BREAKING: 2018 Nissan LEAF Gets 151-Mile EPA Range Rating, MPGe/Efficiency Disappoints


2018 Nissan LEAF – Nissan’s Site Hasn’t Been Updated Yet To Include The 151-Mile Official Rating

It’s just 1 mile more than predicted, but at least it’s not less.

The new 40-kWh 2018 Nissan LEAF has official EPA ratings now and the numbers do and don’t disappoint.

The all-important range figure checks in at 151 miles, just 1 above Nissan’s estimated of 150 miles.

Meanwhile, MPGe checks in at a disappointing 112 combined. The breakdown is 125 MPGe city and 100 MPGe highway. We say these figures disappoint because they are actually lower than the 24-kWh LEAF from 2015 and 2016. Yes, a bigger, heavier battery should hurt efficiency, but we had figured gains were made elsewhere to offset this. Looks like that wasn’t the case.

LEAF EPA Ratings

Energy consumption for all of the LEAFs above are identical too at 30 kWh per 100 miles.

Prior to learning that the new LEAF wouldn’t get the bigger 60-kWh battery until 2019, we lumped it in as a competitor to the Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3, but with its tiny 40-kWh battery, it no longer competes against those two vehicles, at least not until next year with the higher capacity battery arrives. However, for efficiency comparison purposes, here’s a look at those three vehicles, as rated by the EPA:

EPA Ratings Of 2018 LEAF, Bolt And Tesla Model 3

As you can see, the LEAF is the least efficient of the lot, consuming 30 kWh per 100 miles, compared to the Bolt’s 28 and the Model 3’s 26. And in the MPGe category, the new 2018 LEAF fares the worse of the 3 too.

If Nissan could up the LEAF’s efficiency, a range bump would come too. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as though Nissan is all that focused on the efficiency side of the equation.

Category: Nissan

Tags: , , , ,

152 responses to "BREAKING: 2018 Nissan LEAF Gets 151-Mile EPA Range Rating, MPGe/Efficiency Disappoints"
  1. simone says:

    for efficiency the best car is the Hyundai Ioniq , even with just 28kwh battery have a real world range much better than the 30 kwh Leaf.
    Another car to compare to the LEaf is the Reanult Zoe with the 41 kwh battery and a real world range close to the Bolt ev.

    1. Robb Stark says:

      Ioniq EV has a crappy range of 110 miles equivalent to 1st gen EVs.

      And the Zoe is just a crappy too little car.

      A good EV is a balance of size, range, efficiency,and real world charging speeds.

      1. Arpe says:

        The Zoe is bigger than you might think. We have a VW Polo and a Zoe both 2013 year models, and the Zoe can store more luggage.

        It is a great car for the European market.

        1. Assaf says:

          First 2 comments make sweeping statements with glaring factual errors? (@simone, @Robb, here’s looking at you…)

          – par for the IEV comment section course ๐Ÿ™‚
          At least someone with an actual firsthand experience (@Arpe) could correct one of the errors.

          That said, yes 2018 Leaf efficiency is disappointing, in particular – somehow not noticed in the story – the gap between city and highway MPGe, which is much larger than for the Bolt and Model 3.

          However, the hope/expectation is that Nissan is going for market volume and ROI with this one, not for Wow specs. And globally, not just in the US. We’ve all seen far crappier ICE cars get sold by the million, while the Volt and Bolt, both true engineering wonder (esp. considering its timing and who made it), struggle to get mainstream acceptance, with GM failing to realize where their best markets and market segments might be.

          Btw, to the author: energy consumption and MPGe are basically just reciprocals to each other (times a numerical factor), so no need to emphasize how both look worse. They are essentially the same piece of information.

        2. arne-nl says:

          I drove a Zoe for 3 years, and it is a small car. The boot is ok. At the expense of the rear seat, which is very, very cramped. Not usable for adults.

          And crappy? Yeah I would somewhat agree (It is a Renault after all). Had my share of thingies needing a fix. And the interior materials were indeed very econobox-class.

          Oh, and this whole panel gap discussion of the Model 3? Haha, from the photo’s they’re way better than those on my Zoe. And Renault has been in business for more than a century…

          In the mean time I drive a LEAF. Way, way better, except for the navigation.

          The mobile apps are utter crap for both vehicles.

          1. arne-nl says:

            In case anyone wonders: yes, that Zoe was my first and last Renault.

      2. cmina says:

        Winter weather (5 Celsius and wet) tested range of 108 miles.
        No real world test of fully DC fast charging this pack yet ..

      3. CarGuy says:

        Like a Model 3?

      4. mx says:

        Here’s Dollar and Fun Efficiency.
        A CPO BMW i3 REX: $22,000.
        Pays for itself in fuel savings, and great power, fun, nimble and efficiency.

        1. BenG says:

          I like the i3 EV and i3 REx, but I cringe to think of the cost of maintenance and repair after the warranty is over, and of depreciation during time of ownership.

          I bought a used 2012 Volt Premier, 34k miles, cherry condition summer of 2016, for $14k. I anticipate that repairs, if necessary, will be far more affordable than for a BMW. Purchase price is obviously much lower, so depreciation won’t be as bad. And I get 4 real doors.

          I’m sure I’d enjoy the Beemer, but I’m not willing to pay the price and costs. Love my Volt, though sometimes I do wish it were a bit quicker and tighter handling. It’s been very reliable, only problem so far was a charging cord repair. I haven’t even had to change the oil in it yet, lol.

        2. stimpy says:

          You can easily buy a CPO i3 for under $20k.

          The depreciation is not going to be pretty, and I’d be at least somewhat concerned about what happens when BMW (likely) discontinues the i3 entirely. How soon will the single manufacturer of those odd size tires decide to drop them from production?

      5. protomech says:

        Ioniq EV is rated at 124 miles. That’s 82% of the new LEAF’s range, from a pack that is 70% as large. Too bad you can’t buy one.

        If the Ioniq gets fitted with the 64 kWh pack, it should have well over 250 miles of range.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “If the Ioniq gets fitted with the 64 kWh pack, it should have well over 250 miles of range.”

          Well, if the Ioniq Electric gets a 64 kWh battery pack, then hopefully Hyundai will upgrade the battery cooling system from the current forced-air cooling to liquid cooling.

          Similarly, let us hope that when Nissan starts producing a 200+ mile version of the Leaf next year, or late this year, that they will finally upgrade the car with a liquid cooling system for the pack.

