Shaming of dealers, reps, etc. saying Leaf's range is 100 mi

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.
cwerdna said:
As for legal, depends on where. The limit is 70 mph on much of I-5. Nobody in a car goes just 70 mph there.

To each his own. After several SF-LA trips I've settled on cruise control at 69mph. I find that the continual sorting-out of the pecking-order in the "speeding lane" is just WAY too much work and stress on that drive. Too many speed changes, too many lane changes, too many aggro tailgaters. Bleh. In the right lane at 69 most of those folks just leave me alone. They're too busy being the fastest. And it's slow enough to allow good cruising time in-between the truck clusters or other occasional non-speeders. 10mph isn't going to make that much difference in travel time and if it forces an extra fuel stop, really none at all. And if you get a citation, well your time savings just evaporated. Poof. You can't make I-5 any shorter, prettier or smell less of cow ****, with the throttle. It takes awhile; might as well relax. :lol:
 
^^^
FWIW, the problem w/staying in the right lane on I-5 going say 69 mph is that you do come up on lots of slow traffic including big rigs and have to often change lanes, otherwise you end up stuck behind slow traffic.

And, another problem in staying in the right lane is increased risk for punctured tires due to road hazards/debris (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=244465#p244465" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Prior to Tony's post, I personally had either a tire failure (that tire was the oldest and most worn on my car) or damage due to a road hazard (unclear which) coming back on I-5 from Vegas. I wasn't driving at the moment it happened. My mom was as she helped w/some of the driving. She doesn't like driving "fast" in general and stayed in the right lane most of the time.

All I know is that there was a a couple noises and then I noticed the TPMS light came on shortly afterward. After pulling over and trying to inflate the tire w/a the pump, there was way too large a hole for the pump to keep up with.

Had to limp along on the donut spare at 50 mph max for ~150 miles (part of it on I-5, part on 152 and a bit on 101).

As for gas station stop, Prius makes it from SJ to LA on a tank, no problem. One has to stop every now and then to eat, use the bathroom, rest, etc. anyway. Many of those areas to stop have gas stations.
 
I have yet to test it out to 100 miles, but with a single occupant, I think at about 52-53 miles an hour at constant speed, and minimal elevation change, the leaf could muster about 100 miles. I have done about 30 or so, pegging 1% SOC per mile.
 
Nubo said:
cwerdna said:
As for legal, depends on where. The limit is 70 mph on much of I-5. Nobody in a car goes just 70 mph there.

To each his own. After several SF-LA trips I've settled on cruise control at 69mph. I find that the continual sorting-out of the pecking-order in the "speeding lane" is just WAY too much work and stress on that drive. Too many speed changes, too many lane changes, too many aggro tailgaters. Bleh. In the right lane at 69 most of those folks just leave me alone. They're too busy being the fastest. And it's slow enough to allow good cruising time in-between the truck clusters or other occasional non-speeders. 10mph isn't going to make that much difference in travel time and if it forces an extra fuel stop, really none at all. And if you get a citation, well your time savings just evaporated. Poof. You can't make I-5 any shorter, prettier or smell less of cow ****, with the throttle. It takes awhile; might as well relax. :lol:
well-stated Nubo; I couldn't have said it better myself :cool:
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I have yet to test it out to 100 miles, but with a single occupant, I think at about 52-53 miles an hour at constant speed, and minimal elevation change, the leaf could muster about 100 miles. I have done about 30 or so, pegging 1% SOC per mile.
Tony's range chart (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=101293" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) says that for 50 mph, 97 miles is possible. Since I've heard that his chart is slightly pessimistic, your guess is probably about right.

I doubt that any of the people making the 100 mile range claims to ICEV owners are telling them that it's possible at 50 mph (to turtle) or on the LA4 cycle that averages 19.59 mph.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I have yet to test it out to 100 miles, but with a single occupant, I think at about 52-53 miles an hour at constant speed, and minimal elevation change, the leaf could muster about 100 miles. I have done about 30 or so, pegging 1% SOC per mile.

