BREAKING: 30 kWh 2016 Nissan LEAF Officially Gets EPA 107 Mile Rating With 116 City/95 Highway

1 year ago by Eric Loveday 79

2016 Nissan LEAF

2016 Nissan LEAF

Internal documents filed by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the 2016 Nissan LEAFs officaly gets 107 miles of combined range when equipped with the 30 kWh battery pack (SV and SL trims) – as expected/reported with Nissan’s official announcement on the EV (full details here).

However, the expanded numbers show some further breakdown on how the 107 miles is achieved, specifically that the 2016 30 kWh LEAF nets 116 miles (+24 miles over the 24 kWh “S” trim version) in the city and 95 miles (+21 miles over the 24 kWh version) on the highway.

That’s a significant improvement over the 24 kWh versions 84 miles of combined range.

2016 Nissan LEAF EPA Ratings

2016 Nissan LEAF EPA Ratings (City/Highway/Combined)

Charge time increase slightly when equipped with the 30 kWh pack (from 5 hours to 6 hours with the 6.6 kW onboard charger.

Meanwhile, efficiency figures have changed slightly too, with the bigger battery version coming in at 112 MPGe combined, while the 24 kWh version keeps its 114 MPGe rating:

2016 LEAF MPGe Figures (City/Highway/Combined)

2016 LEAF MPGe Figures (City/Highway/Combined)

2016 LEAF Ratings

2016 LEAF Ratings

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

79 responses to "BREAKING: 30 kWh 2016 Nissan LEAF Officially Gets EPA 107 Mile Rating With 116 City/95 Highway"

  1. So extra the 15 kg in battery weight cost -2 MPGe.

    Be careful what you eat, or carri g heavy gifts during upcoming holiday season. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    1. Just_Chris says:

      I’m slightly confused by the mpge numbers? I always felt bigger battery would lead to higher mpge as you can regen more, so if you could regen at 10 kW with a standard battery then you should be able to regen at 12.5 kW with a 25% bigger battery. Hopefully people will post and compare miles per kWh data.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        Nissan has always been super conservative with their regen, perhaps due to pack heating concerns.

        My guess is that their regen is not stronger in the larger pack, and maxes out at the same level.

        As a point of comparison, I believe the current LEAF will max out at something like 30kW regen in only very limited circumstances, despite a 24kWh battery.

        By comparison, the Volt’s 16kWh battery is easy to max out at 60kW of regen.

        While neither rate can be sustained, I believe it’s the Volt’s active cooling that allows them to attain the higher regen with much less concern.

        1. Anderlan says:

          Now you’ve got me wondering what the S’s regen peak is? 200kW of stopping power, all recycled? ๐Ÿ™‚

          1. mr. M says:

            according to this “” site the model s gets 60kW regen.

            btw a normal decceleration by the brakes can be up to 600kW

        2. ffbj says:

          I think the lack of active cooling is a big mistake especially in more extreme climates, not the “Goldilocks” zone, not too hot, not too cold, but just right. But, in addition as you suggest less aggressive regeneration, which in itself is not necessarily bad, but not being able to go there is a limitation.

          1. Speculawyer says:

            I agree. Living in Northern California, I can probably get away without an active thermal management system. (Actually, I do.)

            But if you live in Minnesota or Arizona, you’ll want to have a good thermal management system for your battery. And they have to build these cars for every market, not just niche markets.

        3. Anthony says:

          I was curious if the fast-charging times were improved. If what you’ve stated is right then I’m guessing no improvement in chademo charging speeds.

          1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

            The Chademo charging time is reduced, but not because the battery has higher max charge rate (it already charges at 50kW), but because the ‘sweet spot’ of a larger battery is also larger.

            24kWh battery:
            – Already on 70% of charged capacity, the charging rate has fallen a lot, and at 80% you could just as well change to the 6.6kW AC charger without losing time.

            30kWh battery:
            – you are allowed to charge at ~full 50kW speed almost all the way up to 80% (to 24kWh capacity).

            So for most practical purposes, you can now charge on the highway up to 24kWh capacity at very high charge rates – which should really mean a big difference if your travel route is ~100 miles and upward.

        4. Just_Chris says:

          That is really interesting how many miles per kWh does the volt get?

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            The Gen 1 Volt is rated at 98 MPGe. While the LEAF is rated a higher MPGe, I don’t believe the EPA tests fully take into account the differences between each of the vehicles.

