TonyWilliams
Well-known member
http://insideevs.com/real-world-test-2013-nissan-leaf-range-vs-2012-nissan-leaf-range/#comment-52400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2013 LEAF Range Test Feb 24, 2013 in San Diego; 81 miles
- Thread starter TonyWilliams
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
SanDust said:
I actually did, too. That's why I was reasonably comfortable with having two people in the car and choosing an 85.8 mile course.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Reddy said:
Well, I'm certainly not going to blow smoke up your 6 o'clock and suggest that I have super human ability to drive that car at 65mph without automation (nor can I fly a plane better than the autopilot). But, the average speed when I check was 58.Xmph, which of course would include the time trying to get the car going. I don't think that data is valid.
Yes, correct. I had further to drive (about 11 miles) when I hit VLB, so I would either have been stuck on the side of the road waiting for a tow truck, or cut the testing off at VLB and go home slowly via the back roads. I choose the latter.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
VLB is a known value and would be easy to extrapolate the distance to Turtle plus there simply is not that much to work with. its like 6% of capacity so even if you were 30% off on your calculation what would that be, a mile?
either way, i am surprised at the lack of better range results but really verifies what we all knew in that the 2011 EPA estimate was way off.
i would say that the extra passenger is probably good for a 2-3 mile reduction in range. I see a difference when i have passengers as well that goes beyond the normal random variance of traffic, weather, etc.
either way, i am surprised at the lack of better range results but really verifies what we all knew in that the 2011 EPA estimate was way off.
i would say that the extra passenger is probably good for a 2-3 mile reduction in range. I see a difference when i have passengers as well that goes beyond the normal random variance of traffic, weather, etc.
evnow
Well-known member
it would be interesting to do the test in colder weather with the heater on. I think that is mainly where we will see some improvements in the range.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
evnow said:
Not on this car.... it has the same 6kW resistance heater than a 2011 or 2012 LEAF has (and also the Rav4 EV).
Obviously you wanted the car to fail! :lol:TonyWilliams said:
Reading the comments, some people get overly invested in outcomes. Too much nitpicking. I was hoping the 2013 MY would have more range. It might of course, but obviously not the 11 miles Nissan is suggesting.
garygid
Well-known member
The battery temperature bar 5 covers 50 to 74 degrees F,
I believe, not 50 to 100. Probably a typo in the first post?
I believe, not 50 to 100. Probably a typo in the first post?
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
garygid said:
I just cut and pasted from an earlier piece without cross check the data:
LEAF Batt Temp
Segments Degrees C (F). Temp difference
12----------60---------(140).........4.5F
11----------57.5-------(135.5)......4.5F
10----------55---------(131).........4.5F
9-----------52.5-------(126.5)......4.5F
8-----------50---------(122)........23.8F
7-----------36.8-------(98.2)......23.9F
6-----------23.5-------(74.3)......23.9F
5-----------10.3-------(50.5)......23.9F
4----------/ -3---------(26.6).......5.4F
3----------/ -6---------(21.2).......5.4F
2----------/ -9---------(15.8).......5.4F
1----------/-12--------(10.4).......5.4F
0----------/ -15---------(5).........5.4F
edatoakrun
Well-known member
garygid said:
Actually, Tony claimed:
But glad to see someone finally asked about the most important data Tony chose to umm, gloss over...
Bob, can you estimate what your battery temperature was during the final charge? You didn't happen to park Your LEAF in a garage heated to say ~80 F, for many hours prior to the test, did you?
You could have had a battery temperature in San Diego in February close to the same as that in Phoenix in September, As Tony implies, but it would certainly have required some sort of "active battery temperature management" to get it there.
bobsfreeleaf
Well-known member
edatoakrun said:
Hi: Temperature in my garage while charging the morning of, and day before, was generally low 50's to mid 60's. Thx, Bob
GRA
Well-known member
The range test I'd most like to see would be of a 2013 SV or SL on the freeway at 65 or 70 mph (in D, preferably, but Eco is okay) using cruise control, with an OAT between 20 and 32 degrees and the Climate control set at say 70, with the car driven from 80% SoC to LBW. I consider that the most representative of how normal people would drive their car while commuting, and establishing that range would be very useful.
That's a bit hard for Tony in San Diego, but hopefully someone who gets a 2013 in the SF Bay Area or somewhere with similar temps can try it before winter officially ends. As it is, while we had some cold days this month, it's been notably dry since December barring one or two small storms.
