Boomer23 said:June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.
Boomer23 said:June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
mwalsh said:Boomer23 said:June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.
xtremeflyer said:If anyone wants to do the Turbo3 Battery App thingy on my recently lost 2 capacity bar Leaf, you are more than welcome. I'm actually working from home for the rest of the week. (although I have appts Thur 8-12 and Friday 1-5) Do I need it charged to 100%? 80%?
mwalsh said:Boomer23 said:June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
Just think how much better you'd be doing if you could get that efficiency up to 4.7m/KWh.
Boomer23 said:Yeah but I just cain't get 'er done. I'm doing well to get 4.2 and that's with careful driving with zero freeway. :roll:
Valdemar said:So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?
mwalsh said:Valdemar said:So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?
If you go to Nissan, they're FULLY able to tell you what your "Gradual Capacity Loss Coefficient" is via Consult III. I don't know why they aren't giving this information to owners. :?
Valdemar said:So, if I go to a dealer and request this piece of data they are going to tell me no, we can't do it?
mwalsh said:Valdemar said:So, if I go to a dealer and request this piece of data they are going to tell me no, we can't do it?
Probably.
Valdemar said:So wrong...
mwalsh said:Boomer23 said:Yeah but I just cain't get 'er done. I'm doing well to get 4.2 and that's with careful driving with zero freeway. :roll:
Maybe you need more cowbell? Err...I mean freeway.
My city economy is just pitiful. I do MUCH better on the freeway!
Boomer23 said:Really? What is your economy on the freeway and how slow are you going these days? Or did you fix the aero drag by adding rear wheel fairings and a Le Mans style elongated rear body?
mwalsh said:Valdemar said:So wrong...
Indeed. But you could always ask. I think you'd have to be willing to pay for it though. Or one could try to find someone independent of Nissan with a Consult III machine.
Boomer23 said:Stoaty said:There are reports of the Michelin tires decreasing efficiency (and thus range) by 8-10%, so I would say your test is not valid. You are assuming the miles/kwh on the dash is accurate, which may not be true.Boomer23 said:I'm calculating a loss of 19.2% of range from the 86.5 miles when new to 69.9 miles now. (Ignoring the discrepancy between 4.0 mi/kWh indicated on the 2011 new battery test and the 4.1 on the subsequent tests.)
Note: I did put Michelin Primacy MXV tires on the car this April, replacing worn out Ecopias. I suppose this could have affected the range measurement, but only if the Michelins are of different diameter to the Ecopias. I don't have data on this. If anyone does, please comment.
OK, point taken, though I tend to believe the dash energy economy display because the results of this test match well with many informal calculations that I've done using Gids on many trips down to LBW and below. And if I posit that the display is at least precise, then the change in tires would not have an effect on the data as long as I keep the dash energy economy reading constant. Unless the new tires are a different diameter than the Ecopias were when they were new, which would affect the odometer reading.
But here is some additional data of charging energy required to recharge to full from turtle using TED mounted on my breaker box:
April 2011 Turtle event with new battery: 26.1 kWh required.
June 2013 Turtle event: 20.2 kWh required.
That's a 23% drop in energy required for refill.
Or if you like, we could calculate theoretical miles per each charge and compare with measured miles.
April 2011: 26.1 kWh minus 15% charging inefficiency = 22.2 kWh at the battery X 4.0 mi/kWh = 88.8 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 86.5
June 2013: 20.2 kWh minus 15% = 17.2 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 70.4 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
I'm inclined to believe my data, but I don't expect anyone to consider it rigorous.
Boomer23 said:Stoaty said:There are reports of the Michelin tires decreasing efficiency (and thus range) by 8-10%, so I would say your test is not valid. You are assuming the miles/kwh on the dash is accurate, which may not be true.Boomer23 said:I'm calculating a loss of 19.2% of range from the 86.5 miles when new to 69.9 miles now. (Ignoring the discrepancy between 4.0 mi/kWh indicated on the 2011 new battery test and the 4.1 on the subsequent tests.)
Note: I did put Michelin Primacy MXV tires on the car this April, replacing worn out Ecopias. I suppose this could have affected the range measurement, but only if the Michelins are of different diameter to the Ecopias. I don't have data on this. If anyone does, please comment.
OK, point taken, though I tend to believe the dash energy economy display because the results of this test match well with many informal calculations that I've done using Gids on many trips down to LBW and below. And if I posit that the display is at least precise, then the change in tires would not have an effect on the data as long as I keep the dash energy economy reading constant. Unless the new tires are a different diameter than the Ecopias were when they were new, which would affect the odometer reading.
But here is some additional data of charging energy required to recharge to full from turtle using TED mounted on my breaker box:
April 2011 Turtle event with new battery: 26.1 kWh required.
June 2013 Turtle event: 20.2 kWh required.
That's a 23% drop in energy required for refill.
Or if you like, we could calculate theoretical miles per each charge and compare with measured miles.
April 2011: 26.1 kWh minus 15% charging inefficiency = 22.2 kWh at the battery X 4.0 mi/kWh = 88.8 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 86.5
June 2013: 20.7 kWh minus 15% = 17.6 kWh at the battery X 4.1 mi/kWh = 72.2 theoretical miles. Measured miles = 69.9
I'm inclined to believe my data, but I don't expect anyone to consider it rigorous.
EDITED: I took another look at my TED readout and I see that the power used for full recharge last night was 20.7, not 20.2. I must have misread it this morning. I just wanted to be as precise as possible. The overall conclusion still holds, I think.
I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.Valdemar said:So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?
cwerdna said:I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.Valdemar said:So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?
That'd be a lot faster than leaving the car in READY mode until it shuts down.
Valdemar said:cwerdna said:I thought there the service manual had a procedure involving running the heater.Valdemar said:So, what tools do we have in our arsenal apart from real-life range test for capacity loss estimates? Is it the original gid-meter and the Turbo3 app?
That'd be a lot faster than leaving the car in READY mode until it shuts down.
Will the car go through the same sequence of events LBW->VLBW->Turtle when not moving and the heater is running? I'm keen to do a turtle to 100% charge to see the energy consumed from the wall, but don't want to drive around risking to get stranded 100 feet from my home.
Enter your email address to join: