Nissan Leaf

[dmunjal]

2012 Nissan Leaf Gets Even Cheaper: Now, $139/Month Lease

They only have one at this price.

 

[surfingslovak]

(Somewhat cynical point of view, but)

Some (within Nissan?) may think the "instrumentation issue" is that they provided a battery health gauge at all.
I heard some things like "most LEAF drivers never go more than 40 miles per day, so why do they care if their pack provides 80 miles range or 70 miles range?"
"But when they see a 'bar' disappear they get needlessly concerned."


I think it is well established that they battery will degrade over time. And obvious that people would wish their pack never aged. So we are debating things along the lines of "How easy should it be for people to notice?" "When is it considered a problem?" "What is normal versus excessive?"

That's a good point, thank you for bringing it up. We have recently identified a vehicle purchased last month, which seems to exhibit 10% loss of range based on its driving characteristics alone. The car has less than 1,000 miles and this apparently happened due to calendar losses while the Leaf was sitting on the dealer lot.

Many owners notice subtle changes in behavior long before the first capacity bar disappears. Some observe that the low or very low battery warning is triggered a lot more often than before. Others count SOC bars, and see that they are not getting as many miles per segment as before. And finally, the guessometer shows a much lower distance to empty than before.

While the capacity gauge is good to get confirmation, and a lost bar puts closure behind the process, the changes, as subtle or gradual as they may be, are often observed by owners.

 

[TEG]

2013 Nissan Leaf: Spy Shots Of New, Less-Expensive Model

 

[dpeilow]

Real World Leaf Range 27 - 38 miles | PluginCars.com

 

[vfx]

2013 Nissan Leaf: Spy Shots Of New, Less-Expensive Model

Getting rid of energy saving Cruise Control seems like a bad idea.

 

[TEG]

Real World Leaf Range 27 - 38 miles | PluginCars.com

I added a comment there (pending moderation I guess).
He seems to have taken an overly pessimistic viewpoint on things.
Many of us who actually own the car find that useful range is at least double what he is saying.

Sure, as the years go by I fully expect the range to drop, and the utility of the car will become less and less.
At some point, if it becomes a serious problem, replacement battery modules will likely be available.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting rid of energy saving Cruise Control seems like a bad idea.

Hmm... I almost never use the cruise control in the LEAF. My commute always has traffic so I find I need to keep making small speed adjustments manually. The LEAF doesn't work so well as a good long distance cruiser (out on isolated interstates) where cruise control becomes more useful.
You have the range in your Roadster to get into more situations where cruise control would be helpful.

 

[JRP3]

I'm pretty sure a decent driver using their brain for predictive modeling will beat the efficiency of cruise control. Hypermilers don't use cruise control.

 

[vfx]

I see Leafs on the freeway here in LA all the time. I'm a heavy cruise control user. Partly to avoid foot fatigue and partly to keep me at the posted limit. Saving energy is a happy byprodcut.

 

[TEG]

Yeah, urban freeway... But I bet you don't see too many out on Highway 5 in the central valley making those long journeys where cruise control is most useful.

 

[JRP3]

Saving energy is a happy byprodcut.

I suppose if the cruise control keeps your speed from creeping up it would be more efficient, but have you ever tried to drive efficiently without cruise control and compare the results?

 

[jerry33]

I suppose of the cruise control keeps your speed from creeping up it would be more efficient, but have you ever tried to drive efficiently without cruise control and compare the results?

Cruise reduces MPG in every case as far as I can tell. It should be possible to make a cruise control that beats manual driving but no one has done so to my knowledge. The problem is that acceleration is too high in cruse and cruise wants to put the brakes on during downhill runs because it's designed to be within one mph of the target speed. Even on very gentle slopes (1% grade or lower) it still is less efficient than manual control.

 

[woof]

Cruise reduces MPG in every case as far as I can tell. It should be possible to make a cruise control that beats manual driving but no one has done so to my knowledge.

Elsewhere on this forum I've noted that EV's should have a second form of cruise control, one that will favor efficiency over maintaining a set speed (within limits). Software should be able to beat wetware every time.

 

[JRP3]

As I mentioned, wetware has the advantage of prediction. We can see the small up hill ahead followed by the long down hill so we know there is no need to accelerate and waste energy. I do agree an "efficiency" setting for cruise could probably do a lot better than standard speed control.

 

[woof]

As I mentioned, wetware has the advantage of prediction. We can see the small up hill ahead followed by the long down hill so we know there is no need to accelerate and waste energy.

Yes, this is true, but could be mitigated by terrain maps. Even with standard cruise control on the ActiveE, I find myself fiddling with the speed on hills using the accelerator down the hill to keep it in "neutral" to prevent regen from slowing it down, and lowering the set speed going up so it doesn't charge the hill like the calvary. I think simple changes to the existing "normal" cruise control algorithm could go a long way. Possibly even as simple as adding a +/- 5 MPH "slop" factor to allow the speed to drift around the set point a bit.

I'd love to be able to play with these parameters in the Model S. I'm sure "apps" won't be able to modify cruise control behavior, but that doesn't stop me from wanting the ability to hack away.

 

[ElSupreme]

Elsewhere on this forum I've noted that EV's should have a second form of cruise control, one that will favor efficiency over maintaining a set speed (within limits). Software should be able to beat wetware every time.

As I mentioned, wetware has the advantage of prediction. We can see the small up hill ahead followed by the long down hill so we know there is no need to accelerate and waste energy. I do agree an "efficiency" setting for cruise could probably do a lot better than standard speed control.

Wetware can also draft!

 

[woof]

Wetware can also draft!

Okay, was going to mention Adaptive Cruise Control's ability to draft without getting white knuckles, but it's clear wetware is still the ultimate (efficient) driving machine, BMW be darned.

 

[vfx]

...have you ever tried to drive efficiently without cruise control and compare the results?

Dude!

It's a Roadster.

- - - Updated - - -

... and cruise wants to put the brakes on during downhill runs because it's designed to be within one mph of the target speed. ....

The Roadster is amazing at this. And all the downhill slowing is regened into the battery.


And we have covered ALL these CC topics before here.

 

[tomsax]

Cruise reduces MPG in every case as far as I can tell.

Not for me. Especially in the LEAF, if I'm trying to drive 60, I keep finding myself doing 70. I even use it in a 35 zone to keep from going 45. The LEAF is so smooth and quiet, it's hard to keep a steady speed.

Even in the Roadster it's much easier. I prefer to watch the road and the traffic rather than the speedometer. Cruise control rocks.

 

[JRP3]

Dude!

It's a Roadster.

So why use cruise control? :wink: Besides, people hypermile Corvettes.

The Roadster is amazing at this. And all the downhill slowing is regened into the battery.

Of course coasting if possible is more efficient, and as you know regen does not recover all the slowing energy because of losses. Anyway, I get it, you prefer cruise control, but consciously trying to be efficient when driving should beat it.

 

[EV_de]

Dual charge ?