2012 / 2013 LEAF Range Test San Diego Mar 8, 2013

Planning for Previous September 15, 2012 range test in Phoenix

Previous Phoenix Range Test, Sept 15, 2012

Previous LEAF-S San Diego Range Test on Feb 22, 2013

This 2013 LEAF-SL San Diego Range Test on Mar 8, 2013


Nissan LEAF Side by Side Range Comparison, 2012 vs 2013
March 8, 2013
Tony Williams
[email protected]

InsideEVs.com post with comments


Today started with cool 50F degree (10C) temperatures with light rain and the forecast wasn't promising for much of an improvement anytime soon. We had tentatively planned to get together yesterday, but technical difficulties with a Blink charging station threw a wrench in the plans. This morning, the technicians from Ecotality pronounced that Blink operational, and I got the troops ready for a 12 noon meeting at my house.

We did the range test today that I would have liked to have done on Feb 22, 2013; we tested the 2012 LEAF-SL side by side with the 2013 LEAF-SL on exactly the same course, at the same time, in precisely the same conditions (1). The course (2) was similar to the previous San Diego test, however I did shorten it by 5.8 miles by truncating the southern portion of the course at the Interstate 8 freeway instead of continuing south to the California 94 freeway. I did this because the previous test with a 2013 LEAF-S only scored a calculated range of 81 miles on an 85.8 miles course. Also, because the ambient temperatures were somewhat lower than the previous test and rain was forecast, I didn't expect us to go further than 81 miles with today's test.

First, a clarification of what these tests are not. They are not an assessment of a typical drive in a LEAF, unless you drive at one speed without any heat or air conditioning. Yes, there are many "hard core" LEAF and other electric vehicle drivers not running the heater in REALLY cold weather in an effort to extend range, or driving significantly slower than the normal flow of traffic, or rolling down hills. While those types of operations may seem perfectly normal to them, the "average" consumer of any car, whether fossil fuel burning, hybrid, or electric will want to drive at normal speeds, use the heater, and will likely spend at least some time in stop and go driving.

The current 2013 LEAF should offer a decrease in the amount of range loss associated with heater use over the 2012 LEAF (assuming 2013 model is equipped with the optional heat pump). This is an easy test to accomplish that I don't have the weather conditions in San Diego to adequately test. Any LEAF with a resistance heater can be placed in the same cold weather conditions as a heat pump equipped LEAF. Charge both cars up to 100% (or the same capacity if lower than 100%) and run the heater for a few hours while the cars are stationary. Then observe how much battery energy each car consumed at the same ambient temperatures and same Auto climate control setting.

There are other efficiencies with a 2013 LEAF. It should cost slightly less for electricity due to efficiencies in the charging system, and there should be some efficiencies in regeneration. Today's test has virtually no regeneration demonstrated by design.

Also, I'll add a note about government range data for the LEAF. Depending where in the world you buy your LEAF, your country's government will publish a distance that the car will go with their respective testing. In Japan, the previous two years of LEAF were published with a 124 miles (200km) range. Then, Nissan dropped some hints in the Japanese press that the 2013 car might go 155 miles (250km), which ultimately became 142 miles (228km) of official Japanese government range. For the USA market, the LEAF could exceed 100 miles (161km) when Nissan tested the car to the EPA "LA4" test cycle.

The only problem is that the EPA used a different protocol for those first two years of LEAF and awarded a 73 miles range for those 2011-2012 cars. Then, in 2013, EPA changed to a completely new 5 cycle test that offered an 84 mile EPA range, but further complicated it by then offering a 67 mile "80% charge" range, and averaged the two numbers (84 and 67) to finally arrive at a 75 mile (pending final certification) EPA range for 2013. The LEAF is currently one of only two cars that use this average technique (the 2012 Toyota Rav4 EV is the other) which further complicates comparisons with other EVs. In Europe, the LEAF has a 109 mile (175km) range. My point with offering all these wildly varying numbers is that every LEAF (when new) will get substantially the same 84 miles (135km) of range at 62mph (100kmh) ground speed over level ground with the climate control off in 70F (20C) degree temperatures.

