LEAF 2 : What we know so far (2018 or later?)

[geefish]

I think everyone needs to remember that no matter how many times Nissan drip feeds information about the new Leaf there will be something that they will hold back for the reveal on September 6th. Theres no way you present all the best points about an all new design before the actual reveal. So its going to be interesting to see what they are holding back. Price, Technology, Range, Battery Size, Warranty?

 

[GetOffYourGas]

- Can I use DCQC (Chademo vs SAE makes no difference-the stations in Albuquerque are bisexual) w/o needing to pay $750?

I think you mean $1770. DCQC is a $750 option on the Bolt. For the Leaf, it is $1770 for the Charge Package (upgrade to 6kW from 3kW OBC + CHAdeMO)

 

[2011RedLeaf]

Ouch. I purchased my `11 SL used, so hadn't realized how much extra Nissan was charging. I'm cross shopping vs the Bolt-EV so the $750 was the number I knew. Thanks.

 

[desiv]

For the Leaf, it is $1770 for the Charge Package (upgrade to 6kW from 3kW OBC + CHAdeMO)

Just for clarification, that's not just an upgrade to QC.
As you mentioned, it is for the QC AND the OBC upgrade..
The new Leaf, might not have a different OBC option, but just a QC add on, which should bring it way down...

desiv

 

[NeilBlanchard]

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

For the Leaf, it is $1770 for the Charge Package (upgrade to 6kW from 3kW OBC + CHAdeMO)

Just for clarification, that's not just an upgrade to QC.
As you mentioned, it is for the QC AND the OBC upgrade..
The new Leaf, might not have a different OBC option, but just a QC add on, which should bring it way down...

desiv

Yes, I tried to say that, but it came out a little garbled. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

I'm wondering if they haven't also reduced the frontal area by making the car lower. Lower Cd, Lower A, doubly lower CdA.

 

[edatoakrun]

Artist's rendering of the gen 2, based on those blurry spy photos:

http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2018-nissan-leaf-render.jpg

http://insideevs.com/2018-nissan-leaf-rendered/

Still looks pretty bland to me.

Might look much better in darker colors, IMO.

I'd probably prefer something close to the current metallic charcoal LEAF color, with light fabric interior.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The most likely range is 150-160 miles, so no to that, at least until the 60kwh pack is offered next year.

38.4 kwh usable @ 4 miles per kwh is still a respectable 153.6 miles. No doubt a bit lower in Winter, bit higher in Summer. This isn't the end game by a long shot but adds a big chunk of the currently "not convenient" driving to the mix.

 

[LeftieBiker]

The most likely range is 150-160 miles, so no to that, at least until the 60kwh pack is offered next year.

38.4 kwh usable @ 4 miles per kwh is still a respectable 153.6 miles. No doubt a bit lower in Winter, bit higher in Summer. This isn't the end game by a long shot but adds a big chunk of the currently "not convenient" driving to the mix.

I was responding to a poster who was expecting 200+ miles. I personally have no problem with 150, or even 140.

 

[joeriv]

4 mi/kwr is on the low side - not bragging but I get 4.9 which translates to 188 miles. With that capacity I would charge every 4-5 days.

 

[GRA]

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

That would be true if drag were the only factor in consumption, but you're forgetting rolling resistance. While drag is the largest component at freeway speeds, rolling resistance doesn't go away, so the actual reduction in power required will be less than your calc. Here's a nice basic tutorial: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/Air_and_rolling_resistance.pdf

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The most likely range is 150-160 miles, so no to that, at least until the 60kwh pack is offered next year.

38.4 kwh usable @ 4 miles per kwh is still a respectable 153.6 miles. No doubt a bit lower in Winter, bit higher in Summer. This isn't the end game by a long shot but adds a big chunk of the currently "not convenient" driving to the mix.

I was responding to a poster who was expecting 200+ miles. I personally have no problem with 150, or even 140.

yeah, just putting it out there. If faced with the "T3 dilemma" what would you do? Pay the extra $9K (or more likely $5-6K Nissan pricing ya know) for the extra range?


As always, hard to say without knowing the pricing. If the base was $32,000 for 45 kwh, its easy to make that jump to $37,000 for the 60 kwh pack but if its $35,000 for the 45 kwh pack then its a bit tougher to jump to the 40,000.

I know its just a few grand difference but there is always a line and its gotta live somewhere.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

4 mi/kwr is on the low side - not bragging but I get 4.9 which translates to 188 miles. With that capacity I would charge every 4-5 days.

So did I, so did I but with the 30 kwh pack, I am seeing a good .2-.5 miles per kwh lower on average but I have to say its partially the extra range that gives me the freedom to choose to drive 70 mph (speed limit here is 60 mph) early in the morning if I need it.

But the reality is when I had my 24 kwh pack, the math NEVER worked. I had 22.7 kwh available to use and regularly got 5- 5.5 miles per kwh but that would be 113.5 to 124.8 miles per charge (which is what I now see daily) which was simply out of the question. Today, I averaged 4.2 miles per kwh (A/C on the whole time since its in the 90's) with 28.1 kwh to use which works out to 118 miles. I have driven 73 miles so far and GOM (which is much better than earlier models) says I have 50 miles left. But my elapsed miles plus GOM (which is frequently single digits) is within a few miles of the calculated range when before I would be "missing" up to 25 miles


**edit**

Ok, so end of day was drive around town mostly with an 8 mile jaunt down the freeway there and 8 miles back but ended the day with 101.2 miles driven, 24 on the GOM and 4.3 miles per kwh. Experience tells me that I would probably see about 20+ miles of real range if I had gone that far.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

When I had a 2012 Leaf my range on a 100% pack was typically about 60. I very rarely got the miles/kwh necessary to beat the official range estimate, and I regularly got spectacularly less, with hardcore winter driving dropping my turtle-icon range under 40 the one time I tested that to turtle. I refused to baby the car for range, though, and never apologized for blasting the heat when it was 15 f outside.

 

[rmay635703]

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

That would be true if drag were the only factor in consumption, but you're forgetting rolling resistance. While drag is the largest component at freeway speeds, rolling resistance doesn't go away, so the actual reduction in power required will be less than your calc. Here's a nice basic tutorial: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/Air_and_rolling_resistance.pdf

Neil and myself are fully aware of that paper and how it's done, if the leaf is like most modern cars his SWAG is likely off less than 5% at highway speed.

Aero overcomes drag around 20mph on most modern cars meaning RR can be almost ignored.

Also if Nissan did their homework the next gen should have some weight loss and RR improvements to go with the aero drag.

 

[edatoakrun]

Oops.

If insideevs.com posted the link earlier, I missed it.

In fact IE was regurgitating from the gallery and review (google trans. of Italian) here:

...The Japanese house has decided to turn the page and renew the sedan, passing from a soft, curved bodywork to one where the lines and edges that are inspired by Micra are bigger , which we have rebuilt based on the specimens photographed so far and on the ' Car surprised during a photo session in Barcelona...

http://www.omniauto.it/magazine/47407/nuova-nissan-leaf-rendering

Artist's rendering of the gen 2, based on those blurry spy photos:

http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2018-nissan-leaf-render.jpg

http://insideevs.com/2018-nissan-leaf-rendered/

Still looks pretty bland to me.

Might look much better in darker colors, IMO.

I'd probably prefer something close to the current metallic charcoal LEAF color, with light fabric interior.

 

[edatoakrun]

What you may be overlooking, is that with the AVTA test program shut down, in all likelihood the only reasonably accurate efficiency rating for BEVs will be in the numbers the manufacturers submit to government agencies, for the USA market BEVs, published here:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38558&id=38187&id=38431&id=38428

And those ratings (hopefully, checked for accuracy) will only be for the two prescribed test cycles, and by metering the AC kWh accepted from the grid.

