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

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.
Well, that's better than the dealership a few miles from, Mission Hills Nissan... They refused to even discuss it with me ("we know far more about the Leaf than you so just take our word for it"). I ultimately wound up having it done at Downtown L.A. Nissan... I have to be honest, based on my experiences with all but a couple of dealers (Fontana and Downtown), I'd think twice about buying ANY Nissan in the future...

I very rarely even look at Carwings so I can't comment on how much of an accuracy change it may have made...

drees said:
RegGuheert said:
It's clear: with my dealership, you can lead them directly to the fix for your LEAF, but you can't make them fix it!
My dealership wasn't much better. Took at least a dozen emails back and forth to convince my tech to order the card and apply the update. Try a different dealer is all I can advise if you've hit a brick wall - perhaps call up 1-877-NO-GAS-EV to lodge a formal complaint? That seems to get movement when people have issues...
 
drees said:
Try a different dealer is all I can advise if you've hit a brick wall - perhaps call up 1-877-NO-GAS-EV to lodge a formal complaint? That seems to get movement when people have issues...
That's what I have done. I contacted 877-NO-GAS-EV and explained the issue and requested that they approve NTB11-041a for our vehicle. The lady was nice and said she needed to get approval. She called back and said that the issue has been escalated two more levels and it would be next week before they would have an anwser.

The real issue here is that Nissan did not include our vehicle in this NTB even though it fixes problems that exist in our car. But I've really had it with our dealer. I'll drive to the next city next time I need to go in.
TomT said:
Well, that's better than the dealership a few miles from, Mission Hills Nissan... They refused to even discuss it with me ("we know far more about the Leaf than you so just take our word for it"). I ultimately wound up having it done at Downtown L.A. Nissan... I have to be honest, based on my experiences with all but a couple of dealers (Fontana and Downtown), I'd think twice about buying ANY Nissan in the future...
Yeah, Nissan is definitely not blowing my skirt up! We never had any of these issues with our Honda dealer. We bought the first HCH they got in April 2002 and things have gone smoothly for over 10 years, even though they were just learning about the car at that time.
 
RegGuheert said:
drees said:
Try a different dealer is all I can advise if you've hit a brick wall - perhaps call up 1-877-NO-GAS-EV to lodge a formal complaint? That seems to get movement when people have issues...
That's what I have done. I contacted 877-NO-GAS-EV and explained the issue and requested that they approve NTB11-041a for our vehicle. The lady was nice and said she needed to get approval. She called back and said that the issue has been escalated two more levels and it would be next week before they would have an anwser.
Well, Nissan finally applied NTB11-041a to our vehicle! It took corporate about three weeks to approve it and another three weeks to ship the SD card to my dealership. I dropped in on Friday and they had it in their parts department and agreed to reprogram it on the spot. They also did the one-year battery check while I was there (all 5 stars and still have 12 capacity bars fifteen months after manufacture).

One good thing is that the LEAF-certified technician leased one at the end of August and is now a big fan of the car. So things are looking up at the dealership also!

CarWings efficiency results from Saturday appear to match what was on the dash. It is now reporting the 4s that we actually get rather than the 6s and 7s that it used to report.

So, beginning in October I can start to get as attached to CarWings as Ed is!
 
RegGuheert said:
...CarWings efficiency results from Saturday appear to match what was on the dash. It is now reporting the 4s that we actually get rather than the 6s and 7s that it used to report.

So, beginning in October I can start to get as attached to CarWings as Ed is!

Congratulations on completing your odyssey!

Yes, Carwings should record and compile reports by "Trip", day, and month, the same m/kWh as your dash would (and couldn't-since you do not have memory there). IMO, however, it is the nav screen that is giving me my m/kWh numbers corresponding to miles driven. You may find that the CW regeneration kWh reports (example at thread below below) will be the most useful "new" data, giving you an entirely new view of your driving efficiency and kWh use.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now the bad news.

As you can also see at the link above, I am now virtually certain that all the kWh numbers underlying dash, nav screen, and CW reports and calculations share a common error in kWh use reporting, which has increased over time in my LEAF.
 
edatoakrun said:
Yes, Carwings should record and compile reports by "Trip", day, and month, the same m/kWh as your dash would (and couldn't-since you do not have memory there). IMO, however, it is the nav screen that is giving me my m/kWh numbers corresponding to miles driven. You may find that the CW regeneration kWh reports (example at thread below below) will be the most useful "new" data, giving you an entirely new view of your driving efficiency and kWh use.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for the info! The "Electric Rate Simulation" (??!!) report looks cool!
edatoakrun said:
Now the bad news.