          If they don’t, then let’s not pretend that either car will be a real competitor for the TM3 or the Bolt EV.

          1. William says:

            That would be true for the indoctrinatated knowledgeable current EV owners, but first time EV shoppers, may be more susceptible to purchasing/leasing a comprised TMS EV battery pack. Tesla needs to get through their backlog, of 400k + Model 3 preorders, and get availablity out to the masses.

      6. menorman says:

        Ioniq EV is EPA-rated for 124 miles per charge and there are plenty of user reports from people who are getting closer to 150.

        1. Asak says:

          I wouldn’t go by anything other than EPA range. Anything else is comparing apples to oranges. I can probably get 100 miles out of my e-Golf too, maybe even a bit more. All it takes is driving more conservatively. Simply dropping down to 55 mph you can stretch your range by probably 25% (just top of my head estimation).

          So, by that same token you can probably get 175-180 out of the Leaf, and probably somewhere near 300 out of the Bolt. You can easily exceed the EPA on all these EVs in ideal conditions if you know what you’re doing.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…there are plenty of user reports from people who are getting closer to 150.”

          There are plenty of hypermiling brag posts for every make and model of EV, and unfortunately those often come from people who deny they are using hypermiling techniques!

          Best to stick to the actual EPA rated ranges, unless reports the results of its own tests for that car. Unfortunately, there are a lot of car models which go untested by Edmunds.

    2. Jerico says:

      The ZOE has a real world range compared to Bolt?? Check the numbers again.

      1. simone says:

        just after the Bolt the Zoe 41kw is the greatest range available in “normal car” , also the Bolt in cold climate may reduce the range more than the Zoe

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “The ZOE has a real world range compared to Bolt?? Check the numbers again.”

        Yeah, for the Zoe he’s probably talking about the NEDC (European test cycle) range numbers, which are almost always pretty far away from real-world numbers. The EPA’s rating system seems to be pretty close in most cases for EVs… but unfortunately still not that close for gasmobiles.

        “NEDC” and “real-world” should never appear in the same sentence. Kinda like “president” and “Trump”. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    3. eltosho says:

      The “real world range” of the ZOE 40 is 160-170 miles….

      1. Cavaron says:

        I can confirm that.

    4. Mint says:

      Why would you compare the Ioniq with the 2017 Leaf? Not only is the old Leaf obsolete, but Hyundai only shipped a mere 432 to the US in 2017.

      Efficiency alone is of low priority for EVs, and it’s really only important as a means to get more range. Since the current Leaf has a lot more range in the end, the Ioniq’s efficiency doesn’t mean much aside from saving you $40-100 per year.

      1. simone says:

        in some other market the Ioniq sold as the Leaf or more , also the Ioniq as real world range is in between the 30kwh Leaf and the 40 kwh Leaf but thanks to the better efficiency is faster at charging both at the DC and the DC charging point ( Ioniq and leaf have both a 6kw charger but the same power on the Ioniw allows you to do more range with the same charging time)

  2. GSP says:

    Who cares about “mpge?”

    I never put a gallon of anything in my EV. Except maybe windshield wiper fluid. Mpge is a totally meaningless number.

    Please just report the kWh/100 miles consumption ratings. I do buy kWh for my EV, so that number has meaning.



    1. 2013Volt says:

      It is a useful figure because it allows people coming from the ICE world and buying their first EV an easy way to compare efficiency. It also shows them how much more efficient an EV is compared to an ICE vehicle. I agree it is am off measurement but the reason for using it is sound. Once Evs are the norm I am sure MPGe will be replaced. I personally prefer miles per kWh but kWh per 100 miles works as well.

      1. Mikael says:

        So you are counting in the US adopting smarter units? ๐Ÿ˜‰

        2248 called and wondered why the US are using MPGe on their fusion powered wormhole opening gates.

        1. philip d says:

          They also have a hard time imagining what it would look like to have the power from 1,000,000 horses operating the fusion powered wormhole opening gates.

          1. Davek says:

            I feel I should also protest the use of the metric kWh as a unit electrical energy. Any really patriotic American should spit on the quasi-socialist metric kWh and use BTUs instead. Or ft-lbs. Or Horsepower-hours. Any of those would be fine.

            Here’s a challenge: New Leaf has a 106 million foot-pound battery and uses 1.27 billion BTUs per mile. Have fun solving for the range.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:


              kWh/mile is yet another silly non-standard unit reminding of British Empire. So you may be happy, it is completely different from what the rest of the world uses and International system of units (SI) doesn’t want to to anything with it ๐Ÿ˜‰

              SI unit for power is Watt (J/s), or kgโ‹…m2โ‹…sโˆ’3. Distance is not needed for fixed test cycle.

              Or if you insist on distance, you may go with J/m (kgโ‹…mโ‹…sโˆ’2).

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              BTUs? British Thermal Units?!?!

              Fie upon those British units. How UnAmerican of you!

              Heat must be measured in terms of teslas, which will be a bit awkward since that’s a unit of magnetic field strength, but we must reject any metrics based on English/British scientists such as Newton or Joule! Or better yet, let’s invent our own unit for heat and call it the edison.

              Furthermore, I insist we Make America Great Again by expressing all speeds in terms of furlongs per fortnight.

              (And don’t try to tell me furlongs or fortnights are British units. That’s just fake news!)

              1. William says:

                Are “Furlongs and Fortnights” considered the same factual measurements as, the legitimate Chinese LeEco EV equity investment contracts, known as “Faraday Futures”?

                Faux Business News doesn’t cover these sophisticated equity investment vehicles!

      2. stan1 says:

        MPGe is the complete opposite of a useful number. MPG itself is already a misleading metric. The relative value of each mile improvement declines exponentially as MPG rises. An improvement from 10 to 11 MPG, saves the same fuel as an improvement from 16.5 to 20, or from 33 to 50 MPG. Low MPG vehicles use substantially more fuel than high MPG vehicles.

        MPG is bad enough as a metric, but MPGe makes it worse by confusing electricity usage with petroleum usage under the guise of an efficiency measure. Most of the social reasons we care about efficiency in petroleum-fueled vehicles simply do not exist for electrically-driven vehicles or exist at massively lower levels.

        For petroleum combustion vehicles, increased efficiency directly reduces emissions responsible for increased health costs and death. It reduces the economic and political influence of foreign powers. It reduces capital outflows. Fuel economy requirements associated with MPG were created to address these many social issues.