There are a whole bunch (about 69 total) who have done 100 miles... read about how they did it here:

100 Mile Club
 
Nubo said:
cwerdna said:
As for legal, depends on where. The limit is 70 mph on much of I-5. Nobody in a car goes just 70 mph there.
To each his own. After several SF-LA trips I've settled on cruise control at 69mph. I find that the continual sorting-out of the pecking-order in the "speeding lane" is just WAY too much work and stress on that drive. Too many speed changes, too many lane changes, too many aggro tailgaters. Bleh. In the right lane at 69 most of those folks just leave me alone. They're too busy being the fastest.
+1. Way too much stress trying to hang out in the left lane and all the tailgating and jockeying for position when passing trucks is a recipe for disaster. Have driven by too many accidents on I5 due to that kind of driving. Much more relaxing to hang out in the right lane at 70-75 mph and go around slower traffic when there's plenty of room.

cwerdna said:
FWIW, the problem w/staying in the right lane on I-5 going say 69 mph is that you do come up on lots of slow traffic including big rigs and have to often change lanes, otherwise you end up stuck behind slow traffic.
And if you say in the fast lane at say 80 mph you still get stuck behind slower traffic or have to move out of the way for even faster traffic. No matter how you cut it, you have to change lanes frequently on I-5. But the fast lane has the added danger of frequent sudden braking events due to tailgating. That happens much less frequently in the right lane.

cwerdna said:
And, another problem in staying in the right lane is increased risk for punctured tires due to road hazards/debris
The road is definitely rougher on the right lane - some portions are downright harsh, but I'd still rather risk a flat than getting into an accident which unfortunately I feel is very probably trying to hang out in the left lane battling with aggressive drivers.
 
drees said:
... Way too much stress trying to hang out in the left lane and all the tailgating and jockeying for position when passing trucks is a recipe for disaster. Have driven by too many accidents on I5 due to that kind of driving. Much more relaxing to hang out in the right lane at 70-75 mph and go around slower traffic when there's plenty of room....

And, here's the thing: What the type-A drivers in the left lane want, even more than the sheer miles per hour or the minutes shaved off the trip time... what they desire most of all is a clear road with nobody in front of them. And yet they rarely get it. They close any gaps and spend most of their time jockeying, as you said, impatiently waiting and fighting for that next clear break.

Meanwhile, MOST of my trip is spent with clear road in front of me! when I encounter the occasional traffic that is slower than me, I slow down. I wait for a reasonable passing opportunity. I leave plenty of space. No sweat.

On their whole frantic trip, the speedsters spend hours battling, and minutes getting what they really want, while my trip is the inverse of that. The irony is just incredible.
 
Am I the only person who drives 70-75 (rarely, 80-85) in the right lane on I-5 in the central valley except for passing? No tailgating, no jockeying, just safe lane changes and passes.
 
Ok, not a dealer, but even worse (IMHO). I saw this last night on Bloomberg TV: a Nissan Europe exec stated that the Leaf's range "now is up to 200 kilometers". :roll: That's 124 miles!

Skip to ~2:20 of http://www.bloomberg.com/video/nissan-unveils-electric-car-to-contest-le-mans-qxBH_DeARC2QESYmU4OdeQ.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see/hear for yourself.

Sigh... I'll bet that 124 miles is on some inflated test cycle. If Nissan really thinks the Leaf is a "100 mile" car, thinking it's a "124 mile" car is even worse. Let's make that exec try to drive a Leaf 124 miles on a single charge on a highway. :lol:
 
cwerdna said:
apvbguy said:
it's not so much dealers making claims that aren't true, they are not too well informed and are presenting the numbers that they see on the stickers.
I don't think any of the stickers state the range of the Leaf is 100 miles.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=11574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows a 75 mile range. Even if they were to use that, they should mention some caveats.

LOL! But look at that sticker! The 116 is in big huge font, and the 75 is in much smaller font. You really have to LOOK at it to see the real EPA value.
 
GRA said:
I'd put the standard even higher, a minimum of 100 miles @ the Interstate speed limit in any state (at least 75, with 80 preferred), from 100%-LBW with at least 10% (10 mile minimum) range reserve, in any temp between 0-40C (32-104 deg. F), free use of HVAC, and with the battery at 70% (EoL), but that requires over 200 miles of EPA range. Realistically, the only car that can do that now is the Tesla S-85, with the S-60 marginal towards the end of battery life or in edge conditions. For the 2nd gen affordable BEVs, we'll probably have to settle for 1 hour at a minimum of 65 mph, conditions as above. Even that will require at least 125 miles EPA. Boosting the requirement to make it 1 hour from 80%-LBW, as would be the case with a QC, pushes the required range well over 150 miles EPA


I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.
 
