I want my 281!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Old Leaf manufacturing date is 04/11 the new one 04/12.

Here is the elevation profile and the approximate average speed. Our target was 2 miles over the speed limit and to avoid sudden accelerations. Due to traffic on the last leg we had to slow down.



I have the old Leaf data on Plug In America. I will update the data after the two year mark . I will add the new one at its one year mark.
 
284

yes that was the GID value I noticed in one of the 2013 Leaf 'S' model after a 100% charge. I have never seen anyone mention anything more than 281 in this forum and was very surprised to see 284. How is that possible ?

I will take a picture next time around and post it here.

Jay
 
mkjayakumar said:
284

yes that was the GID value I noticed in one of the 2013 Leaf 'S' model after a 100% charge. I have never seen anyone mention anything more than 281 in this forum and was very surprised to see 284. How that is possible ?

I will take a picture next time around and post it here.

Jay

just about anything is possible since 300 is a "full pack" and this could go a ways towards explaining Nissan's boast of a longer range ;)

i have seen VLB at 10.8% which is 30 GID when we all "know" that LBW and VLB are "set" at 48 and 24 GID respectively... just goes to show ya that when electricity is concerned its only "about" right
 
Here is the "data" from CW for the test on March 29th.



It shows that the old Leaf total regen was 1.5 kWh and the new one 1.1 kWh. I do not believe the old Leaf is 37% more efficient, or that we drove so differently. Likely just the CW reporting, the old Leaf still has old firmware.
 
camasleaf said:
I do not believe the old Leaf is 37% more efficient, or that we drove so differently. Likely just the CW reporting, the old Leaf still has old firmware.
Yeah, you probably need the CARWINGs update for your '11 to report correctly. See what I just posted in another thread: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=278987#p278987" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
A report of 282 GIDs was posted over a year ago,
as I recall, but this is the first 2013 model report,
at least at that high of a value.

It could be a different sensor, different calibration,
a battery with a slightly larger capacity, or software
that allows slightly more charging.

Still, GIDs is the only "fuel on board" number that we have.

For SOC to be meaningful, you also need an accurate
capacity number to multiply by.
 
camasleaf said:
Here is the "data" from CW for the test on March 29th.



It shows that the old Leaf total regen was 1.5 kWh and the new one 1.1 kWh. I do not believe the old Leaf is 37% more efficient, or that we drove so differently. Likely just the CW reporting, the old Leaf still has old firmware.

OK camasleaf, what you have inadvertently demonstrated, IMO, is how much less accurate your kWh use results from a range test will be if you do not have functional CW.

Or maybe not...

We may be abler to make some lemonade from the lemon (evidently not updated with NTB11-041) CW data you posted above, for your 2011.

Before we proceed further camasleaf, if your daily CW reports happen to match the same miles driven as the rate simulation data above, please post those results. This will give us the most accurate total miles driven and kWh use reports to work with, rather than adding up the sum of your two trips for each LEAF, each rounded to 0.1 mile and 0.1 kWh.

Edit.

Well, rereading your test account, this seems unlikely, as you probably drove more miles that day with each LEAF.

The problem here is that you (apparently) only recorded the dash m/kWh for the entire test, but you only recorded (using CW) the m/kWh for each of the two trips.



For other early 2011 LEAFers, please review the ancient history below, on why you need NTB11-041, and how Nissan has (apparently) made this update difficult to get.

As I posted earlier, Since I had the Carwings update done on 8/3(11), my Dash and Carwings miles/kWh numbers seem to match.

Even more interestingly, the daily Driving Records/electricity consumption now seem to accurately reflect the kWh delivered from my Modified L2, as best as I can calculate by recharge time.

Has anyone tried a 100% charge to Turtle discharge drive since having the update?

What total electricity consumption (kWh) did carwings report-and do you believe it to accurately reflect total battery capacity?

If you have a meter at the wall, what L2 charging efficiency percentage did it show for your recharge, using the Carwings energy consumption report?

My carwings energy numbers - CORRECT post NTB11-041 update

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=5423" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


NTB-11-041 Telematics Connection Fix - dealer says no

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9195" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
mkjayakumar said:
284

yes that was the GID value I noticed in one of the 2013 Leaf 'S' model after a 100% charge. I have never seen anyone mention anything more than 281 in this forum and was very surprised to see 284. How is that possible ?

I will take a picture next time around and post it here.

