
the reverse beep is the noticeable one.....

 

[LEAFer]

Thanks.

Around the 8 minute mark: "We have room for a thousand charging stations within a hundred miles."

Now ... just thinking out loud here ...

Mark Perry is obviously commenting on a limit related to the storage area allocated to the information kept for these stations. He earlier also mentioned 1200-1300 stations around the Seattle area. As off-the-cuff (and possibly misleading) as this comment may seem ... I wonder what happens when you go long distance. Does the system automatically (geographically) adjust to update to the "set" of stations as you drive ? What happens to the other 200-300 ? Does the system refuse to load more stations because it is not properly programmed to "drop" stations to open some capacity for the "new" stations now near you ?

... ...

(Edit: I just wish Mark Perry would stop saying "miles per kW" ... it's miles/kWh.)

 

[garygid]

mpe = miles per edie (kWh)

 

[mwalsh]

The more I see this car in motion, the more it's lines grow on me.

 

[indyflick]

The more I see this car in motion, the more it's lines grow on me.

I agree and it seems to look even better in person. I really like the side rear line sweeping upwards, that's unique and distinguishable. Also, I'm particular about the C pillars on vehicles. I like a sail versus a thin pillar or no pillar (wrap around glass). I always thought the 1969 Camaro had the perfect C pillar.

Have you seen the Mercedes Benz BlueZero concept electric car? If I were Nissan I would be upset. The BlueZero looks like what the next gen LEAF would look like.

 

[LakeLeaf]

Two comments on the video (great find, b.t.w.).

First - it looks like that ugly plug in still on the steering column. I don't think we've figured out if there is something under there, if it as access point for a future option, or if it is a leftover from another Nissan car that uses some common part with the Leaf. I'd hope for the second. It would be nice if someone could get the answer from Nissan.

The second was the nonsense comment about how using the regenerative braking added range to the car. I think it started at 83 miles to empty and then is up to 111 miles to empty. This looks more like over active software making a way too aggressive projection based on instantaneous feedback, just as the earlier dip in the range seemed to be caused by the same thing. Unless you are converting potential energy (i.e. going downhill), the braking isn't going to increase the range of the car beyond what was there when you started it. If it could, it would truly be a magic car - every time your range gets low, just stand on the brake and you'll then be able to go further :lol:

 

[JasonT]

Unless you are converting potential energy (i.e. going downhill), the braking isn't going to increase the range of the car beyond what was there when you started it. If it could, it would truly be a magic car - every time your range gets low, just stand on the brake and you'll then be able to go further :lol:

I am the first to admit that I'm not the smartest cookie in the box, but I do not believe you are correct here. First off, you might be right that it's way too aggressive a projection. Second, you are also correct that you can't gain more miles from braking than you can get from accelerating or anything like that. However, the idea that your range could increase with a more aggressive regenerative braking is not magic. The original estimation of 83 miles is predicting that at least some of that will be due to regenerative braking. If you increase the aggressiveness of the regenerative braking then it is possible for the amount of miles you will be able to go will increase.

Let's put it this way - what if we took regenerative braking out of the question entirely? Let's say the car couldn't do it at all. Would your estimated range be the same? I would expect it to drop. Of course, there are ways to get better mileage without regen braking, and some thoughts about how some hypermiling techniques work better if you have control (or can even turn off) regen braking. But these range estimates are not for the hypermiler (did I spell that right?) - they are for the average Joe who just wants to know if he'll be able to get home or if he needs to stop for a DC fill-up.

If the range estimate was "here are how many miles you can go if you accelerate to 35 miles per hour and keep that speed constant the entire time", then yes, the estimate can not increase. But that's not real-world, which is what their estimates are attempting to provide.

 

[Frank]

This is a great video for viewing the LCD screen and buttons closely. This is the first time I have noticed the passenger air bag indicator below the HVAC controls.

But I am having trouble understanding the relationship between the estimated remaining miles of range displayed, and the average miles/kWh number displayed. At 4:50 minutes into the video it shows an average of 16.7 miles/kWh and remaining miles of 67. How are these two numbers related? If the pack capacity is 24 kWh, and say only 20 kWhs are usable, wouldn't 16.7 times 20 kWhs equal 334 remaining miles of range? I realize that the car was driven a little bit before these numbers are shown but the car did start off with a full charge as shown at the beginning of the video. I obviously am not understanding what these numbers mean so can someone help me out here?

 

[gudy]

I think that the 16.7 miles / kWh is complete non-sense, and has to be a bug.
My bike gets 25 miles / kWh at 27 mph, and weights something like 80 pounds, not 2700 ... I highly doubt that the leaf will be getting 16.7 miles / kWh.

 

[evnow]

I think that the 16.7 miles / kWh is complete non-sense, and has to be a bug.

Not really - going down on a slight decline, you can defintely get that. Infact you can get even -ve values, depending on how they show instantaneous m/kwh during regen.