            Nissan also decreased their regen beyond the low regen it already had, in a SW update a couple years ago, according to a friend of mine.

            The Volt seems to shine over the Leaf on highway travel. In addition to better aero, the Volt has a “virtual” overdrive gear it can use, where it spins up both the main traction motor and the generator motor to propel the car (still without any engine use as long as there’s charge in the battery). The result is that each motor spins slower than they would have to if only one were being used, reducing motor losses at those higher speeds.

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              I’ll also add it’s interesting how the regen translates to brake use.

              My friend’s Leaf has a bunch of brake dust on its front wheels. I have no dust on my Volt, and my rotors and brake pads still look like new. I’ve never heard of a Volt having brake dust or worn pads, even the most aggressively driven ones.

              1. David Murray says:

                There is something you migh not know about the Volt. GM used a new type of brakes that don’t emit brake dust. I’ve wondered if the 2016 volt would also get that.

                1. abc123 says:

                  Are you sure? I only read that the brakes were specially designed not to rust.

                  1. ClarksonCote says:

                    I’m also curious too. My rotors literally look new, indicating that there hasn’t been a lot of brake pad contact despite aggressive driving.

              2. MikeM says:

                I imagine driving style has a lot to do with it.
                After all, you can go tearing up to a stop sign/light and slam on the brakes just as easily in a leaf as a in Mustang.
                Plenty of friction breaking there.

                1. ClarksonCote says:

                  That’s possible, but I’ve driven the Volt pretty aggressively. The thing is, wth 60kW of regen, even common fast-stop situations do not use the brake pads much.

                  They still get used more if you have to slam on the brakes in an unanticipated stop event, sure, but otherwise, 60kW seems to do very well at minimizing brake pad usage in the Volt.

      2. Mel4EV says:

        Its more inefficient to regen due to losses converting kinetic energy to stored energy, then converting back to kinetic eg at 70% eff 0.7X0.7 = 50% efficient. Lugging the extra weight will not be offset by the bit more regen.

        1. Anderlan says:

          Exactly. You can see this in the S’s numbers. It loses MPGe with it’s 4600lbs, even though the extra above LEAF is just battery (it’s got a bigger chassis, but it’s all aluminum).

          1. Just_Chris says:

            I would be very surprised if you can regen or recover even 30% of the energy you put in but I had thought you might get a 1-5% increase in MPGe with the larger pack.

            My feeling is even the “small” 60 kWh Tesla would not be battery charge acceptance limited for the regen, especially on the rear wheel drive models. I think the MPGe did go up when they went 4WD which I assume is to do with better regen.

            Anyway it looks like Nissan have limited the car with the choice of software settings.

            1. mr. M says:

              Dual drive is more efficient because of different gear ratios. Therefore one motor is better for city driving and the other for highway driving. In normal driving one of the tow motors is used less, and therefore you get better performance, sometimes you even use only one motor.

      3. SJC says:

        MPGe numbers are misleading, they do not account for the energy used to make the electricity. If your grid is 40% efficient, the 100 MPGe number is really 40.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          MPGe is measured at the car.

          Same as ICe cars where MPG is measured at the car with how much energy is pumped into your car in terms of gasoline.

          MPGe includes charging loss which is amount of energy pumped into the car.

          Your question is absolutely baseless since nobody includes the amount of energy used to extract, refine, transport and then deliver the gasoline into the car.

          1. DonC says:

            I’m pretty sure it’s measured at the wall. They run the battery flat and then recharge, measuring how much power is used to fully recharge the battery.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              You are more correct. ๐Ÿ™‚

              Measured at Wall equals to measured at the car if the EVSE has very little loss which is generally the case.

              Most of the charging loss happens at the onboard inverters and battery unless you are talking about external DCFC.

        2. Samwise says:

          Thats about as pointless as saying 40 mpg is misleading because it depends where you get the gas, unless of course you think hydrogen powered fairies fill up every gas station every night while we are sleeping…

        3. GetItRight says:

          MPGe is not misleading and it’s simply a measure of how far an electric vehicle can travel, expressed in the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent. GGE of electricity is 33.7 kWh, as established by NIST. Other fuels like CNG, ethanol, etc. also have GGE values. As mentioned, MPGe is at wall (accounts for charger conversion losses) and MPG is at gasoline station-your fuel tank. We’ve been averaging app. 150 MPGe lately with our Leaf: 4.5 miles/kWh at wall or $.03/mile “fuel” cost.