Jay
Wow! I have heard of 282 and I think 283.. but 284 could be a record! Can you read the car's SOC in the 0x559 (?) message next time you see a >281 Gid reading?
 
For those of you with older GID-Meters:

The latest firmware revision for the SOC/GID-Meter (F1.09)
adds the display of the "real SOC" percentage value to the
display of the GID and percent-GID (GID/2.81) values.
 
garygid said:
For those of you with older GID-Meters:

The latest firmware revision for the SOC/GID-Meter (F1.09)
adds the display of the "real SOC" percentage value to the
display of the GID and percent-GID (GID/2.81) values.

So it reads both the SoC% and the BC% separately?
 
="camasleaf"]Here is the "data" from CW for the test on March 29th...

Camasleaf", can you please post some additional data?

I realize this may be off-topic on this thread, but you've got a lot of interesting data shown in your range test report that I'd like to comment on at an appropriate thread, and it would be much easier to discuss the subject, with this additional info.

Can you post the Nav screen m/kWh for the entire test run, or any of the trips you recorded, for both LEAFs?

Since (as I posted earlier) it sounds like you won't have the total CW miles driven or kWh use (the daily report, for the test miles only) can you please post the CW "rate simulation" data for the entire test day for both LEAFs, and the CW miles driven and kWh use for the entire day, for both LEAFs?
 
I do not have picture of the end of the test: The GIDs I wrote down. The averages we took pictures and deleted them somehow, so those numbers are my wife and my "memory" data. I am pretty sure about my memory, but not about my wife's ;) . Here are the current pictures, nothing has been reset since Friday morning. I will post the CW tomorrow or when available. Both cars at 80% old one for about 2 hours, new one just finished charging.

Old Leaf:



New Leaf:




For me the test was to see how much I can go until turtle. We only did the VLBW and the old Leaf gave the VLBW a couple hundred yards before the new Leaf. Not bad at all. I plan to install the hitch on one of the cars (new one, if I do not void the warranty) so any future test will be affected by the presence of the hitch.
 
If BC% is battery capacity, no, I do not know where
the Battery Capacity data is located in the messages.

The GID-Meter reads SOC% and displays that
(typically around 95% after a full charge).

It also reads the "GIDs" value (up to around 281
on a new battery at nominal temperatures) as
a measure of the "fuel-on-board", and displays
that GID number. For convenience it also displays
the GIDs as a percentage of 281, to indicate the
amount of fuel as a percentage of what you had
when the car was new.

The GID-Meter also displays the Pack current, voltage,
and power output (and input).

I hope to continue adding capabilities, showing
the 4 Pack Temperatures, and the cell-pair Max,
Min, and Average voltages.

If we can find them, I would like to display the
four tire pressures.

The GID-Meter will also log the messages from
the CAR, or EV bus.
 
edatoakrun said:
Camasleaf", can you please post some additional data?

Here is the CW data from the day of the test until now.



I know that the TB will fix the CW reporting issue. But I am of the principle "If it is not broken do not fix it", my wife is happy driving the car with the "grabby brakes", higher miles/kWh numbers and the other little annoyances the car came with.

One thing she would like is to get total manual control over the climate control, but there is no fix for that.
 
Camasleaf,

The reason I am trying to get an account of your CW report corresponding to THE SAME MILES DRIVEN as your dash and nav screen reports, is to see if the statement below is true for your 2012 LEAF.

...All 2011-2 LEAFs, AFAIK, have reported the same Carwings odometer and Dash m/kWh error of consistently under-reporting by ~2.5%.

So if your CW miles driven is ~2.5% lower than your dash odometer miles, and your dash m/kWh is showing ~2.5% less than your nav screen m/kWh (0.1 m/kWh lower below ~6 m/kWh, and 0.2 m/kWh lower when you are getting over ~6 m/kWh) this is "normal" for 2011-2012 LEAFs.

Hopefully, Nissan has fixed this error in the 2013s. Any readers have a CW equipped 2013? Please check and report back...

The Dash, nav screen and CW m/kWh all are mathematically "correct" as a function of the total kWh use reported by CW for every trip, day, or months driving.

It's just that the dash uses the same ~2.5% understated miles to make its calculation of m/kWh as CW does, while the nav screen is always accurate as a function of reported kWh use, as it uses the dash odometer miles, for the m/kWh calculation...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11987&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My first question whether is the 0.4 m/kWh variation between your cars dash and nav screens, as shown in the photos below, is normal for both your LEAFs.