        These issues are generally much lower or non-existent for electrically driven products. Virtually the only reason to care about efficiency in an EV powered by wind, solar, hydro or sustainable biofuels is the vehicle’s usability. And the mere existence of the EV as a dispatchable load helps enable increased the amounts of variable renewables on the grid.

        An efficiency improvement in petroleum combustion therefore delivers significantly more social value than an equivalent efficiency improvement in an EV. Reporting the efficiency differences between these two technologies by converting electricity into gallons per the MPGe metric specifically omits those massive differences. It instead creates a false equivalence in the actual value of efficiency for each technology.

        The number MPGe provides is therefore extremely misleading. The social value difference between the best and worst EVs is is zero on an MPG scale.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          So then, I would guess you would favor rating energy efficiency as kWh/mile rather than miles/kWh? (Or kWh/km rather than km/kWh?)

      3. wavelet says:

        We know why some people came up with MPGe, but it’s still a completely idiotic concept and unit. The fact the EPA publishes it doesn’t mean it has to be referenced here. Instead, much more relevant would be giving the BEV’s efficiency in tabular form, for various combinations of temps. and speeds.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “We know why some people came up with MPGe, but itโ€™s still a completely idiotic concept and unit. The fact the EPA publishes it doesnโ€™t mean it has to be referenced here.”

          Indeed. We should set an example by using miles/kWh or kWh/mile in preference to the misleading metric of MPGe.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        2013Volt said:

        “Once Evs are the norm I am sure MPGe will be replaced.”

        No, I think that if the government had put stickers on the Model T using “BHDe” (Bales of Hay per Day equivalent), to spoonfeed fuel efficiency ratings to horse-and-buggy drivers, then we’d still be using that stupid BHDe metric today to measure the fuel efficiency of gasmobiles.

        The U.S. of A. is, after all, the only sizable country in the entire world which still isn’t using the metric system as its official standard.

        “I personally prefer miles per kWh but kWh per 100 miles works as well.”

        And since the EPA’s Monterey sticker includes a “__ kWh/100 mi” rating, then shouldn’t we EV advocates be using that instead of the nonsensical “MPGe” rating? It’s just my opinion of course, but it seems to me the “MPGe” label is an effort to convince would-be EV buyers that EVs are just gasmobiles which use a special kind of fuel.

        I think we EV advocates should celebrate the differences between PEVs and gasmobiles, not try to minimize them!

        Up the EV revolution!

    2. Viking79 says:

      MPGe includes charging losses, so is a valuable figure. You can also easily convert to whatever you want as well, wh/m or whatever you want too

      1. Viking79 says:

        To get MPGe to miles per kwh is very easy, divide by 33.4. So 112 MPGe is 3.35 miles per kwh, including charging loss.

        1. Dee says:

          How do they get to 151 miles?

          112/33.4=3.35 m/kwh x 40kwh= 134.1 miles

          125/33.4=3.74 m/kwh x 40kwh= 149.7 miles

          100/33.4 = 2.99 m/kwh x 40kwh= 119.7 miles

          1. Brian says:

            You are forgetting about charging losses. Also, the advertised battery size is 40kWh, but we don’t know how much of that is usable. The original Leaf had a “24kWh” battery, but you could only use 21kWh. The Bolt has a “60kWh” battery, and you can seemingly use 60kWh. So the meaning of that number varies widely.

            1. ggpa says:


              Please tell more about ‘charging losses’. Is this just a general EPA fudge factor or something specific to Leaf. How does it help anyone decide what EV is better than another?

              1. Magnus H says:

                If it’s anything like the WLTP rating, they see how many kWh it takes to charge back to full after driving the test cycle.

                It matters or those who considers how many kWh they have to buy from the utilities to drive a km.

              2. Brian says:

                It’s not a fudge factor, nor unique to the Leaf. The EPA efficiency tells you how far you can drive based on the amount of energy you pull from the wall, in other words, the energy you pay for. So if you have a very efficient car with a poor charger, it could have the same MPGe rating as a less efficient car with a top-of-the-line charger.

                Basically MPGe lets you compute cost-per-mile. It does not tell you how far you can drive based on the battery size.

                1. ggpa says:

                  Brian – if it is not a fudge factor, is it actually measured for each type of vehicle? How is this done?

                  Do you have more information or are you just making this up?

                  1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

                    It’s not a fudge.

                    Run tests.
                    Charge again recording total electricity used.

                    Pretty simple really.

                    1. ggpa says:

                      Hmmm … it is not a fudge because you say so. Right ….

                      Please post a link … so we know you are not just speculating/making this up.

                      If this is a thing that is useful, please share more information.

                      I understand it is not about the money, so let’s make it about real, verifiable facts!

              3. Bill Howland says:

                Brian, I was under the impression that Charging Losses were included in the MPGE figure, in that the efficiency comparison starts where the gasoline pump nozzle enters the tank and analogously the efficiency is compared from the start of the wallbox connector, therefore, charging/discharging losses are included since they take the power consumption from the revenue meter on the side of the house, not from the listed battery capacity alone.

            2. James says:

              Assuming similar ratio as the 24kWh version, the usable capacity for the 2018 will be 35kWh. So the on board power consumption will be 23kwh/100miles.

              That implies a charging efficiency of 77%, which agrees with my measurement with 120V charging on my C Max. However, level 2 charging should be more efficient (usually >=85%).

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                You shouldn’t assume a larger battery pack will have the same ratio between full capacity and usable capacity as a smaller pack. Larger packs get cycled fewer times, don’t wear out as fast, and don’t need as large a buffer to allow for aging.

                A better rule of thumb would be to assume the larger pack has the same number of kWh reserve capacity as the smaller pack. In fact it may be even a bit less, but assuming the same number of kWh will likely put you closer to the true value.

                A paltry 77% charging efficiency would suggest something is wrong somewhere. More likely something wrong with your premises or math than something wrong with the charger.

    3. Davek says:

      I couldn’t agree more. Except to say that metric units would also be nice! Especially considering what we’ve established about the readership on this site…

      And if we’re interested in including charging losses and not just consumption (which frankly I’m not really), that could also best be stated as a kW or kWh figure, as far as I’m concerned.

      Also, Watts are already a metric unit, so the whole mix and match thing with Wh/mi is kind of silly. But that is a different can of worms.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        My Dad was an enthusiastic supporter of the Metric System, but I was never impressed by it.

        The beauty of the centuries-old English system was the units are related to commonly recognizeable things, namely London Draw Horses, the Kings Foot and finger (inch), pound weight, etc.

