2019 Leaf battery overheating

[SageBrush]

It is a 2 year lease and I sincerely don't care if the battery cooks.

Therein lies Nissan's dilemma in a nutshell.

You want the newer profile because you will not be the one paying for accelerated degradation. You can bet that Nissan does not want increased warranty costs either. Or to eat the accelerated depreciation that would follow. Moreover, there would be a cohort of people who choose the 'fix' without really understanding the trade-off in battery life and degradation until it bites them in the butt. Then they would be bitterly complaining that no one informed them properly.

Sound familiar ?

I don't think there is a good solution here. Nissan battery tech is crap, and crap rolls downhill.

 

[SageBrush]

100A x 400V = 40kW. They would not be 50kW chargers.
PA turnpike has had Blink chargers early on. I am not familiar with a 100A limitation from the charger. I only know the car to control the power input. I may be wrong....?
50kW / 400V = 125A so any of those units should be capable of 125A if they are indeed 50kW units.

The charging arithmetic does not work that way except as an inaccurate shorthand.

Cells start at ~ 3.2 volts when almost 'fully' discharged and are at ~ 4.15 volts when 'fully' charged. The battery is arranged as a series of 96 units.
So for example if you pull into a charger with cells at 3.6v (Leafspy will tell you!) then the pack is at 3.6*96 = 345 volts and a 100 Amp net of losses current would put 34.5 kW into the pack. Towards the end of charging at say a SoC of 90%, and IF the current was not throttled at that SoC (it is), then the pack would be at 96*4.1 = 393 volts and a 125 Amp current would result in close to 50 kW

So OE may have a point here. IIRC Electrify America locations have 125 Amp CHAdeMO.


----
It is kind of amazing to consider that the newer CCS on the EA network called "150 kW" are rated up to ~ 350 Amps and the Tesla V3 Superchargers can push somewhere in the neighborhood of 750 Amps peak.
This article
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/08/supercharger-v3-shocking-power-smart-strategy-by-tesla-charts/
is Tesla centric but it explains these things in some detail for us laypeople.

 

[metricus]

I don’t know what to tell you. Unless you have some credible evidence, I just have to question your discrepancy with the source or interpretation.

I currently have both a 2019 SL and early 2018 SL 40kWh sitting in my driveway, and their charge profiles do not match. The 2019 does not taper as much and levels off fairly quickly, regardless of the initial SoC, number or interval of quick charges or temperature. Depending on the SoC number of charges, interval, and battery temp, the 2018 can have an aggressive taper.

I can understand now why you annoyed the bejesus out of everyone here.

You claim that I don't have credible evidence when I am reading REAL numbers of the car's sensors and find that they match exactly a graph made by Bjorn based on field observations.

On the flip side you look at a LCD gauge which was obviously designed to be vague, has a built-in-by-design hysteresis in addition to any sensor tolerance and decide, at best based on your guts, that the 19 behaves different than 18.

Besides, the gauge does not level off. It goes up as long as you drive the car and goes up even faster when on charge. I drove 235 miles after which the car was inoperable. To give you actual numbers the temp goes up with about 0.1C/km when driving. Try to read that on your beloved gauge.

 

[cwerdna]

The car does not charge as advertised (4x kW) throughout the white range of the gauge.

Where is it "advertised"? Even if the temps weren't high, fast charging ramp down needs to happen as the battery gets fuller. Even EVs w/thermal management (e.g. Teslas and Chevy Bolts) have to do this.

A few relevant quotes from the manual:

Page CH-6: "Quick charging is possible (even several times a day). If the battery temperature is near the red zone, in order to protect the battery, power of the quick charger will be limited."
We already know that power throttling starts even while the gauge is in the middle. So this is a lie. Also as it has been shown many times, quick charging is not possible several times a day (not even in Norway). And by Quick charge I mean at 43kW not throttled charge. So there's another lie or "falsehood" as we like to call them since 2016.

I frankly don't think you're going to win an argument of "lie", false "advertising" or "falsehood" by inferring that bolded part. Glancing thru the '19 Leaf manual, and prior manuals, like the '13 Leaf manual, the only reason why they use the term "quick charge" is to refer to the CHAdeMO inlet and CHAdeMO stations. They have 3 categories: "trickle" charge (J1772 120 volt L1), "normal charge" (J1772, basically 208 to 240 volts), "quick charge" which is CHAdeMO. I didn't notice any sort of guarantee or promise or advertising that you'd get any specific charge rate other than "up to 50 kW" and they have all sorts of disclaimers as conditions as to why it might not be high.

Heck, in Japan, they apparently have CHAdeMO chargers as low at 6 kW: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/chademo-make-model-review-%E2%80%94-using-with-a-tesla.42176/page-8#post-961564.

