2019 "60 kWh" Leaf e-Plus

[DaveinOlyWA]

Dave

Glad to see you posting again in your blog. My latest thought on the 90 day steps downs is that Nissan uses the first year to build a buffer on the battery to improve longevity and reduce the degradation. When I first got the car, Leaf spy read over 59kWh, which would only be a 4% buffer at the top. I looking at the other brands (Audi, Mercedes, even GM) it looks like 8-10% is a safer buffer. Supposedly even GM did a software update to hide about 2kWh on the Bolt battery (news Coulomb), but I don’t have anything beyond YouTube reports to back that up.

So Nissan gives you a tighter buffer in quarter 1, allowing for a higher epa range. It then slowly pulls a little away each quarter for a year (let’s hope just a year) to bring the buffer up. Now what we can’t see is in that first year, is how much the battery itself degrades, hence I believe some of the variations on the board. All hypothesis.

Let’s see what the next adjustment brings.

Wouldn't that be illegal? If the EPA rating is XYZ and then the carmaker steals that from you, that seems pretty shady. I know I signed a bunch of papers to the fact the battery would degrade, but I do not remember signing anything that Nissan could artificially degrade my battery. That sounds, if true, like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

WOE!!!! WTF!!! "artificially degrade??" Who said that?? What they are doing (maybe) is hiding part of the battery to protect it. Nothing more than what the Volt did among others.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Tesla and GM have done similar changes as they understand their customers batteries better.

Yes I do recall Tesla making adjustments, but in that case, if I remember correctly, TESLA still was giving the customer at least the EPa rated range were they not? plus some of their adjustments were to charging profile, which is not guaranteed.

If a manufacturer actually reduced your range artificially below the EPA number that they sold it to you at, that sounds illegal.

Let me clue you in on a joke. The EPA did not test the LEAF. Do you know how they test cars? If I drove the way they tested, I would get 300 miles on a charge. The EPA got their LEAF figures from Nissan. Yep, they simply took Nissan's word for it so why did Nissan low ball their own car?

Because they don't want you driving more than 216 miles on a charge. They want you to stop and charge way before Turtle. This is the reason they now have an SOC meter that goes to zero. Yep, it actually goes to 1% before going to dashes.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

It is fun when you get the car seeing 312 miles on the GOM. I assumed that was NEDC range.

 

[danrjones]

Dave

Glad to see you posting again in your blog. My latest thought on the 90 day steps downs is that Nissan uses the first year to build a buffer on the battery to improve longevity and reduce the degradation. When I first got the car, Leaf spy read over 59kWh, which would only be a 4% buffer at the top. I looking at the other brands (Audi, Mercedes, even GM) it looks like 8-10% is a safer buffer. Supposedly even GM did a software update to hide about 2kWh on the Bolt battery (news Coulomb), but I don’t have anything beyond YouTube reports to back that up.

So Nissan gives you a tighter buffer in quarter 1, allowing for a higher epa range. It then slowly pulls a little away each quarter for a year (let’s hope just a year) to bring the buffer up. Now what we can’t see is in that first year, is how much the battery itself degrades, hence I believe some of the variations on the board. All hypothesis.

Let’s see what the next adjustment brings.

Wouldn't that be illegal? If the EPA rating is XYZ and then the carmaker steals that from you, that seems pretty shady. I know I signed a bunch of papers to the fact the battery would degrade, but I do not remember signing anything that Nissan could artificially degrade my battery. That sounds, if true, like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

WOE!!!! WTF!!! "artificially degrade??" Who said that?? What they are doing (maybe) is hiding part of the battery to protect it. Nothing more than what the Volt did among others.

Call it what ever you want, but (BIG IF) that is true, you are buying a car with a capacity of X and then the manufacturer is taking away part of what you just bought. The EPA may not test it but the manufacturer submit's those numbers and gets in big trouble if they are proven false. If indeed Nissan "protects" an extra 10% that you were sold AFTER you buy it, that is probably illegal. It would be like Ford selling you an F150 that gets an EPA rated 18 mpg, and it did, then they change the computer on purpose to give you more power but lowers your mileage to 14. (Sounds a bit like someone called VW?) Or someone sells you a car with a 15 gallon gas tank in the spec sheet, then on your first service changes it down to 10 without asking.

I totally get the idea and reasoning for doing it, but it doesn't make it legal. And the question is, did those others push their users below the EPA number by doing so? I was under the impression Tesla did not.