        4. Speculawyer says:

          Uh . . . the grid is some 96% efficient.

          There is definitely efficiency lost at thermal power plants. But a combined cycle natural gas power plant is pretty twice as efficient as a typical car engine.

        5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          SJC said:

          “MPGe numbers are misleading, they do not account for the energy used to make the electricity.”

          No. That’s like saying MPG ratings for gasmobiles are “misleading” because they don’t take into account the amount of fuel burned at the refinery to power the fractional distillation stacks, or the amount of fuel used by tanker trucks delivering gasoline to the gas station. MPG is concerned only with the efficiency of the vehicle itself, not the processes necessary to produce fuel and get it into the car.

          MPGe is a bad metric, but not for the reason you cite.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Just_Chris said:

        “Iโ€™m slightly confused by the mpge numbers?”

        That’s because they’re confusing. Comparing the kWh and the EPA’s range ratings gives a pretty clear and straightforward rating for an EV’s efficiency in miles per kWh. The MPGe ratings, at least on the cars I looked at, don’t seem to correspond to miles per kWh. In other words, MPGe doesn’t appear to be a realistic measurement of an EV’s energy efficiency.

        I don’t know how MPGe is figured… and frankly, I don’t care. It’s a ridiculous metric, intended to shoehorn EVs into the pigeonhole of the same metric as measuring the amount of fuel gasmobiles burn.

        EVs are not gasmobiles with a strange kind of fuel. They actually do use a different powertrain, and it’s absurd to try to pretend they are similar. Here’s an example: Gasmobiles tend to be more efficient when driven on the highway, whereas EVs tend to be more efficient in stop-and-go traffic. So, again, trying to compare the two is simply inappropriate.

        Consumers should be given a rating in miles per kWh, and learn to use that to compare EVs. Giving them a non-meaningful metric like MPGe will just put off the day when everyone will, or at least should, understand what miles/kWh means.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “I donโ€™t know how MPGe is figuredโ€ฆ and frankly, I donโ€™t care”

          You should care so you can explain those those novices that don’t understand it.

          EPA uses 33.7kWh = 1 gallon of gasoline in energy content.

          So, if you get 3 miles/kWh, then it is 101.1 mpge (3x 33.7).

          Now, EPA rating includes the chargin loss which is about 15-18% lower than what owners can get in the real world with their onboard battery capacity and range traveled.

    2. Mark says:

      The 24 kW-hr LEAF battery pack weighs 300 Kg. If we’re increasing the pack capacity by 25 percent to 30 kW-hr, it should be reasonable to assume the weight also increases by 25 percent or 75 Kg. So more like picking up a hitchhiker, and not an extra large breakfast!

  2. kdawg says:

    “LEAF nets 116 miles (+24 miles) in the city and 95 miles (+21 miles) on the highway.”
    Did you mean +24 and -21?

    I wonder how it would do at 75mph at 10 degrees Fahrenheit?

    1. Jay Cole says:

      No, meant +24 miles city over the 24 kWh version, and +21 miles highway over the 24 kWh version. Probably didn’t make that clear enough in the story…will suss that out a bit more now, (=

    2. Assaf says:

      …and I wonder how it would do at 90-95 kph and 20-25 degrees C out. Probably close to 200km ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. kdawg says:

        “My car gets 40 rods to the hogs head, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Grandpa Simpson.

        1. ffbj says:

          Well if that doesn’t deserve a:

          I don’t know what does.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I don’t care how you measure fuel consumption, so long as speed is expressed in units of furlongs per fortnight.

  3. Assaf says:

    Oh, I thought we already had the official #s when the sticker came out?

    Btw, seems like the highway/high-speed range got a slightly larger bump (+28%, vs. +26% for the city range). Nice.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Yes, the sticker had the net range of the 30 kWh LEAF (107 miles), but there was no expanded data on the city/highway numbers and charging numbers – and it wasn’t actually listed on the EPA database until now.

  4. GeorgeS says:

    are they using a bigger part of the battery??

    The range numbers don’t scale by 30/24 for Hwy even though the MPGe is the same.

    1. mr. M says:

      I bet they reserve the same part of the battery:

      24kWh all / 21.3 kWh usable
      30kWh all / 27.3 kWh usable

      2.7kWh as reserve in both cases, but
      88.75% usable (24kWh)
      91.00% usable (30kWh)

  5. Taser54 says:

    So at least 52Kwh for a 200 mile range leaf?