As you can also see at the link above, I am now virtually certain that all the kWh numbers underlying dash, nav screen, and CW reports and calculations share a common error in kWh use reporting, which has increased over time in my LEAF.
Yes, I am aware of the issues here. But I am hopeful that these things are fixable under the vehicle warranty. If not, perhaps we can find some reasonable way to calibrate out the errors. At least I now get results which aren't complete nonsense. They are only partial nonsense! :lol:
 
RegGuheert" At least I now get results which aren't complete nonsense. They are only partial nonsense! :lol:[/quote said:
One more thing.

Your earlier "nonsense" reports might not beso 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...
 
MNL proves itself supremely useful again! I have my 2011 LEAF in for the 2yr check and I spoke with the LEAF Tech AND the Nissan engineer who's based at Connell Nissan. This was the second time that I'd mentioned Carwings inaccuracy, and was told that nothing was wrong. But when I mentioned NTB 11-041, they had something to refer to on their computer. I was just told that they will be installing the update, so maybe I'll now have accurate CW data. I hope it doesn't frack up something else on the car. :)

Thanks, folks.
 
Boomer23 said:
I'll now have accurate CW data. I hope it doesn't frack up something else on the car. :)
I thought that this update had been applied to our car along with the voluntary NTB12-014 recall update a year ago, but looking at the service records and the diagnostic screens, as well as our CW data, it is obvious that the NTB-11-041 Telematics fix was not applied as we requested, perhaps because we never had any telecommunication problems with the Leaf. Before I go hassle the dealer to apply it now, I am still trying to understand the advantage of having the CW data be more accurate. I have never used CW for anything more than remote charging and CC preconditioning, which works fine and always has. If and when Nissan begins charging a monthly fee for the telematics service, unless it was an extremely nominal cost, I would abandon the service in a heartbeat and just accomplish those tasks manually instead of remotely.

At the moment, I am leaning towards the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" stance unless there is some practical advantage in having the update done and making the CW energy use data more accurate. As I understand it, the NTB-11-041 Telematics fix simply makes your CW energy usage figures match that of your dash and nav screen output (with possibly some 2.5% odometer error?) instead of inflating the reported m/kWh figures, as the old, non-updated CW algorithm does. Can someone please explain how they find this increased CW accuracy useful? Why not just depend on the nav screen output for this figure, if all the update does is make the CW number match it? How is the m/kWh number useful other than telling you how efficient your driving habits are? Chances are that even if you know you could be more efficient in throttle and brake application, or coasting technique, to become a better "hypermiler," you might not be able to change your habits significantly--that is the very nature of "habits," they are fairly well ingrained in your behavior, and unless there is a compelling reason to change them, and a concerted effort made over a long period of time, they persist. I have little interest in doing that myself, and I am pretty sure that telling my wife she should drive differently to be more efficient and perhaps gain a few miles of range would be like spitting into the wind. :D

I know that edatoakrun has claimed that the CW detailed energy usage figures can be used to calculate battery capacity degradation, but frankly, I have not been able to follow either his logic or methodology in doing so, and I am not all that concerned about the exact rate of degradation of our battery pack. It is what it is, not the least bit unexpected, and the car is still meeting our needs and will for quite some time to come. I don't really see how drilling down into the individual trip and mileage data that CW contains is more accurate, useful or necessary for this purpose, as ed claims. Isn't knowing that your m/kWh number has not changed substantially (i.e., your driving efficiency is the same), that the car used to go 77 miles on a full charge when new and now goes 70 over the same route enough to tell you that the pack has degraded 10% or so? What more do you need to know, from a practical standpoint? I don't understand how more accurate CW energy usage data is going to enhance the accuracy of this degradation estimate significantly, or increase the utility or enjoyment of the car, exactly. Can someone give me a compelling reason to have this update performed? What have you gotten out of it that you simply couldn't live without?

TT
 
ttweed said:
...Can someone please explain how they find this increased CW accuracy useful? Why not just depend on the nav screen output for this figure, if all the update does is make the CW number match it? How is the m/kWh number useful other than telling you how efficient your driving habits are? ...
I'm in exactly the same boat you are. The only thing I can figure is that if you're the kind who likes to keep records of this sort of thing, then it is sure handy to have CarWings keep them for you automatically. That way you can answer the pressing question of exactly how badly did the cold snap last month affect your economy, or did I do as well this February as I did February last year. As far as I'm concerned, it would be interesting to look at occasionally, but I wouldn't pay for it, and I'm not going to fight with the dealer to get it fixed.
 
