I've been giving a lot of thought to the fact that Nissan clearly fell short of expectations with the Leaf's range. While I blame it heavily on being oversold by the likes of my well-intentioned yet dangerous friend Paul Scott who can't keep quiet about the '100 mile range' that he gets while crawling 28 miles each day in the slow lane, in the temperate west side of LA, proudly hypermiling. As a start, let's just look at what it means to take care of your battery. This means don't charge it to more than ~80% of capacity and don't discharge below 20%. - This takes the 73 mile range down to 73 X 80% X 80% or 46.7 miles Next, let's assume that after 7 years, the capacity is expected to be down to 80% of the new, maximum. - This takes the 46.7 miles down to 46.7 X 80% or 37.4 miles for 'battery-kindness' What this means is that if you drive the benign EPA driving cycle, you shouldn't buy a Leaf if you expect to need to drive more than 37.4 miles between charges every day. Conveniently, for me, my daily drive between charging opportunities is 37 miles:-) The question people really want to know, however, is what normal people will get.

Then the question becomes: What is normal. Let me suggest that one view of normal that Paul Scott, for example sees daily are the 99.9% of the people on I-10 that are driving faster than Paul Scott. Let me dock the range by another 80% due to driving a lot faster. - This take the 37.4 mile battery-kind range down to 37.4 X 80% = 30 miles Now, if you're in a place other than the California beach areas that have real temperatures, you'll need to knock it down another 10% for heavy A/C or heag - This takes the 30 miles down to 30 X 90% = 27 miles This also means your commute, without charging at work, needs to be less than ~13 miles each way.

@EVNow, No, you are just living in the present with little understanding about what is likely in the future. I guess you'll have to talk to EVLater to see how long you'll '... Get much more range... ' later if you don't charge and drive nicer than most people are used to. You can probably drive like Paul Scott for 10 years or more easily but not like most people drive. My numbers are assuming you want to maximize your battery life.

Your Volt owner's manual has details on using a 120V outlet to charge your car and the safety issues and precautions surrounding that. It's important you read it. This guide does not replace that, nor is it meant to be the final authority. Instead it's a compilation of what other owners have posted.

This is a big issue that few understand (including Nissan sales folks and EV 'experts'). I've tried to point out that how you use your EV today is likely to affect how it works in the future. If you push it too hard today, don't count on being able to sustain it. Clearly these issues already appeared to the AZ folks but I'm showing that it is likely to happen to the rest earlier than they expect as well. These numbers are what I consider should be guidelines to set realistic expectations.

Ie, don't sell a Leaf to someone expecting to commute 70 miles each day without charging if he/she expects to drive 70 mph, and run the heater if they expect to do so for 10 years without buying a new battery. The more reasonable range to expect would be a 27 mile commute.

Kudos to those who can do more for longer! Since I have been mentioned in this thread, think I'll jump in and clear up a few misrepresentations. I don't 'crawl 28 miles each day in the slow lane'. I drive a legal speed limit, usually between 55-60. I drive mostly on the freeway in the second lane from the right, known as the truck lane, since that's the most efficient lane in which to drive. I typically drive the 12 miles to downtown LA in that lane, during rush hour traffic, without ever touching my brakes. I've found that paying attention to the traffic around you, and especially in front of you, and allowing plenty of room between myself and the car in front, that I rarely need to use my brakes.

Along with accelerating gradually, this enables me to achieve in excess of 100 miles per charge. I rarely need to go 100 miles at a time, so it's easy to keep my battery charged in the favored 20%-80% range. If I need to go long distance, I don't hesitate to charge full and drive to empty. I've done this a few times with no measurable degradation to the battery. I arrive at work on time and relaxed since I'm not constantly having to brake due to tailgating and speeding. I'm among the safest drivers on the road, so it's highly unlikely I'll be involved in an accident which would cause thousands of cars to have to slow down and stop, costing even more inefficiencies.

The accidents are caused by those who speed and tailgate. Just because most people drive inefficiently, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. Americans are known the world over as being wasteful. Some of you wear that badge proudly. I'm curious why that is. Waste is always bad in my book, whether it's gasoline, kWh or food. There are consequences to wasting energy, and they are all bad.

People are hurt by the pollution, the wars we fight to keep our tanks full of cheap gas, and our environment suffers. So, maybe ex EV1 Driver can tell us why wasting is a good thing. I'd love to hear his or her reasoning. I think your numbers may be overly pessimistic, although it makes a sensational headline. I live outside Washington DC in northern Virginia, temperate climate, yes. I now charge to 80% and don't go down to below 20% for longer battery life, yes. With 80% charge, driving a mix of residential roads 25 mph mostly but some 45 mph and some highway at 55 mph (a lot of folks around here driving over 55 mph and wasting gas.

Or electrons), I generally seem to get between 60 and 70 miles of range per charge cycle. The couple of times I charged to 100% when I first got the Leaf my range estimator said I could get about 124 miles, though I never put that to the test. Some trips are up and then down hills - since the up hill discharges but the down hill tends to charge the battery back up, it almost balances out to have a negligible effect on range.

Braking also recharges a bit. Now that range is adequate for me and most in the US - they say 30 miles per day is the average. I charge my Leaf once every 2 or 3 days.

I met a Leaf owner here recently who drives a bit over 40 miles every day in her commute between Virginia and Washington DC. She charges to 80% every day and has never had any out of juice problems.

She mentioned one day, there was a bad snarl up on the highway, it was a hot day in August and she had the AC on, on her way home - no charging station at work - she got down to the point of 'estimated' range of below 20 miles and began to wonder if she'd have to stop to charge at a nearby Walgreens - they have free level 2 charging - to add a few miles. But she made it home with 15 miles to spare - the range estimator on the Leaf is a conservative estimator it seems. As to battery replacement sometime in the distant future, well, you know, don't you, that one can replace individual cells that are no longer performing up to full capacity? Also, by the time that day rolls around, I'll bet there will be service stations specializing in such things. Perhaps there will be backwards compatibility with new and improved and cheaper batteries? Time will tell.

@Paul, Just don't complain to me when none of those 99.9% of the people who prefer to minimize as much as possible the portion of their 80 years on this planet sitting on a filthy highway buy your car. Likewise, I don't want to hear when those who do buy your cars are upset when their cars won't do what you implied they could do. You insist on telling them 100 or 73 miles per charge is with real-world driving when 99.9% of the people don't drive like you do.

I recommend you promise them maybe 30 - 40 miles per charge in 7 years and applaud when they do more. It would be nice if Nissan would publish real numbers so we didn't have to go with my possibly pessimistic guesses but, unfortunately, they seem fairly consistent with what Andy Palmer hints at in. The issue really isn't about you or me but, since you insist on talking about personal choices; If speed is so unimportant to you, why don't you walk to and from work? That would take a whole lot less energy since you'd save all of the energy and pollution caused by manufacturing your car. Ex-EV1 driver, you have a lot of hate in you about EVs. I'm very sorry you are like that, but so be it.