Page 18 of https://web.archive.org/web/20160317120653/http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/prog_info/IEA_DCFCImpactStudySept2014.pdf has curves for the '13 Leaf w/the car at 0, 25 and 50 C. And, as the battery degrades, quick charging isn't so quick, as some people have found out the hard way w/degraded batteries. (edit: I believe people have posted about this but I'm having a hard to finding the posts. People definitely have complained about much reduced regen on gen 1 Leafs w/degraded batteries like at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=459925#p459925.)

I am glad you finally got Leaf Spy so that you can see the battery temps.

 

[metricus]

The charging arithmetic does not work that way except as an inaccurate shorthand.

I understand how charging works at cell level. I was referring to the rating of the charger. The stuff they put on the label. It's not inaccurate, is basic physics.

OE claimed that some chargers would peak at 100A and my argument was that in that case they cannot possibly be rated at 50kW.

Personally, I have not seen such a charger.

 

[cwerdna]

Also, on page CH-8, of '19 manual, you'll notice they have a table w/an approx amount of time to reach 80% (I guess from 0%), depending on the (crap) temp indicator. Gen 1 Leaf manuals also had a similar "guide". Unfortunately, once that a Leaf battery gets very degraded, I think that guide will become more and more inaccurate as the battery degrades further.

 

[metricus]

The car does not charge as advertised (4x kW) throughout the white range of the gauge.

Where is it "advertised"? Even if the temps weren't high, fast charging ramp down needs to happen as the battery gets fuller. Even EVs w/thermal management (e.g. Teslas and Chevy Bolts) have to do this.

A few relevant quotes from the manual:

Page CH-6: "Quick charging is possible (even several times a day). If the battery temperature is near the red zone, in order to protect the battery, power of the quick charger will be limited."
We already know that power throttling starts even while the gauge is in the middle. So this is a lie. Also as it has been shown many times, quick charging is not possible several times a day (not even in Norway). And by Quick charge I mean at 43kW not throttled charge. So there's another lie or "falsehood" as we like to call them since 2016.

I frankly don't think you're going to win an argument of "lie", false "advertising" or "falsehood" by inferring that bolded part. Glancing thru the '19 Leaf manual, and prior manuals, like the '13 Leaf manual, the only reason why they use the term "quick charge" is to refer to the CHAdeMO inlet and CHAdeMO stations. They have 3 categories: "trickle" charge (J1772 120 volt L1), "normal charge" (J1772, basically 208 to 240 volts), "quick charge" which is CHAdeMO. I didn't notice any sort of guarantee or promise or advertising that you'd get any specific charge rate other than "up to 50 kW" and they have all sorts of disclaimers as conditions as to why it might not be high.

Heck, in Japan, they apparently have CHAdeMO chargers as low at 6 kW: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/chademo-make-model-review-%E2%80%94-using-with-a-tesla.42176/page-8#post-961564.

Page 18 of https://web.archive.org/web/20160317120653/http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/prog_info/IEA_DCFCImpactStudySept2014.pdf has curves for the '13 Leaf w/the car at 0, 25 and 50 C. And, as the battery degrades, quick charging isn't so quick, as some people have found out the hard way w/degraded batteries.

I am glad you finally got Leaf Spy so that you can see the battery temps.

Only discussing about the overheating problems. Throttling based on charge level is well known and accepted. It is also clearly stated in the instruction manual. No need to bring it up.

As for what Nissan claims quick charge: I will look further but I do remember them claiming to charge car in 30 mins from empty to 80%. I'll get back to you on that.

Thanks for the links. Plenty of good stuff.

 

[cwerdna]

The charging arithmetic does not work that way except as an inaccurate shorthand.

I understand how charging works at cell level. I was referring to the rating of the charger. The stuff they put on the label. It's not inaccurate, is basic physics.

OE claimed that some chargers would peak at 100A and my argument was that in that case they cannot possibly be rated at 50kW.

Personally, I have not seen such a charger.

BTC Power has some 100 amp stations. See https://www.chevybolt.org/forum/82-charging-batteries/12354-bolt-has-any-ever-gotten-90-miles-added-range-after-30-minute-level-3-charge-2.html#post150106. BTC Power makes stations that can have 1 or 2 handles (w/different standards: SAE Combo and/or CHAdeMO). There's been plenty of confusion about DC FC rates beyond 25 kW over at chevybolt.org. I personally haven't followed due to lack of interest.

I've not used DC charged my Bolt even once yet. It was only charged on a ~25 kW DC charger at the dealer before I picked it up. I've lived w/an EV w/no DC FC capability (my used '13 Leaf w/no CHAdeMO) from July 2015 until end of Jan 2019. My 1st Leaf had CHAdeMO and I only ever DC FCed it on 3 different 44 kW units all of this model: https://web.archive.org/web/20140323161510/http://nissanqc.com/ about 16 times in a 2 year period.