So, is there some way to compare any improvements to the 2013 LEAF to previous LEAFs in average day to day driving? Sure. I recommend something just like the current USA EPA 5 cycle test of cars to be compared, with added components of a climate control test, a degraded battery test and a cold battery test (all of which are so important to EV's). But, that's not this test.

Let me also add a note about the dash displayed "Distance To Empty" (DTE), or predicted range display (more commonly referred to as the "Guess Oh Meter", or GOM). This seems to be one of the hardest things for new owners of a LEAF to overcome. You'll note that I didn't even include that information in this test and the reason is simple; whatever that number was, whether 50 or 150 miles or anything in between, it would not have changed the outcome at all.

As with every constant speed range test I've conducted, speed was maintained as close to 100kmh (62mph) ground speed as possible, and checked with the GPS. In the 2013 car, this resulted in a speed between 63mph and 64mph indicated (102.4% of actual speed) on the speedometer. This is a significant increase in accuracy over the previously tested 2013 car which showed 65mph indicated (104.8% of actual speed). My best guess as to why today's speedometer was significantly more accurate was the 2013 LEAF-SL's larger 17 inch Michelin tires.

The other parameters of the test that were consistent with the previous Feb 22 test:

- Heater and Air Conditioner off, which includes the fan off also in 2011-2012 LEAFs
- Cruise control on at 100kmh (62mph) ground speed
- Stock tires at 36 psi
- Crew of two totaling 450 pounds (205kg) plus or minus 5%

We were running slightly behind schedule, but after getting both cars completely charged up, we got underway at 12:45pm. The newer car showed a perfect 281 Gids (100% capacity) on our portable meter, however the dashboard State Of Charge (SOC) showed 98%. I have no idea why it didn't show 100%. Of course, the 2012 car doesn't have an SOC% dash meter and since the car's July 2012 manufacture date was 8 months ago, some degradation of the battery is to be expected. We got several measurements between 268 and 270 Gid, so I'll just average that to 269 (95.7% capacity). We will have to make a correction to the final data to account for the missing 4.3% of the capacity.

I rode right seat in the 2013 car while owner John performed the driving art with his shiny new metallic slate color car. Phillip joined Lynn in the right seat of Lynn's car, and the trip began. We had some light rain for the first third of the course. I did my best to correlate the odometer range with the Google maps calculated range at each check point along the course. The 2013 was consistently showing 2% under the Google data, which was also consistent with the error between the speedometer's indicated speed to actual GPS ground speed. The cars showed 5 temperature bars on the battery temperature gauge, and the dash ambient temperature gauge showed 52F (11C) to 54F (13C) during the drive. The second third of the course was dry.

We were not able to maintain a steady 100kmh on the course today, mostly due to Friday afternoon traffic. In addition to the exits and ramps between the freeways, there were two separate traffic slow downs on the freeway. The first was northbound on the Interstate 5 freeway about 5 to 10 miles south of Oceanside, and the second was 1 to 5 miles east of Escondido on the California 78 freeway eastbound. Of course, both cars experienced the same traffic at the same time.

The final results are as follows:




(*Note 1) - An additional 0.6 miles added to compensate for 2 Gid shy of VLBW at 75 usable wattHours per Gid is 150 wattHours / 250 wattHours per mile (at 65mph indicated on level ground at 70F)

(*Note 2) - Difference between 2012 LEAF starting Gid and 2013 LEAF was 4.3% favoring the newer car

Observations: The 2013 car did substantially the same range as the 2013 car tested on Feb 22, 2013. The 2012 car performed very similarly to the 2012 car used as an comparison example in the Feb 22, 2013 test.

Conclusion: Two separate 2013 LEAF's have failed to exceed the range of either 2012 LEAF tested, and may actually have less range in these parameters.


I'd like to thank John for allowing us to punish his 2013 LEAF with only a few days of ownership and about 200 miles on the odometer (and new to EVs). Also, a big thank you to Lynn for slugging through the rain to volunteer one of the newest 2012 and lowest mileage LEAFs on the road (they also have a 2011 LEAF). Finally, a big shout out to Phillip for once again loaning us his Gidmeter, and riding shotgun in the 2012 to take notes and keep us honest. He owns both a 2011 LEAF and a new 2012 Rav4 EV. He had planned to also participate with his 2011 LEAF, and even went as far as swapping the wheels back to the originals, but a failed Blink DC charger (different than the one that foiled us yesterday) eliminated his chance to get his car charged up in time.