Foible said:
GRA said:
I'd put the standard even higher, a minimum of 100 miles @ the Interstate speed limit in any state (at least 75, with 80 preferred), from 100%-LBW with at least 10% (10 mile minimum) range reserve, in any temp between 0-40C (32-104 deg. F), free use of HVAC, and with the battery at 70% (EoL), but that requires over 200 miles of EPA range. Realistically, the only car that can do that now is the Tesla S-85, with the S-60 marginal towards the end of battery life or in edge conditions. For the 2nd gen affordable BEVs, we'll probably have to settle for 1 hour at a minimum of 65 mph, conditions as above. Even that will require at least 125 miles EPA. Boosting the requirement to make it 1 hour from 80%-LBW, as would be the case with a QC, pushes the required range well over 150 miles EPA


I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.
In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip. I wasted quite enough of my life doing that in the '70s, '80s and '90s until the universal 55 limit was repealed. Not that most people actually drive (or drove) 55, but it did limit our speed far below what the freeway was designed for, even using 1950s technology cars. And then there's the extra safety issues when towing a trailer. So thanks, but I'll pass. The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra. Tesla is demonstrating this, it's just a matter of getting battery costs down enough that the average car buyer can afford that kind of BEV range. In the meantime there are PHEVs, HEVs and turbo diesels.
 
Argh...
That's an american way of thinking... Bigger, heavier, throw a bunch of money at it :)
Here's what they are started to do in Europe:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681234/take-a-trip-down-the-glowing-electric-car-charging-highway-of-the-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would be much better option IMHO... no stopping, no extra weight for bigger battery, no trailers, no stopping to swap batteries... Pure unlimited electrical driving pleasure :)

GRA said:
Foible said:
GRA said:
I don't want a war for ever increasing range off the on board battery. I'd rather have something like this

http://www.ebuggy.com/

made available for rent at every major exit on the highways. Rent one, let it top off your battery while powering your car, and drop it off when you reach your destination. Gas stations or U-Haul places would be perfect as rental locations.

Think about it. Batteries aren't like a gas tank. They wear out with age, they're heavy, and they have a host of other drawbacks. I don't want a big expensive battery slowly decaying when I'm only using ten to twenty percent of it per day. Give me an adequate battery built in and let me add an extra one easily when I need it.

This would be so much better for the environment too. We would use batteries more efficiently this way and we would need fewer of them.
In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip. I wasted quite enough of my life doing that in the '70s, '80s and '90s until the universal 55 limit was repealed. Not that most people actually drive (or drove) 55, but it did limit our speed far below what the freeway was designed for, even using 1950s technology cars. And then there's the extra safety issues when towing a trailer. So thanks, but I'll pass. The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra. Tesla is demonstrating this, it's just a matter of getting battery costs down enough that the average car buyer can afford that kind of BEV range. In the meantime there are PHEVs, HEVs and turbo diesels.
 
GRA said:
The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra.
You're right, but the problem is that until they can get economies of scale and improve battery tech and manufacture, then the price stays high, and while no-one is buying the things it will stay like that. Chicken-and-egg.

GRA said:
In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip.
It's a rational comment, but at the end of the day you don't need to drive at 55 all the time, just when you know you need to do a long trip because you recognise the limitations of your vehicle. If you don't recognise the limitations, then don't bother getting a sub-100 mile EV!

If you were in an ICE that typically uses a gallon every 30 miles, and you had a gallon left and you had to get 35 miles, would you say, 'ah! I will not bother, because I hate the idea of driving slowly to save energy, so I'll walk instead'. Or would you bemoan not having bought a 40 mpg vehicle when you had the chance?

I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.
 
donald said:
I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.
A valid point. Another EV variation, that gets occasional mention here, is in choosing to drive more slowly to make a destination or doing an interim charge to be able to drive more quickly. Just slowing down and skipping a charge makes for a quicker trip.

