2013 range vs. 2012

[N1ghtrider]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF. I am trying to figure out whether it helps or hurts to use the "B" shift mode (which is supposed to increase regeneration on deceleration), but on this flat Florida landscape I do not notice an appreciable difference.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

what you are seeing is a gauge that is probably more accurate so dont despair.

are you seeing more range than before? based on comments from various sources and conversations i have had (mostly while waiting for a charger!) it would appear that if a good portion of your driving involves around town than B mode will help with the range. I see a lot of people getting more range (or least claiming to) from mixed driving than I ever could.

When I did my 100 mile stints, there was always a portion that was done with the express point of extending the range which included circling, extended 25 mph stretches, etc.

I have recently talked with 2 people in particular where one did 93 miles but had just hit LBW and another who did "over 90 miles" and hadnt gotten any warnings. Now the latter kinda sounded like she was guessing but the first guy sounded about as anal as me when it comes to tracking stats so very believable.

 

[RonDawg]

I replied to the OP in another thread with these answers as to why I think he's seeing worse economy with his new car:

1. New tires have greater rolling resistance than worn ones;
2. The 2013 SL's 17 inch Michelin tires might have greater rolling resistance than the 16 inch Bridgestone Ecopias from the older Leafs and the 2013 S/SV.

 

[KJD]

1. New tires have greater rolling resistance than worn ones;
2. The 2013 SL's 17 inch Michelin tires might have greater rolling resistance than the 16 inch Bridgestone Ecopias from the older Leafs and the 2013 S/SV.

I would agree with these 2 points. I would also add that there has been some talk of the air conditioner in the 2013 using a bit more energy than the 2012.

The A/C would be an easy one to test with and without.

 

[TonyWilliams]

1. New tires have greater rolling resistance than worn ones;
2. The 2013 SL's 17 inch Michelin tires might have greater rolling resistance than the 16 inch Bridgestone Ecopias from the older Leafs and the 2013 S/SV.

I would agree with these 2 points. I would also add that there has been some talk of the air conditioner in the 2013 using a bit more energy than the 2012.

The A/C would be an easy one to test with and without.

We tested the 2013 LEAF with and without Ecopias. All tests listed below use no AC or heating, and are always at 100km/h ground speed:

March 8, 2013 side by side 2012 vs 2013 LEAF range test, San Diego

Previous 2013 LEAF-S (with Ecopia tires) San Diego Range Test on Feb 22, 2013

Previous Phoenix Range Test, Sept 15, 2012

Planning for Previous September 15, 2012 range test in Phoenix

 

[Sublime]

The A/C would be an easy one to test with and without.

You know how I know you've never lived in FL?

 

[RegGuheert]

Copied from other thread:

Keep in mind that the differences in economy can be attributed to two things:

1. New car means new tires, which have greatest rolling resistance when new;
2. You have the 2013 SL which uses 17 inch rims and Michelin tires, which might also have greater rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Ecopias.

Good points!

Also note that the 17" rims/tires also have a 2.4% larger diameter and a higher moment of inertia. Just the diameter by itself should account for about 1/2 the difference you are seeing.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Copied from other thread:

Keep in mind that the differences in economy can be attributed to two things:

1. New car means new tires, which have greatest rolling resistance when new;
2. You have the 2013 SL which uses 17 inch rims and Michelin tires, which might also have greater rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Ecopias.

Good points!

Also note that the 17" rims/tires also have a 2.4% larger diameter and a higher moment of inertia. Just the diameter by itself should account for about 1/2 the difference you are seeing.

There were no significant range variations between the 2013 with or without Ecopias, versus the stock Michelin tire.

The 2012 LEAF with Ecopias easily beat the 2013 LEAF with or without Ecopias.

 

[RegGuheert]

There were no significant range variations between the 2013 with or without Ecopias, versus the stock Michelin tire.

The 2012 LEAF with Ecopias easily beat the 2013 LEAF with or without Ecopias.

No argument about your range tests. But while OP had the word "range" in the title, he was asking about the mi/kWh readout differences in the actual post. While the two items I mentioned would have no effect on the constant-speed range tests you did, the diameter change will certainly affect the mi/kWh reading by ~2.4% and inertia can affect both range and the mi/kWh reading in a case where there is a lot of stop-and-go driving.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... the diameter change will certainly affect the mi/kWh reading by ~2.4% and inertia can affect both range and the mi/kWh reading in a case where there is a lot of stop-and-go driving.

Agreed. Which is why I don't do stop and go tests... Too hard to qualify!!!

 

[LEAFfan]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF. I am trying to figure out whether it helps or hurts to use the "B" shift mode (which is supposed to increase regeneration on deceleration), but on this flat Florida landscape I do not notice an appreciable difference.

The answer is very simple IF you used A/C. The 2013 A/C is not nearly as efficient as earlier years. That is disappointing.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF. I am trying to figure out whether it helps or hurts to use the "B" shift mode (which is supposed to increase regeneration on deceleration), but on this flat Florida landscape I do not notice an appreciable difference.

The answer is very simple IF you used A/C. The 2013 A/C is not nearly as efficient as earlier years. That is disappointing.

i remember seeing this mentioned before. so it has been proved to be true then?

 

[LEAFfan]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF. I am trying to figure out whether it helps or hurts to use the "B" shift mode (which is supposed to increase regeneration on deceleration), but on this flat Florida landscape I do not notice an appreciable difference.

The answer is very simple IF you used A/C. The 2013 A/C is not nearly as efficient as earlier years. That is disappointing.

i remember seeing this mentioned before. so it has been proved to be true then?

With the really hot temps here, it is definitely true for my car. It was worse than the OP's. It went from 5.8 to 5.0 in about ten miles.

