Everything you might want to know about the '18 LEAF engineering

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.
scottf200 said:
So, OrientExpress , you are confirming that 22 kW is expected on the 40 kWh LEAF when DCFC charging

No, I'm not, but what I am saying is that since the dawn of DCFC that throttling the charge rate as the battery fills up has been the normal way that cars charge.

My 2014 LEAF starts at 45kW, but by the time its battery is almost full it can drop down to 8kW. It is unclear what the ruckus is since backing off on the charge rate is how DCFC works.
 
OrientExpress said:
scottf200 said:
So, OrientExpress , you are confirming that 22 kW is expected on the 40 kWh LEAF when DCFC charging
No, I'm not, but what I am saying is that since the dawn of DCFC that throttling the charge rate as the battery fills up has been the normal way that cars charge.
My 2014 LEAF starts at 45kW, but by the time its battery is almost full it can drop down to 8kW. It is unclear what the ruckus is since backing off on the charge rate is how DCFC works.
I think there is some confusion on the ruckus as I've seen it explained.

1) It is not whether a DCFC starts high and ends up low on a single occasional DCFC charge.
2) It is that after a couple DCFCs the *starting* (beginning) kW is very low ... 22 kW. This is not 'fast' charging and it is what people are complaining about while doing moderate traveling. That is a several hour charge.
 
scottf200 said:
OrientExpress said:
scottf200 said:
So, OrientExpress , you are confirming that 22 kW is expected on the 40 kWh LEAF when DCFC charging
No, I'm not, but what I am saying is that since the dawn of DCFC that throttling the charge rate as the battery fills up has been the normal way that cars charge.
My 2014 LEAF starts at 45kW, but by the time its battery is almost full it can drop down to 8kW. It is unclear what the ruckus is since backing off on the charge rate is how DCFC works.
I think there is some confusion on the ruckus as I've seen it explained.

1) It is not whether a DCFC starts high and ends up low on a single occasional DCFC charge.
2) It is that after a couple DCFCs the *starting* (beginning) kW is very low ... 22 kW. This is not 'fast' charging and it is what people are complaining about while doing moderate traveling. That is a several hour charge.
I don't think people are going to have to want serial QC in a day to see the throttling. Just wait until the summer.

Nissan is adding to the charger vocabulary.
Now we have "enhanced L2" speeds at the QC :lol:

My estimate for a 20 - 80% charge is about 15 kW average in the 40 kWh LEAF in the summer. At a QC that charges 25 cents a minute, that works out to $1 a kWh. Nissan has just royally screwed the CCS/ChadeMo infrastructure roll-out.
 
scottf200 said:
1) It is not whether a DCFC starts high and ends up low on a single occasional DCFC charge.
2) It is that after a couple DCFCs the *starting* (beginning) kW is very low ... 22 kW. This is not 'fast' charging and it is what people are complaining about while doing moderate traveling. That is a several hour charge.

I'm sure if it turns out to be a substantiated issue, it will be addressed.
 
OrientExpress said:
scottf200 said:
1) It is not whether a DCFC starts high and ends up low on a single occasional DCFC charge.
2) It is that after a couple DCFCs the *starting* (beginning) kW is very low ... 22 kW. This is not 'fast' charging and it is what people are complaining about while doing moderate traveling. That is a several hour charge.

I'm sure if it turns out to be a substantiated issue, it will be addressed.

Not so sure. I suspect 2018 owners will be "Phoenixed" with some blend of "you're using it wrong" and "that's normal" . The AESC battery tech has been Nissan's albatross since the LEAF introduction and this has the same smell. I'm pinning my hopes on 2019.
 
So hypothetically let's say that the '18 LEAF's BMS has conservation of capacity as its top priority, so that the car will only allow one full throttle QC per 12 hours or so. The idea being to keep the battery cool and extend its life. The upside is that the battery's life is extended, but the downside is that for someone doing a long distance trip the time in recharge is longer. I would suspect that those long distance recharge events will in the minority of use cases for the car, as most people are still focused on commuting.

If conservative throttling was the case, should there be an over-ride to that overly conservative quick charging profile that lets an owner make his car recharge at it's maximum capability? What would be worse, taking more time for recharging for those that are road tripping, or allow full capacity quick charges and risk accelerated degradation? Should there be a user configurable profile that allows toggling conservative quick charge and a quick Quick Charge? How would that effect warranty, etc.?

Now I'm just asking these questions to stimulate discussion, I have no hidden agenda and I don't represent anyone in asking these questions, I'm just curious. Personally for my use profile with an '18 LEAF, it does not matter if it throttles its quick charge rate or not.
 
This appears to be a no win situation for those who planned on using the car for longer trips. Override the BMS throttling and you get excessive pack heat that will reduce capacity. Leave things as is and the car can't practically be used for trips of more than 230 miles or so - apparently not even in Winter. Equally (or even more) disturbing is the underlying implication that this pack doesn't tolerate heat any better than the 30kwh pack, and possibly even less.

The obvious band-aid is for Nissan to explain this, and market the car as a 200 mile commuter, using QC occasionally, once. But Nissan has never taken the forthright approach (possibly except in 2013) so it's going to become a slow motion train wreck for them, and for those who buy (especially) or lease a 2018 Leaf to take trips of more than 200 miles. I too don't fit the category that will suffer here, but I did intend to pay a high lease payment only because I intended to buy the car. The one thing that Nissan can possibly be expected to do is to unlock the 33% residual, and offer cheap leases with higher residuals, as in 2013. If they don't then we'd be better off leasing a Bolt.
 
Conservative charging levels in no way affect the practically of long distance trips in a BEV over another BEV, they just take a little longer. There are other things at this time that make long distance travel in ANY BEV impractical today. That’s why today BEVs are a 90-95% solution. There is no shame in using a PHEV or ICE car for long distance travel. It’s the right tool for the job.

When BEVs can achieve parity with ICE or PHEV vehicles and pass the 85/400/30 test, then a BEV could be considered a 100% solution. Until then it will always be a compromise.
 
LeftieBiker said:
The obvious band-aid is for Nissan to explain this, and market the car as a 200 mile commuter, using QC occasionally, once. But Nissan has never taken the forthright approach (possibly except in 2013) so it's going to become a slow motion train wreck for them, and for those who buy (especially) or lease a 2018 Leaf to take trips of more than 200 miles. I too don't fit the category that will suffer here, but I did intend to pay a high lease payment only because I intended to buy the car. The one thing that Nissan can possibly be expected to do is to unlock the 33% residual, and offer cheap leases with higher residuals, as in 2013. If they don't then we'd be better off leasing a Bolt.

To be fair, for many people, the choice between a Leaf and Bolt is about more than the battery capacity and range. You can't just treat a Leaf and a Bolt as if they are interchangeable and only look at the capacity and range. Frankly, when I was shopping for a car last month, I test drove the Bolt, and honestly, I preferred everything about the 2018 Leaf driving experience. The seats are more comfortable, and both the interior and exterior, imo, simply look better on the 2018 Leaf. I also like not having to start up Android Auto in order to use the navigation. Since the capacity and range of both cars met my driving needs, without the need for using QC in either vehicle, that difference doesn't outweigh all the other factors.

I mean, seriously, it's nice to discuss the differences in range, battery technology, etc. between the Leaf and all the other EVs out there, but let's not pretend that it's the only factor in making a decision to purchase an EV.
 
To be fair, for many people, the choice between a Leaf and Bolt is about more than the battery capacity and range. You can't just treat a Leaf and a Bolt as if they are interchangeable and only look at the capacity and range. Frankly, when I was shopping for a car last month, I test drove the Bolt, and honestly, I preferred everything about the 2018 Leaf driving experience. The seats are more comfortable, and both the interior and exterior, imo, simply look better on the 2018 Leaf. I also like not having to start up Android Auto in order to use the navigation. Since the capacity and range of both cars met my driving needs, without the need for using QC in either vehicle, that difference doesn't outweigh all the other factors.

I too preferred the Leaf I drove to the Bolt. However, I'm not going to pay that much to lease a car that is likely to end up with capacity more like a slightly used 24kwh Leaf than a real 150 mile car. The battery in the Leaf is fine as spec'd, but if it's going to degrade like the 30kwh pack then the car becomes a comfortable lemon.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I too preferred the Leaf I drove to the Bolt. However, I'm not going to pay that much to lease a car that is likely to end up with capacity more like a slightly used 24kwh Leaf than a real 150 mile car. The battery in the Leaf is fine as spec'd, but if it's going to degrade like the 30kwh pack then the car becomes a comfortable lemon.

That's understandable, but with a lease you have the ability to find out before buying it. You can always turn in the 2018 Leaf and lease whatever is available in 2021, which is likely going to be the more appealing option given how fast the technology is improving. Or, if Nissan really did hit it out if the park with the 2018 Leaf, we should know for sure by the time 2021 rolls around. I always figured if I knew 100% I was going to buy it, I'd have done so at 0% interest to begin with. I'm leasing because I'm willing to pay a premium to keep my options open.
 
ookoshi said:
LeftieBiker said:
I too preferred the Leaf I drove to the Bolt. However, I'm not going to pay that much to lease a car that is likely to end up with capacity more like a slightly used 24kwh Leaf than a real 150 mile car. The battery in the Leaf is fine as spec'd, but if it's going to degrade like the 30kwh pack then the car becomes a comfortable lemon.

That's understandable, but with a lease you have the ability to find out before buying it. You can always turn in the 2018 Leaf and lease whatever is available in 2021, which is likely going to be the more appealing option given how fast the technology is improving. Or, if Nissan really did hit it out if the park with the 2018 Leaf, we should know for sure by the time 2021 rolls around. I always figured if I knew 100% I was going to buy it, I'd have done so at 0% interest to begin with. I'm leasing because I'm willing to pay a premium to keep my options open.
For now, that premium paid to have the option to dump the car is expensive.
I read ~ 13k in payments and loss of tax credits. That is easily over $20k for most people, so about $550 - 600 a month that could have been spent on another EV. The Tesla Model 3 is a bargain by comparison.
 
That's understandable, but with a lease you have the ability to find out before buying it. You can always turn in the 2018 Leaf and lease whatever is available in 2021, which is likely going to be the more appealing option given how fast the technology is improving. Or, if Nissan really did hit it out if the park with the 2018 Leaf, we should know for sure by the time 2021 rolls around. I always figured if I knew 100% I was going to buy it, I'd have done so at 0% interest to begin with. I'm leasing because I'm willing to pay a premium to keep my options open.

A good lease payment with a higher but still affordable residual (maybe $16k) is the way to try out a car before buying it. Paying $350 a month with a ~ $12k residual means that if you don't buy the car, you've wasted a huge amount of money on the lease. As for buying with 0% interest, that's fine if you qualify for the full tax credit. Really, though, that would likely be even worse in this case. You'd be buying a car that was only worth $12k when it was three years old.
 
Bjorn is doing a 1,000 km #rapidgate test. Already hit almost 50C his first charge stop. =O

And Nissan actually called him to make sure his test would be "fair". Lol

https://youtu.be/-MsMx1ZTCzI
 
bro1999 said:
Bjorn is doing a 1,000 km #rapidgate test. Already hit almost 50C his first charge stop. =O

And Nissan actually called him to make sure his test would be "fair". Lol

https://youtu.be/-MsMx1ZTCzI

The one mitigating factor is the amount of heat generated from driving. I hit 50+ on my S30 several times but it was a drive, charge, drive charge scenario with all convenience stops incorporated into the charging stops. But hitting it on first charge? That is a manufactured stat unless you are doing it in July in a "warm" area which he is not.

I have to call his "test" a crock.
 
I was most impressed (in a bad but expected way) by the differences the different sensors measured. My suspicion is that the modules buried deepest in the pack are the ones that are getting the hottest. Since the most vulnerable modules set the degradation for the entire pack, Bjorn is right to call out the highest temperatures measured rather than say the average pack temperature.
 
SageBrush said:
I was most impressed (in a bad but expected way) by the differences the different sensors measured. My suspicion is that the modules buried deepest in the pack are the ones that are getting the hottest. Since the most vulnerable modules set the degradation for the entire pack, Bjorn is right to call out the highest temperatures measured rather than say the average pack temperature.

The "highest" temp is actually the "normal" temp. I have already demonstrated several times that if parked and not moving, the 3 temps will eventually merge together.

Yes one monitor has to be closer to the entity that provides the greatest access to cooler ambient air but does that mean that part of the pack is significantly cooler? I highly doubt that
 
For all you LEAF enthusiasts out there, here is an article from SAE International that deep dives into the '18 LEAF and all of the engineering that makes it what it is today. Enjoy, as I think you will be surprised at how much improvement there is over the 1st generation LEAF. BTW, SAE Automotive Engineering is a great resource for the professional automotive engineer and armchair automotive experts too!

Car!

Sorry, too many posts for me to read every thread but this one went off track recently. Deleted some off topic posts.

Game On.
 
Just got a new 2018 SV in Canada. The dealer tells me, they no longer us 3G or any cellular data. Instead they use satellite radio data to save costs and data charges. Can anybody else confirm this? It might explain the slow performance of the app.
 
kmartyn said:
Just got a new 2018 SV in Canada. The dealer tells me, they no longer us 3G or any cellular data. Instead they use satellite radio data to save costs and data charges. Can anybody else confirm this? It might explain the slow performance of the app.

Canada could be different but they are using 4G here
 
Back
Top