Only getting about 2.25 miles/KwH

Wonder if this is "abnormal"...see most comments here and elsewhere to much higher numbers, usually in the 3.0-4.0 range, it seems to me. 2018 SV Leaf; I've had it about 2 months. Record data about every 300 miles, and according to car, it got 3.0, 3.0, 2.9, but my meter on the plug says 2.25, 2.27, 2.19. Climate control is nearly always on. Cold but not super-cold here (Seattle area). Mostly suburban type driving, some freeway but probably less than half. I charge at 110V. If i have less than 75% by evening, i plug it in and charge; or otherwise skip the charge until next day. Charge up to 100%. Don't use timer.

Any thoughts? Does this seems too low for mileage? Seems like most posters report getting much better than that.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Does it have the Cold Weather Package? If not, you don't have a heat pump, and that's the likely culprit.

As an experiment, turn off the heat completely (set temperature all the way down to LO, but leave the fan on low to circulate some air so your windows don't fog up). See if that makes a difference. If it does, then the heater is the culprit.

Check tire pressure.
FWIW, I'm in Seattle and my 2014 gets 4.0+ most of the time. I'm reasonable but make no attempt to milk every KW out of it, and I don't worry TOO much about climate control. I do lean toward heated seats and steering wheel, and insist on a clear windshield. I do have the heat pump.

On another note-If you routinely don't need the full range I suggest you try to keep your battery charge in the 20-80% range. Seattle has a forgiving climate but 100% charge all the time is thought to be hard on the battery. There is a lot of evidence to support that in the field, but you will get people that claim they charge to 100% all the time and their Leaf is fine. Ultimately it's your car and your needs that dictate how you use the battery.

[Full charge or not] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=27139

tomcon said:

according to car, it got 3.0, 3.0, 2.9, but my meter on the plug says 2.25, 2.27, 2.19.

Click to expand...

120V charging is less than 80% efficient. So if battery to wheels is 3.0 miles/kWh, then outlet to wheels of about 2.25 would make sense.

WetEV said:

tomcon said:

according to car, it got 3.0, 3.0, 2.9, but my meter on the plug says 2.25, 2.27, 2.19.

Click to expand...

120V charging is less than 80% efficient. So if battery to wheels is 3.0 miles/kWh, then outlet to wheels of about 2.25 would make sense.

Click to expand...

bingo, you are comparing wall efficiency to the drive efficiency. i think most of us here skip the wall efficiency part. Although the car should be giving you more than 3.0 on average, I also am here in Seattle and with the 'winter' we have been having i am getting about 3.6-3.7 according to the car with mixed city/highway.

pump your tires to 40 psi for starters, do you drive in eco mode?

Marko

Thanks so much for all the great thoughts! Yes, i do use ECO and also e-pedal. I doubt my tires are at 40psi; is that a common thing Leaf drivers do?

Somebody mentioned that charging at 120V is 80% efficient, so that if you measure at the plug, you would expect to see 20% more Watts going in than you would if you measure what is going out of the battery (which is presumably what the car measures and displays). Wow, i did not realize that so much energy was lost in the charging process; 20% seems like alot to me. Is that the generally accepted figure for "loss in the charging process"? Is this loss percentage different at different voltages? it is not intuitive to me that there would be more loss at lower voltage charging (in fact i might have guessed the opposite), but i am no expert, so does somebody know the science of this or have a link you can provide that explains different loss in charging at different voltages?

As for climate control. Were you suggesting that there might be some "defect" in the climate control system that needs investigating (I do not have the heat pump)? Or just that the experiment driving without might prove that that is where the extra drain is going. Still seems like my result is "low" compared to others in Seattle area, who i presume are using climate control.

Thanks much!

If you did not get the "Cold Climate Package" then you have a car ill-suited to your local climate. The heat pump, which used to be included with all SV and SL models, is now part of this option package. It saves large amounts of energy in temps that are cold enough to require heat, but are still no more than a few degrees below freezing. This is almost certainly your problem, although I don't think you ever answered my original question. I will now rephrase it:

Do you have heated seats and steering wheel?

120 volt charging isn't your problem. People are confusing you when they shouldn't. Ignore that for the moment.

Well, did not get that add-on to the SV package. So, maybe that is the explanation. Also, do not have heated wheel or heated seats. Just the "standard" SV package. Not really "complaining" more just wanted explanation as to why i see such better numbers elsewhere. It slightly worried me. If explanation is because either others have the heat-pump, or live in climates where it is not needed, and that seems to be the valid explanation, then I can live with it. Although i suppose i could look for aftermarket heated seats or something if it promises good savings. Anyway, thanks much for the info about this posting!

The differences between your car dash display and your measurements from the wall are reasonable for L1 charging. L2 charging (208 or 240 volts) is more efficient than L1 charging (120 volts) because of the shorter charging time. There is energy consumed to run control modules, coolant pumps, and fans so longer charging time consumes more energy. I have never done a full charge on L1, but charging from dead to 100% on my 12-ampere EVSE Upgrade takes significantly more energy from the wall than using my 30-ampere AeroVironment (both at nominal 240 volts). Since the charge rate tapers at higher state of charge, the difference is much lower if you start charging at say 50% SOC instead of completely dead. For comparison, I get about 3.2 mi/kWh from the wall with 4.0 mi/kWh on the dash using 30-ampere L2 charging.

The lack of the heated seats, heated steering wheel, and heat pump will naturally reduce your efficiency, but it should not be an issue as long as you have adequate range with the lower efficiency numbers you are getting. I recommend at least 40 psi in your tires for better handling, longer tire life, and lower rolling resistance.

Do yourself a favor and purchase an L2 EVSE. I have a Zencar portable one, which features variable rate charging - a very nice to have feature. This one has similar features to the Zencar, if you prefer to order from a domestic seller:

https://tinyurl.com/y8lkcxuw

There are plenty of other, more expensive EVSEs to choose from.

If you choose a variable rate EVSE, then have an electrician install a standard 30A electric dryer outlet (NEMA 14-30) to save a few bucks. If money is less of a concern than long term usefulness, or if you choose a 32A (non adjustable) EVSE, then have 50A circuit installed instead.

Once you have home based L2 charging, you'll quickly realize how convenient it is and how much more you enjoy the car as a result.

This is great to understand. Thanks alot! It sounds like you get about 20% less out of the battery than you put in, as well (3.2/4). I am getting about 24% less according to my spreadsheet (but at 120V). Its very interesting to me, a little unknown (to me) ambiguity. You are really paying for about 20-25% more power to your power company, than the "Standard" figures for Mi/KwH would indicate. So, I think from now on i can just assume that everybody is talking about what they draw from the battery when they cite a Mi/KwH figure (and what the car displays), and not assume that that figure matches what they put into the battery from the wall and pay the power company for. I'm glad i decided to buy my little $20 meter, or i would have never realized that!

My guess is that most people who are citing a cost/mile figure are quite possibly miscalculating and using the Mi/KwH they see in the car and the price of electricity for them, but not including the ~20% that disappears.

By the way, do you know if less 'disappears' if you are charging in the middle range (say, 20-80%) than if you either let it go lower, or charge all the way to 100%? So far i rarely go much below 50%, and then just plug in and charge without timer, so it goes up to 100% by the next day. Though, if i haven't gone below 80%, I don't charge at all that night.

Thanks much!

FYI, RE tire pressure efficiency impact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RkbmyFTIa0

Interesting to see someone actually try to compare the difference. He found that higher tire pressure increased efficiency by 1.4%, but there are so many variables that are impossible to control (wind resistance, ambient temperature, traffic, etc) that it's hardly conclusive. At the least, it's fair to say that higher pressure tires don't hurt efficiency

tomcon said:

20% seems like alot to me. Is that the generally accepted figure for "loss in the charging process"?

Click to expand...

If you're charging on a 120v outlet, yes. Here are some charging efficiency numbers obtained from a few different sources:

Level 1 (120v, 12 amps): 78% efficient
Level 2 (240v, 16 amps): 91% efficient
Level 2 (208v, 30 amps): 91% efficient
CHAdeMO (500v DC, ~100 amps): 93% efficient

So it looks like there may be some minimum level of charge rate required to overcome the majority of overhead losses, then other factors become more important in calculating charging losses.

Sources:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=8583
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2015Leaf.pdf
http://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/7/4/570/pdf

Since the charge rate tapers as the battery approaches full charge and the overhead losses for computers, pumps, and fans remain constant, charging is less efficient near full charge. I always charge to 100% because I need the range. I don't worry about the lower efficiency near full charge because my off peak electricity cost is low. It should be noted that charging efficiency (and running efficiency) for the LEAF is higher than some other electric vehicles that have active battery cooling systems.

The 78, 91, and 93 percent efficiencies noted in the previous post must be measured at low state of charge for the traction battery. The overhead losses for computers, pumps, and fans are significant as the charge rate tapers (especially for L1 and L2). Also, the efficiency for DCQC depends upon the efficiency of the external charger so the 93% number could vary considerably.

As noted in my previous post, there is significantly more power consumption from the wall to charge my 2015 from dead to full using L2 at 12 amperes vs. L2 at 30 amperes. There was no significant difference with my 2011 because it could only draw about 16 amperes when connected to the 30-ampere EVSE.

All of this attention to charging efficiency is totally off the mark. Also you cannot be thinking that 20% the energy in your battery does not go to the wheels. When the car's computer give you a calculation of the Mile per KWH, it is computing the distance you drove and the TOTAL ENERGY that the car used....

So if you want to change this number, you need to be driving at a constant, low speed, and use other electricals sparingly. If you originally said that the climate control is on ALL THE TIME, then that is the most likely culprit.. Stop getting confused by others who are talking about Charging inefficiency.

powersurge said:

All of this attention to charging efficiency is totally off the mark. Also you cannot be thinking that 20% the energy in your battery does not go to the wheels. When the car's computer give you a calculation of the Mile per KWH, it is computing the distance you drove and the TOTAL ENERGY that the car used.... from the battery

Click to expand...

FTFY. There is about a 10% overall energy consumption penalty using L1 compared to L2 as measured from the meter.

OP: Your high consumption is probably related to heater use although it is a good idea to verify tyre pressures. I check my cars once a month and always find air is needed as the winter sets in. That is just physics.

Leftie is correct that a heat pump would probably work well in Seattle temperatures but there is another issue at play here: If the cabin is say 40F, it does not not matter if you set the AC to 65F or 80F: the system will operate at full blast until it approaches the set point. On long trips the lower set-point will end up using less energy but the advantage drops as the trip length shortens. Here in Colorado we see 4.0 - 4.5 miles per kWh in the winter by avoiding cabin heating. Both of us use heat seating; my wife tends to use steering wheel heating while I use gloves. For us the only regret is having to tolerate cold feet. Your thought to buy a heat seater is a very good one.

No