I have close to 250 LEAF customers and virtually all of them love the car more than any other they've had. They don't get 100+ miles per charge, because they don't need to and don't desire to. They do, however, drive on 100% domestic energy. Many of them on solar and wind. This, too, is their choice. You may, of course, continue in your hateful ways. Some people just can't help themselves.

But if you ever get over yourself, please do join us and help make the world better instead of bitter. You'll like yourself more that way. Ex-EV1 driver, you have a lot of hate in you about EVs.

I'm very sorry you are like that, but so be it. I have close to 250 LEAF customers and virtually all of them love the car more than any other they've had. They don't get 100+ miles per charge, because they don't need to and don't desire to. They do, however, drive on 100% domestic energy. Many of them on solar and wind. This, too, is their choice.

You may, of course, continue in your hateful ways. Some people just can't help themselves. But if you ever get over yourself, please do join us and help make the world better instead of bitter. You'll like yourself more that way.

My LEAF is the best commuter car ever. I have 3 boys ages 5 and under, easily put ALL 3 car seats in the back, carry loads of family crap behind their seats, and haul ass wherever I go. I commute from Fremont to Milpitas, 22 miles each way, pretty much balls to the wall speeding. LEAF has no transmission. E-motor to wheels is as fun-to-drive as can be!!

So, I have never charged at a station- only at night on my 220 16v plug in my garage. This costs me less than 2 cents per mile. Most folks commute less than 60 miles a day, like me.

I have 15,000 miles on my LEAF, and have calculated an estimated 4-6 percent battery range loss in that time. My wife didn't believe we could get the 3 baby car seats in, but they fit perfectly. My LEAF is a truly remarkable car, so quick, quiet, refined, trouble free.plus my 3 year lease is up in June 2014.

I am pretty confident Nissan will have something electric and cool for me to trade up for then, and I am totally sure any regrets I might have will be mitigated by the utter joy of having not bought a pence of gas in years!! Cheers to you 'ex-EV1 driver' dcarter. As with most things, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. First, people shouldn't condescend with regards to 'ex EV-1 driver' just because he's raining on the Leaf parade. Comments about whether or not he is hateful are not relevant and against site policy.

The comments reflect on two larger issues, I think. First, how the range issue is addressed to the public is going to central to EV adoption.

Estimates should be conservative, because if they even smack of a lie you can believe Fox News will be all over that on the 24 hour news cycle. Second, it's fair to point out that driving to maximize range isn't for everyone - I hypermile whenever I can in my hybrid, but sometimes I just need to speed. More to the point, this is another thing - much like charging only in the sweet spot - that early adopters will do (but that the general public cannot be counted on to do). One issue with the Leaf is that according to my understanding, I believe it's somewhat unique in using a passive cooling system (presumably in order to save weight and money). It therefore makes sense that it might be particularly vulnerable to what they are seeing in a small number of AZ Leafs.

However, I do still feel that the 30-something miles after 7 years estimate is overly pessimistic. The reason is that battery degradation is not linear - it slows down as time passes. Therefore, you can use more of your remaining capacity (to partially mitigate the loss) without increasing the speed of further degradation linearly. @Paul Scott, Why do you have to resort to attacking me personally when you haven't even responded to which of my numbers is wrong? Also, 250 customers in a metropolitan area of about 15 million people really isn't very good penetration. How many of your customers were normal customers who walked into the dealership and how many were already members of your quaalude popping yogurt and granola club?

I don't hate the Leaf but I do tend to lean that direction toward those drivers and hypermiling zealots who give it a bad rap that I (and a few others like me), then have to undo. I don't have enough time to promote the Leaf and EVs as it is and you sloths push the perception 1 step backward for every 2 steps we make forward. You'd do a whole lot more for promoting EVs if you'd channel your inner Mario Andretti and show what EVs can do for the mainstream driver who really is trying to get somewhere. Just ask yourself which converted more people at NPID: a zip in the Tesla Roadster you brought or a slow cruise in a Leaf? After 28,000 miles of HOV (aka express) lane driving between the inland empire and Orange county, I can say that the Nissan LEAF's range works for me. I leased the car with the expectation that it would perform and it has exceeded my expectations. I treat it just like any other car I've owned and have been rewarded with very low operating cost.

I fully charge it, DC quick charge often and drive until the lady talks to me ('low battery charge' is all she says). Owning a 100% EV has led me to put my full faith in them because mine always gets me home. I have 8,000 miles on mine and am very happy with the results so far. Nissan said I can expect 3.5 miles per kWh, I've been getting 4.5. The Leaf was never meant to be a car for everyone. My daughter would love one but the range doesn't fit her life style. I seem to remember the old VW beetle didn't do well in Arizona either.

The climate is just too hot for air cooled. I tell everyone how it's working for me, but not to expect the same results. Southern California is ideal for the Leaf. I seldom use the air or heat.

Economy on the freeway is not as good as surface streets, but neither was the Prius when it first came out. These batteries will get better in time.

Early adopters are reducing our demand for foreign crude. Many countries that we buy crude from also support terrorists. We should applaud the pioneers, they are the trailblazers for energy independence and a cleaner environment.

The Leaf is a comfortable car that meets most of my needs. It has met and or exceeded my expectations. My plans are to keep the car for 20 years.

Total cost of ownership should be less than an equivalent car with an internal combustion engine. I am gambling on the cost of batteries to go down, but I believe it to be a sure bet. It’s not a super car, but it’s not a lemon either. '- This takes the 30 miles down to 30 X 90% = 27 miles This also means your commute, without charging at work, needs to be less than ~13 miles each way.' You keep mentioning steps to prolong your Leaf's battery life, but then keep assuming that these steps won't work and your battery life will still fall faster than average.You can't have it both ways, but I'm sure that the Romneyites will eat up everything you have written regardless of how nonsensical it all is. I think you would be happier driving your Humvee in the fast lane.:). @ ex-EV1 driver: First, I appreciate your wanting to have truth in advertising.

I had some debates with Darell Dickey a while back on how a too optimistic evaluation, particularly of the savings, of EVs is off-putting; the Leaf 100-mile range is an example of this I find misleading. Very few will regularly achieve this kind of range, and I cringe when someone says this is possible. It's like saying a Passat TDI can get 84 mpg because these people did it once: I'd rather under promise and over deliver. Though it seems most EV proponents want to do the opposite, which I think is a bad long term strategy. Once people do some research and realize you can't reliably get 100 miles range, they don't trust any other claims you might have made about an EV even if they are true. It just doesn't build trust.