My LEAF, both before and after the update, never has displayed a variation between those two m/kwh reports other than the nav screen always reading 0.0 to 0.2 higher m/kWh, on all longer trips in the normal (~3 to ~7 m/kwh) usage range, always conforming with the statement I quoted above.

AFAIK, all other LEAFs have reported the same. So, if both your LEAFs showed the 0.4 m/kWh variations between the dash and nav screen as shown below, the photos were taken ~simultaneously, and that is normal for both your LEAFs, I can't understand what is going on.


camasleaf said:
edatoakrun said:
Camasleaf", can you please post some additional data?

First leg of the test:
old Leaf



new Leaf

 
edatoakrun said:
My first question whether is the 0.4 m/kWh variation between your cars dash and nav screens, as shown in the photos below, is normal for both your LEAFs.

My LEAF, both before and after the update, never has displayed a variation between those two m/kwh reports other than the nav screen always reading 0.0 to 0.2 higher m/kWh, on all longer trips in the normal (~3 to ~7 m/kwh) usage range, always conforming with the statement I quoted above.

AFAIK, all other LEAFs have reported the same. So, if both your LEAFs showed the 0.4 m/kWh variations between the dash and nav screen as shown below, the photos were taken ~simultaneously, and that is normal for both your LEAFs, I can't understand what is going on.

I am sorry I was not clear on that: the dash screen miles/kWh was never reset since we had the cars. Only the navigation screen miles/kwh was reset on Friday morning before the test (the dash trip miles was reset). It just happened that the difference between the life average and trip average is the same for both cars.
 
camasleaf said:
edatoakrun said:
My first question whether is the 0.4 m/kWh variation between your cars dash and nav screens, as shown in the photos below, is normal for both your LEAFs.

My LEAF, both before and after the update, never has displayed a variation between those two m/kwh reports other than the nav screen always reading 0.0 to 0.2 higher m/kWh, on all longer trips in the normal (~3 to ~7 m/kwh) usage range, always conforming with the statement I quoted above.

AFAIK, all other LEAFs have reported the same. So, if both your LEAFs showed the 0.4 m/kWh variations between the dash and nav screen as shown below, the photos were taken ~simultaneously, and that is normal for both your LEAFs, I can't understand what is going on.

I am sorry I was not clear on that: the dash screen miles/kWh was never reset since we had the cars. Only the navigation screen miles/kwh was reset on Friday morning before the test (the dash trip miles was reset). It just happened that the difference between the life average and trip average is the same for both cars.

OK.

First, had you reset the dash m/kWh, I believe the 2012 would have displayed 4.3 m/kWh, as indicated by the 4.4 m/kWh nav screen, and the 4.3 m/kWh of both of the two individual trips reported by CarWings for that LEAF, exactly as my LEAF (and all other CarWings capable LEAFs?) would.

Both your LEAFs' nav screen m/kWh reports indicate that your 2011 got ~ 6% to 7% higher (4.4/4.7) m/kWh than your 2012 on this range test.

IMO, this result is very unlikely in a test with all known efficiency variables controlled. So, IMO, it is strongly indicative of error in one or both of the kWh reports used in that equation.

I suspect that your 2011 is responsible for most of this error, reporting nominal "kWh" that actually contain greater than 1,000 Wh content, on both its dash and nav screen m/kWh reports.

And your 2011 will report the same error, but you will be able to discern its magnitude with much greater accuracy, after you have the NTB-11-041 update.

Your 2012 CarWings reports ~18.9 kWh between "100%" and ~VLBW (this would be more accurate if you had the day report or a single trip report, rather than adding up the two trips) which is very close to the ~18.7 kWh my LEAF reported at ~the same age and miles driven. Look what has happened to my CW use reports over the subsequent 18 months:

Below is how Carwings has reported the total energy use from "100%" to ~VLBW on my warm climate LEAF two years from the factory and with ~16,000 miles on the odometer.

While the reported kWh use has dropped quite a bit, My LEAF has displayed no significant loss of range from my first test, to most recent, on range tests of 95-113 miles, when corrected for all test variables, including speed, temperature both when charging and when driving, and my own driving efficiency (as reflected in the regen kWh reported by CarWings).