Driving more slowly can mean a significantly longer travel time on long trips, however. When driving 500 to 700 miles in a day the difference between 55 mph and 75 mph (the speed limit on freeways in most states around here) can be significant. I compromise by driving 65 rather than 75 to save on gas, and listen to audio books to make the time melt away. I find that 55 takes too long for safe driving with one driver, due to fatigue.

But for LEAF-range trips of an hour or so, driving more slowly makes little difference in time and quite a bit of difference in mileage efficiency and range.
 
i never take a trip in my LEAF around LA where going 75 sted of 60 means i save more than 10 minutes. In the city or on city freeways, the 75 mph avg speed is theory not fact.
slowing down for a drive under 75 miles really doesnt matter that much.
 
dgpcolorado said:
I find that 55 takes too long for safe driving with one driver, due to fatigue.

Perhaps, but accidents at 65 or 75 mph reckon to be more deadly than ones at 55 mph. You also have more reaction time to avoid accidents at slower speeds.

Back to the topic: VW's range claims for their newly announced EV's appear out of line.
 
donald said:
GRA said:
The answer for most of us is to get cars with big enough battery packs that we don't need any extra.
You're right, but the problem is that until they can get economies of scale and improve battery tech and manufacture, then the price stays high, and while no-one is buying the things it will stay like that. Chicken-and-egg.
We're well on our way to overcoming the chicken and egg stage; Tesla is showing the way, and for everyone else who finds them suitable, at the moment there are commuter BEVs.

donald said:
GRA said:
In California, vehicles towing trailers are limited to 55 mph, and the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive 55 on the freeway, especially on a long trip.
It's a rational comment, but at the end of the day you don't need to drive at 55 all the time, just when you know you need to do a long trip because you recognise the limitations of your vehicle. If you don't recognise the limitations, then don't bother getting a sub-100 mile EV!
It's because I recognize that they don't suit my needs that I don't have a BEV currently.

donald said:
If you were in an ICE that typically uses a gallon every 30 miles, and you had a gallon left and you had to get 35 miles, would you say, 'ah! I will not bother, because I hate the idea of driving slowly to save energy, so I'll walk instead'. Or would you bemoan not having bought a 40 mpg vehicle when you had the chance?
Neither. I wouldn't let it get that low because I maintain a reserve; besides, I know there's a gas station every 10-30 miles that will allow me to refuel in a maximum of 5 minutes. Had this happen once this weekend in fact, when owing to the long detour via Hwy 108 to avoid the Rim Fire, we bought just enough gas to get us back from the east side of the Sierra to the west (gas being $4.90-$5.00/gallon in Lee Vining and Bridgeport on the east side, versus $3.68/gal. in Oakdale on the west). It was a five hour drive (versus the normal four hours via Hwy 120) as it was; I had no interest in making it six hours, after spending most of the day climbing and descending Mt. Conness.

donald said:
I potter to work everyday at 52mph. I did it before I got an EV. Sometimes I drive faster. But it doesn't actually get me to work that much quicker. Driving faster feels 'faster', but your actual door-to-door average speeds will be almost identical because you waste most of your time getting onto the fast highway in the first place, then getting off again and parking up.

If 75% of your 100 mile journey is on a typical 70 mph highway with busy traffic, and you stick to 55 mph instead of aiming for 70 and getting stuck behind slower traffic, you will be surprised how little difference it makes to the overall drive time. 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes saved if you are lucky.
Since my driving only involves out of town trips (rarely less than 100 miles one-way, and this past weekend 500+ RT, much of it mountainous and often at night or early in the morning when there's no traffic), I'm well aware of the time differences between 55 and a higher speed on longer trips. When I'm tired and trying to get home, the last thing I want to do is be forced to drive far slower than the roads allow me to do safely. That's not what I, or a majority of people who drive, have cars for. We have them because they provide the quickest, most convenient and most flexible way of getting ourselves, our passengers and our stuff around at a price we can afford, not because they're the most energy-efficient means of travel. I ride my bike for that (including my commute), and for local trips make use of transit beyond bike range, or mix the two. If you're willing to drive slower than the flow and accept the couple of extra minutes a day in your commute, good for you, but most people aren't so willing, and you're not going to convince them.
 
Back
Top