On the other hand, your Leaf critiques and debate with Paul Scott seem to degrade range estimates on both ends by being 'nice' to the battery to keep it within a SOC% range (though it's not clear how much of that is necessary) while also assuming much faster driving (your claim that 99.99% of the drivers go faster than EV hypermilers is of course an exaggeration - which I would think you'd be careful not to do - since you are bashing on EV proponents' exaggerations). This is a double-dip: the people who are 'nice' to their batteries aren't going to drive as fast as you say. And the aggressive driver isn't going to be nice to the battery - they're going to charge to 100% and down to 0%. Will that affect battery life, sure (particularly the 0%). But, so does driving your Hyundai at 85mph with dirty oil affect engine life. We don't blame the technology of the car for that - we blame the driver/owner for that, and they pay for it in the end (and we'd expect the Leaf owner to do the same). Plus, you unjustly blame EV hypermilers for the misconceptions that most ICE drivers have of EVs.

I would say most people have NO CLUE how an EV drives and since most people equate speed with big engines, lots of noise, and plumes of smoke they assume that something which is smaller, quiet, and emission free must also be slow. Perhaps there is some negative car rag press to reinforce this impression, but it isn't because they see lots of EVs plodding along in the slow lane; there are too few of them on the road for most ICE drivers to have made this connection. ICE drivers would actually have to be paying attention, be on the road a lot, and drive in areas where there are a lot of EV hyper-milers - the first two conditions are inversely proportional (in my experience), and the last is pretty rare. Also, to imply EV drivers should be leading the way with cars and driving styles that are fast or aggressive (unsafe and inefficient) is ascribing way to much power to EV drivers - I don't think it matters that much.

When I drove my old gas car I never worried about Mazda getting a bad reputation because I drove a car that definitely could go much faster, rather conservatively. Must I drive like an inefficient ICE maniac so that ICE drivers think an EV won't leave them wanting more maniacal behavior? Though I accelerate/decelerate more gradually than ICE drivers, I don't usually travel the total distance any more slowly. Because traffic lights and stop signs are great equalizers. I think EV drivers can just drive how they want (normally safer and more efficient) instead of trying to fit in or out-do ICE drivers. At some point, there are going to be enough types of EVs and EV drivers that an EV driving 'style' will be an anachronism.

We'll just have driving styles period, whatever vehicle a person is driving. Thank you, Dan, for a well written response. It's funny how these exEV1 types seem to think that if you drive like a fool, that more people will buy EVs.

It's been my experience that people will drive how they like regardless of the technology they employ for the job. And it's also quite clear that American's driving styles are a large part of why we are so wasteful as a nation.

We buy inefficient vehicles and then compound the problem by driving them inefficiently. Every day I drive the same 12 mile route on the 10 freeway from Santa Monica to downtown LA. Every day people pass me going 70+. They are constantly hitting their brakes because they are tailgating, throwing energy away as they do so. Worse, they then have the audacity to whine about higher gas prices when all they have to do is alter their driving styles and they'd save a good 20%-30% of their energy. The LEAF is a 100 mile car. I've averaged that for about 20,000 miles now, so I'm quite comfortable telling my customers that the car is capable.

I also am very clear to them that most of my customers average between 70-90 miles because they don't drive as efficiently. I tell them the car is fun to drive, but you won't get 100 miles of range if you drive for speed. The 2014 LEAF will have a greater range. Sales will increase because of that.

In the meantime, we keep selling the cars we have, and with each sale, we remove a gas burner from the road. That's a good thing. I have done plenty to perpetuate the myth (or reality) that keeping the SoC between 20% and 80% is probbably a good idea. I base that based on experiences with laptops, cellphones, and reading general test data on various Li-Ion cells. With that said, the LEAF is working out great for me. ~60 mile daily commute at 75MPH freeway speeds. I have a timer set to get to 80% charge at 5AM, so it is always ready to go in the morning (never once failed to plug it in or get a charge in 18 months).

When I get to work, my SoC is around 50%, where it sits during the day. I think that is probably a 'happy place' to keep the battery pack charge state during the warmth of daytime. Then when I drive back home at night it gets back down to around 20% SoC and gets plugged back in right away. A recent 'GID reading' suggested that my pack is still capable of holding ~95%+ of the ideal charge expected from a new pack. Carpool perk, excellent blu-tooth, LED headlights, smooth ride, quiet cabin, comfortable (IMHO) seats, etc, etc. Lots of good stuff to like about the LEAF. I am glad I live in a mild climate, because I would be worrying about my pack health if I lived in a hot desert climate.

Yes, it is true that Nissan advertises a 100-mile range in the Leaf. However, I clearly remember that, to give consumers a more realistic assessment of how their range might vary, Nissan also publishes 6 different driving scenarios, with ranges as low as 62 miles and as high as 138 miles. I have extrapolated tables for those 6 scenarios using Nissan's benchmarks for warranty and capacity estimates. Potential customers might find the tables useful to determine if a Leaf will continue to meet their driving needs with time and mileage, whether charging to 100% or 80%. What I see mentioned in several of the posts here is that some Leafs are doing fine in the whole year or so that people have owned them.

How many of these people besides TEG have actually measured their capacity remains unknown. The point ex-EV1 driver makes quite clearly is that this could (and possibly will) change over the next year or two, especially for anyone who doesn't live in the ideal ambient environment for EVs. This is a legitimate observation. As for his math, I don't see it being that far off the mark for drivers in hotter environments judging from Tony's test results. We'll just have to wait and see, but I have a strong feeling that this problem for Nissan is going to get much bigger as the Leafs in Texas and Florida get some age on them. Will affected Leaf owners tread water making excuses for how they don't drive enough for it to matter to them if they lose 30-50% in 2 or 3 years of their range?

My wife and I love our Leafs too. We like everything about them except the usual complaints (Carwings, cheap carpet, anemic horn, thin paint, etc.), but if in another 2 years time we find ourselves with grocery runners that have no trade/resale value, this too will change. If we were given the opportunity to get out from under them at this point, I am not sure that we would decline the offer.

@seadog, What are you assuming the 'average' life usage was? 20% to 80% or 0% to 100%?

I think that what we've seen in AZ could be a clue that Nissan expected some rather benign driving patterns. Anybody know what the average Tokyo driver drives in a day? By the way, I hate the Humvee as well as the HMMWV although I think the H2 was a stroke of brilliance.

Spot weld some sheet metal on a Yukon to dress it up like a military vehicle and sell it for twice the price to suckers who buy into it. It sucks environmentally but what a way to make a profit! I'll believe Paul Scott doesn't care about speed when he walks to work. Until then I'll just assume he smugly thinks he's better than everyone else who passes him.

@Dan, ' though it's not clear how much of that is necessary' This is a complaint I have with Nissan. They don't tell us what the affects are.

They even admit to playing with us with non-linear SOC gauges. ' the people who are 'nice' to their batteries aren't going to drive as fast as you say. And the aggressive driver isn't going to be nice to the battery - they're going to charge to 100% and down to 0%.' Who makes this stuff up for you?

Do you write your own stuff? Why do you assume people who need to get places want to waste their battery's life? I'm also pretty sure that 99.99% of the drivers on I-10 at rush hour are driving more than Paul Scott's 55 mph.

