Semi-official 2013 USDM LEAF range: 84 miles @ 100% SOC

[shikataganai]

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/21/2013-nissan-leaf-revealed-gets-75-mile-range-actually-84-in-n/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cliffs Notes:

- The 75 mile window sticker is a blended estimate of 80% and 100% SOC ranges, a new twist introduced this year by the EPA
- 80% SOC yields 66 miles
- 100% SOC yields 84 miles

 

[mwalsh]

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/21/2013-nissan-leaf-revealed-gets-75-mile-range-actually-84-in-n/

I see from the comments that the haters are up early this morning.

 

[SanDust]

Really interesting. I didn't understand how the MPGe numbers could go up so much and the range move so modestly. This explains that.

It's a fair way to doing it although the percentages when blending are an issue. Should the recommended percentage be 50%? 80? Hard to say. Two numbers would give a much better idea. If you understood what you were looking at it would be very clear.

In any event very glad to see the change. It makes the buying process more transparent, and anything that does that is a good thing.

 

[evnow]

It's a fair way to doing it although the percentages when blending are an issue.

I'm not sure it is fair in any way.

Essentially Tesla & Nissan get dinged for the extra feature of battery conservation charging. It makes zero sense.

I can't think of ways to confuse people more - but I'm sure EPA can.

 

[DaveEV]

Essentially Tesla & Nissan get dinged for the extra feature of battery conservation charging. It makes zero sense.

That's the thing - the Model S is using the full range-charge range - only the RAV4-EV and '13 LEAF are using the blended range values.

 

[surfingslovak]

Really interesting. I didn't understand how the MPGe numbers could go up so much and the range move so modestly. This explains that.

Yes, additionally, charging efficiency went up a lot, probably to a large part due to the blend of 80% and 100% charging, which had an effect on MPGe as well.

 

[SanDust]

Essentially Tesla & Nissan get dinged for the extra feature of battery conservation charging. It makes zero sense.

I think all numbers should be based on recommended settings. Testing for range based on a method that the manufacturer tells you not to use makes less sense than the current method. The current method is like inflating the tries to 20 psi over recommended settings when testing on the City Cycle. If the recommended tire pressure is 38 psi then the range should be tested with that tire pressure. Likewise, if the recommended charging is 80% then the range should be tested with 80% charging.

In truth both numbers are important for different reasons. The 80% charge number tells you what you can reasonably expect on a daily basis. The 100% number tells you how much you can stretch the daily number. That's why I'd prefer both to be listed. If we don't get two numbers then the blended solution may not be ideal but it's an improvement.

That's the thing - the Model S is using the full range-charge range - only the RAV4-EV and '13 LEAF are using the blended range values.

Isn't that just a MY issue? Not sure it matters for the Model S with the 85 kWh pack, which is the one which has been rated. That pack will give you more range than you'd ever need on a daily basis, making the daily driving number more or less irrelevant and longest range number the most important. For the Leaf, where the small pack could limit your daily driving, the more pertinent number would be what you can get on a daily basis.

That's why I'd prefer two numbers.

 

[DaveEV]

That's the thing - the Model S is using the full range-charge range - only the RAV4-EV and '13 LEAF are using the blended range values.

Isn't that just a MY issue? Not sure it matters for the Model S with the 85 kWh pack, which is the one which has been rated. That pack will give you more range than you'd ever need on a daily basis, making the daily driving number more or less irrelevant and longest range number the most important. For the Leaf, where the small pack could limit your daily driving, the more pertinent number would be what you can get on a daily basis.

After some more reading, it appears that it's not even a MY issue, it's something that will apply to all EVs getting rated going forward. Why it applied to the RAV4-EV released long ago - no idea. Perhaps it was done under Toyota's insistence because they wanted to use a more realistic day-to-day number?

That's why I'd prefer two numbers.

Definitely. Ideally you'd get both numbers and how/if MPGe varied when using the two settings. If it must be dumbed down - at least make it clear on the label what testing method is being used and make the other numbers easily available.

 

[garygid]

The point is that the average consumer sees a degraded-battery (or not full tank)
range number, and there is no indication of that fact on the sticker, right?

Is the LEAF really up from 73 to 84?

Seems unlikely to me that there would be a 15% improvement in
the full-tank, new-battery range.

If one never uses the heater, what are the numbers?

 

[kovalb]

What would happen if the EPA ruled the world? (Pinky to mouth, evil laugh)

- Computer chips that save energy by throttling back their processing speed would only be rated at the average of their average processing speed and top speed.
- All future sports and athletic world records could only be based on the average of the athletes top performance and average performance.
- Real estate ads would no longer show the total square footage of a house. The volume of any furniture, appliances, inhabitants, etc. would need to be subtracted; and then that figure averaged with the total square footage.
- US elections would be decided by the average of the vote received in that election and the average vote the candidate received in all elections.

Bizarro world... unless there is a motive behind the insanity. Neither GM or Ford are penalized under EPA's bizarro rule. Only Japanese manufacturers are. It sounds like the SAE Frankenplug all over again. We can't win, so we'll make them lose.