That's a bit hard for Tony in San Diego, but hopefully someone who gets a 2013 in the SF Bay Area or somewhere with similar temps can try it before winter officially ends. As it is, while we had some cold days this month, it's been notably dry since December barring one or two small storms.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
lukati said:
Well, I did observe that it was very, very good compared to previous versions, and let's face it... driving at a steady speed should be throwing the GOM a softball. At the start it showed 84 miles, and at the halfway point, it showed about 43 miles. About as good as I can hope.
I would say it's at least on par with the Rav4 on level terrain, which is quite good. I just heard that Tesla is going to route predictive GOM with elevation and temperature!! Not surprising coming from them, and it's bound to trickle down. Heck, now I want wind factored, too.
I have no idea how well the GOM will handle real hills yet. Maybe somebody will drive one up to Julian and tell us what the GOM says at 4000 feet from sea level.
edatoakrun
Well-known member
bobsfreeleaf said:
Thanks Bob.
I noticed Tony has now corrected (?) his "article" here:
http://insideevs.com/real-world-test-2013-nissan-leaf-range-vs-2012-nissan-leaf-range/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But not his post on this thread, and now states:
If your car began and ended the drive with 5 temperature bars, and the bars express the same temperatures in the 2013 MY as in the 2011-12, your car appears to likely have both charged and the ran test with a battery somewhere between 25 F and 35 F cooler than the 6/7 temperature bar test LEAF which Tony is using as a reference. So, if your 2013 has the same available battery capacity as the earlier LEAF, you probably had about a 3-5% lower battery capacity to begin with.
The unknown but obviously significant lower ambient temperature, the lower altitude, Tony's extra weight in your LEAF, and the likely inability of Tony to match the driving efficiency of the cruise control used in the earlier test, were all additional handicaps your LEAF suffered, in the range comparison to the LEAF driven in Tony's poorly documented Arizona reference test.
So Tony's conclusion that your range test shows:
Is in my opinion, clearly erroneous.
This does not mean that the 2013 LEAF necessarily has greater range than a 2011-12 in these, or in any or all other test conditions. It just means that we will have to wait for a competent party to perform a better-designed test, to reach any useful conclusions.
I hope you and other 2013 LEAF drivers will continue to give it a try, and as I suggested earlier, also monitor recharge capacity after any range tests, as I think this is also very useful information to collect from any "100%" to known low-state of charge event.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
edatoakrun said:
It no surprise to anybody on this forum that you are a bag of hot air who brings nothing to the LEAF ownership knowledge base.
Why don't you get off your lazy ass and go do your own test? Clearly, nobody can do it quite like you!
Please, regale us with some more of your bullshit.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
edatoakrun said:
bit over the top dont you think?
doesnt matter who is doing the test, there is very limited conclusions that can be made from a single run.
the design of the test is sound but there is a consideration concerning the amount of personal time involved with even a single run.
more data will come in, just be patient. this is a great start and does provide baseline info that is valuable
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJudzKQftv4[/youtube]
The video is great, Tony - lots of info in there.
The dash gauges at the end of your drive also confirm the 21 kWh usable - I noted 4.2 mi/kWh and 89 miles which comes to 21.2 kWh usable.
The in-dash SOC meter seems to be very useful - it's too bad Nissan didn't include one of those from the start. It will be interesting to see how it behaves as the battery degrades - would be interesting to see what it reads on a 80%/100% charge on a new car.
The GOM does seem pretty accurate compared to older cars. I assume it still increases the GOM by 10% when putting the car into ECO mode from D? I noted that the car said 77 miles at the beginning of the video - I presume that the 84 you saw was after putting it into ECO mode.
The dash gauges at the end of your drive also confirm the 21 kWh usable - I noted 4.2 mi/kWh and 89 miles which comes to 21.2 kWh usable.
The in-dash SOC meter seems to be very useful - it's too bad Nissan didn't include one of those from the start. It will be interesting to see how it behaves as the battery degrades - would be interesting to see what it reads on a 80%/100% charge on a new car.
The GOM does seem pretty accurate compared to older cars. I assume it still increases the GOM by 10% when putting the car into ECO mode from D? I noted that the car said 77 miles at the beginning of the video - I presume that the 84 you saw was after putting it into ECO mode.