        When someone tells me sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, I can easily visualize a pound, and a square inch.

        I have more difficulty with 101,000 Pascals.

        Electric units are at least universally metric, as well as TIME. Be satisfied with that level of commonality.

        1. Davek says:

          Meh, it depends what you’ve grown up with, if course. A Pascal is equal to one Newton per square metre, or roughly the weight of 100g. So 101kPa is equal to roughly 10 tonnes resting on a square metre surface. Picture column of water three stories high. I sort of grew up with both systems, but most of my friends in Germany can’t figure out feet and inches half as well as they can figure out a metre. For one thing feet are all different sizes! And you have to have pretty chunky thumbs for the inch thing to work. And don’t get me started on horses. I live in a city, how the hell should I know how much work a horse can do? I’ve got zero feel for that.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Also, Watts are already a metric unit, so the whole mix and match thing with Wh/mi is kind of silly. But that is a different can of worms.”

        While I completely agree that it would be best if everyone would simply start using the metric system for everything (or nearly*), so long as U.S. speed limit signs read “MPH” and not “KPH”, and highways have mile markers rather than km markers, then it seems best to stick to the awkward yardstick of miles per kWh, or kWh per mile.

        *“All generalizations are false, including this one.” — Mark Twain

        1. Davek says:

          KPH is an abomination. Kilometres are km, not K. k would be just kilo, which is a prefix! What is “P”!? Poise? That’s measure of viscosity! And hours are a small h. So I prefer not to measure speeds in kilopoise-hours. Please, km/h or MPH, if you must, but if you’re going to use the metric system, let’s not misuse it.

    4. mx says:

      Miles per kWh is easier to understand.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        There is little to understand here, just compare numbers.

        What makes sense is comparing $/year. If you want to do you own calculations, you would know that GE (gasoline gallon equivalent) is 33.4 kWh. If not, EPA & DOE have website that does fuel economy calculations from your input.

  3. terminaltrip421 says:

    so the model 3 is more efficient than the ‘s’, right? I thought I had read here the S was particularly inefficient at least compared to the bolt or maybe the leaf?

    1. Ambulator says:

      Using rare earth magnets in motors really does help. The Bolt and the Model 3 do, the Models S and X don’t.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        “Rare Earths” help establish the Oersteds required – but the main point is the Permanent Magnet motor used is of higher efficiency than the old-school induction models used in the 1st Roadster, S, and X since there are no rotor currents, there are no rotor current losses.

        The higher Flux-density such materials allow mean that the motor can be pushed harder prior to demagnitizing it which in effect ruins it.

        Almost all PM motors MUST be used with a controller to limit the power going to it, lest this happen.

    2. mx says:

      The new Leaf is faster, does it have a larger motor?
      Does the EPA do acceleration in this test?

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “so the model 3 is more efficient than the โ€˜sโ€™, right?”

      Sure. It’s a smaller car, with about equally aggressive streamlining and similar acceleration, so naturally the TM3 uses few kWh per mile.

      “I thought I had read here the S was particularly inefficient at least compared to the bolt or maybe the leaf?”

      You can unfortunately read a lot of Tesla bashing FUD from a few serial Tesla bashers here.

      Here are the facts, per the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s website (link below):

      The 2017 Tesla Model S AWD – 90D is rated by the EPA at 32 kWh/100 miles, vs. the 2017 Nissan Leaf at 30 kWh/100 miles. (The “P” performance versions of the Model S are less efficient… which is also expected.)

      For the much heavier and much more powerful Model S, that surprisingly small difference in efficiency strongly indicates superior engineering as compared to the Leaf.

      And no, it has almost nothing to do with permanent magnet motors vs. induction motors. That’s a trivial difference, and has more to do with cost than efficiency. Tesla was using induction motors because permanent magnets were quite expensive, but now that a way has been found to make those cheaper, Tesla has switched to permanent magnet motors.

  4. simone says:

    here is the link to the spec of the car
    136 MPGe
    124 Miles Range

    with just a 28kwh battery

    1. R.S says:

      Will be interesting to see how far the Kona EV with itโ€™s rumored 64 kWh pack will get. And if they put that pack in the Ioniq.

      A 64 kWh Ioniq could be a really high range car!

      1. Jerico says:

        It’s rumored that the battery is the same as Bolt so expect similar range.

        1. R.S says:

          But the Ioniq is a quite bit more efficient, the Kona might be similar to the Bolt, though.

          I expect the Inoiq range to be around 270 miles, if it gets the 64 kWh battery. They said they want to go above 200 miles in 2018, but the Ioniq doesn’t need 64 kWh for that.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            The Ioniq trades away power/performance for energy efficiency. This is pretty clear if you look at the 0-60 time of 8.1 seconds, altho that still beats the 2016 Leaf SL’s wimpy performance of 10.0 seconds.

            By comparison, the Bolt EV is rated at 6.4 seconds, and of course a comparison to any Tesla car would be completely unfair. ๐Ÿ˜‰


        2. Neromanceres says:

          Battery can’t be the same as the Bolt as Hyundai would be never allowed to use GM IP.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Of course it’s not the same. The Hyundai Ioniq Electric uses an inferior forced-air cooling system for battery cooling, whereas the Bolt EV properly uses a liquid cooling system.

        3. Neromanceres says:

          Keep in mind a 64KWh battery is going to weight a lot more than a 28KWh battery which will affect both performance and efficiency.

      2. DurkleGT says:

        The 60 kWh pack going into the Niro is the one I would expect to end up in the Ioniq as they share powertrains otherwise (and platform). The Ioniq upgraded from 28 kWh and 88 kW motor to 150 kW motor and 60 kWh would be a HUGE upgrade and make the car outstanding.

      3. Dan says:

        I don’t think the 60 kwh battery will fit well, if at all in the Ioniq. The 28 kwh battery already makes a raised trunk floor.

        They do claim that a longer range version is coming but as a first step they could start bringing the current model, which supposedly came out about a year ago, in more than trivial numbers..

    2. Marcel g says:

      The Ioniq has a 31kwh battery, but Hyundai chooses to list the useable capacity, which is 28kwh.

      Nissan lists the full capacity, so the useable capacity is likely around 36kwh.

      The new leaf is disappointing in it’s efficiency, but it still looks like a vastly improved vehicle. And it will be available to purchase, whereas the waiting times for the Ioniq are so long that it’s really vapourware for most people.