Unless you use carwings for data or actually have had the communications problem, no, you don't care.

davewill said:
ttweed said:
...Can someone please explain how they find this increased CW accuracy useful? Why not just depend on the nav screen output for this figure, if all the update does is make the CW number match it? How is the m/kWh number useful other than telling you how efficient your driving habits are? ...
I'm in exactly the same boat you are. The only thing I can figure is that if you're the kind who likes to keep records of this sort of thing, then it is sure handy to have CarWings keep them for you automatically.
 
TomT said:
Unless you use carwings for data or actually have had the communications problem, no, you don't care.

davewill said:
ttweed said:
...Can someone please explain how they find this increased CW accuracy useful? Why not just depend on the nav screen output for this figure, if all the update does is make the CW number match it? How is the m/kWh number useful other than telling you how efficient your driving habits are? ...
I'm in exactly the same boat you are. The only thing I can figure is that if you're the kind who likes to keep records of this sort of thing, then it is sure handy to have CarWings keep them for you automatically.

For me, it's about fully experiencing the features that Nissan had in mind when they designed the car. I also like to track my driving efficiency both in-car and from the wall, and if Carwings provides an accurate and easy way to do this, so much the better.

It turns out, though, after having celebrated on this thread about getting the update, I'm not seeing an improvement in the accuracy of Carwings reported driving efficiency data. It is still wildly overstating the data as compared with the dashboard data. At this point, I doubt that I'll pursue this further.
 
Boomer23 said:
It turns out, though, after having celebrated on this thread about getting the update, I'm not seeing an improvement in the accuracy of Carwings reported driving efficiency data. It is still wildly overstating the data as compared with the dashboard data. At this point, I doubt that I'll pursue this further.
This is quite perplexing to hear--did the update fail, perhaps? Has this same result (no improvement to accuracy of CW data) been seen by others after the telematics update? Has your car had all the other firmware updates applied? What versions are showing now on your diagnostics screen?

TT
 
ttweed said:
Boomer23 said:
It turns out, though, after having celebrated on this thread about getting the update, I'm not seeing an improvement in the accuracy of Carwings reported driving efficiency data. It is still wildly overstating the data as compared with the dashboard data. At this point, I doubt that I'll pursue this further.
This is quite perplexing to hear--did the update fail, perhaps? Has this same result (no improvement to accuracy of CW data) been seen by others after the telematics update? Has your car had all the other firmware updates applied? What versions are showing now on your diagnostics screen?

TT
I remember there being two parts to the update. If you didn't do one of them, you didn't see any improvement in the accuracy.
 
davewill said:
ttweed said:
Boomer23 said:
It turns out, though, after having celebrated on this thread about getting the update, I'm not seeing an improvement in the accuracy of Carwings reported driving efficiency data. It is still wildly overstating the data as compared with the dashboard data. At this point, I doubt that I'll pursue this further.
This is quite perplexing to hear--did the update fail, perhaps? Has this same result (no improvement to accuracy of CW data) been seen by others after the telematics update? Has your car had all the other firmware updates applied? What versions are showing now on your diagnostics screen?

TT
I remember there being two parts to the update. If you didn't do one of them, you didn't see any improvement in the accuracy.

Oh crap. I was feeling accomplished getting the LEAF specialist and the Nissan engineer to understand what I was talking about and having them successfully find and apply the SD card update to the head unit. I hate to think that I might have to go back and tell them to figure out the other half of the update. The good news is that Steve, the Nissan engineer, is based at my dealer, Connell in Costa Mesa.

Yes, my car has had all of the appropriate updates. From what I understand from reading here, there are no easy to find displays on the car that show general update rev numbers.
 
Boomer23 said:
It turns out, though, after having celebrated on this thread about getting the update, I'm not seeing an improvement in the accuracy of Carwings reported driving efficiency data. It is still wildly overstating the data as compared with the dashboard data.
It sounds like you didn't get the update applied as expected.

From my earlier post:

Your AV Control Unit - Boot Ware / Application should be version 147 after the update, but I suspect that it isn't. Easy to check.

The TSB is confusing if read quickly (the whole this thread exists) and the techs will think that the update doesn't need to be applied when it should be.
 