Don't fret so much, I'm not planning to sue.

 

[danrjones]

I don't want to argue about this until hell freezes over but I guess what upsets me a tad is that (IF TRUE) it means Nissan either:

A) did a poor job on Design and then Testing and found out after the fact they needed to lock away more of the battery, and issued an update to do so

OR

B) did a poor job on design and realized they needed to lock away more of the battery, and programmed the car from the start to do so.


Mine has not had a BMS update that I am ware of, so I am guessing it is "B". If they knew they needed more buffer it should have started that way and the EPA rating should have been 135 miles.

Ask yourself this - if they knew from the start they needed more buffer, why didn't they do it from the start, instead of selling it to you as "150 EPA", then taking it away? That is called dishonesty in my book, which is why I have an issue. I do not have an issue with the idea of trying to keep the battery in good shape.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Audi, Porsche, and Jaguar went the high road and removed 10% of the battery from use from the get go. Maybe this helps explain the eTron popularity in Europe.

Tesla, GM, Nissan chose the road of playing more games.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Ran my leaf to the service dept today thinking that I was due for my first battery health check.

The service dept. told me that the annual battery check is no longer required. 15K miles is the first check in now. Does this align with what others are hearing?

Thank you.

 

[danrjones]

Ran my leaf to the service dept today thinking that I was due for my first battery health check.

The service dept. told me that the annual battery check is no longer required. 15K miles is the first check in now. Does this align with what others are hearing?

Thank you.

Actually no, I just got different guidance. I just scheduled my 1 year appointment and battery check for a week from this Friday.
Should be a tire rotation, battery check, and a warranty issue with the bumper / support bracket.

They told me once a year, so they said I was due. But then they also tried about five times to schedule me for an oil change.... so take it with a grain of salt. I'm not convinced they know what they are doing. Mine is also the 2018 40 pack, so that could also be a difference.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I don't want to argue about this until hell freezes over but I guess what upsets me a tad is that (IF TRUE) it means Nissan either:

A) did a poor job on Design and then Testing and found out after the fact they needed to lock away more of the battery, and issued an update to do so

OR

B) did a poor job on design and realized they needed to lock away more of the battery, and programmed the car from the start to do so.


Mine has not had a BMS update that I am ware of, so I am guessing it is "B". If they knew they needed more buffer it should have started that way and the EPA rating should have been 135 miles.

Ask yourself this - if they knew from the start they needed more buffer, why didn't they do it from the start, instead of selling it to you as "150 EPA", then taking it away? That is called dishonesty in my book, which is why I have an issue. I do not have an issue with the idea of trying to keep the battery in good shape.

You forgot about "C"

See C below

Ok, nix all that. Forgot this is not a Threaded site.

There is also the possibility that the algorithm changes based on your driving/charging habits with long life in mind.

Neither A or B explains why the numbers go up sometimes. Bad math would do it but all indicators point to most of the math being cleaned up starting with the 40 kwh pack. I am guessing the 30 kwh programming debacle likely lit a fire under the programming team so...

Either way, I think that LEAF Spy has given us both sides of the coin.

The good; a MUCH clearer understanding of what our true range is. I tell people if you want 20 more miles of range, get LEAF Spy. Cheapest range boost ever. We have someone who did a range test and stopped when SOC meter hit 1% or 2% or whatever it was stating he wasn't willing to risk getting stranded. My stomach hurt for 3 days due to the laugh I had over that comment.

The Bad; We see every micro change. No other car provides this information with this kind of depth. Granted, if you are losing bars, that is obvious but no one has lost a bar. Has any 40's lost a bar yet? I know one guy who has to over 50,000 miles by now. Has he lost anything yet?

I "may" know more by the end of the week... and I may not.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Another very positive local range test.

https://youtu.be/r-6VgTTsl-o

Tom M. From inside EVs ran the LR M3 on an ideal temp range test. 289 miles, which was pretty good. It is impressive that Tesla can keep 4.2-4.3 at 70mph. The Leaf is great/as efficient at low speeds, but isn’t nearly as efficiency above 45-50 mph. Aero is a piece of it, but am guessing the overall Powertrain also isn’t as efficient at the higher draws.