      I’m a fan of both, but the Leaf will make a bigger difference in terms of getting more EVs on the road.

  5. bro1999 says:

    Like I said, the Ghetto Bolt.

    1. eltosho says:

      And the Bolt would be the Ghetto Model 3

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            You must really think the Bolt EV is garbage, or you wouldn’t resort to FUD and lies about the Tesla Model 3.

            Sad for you, GM fanboy!

            Personally, I think the Bolt EV is a pretty good BEV, aside from the uncomfortable front seats and the lack of DCFC charging as standard equipment. Too bad that GM chooses to build fewer of them than there is demand for.

        1. Marcel g says:

          Short sellers trying to get some of their money back trying to make a story out of old news.

          1. PHEVfan says:

            Old news? The insideevs article referenced is not even 24 hours old.

      1. Asak says:

        The Bolt and Model 3 don’t even have the same shape to them. One is a small hatchback, while the other is a sedan. Meanwhile the Bolt and Leaf are pretty close, so I think it’s more of an apt comparison.

        That being said, I can’t even stand to sit in the Bolt, so I’d be more likely to get an “inferior” Leaf. Though I won’t even be in the market again for a few years.

    2. Nick says:

      In some ways.

      Still has pro pilot, better seats, and CHAdeMO. These are the high points.

      1. bro1999 says:

        CHAdeMO I would consider a negative, as Nissan/Mitsu are standing on an island. Just about every other manufacturer outside of Tesla and their proprietary standard are on the CCS wagon.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          How exactly it helps when you helplessly stand in front of Chademo only plug and are out of range to reach next charger with CCS plug?

          Sure it will gradually change over few years down the road. Around the time your leased car will be at auction looking for new owner you should be fine ๐Ÿ˜‰

          1. bro1999 says:

            The only public, non-Nissan dealer CHAdeMO only fast charging stations I’ve seen in person were Blink stations installed in PA….before the CCS standard was finalized (thus the lack of CCS). Odds are even if my Bolt could have used those stations, they would have been broken because….Blink.

            How many CHAdeMO only stations actually exist in the US? Has to be a very tiny number.

            When CCS eventually wins out over CHAdeMO (at least in the states), I’m sure the EVSE suppliers will be happy, because then they won’t have to build every station with dual CCS/CHAdeMO plugs.

            1. protomech says:

              “How many CHAdeMO only stations actually exist in the US? Has to be a very tiny number.”

              Most of the DCQC stations in Nashville are CHAdeMO-only; specifically, 11 CHAdeMO stations within a 20 mile radius of downtown, vs 3 CCS stations.

              Nationally, in 2017 CHAdeMO charging stations outnumbered CCS by about 46%. Tesla has about as many as both combined.


              By the numbers, at least 500 of those connectors would be CHAdeMO only.

    3. William says:

      Hood Rats love the “Ghetto Bolt”, especially when you get the right matching shade of lip gloss on the “Lipsticked Pig”!

      bro1999 AKA “Leaf Lover”, does appreciate it when EV makeup is applied with “innovation that excites”!

  6. Viking79 says:

    The headline might be a bit dramatic. For all practical purposes the new and old Leaf have the same efficiency. 112 vs 114 combined is not going to be noticeable.

    1. Brian says:

      Right? I mean range is what matters when you are driving. Efficiency only matters when you are charging. Basically all it means is that the cost per mile went up by 114/112, or 1.8%. So if the old leaf cost $0.03/mile, the new one costs $0.0305/mile. Big whoop.

    2. bro1999 says:

      Like I said before in a previous post, the new Leaf is just a lipsticked Gen 1 Leaf. So the inferior efficiency ratings should really not be a surprise. Though you’d think they could at least make enough improvements to match the Gen 1’s efficiency numbers. Guess Nissan found it wasn’t worth spending the money to do that.

      That being said, the Ghetto Bolt will probably sell well. Top 3 for sure this year.

      1. Mint says:

        40% more power, 40% more range, vastly improved styling, and AutoPilot rivaling driver assistance is “lipstick” to you?

        Over 95% of “all-new” car models are unable to offer improvements this large. Do you call all those lipstick as well?

        It’s guaranteed that the Leaf will be second to only the Model 3 in sales worldwide, but even in the US it’ll probably overtake the Bolt, and definitely next year.

        1. bro1999 says:

          The new Leaf uses the same platform as the old Leaf. It is literally a lipsticked pig. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with being a lipsticked pig in this case, as it is still superior to the naked pig in every way. Of course it’s inferior to competition outside of price. Says something about the manufacturer and their commitment when they decide to recycle an old platform instead of start with a brand new one.

          GM created an all new platform for the Bolt (and also started the Gen 2 Volt from scratch versus reusing the Gen 1 platform). Tesla made an all net platform for the Model 3. But cheapo Nissan spent the least amount of money possible in bringing out the new Leaf. It’s really just a heavy refresh, not an all new vehicle.

          1. BenG says:

            That’s an advantage of Nissan being a pioneer in selling mass produced EVs: they can build off of the first iteration and save a ton of development money while cutting the likelihood of running into major manufacturing problems.

            There are big improvements in the current LEAF with another big improvement coming soon to boost it up over 200 mile range. And Nissan is going to be delivering them in mass and for an affordable price.

            There are tradeoffs though … and the lower efficiency is one of them.

          2. Djoni says:

            I claim that is an advantage and a pretty smart move.
            After 151 000 kilometers within 6 year ownership, the main thing that my Leaf MY2012 is missing is more range, faster charging and better regen and better heating.

            All of those are improved in this makeover plus better performance and all of it at a lower price 6 years later.

            BTW The original platform doesn’t have any flay that I know, so why not use a good thing when it’s done?

          3. Djoni says:

            And the new Leaf has lower noise cabin got the e-pedal, pro pilot, Apple Carplay and Android Auto and have heat pump.

            It’s a lot of stuff for your money in the EV world.

            1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

              Also Nissan has realized that Tesla got it right and supplies its portable EVSE with a NEMA 14-50 plug and an adapter for 120V 5-15 5-20 sockets.

        2. Colorado says:

          40% more power, 40% more range, vastly improved styling, and AutoPilot rivaling driver assistance is โ€œlipstickโ€ to you?

          I’d say so.

          “vastly improved styling” is the definition of a cosmetic, “lipstick” improvement. So it got a face lift, so what?