(1) Weather today between 12:53pm and 2:53pm at nearby Montgomery Airport (KMYF) in San Diego:

- Time --- Temp. - DewPt-Pressure - Visibility-Wind Dir-Wind Speed - Gust Speed - Clouds
12:53 PM --50.0F --42.1F - 29.92 in - 5.0 mi - SW -- 5.8 mph -- N/A ------ Light Rain
1:53 PM -- 53.1F --42.1F - 29.91 in - 10.0 mi - SW --- 9.2 mph -- N/A ----- Overcast
2:53 PM -- 55.0F --41.0F - 29.91 in - 10.0 mi - W --- 9.2 mph -- N/A ---Mostly Cloudy


Previous weather during Feb 22, 2013 Range Test at nearby Montgomery Airport (KMYF):

- Time --- Temp. - DewPt-Pressure - Visibility-Wind Dir-Wind Speed - Gust Speed
1:53 PM -- 66.9F -- 9.0F - 30.06 in - 10.0 mi - NNE -- 15.0 mph -- 21.9 mph
2:53 PM -- 66.9F --10.0F - 30.05 in - 10.0 mi - NE --- 10.4 mph -- 17.3 mph
3:53 PM -- 64.9F --26.1F - 30.05 in - 10.0 mi - NW --- 10.4 mph -- N/A


Weather today between 12:53pm and 2:53pm at nearby Palomar Airport (KCRQ) in north San Diego county:

- Time --- Temp. - DewPt-Pressure - Visibility-Wind Dir-Wind Speed - Gust Speed - Clouds
12:53 PM --55.0F --37.0F - 29.91 in - 10.0 mi -WSW -- 10.4 mph -- N/A ------ Overcast
1:53 PM -- 55.0F --37.9F - 29.90 in - 10.0 mi - W --- 4.6 mph -- N/A ----- Partly Cloudy
2:53 PM -- 55.0F --37.0F - 29.91 in - 10.0 mi - WSW --- 9.2 mph -- N/A --- Partly Cloudy


Previous weather during Feb 22, 2013 Range Test at nearby Palomar Airport (KCRQ):

- Time --- Temp. - DewPt-Pressure - Visibility-Wind Dir-Wind Speed - Gust Speed
1:53 PM -- 64.0F --30.9F - 30.04 in - 10.0 mi - West -- 8.1 mph -- N/A
2:53 PM -- 64.9F --26.1F - 30.04 in - 10.0 mi - NW --- 6.9 mph -- N/A
3:53 PM -- 62.1F --30.9F - 30.05 in - 10.0 mi - WSW --- 9.2 mph -- N/A


(2) Today's 80 mile course:

A - 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, San Diego, California, USA (starting point)

0.8 miles

B - Interstate 15 freeway south

13.5 miles

C - Interstate 8 freeway west

5.5 miles

D - Interstate 5 freeway north

31.1 miles

E - California 78 freeway east

16.4 miles

F - Interstate 15 freeway south

12.0 miles

G - California 56 freeway / Ted Williams Parkway

0.7 miles

H - Return to starting point

TonyWilliams said:

We did it... Details to follow, and yes, surprisingly results!!!

Click to expand...

Is that correct... "surprisingly results" as in, it is surprising that you actually have results.

or did you mean "surprising results" meaning results that will surprise us?

Looking forward to reading your results.

Ok then wheere is it?

I'm going to predict that his results found that the 2013 drove 11 miles farther than '11-'12.

LEAFfan said:

I'm going to predict that his results found that the 2013 drove 11 miles farther than '11-'12.

Click to expand...

I predict only a full range of tests will show that.