 

[edatoakrun]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF...

Assuming your are replicating all the driving conditions in your commute, the most likely explanation by far, is that one or both of your dash m/kWh readings are incorrect.

There is no credible evidence that any of the changes between 2011-12 LEAFs and the 2013s could reduce driving efficiency (excepting any differences from tires and wheels, which would not be likely, IMO, to explain a discrepancy in m/kWh as large as yours) and there is a great deal of evidence that the LEAF's efficiency has been improved my a number of small design refinements in the 2013, over the 2011-12s.

 

[Robster1979]

Is there a difference between the European and USA version of 2013 leaf? As reviews in NL state a greater range (real world 150 vs 120 km).

 

[LEAFfan]

After my 2012 SV was totaled two weeks ago I replaced it with a 2013 SL. I am disappointed with the mileage over the first 200 miles. On the same commute that I always averaged 5.2 m/Kwh I am getting 4.8 or 4.9 on the new LEAF...

Assuming your are replicating all the driving conditions in your commute, the most likely explanation by far, is that one or both of your dash m/kWh readings are incorrect.

There is no credible evidence that any of the changes between 2011-12 LEAFs and the 2013s could reduce driving efficiency (excepting any differences from tires and wheels, which would not be likely, IMO, to explain a discrepancyn m/kWh as large as yours) and there is a great deal of evidence that the LEAF's efficiency has been improved my a number of small design refinements in the 2013, over the 2011-12s.

BS! It's obvious to me that you Ed have never driven in a hot climate using the A/C in a 2013. When those efficiency tests/comparisons are done, there is NO A/C.

 

[TonyWilliams]

BS! It's obvious to me that you Ed have never driven in a hot climate using the A/C in a 2013. When those efficiency tests/comparisons are done, there is NO A/C.

Ed doesn't do a lot of things, but that never stops a troll like him from spewing BS. I recommend putting him on your ignore list. Responding to him seems to energize him to spew even more BS.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

BS! It's obvious to me that you Ed have never driven in a hot climate using the A/C in a 2013. When those efficiency tests/comparisons are done, there is NO A/C.

Ed doesn't do a lot of things, but that never stops a troll like him from spewing BS. I recommend putting him on your ignore list. Responding to him seems to energize him to spew even more BS.

I haven't noticed 'troll' behavior in this post. It can be easily overused.

I have a 2013, no experience with prior years. I wonder if the AC's algorithm has changed making N1ghtrider think the AC is less efficient. I've noticed that the AC kicks on very strong (3kw+) when first starting a hot car. It also drops when stopped, ie not moving. After running a few minutes at 3kw it eventually presumably cools down and reduces its energy consumption rate. Using the AC in recirc helps to keep consumption rate low because its not having to cool hot outside air. I have seen my AC run at a trickle, especially when the cabin temperature has moderated. Has the recirc algorithm changed?

Regarding the effect on the GOM, I thought the prevailing opinion is that the GOM is just a guess, hence the name. It looks like there are several software tweaks and changes in the 2013 model year. My impression is that energy usage seems to be estimated rather than measured. Between estimated AC energy usage and software changes, it may be premature to assume the range reduction is accurate.

It would be nice to test and verify the efficiency of the AC in controlled circumstances in the same way that the original 2013 range increase was tested and determined to be not applicable to a steady 62mph drive.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

BS! It's obvious to me that you Ed have never driven in a hot climate using the A/C in a 2013. When those efficiency tests/comparisons are done, there is NO A/C.

Ed doesn't do a lot of things, but that never stops a troll like him from spewing BS. I recommend putting him on your ignore list. Responding to him seems to energize him to spew even more BS.

I haven't noticed 'troll' behavior in this post. It can be easily overused.

I have a 2013, no experience with prior years. I wonder if the AC's algorithm has changed making N1ghtrider think the AC is less efficient. I've noticed that the AC kicks on very strong (3kw+) when first starting a hot car. It also drops when stopped, ie not moving. After running a few minutes at 3kw it eventually presumably cools down and reduces its energy consumption rate. Using the AC in recirc helps to keep consumption rate low because its not having to cool hot outside air. I have seen my AC run at a trickle, especially when the cabin temperature has moderated. Has the recirc algorithm changed?

Regarding the effect on the GOM, I thought the prevailing opinion is that the GOM is just a guess, hence the name. It looks like there are several software tweaks and changes in the 2013 model year. My impression is that energy usage seems to be estimated rather than measured. Between estimated AC energy usage and software changes, it may be premature to assume the range reduction is accurate.

It would be nice to test and verify the efficiency of the AC in controlled circumstances in the same way that the original 2013 range increase was tested and determined to be not applicable to a steady 62mph drive.

what you describe is generally how the A/C works in earlier models. I usually dont see it getting as high as 3 Kw for any length of time but i dont live in an extremely hot climate as you do either.

i kinda noticed a somewhat higher energy usage after the SW update and my performance seems to have dropped a bit but not willing to make that statement as fact over the randomness of a non-controlled driving situation. Although I will say that in years past, 5+ miles/kwh was a VERY easy thing to do during this time of year WITH A/C and now its a struggle to do it with or without...

 

[TonyWilliams]

I haven't noticed 'troll' behavior in this post. It can be easily overused.

Is flamebait thrower a better term?

It would be nice to test and verify the efficiency of the AC in controlled circumstances in the same way that the original 2013 range increase was tested and determined to be not applicable to a steady 62mph drive.

There are so many variables with climate control. How many people are in the cabin, how many times the doors open, solar heating (huge), humidity, cold/heat soak (huge), etc. I guess a "standard" could be made to compare cars.