2013 range vs. 2012

[RegGuheert]

your statement would imply they were equally efficient. that is far from the case. a heat pump is better than resistive heating but still not as efficient as A/C...

Are you sure?

My understanding is that the main reason air conditioning is so efficient is that the temperature differential in summer between ambient and what is comfortable is smaller than that same differential in wintertime. Refrigeration systems are more efficient when working with a smaller tenperature differential. That's certainly true here: We rarely and barely need air conditioning at all to stay comfortable, but in wintertime we run our heat pump constantly.

But in places like Phoenix, it may be true that a heat pump would be more efficient in the wintertime than in the summertime simply because the temperature differential is larger in the summertime. Anyone have a heat pump in Phoenix?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

your statement would imply they were equally efficient. that is far from the case. a heat pump is better than resistive heating but still not as efficient as A/C...

Are you sure?

My understanding is that the main reason air conditioning is so efficient is that the temperature differential in summer between ambient and what is comfortable is smaller than that same differential in wintertime. Refrigeration systems are more efficient when working with a smaller tenperature differential. That's certainly true here: We rarely and barely need air conditioning at all to stay comfortable, but in wintertime we run our heat pump constantly.

But in places like Phoenix, it may be true that a heat pump would be more efficient in the wintertime than in the summertime simply because the temperature differential is larger in the summertime. Anyone have a heat pump in Phoenix?

i agree that temp differential play a huge part which is why for me, generally speaking i use much more power on A/C than i do on my resistive heating system simply because i am not adverse (unlike many members of my family) to wearing clothes appropriate to the season...

but in either case, the real power draw comes from removing water especially where i live.

 

[iluvmacs]

I'm actually seeing improved efficiency in my '13 SV compared to my previous '12 SL. Summertime average went from 5.3 to 5.6. Roundtrips much more easily meet or exceed 6.0 mi/KWh on good days. I also find the A/C to be using less power in my mind, but I hadn't used it in the '12 in a long while before we traded it in, so my memory may be fuzzy there.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I'm actually seeing improved efficiency in my '13 SV compared to my previous '12 SL. Summertime average went from 5.3 to 5.6. Roundtrips much more easily meet or exceed 6.0 mi/KWh on good days. I also find the A/C to be using less power in my mind, but I hadn't used it in the '12 in a long while before we traded it in, so my memory may be fuzzy there.

sounds great but considering the Summer of 2012, how is the weather this year compared to last? if i recall, all areas of the country with the exception of WA State had significantly warmer than normal Summers. I am sure this blanket statement heard from many sources does not take into consideration localized climates but...

FYI; spent the day in Seattle nearly all of it less than a mile from the Waterfront and it was 88º which is more than 10º above the normal high. This has been the hottest Summer in several years which followed a snowless Winter... (not extremely unusual. happens about every 4-5 years or so)

 

[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....

I'm actually seeing improved efficiency in my '13 SV compared to my previous '12 SL. Summertime average went from 5.3 to 5.6...

Results of the Tempe range test are shown below:

http://mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which reported dash m/kWh readings ranging between 3.7 m/kWh and 4.4 m/kWh, or ~16% of variation, on a range test that ostensibly normalized all efficiency conditions between the test LEAFs.

That level of inaccuracy is not exactly in guess-ometer territory, but does indicate that no one should try to use the dash m/kWh report to get accurate efficiency reports.

Specifically, you simply can't depend on the dash reports to show the considerably smaller % variations in efficiency that you are both reporting, in your conflicting conclusions about year-over-year model changes in LEAF efficiency.

 

[planet4ever]

I often disagree with edatoakrun, but my experience with my 2013 so far is that the m/kWh readings are consistently higher than they were on my 2011, but my effective range seems not to have increased at all. This despite going from a battery with 13,000 miles on it to one with less than 2,000 miles.

Ray

 

[Berlino]

What is the impact of the SL changing tires and going from 16" wheels to 17" ones?

Is there less usable battery capacity?


Other factors would seem to lead to slightly better range in 2013.


Torque at 187 lb-ft instead of 207.
Coefficient of drag lowered from 0.29 to 0.28. (Though this is based on Nissan's numbers and could be due to rounding tricks. ie 0.286 one year and 0.2850 the next.)
SL 2013 weights 50 lbs less than in 2012.

2013 SV weighs 100 lbs less the the 2012 SL and still has 16" wheels. it might be better to compare it to the 2012 Leafs.

 

[Boomer23]

After experiencing taking my 2013 SL to Turtle and experiencing what functioned as a "reserve" of about 8 miles below a Gid reading of 10, and after this was duplicated by another 2013 driver, I'm now of the opinion that my car has more actual range than any of the meters might lead me to believe. Accordingly, I won't believe any range test of a 2013 LEAF unless the car was driven to Turtle. Unfortunately, that is very hard to do using a 100 km/hr constant speed unless you have a flat bed waiting in the wings. This is especially so if the pack behaves as mine did, because you'd be "pushing" the range of the car for miles on the freeway after a dangerously low Gid reading in the single digits.