 

[vegastar]

I find it a little strange that there is a increase of 84/66= 27% from 80% to 100% charge, especially because on MY 2011 and 2012 the SOC of 100% charge is only about 95%. Or the new 100% is really 100% SOC at 4.2V? Or the 80% charge is below 80% SOC...

 

[TonyWilliams]

The point is that the average consumer sees a degraded-battery (or not full tank)
range number, and there is no indication of that fact on the sticker, right?

Is the LEAF really up from 73 to 84?

Seems unlikely to me that there would be a 15% improvement in
the full-tank, new-battery range.

If one never uses the heater, what are the numbers?

The 2011-2012 LEAF gets 84 miles of range autonomy just fine at 65mph / 4 miles per kWh.

The 2013 will likely go a few miles more. That's it. I will prove that shortly.

 

[surfingslovak]

Neither GM or Ford are penalized under EPA's bizarro rule. Only Japanese manufacturers are. It sounds like the SAE Frankenplug all over again. We can't win, so we'll make them lose.

The Volt always charges to about 80% and the Focus Electric does not have an 80% charge setting from what I've gathered. Tesla Model S on the other hand, that's a curious case, and it's unclear to me why they were able to get the results of their range mode on the sticker. I, for one, applaud more conservative approach to range figures, but it should be done uniformly. To be fair, I didn't know about the 80% setting as a novice owner, until someone pointed it out to me. There was much agony over this on MNL and elsewhere, and it would be good to either tell consumers upfront that it's a recommended setting or fully embrace 100% charging. I'm sure that Nissan has all the numbers, is 80% really worth it?

 

[RegGuheert]

Neither GM or Ford are penalized under EPA's bizarro rule. Only Japanese manufacturers are. It sounds like the SAE Frankenplug all over again. We can't win, so we'll make them lose.

The Volt always charges to about 80%...

I don't think the Volt or any other plug-in with a range extender should have anything subtracted from their full-to-empty range since you can use it every day without ever being stranded. For a BEV, OTOH, it does not make sense to quote the full-to-empty range since it is not something you want to do every day. The problem is how to do that. Perhaps the only fair thing to do is for the EPA to simply publish 80% of the full range as the vehicle range. But quoting some at 100% and others at something lower makes no sense to me.

 

[surfingslovak]

The problem is how to do that. Perhaps the only fair thing to do is for the EPA to simply publish 80% of the full range as the vehicle range. But quoting some at 100% and others at something lower makes no sense to me.

Yes, the ultimate problem is how to communicate range variability. A single number is most likely not going to cut it, but we'll see. To be fair, with the exception of Tesla, Nissan and Toyota (which uses Tesla's technology), I wouldn't be aware of any other OEM offering or recommending less than 100% charging.

The participants in my current field trial don't even know what an 80% setting was. I brought this up in early May last year, before the Phoenix issue escalated, and didn't get a very favorable response. I don't believe that 80% charging made much difference to Phoenix owners. Perhaps if they owned the car longer, the difference would become more pronounced?

Does anyone know how the new EPA procedure works? Is the mere presence of different charging modes enough to trigger it, or
is the recommendation to use a lower setting needed? I would have thought that it would only make sense if the default was less then 100%, which should have then affected both the RAV4 EV and the Model S.

 

[Herm]

Essentially Tesla & Nissan get dinged for the extra feature of battery conservation charging. It makes zero sense.

Both the Fit and the Spark can be charged to 100% with no issues, they use a different chemistry.

 

[evnow]

I think all numbers should be based on recommended settings.

It should really be based on default settings. The default setting in Nissan Leaf is 100%.

Irrespective of "what" it should be based on - averaging 80 & 100% charge makes zero sense. It doesn't give a good indication of the capabilities of the car. If EPA wants to be extra fancy, they should give 2 ratings, 80% & 100%. The current rating is as obtuse as it can get (EPA will prove me wrong next year) - it is the opposite of "transparency" you claimed it gives.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Really interesting. I didn't understand how the MPGe numbers could go up so much and the range move so modestly. This explains that.

It's a fair way to doing it although the percentages when blending are an issue. Should the recommended percentage be 50%? 80? Hard to say. Two numbers would give a much better idea. If you understood what you were looking at it would be very clear.

In any event very glad to see the change. It makes the buying process more transparent, and anything that does that is a good thing.

i see it as nothing but lending more confusion to an already confusing issue. why cant the EPA label it as "66/84?" instead

how about we change the Prius to 54/46 MPG for Summer/Winter? lets have 2 volumes of EPA figures for people to study over. lets bombard them with numbers! after all, the more data the better right?

 

[TLeaf]

I've got to agree with you, Dave.. You reach a point where there's just too much information and the data no longer becomes a useful factor in making a purchasing decision. I think the old 100% number for range was the right approach for a BEV with the only addition I would make being a little asterisk next to the number indicating that YMMV based upon charging regime, battery age, heater usage, outside termperature, tire pressure, etc., etc., etc.

Dare I say that this is a secret conspiracy on the part of the oil conglomerates of the world to further reduce the marketed range of EVs????? :twisted:

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Sorry to be a slouch, I'm trying to read through all this, can somebody net it out: If you aren't using the heat, is there any reason a fully charged 2013 will go further than a fully charged 2011 or 2012? Was there something about the brakes having less drag?