 

[cwerdna]

As for what Nissan claims quick charge: I will look further but I do remember them claiming to charge car in 30 mins from empty to 80%. I'll get back to you on that.

Under specs tab of these, they talk about up to 80% in 40 minutes.
https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/us-2018-nissan-leaf-press-kit
https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/us-2019-nissan-leaf-press-kit

But they also have a footnote "1. Charging times and range estimates may vary depending on driving/charging habits, weather, temperature and battery age."

Unfortunately, Nissan apparently recently redid the format of their Nissannews pages.

Old archived copies at https://web.archive.org/web/20180709051325/https://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/presskits/us-2018-nissan-leaf-press-kit and https://web.archive.org/web/20190305221523/https://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/presskits/us-2019-nissan-leaf-press-kit have non-functional "tabs".

 

[metricus]

Also, on page CH-8, of '19 manual, you'll notice they have a table w/an approx amount of time to reach 80% (I guess from 0%), depending on the (crap) temp indicator. Gen 1 Leaf manuals also had a similar "guide". Unfortunately, once that a Leaf battery gets very degraded, I think that guide will become more and more inaccurate as the battery degrades further.

Hmm... No table in my 2019 manual on page CH-8. Nor any page around that.
On back of book it says Printed July 2018, Publication no OM19EA 0ZE1U0.
There is also a ZE1-D inside a box.

 

[metricus]

As for what Nissan claims quick charge: I will look further but I do remember them claiming to charge car in 30 mins from empty to 80%. I'll get back to you on that.

Under specs tab of these, they talk about up to 80% in 40 minutes.
https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/us-2018-nissan-leaf-press-kit
https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/us-2019-nissan-leaf-press-kit

But they also have a footnote "1. Charging times and range estimates may vary depending on driving/charging habits, weather, temperature and battery age."

Unfortunately, Nissan apparently recently redid the format of their Nissannews pages.

Old archived copies at https://web.archive.org/web/20180709051325/https://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/presskits/us-2018-nissan-leaf-press-kit and https://web.archive.org/web/20190305221523/https://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/presskits/us-2019-nissan-leaf-press-kit have non-functional "tabs".

Great info. Indeed 40 mins to 80%. That implies 48kW charge power. What a bunch of BS.

 

[cwerdna]

Also, on page CH-8, of '19 manual, you'll notice they have a table w/an approx amount of time to reach 80% (I guess from 0%), depending on the (crap) temp indicator. Gen 1 Leaf manuals also had a similar "guide". Unfortunately, once that a Leaf battery gets very degraded, I think that guide will become more and more inaccurate as the battery degrades further.

Hmm... No table in my 2019 manual on page CH-8. Nor any page around that.
On back of book it says Printed July 2018, Publication no OM19EA 0ZE1U0.
There is also a ZE1-D inside a box.

Since I have no '19 Leaf, I got the PDF via https://owners.nissanusa.com/nowners/navigation/manualsGuide.

Pages CH-5 and CH-6 discuss the 3 categories of charging I mentioned.

 

[metricus]

At the end of the day the reality is that the overheating problems have accumulated to a level where it makes the Gen 2 Leaf PROBLEMATIC to use.

We can mitigate some of these effects using the LeafSpy but there is no fix. Wether you look at the gauge or app the car builds up heat during use. Period.

It is also clear to me that Nissan knew about these issues because it went through the pain of designing a gauge that can maximize confusion instead of using a digital readout which would multiply customer complaints.

Any car owner can understand limitations based on battery size or gas tank size. However, in today's standards limitations based on poor TMS are not understandable. Nobody would buy an ICE vehicle that has an undersized radiator causing the car to overheat with no fix other than letting it cool overnight. It is unacceptable in today's standards.

I still argue that my 2016 did not have such a pronounced overheating issue. I trust your observations that it did overheat but I think it was not a handicap. This time they seem to have crossed a fine line which makes the vehicle problematic.

The manual may mention in places that the charge "may be affected" but the nuance fails to depict the reality in which one cannot count on more than 200-250 miles a day before the vehicle becomes inoperable due to overheating.

This reminds me of the time when Toyota visibly stopped innovating on the Prius. People tried fitting various batteries to enable plugin feature but if there is no drive from the top it's all pointless. With the Prime it's too little too late.

As I mentioned already I was a happy returning customer after my 2016. That ended. Just like after owning 3 Priuses I stopped even going to a Toyota dealer, it seems that history will repeat.

I am not building up hope that they will repurchase the vehicle without me hiring a lawyer which is prohibitive in the big picture and they know this.
I am glad it's only 2 years.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Is there a way to fix this? ex: twist someone's hand to install the blue graph software? Does anyone in US have the non rapidgate software? etc...etc...?