I know that this is a bit of an extreme view because it defies our group understanding of the way the packs have performed in prior year LEAFs, but I don't trust Gid readings alone on my particular car to give me an accurate remaining range reading. The Gid readings alone would lead me to the same opinion as Ray has reached, that the range appears to be lower on the 2013. But after my car Turtled, the energy to recharge to 100% was over 25 kWh, so I conclude that my pack's capacity was in the 21 kWh range. i need to Turtle my car again to confrm that it again exhibits the same behavior before I would rely on this theory to attempt any kind of true range test.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

"8 miles after hitting 10 GID?" what kind of meter were you using?

 

[LEAFfan]

I often disagree with edatoakrun, but my experience with my 2013 so far is that the m/kWh readings are consistently higher than they were on my 2011, but my effective range seems not to have increased at all. This despite going from a battery with 13,000 miles on it to one with less than 2,000 miles.
Ray

Not mine! Both of my LEAF's mp kWh readings were/are as accurate as an Olympic archer. I could always X my m/kW h by either 17 or 21 and hit the mileage within a mile or two. The main difference between the two that I've found is in the A/C. My old one would ALWAYS go to a sliver on the energy screen even at an 85F setting and this one NEVER has gone to a sliver even at 89F. And we've even been having some cooler temps lately (98F-100) and it still uses much more than my old one. Not only does the mp kWh drop 3-4 tenths, but my range is much less.

 

[RegGuheert]

What is the impact of the SL changing tires and going from 16" wheels to 17" ones?

This was discussed on the first page of this 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.

Is there less usable battery capacity?

It's always difficult to tell with the LEAFs since our experiences with the instrumentation seems to be all over the map. LEAFfan's experiences indicate there is just as much usable battery capacity in the 2013s as in previous models.

Other factors would seem to lead to slightly better range in 2013.


Torque at 187 lb-ft instead of 207.
Coefficient of drag lowered from 0.29 to 0.28. (Though this is based on Nissan's numbers and could be due to rounding tricks. ie 0.286 one year and 0.2850 the next.)
SL 2013 weights 50 lbs less than in 2012.

2013 SV weighs 100 lbs less the the 2012 SL and still has 16" wheels. it might be better to compare it to the 2012 Leafs.

One real possibility is that the optimum efficiency for the motor in the 2013 occurs at a lower speed and that the efficiency at higher speeds has suffered as a result.

 

[surfingslovak]

SL 2013 weights 50 lbs less than in 2012.

2013 SV weighs 100 lbs less the the 2012 SL and still has 16" wheels. it might be better to compare it to the 2012 Leafs.

Note that while this might be true of LEAFs for the Japanese market, US LEAFs have lost some of this weight advantage.

 

[edatoakrun]

I often disagree with edatoakrun, but my experience with my 2013 so far is that the m/kWh readings are consistently higher than they were on my 2011, but my effective range seems not to have increased at all. This despite going from a battery with 13,000 miles on it to one with less than 2,000 miles.
Ray

Not mine! Both of my LEAF's mp kWh readings were/are as accurate as an Olympic archer. I could always X my m/kW h by either 17 or 21 and hit the mileage within a mile or two...

Which could only tend to indicate that the error in the dash m/kWh display (if any) matches the error (if any) in your estimates of your LEAFs' available battery capacity.

You mean 17 kWh at "80%" and 21 kWh at "100%" when both were "new" correct?

And you do believe both your LEAFs have suffered rapid loss of battery capacity, from those kWh capacity levels, correct?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I often disagree with edatoakrun, but my experience with my 2013 so far is that the m/kWh readings are consistently higher than they were on my 2011, but my effective range seems not to have increased at all. This despite going from a battery with 13,000 miles on it to one with less than 2,000 miles.
Ray

Not mine! Both of my LEAF's mp kWh readings were/are as accurate as an Olympic archer. I could always X my m/kW h by either 17 or 21 and hit the mileage within a mile or two. The main difference between the two that I've found is in the A/C. My old one would ALWAYS go to a sliver on the energy screen even at an 85F setting and this one NEVER has gone to a sliver even at 89F. And we've even been having some cooler temps lately (98F-100) and it still uses much more than my old one. Not only does the mp kWh drop 3-4 tenths, but my range is much less.

i noticed the same action on my A/C after the software update. previous to the update, i turn on A/C and it would run between 1.5-2.5 Kw for 3-5 mins then settle down to something less than a ¼ KW or a "sliver" which at times was difficult to see at a glance.

now, it doesnt really settle. there is much more movement on the gauge and it really only goes as low about maybe .375ish KW or ¼ the way between zero and the 1.5 KW mark.

now, Phil has stated the usage was not accurate and only a respresentation. maybe the update is providing us a truer picture of actual power used?