="ttweed"

...I know that edatoakrun has claimed that the CW detailed energy usage figures can be used to calculate battery capacity degradation, but frankly, I have not been able to follow either his logic or methodology in doing so...

Maybe my comments on camasleafs recent two-LEAF range test will help to explain my reasoning?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=5582&start=550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

="ttweed"

...Can someone give me a compelling reason to have this update performed? What have you gotten out of it that you simply couldn't live without?

Well, another Carwings benefit I find useful, is that, by giving me a fairly accurate view of my LEAF's present nominal kWh capacity (however many Wh each "kWh" actually contains) I can fairly accurately calculate my present available "kWh" and remaining range at all times, by watching my dash and Nav screen m/kWh readouts (which both use the CarWings kWh reports) as I drive.

Notice in the quote below, that (for whatever reason) my reported kWh capacity from "100%" to VLBW has remained fairly stable for ~the last six months, varying only with battery temperature, as expected and perhaps with a small additional calender loss. Of course, I have no idea what the kwh reports will look like after it heats up again over the next few 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;

So, since I know I presently have ~16 "kWh" available from my ~50 f battery, I also know, for example, that I have ~101 miles of range available to ~VLBW at 6.3m/kWh on my nav screen. In theory, I could have gotten almost as accurate (the 0.1 kwh rounding of both reports produces less accurate results when you use the, effectively lower resolution nav screen reports) estimate of my nominal kWh capacity.

But have any of you been able to do this, using the nav screen m/kWh, much less using the dash m/kWh with its 2.5% odometer error?

IMO, It would be a lot of unnecessary effort, just to get the less accurate results.

For example, on my 3/13 range test mentioned above, and shown in the "rate simulation" trip report below, I drove ~101.5 miles between "100%" and just past VLBW, with a 6.3 m/kwh report from my nav screen, and "16 kWh" reported from CW.


3-1-13to3-16-13CWERS_zps5ef2f953.png


Last Wednesday, I ran this same test route, and with a slightly cooler battery (and unexpectedly) with considerably cooler air temperatures. My driveway, the first and last ~0.3 miles and ~150 ft of descent and ascent, are omitted by google maps, in the profile below:

1336599496-21268.png


I wound up getting ~98.6 miles on maybe a bit less than the ~16 kWh capacity reported on 3/13. I will post the CW kWh report, once I get it. BTW, the dash and nav screen reports at the end of the two tests were the same, 6.2 and 6.3 kWh respectively, for both the 3/13 and the 4/2 tests.

I was watching both my dash and nav screen on the 4/2 test, and at the farthest point, at the end of trip # 2, 47.2 miles from home, I had 5.1/5.3 m/kWh as opposed to the 5.3/5.4 m/kWh I had on 3/13. I realized that, due to the colder-than-expected driving temperatures, I would have to reduce my speed on the return trip, to make it over the ~4,4345 ft. pass at ~67.7 miles, if I wanted to avoid going too far past the LBW at that point, and avoid using the ~30 kW required on this grade, from a very low SOC battery.

Because I had a pretty good estimate of my remaining kWh, I was not compelled by range anxiety to try to detour to try to recharge at the only possible location, a semi-reliable RV park in Burney, and was able to drive only as slowly as I had to, which was 35 to 40 mph, and for only the ~7 miles climbing up and over Hatchet Mt pass, which I passed over about 1.3 miles and ~400 Wh past the LBW (which now occurs at roughly 13.7 kWh from "100%") as indicated by my 4.8 m/kWh nav/67.7 miles = ~14.1 kWh used.

I had never cut the range this close before, and put myself in this situation, and I don't plan to ever do so again.

It was a little embarrassing, to pull over a few times to let the (very light) traffic pass over those ~7 miles, but it was preferable to all alternatives.
 
edatoakrun said:
Maybe my comments on camasleafs recent two-LEAF range test will help to explain my reasoning?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=5582&start=550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry, I read that thread along with the others and still don't understand what you are trying to say about Carwings data and the necessity of the telematics update. What exactly is it that will change if I have the update done? Right now, my nav screen reports an energy economy average of 4.5 m/kWh, while Carwings reports an average of 6.3 m/kWh over the last 29,000 miles. Drees says that post-update his nav screen and Carwings numbers have agreed within .1 m/kWh. Does that mean that my Carwings number is going to go down to 4.5 if I have the update done, or that my nav screen number is going to go up to 6.3? (This is ignoring, for the moment, Boomer23's report that he had no change at all from the update.)