Without a bigger battery, very small improvements will show in some tests

The final results are as follows:


-------------------- 2013 LEAF-SL ----- 2012 LEAF-SL ---
Odometer at end point ----- 78.4 ------------- 79.9 -------
Odometer error from Google- 2% low ------------ nil -------
Ending Gid / Gid% -------- 22 / 7.8% --------- 26 / 9.3% ---
Low Battery Warning miles -- 68.1 ------------- 74.1 ------
Very Low Battery Warning ---75.6 -------------- N/A ------
4.5 miles added to VLBW --- 80.1 ------------- 85.0 (*Note 1)
Error corrected miles ------ 81.7 ------------- 85.0 -------
Starting Gid correction ---- 81.7 -------------- 88.7 (*Note 2)


(*Note 1) - An additional 0.6 miles added to compensate for 2 Gid shy of VLBW at 75 usable wattHours per Gid is 150 wattHours / 250 wattHours per mile (at 65mph indicated on level ground at 70F)

(*Note 2) - Difference between 2012 LEAF starting Gid and 2013 LEAF was 4.3% favoring the newer car

Observations: The 2013 car did substantially the same range as the 2013 car tested on Feb 22, 2013. The 2012 car performed very similarly to the 2012 car used as an comparison example in the Feb 22, 2013 test.

Conclusion: Two separate 2013 LEAF's have failed to exceed the range of either 2012 LEAF tested for comparison, and may actually have less range autonomy in these parameters.

Thanks, Tony, for your continuing efforts to help us understand the range of our cars! Even after you no longer have one!

These results are a little disturbing, but they are what they are.

I don't have a good guess about why the 2013s have a bit less range. The only obivous thing I can think of is that the wheels on both the S and SL tested should be a little less efficiency than the SV or the 2011/2012s, but not seven miles' worth, particularly in a constant-speed test. Those should only have a minor effect, and then only in stop-and-go traffic. Also, the 2013 SL has the wider Michelin tires on it. Could they be significantly less efficient than the Ecopias? (But I think the S has Ecopias, doesn't it?)

I wonder if the new lower-cost chemistry might have less capacity or slightly more resistance than the old chemistry, which would affect higher-speed tests like this one. Also, I wonder if the drivetrain may be less efficient at this operating point. Perhaps they have traded off efficiency at highway speeds to improve the numbers at the lower speeds to get better government ratings. That would be very unfortunate if true.

I suppose it is really a combination of these things and perhaps some others, as well.

^^^
Re: the '12 (manufactured 8 months ago) vs. '13, http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; points out the decrease in rolling resistance as a tire wears out along with distance in revolution per mile differences (visible via odometer readings) as a tire wears out.

That could account for a bit, besides possible differences due to different tires and wheels.

Side note: On Gen 3 Priuses, in European mileage tests, there are different reported FE values for 15" vs. 17" wheel equipped Priuses. See http://priuschat.com/threads/17-wheels-effect-on-mpg.65496/#post-909868" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, keeping in mind those are in larger Imperial gallons and on inflated European test cycles.

(In the US, we have 15" and 17" wheels as choices on Gen 3 Priuses, but only one set of published EPA values, regardless of wheel size. In the US, there are 3 different possible tires (makes and models) on the 2010 Prius w/15" wheels and 2 totally different ones for the 17" model.

There's more background on this and speculation relating to why, the Priuses magical 50 mpg number, weight, EPA testing requirements, marketing, Prius trim levels, etc. but that's a long story... http://priuschat.com/threads/comparing-prius-five-trim-vs-prius-four-solar-pkg.116819/#post-1661069" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://priuschat.com/threads/video-of-a-prius-5-with-advance-tech-and-moonroof.92525/#post-1303395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; were my speculation. One could only get 17" wheels on the V/Five trim level, but that trim level precludes getting the solar roof package, which adds more weight. But, this is getting off topic...)

Kudo's to all those involved. Nice that you were able to find another SL that had cruise control. Better apples to apples.