          40% more battery is very nice, but given the SEVEN year gap between the first leaf and this one and the dramatic progress made in the EV industry during that time, a battery with less than twice the range of the original is, yes, “lipstick”. It’s way below the industry leaders long after they already started shipping. And worse, no other efficiency improvement at a time when competitors are doing so much more – the same efficiency, just bigger. They didn’t even improve the weight ratio, just added more of the same battery that is now hopelessly uncompetitive.

          “auto pilot” is basically trying to distract from the fact that they have done NOTHING to the electrical side of the car except add more of the same old technology battery. If you are buying a car for this technology, well great. But if you are buying for an EV the LEAF is the last choice anyone should consider, especially after their horribly unethical handling of the fallout from their first disaster of a battery.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “40% more power, 40% more range, vastly improved styling, and AutoPilot rivaling driver assistance is ‘lipstick’ to you?”

          Definitely. The improved styling is almost literally lipstick, while Nissan’s stubborn refusal to put any kind of battery cooling system into the car leaves (leafs? ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) it still a pig underneath.

          Increasing the size of the battery pack without adding any sort of cooling system at all — not even forced air like the Ioniq Electric or the i-MiEV — is like painting over the rotting timbers in your home! With increased battery size and therefore increased ability to fast-charge en route for extended range, there’s even greater need for a liquid cooling system to prevent battery overheating, and even more exposure to overheating the battery if the car is used for long trips.

          If you doubt the latter point, then just read the real-world report from a driver of a late model (30 kWh) Leaf in the relatively cool UK:

      2. mx says:

        The Bolt is only Getto if you pimp out the tires.
        Well, that plastic interior isn’t pretty.
        Is there an after market solution yet?

        1. William says:

          Not yet, but bro1999 might have some extra EV cosmetics in his Nissan accessory handbag.
          He is always willing lend to Leaf Lovers, just like himself, just about anything. He has some experience in slinging shade, and wallowing around in the muck.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” — George Bernard Shaw

  7. Brian says:

    I love that 40kWh is now a “tiny” battery! Our little EVs are getting all grown up…

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      ๐Ÿ™‚ Well said, sir!

      It hasn’t been that long since we EV advocates were pining for any EV other than a Tesla, any EV at all, with a range of 100 miles or more. How times have changed!

      Up the EV revolution!

  8. Lou Grinzo says:

    Worrying about, or even talking about this efficiency number is a seriously “inside baseball” thing for us to be indulging in. Have you talked to non-plugheads about the chances they’ll buy an EV? I do this all the time, and they almost always care about [1] per-charge range, [2] car price, [3] car size/shape/utility/appearance, and [4] cost to recharge, in that order.

    On the recharge cost, I tell people that compared to putting gasoline into an equivalent car, my Leaf saves me roughly 6 cents/mile on fuel cost at current (US) gasoline prices. That’s all they have to hear on the fueling cost or efficiency front.

    The average mainstreamer we are (should be) trying to get into an EV doesn’t know a kWh from an artichoke. It’s like the very early days desktop computers, when nearly every intro article or book explained the difference between RAM and ROM memory. People didn’t really need to know it then, and it’s become a forgotten detail. Heck, ask people who have owned a string of ICE vehicles what “2.4 liters” as an engine metric means, and I’d guess most won’t even get close to the right answer.

    1. Doggydogworld says:

      They don’t ask how it would work on a long trip (i.e. recharge time)?

    2. VazzedUp says:

      Think you point out the benefit of miles/kWh, as it makes it real easy to provide a cost per mile which as you say, is something all drivers understand.
      MPGe I only find useful to compare against other MPGe numbers, it really could be any other efficiency number or name.
      We pay about $0.10 per kWh, so with our Bolt getting over 3miles per kWh, cost is $0.03 per mile.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Worrying about, or even talking about this efficiency number is a seriously ‘inside baseball’ thing for us to be indulging in. Have you talked to non-plugheads about the chances theyโ€™ll buy an EV?”

      Okay, but InsideEVs isn’t just a place for proselytizing to gasmobile drivers; it’s also a place for EV advocates to share info and ideas, and discuss issues.

      Tesla is now ignoring the whole issue of watts and kWh in its advertising, simplifying things to just talk about range and charging time. That may be the best approach.

      But as soon as someone buys an EV, then he’s going to need more info. There are a lot of posts on the still relatively new InsideEVs Forum from new EV owners who suddenly want to know all about kWh and battery pack capacity and charging rates and other sorts of technical issues.

      I think the best advice here is “Begin as you mean to go on.” We shouldn’t have one set of measuring standards for people who know little about EVs, and another set of measuring standards for “inside baseball” discussions of EV technical issues. People should already know what a kilowatt-hour is from their electrical bill, and explaining the difference between energy and power is something that it would benefit the general public to be exposed to. It’s shocking that this isn’t part of a basic grade school education, and that should change. But in the meantime, if we have to patiently explain the difference between power and energy, and between a kW and a kWh, then we should take the time and effort to do so.

      Giving someone the crutch of the MPGe metric isn’t going to help them in the long run. People don’t need to be spoon-fed changes, despite what some very poor managerial “advice” says; people learn new things all the time. If people learned how to use cellphones after using only land lines for decades, then they can learn a bit about the technology of EVs as electric cars become more commonplace.

  9. Alan says:

    In the UK, a careful driver will get 180 miles from this car,

    For the equivalent cost of a gallon of fuel, this car will do 200 mpg and will have no road tax to pay, the service cost is also half according to Nissan and itโ€™s available now.

    Nuff said !

  10. simone says:

    here the Ioniq compared with the 30kwh Leaf and the new 40kwh Leaf

  11. Davek says:

    Interesting that the Bolt, whose aerodynamics were (I believe) described as a “disaster” by someone from GM, has better highway efficiency than the Leaf! The Leaf is at 209 Wh/km, while the Bolt only uses 190 Wh/km. How the hell did Nissan manage that? Sure I figure it’s wider than the Bolt, but could the Leaf not even manage that low bar? Less than 200km on the highway is a pretty weak effort. Bring on the upgraded Ioniq!

    1. Asak says:

      The Bolt is just a better designed car. I suppose the poor hwy efficiency of the Leaf is probably due to aerodynamics, but look at the city ratings. Even there the Bolt scores better, despite lugging around a 50% larger battery.

      To be honest, I’ve always considered Nissan to be a second tier car maker–a step down from Toyota, Honda, and (yes) VW, even in EVs also a step down from GM.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “How the hell did Nissan manage that? Sure I figure itโ€™s wider than the Bolt, but could the Leaf not even manage that low bar?”