While I believe the Leaf to be a very good value and am a big fan of the form, it would be good if they could up their game a bit.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Another very positive local range test.

https://youtu.be/r-6VgTTsl-o

Tom M. From inside EVs ran the LR M3 on an ideal temp range test. 289 miles, which was pretty good. It is impressive that Tesla can keep 4.2-4.3 at 70mph. The Leaf is great/as efficient at low speeds, but isn’t nearly as efficiency above 45-50 mph. Aero is a piece of it, but am guessing the overall Powertrain also isn’t as efficient at the higher draws.

While I believe the Leaf to be a very good value and am a big fan of the form, it would be good if they could up their game a bit.

He could have made 300 miles EASILY

 

[umdkevin]

Just picked up this profile platform style bike rack to go along with the hitch I installed last weekend.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Ok, took my S+ Plus out it’s first extended drive today. Conditions were perfect mid 80’s and humid, so wind resistance was likely optimal.

The drive was from North side of Chicago to Huntley IL. 3 miles to the highway at 35, 38 miles on the highway between 65-73mph (speedometer), the final leg about 3 miles or so at 45 mph.

Total drive 89 miles per Google and 91 miles per odometer.

Leaving Stats. 759 Gids, 99.3%SOC LS, 99% Dash SOC 58.8kilowatts.
End Stats. 535 Gids, 66% dash SOC 69.6% SOC LS. 41.5 Kilowatts.

So, needless to say I was blown away by the efficiency...really to a point of disbelief.

Watching GPS based speeds at 70mph, it does look like there is an error of about 3%, or just over 2mph. I am guessing that s due to the tire diameter.

On a numbers basis... this was 89 miles on 17.3 kilowatts of power..an unbelievable 5.1 efficiency round trip. The trip computer measured 4.8 miles a kilowatt, which is also too high for the speeds I was traveling.

Now the car is an inch lower, the wheels are lighter, the car is lighter, There was some traffic maybe modestly helping with slipstream, and I have lost 5 pounds in the last month, but still..

It may be time for a 1000km challenge if this is true. I posted a picture leaving on reddit. Charged GOM was over 300 miles today.

Battery ending temp was 85F which was about ambient.

Dave, others, have you seen anything close to this?? I am still think I must be miscalculating.

 

[cwerdna]

On a numbers basis... this was 89 miles on 17.3 kilowatts of power..an unbelievable 5.1 efficiency round trip. The trip computer measured 4.8 miles a kilowatt, which is also too high for the speeds I was traveling.

In all of the above, kilowatt-hours (kWh) are the correct units. "89 miles on 17.3 kilowatts of power" makes no sense.

Watts are a measure of power. Watt-hours (Wh) are a measure of energy. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=520169#p520169.

The car uses the right units in its instrumentation. I wouldn't use what Leaf Spy says in terms of kWh.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Does anyone know of any reviewers that did a range test in the S+? I only know of SL Plus tests.

I did pulse the air on the way home (temps had moved up from 80 to 85-87F) , but doubt that used much power. The AC in the S Plus seems to be more responsive than the SV+.

 

[LeftieBiker]

The AC in the S Plus seems to be more responsive than the SV+.

Both the S and the S+ use an actual A/C unit, and it's supposed to be a bit more efficient than the heatpump at providing A/C. It may also be faster.

 

[Learjet]

My SL+ with 17" wheels match exactly to the GPS speed.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Yes, the SV+ we have matches exactly too. The 16” wheels appear to over read a bit, likely due to smaller diameter.

I am still scratching my head at the high speed efficiency. It was a round trip so unlikely wind would have assisted.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Does anyone know of any reviewers that did a range test in the S+? I only know of SL Plus tests.

I did pulse the air on the way home (temps had moved up from 80 to 85-87F) , but doubt that used much power. The AC in the S Plus seems to be more responsive than the SV+.

I did one just recently. Over 90% freeway @ 65 mph (Cruise control) most of the time. Only a few slow downs and none lasted more than a few miles. Estimated range over 260, miles actually driven over 252. Weather was not good in the morning but only affected half of the morning drive. After that, it was perfect with A/C on most of the time.

https://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2020/06/e-plus-summer-range-test.html

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Dave, your results match my test pretty well. On the highway at 65-70 I was averaging about 4.4-4.5 miles per kilowatt hour.

I also agree that the AC runs very cold regardless of the temp it’s set at.

The other surprise was my battery temp. It was at ambient after a 70 mph run. In the SV+, because of the higher power draw, after an hour of driving I would generally see a few degrees above ambient. I think the S+ could be the cross country cruiser.

Is there any possible volt/amp combination which would let the Leaf Plus charge at close to the 100kWh rate advertised?