Just adjusted the table for code/mono-space formatting. Feel free to cut-n-paste it into OP

TonyWilliams said:

The final results are as follows:

Code:

                               2013 LEAF-SL       2012 LEAF-SL
                               ------------       ------------
Odometer at end point             78.4               79.9
Odometer error from Google         2% low             nil
Ending Gid / Gid%                 22 / 7.8%          26 / 9.3% 
Low Battery Warning miles         68.1               74.1 
Very Low Battery Warning          75.6               N/A 
4.5 miles added to VLBW           80.1               85.0 (*Note 1)
Error corrected miles             81.7               85.0 
Starting Gid correction           81.8               88.7 (*Note 2)

(*Note 1) - An additional 0.6 miles added to compensate for 2 Gid shy of VLBW at 75 usable wattHours per Gid is 150 wattHours / 250 wattHours per mile (at 65mph indicated on level ground at 70F)
(*Note 2) - Difference between 2012 LEAF starting Gid and 2013 LEAF was 4.3% favoring the newer car
Observations: The 2013 car did substantially the same range as the 2013 car tested on Feb 22, 2013. The 2012 car performed very similarly to the 2012 car used as an comparison example in the Feb 22, 2013 test.
Conclusion: Two separate 2013 LEAF's have failed to exceed the range of either 2012 LEAF tested for comparison, and may actually have less range autonomy in these parameters.

Click to expand...

This was an excellent clarification for an article that will be consumed by the general public. Kudos for adding that.

TonyWilliams said:

First, a clarification of what these tests are not. They are not an assessment of a typical drive in a LEAF, unless you drive at one speed without any heat or air conditioning. Yes, there are many "hard core" LEAF and other electric vehicle drivers not running the heater in REALLY cold weather in an effort to extend range, or driving significantly slower than the normal flow of traffic, or rolling down hills. While those types of operations may seem perfectly normal to them, the "average" consumer of any car, whether fossil fuel burning, hybrid, or electric will want to drive at normal speeds, use the heater, and will likely spend at least some time in stop and go driving.

Click to expand...

adric22 said:

TonyWilliams said:

We did it... Details to follow, and yes, surprisingly results!!!

Click to expand...

Is that correct... "surprisingly results" as in, it is surprising that you actually have results.

or did you mean "surprising results" meaning results that will surprise us?

Click to expand...

No, I was surprised that neither 2013 LEAF exceeded the range of the comparison 2012 in the two tests.

RegGuheert said:

I don't have a good guess about why the 2013s have a bit less range. The only obivous thing I can think of is that the wheels on both the S and SL tested should be a little less efficiency than the SV or the 2011/2012s, but not seven miles' worth, particularly in a constant-speed test. Those should only have a minor effect, and then only in stop-and-go traffic. Also, the 2013 SL has the wider Michelin tires on it. Could they be significantly less efficient than the Ecopias? (But I think the S has Ecopias, doesn't it?)

Click to expand...

Yes, the 2013 LEAF-S uses the exact same 16 inch Ecopia tires as a 2011-2012 LEAF, and yet it's performance was virtually identical to the 2013 LEAF-SL with the larger tires. Sure, there are other differences as noted: the odometer and speedometer errors are different, and as expected with a slightly larger diameter tire. While I want the tires to be the smoking gun, unfortunately, I instinctively know that there is not an almost 10% difference in economy (I installed the Michelin tires on 17 inch wheels on my second LEAF, and noted only a minor difference in range).

I wonder if the new lower-cost chemistry might have less capacity or slightly more resistance than the old chemistry, which would affect higher-speed tests like this one. Also, I wonder if the drivetrain may be less efficient at this operating point. Perhaps they have traded off efficiency at highway speeds to improve the numbers at the lower speeds to get better government ratings. That would be very unfortunate if true. I suppose it is really a combination of these things and perhaps some others, as well.

Click to expand...

I really don't know exactly what thing or things could be causing this. We know most of the changes to the cars. One thing I did notice is that both 2013 cars showed 394.5 volts at 100%, when a new 2011-2012 would typically show 393.5 - 394.0 volts.

Somehow, the slightly lighter weight, increased efficiencies in the powertrain, and aerodynamic changes have not overcome whatever inefficiencies are causing reduced range compared to a 2012.

I have to think that the '13 cars are still breaking in. I smell a retest after these cars get a thousand or 2 miles on them.

Still should make existing owners feel good that after a year their car will return basically the same range as a new car.