You probably have a point about the smoke, noise, and dual tailpipes but I just heard folks discussing the Volt in a crowd I was in this morning and how the problems was it was unsafe to get onto the freeway with and replacing the batteries is the big problem with hybrids. I saw 2 Leafs this morning but they were, nicely going with the traffic, not crawling along like they were broken down. ' driving styles that are fast... Unsafe' The Interstates were designed for 65 mph to 75 mph with safety margin. Large differential speed (55 mph while most are at 65 mph or higher) is probably less safe than everyone driving 70 mph. Did you see the pileup at Taledega last weekend? @Paul Scott, Sorry, you think I'm a fool.

Just keep selling the Leaf as a 100 mile car, maybe you'll get a different part in 'Who Killed the Electric Car - the sequel'. Perhaps the 2 mountain passes I have to deal with on my commute and the Leaf's inefficient motor at above ~60 mph on the flat cause me to see a lot less range than you do in the flat lands. Sure, I can get 100 miles, probably more if I hypermile. @Yanquetino, Where did you see Nissan's published 6 scenarios? Maybe I'll have to eat my words about their not providing data.

Sorry, but I don't click on URL abbreviators so I can't see your tables. @caffeinekid, If you stick with the 27 - 38 mile assumptions I laid out, your Leafs should meet your needs for more than the 8 year warranty, maybe even more. I expect mine to handle my 80 mile commute for at least 8 years by babying my battery. I'm surprised to see Yanquentino, of all people, pushing linear relationship between the length of ownership, mileage and battery degradation after it's been explained to him several times that this relationship is nonlinear. This was confirmed in a public video recently by Andy Palmer. The 6 scenarios were mentioned early on by Nissan, I remember them well.

That said, they should have published a range table, much like Tony Williams did later, outlining speeds and energy economies and displaying the expected range to turtle, very low battery warning and low battery warning. Although they did that a few months later, their chart is not nearly as clear, and it still does not include or consider the effects of battery degradation. The Leaf should not have been marketed as a 100-mile car. Although I have driven it for 108, 107 and 99 miles on a single charge on three occasions, the Leaf does not routinely get that much range, and it's not easy to operate below the low battery warning due to the incorrect or missing information on gauges.

While I don't necessarily agree with the 27 mile claim, the range expectation of the car should have been set much more conservatively. You only get unhappy owners when you don't meet the spec, not when you exceed it. I'm surprised that you're surprised to see me here. 'of all people.'

I am not 'pushing' anything: I am merely extrapolating month-by-month, mile-after-mile tables using the very, very few capacity benchmarks that Nissan has made public to date. Yes, Nissan has stated that the initial capacity degradation is non-linear, unlike my tables, but. The company has NOT yet made the actual specifics known.

Until they do specify that curve, this is the best we can speculate, and I will be the first to update my tables accordingly when that happens. If you know what Nissan's actual figures are, please pass them along! Ironically, however, my linear degradation actually bolsters the complaints of those who claim that their capacity is 'lower' than expected after one year of ownership. If and when Nissan provides curivlinear data, we might very well see that all such claims actually fall within the company's expected parameters. @ex-EV1 Driver: You asked: ' Who makes this stuff up for you?' I'd say the same person who made up your 99.9% of people driving faster than EV hyper-milers.

Let's face it, we all have our own preconceptions and observations about the world that fit what we want to see - not what is actually there. It's why people who complain about gas prices don't see that driving slower, with a more efficient car, or both don't even consider those as options. Just give the ICE driver what he/she has now: fast acceleration, tailgate ready braking, essentially limitless range, and room for 7 (on the chance they'll want an impromptu party).

It's an inefficient dance that means we must practice extreme drilling, extraction, refining, and transportation of a resource that has high external costs borne by all for the benefit of the status quo. I think there is a better way and I think we must change.

The Leaf is a daring part of that effort and deserves much more credit than what you've exaggerated into a worthless venture. As I said in my previous post, I appreciate your trying to reign in the EV optimists a bit; but you've gone too far. You build a worst case scenario, absolute worst case, and make it sound typical.

It makes for interesting discussions, but is way more misleading than Paul Scott saying that: '. Most of my customers average between 70-90 miles because they don't drive as efficiently. I tell them the car is fun to drive, but you won't get 100 miles of range if you drive for speed.' For those in warmer climates that are not getting the expected range out of their vehicle, that's a warranty issue, period. With any new technology that is bound to happen and hopefully the manufacturer has factored that in with a higher price to work out the issues. I have a guarantee on my EV that it will keep 80% of the initial capacity through the first 8 years (with the normal caveats).

If they don't uphold their part of the bargain, I have to create a fuss - just like if I bought any gas car that had a powertrain problem covered under warranty. Your logical extention of some individual problems to a general EV product failure is untenuous. Perhaps you can explain why you have such an axe to grind? @yanquetino, Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, it only confirms my 27 - 38 mile regular driving numbers:-( Their worst-case (which is hardly worst case since it assumes crawling speeds over level ground) of 62 or 68 miles of range does not add the need to preserve the battery by not over-charging or discharging. The chart does not say what the assumed charging or discharging levels are.

It also does not account for the 80% loss over 8 years. Therefore, assuming one only wants to charge to 80% and discharge to 20% on a regular basis to preserve battery, one sees that one should not purchase a Leaf if one needs to drive more than (68% X 80% X 80% = 35 or 62 X 80% X 80% = 32) 35 and 32 miles between charges. Since none of these assumes freeway driving at 65 - 75 mph, then there will be additional knock down for freeway speeds. Note that I'm assuming range anxiety 'margin' is handled by the 20% allowed normal depth of discharge. Becker Radio Code Serial Number. I stay with my admonition that nobody should buy a Leaf expecting to drive between 27 and 38 miles between charging each day if they expect the battery to last over 8 years. If you've bought a Leaf with higher expectations, you'd better expect to have to start using hypermiling techniques or expect to be eating into your battery life after the 8 year point. Does anyone have any clear data on Nissan's expected battery life as a function of time and depth of discharge?

@Dan, I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm just pointing out how I see the math and chemistry interacting with a bit of physics. So far I've been shouted at (which those who know me know doesn't deter me) but nobody has pointed out my scientific errors. What part of 80% of 80% of 80% am I missing?

I've laid out my personal plan for maximizing my Leaf's battery life with my commute and shared it with everyone. You don't have to listen to me and, in 8 to 10 years you're welcome to show me I was wrong if that's the case. Of course, that will mean I'll get even more use out of my original battery and get free miles for my 37 mile commute! If you are driving 10 MPH below the speed limit (and this is not due to traffic conditions), you are not a 'normal driver,' particularly in California.

You might be a 'normal driver' in a far-off future where many people have range anxiety (justified or not) about their EVs, but on an American freeway in 2012, driving 55 MPH on the interstate is enough to provoke road rage among your fellow drivers. This should be apparent by all the people who impatiently swerve around you and gun their motor while casting you dirty looks. @Paul Scott 'And it's also quite clear that American's driving styles are a large part of why we are so wasteful as a nation. We buy inefficient vehicles and then compound the problem by driving them inefficiently.' I'll never understand the arrogance of some EV drivers. You are not 'saving the world.'

So many of you choose to just ignore the fact that the production of hybrid/EV vehicles is much more harmful to the earth then the average car. Furthermore, the old 'clunkers' on our roads are responsible for far more waste then those driving 75+. Not a personal attack to Paul or any other EV driver, I understand the upside(although I believe it to be a greater personal, monetary gain rather than environmental), just interested to hear what some of you think about the side-effects of producing these automobiles. You've been reading far too much anti-EV FUD, Ethan. We've got ridiculous studies out there that will tell you that a Hummer is more environmentally responsible than a Prius. It's all nonsense, of course.

Who funds these studies? I'm guessing oil companies do. They've got the most to lose if widespread EV adoption actually occurs. Some of the argument is that the amount of energy and materials going into manufacturing an EV is greater than a conventional car. But this is discounting the fact that most modern EVs use motors that don't require permanent rare-Earth magnets and these studies probably also assume that the increased amount of metals not typically associated with standard auto manufacturing, like copper, are all freshly mined and don't rely of recycled sources... Or can't be recycled later. The whole lithium shortage and recycling issue is also largely overblown.

Everything that we humans create will have some sort of negative environmental impact, Ethan. Are we all to stop living in houses or rest our posteriors in chairs because wood is a limited resource? Obviously, there are excesses that humans are going to have to deal with in the coming century that will involve compromises and modification of current day consumption habits. But tossing aside the entire concept of electrified personal transportation in favor of eking out the last bit of efficiency in internal combustion gasoline engine design is a short term fix, not a real solution. If you look past the current sensationalistic headlines (many mainstream journalists, most of whom have no direct experience with EVs, are now in their pre-election know nothing mode and there's a lot of sloppy writing at present,) you'll find that the more pragmatic studies state that EVs are only as clean as the electricity that's going into it. There is nothing new being told here...

And EV advocates have been saying this for years. All of a sudden, though, it’s “news.” But this should be a clarion call for you - as a consumer and voter - to demand of your utilities companies and corporation commissions - to clean up the grid in your locale...

Especially if you live in an area where power generation is particularly dirty. If they refuse to comply, vote with your pocketbook or at the ballot box. If you're an EV owner and have solar PV on your roof, you're ahead of the curve. Those who produce their own electricity this way to meet all their own needs and are then able to feed significant quantities back to the grid, in some significant way, really ARE 'saving the world.' They're making it cleaner for those who can't yet afford an EV or are apartment dwellers who can't choose PV solar, even if they wanted to. Ex-EV1 driver (and why don't you use your real name?). There are some real helpful doctors, councilors and programs out there that may be able to help you out with your anger management and they way you relate to other humans.

As far as Paul Scott being 'Dangerous.' I guess he could be considered that by an oil company executive. But that would be something I consider to be a badge of honor. Stick to the issue in a less psychopathic manner and slandering a man that has earned the deserved respect of countless numbers of people. Paul has done and continues to do more for the planet and the human race than a 100 'non-dangerous' people. And please do seek help:). I have an all electric home in the Bay area that consumes 10000 kwH per year.

That means just electricity and no natural gas is used for anything. Wife drives a Volt in 95% EV mode for 10000 miles per year. That is another 3000 Kwh. I drive a Ford Focus electric for 5000 miles per year (work is 6 miles away). That is 1500 kwh.

Total is 14500 Kwh/per year. We have a 11.8 KW solar array on our roof that produced 16300 KwH this year. This means we are now a NET PRODUCER of clean energy after all our day to day energy needs.

Actually PG&E sent us a check of $100 this year. The Solar array cost me 25K to install after all rebates. We have a Highlander Hybrid for the long drives/vacations and trips with extended family. I estimate about 100 gallons per year until the affordable fast charging 7 passenger SUV comes along maybe in another 5-10 years. Paul Scott said, 'The LEAF is a 100 mile car. I've averaged that for about 20,000 miles now, so I'm quite comfortable telling my customers that the car is capable.

I also am very clear to them that most of my customers average between 70-90 miles because they don't drive as efficiently.' Paul, I'm glad you add the logical caveat to your 100 mile range claims. Yes, the car will also do 151 miles, as one owner did on Phoenix. But telling the average consumer that doesn't really tell them much. Certainly, 70-90 miles is OK, particularly in your virtually ideal climate for an electric car of greater Los Angeles. But that doesn't begin to tell folks who are used to oil burning cars what to expect after the warrantee expires.

Even an LA car will certainly degrade the battery to 90% capacity in the first year, and maybe hit 70%-80% in 5-10 years as Nissan claims. So, that 70-90 mile range becomes about 60 miles (75% of 80 miles). In addition, even in moderate LA, the temperatures can rob another 5-10% of capacity seasonally, and the heater can burn a whole bunch of that reduced capacity in one through ten years. I hope you'll agree that the 60 mile car with cold temps and heater running will be some number smaller than 60. The simple point is that even in an ideal climate, the numbers only go down with time. In extreme hot or cold climates, there are far more drastic range issues.

None of these issues favor telling a customer that the car can go 100 miles, or 151 miles. I've linked the current generation of Range Chart for the LEAF, in all the capacity levels of known cars today: Use this 100% chart for a factory new battery. Don't assume that because you bought the car new that it will be at 100%!!! Cars sitting on hot dealer lots at high a state of charge will degrade. Use this 93% chart for a one year old or more battery that still has all 12 capacity bar segments.

Use this 82% chart for a battery that has 11 of 12 capacity bar segments. Use this 75% chart for a battery that has 10 of 12 capacity bar segments. Use this 69% chart for a battery that has 9 of 12 capacity bar segments. Use this 63% chart for a battery that has 8 of 12 capacity bar segments (yes, two cars have reached that milestone) Tony Williams San Diego.

'Yanquetino @George B. I'm surprised that you're surprised to see me here. 'of all people.' I am not 'pushing' anything: I am merely extrapolating month-by-month, mile-after-mile tables using the very, very few capacity benchmarks that Nissan has made public to date.' Over on the 'MyNissanLEAF' forum, we spent some time examining Yanquetino's claims.

First, he allows no comments to his site to counter any of his claims, and openly acknowledges that he is only regurgitating what we know isn't particularly accurate or useful from Nissan. To my knowledge, he has done no testing whatsoever. I call it the 'prove Nissan right, no matter what the facts are' policy. Certainly, it's better than what most salespeople would offer in a Nissan dealership. I called a few recently, and asked what the range of the LEAF was. I'm sure everybody can guess the answer.

I told one dealership that I would like to drive the car 90 miles (of the 100 they quoted) in a test drive; 45 miles out and back at 65mph. He said, 'no problem'.

I know differently. I asked another salesperson how much gasoline the car would hold. She's going to get back to me on that. I called a dealer in Phoenix and asked the same range question; '100 miles, of course', was the answer. I asked if I would be able to do that in 5 years. Tony Williams San Diego. @Tony Williams: Yes, you have spearheaded a contingent of MNL forum members to refute my findings from the owners' test data.

And yes, I *do* think that what we have from Nissan is reasonably accurate and useful. I am not, however, trying to 'prove Nissan right, no matter what the facts are.' If the owners' test data had shown than the majority of the 12 Leafs in the experiment fell below the postulated capacity loss according to Nissan's advertised benchmarks, I would have said so. But that's not what the results showed.

No, I haven't done any testing myself. But I am not sure what that proves. Anyone can analyze test data without actually participating in an experiment. In fact, it is probably better to have a third-party examine the results, to avoid a subjective bias to 'prove Nissan wrong, no matter what the facts are.' That was your initial hypothesis in carrying out the experiment, wasn't it? Since you have decried a 'linear' extrapolation many times, I have gone back and recalculated the percentages using the equation for a polynomial curve generated by Nissan's advertised benchmarks.

The good news is: you can find the updated tables and graphs on my webpages, including the I mentioned above. The bad news is: as I predicted, the 12 Leafs now fall even closer to the polynomial curve since it dips down to their achieved ranges on the test.

It does not appear that the author of this tirade has any real wold experience with a LEAF. I have ha a LEAF for over a year and a half, 21000 trouble free miles. I drive it every day about 60-70 miles of freeway and city driving, charge it to 100% every night, use the AC when I need to. 60-70 miles a day when new, 60-70 miles a year and a half later.

All of these armchair experts really don't know what they are talking about. Charts and tables are so much BS, with very little basis in reality. Remember your mileage may vary. Mark said, 'to avoid a subjective bias to 'prove Nissan wrong, no matter what the facts are.' That was your initial hypothesis in carrying out the experiment, wasn't it?'

Ya, that's funny. Sure, we intended to 'prove' that the cars were indeed driving significantly reduced range from a year ago. As you famously exploit, we had no 'new' car to go 84 miles.

I was as surprised as anybody to learn the instruments were off. We reported that, as that isn't germane to the question of battery capacity. So, while our line of thinking was certainly outside the realm of Nissan being the hero, we were intellectually honest enough to offer that information, also. We could have just left it out, and only reported that one car went 59 miles, and another went 79. Yes, of course, anybody can review without testing. Certainly, that's the number one reason to publish something; critical review. I've offered that review of your tables.

The concept is reasonable; the data has exceptions for all the reasons I've listed. 'All of these armchair experts really don't know what they are talking about. Charts and tables are so much BS, with very little basis in reality. Remember your mileage may vary' Have you taken any of the 'BS' tables and actually conducted your own review, or you can figure that out without looking? @KellyOlsen, Wow aren't you judgemental 'Dr' Olsen? You clearly think you are better than me but that's what I would expect, given your history. I don't use my real name because people like you think I should be committed because I tell unpopular truths about your liberal friends and other people from the other side of the aisle, think I should be committed because I drive an EV, sometimes appear in Pro-EV movies including yours, and on occasion, even hang out with and say good things about some things done by people who live in Santa Monica.

Being open minded and telling the truth does not make one very popular in most places. Look at how you, an elected city councilman, are treating me for what you think is heresy.

Clearly you don't even understand the damage your buddy Paul Scott does to undermine his and my efforts to promote EVs so that we can end our dependence on oil. By over-selling the Leaf, he'll hurt Nissan in 5 or 6 years when the people who expect to be able to drive 50 miles to and from work every day find they can't, either at the speeds they are used to driving, or in 4 years when they've stressed their battery beyond what it can handle. Just like the AZ folks, they'll be mad and lash out against Nissan. In fact, you'll probably be the first attorney in line to represent them in a class action suit against Nissan. Great way to reward Nissan for having the guts to take a risk and go against the status quo by selling an EV.

The EV detractors will have a field day ragging on how stupid Nissan was to promise 8 years of battery life that they'll have to warranty. The Nissan board will probably sack Ghosn for his irresponsibility. Although I'm clearly not a great communicator, I do have a fairly good understanding of the technology of electric vehicles (and mentalities outside of Santa Monica). I am trying to get folks to see the truth and set realistic expectations based on the data available so that, perhaps the well-intentioned won't continue to hurt our efforts to replace gasoline with something clean and sustainable. For driving 20% below the speed limit on I-10 every day, you and your fellow Santa Monicans see Paul Scott as an environmentalist hero, a rebel against the Fast, SUV-driving, planet killers. Your steadfast defense by attacking me confirms this.

Many in the rest of the world, however, see him as a smug jerk for doing this every day. Personally, I just see this as probably being caused by Paul's mis-perception encouraged by the narrow-minded people with whom he hangs out. I hope he comes around and realizes what he is doing before doing too much more damage to the EV movement.

Lack of foresight is what is dangerous. We really need everyone to work together to solve our problems and not alienate the majority in order to please our own small circle of like-minded friends.

@Tony Williams --------------- 'As you famously exploit, we had no 'new' car to go 84 miles.' --------------- Huh? I never remember saying anything about not including a 'new' car in your experiment.

I think you must be confusing my analysis with someone else's remarks. I don't even think it was necessary to test a new car, since the whole point is to compare achieved range with what Nissan's advertised benchmarks would postulate according to the vehicles' age and mileage. Where we disagree is on the use of Nissan's own predicted range at 4 miles-per-kWh (between 76 and 84) as the baseline for a comparison.

You prefer to use the highest number (84). I prefer the lowest number (76) precisely to *not* leave Nissan any 'wiggle' room to contest the results. Ergo, you disagree with my conclusions; I disagree with yours. As for the instruments, there we agree.

Yes, we postulate different percentages per capacity bar (ironically, yours bolsters Andy Palmer's claim more than mine), but still, there is no question that he was correct to state that the gauges are inaccurate. In my humble opinion, however, that problem is germane to the issue of capacity loss. If owners are seeing an exaggerated loss of capacity bars and lower miles on the GOM, surely they would conclude that their capacity is lower than it really is.

Indeed, I believe that the disappearance of capacity bars was what started the whole issue in the first place. Mark wrote: 'Where we disagree is on the use of Nissan's own predicted range at 4 miles-per-kWh (between 76 and 84) as the baseline for a comparison. You prefer to use the highest number (84).

I prefer the lowest number (76) precisely to *not* leave Nissan any 'wiggle' room to contest the results. Ergo, you disagree with my conclusions; I disagree with yours.' My range chart, linked in an above post is based on 21kWh usable battery capacity for a new battery. That data was derived through many hours and miles of testing and measuring. Therefore, 4 miles per kWh equals 84 miles of range. A simple formula that I have proved over and over and over.

Both my previous LEAF (serial #2244) and current LEAF (serial #20782) have both PHYSICALLY performed these results. So have a great multitude of other LEAF drivers.

It is well understood, and accepted, amongst knowledgable LEAF owners. Below, I've posted the results of a U.S. Governemnt funded study that measured the LEAF battery output at 21.381kWh. Driving a LEAF at 4 miles per kWh equals 85.5 miles of range with that metric.