    1. Alex says:

      I bet 48 kWh with other improvements (motor, weight, CX) to get the Leaf 2.0 to the 200 miles range.

    2. Warren says:

      The Leaf has more frontal area, and a higher drag coefficient than a 60 kWh, 208 mile range Tesla S. It is steel vs aluminum construction.

      Unless the hypothetical 200 mile range Leaf is significantly smaller than the current model, and made from carbon fiber, it will require at least a 60 kWh pack.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        LG Chem has said that their new cells can be used with a deeper DoD (Depth of Discharge), suggesting EV makers may be able to use a lower number of kWh to achieve the same range. It’s not quite certain that Nissan will be using LG Chem’s chemistry, but there are at least hints this is so; Nissan’s partner, Daimler, has made some sort of licensing agreement and/or technology-sharing agreement with LG Chem.

        I’m guessing the Leaf 2.0 will be much closer to 50 kWh than 60. In fact, it may be slightly less than 50 kWh.

        1. Warren says:

          Yes. How much usable energy is in a battery is not as easy to determine, as how usable energy is in a gas tank.

          The Leaf EPA window sticker is a perfect example. If this site is correct,

          “The EPA MPGe rating shown in the Monroney label is based on the consumption of the on-board energy content stored in the fuel tank or in the vehicle’s battery, or any other energy source, and only represents the tank-to-wheel energy consumption.”

          the “24” kWh battery uses 24.8 kWh to go 84 miles. The “30” kWh battery uses 32.2 kWh to go 107 miles. ๐Ÿ™‚

          1. Warren says:

            I see others think it is the wall-to-wheels efficiency. I certainly hope this is not the case. That would make it pretty useless. The efficiency of the 3.3 kW , and 6.6 kW onboard chargers likely are not the same, and they sure as hell aren’t the same as the CHADEMO. ๐Ÿ™

            1. GetItRight says:

              It’s from the wall. See here:


              What’s not explained is the slight discrepancy between MPGe and measured efficiency multiplied by 33.7.

    3. ModernMarvelFan says:

      I am guessing 60kWh with 57kWh usable.

    4. mr. M says:

      27kWh (usable?) / 107 * 200 = 50.5 kWh
      So something around 52kWh seems to be correct.

      A Leaf with 48kWh and around 45kWh usable would lead only to 178 miles EPA range. This is not what i hope for. I hope they can get the car to be 5% more efficient. This would result in 187 miles. But i really hope Nissan sticks to the 200 miles car, especially since Goshn said the competitors will be supprised by the range.

  6. Anon says:

    Finally, a bigger battery. Did Nissan tweak any performance in the controller to allow faster 30 – 60 times? That would certainly help Leaf sales.

  7. SparkEV says:

    I can’t wait for bigger battery Leaf to start using “no charge to occupy fast charge spot while slow charging”. With bigger battery, maybe they’ll take couple of more 30 minute freebies while having everyone else wait. Ughh!!!

    1. ffbj says:

      An interesting conundrum.

    2. Josh says:

      So EVs owners are turning into this generation’s version of sailboat owners (hogging free dock space and stealing the toilet paper) ๐Ÿ˜‰

      1. MikeM says:

        Just to be clear:
        I stole the toilet paper long before I ever owned a sailboat.

  8. Speculawyer says:

    Nice. So if someone builds a more aerodynamic car than the LEAF and puts in a 55KWH battery, they should be able to hit 200 miles range.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      You mean Bolt? 18.4kWh x 3 is 55.2kWh.

      1. Speculawyer says:

        Yeah, that is a good example. Although I don’t think the Bolt has as good aerodynamics as I’d like.

        People need to steal from Tesla’s design. They really got it right.

  9. Ian says:

    The 6 year race to build an entry level EV.

  10. Nix says:

    cool, the Leaf finally gets the range that was teased to us before it was released. They had said 100 miles of range (160 Kilometers) way back in 2010:

    (based on US LA4 mode)

    1. DonC says:

      Funny. Very funny.

    2. mr. M says:

      84 miles in the actual EPA cycle probably are close to 100 miles in the US LA4 cycle.

  11. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Nissan should have done this long time ago.

    It would reduce battery degradation issue. It would reduce battery overheating issue.
    It would reduce lack of range issue.

    Bigger battery helps all of that problem with lower C rate and more energy.

    The only problem is cost but the original LEAF was more expensive anyway.

    1. BraveLilToaster says:

      Yeah, if only they’d managed to magic the new, cheaper battery into existence 4 years ago!

