aqn said:
If
this document is to be believed, the LEAF's motor makes ts max torque of 206 ft-lbs from 0-2730 rpm and max power of 107 bhp from 2730-9800 rpm.
ttweed said:
IMHO, that document shows the raw specs of the motor before Nissan applies their ECU, BMS, and "drive by wire" throttle controls to the motor's output. There is no way that they would allow the engine to apply full power instantly to the wheels from a standing start[...]
Nissan is a killjoy.
aqn said:
I still say that the LEAF feels quick off the line because it is quick off the line. I went looking for dyno graphs, but could not find any that show readings below 2000 or 2500 rpm, but many "performance cars" shows around the same torque at 2000+ rpm:
ttweed said:
[snipped examples]
Yes, it is true that ICE engines do not develop max torque at low RPMs. This does NOT mean that they cannot launch quickly off the line. The clutch and gearing and driver skill can be combined to make sure that the car is never out of the meaty part of the powerband,[...]
Of course; no argument from me on that.
ttweed said:
The most important aspect in accelerating a vehicle is grip, and the Leaf is sorely lacking in this part of the equation, [...]
It's lacking
something, but so far I don't think it's grip that's lacking, at least not where launching hard is concerned. If grip was that lacking, I'd have lit up the tires a whole lot more frequently. I
think I've done that only once.
I was next to a late-model Range Rover that appeared like it wanted to "race" (don't ask me why anybody would want to race a LEAF!). We both launched hard away from the light.
One of us lit up our tires pretty good. It wasn't just a few quick chirps but a good long squeal. I couldn't tell whether it was me or him. Anyway, the Range Rover, depending on the particular model and the particular test, is capable of 0-60 of
5.5 secs,
5.9 secs, or
6.4 secs. In other words, it will stomp a LEAF. However, we were dead even up to the next traffic light, about 400 feet away.
Now, the Range Rover's lard ass (almost 3 tons!!!) couldn't possibly have helped its off-the-line time, nor the short distance of that "race". Another block or so and the result would have been as expected, with the RR stomping the LEAF. However, the event illustrated to me the "usefulness" of the LEAF's kind of performance.
Oh, and I think one of the reasons why it's not so easy to light up the LEAF's front tires is because of its low center of gravity.
ttweed said:
[...] regardless of how much torque it may have available. The tires are the single most important factor in acceleration performance (and braking and cornering as well). If the coefficient of friction of the tire contact patch is not sufficient to transfer the power to the ground, it doesn't matter how much power is applied. With the wider, softer compound tires that are standard equipment on a modern sports car, and a skilled driver (or modern launch control software), any of the performance vehicles you cite will absolutely smoke a Leaf off the line,
You think?
I have no illusion about the LEAF's acceleration ability, nor about whether I get to use all 206 ft-lbs right from zero rpm and time T0. But it
has proven useful at all the right times and in all the right places.
ttweed said:
no matter how "quick" it may feel. The stopwatch doesn't lie. Despite the anemic 175 ft-lbs @ 2250rpm, a new GT3 RS (there is no 911 GT4 yet, BTW) will do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds (without launch control). There is no way the Leaf could stay with it, even to 20-30 mph.
TT
How about in the first 10 feet? Maybe even the first twenty five feet? Afterall, if I ever
really need to get in front of somebody, all I would need is about two car lengths, maybe forty feet max. Ditto if I ever feel like annoying the pilot of a "performance car"!
