Riki, yes that would be one approach. A simpler solution would be to start advertising the Leaf with its official EPA estimate, just like Mitsubishi and GM are doing with their vehicles.RikiTiki said:Nissan should just add a few more optional packs into the trunk so the car can reach 105-110 miles at 65-mph with A/C on guaranteed as an optional range extender package. End controversy.
surfingslovak said:Riki, yes that would be one approach. A simpler solution would be to start advertising the Leaf with its official EPA estimate, just like Mitsubishi and GM are doing with their vehicles.
adric22 said:leafkabob said:You nailed it. I have noticed that the folks that really push their daily range are the ones who really know how far they can go. I only have a 12 RT mile commute, and my wife has a 20 mile RT. We have not had the occasion or the need to really push to see how far we can go. So I honestly don't know what my range is. But I have tons of respect for those that have long commutes and get into the garage at the end of the day with low battery warning. Those are the people with range credibility.
I'm in pretty much the same situation as you for daily commutes, although we've done a few trips that are at the limit of the range. I would not want to be in that situation where a person comes home every day with a low battery warning. That is a problem because the car's range will decline over time not to mention the possibility of a detour.
SanDust said:Someone mentioned that he "ripped the car". He didn't. He ripped the claims Nissan made for the car. That's a big difference.
As for those blaming the victim, get your heads out of the sand. Don't say he needs to drive the car differently than he would drive an ICE and so on. There is a standard EPA test. People are used to it and can calibrate their expectations to it. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 25 MPG and you, knowing that you're not the most eco minded driver gets 22 MPG, that's one thing. You have to live with your driving habits. If the EPA says the car gets 25 MPG and the manufacturer says it gets 40 MPG "on LA4" and you get 22 MPG that's another. You shouldn't have to live with misrepresentations based on technical uses of obscure and obsolete drive cycles.
Yes, well, one approach is to market EVs with their official EPA energy economy and range estimates. And another approach is to market them with a range estimate based on an arbitrary test cycle picked by the manufacturer, with an asterisk and four pages of legal disclaimers. I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear to me, which approach is preferable. The only reason Nissan can get away with this is the lack of clear regulation, and an apparent disagreement among the regulatory bodies (FTC and the EPA).thankyouOB said:As to Nissan's claims, I recall signing a very exact disclaimer covering the range issue.
He is like the guy who drives down a road in a truck and ignores the sign saying: low clearance, 10 feet. Then, he wonders why the top of his truck hit the overhead.
surfingslovak said:Aside from the range issue, I hope that EV manufacturers will be obligated to disclose the available battery capacity number, not just the rated total. They should not be allowed to reduce this number by a software update unless there was a safety concern or some other legitimate issue.
In my suggestions to the Nissan in the thread on the engineering page, I suggested Nissan, as a company strategy, view the owner of a LEAF in the context of an ongoing company customer relationship, and make upgrades and service to current owners as smartly as possible. That would include standardized battery pack dimensions, so that upgrading and/or replacing would make sense from a cost standpoint. Failing that, I suspect that 3rd party folks will step in to fill that role.Herm said:Should be fun selling a used 5 year old Leaf.
Same here--but as we all know, not at safe freeway speeds--which runs counter to ICE entrained thinking.adric22 said:'m convinced that I could get 100 miles out of my Leaf if I needed to. But that is because I know how to hyper mile and turn off the A/C. Your typical driver does not.
I'd have to disagree. My observations watching the power meters are that less energy is used running the A/C than having the windows open, at highway speeds. This is assuming the A/C has already been running for a few minutes to reach the desired temperature. And this was on about a 95 degree day.adric22 said:I have observed lower energy draw at 60 mph by keeping the windows down and the A/C turned off. I know in an ICE car this has been proven untrue, but I think the A/C energy draw in an EV is more.
I had planned to do some scientific experiments to determine exactly what the difference was but never got a chance and now Summer is gone and it is cold outside. So I guess next Summer I'll try again.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about days where the temperature was 105 degrees outside. If it is 75 or 80 degrees outside, I'm sure the A/C cycles on and off and probably doesn't draw nearly as much power.
Oy vey! Such kvetching! You should have done your homework properly before purchase instead of whining about it now. I guess that’s what you deserve for only listening to the marketing guys. No-one out of those of us who did our homework expected 100 miles out of the LEAF UNLESS we duplicated the LA4 city/highway loop precisely. As it is, I get about 85 miles out of a charge, and that’s almost exclusively at highway speeds (between 65 and 70mph). So you must be really pushing the the go pedal through the floorboards a lot.
Enter your email address to join: