Nissan ePower - Good or Evil?

I know very little about the theoretical aspects of power delivery from a battery ( or care). But I do understand basic engineering principles and can grasp simple concepts when explained to me. The e-power system was described to me as a powerful clockwork spring ( battery) that could launch a car from rest quite quickly but ran out of steam within a few hundred yards just as the car reached its cruising speed. The generator could then not only supply enough power to maintain that cruise but also replace the lost energy in the battery caused by the rapid launch demand on it.

Pretty soon the battery would be back up to usable level and ready for the next launch at the next traffic halt. Or if the car was still in cruise mode the engine just maintained its optimum rev range at that much lower demand of power level.

If a 22kW demand could be maintained for 4 minutes then surely even a very fast launch of 10 seconds or so wouldn't stress it too much. Especially if the generator was also running to replace much of that drain in real time. The system is just a clever buffer to even out peak demands and allows the ICE to run at its most efficient optimum revs to achieve great mpg figures.

It could well be that Nissan realises that such a system will only work if driven sensibly and in congested traffic. Which is why they only sell it in Japan in its present form. They know that UK drivers would rag it up a Motorway from rest and complain that it became lethargic after 3 miles. It's the old 'tool selection' argument again.

The more that I consider the ePower drive system the more I like it. By all accounts, the eNote drives just like a Leaf and has all the same attributes and toys but £shedloads cheaper. Would I like my Leaf to have a range of 600 miles and be thousands cheaper? Errr.......

I would miss my home plug and cheap fuel of course but the actual savings in fuel costs with my 6000 annual miles is only £400pa. Other extra costs would be VED and various EV cheap parking concessions but if I was saving £100 pm on PCP due to a far lower purchase price then the break-even point is easy to reach.

Would I go that way?

Probably not in my circumstances because we are a two car family with an ICE and BEV. The Leaf covers 95% of all journeys. But if we go one car it becomes a real alternative to consider.

When the bald finances element becomes so evenly balanced and the driving experience becomes identical I can begin to see why the eNote has been a runaway success. The system will be easy to insert into any bodyshell. We could have our much-desired choice of people carrier /towing machine without breaking the bank.

The big danger is that it could become so versatile and flexible whilst offering a brilliant drive experience that it will be much harder to differentiate the benefit of a pure BEV from the pseudo electric drive. There may come a point where it is actually better than a BEV, and cheaper.

I hope not. But meanwhile it seems to be an excellent car and it's hardly surprising that it has found a large market in Japan.

TVEV said:

The problem with e-Power is, that it's a really interesting design that would have been great as a transition mechanism a decade ago, but it is fundamentally flawed by not doing anything to prevent pollution at the point of use.

Click to expand...

Without going down the rabbit hole about CO2 not actually being a pollutant you are right of course. Except that you are only partly right. Running an eNote that can achieve 80mpg rather than a similar sized normal ICE that can manage 50mpg does reduce whatever negative effects that can be determined over fossil fuel use. That is a 1/3rd reduction at a stroke. If all cars in a town used ePower that would be a huge reduction in tailpipe emissions. Hardly a fully satisfactory result from an EV advocate point of view but still to be welcomed. Imagine if all ICE cars became EVs propelled by ICE generators. An initial massive reduction in emissions as well as millions of drivers experiencing much higher mpg, lower running costs, and the smooth EV experience. From there it would be a short step to full BEV as many of those converts realised that actually, they wouldn't need that generator if the battery was large enough for their daily needs. The fleet would then change to far more BEV than ePower. And it would have been the ePower experience that led to that.

TVEV said:

My view is that it would be better to offer a full EV solution to people, or let them stick with ICE until there is something suitable.

Click to expand...

We do.

And millions of people go along with that.

But when there is a natural move to improve efficiency and desirability of both EVs and ICE there will be attempts to merge both systems to pick the benefits of each and offer a hybrid solution that is attractive to buyers. That produces many forms of hybrid - which are highly efficient or they wouldn't get very far along the development process. So is it really 'better' to not offer such systems at all? I think that would be a mistake.

If someone is psychologically afraid of range concerns, or has difficulty charging at home, or has an unusual need for long range at short notice, or needs a tow car, or large capacity, then they will always pick an ICE. That is unless a hybrid is available. Should they really be denied that option?

Until real improvements in battery range and charger infrastructure are seen there will always be millions of people who reject an EV. They might accept a hybrid though. Is that really a bad thing? When the alternative is pure ICE?

RuralEV said:

Sad times.

@donald will rightly point out that a well driven ICE will have similar overall emissions to a BEV over a long journey with the current electricity mix,

Click to expand...

Invoking the @donald hyperweapon so early is interesting. But this sentence is wrong. If you misspoke over emmissions with the BEV part, and meant to write HEV, then I agree. The e-Power car is indeed an ICE in reality - with a similar emission and consumption rating as an average pure ICE car of the same size and power. The difference is the drive experience which would be nearer to a BEV than a pure ICE. Just with an annoying buzz in the background from the generator. And that could cause a few BEV drivers to go over to the dark side. Especially when daily running costs are almost identical for people without a home charger advantage. The range part and the flaky infrastructure are powerful persuasive factors to drivers who need frequent ranges beyond 100 miles round trips.

You start by saying 'Sad times'. This would indicate that you are a keen advocate of the BEV solution. Perhaps on environmental grounds. But the solution for your desire is to lobby strongly for more, and more reliable chargers out there. Tesla style. They understood the chicken/egg process much better. Until a BEV can be charged reliably, rapidly, and on ever street corner, there will still be a niche market for cars like this Qashqai.

RuralEV said:

You are assuming that people act logically. Few of the people buying one of these will have tried a pure BEV and found it unsuitable. Most will just be remaining with ICE based on cost and ignorance.

Click to expand...

Partly right. At least over the bit about so few people trying a BEV. They don't do that because of the initial perception and the many media negatives over range anxiety and poor infrastructure before they even venture to look deeper. So they never get to the stage of finding it unsuitable really. They unilaterally declare that.

So that in fact they do act logically. They make a list of positives and negatives and find that the sheer price of an EV versus a similar petrol car is too high. When pondering the clear and obvious range and charging obstacles of a BEV on top of this, they act perfectly logically and stay with an ICE.

It's only people who spend more time delving into the longer-term benefits alongside the much better drive experience that take that leap of faith. Unfortunately, in many instances the abysmal failure of supporting industries to provide satisfactory charging facilities as well as most OEMs except Tesla refusing to understand the chicken/egg syndrome then there are loads of disenchanted BEV drivers seriously considering their position now. And such a car as this Qashquai can be tempting as it offers the same drive experience but without all of the other negatives.

Spc369 said:

I say “EVIL“ manufacturers are dressing ‘MILD’ hybrids up as full hybrids and the general public believe all the hype.

I had a ct200h full hybrid that could genuinely drive several flat miles on electric power only. These later hybrids are not what people assume, they assist the petrol engine only.

Click to expand...

There is a possibility that you have misunderstood the drive train of this new Qashquai. It is not a standard hybrid or a plug-in hybrid. Also, not like an Ampera or a BMW i3.

This car has a tiny battery that acts as a buffer to even out traction demand and electric generation. The motivation comes from an onboard petrol generator. That engine does not drive the wheels as in a parallel hybrid system. It just provides electricity via the battery buffer and on to the electric motor. The car will only drive a very small distance without that petrol engine running. The battery in no way assists the petrol engine as you state. The car will only move under its electric motor drive.

The advantage is twofold.

First of all, the drive is exactly like a BEV. The motor and drive train is actually from the new Ariya. All of the features and benefits of a BEV are there such as regeneration braking and massive torque from the first yard to give a 7 second to 60 mph performance.

Secondly, the petrol generator is able to be programmed to run at its most economical rev range because the car speed is irrelevant to it. It will have a control system to reduce its output power when demand is low and then increase that if the driver requests high power for an overtake or similar. But the system is designed to run that petrol unit at its most economical whilst providing just-in-time power to not overload the small battery or cause a gap in the drivers demand.

The nearest equivalent that we have seen is Ampera and i3. But the Ampera was capable of being driven by both the battery and petrol power at the same time. And the i3 had a substantial battery that could run the car for 80 miles and had a small scooter engine under the boot as a Rex ( range extender ) but could not drive the wheels itself, because it wasn't connected to the drive train.

This Nissan e-Power system is a completely new kind of hybrid. The wheels are entirely driven by an electric motor but power to that motor comes from an onboard generator. Strictly speaking, it isn't a hybrid because it cannot move more than a few yards using its battery. It is really a petrol car without its own drive train and instead uses a motor instead. The impression is that because that petrol engine generator is designed to operate at its most efficient rev range then overall mpg consumption should be pretty decent.

And because it isn't ramping up and down as in a normal petrol car then the sound levels should also be pretty low. So the driver will in effect be driving a BEV with a small hum of that genny in the background. In return for unlimited driving range by petrol refills and avoiding the presently poor charging infrastructure on a road trip. I will certainly be interested in how it performs when I'm able to arrange a test drive.

RuralEV said:

The i3 is very similar to the Nissan e-Power apart from the battery size (22-44kWh Vs 2kWh), the fact that the battery could be externally charged, and that the ICE power was much lower meaning that performance was limited when the battery was depleted.

Click to expand...

Yes - very similar, apart from the many large and crucial differences that you list.

I suppose that a 2 kWh battery would be capable of driving 4 miles to empty if the petrol engine was manually disabled. But such a party trick would not be something of much relevance often. Nice to engage when passing a school gate to avoid fuming the kids of course. And there will be some nerdy anoraks around that will delight in doing that. But I regard it as a solution for no real problem.

And I also agree with your range comment. This car is not intended for rational and logical people like the BEV community though. It is designed to compete with both the standard hybrid and PHEV buyers who buy that way because of a mixture of range anxiety and charger anxiety. We all know that an Ariya would be perfectly satisfactory for people looking at this new Qashqai, but when you add in the price advantage, alongside the deep-rooted fears listed above it would take a very persuasive argument to get those people into a BEV. Especially when this car drives much like an Ariya.

Chrisb said:

it is a nice car for sure, will be keen to hear your thoughts on it.
It is pretty quiet and of course smooth, it will certainly have its followers.

Click to expand...

Popped into the local Nissan dealer today intending to just have a sit-in and general look around but I was offered a quick accompanied five-minute flip around the block. Literally around the block in fairly heavy town traffic but even so I was able to get a brief overall impression. It drove more like an EV than an ICE. The engine was not at all intrusive. Just a vague background hum. Still pretty quiet to drive. Pretty nippy actually at these town speeds. A concern was that the screen stats afterwards showed 35 mpg average. Of course, he made the usual noises about the unusual nature of a test drive car drive pattern, that was also the daily drive of a dealer rep taking it home like he stole it. More research needed and of course a much longer and varied drive to get a true idea. But, worryingly, my takeaway impression was - It's just a modern bog standard car. Nothing special. Certainly at this stage of my changing cars investigation, and with the caveat of such a limited drive, no wow factor to report.