      By not spending any money or efforts toward improving the efficiency of their EV powertrain in the 7 years it’s been in production, which started in Dec. 2010.

      I just roll my eyes when anyone claims that the powertrains in all EVs are alike as peas in a pod, or that companies like Tesla and GM don’t have EV tech which is superior to makers of other EVs. And don’t get me started about the abysmal energy efficiency of Chinese-made EVs! *shudder*

      Better engineering gives some car models an edge over others. That’s not going to change just because people start driving PEVs instead of gasmobiles.

  12. tech_guy says:

    Leaf has lower efficiency, less passenger volume (92 vs 95 and 97 for Bolt and M3), is slower (by a lot), and lacks liquid battery cooling.

    And yet the price is similar to Bolt.

    13,000 miles on my Bolt. Still the best commuter car for $35k on the market today. You can’t even order a 35k M3 yet, more than a year after Bolt introduction.

  13. SparkEV says:

    MPGe isn’t all that accurate, so I’ll give benefit of doubt to Nissan. For example, Bolt is rated higher MPGe than SparkEV, yet all the indications are that real world result in SparkEV getting better efficiency. Mine now shows 5.4 mi/kWh (182 milers per 33.7 kWh) over 26K miles (did not reset trip meter since getting car).

    However, from marketing perspective, they’ll have hard time moving Leaf if not for something extra. I suspect they will continue with free charging. With larger battery, DCFC clogging situation will get lot worse with free charging Bolts as well.

    Free charging SUCKS!!!

    Tesla should hurry the hell up with Tesla 3 production. It’s literally killing my time on this planet waiting needlessly for free chargers at DCFC.

    1. Brian says:

      The trouble isn’t accuracy, it’s that MPGe includes charging losses. Your car is reporting battery-to-wheels efficiency, but MPGe includes wall-to-wheels efficiency.

      I applaud Nissan for their push (along with BMW and EVGo) for charging infrastructure. If not for them, I would have nowhere to charge my Bolt along my typical routes. If that means making it free to their customers for a few years, then so be it! So thank you, Nissan (and BMW), for doing the most of any non-Tesla EV maker for charging infrastructure!

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        You should put on some cheap meter before your charger connection to the grid. Then you will see true picture including all the vampire losses, pre-heating, etc, not just the optimistic nonsense that is shown on car dashboards.

        1. stan1 says:

          “optimistic nonsense that is shown on car dashboards.”

          The amount in the tank/battery is a valid measure which helps determine miles driven based on driving styles, temperature, idling, parasitic losses, etc.

      2. SparkEV says:

        “Your car is reporting battery-to-wheels efficiency, but MPGe includes wall-to-wheels efficiency”

        182 miles per 33.7 kWh to get to 119 MPGe would mean 65% efficiency. L1 was about 80%, L2 over 85%. Wall to wheels, I’m effectively getting 146 MPGe (or 155 MPGe), and that’s over 26K miles average.

        But that doesn’t matter since my main point was that SparkEV is getting more mi/kWh than Bolt in the real world, yet MPGe is higher for Bolt.

        As for free charging, the whole reason why I want to get off non-Tesla EV train is due to free chargers. If there’s no Tesla, I’d be getting off EV altogether. Free charging did far more harm than good.

        Besides, much of CCS I use came thanks to CA lawsuit against NRG for their Enron shenanigans, not due to free charging. All free charging did was to hurt EV.

    2. (โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous says:

      “Free charging SUCKS!!!”


  14. David Murray says:

    I guess I don’t see the efficiency as being an issue. As long as the car delivers on the range, the efficiency isn’t that big of a deal because it beats any gasoline powered vehicle by a longshot. Hopefully most of the people buying this car will be average people, not EV enthusiasts. As such, 112 mpge is going to seem like a lot to them!

    1. MM says:

      Yes, sorta.
      When making your own power there’s a difference between powering a Tesla “S” and an Ioniq.
      Not a deal breaker, but a similar decision between an energy star appliance (remember the good old days) and a regular one.
      After two Leafs, we’ll be looking to buy a ’19 Leaf.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “As long as the car delivers on the range, the efficiency isnโ€™t that big of a deal…”

      Surely it’s obvious that an EV’s range is a direct function of energy efficiency. That’s why makers of EVs spend so much time and effort on trying to make their cars as energy efficient as possible.

      Efficiency also affects price and functionality. If your EV charger suddenly dropped to only 50% efficiency, I’m sure you’d notice the difference — especially if that meant it took longer to charge — and I’m sure you’d care!

  15. Joe says:

    Spec says the Leaf goes 100 miles on 30kWh so it stands to reason that it would go 133 miles on 40kWh. Why then does it have a 151 mile range? Am I missing something?

    Maybe the 30kWh is what it needs to pull from the wall socket which includes charging losses?

    1. South Waves says:

      “Spec says the Leaf goes 100 miles on 30kWh so it stands to reason that it would go 133 miles on 40kWh. Why then does it have a 151 mile range? Am I missing something?”

      +100000000 ???

    2. JyChevyVolt says:

      30kWh leaf gets 107 miles on EPA.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Spec says the Leaf goes 100 miles on 30kWh so it stands to reason that it would go 133 miles on 40kWh. Why then does it have a 151 mile range? Am I missing something?”

      You’re missing a great deal, if you think that EV range is a simple function of battery capacity.

      Just a couple of the more obvious ones: You’re missing the difference between full battery capacity and usable capacity, and you’re missing the difference in a new body style and therefore a different drag coefficient.

  16. David Lane says:

    A tiny tiny tiny tick down in efficiency. Isn’t that just because the car has a bigger motor? Faster and torquier always means less efficient but this car is the best ever produced at its price point, IMHO.
    EVs just keep getting more awesome, and I don’t use that word lightly.
    Check it out:

  17. menorman says:

    Well, at least it didn’t go down. Considering that the car is likely heavier and puts out more power, it’s acceptable.

  18. (โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous says:

    This and the larger battery version is going to be a runaway hit for 2018.

    Even without an active TMS……lol

    1. SparkEV says:

      With free charging, it will spike sales. But let’s see what happens after people realize clogged chargers mean they really cannot use their free charging, which seem to be happening in San Diego thanks to free charging Bolts.

      1. (โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous says:

        Yup, the Chads (with CCS) at the Sprouts and other food coops and Train station are always filled with LEAF owners and some Bolt owners waiting.