Here is the CW data detail from the ~70 mile trip our car did on Mar. 30. Can you explain to me in simple terms how this data will be different after I have the update done and how that will effect my nav screen energy use display? Then, perhaps, we can get into the more complex question of how this improved data is going to allow me to calculate my battery capacity degradation more accurately, but let's start with baby steps first to allow my weak mind to catch up....

mar30trip_zpsb4522b85.jpg


Thx,
TT
 
ttweed said:
Does that mean that my Carwings number is going to go down to 4.5 if I have the update done, or that my nav screen number is going to go up to 6.3?
It means that your CarWings data will go down to 4.5.
ttweed said:
(This is ignoring, for the moment, Boomer23's report that he had no change at all from the update.)
It seems clear that Boomer23's dealer did apply the update properly.
ttweed said:
Here is the CW data detail from the ~70 mile trip our car did on Mar. 30. Can you explain to me in simple terms how this data will be different after I have the update done and how that will effect my nav screen energy use display?
After the update, the three "Electricity Consumption" columns and the "Energy Economy" column will be more accurate.
ttweed said:
Then, perhaps, we can get into the more complex question of how this improved data is going to allow me to calculate my battery capacity degradation more accurately, but let's start with baby steps first to allow my weak mind to catch up....
I'm not clear on this point, either, in spite of having read Ed's comments on the topic. Since the improvement makes CarWings match the dash display, but the CarWings distance is still 2.5% off, then the dash should still be more accurate, no? Perhaps Ed can state the answer in a concise form for us. Ed?

But I will say that I appreciate Ed pointing out the "Electricity Rate Simulation" data which you just posted. It is great to be able to download and store long-term vehicle data, not just to look at individual trips, but to estimate driving behavior and typical DOD, etc. It's too bad Nissan only stores about two months' worth of data, meaning we need to be diligent about grabbing the data while it available if we want to have a full record.

CarWings could really use some more attention from Nissan, but frankly I don't see much happening there.
 
="RegGuheert"... Since the improvement makes CarWings match the dash display, but the CarWings distance is still 2.5% off, then the dash should still be more accurate, no? Perhaps Ed can state the answer in a concise form for us. Ed?

The reason the dash and CarWings m/kWh (nearly) match is evidently because they share the same ~2.5 odometer error in their calculations.

The way to see the report of kWh use from your LEAF is by NOT USING ANY M/KWH REPORT AT ALL.

All you are doing by looking at the various m/kWh reports, and trying to re-calculate your LEAFs kWh use from them, is getting progressively less accurate reports of the original number from the CarWings report.


="RegGuheert"... ...CarWings could really use some more attention from Nissan, but frankly I don't see much happening there.

Not only has Nissan not fixed the dash /Carwings odometer error on 2011-2012s, 18 months after I reported it and was told Nissan was aware of it, it has been reported that 2013 LEAFs still have the same ~2.5% dash and CW odometer error.

Considering how easy a fix this odometer error would be, I think we have to conclude Nissan has never been interested in having LEAF drivers have the most accurate range and kWh use data, preferring instead that they remain mesmerized by the inaccurate odometer reading going into the dash m/kWh.

As to the kWh report error (which is almost surely variable between LEAFs, IMO) shown in the dash m/kWh, nav screen m/kWh, and all CarWings reports alike, remember that if those kWh use reports were accurate, each LEAF driver could know their present battery capacity (and any loss from new, if they had a record of that kWh when "new") by simply looking at the CarWings report for the kWh use from "100%" to the low SOC of their choice.

So, when and if Nissan delivers the "gauge error" fix they have promised, every LEAF owner should be able to easily verify their own available battery capacity, and whether it meets their own expectations of loss from new, and whether it meets the "70% capacity" now warranted for the first five years.

Why on earth would Nissan not be in any hurry to let us all know that...
 
edatoakrun said:
The way to see the report of kWh use from your LEAF is by NOT USING ANY M/KWH REPORT AT ALL.

All you are doing by looking at the various m/kWh reports, and trying to re-calculate your LEAFs kWh use from them, is getting progressively less accurate reports of the original number from the CarWings report.
O.K. Thanks!

So you are saying that the kWh readings in CarWings are the basic data and mi/kWh are derived from them rather than the other way around? That sounds reasonable. But we still have the question of how accurate the kWh readings are...
 
Back
Top