I know MPGe is a silly way to re-state Wh/kilometer, which the rest of the world uses for efficiency, but these what most Americans will be considering, and at least it does emphasize the gross inefficiency of ICEVs.

As I posted before, I doubt the LEAF gen 2 will be able to match the Ioniq's efficiency, due to the Gen two's larger frontal area and higher weight.

I do expect it to surpass every other BEV's combined efficiency rating, with results in each cycle fairly close to:

My guesses...and that is exactly what they are, since I make no claims of inside sources or information:

Edatoakrun, 8/3/17 Tesla 3 (310 m pack) 125 MPGe City 120 MPGe Highway


Edatoakrun, 8/3/17 LEAF Gen two (base) 140 MPGe City 120 MPGe Highway

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24340

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

That would be true if drag were the only factor in consumption, but you're forgetting rolling resistance. While drag is the largest component at freeway speeds, rolling resistance doesn't go away, so the actual reduction in power required will be less than your calc. Here's a nice basic tutorial: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/Air_and_rolling_resistance.pdf

Neil and myself are fully aware of that paper and how it's done, if the leaf is like most modern cars his SWAG is likely off less than 5% at highway speed.

Aero overcomes drag around 20mph on most modern cars meaning RR can be almost ignored.

Also if Nissan did their homework the next gen should have some weight loss and RR improvements to go with the aero drag.

 

[lorenfb]

We know the current Leaf's frontal area: 24.5 sq ft and the Cd as tested by Car & Driver is 0.32, so that CdA is 7.8 sq ft.

If the new Leaf has a Cd of 0.25 and the same frontal area, the nthe CdA would be 6.125 sq ft. That is a about a 21% decrease. That could drop the highway consumption from 267.5Wh/mile to 212Wh / mile - which is better than any other EV, at this moment.

That would be true if drag were the only factor in consumption, but you're forgetting rolling resistance. While drag is the largest component at freeway speeds, rolling resistance doesn't go away, so the actual reduction in power required will be less than your calc. Here's a nice basic tutorial: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/Air_and_rolling_resistance.pdf

Neil and myself are fully aware of that paper and how it's done, if the leaf is like most modern cars his SWAG is likely off less than 5% at highway speed.

Aero overcomes drag around 20mph on most modern cars meaning RR can be almost ignored.

Also if Nissan did their homework the next gen should have some weight loss and RR improvements to go with the aero drag.

Actually, it's more like 40 - 45 MPH where RR becomes less on cars similar in size and weight to the Leaf.
Where for a Leaf; A = 24 ft^2, Cd = .32, Weight = 3300 lbs, R (rolling resistance) = .012

Calculate here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

In comparison, the Model S point is about 55 - 60 MPH.

 

[GRA]

That would be true if drag were the only factor in consumption, but you're forgetting rolling resistance. While drag is the largest component at freeway speeds, rolling resistance doesn't go away, so the actual reduction in power required will be less than your calc. Here's a nice basic tutorial: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~moyer/GEOS24705/Readings/Air_and_rolling_resistance.pdf

Neil and myself are fully aware of that paper and how it's done, if the leaf is like most modern cars his SWAG is likely off less than 5% at highway speed.

Aero overcomes drag around 20mph on most modern cars meaning RR can be almost ignored.

Also if Nissan did their homework the next gen should have some weight loss and RR improvements to go with the aero drag.

Actually, it's more like 40 - 45 MPH where RR becomes less on cars similar in size and weight to the Leaf.
Where for a Leaf; A = 24 ft^2, Cd = .32, Weight = 3300 lbs, R (rolling resistance) = .012

Calculate here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

In comparison, the Model S point is about 55 - 60 MPH.

That's more in the range I was expecting, at least in a LEAF. I've seen calcs for the low 20s, but what I remember for a typical car was more in the range of 30-45 mph. I know I've seen or maybe have graphs (damned if I can remember where) showing the effects of each, and the crossover point. I'm sure all the details can be found in "Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics" by Thomas Gillespie, but I don't have access to a copy.