        It’s like why bother anymore…….sheesh.

  19. (โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous says:

    IMHO, I think “miles per bar” on the battery gauge is more reliable.
    The GOM is almost always give or take 4-6miles.

  20. Bill Howland says:

    This article seems unnecessarily negative. The car meets or beats estimated mileage, it is low cost (who cares really if it is the world record holder or not), and it costs less than the old Leaf, at least in Inflated Dollars.

    Nissan could do worse than they have done. Now if reliability is pretty good, that’s another feather in their cap.

  21. Don Zenga says:

    Summary: Leaf-2
    Range: 151 miles (44 increase)
    Interior Volume: 116 cu. ft. (1 cu. ft. increase)
    Price :$29,990 ($700 decrease)
    It’s better in 3 main aspects.

    Reason for lower MPGe; it’s taller vehicle. I expected it to have at least 120 cu. ft. which will exceed Ioniq’s interior volume of 119 cu. ft.

    With dimensions of 176.4(L) * 70.5(W) * 61.6(H), Leaf has only 116 cu. ft.
    but with dimensions of 164(L) * 70(W) * 63(H), Bolt has 117 cu. ft.
    So where is Leaf losing its space.

    Probably some extra features like pro pilot and other features have take some space.

  22. Don Zenga says:

    Here is the Leaf’s timeline in terms of range.
    2011-2013: 73 miles
    2014-2016: 84 miles (24 KWh battery)
    2016-2017: 107 miles (30 KWh battery)
    Note: In 2016 when the 30 KWh battery was introduced, the base S trim still had 24 KWh which was later called as S24 and S30.
    2018: 151 miles

    Steady progress.
    2019: 151 miles (40 KWh) and 220 miles (60 KWh) expected.
    I wish Nissan launches 80 KWh battery in 2020 and AWD version in 2021. They have to continuously keep up with progress, otherwise Model-3 will suck all the market. Besides other automakers are gradually getting in and also the BEVs may face competition from PHVs which are slowly moving from 10 mile range to 30 mile range.

  23. Don Zenga says:

    Great news: Hyundai Ioniq-PHV has gone on sale and there are 28 units listed in This compares much favorably with the Ioniq-Electric for which only 8 units are on sale.

    This puts Ioniq in the same leaque as Clarity where the sales of FEV & BEV are limited, but the PHV is widely available.

    Automakers are willing to sell a vehicle that has gas engine, but not a purely electric vehicle like BEV or FEV.

    Earlier Kia Niro-PHV went on sale. So 2 plugins(Niro and Ioniq) and 1 BEV (Leaf) has gone on sale in Jan. Expecting this month to be a high seller. Lets wait for a week to see.

  24. filip bjurling says:

    Not impressed at all. 100 mpge on the highway, lower than the bolts 110 and way lower than the model 3s 123. The new leaf even has worse efficiency on the highway than the old leaf. The old leaf quickly hits 400wh/mile on the highway at 75mph (to drive 75 the speedometer on the leaf must show 84mph, that’s how much it is off) meaning this car will have a 100 mile range on the highway at 75 while the model 3 probably will have a consumption of about 290 wh/mile at the same speed and the base model will have a 190 mile range. Almost twice the distance!

    1. Don Zenga says:

      Buying Bolt means another $7,500 taken from your wallet, did you factor that.

      Besides Bolt is mostly for USA, but Leaf is for Worldwide sales.

      300,000 Leaf’s are running Worldwide, how many Bolts?

    2. Asak says:

      Are you sure there isn’t just something wrong with the Leaf you were driving? I haven’t noticed that I was going severely slower than the flow of traffic when I’m going 65 mph on the freeway. Sure, slower than the fast lane, but I’m certainly not plugging along at 55 mph, which can actually be scary slow as everyone weaves around you.

  25. Nix says:

    Still a significant step up from the previous Leaf. Progress isn’t always as fast as we like, but this is clearly progress.

  26. James says:

    MPGe is not a very reasonable measure for comparing with ICE, as it assumes the electricity generated with 100% efficiency.

    Given that most of electricity in the world is still generated from fossil fuel with 35-40% efficiency (combined with transmission loss, etc), 120mpge is actually only 42-48mpge, not that different to hybrid cars, and much worse in a cold day when you turn the heater on.

    1. Asak says:

      This seems like a FUD post to me. As far as I know MPG doesn’t take into account well-to-wheels efficiency either. It’s based on how much you get on what’s in the tank. The efficiency of converting oil to gasoline is painfully low–certainly no better than fossil fuel power plants.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        You’re entirely correct, and what James posted is certainly FUD, whether he realizes that or not.

      2. James says:

        If you have any common sense, you should understand that well-to-pump efficiency has very little difference compared to well-to-power-plant efficiency.

  27. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    It’s not surprising that even the newest Leaf is less energy efficient than the smaller Bolt EV.

    As far as being that much less efficient than the Tesla Model 3… well, is it really fair to compare a car which hasn’t had a significant tech improvement in 7 years with Tesla’s newest cutting-edge BEV?

    Heck yeah, it’s totally fair to underscore how Nissan hasn’t made any real attempt to update its EV tech!

    Go Tesla!

  28. ModernMarvelFan says:

    So, all those talks about new LEAF being better in aero than the Bolt is out of the window now?

    New LEAF’s CdFA must be way worse than the Bolt or maybe the so called Cd is measured in the optimistic Japanese wind tunnel again (as the original Car and Driver testing had shown).

    Nissan could and should do better.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Since different auto makers measure Cd differently, we’d need to see comparison tests by some independent tester. If Car and Driver does wind tunnel tests, then I’d certainly take their numbers over those from the auto maker.

  29. Don Zenga says:

    While the redesigned highly improved MY-2018 Leaf has gone on sale recently, the MY-2016 (2 years old) Leaf’s are put on sale recently.

    2 of them are ‘Just added’.
    What happened to these cars for the last 2 years. Are they kept in Bank Safety Box. And they carry a very high price.

    This type of hide & seek is what justifies Tesla in direct sales.

    1. Don Zenga says:

      Anyway there is 1 S trim, 2 SV trims and 4 SL trims. If anyone is interested, please check with them an buy it at the right price.

  30. Bob Parry says:

    Just wondering how the Bolt gets a better efficiency rating than the new Leaf. The Bolt is heavier, less aerodynamic and has more power. That to me does not make sense. But than the MPGe makes no sense either.


Leave a Reply to Magnus H Cancel reply