FYI; its been hotter than normal this year so my normal A/C setting of 68º has been moved to 74-76º

 

[edatoakrun]

...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...

Hopefully, Nissan has calibrated the odometers correctly for each stock wheel/tire application.

Before you try to make any m/kWh calculations, you must check your odometer and your CarWings (if you have it) "miles driven" against another source.

I used Google maps, zoomed in to landmarks for precise start and end points of several long trips, then checked those distances against my odometer.

My 2011's odometer was consistently within +/- 0.2% of the Google estimates, on several long routes, when near-new.

For over 2 years, ever since my 2011 LEAF got the NTB-11-041 update, CarWings has consistently reported ~2.5% lower "miles driven" than my ~correct odometer.

Which evidently is why my LEAFs dash m/kWh consistently under-reports m/kWh by the same ~2.5%, compared to the nav screen, which uses the correct odometer miles in it's display.

With 20,000+ miles on my LEAF's stock tires (which have severe edge tread ware but not too much wear in the center) there has been no perceptible change due to tire wear when I look at the first segment of my regular range test route, still registering either 43.7 or 43.8 miles each time.

But I wouldn't be surprised if I could find average distance results of ~ 0.1% to 0.3% higher from my odometer, than from Google, If I rechecked both today on some longer routes.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Mr. Williams, any more range tests planned with the 13 leaf?

 

[Yogi62]

I've never been convinced that the m/kw on the dash matched up with other readings.

For example, starting from 80% charge, driving 33 miles at 5.0 m/Kw and ending with 40% charge. (12 bar 2013 with 5,000 miles). 6.6Kw = 40%? That would make 100% of the battery 16.5Kw. Even with the reserve above 100% and below 0%, that seams light. if I had only used 6.6Kw, why does it estimate 2 hours at level 2 to charge back up to 80%?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Mr. Williams, any more range tests planned with the 13 leaf?

No, none planned. What question would we be trying to answer? The batteries are all pretty much the same basic capacity, all the LEAFs weigh pretty much the same, they all have largely the same aerodynamics, etc.

It appears the real differences are the heater and air conditioner efficiency, and that only affects the SV and SL models for 2013.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I've never been convinced that the m/kw on the dash matched up with other readings.

For example, starting from 80% charge, driving 33 miles at 5.0 m/Kw and ending with 40% charge. (12 bar 2013 with 5,000 miles). 6.6Kw = 40%? That would make 100% of the battery 16.5Kw. Even with the reserve above 100% and below 0%, that seams light. if I had only used 6.6Kw, why does it estimate 2 hours at level 2 to charge back up to 80%?

Well, we have seen that in some / many LEAFs, the data doesn't add up. We saw that almost exactly a year ago in Phoenix.

My first simple question is did you reset the miles/kW meter when you started? Secondly, an 80% charge is actually slightly higher than that.

Also, I don't have any idea about the accuracy of the 2013 % gauge since I have little experience with it. Finally, using the time to charge back up might not be the best tool for this kind of calculation.

If you really want some answers, spend the few dollars it takes to get a Gidmeter or the LEAF Spy app and get data from that for us to decipher. Then you can compare it to your dash instruments.

 

[Yogi62]

I've never been convinced that the m/kw on the dash matched up with other readings.

For example, starting from 80% charge, driving 33 miles at 5.0 m/Kw and ending with 40% charge. (12 bar 2013 with 5,000 miles). 6.6Kw = 40%? That would make 100% of the battery 16.5Kw. Even with the reserve above 100% and below 0%, that seams light. if I had only used 6.6Kw, why does it estimate 2 hours at level 2 to charge back up to 80%?

Well, we have seen that in some / many LEAFs, the data doesn't add up. We saw that almost exactly a year ago in Phoenix.

My first simple question is did you reset the miles/kW meter when you started? Secondly, an 80% charge is actually slightly higher than that.

Also, I don't have any idea about the accuracy of the 2013 % gauge since I have little experience with it. Finally, using the time to charge back up might not be the best tool for this kind of calculation.

If you really want some answers, spend the few dollars it takes to get a Gidmeter or the LEAF Spy app and get data from that for us to decipher. Then you can compare it to your dash instruments.

Yes, I reset it all right before starting out in the morning.

Starting today I have access to a ChargePoint at work and combined with the ELB327 I'll be able to gather some better data.

on the topic of 2012 vs. 2013, I did have 2012 for three months, but that was in the winter (Jan-Apr) and I traded for the 2013 in April just as the weather got much warmer so it is hard to compare. Now that temps are starting to get into the 40's overnight, I am starting to use the heater again and after pre-heating it barely registers on the climate control dial with it set to ECO/60/fan 1, (just enough to keep the windows clear).

One aspect of 2012 v 2013 is the ECO button and D/B on the shifter. How did you use the 2012? Shifted into ECO? How do you use the 2013? I turned on ECO the first day I got the 2013 and have never turned it off, use D on the highway and B in the City and N down hills. You could not do that in the 2012.