      With that kind of logic, I’m going to make a killing by building web servers with computers from the future. I’d put Amazon Cloud Services out of business by the end of the year!

      1. Anon says:

        Part of the problem is that Nissan engineered a very “middle of the road” battery, full of compromises. They knowingly declined to use additives that prevented thermal degradation, and put it in a vehicle that didn’t have much in the way of a thermal management system. All in the name of cost saving.

        So no one should be surprised at what happened in places like Arizona or Texas with those vehicles.

  12. Andrew says:

    Curious why they always list the charging time as 5 hours at 6.6kW. I’ve never come close to charging my Leaf for 5 hours from <10% to 100%, more like just over 3 hours (when brand new).

    Sure if you are doing a full balancing charge it might take 5 hours for it to cut out by itself, but in terms of availability to drive again with a full battery, it seems odd that they would advertise a time to charge so much longer than what it actually takes!

    1. TimE says:

      Your experience is similar to mine – I distinctly remember timing how long I charged starting from 10% and up to 80% – a 70% charge in 2 hours flat. Time to go from 80 to 96% – about another 30 minutes. The final 3 to 4% is where the tapering really occurs quickly slowing from 6.6KW down to .5KW, then the final 1% technically goes from no power draw for about 10 minutes, then charging at .5KW for 3 minutes, then repeat that cycle about 6 times over more than an hour. It does make me wonder a bit though why 70% is 13.2 KWh – converting that to 100% would be 18.85, that leaves 5 KWh unaccounted for – given you have a little over 2 KWh in reserve, is that last 3 KWh really all at the 0% point where it won’t really tell you how much or how far you have left? I’ve never ran my Leaf lower than 7% charge.

      It gets really interesting watching your EV charging session when you have an eGauge energy monitoring system!

      I anxiously look forward to the 30 KWh battery – I will likely return my leased 2013 Leaf and buy one with a 30 KWh battery. While it is certainly far from the 150 to 200 mile range I really want, it is definitely a good improvement in the right direction.

  13. Lad says:

    107 miles is NOT news…200 miles is news

    1. Ben Anderson says:


    2. Speculawyer says:

      Meh . . . 107 is news. It beats the current LEAF, the Fiat 500e, the Spark EV, the BMW i3, the Ford Focus Electric, the Honda Fit, etc.

      It is a step forward to be appreciated. Yes, we all look forward to affordable 200 mile range EVs but I think we’ll have to wait a couple years for that.

  14. MarkSTJ says:

    At what speed is the highway number reached? Are they saying at 65 mph I could drive 95 miles on a flat interstate? Also, when will this car be in dealers?

  15. Robert says:

    I think I have seen stories on 2 to 3 Aero kits or Mods on the Tesla Model S, but don’t remember seeing any Aerodymamic Mods or Kits for the LEAF! I wonder why that is with more of them out there than Tesla’s so far! If it is so easy to make it more attractive And aero, why has no one figured it out?

    1. Josh says:

      The LEAF does have an aero kit,, but in Japan only.

      For the Model S aero kits, I would be willing to bet the kits have a worse Cd than the original Tesla design. The Tesla aero team has far more resources than the aftermarkets. This is the truck “aerogate” issue all over again.

  16. Luca says:

    Finally a believable range figure for the 30kWh battery of the Leaf! I was very tired of reading the 250km range advertised in Europe. If it is too much above 5km/kWh I do not believe it!

    1. mr. M says:

      Sure. This is as expected, the NEDC was never close to reality. The average speed of the EPA city cylce (34.1 km/h = 21.2 mph) is faster than the average speed of the whole NEDC (33.6 km/h = 21 mph). The slower you drive, the further you can go.

      But below 20km/h range is going down again due to rolling resistance i think.

    2. MikeM says:

      Well, I dunno!

      I fairly routinely get >5mi/kWh (8km/kWh) in a Leaf while puttering gently around town in the off-season for heating or A/C, especially if staying off the freeways.
      (And yes, puttering gently along the freeway does bring its own unique kind of excitement).

      So as an admittedly cherry picked measure, 200km range wouldn’t be too far off. Maybe NEDC has its own perverse logic.

  17. JohanQwerty says:

    This this has the same range as a Rav4 EV 2 years later? Not impressed. Also this is one of the top 5 ugliest cars on the road today.
    At least this is a real BEV, nothing worse than a volt taking up a charging space for several hours.