We need another test with a couple 2 year old '11s! For the data!

drees said:

I have to think that the '13 cars are still breaking in. I smell a retest after these cars get a thousand or 2 miles on them.

Still should make existing owners feel good that after a year their car will return basically the same range as a new car.

We need another test with a couple 2 year old '11s! For the data!

Click to expand...

I don't think there's much "break in" for the mechanical parts, but the tires I do believe have a certain break in. Both of the 2013 cars were tested with about 200 miles on them.

We were very close to having a 2011 in yesterday's test. All my fellow San Diego LEAF drivers are always welcome to duplicate this test any afternoon that you have a few hours to kill, and the traffic isn't nutty!!!

Tony, I'll add a few bits of info that I have observed with the 2013. With my LEAF SGII, when the dash SoC % is 100%, my meter only shows 93% so maybe something is a little different in the car's Can system. It may have not made much difference, but you had 98%, not 100%. From 98%, using L2 it takes a long time to get to 100%.
Not related to the range test, but using QC, the car no longer shuts it off at 80% when 90% or 100% is chosen and below 50% to start. Also, the %s now match with the QC's. Before, they would read 10-11% higher.

TonyWilliams said:

I don't think there's much "break in" for the mechanical parts, but the tires I do believe have a certain break in. Both of the 2013 cars were tested with about 200 miles on them.

Click to expand...

I had always heard that with lead-acid batteries, they had more range after a break-in period. Then, of course, begin to lose range over time. I wonder if the same can be said for Lithium batteries?

drees said:

I have to think that the '13 cars are still breaking in. I smell a retest after these cars get a thousand or 2 miles on them.

Still should make existing owners feel good that after a year their car will return basically the same range as a new car.

We need another test with a couple 2 year old '11s! For the data!

Click to expand...

i tested mine in slightly different conditions.

27º, GID count 277 odometer at start of test 28,999 distance driven 59.3 miles at 65 mph (with CC) defrost only used to clear windows maybe total run time of 2-3 minutes? some hills, etc. ending GID count 23. distance estimated to turtle (8 GID) @ (277-23=254/59.3= 4.28 GID/mile) 3.5 miles so

62.8 miles. not very good. no wonder i drive slow...

return trip 58.9 miles at 57-60 mph (manual control) . 44º GID start 270 GID end 70. estimated total range to Turtle 77 miles.

obviously two different directions makes a true comparison a bit hard and will admit a large temperature difference and I typically average 3-4% better performance driving south to Oly (2nd trip) than I do traveling north to Seattle as observed several times in the Prius (which btw, I drive at 58-62 mph...so not a whole lot of difference here)

anyway, back to topic

surprising a degraded 2012 still beats the 2013. we need to test under more conditions. I might try to recruit one around here and see if we cant arrange a side by side around here while the weather is still somewhat colder

Many thanks to Tony et al for conducting these tests. I agree with others that lack of break-in is probably the most significant factor in the 2013s falling short of the older models.

Now, we really need someone to do a side-by-side test of 2013s/2011-12s using heat and defrost normally in temps at or below freezing.

LEAFfan said:

Tony, I'll add a few bits of info that I have observed with the 2013. With my LEAF SGII, when the dash SoC % is 100%, my meter only shows 93% so maybe something is a little different in the car's Can system. It may have not made much difference, but you had 98%, not 100%. From 98%, using L2 it takes a long time to get to 100%.

Click to expand...

Well, yesterday's car was definitely fully charged. There were zero amps going in or out, it had 281 Gid, and 394.5 volts.

I don't know why they would not make the dash gauge just arbitrarily read 100% any time it gets near fully charged. I can only imagine how many complaints that will generate. Because it is not indexed to Gid count (as LBW AND VLB are), I suspect it just derives its data from SOC%. Of course, the 93-95% SOC that you will show on your meter should indicate 100% on the dash.

adric22 said:

I had always heard that with lead-acid batteries, they had more range after a break-in period. Then, of course, begin to lose range over time. I wonder if the same can be said for Lithium batteries?

Click to expand...

Yes, I've read that this is also true of Li-ion batteries.

Excellent test, by the way. Thank you for your efforts, Tony.