No surprise, this is in line with both my data of 21kWh for a 70F temperature new battery, and Nissan's published data of Dec 2011 of 21kWh (84 miles / 4 miles per kWh). Energy from the wall from dead to 100%: 25.414 kWh Energy from the onboard charger to battery: 22.031 kWh Energy from the battery during discharge: 21.381 kWh So, you use lowest data that Nissan posts in a 10% 'tolerance' range between 76 and 84 miles. Sure, the car can go 76 miles. It can also go 56, 26, or 6 miles.

You'll note the chart from Nissan doesn't mention running Climate Control. If you use 10% of the energy for heat or air conditioning, you'll get far below 84 miles at 4 miles per kWh. Maybe 76 miles.

There is NO WAY that Nissan is pumping out cars with 10% variances in capacity. We know that this battery chemistry has about a 10% drop in capacity in as few as a couple dozen cycles. My April 2012 manufacture date car has already experienced this, based on actual measured performance.

That 10% drop, as I stated previous, should be in your chart. Yes, losing capacity bar segments started the whole process.

I don't contest the value of those individual segments, as you suggest. I present them exactly as they are from Nissan's Service Manual. That means the first bar is a 15% loss, and each subsequent bar is 6.25%. There's a VERY solid reason why that first segment is 15%, when we understand that 10% first capacity drop of the lithium manganese chemistry. Our Gid counts neither reflected (exactly) the capacity bars stated capacity, nor the battery capacity (hence range).

This is yet another instrument error (Gid data is entirely measured and calculated by the car; we merely read the CAN data). Like I stated above, I'm not concerned with proving or disproving Palmer's instrument only statement. Yes, it certainly was the impetus, but not the end game. The instruments are bad, and so are the quickly degrading batteries in heat; up to 30% reduced in capacity (thus range) within the 18 months since manufacture. WOW cool and interesting thread so far.

Lets switch Coasts. Im in the DC Metro area, commute 37miles each way to work, Moderate to heavy traffic at times. I charge to 80% 5 days a week and twice a week i charge to 100% when I have small trips to make on the way home. There are 4-5 L2 stations on my path to and from work (for emergencies) I can fully make it to work and back with a single 80% charge (avg 50mph). This is well within the range Nissan has claimed.

I choose to L1 trickle charge at work for 7-8hrs giving me a small boost for comfort and if I choose to take the HWY at 65mph vs the state roads (45-50mph, difference in drive time is 15mins and 4-5miles) I use ECO mode all the time for regen and helps with not using brakes while i still get 4.0-4.5 on the energy gauge. Do i drive slower than everyone else? Yes at times. Do i drive safe?

Yes Do i waste energy? No, well sometimes you need to push the pedal and play with electric. Can everyone benefit from an EV? Yes, with snapping to reality and understanding going the speed limit and sub 65mph, even sub 60mph will save you GAS and Energy, while youll still get to work, destination in the timeframe needed, just might take another 2-3mins (in most cases) I leased our leaf as well, hoping there will be no battery or tech issues because now, after 3 weeks of ownership, I could see me buying this car and keeping it in the long run. **kid in me says, H8rs gunna H8** HAHA I ignore all negative posts, ads, or backlashes on people who choose to not change their ways.guess thats why this country is in the debt and situation its in right now. Complaining, and still spending.

I made the move to change and start saving! @Justin H, It sounds like you, like me, are right at the optimal economic point for a Leaf. You should be able to handle that 37 miles between charging beyond the minimum 8 year warranty, per my calculations.

You'll probably have to make more judicious use of pre-heating and cooling and tolerate less climate control as your car gets older but, from the numbers, you'll probably be ok for maybe 10 years or more. Its the folks who need to get a lot more than 37 mi between charging such as people with a 60 mile round trip without charging ability at work or with a 45 mile each-way commute and no workplace charging that could have trouble past the 8 year point. I have to disagree about your wasting energy.

All of us waste energy by our very existence. To me, what matters more is whether my energy usage is sustainable, ie, could I and everyone else on the planet practice my energy-usage lifestyle beyond the foreseeable (a million generations?)? This is why I attempt to generate as much electricity as I use at home. Since I take advantage of the non-sustainable power grid to store my energy and assume the storage efficiency is 100%, that is actually not sustainable either. My work requires me to fly a lot, clearly so I fall very short on this as well. I consume some materials that are not sustainably produced so, again, I waste energy. Ignoring all negative posts doesn't seem very open-minded.

Are you sure you are so right? Yanquetino, thank you. In my experience, engineering and natural sciences are not an exercise in rhetoric. You either have your facts straight and your model yields acceptable results for a wide range of observations, or you don't.

There is no room for personal views or preferences. That said, I'm certain that your model will fit the 12 cars involved in the Phoenix range test. It was deliberately designed that way to allow you to launch into a diatribe against affected owners, Tony, and everyone involved.

We discussed this before. Unfortunately, there are other cars beyond these twelve in the Leaf universe, and your model does not cover them. Not by a wide margin.

Take Steve Marsh in Kent, WA. He put over 50K miles on his Leaf. Your chart has him at 80% degradation. That does not correlate to what he has observed, and he keeps detailed records. I suggest that you verified this information. Take my Leaf, for example. Fifteen months of ownership, 15363 miles, 10% loss of range from new.

Your chart has me at 94%. And how about the owner in Tucson, lost a capacity bar after 14 months of ownership and 6,771 miles.

Your chart has him at 97 or 94%, depending on how you look at it (miles/vehicle age). These are just three examples, and your model delivers widely inaccurate results for all. How do you explain that? Faulty gauges? Mushroom drivers that don't know how to keep proper records and read Nissan-provided documentation?

I'm really curios with what kind of rhetoric you will come back this time. This is not a debate, Mark.

These cars are are a major investment to many owners, and they are not performing as they thought they would for a number of them. I would be happy to discuss how this could have been avoided and what the possible solution might be. In the meantime, I would like to state for the record that your model does not factor in climatic influences, which are clearly part of the equation, as Andy Palmer, EVP Nissan, stated in his interview with Chelsea Sexton published on October 4. Likewise, you cannot remove 10% of range from all new vehicles based on your own judgement alone. This happens to be your personal interpretation of the Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a. As discussed earlier, I believe that the six scenarios you took from Nissan's marketing material would be useful if adopted and extended with a scale for loss of range.

Your work would be eminently useful if you removed the mileage and vehicle age references you included. They are not accurate and do not reflect the reality for majority of the vehicles out there. This is an absolutely fascinating thread! I hope someone will distill any conclusions when it winds down. Shank 1 Activation Serial Number. Thanks to ex-ev1Driver for starting it and a request to those who attribute to personality defects, hidden agendas, etc any attempts to look down the road a bit to cool it. I do indeed believe the 'Arizona problem' has some valuable lessons for Nissan and the EV industry generally. I was particularly interested in reading '.about the owner in Tucson, lost a capacity bar after 14 months of ownership and 6,771 miles'.