Of course my battery has lost capacity in the last 18 months, it just not yet a large enough loss to show up clearly in a range test, and is, IMO, nearly certainly far less than the kWh use results below, showing capacity loss approaching 15% just over the last 18 months (when adjusted for battery temperature) would indicate:

All charges prior to testing were to “80%", battery allowed to return to ambient temperature, and then charged @ 16 A 240 V to “100%”, two to three hours before range/capacity test begins, and then left plugged into the EVSE until departure.

IMO The distance driven at the point where the battery temp bars increased, when that has occurred, is useful data as to the relative battery temp and temperature the (temperature variable) battery capacity when the "100%" charge was completed.

9/7/11 18.7 kWh from "100%" to VLBW, 6 dash battery temp bars constant (as recalled later)

5/10 12 17.2 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~mile 73

5/31/12 17.5 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~mile 5

6/17/12 17.5 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

8/18/12 17.0 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

8/30/12 16.8 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

9/08/12 16.7 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~ 4.6 miles

10/1/12 16.6 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

11/3/12 16.2 kwh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 14

1/31 15.7 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 24

2/16/13 15.8 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 18

3/1/13 15.6 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 18

3/13/13 16.0 kWh, 5 bars temp constant


I think it is nearly certain, that the LEAF "gauge error" that has shown up in premature battery capacity bar loss and Wh/gid error in other LEAFs is also displaying itself in the dash and nav screen m/kWh, and also in the (more accurate) CarWings kWh use reports, from my LEAF, as I have posted above.

IMO, any LEAFer who can learn to use CarWings, may see the same sort of results I have, and also be able to largely differentiate any range loss due to real battery capacity loss, from their LEAF's questionable kWh use reports, as I believe I have been able to do.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=11987&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The problem of course, is that your 2011 was not updated, and so its CW kWh reports do not match its dash, nor the nav screen after applying the ~2.5% correction for the CW and dash odometer errors.

However, if you take what probably would have been your nav screen m/kWh had you reset it) 4.6 and divide by the 5.6 indicated by CW, you get ~0.82, but with a large uncertainty, due to using the relatively inaccurate dash as your data source. Check your other CW reports for the 2011 against the dash, and I think they also probably will show that none of your other pre-update CW report numbers are "nonsense", they also seem to show the same constant error, though somewhat camouflaged by the inaccuracy from cycling it through the dash m/kWh.

Look at my comment from last fall:

Your earlier "nonsense" (pre-update Carwings) reports might not be so much so as you think.

IIRC, it always seemed to me that mine seemed like they might have read "off" by a constant coefficient, something close to 80%.

Unfortunately, I was "surprised" by the accuracy that came from the update, and never had a previous trip or trips logged accurately enough to compare to the (nearly) accurate (~2.5% miles driven error) post-update reports.

If you have trips or days of drives with all the m/kWh from dash/nav screen noted prior to the update, and repeat them now, you might figure out a way to recover data from the "nonsense".

Or maybe not...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9195&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if you have the CW update done promptly on your 2011, and use the more accurate total kWh use report from CW for the same range of battery capacity, "100%" to ~ the same SOC at or beyond VLBW, you may be able to get a better estimate of what the kWh report error was, in your recent test.

The true moral of this story, IMO, is that it is not possible to get the most accurate estimate of your LEAF's kWh use report from any range test, and determine whether your dash, nav screen and CW may be reporting a common and significant error in these reports (as I think is likely in your 2011 LEAF, and almost certainly in my LEAF) unless you have CarWings capability.

And please reset the dash gauge at the start of the test, and either do the test in a single "trip", or alternately make no other trips on the same day (as I do) so you can get a single report of kWh use (and miles driven) from CarWings, rather than having to add up several "trips" with the kWh use reported with only 0.1 kWh resolution.
 
I recently got a Bluetooth OBD II reader, and noticed that after a 100% charge SoC% was 93%. Is that typical? After I lost my 2nd bar it showed 80%. I've calculated capacity loss to be 3% based on the readings from the capacity value reported by the reader.
 
Yes, after a full charge (100%) the "real SOC" typically reads 94-ish,
independent of the capacity loss of your battery.

With a capacity loss of 50%, the SOC will still read around 95%, but
the GIDs (as a percentage of 281) will typically read around 50%,
much better indicating the amount of UFOB (Usable Fuel-On-Board).

Based primarily on temperature, the car might charge slightly less
(or rarely, more) when charging to "full", so the "full" SOC will vary.

Also, if the cells are not well balanced, and one cell gets "full" first
(there is always a "first-full"), then charging would also terminate early.
 
Back
Top