 

[Frank]

I think that the 16.7 miles / kWh is complete non-sense, and has to be a bug.

Not really - going down on a slight decline, you can defintely get that. Infact you can get even -ve values, depending on how they show instantaneous m/kwh during regen.

Maybe. But the display shows that 16.7 miles/kWh is the average, not the theoretical maximum.

 

[evnow]

Maybe. But the display shows that 16.7 miles/kWh is the average, not the theoretical maximum.

I thought the 16.7 miles/kWh is the "instantaneous" usage, not the average.

 

[Frank]

Maybe. But the display shows that 16.7 miles/kWh is the average, not the theoretical maximum.

I thought the 16.7 miles/kWh is the "instantaneous" usage, not the average.

No, the 16.7 number is the average. On the same screen it shows the instant miles/kWhs to be 6 to 8 (it changes quickly because it is the instant reading). Check out the video and listen to what Mark Perry says at 4:50 in the video. He says that the driver is averaging 16.7 miles per kWh. Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[LEAFfan]

This is a great video for viewing the LCD screen and buttons closely. This is the first time I have noticed the passenger air bag indicator below the HVAC controls.

But I am having trouble understanding the relationship between the estimated remaining miles of range displayed, and the average miles/kWh number displayed. At 4:50 minutes into the video it shows an average of 16.7 miles/kWh and remaining miles of 67. How are these two numbers related? If the pack capacity is 24 kWh, and say only 20 kWhs are usable, wouldn't 16.7 times 20 kWhs equal 334 remaining miles of range? I realize that the car was driven a little bit before these numbers are shown but the car did start off with a full charge as shown at the beginning of the video. I obviously am not understanding what these numbers mean so can someone help me out here?

Just a small correction...24Kwh is the USEABLE capacity, not the full battery capacity. So 80% of 30kwh would give you the 24kwh useable capacity.

 

[Frank]

This is a great video for viewing the LCD screen and buttons closely. This is the first time I have noticed the passenger air bag indicator below the HVAC controls.

But I am having trouble understanding the relationship between the estimated remaining miles of range displayed, and the average miles/kWh number displayed. At 4:50 minutes into the video it shows an average of 16.7 miles/kWh and remaining miles of 67. How are these two numbers related? If the pack capacity is 24 kWh, and say only 20 kWhs are usable, wouldn't 16.7 times 20 kWhs equal 334 remaining miles of range? I realize that the car was driven a little bit before these numbers are shown but the car did start off with a full charge as shown at the beginning of the video. I obviously am not understanding what these numbers mean so can someone help me out here?

Just a small correction...24Kwh is the USEABLE capacity, not the full battery capacity. So 80% of 30kwh would give you the 24kwh useable capacity.

Thanks for the corrected kWh useable capacity amount. This even makes it harder to understand how the data shown on the screen in the video could be accurate and make sense. An average of 16.7 kWh/mile would get you a 400 mile range. I was thinking that the screen had "fake" data for the video but Mark Perry said, "You're averaging 16 miles a killowat and there's 24 killowatts on board". Go figure.

 

[gudy]

Unless they only went downhill, there is no way you'd get such an average with the leaf or ANY electric car.
I've just checked, and on my 10 miles trip to work this morning, I've been using 41.9 Wh / mile on my electric bike (ie, less than 300 pounds with me on it). 16.7 miles / kWh is 59.9 Wh / mile, and I don't see how a car about 10 times the weight, that goes much faster than my bike, would "only" consume 50% more ...
The leaf has a 80kW motor, my bike a 1.7kW motor ...

Either it's a short average (ie, last 10 seconds), or they have a bug.

edit : if you look at the video, you will see that the scale for the "instant" miles / kWh goes from 0 to 8 and doesn't seem to be dynamic (ok, over only about 3 seconds where you get to see it). 8 miles / kWh, based on 24kWh usable is still 192 miles, which is a LOT, but that scale makes more sense than their average.

 

[garygid]

Maybe they got the average and current mpe reversed.

 

[Frank]

Either it's a short average (ie, last 10 seconds), or they have a bug.

edit : if you look at the video, you will see that the scale for the "instant" miles / kWh goes from 0 to 8 and doesn't seem to be dynamic (ok, over only about 3 seconds where you get to see it). 8 miles / kWh, based on 24kWh usable is still 192 miles, which is a LOT, but that scale makes more sense than their average.

Yes, and this seems important enough for Nissan to explain. At 9:30 in the video the screen shows 17.0 miles/kWh and Mark Perry says the 17.0 is the average miles/kWh since they got in the car this morning. So presumably the average began calculating when they began the test drive and the 17.0 number is further into the test drive. At this point there is no instant number because the car is not moving. Then at 11:35 the screen shows 17.2 miles/kWh average while the car is moving again. Interestingly, the test driver doesn't seem surprised by the average statistics being displayed.