It could have been me because the results have been almost identical for my LEAF. But I don't remember the post and, to the best of my recollection, got maybe 800 more miles before I lost a capacity bar - at least on the gauge. What I REALLY don't like is the apparent attempt of Nissan - and EV zealots generally - to deny there are problems, at least with (unmanaged temperature) battery-only cars!

I have a new advertising slogan for Nissan: 'Even at 50% battery capacity, the LEAF is still a better EV-only car than a Volt!' Full disclose - I would like to stay with my LEAF and ride it down, so to speak. But I am probably going to dump it for a Volt - unless Nissan commits - and soon - to making current owners and leasers financially whole for any problems that surface in the next couple of years as well as those undeniable ones that have already been revealed.

@Tony Williams: I have always understood that there are 21 kWh of useable power in a new Leaf battery pack. And yes, that would suggest that 84 miles would be reasonable range at 4 miles-per-kWh. I've never disputed that.

The challenge you face, however, is to convince Nissan that this is the correct, absolute benchmark, when they have already explicitly stated that as low as 76 miles still falls within their 'normal' expectations. Nissan could always counter with that argument, you see. I simply prefer not to give them that 'out.'

If the majority of the Leafs' test data fell significantly below even their minimal threshhold, then Nissan would have no excuse. But they didn't. And thus Nissan can honestly state that 'The cars and the battery packs are behaving as we expected.' As they 'expected.' As for the two vehicles that did test below the minimum trendline, the fact that the other 10 did not suggests that AZ heat could not be the sole culprit.

There are likely additional factors involved. Consider, for example, that one Leaf with 'up to 30% reduced in capacity (thus range) within the 18 months since manufacture.' I assume we're talking about the vehicle with 29,000 miles on the odometer. If so, that percent, of course, is according to your preferred 84 miles benchmark: 59.3 / 84 = 70% capacity.

Nissan's minimal 76 mile benchmark is not as drastic, although still lower than expected: 59.3 / 76 = 78% capacity. According to that minimum benchmark, a Leaf with that many miles on it should have achieved 67.8 miles on your test, i.e., 67.8 / 76 = 89% capacity. So the question is. Why the 8.5 miles (11%) difference?

As far as I have been able to glean from the newscasts in AZ, that owner had a 45 mile, one-way commute. That's 90 miles per workday, much more than the average driver in this country. According to the closest of the 6 range scenarios to Phoenix (Scenario 2: 'Cross-Town Commute on a Hot Day'), after 29,000 miles a 100% charge would only give a 'normal' range of 61 miles.

An 80% charge merely 48 miles. I think it logical to therefore assume that the owner was not only charging to 100% those days, but probably twice a day, at both home and work: he just could not have made it to work and back on a single charge under those conditions, even in a brand new Leaf (68 miles with a 100% charge, and 54.4 miles with an 80% charge).

It is also reasonable to postulate that charging at work might have been outside, in the blazing sun, parked over baking asphalt. Obviously climate control was a must. Finally, with a commute that long, my guess is that it involved driving the interstate, at freeway speeds. If such guesses are right, these are all 'usage' factors that, as the disclaimer we all had to sign explicitly states, 'may hasten the rate of capacity loss.' I can't help but wonder what the CarWings data shows about such factors. I can only conclude that, if such were the driving and usage patterns, it just doesn't surprise me that this Leaf experienced a battery capacity loss more accelerated than Nissan's minimal 'norm' would predict. But that is not the case for 10 of the 12 Leafs in your test --and probably not the case for most AZ Leafs.

There are always exceptions to the general rule. You're welcome.? Let's be clear: this is not 'my' model. It is simply the trendline generated by Nissan's own (admittedly few) benchmarks. It is a question of math, not rhetoric. Are Nissan's benchmarks flat out wrong, and do not stand up under real world conditions?

That is evidently your hypothesis. The only way to determine it is with more testing, more data, more math --but not just isolated anecdotes, especially without knowing what CarWings' data show for usage and driving patterns beyond mere months and mileage. I wish you the best gathering, compiling, and analyzing additional data. And I hope those data will eventually help you fulfill your goal to predict verifiable effects from climactic influences --since Nissan has yet to provide a sufficiently wide range of benchmarks, equations, and trendlines for such purposes. Indeed, the automaker would likely welcome such a tool, and should compensate you for the effort.

Finally, again, I maintain that my scenario tables are useful. If nothing else, they can help owners compare their real-world range under such conditions to what Nissan's benchmarks would suggest according to their mileage and/or months of ownership --whichever comes first. If drastically different, like it sounds might be the case for those owners you mention, they'd have a legitimate reason to complain to the automaker, wouldn't they? Sounds helpful to me. HYPERMILING: It's not a communist plot:~) exEV1 driver, you and others who posted negative comments about my driving style should ride with me sometime.

I think you'd learn a lot. Efficient driving does not negatively affect others on the road.

I drive a legal speed, something close to the posted speed limit for trucks, and I pass probably 5-10% of the cars on my commute into downtown LA. There is always a lane to my right and 2-3 lanes to my left, so if someone comes up on my tail and prefers to drive faster than I'm driving, all he or she needs to do is change lanes and go around me. Why do you claim that I am interfering with their driving? If they want to go fast, they should be in the fast lanes, right?

The only time I slow others down is accelerating from a stop on a single lane road. At most, they lose about 2 seconds.

Again, why is this a problem? If they are in a hurry, it's because they didn't allow enough time to get where they are going. Why is this my fault? When traffic is heavy, everyone is driving the same speed, so my driving isn't slowing anyone down at all. I do leave space between me and the car in front so I can maximize coasting, but that's a good thing. I'm averaging 5.7 miles/kWh and I get where I'm going without any stress. I always allow plenty of time so I don't feel the need to speed.

In heavy traffic, most everyone around me are tailgating, and as a consequence, they are constantly hitting their brakes. Then, when the car in front moves, these people accelerate hard to get right back on the bumper in front of them where they invariably have to brake again.

This is a massive waste of energy worldwide. Please explain to me how this is anything but bad. If you look at traffic accident stats, the vast majority of crashes involve speeding and tailgating. One crash on a busy freeway affects thousands of cars, causing even more waste. Do you folks who brag about driving fast consider the consequences of your actions?

Do you understand that any energy use creates pollution somewhere? Even if you get your electricity from renewable sources, if you waste it, those are kWh that could have been used to offset coal burning somewhere. And if you are wasting gasoline or diesel, you have the blood of dead soldiers on your hands. To those who call me smug, well I do feel good about being efficient, but smug has negative connotations that I don't think apply to me. I have no idea who you are ecEV1 driver, so maybe you have met me, but I don't think you really know me well enough to be calling me names like that.

I'm really only doing what I feel is right. You feel the need to criticize me for it. I can't, and won't, tell you what to do, but I'd ask that you either stop criticizing my hypermiling, or explain why you think it's a bad thing.

So far, you have failed at that.