Dave, you know that only early 2018 car’s have the charging profile that those with ants in their pants don’t like. The new profile was a rolling revision to the ‘18 LEAF in the summer of 2018 or so. The 2019 40 kWh cars all have the new profile. Unfortunately no one has been able to present a compelling argument that might sway Nissan to offer the patch retroactively.

Yeah have heard that in a few places. Still looking for evidence of that.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

At the end of the day the reality is that the overheating problems have accumulated to a level where it makes the Gen 2 Leaf PROBLEMATIC to use.

We can mitigate some of these effects using the LeafSpy but there is no fix. Wether you look at the gauge or app the car builds up heat during use. Period.

It is also clear to me that Nissan knew about these issues because it went through the pain of designing a gauge that can maximize confusion instead of using a digital readout which would multiply customer complaints.

Any car owner can understand limitations based on battery size or gas tank size. However, in today's standards limitations based on poor TMS are not understandable. Nobody would buy an ICE vehicle that has an undersized radiator causing the car to overheat with no fix other than letting it cool overnight. It is unacceptable in today's standards.

I still argue that my 2016 did not have such a pronounced overheating issue. I trust your observations that it did overheat but I think it was not a handicap. This time they seem to have crossed a fine line which makes the vehicle problematic.

The manual may mention in places that the charge "may be affected" but the nuance fails to depict the reality in which one cannot count on more than 200-250 miles a day before the vehicle becomes inoperable due to overheating.

This reminds me of the time when Toyota visibly stopped innovating on the Prius. People tried fitting various batteries to enable plugin feature but if there is no drive from the top it's all pointless. With the Prime it's too little too late.

As I mentioned already I was a happy returning customer after my 2016. That ended. Just like after owning 3 Priuses I stopped even going to a Toyota dealer, it seems that history will repeat.

I am not building up hope that they will repurchase the vehicle without me hiring a lawyer which is prohibitive in the big picture and they know this.
I am glad it's only 2 years.

I had a somewhat difference experience with my 2016 S30. It overheated all the time. I saw 10, 11 temperature bars frequently but NEVER saw a slowdown in speed of the fast charge. Once I clocked 49.19 KW which only happens when charging at 125 amps well over 80% SOC.

I did a work run of 300+ miles twice a year and it involved QCing as high at 131º F and still never saw a reduction in the charging speed. Did it kill my pack?

Scroll down to the end

https://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/01/she-gave-all.html

 

[SageBrush]

Great info. Indeed 40 mins to 80%. That implies 48kW charge power. What a bunch of BS.

My arithmetic is a bit different.
I think the "40 kWh" LEAF is about 38 kWh usable so 80% of that is 38*0.8 = 30.4
30.4 * 3/2 = 45.6 kW

A 125 Amp current into cells at 3.7 V works out to 125*3.7*96 = 44.4 kW.
I have little doubt that the 40 minute scenario is unlikely to ever be seen outside the laboratory, and I agree with you that Nissan marketing sits right on the edge of deception.

---
My earlier comment to you discussing observed power at the charger was meant to point out that seeing only 43 kW maximum is not surprising since you are likely to be charging cells at ~ 3.7 -- 3.8 Volts at that time. At a higher SoC the amperage drops.
3.7*96*125 = 43.2 kW
3.7*96*125 = 44.4 kW
3.8*96*125 = 45.6 kW

 

[OrientExpress]

I can understand now why you annoyed the bejesus out of everyone here.

You claim that I don't have credible evidence when I am reading REAL numbers of the car's sensors and find that they match exactly a graph made by Bjorn based on field observations.

Actually the opposite is the case. You think you have real numbers, but can't prove them, but insist that they are. Let me repeat, if your only source for your claim is a piece of software that cannot be verified and an internet entertainer who is also using the same unverifiable method, then you do not have credible data.

Sorry, but that your claims just don't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

At the end of the day the reality is that the overheating problems have accumulated to a level where it makes the Gen 2 Leaf PROBLEMATIC to use.

Again conjecture with no basis.

 

[SageBrush]

At the end of the day the reality is that the overheating problems have accumulated to a level where it makes the Gen 2 Leaf PROBLEMATIC to use.

Again conjecture with no basis.

Got that, metricus ? Your annoyance is unverified by Nissan so it is not real.

You can either find entertainment in OE's shrill shilling, or put him on ignore.

 

[OrientExpress]

Got that, metricus ? Your annoyance is unverified by Nissan so it is not real.

Annoyance is a valid observation and that is real, but the basis has yet to be discovered.

 

[SageBrush]

Got that, metricus ? Your annoyance is unverified by Nissan so it is not real.

Annoyance is a valid observation and that is real, but the basis has yet to be discovered.

The basis is the charge rate. No doubt you dispute the charger meter too as unverified by Nissan but there is that small detail of the LEAF displaying SoC increase. All that is left is to use the Nissan LEAF verified timepiece :lol: :lol: