Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[Volusiano]

My point is that Nissan is not actually doing anything to correct the problem, just hiding the symptoms and results...

In the meantime they've put a short term workaround in place by underwriting the battery capacity. One hopes if by the time the average LEAF owner reaches 60,000 miles they have a fix.

If a short term workaround is useless, why would anyone even call it a workaround?

By definition, a workaround is a temporary fix that actually solves the problem until a long term fix arrives. The problem is hot climate owners are losing 2 to 3 bars easily within their first year or two of their ownership. If they have to wait until they lose 4 bars before they get a remedy, the problem will have existed easily into the 3rd or 4th year of the 5-year warranty. How is that a workaround? It doesn't solve anything in the first 4 years of ownership because the problem continues to exist, between year 1 and 4.

Let's say Nissan knows the real floor is the 3 bar loss in 5 years, then owners will lose 2 bars in the first year or so, then have to live with the 3 bars loss for the next 4 years. How does that solve anything when they advertised 80% in 5 years?

I don't see any hot climate owners jumping for joy over this useless "short term fix". If the affected owners don't find it acceptable, how can it be a workaround?

 

[KJD]

My point is that Nissan is not actually doing anything to correct the problem, just hiding the symptoms and results...

I respectfully disagree.

The short term fix is to convert Leaf drivers to a low cost lease. $199 per month sounds good to me.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=11243" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The long term fix is to offer a 36kwh battery pack option along with a low cost 24kwh option.
They will also tweak the battery chemistry to make it last longer in AZ and other hot climates.

The short term fix will buy them some time to do the long term fix.

 

[Volusiano]

My point is that Nissan is not actually doing anything to correct the problem, just hiding the symptoms and results...

I respectfully disagree.

The short term fix is to convert Leaf drivers to a low cost lease. $199 per month sounds good to me.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=11243" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The short term fix will buy them some time to do the long term fix.

I don't recall Nissan announcing any program to convert previous purchases or leases from affected owners into new leases WITH NO PENALTY for leases or WITH A BUYBACK for purchases. If I'm wrong about this, please point me to such an announcement.

Sure, the new lease terms are great, but you gotta get rid of your current lease or purchase first before you can assume a new lease. And Nissan is not helping with any of that.

So far, Nissan only bought back a small handful of purchased LEAFs in AZ. There are still easily hundreds of other affected owners out there who are not offered any buyback option. In fact, you have to go on TV and/or make a lot of noise before Nissan is willing to offer you a buyback.

 

[Herm]

So far, Nissan only bought back a small handful of purchased LEAFs in AZ. There are still easily hundreds of other affected owners out there who are not offered any buyback option.

I think 112 known cases.. is one bar loss worthy of a buyback?.. probably not. In any case Nissan looks willing to deal if you file a case with the BBB per the various threads.

 

[Volusiano]

So far, Nissan only bought back a small handful of purchased LEAFs in AZ. There are still easily hundreds of other affected owners out there who are not offered any buyback option.

I think 112 known cases.. is one bar loss worthy of a buyback?.. probably not. In any case Nissan looks willing to deal if you file a case with the BBS per the various threads.

Just to clarify, 113 known cases of 1 bar loss in Wiki, 40 known cases of 2 bar loss, 11 of 3 bar loss, and 2 of 4 bar loss. Assuming that there's an overlap, that's 113-40 = 54 known cases of still 1 bar loss for now. But wait until next summer. I can almost guarantee that most of these 54 will turn into 2 bar loss. So just give it a few more months until the summer comes again, and they'll all be worth a buyback then. And it won't stop there at 113 cases. There will be hundreds more of new cases documented. The problem is not going away. The problem is going to get worse.

Anyway, the point is that no matter what kind of numbers you want to throw out there, this is not a numbers game. I just want to make this clarification loudly because some of the comments made by some people here seem to give a false impression that there's now already a universally accepted workaround to the problem announced by Nissan that people can rely on now, whether it be the 9 bar warranty or assuming a new lease. Nissan has NOT provided a universally accepted solution to hot climate owners over the issue of capacity loss due to heat yet.

I'm in discussion with Nissan about my buyback situation right now. There's no guarantee that if you have a case # with them and a BBB report that they will agree to a buyback. I wish it were that simple. But if you don't keep pushing them aggressively, they'll simply ignore you. And it's on a CASE BY CASE basis. It's NOT a universally acceptable workaround/solution.

 

[JRP3]

In fact it seems the "solution" is universally unacceptable to the people actually affected by the problem.

 

[phxsmiley]

I'm glad to have the capacity warranty, that will undoubtedly help Leaf sales. I think the capacity warranty is better than without one, but the primary reason that I'm still disappointed with this solution is that we still have to live with a Leaf with diminished range (compared to the same mileage car in cooler climates) until we are down to the warranty threshold.

I estimate that it will take two more summers before I'm down to that threshold. Like others, I haven't lost another bar since the heat of June last year, my GID readings are slowly climbing during this Arizona winter, and my measured-from-wall capacity is remaining the same over the last several months (actually increased since the last reading, but only 1% - may be margin of error).

 

[Joeviocoe]

In fact it seems the "solution" is universally unacceptable to the people actually affected by the problem.

With the press picking up on your plight... fear has been spreading that Everyone, from New York to Chicago, might also face "premature" degradation. And that, regardless of climate, the Arizona Leafs are merely "Canaries in a Coal Mine" for the rest of the U.S. population which will soon face catastrophic loss of capacity and of any residual value.

Your problems, which are indeed climate driven, still invoke irrational fear amongst potential EV buyers in colder or moderate climates, where they would be likely to meet or even exceed the normal estimated capacity degradation curve.

People were losing confidence in Nissan's estimations, because of how vocal (with good reason) you have all been. Even if 95% of the Leafs in the U.S. market meet or exceed Nissan's estimates... people still fear becoming the outlier. Even though being this outlier would be very unlikely unless living in hot climates.

--------------------------

This warranty is for THEM.... not for you (unfortunately).
This warranty is to quell their fears by providing a lower limit... and a sense of confidence.
Nissan needs to address you issue properly. A technical fix would be desirable.. but is not likely in the short term.
But this warranty is not meant to provide you (those who have already lost so much) with any reparations.

And in that sense, this warranty is in fact a "SOLUTION" to a problem "affecting" the rest of the U.S. population (those who have bought a Leaf, or thinking of buying) in places OTHER than hot climates.

 

[JRP3]

In fact it seems the "solution" is universally unacceptable to the people actually affected by the problem.

This warranty is for THEM.... not for you (unfortunately).

To be clear I'm not a LEAF owner, just a concerned observer hoping that Nissan does the right thing. Forcing customers to go to the BBB to take care of their problems does not help Nissan or further EV adoption.

 

[Volusiano]

I'm glad to have the capacity warranty, that will undoubtedly help Leaf sales. I think the capacity warranty is better than without one, but the primary reason that I'm still disappointed with this solution is that we still have to live with a Leaf with diminished range (compared to the same mileage car in cooler climates) until we are down to the warranty threshold.

I kinda agree with you here about having a warranty is better than having none, but I'm not so sure if it will help LEAF sales. Why? Because it's going to be a double edge sword for Nissan.

While it's better than having no warranty, it finally confirms now about Nissan's true lack of confidence in their battery capacity performance. Nissan has been touting 80% in 5 years but is now only backing up 70% in 5 years. So people are now only going to go by the warranty and assume 70% in 5 years. That includes EVERYONE, not just hot climate owners. After all, Nissan didn't give cool climate owners a better warranty, did they?

Given that the current EPA range of 73 miles, 70% of that is 51 miles. Also, given that the cat is out of the bag now that Nissan is admitting that degradation is going to take place up front within the first year or two, that means that people can expect to be down to as low as 51 miles for the first year or two, and be stuck with this low range for the next several years before they may be able to claim any warranty. Also, with the lack of a longer tiered warranty for year 6-to-10, it's a likely scenario that they will be stuck with 51 miles between year 2 through 5, then fall below 51 miles and be out of warranty between year 6 and 10.

Who in their right mind would want to count on this warranty as a positive factor in buying the LEAF? If anything, it should be cause for concern to EVERYONE now (and not just hot climate owners), and I'll predict that the 9 bar warranty will hurt the LEAF sales more than helping it. This issue might have been swept under the rug before and did not factor strongly into the purchase decision, but now it brings to the forefront on everyone's mind at the point of purchase loud and clear about the fear of having not enough range, and Nissan not doing enough to alleviate this fear adequately. Quite the opposite, Nissan's 70% warranty confirms clearly this fear with new prospective buyers.

Before, old prospective buyers were thinking, "Oh, 80% AT THE END of 5 years is OK. I'm going to take the risk and when I have to face that 20% loss at the end of 5 years, battery technology will catch up and I won't have to deal with this problem at that point because I'm going to be able to replace it with a newer/better battery."

But no more. Now, new and informed prospective buyers are going to think: "Oh my, I can easily face the loss of 70% UP FRONT in the first year or two and be stuck with that for 5 years and possibly longer? That's not going to work for me and the 70% warranty is not going to help me at all."

With this in mind, would you want to rely on Nissan's 70% 5 year warranty, or go with a car that offers TMS?

The only acceptable scenario with the LEAF right now is a dirt-cheap lease deal (how long is that going to be sustainable?) so they don't have to be stuck with the battery. But people who lease would't care less about the 70% warranty being a factor in their lease decision.

 

[kubel]

Hello Nissan : You should do this for every Leaf driver in AZ.

I'm not trying to pick on early adopters- but here's what I knew in 2010 prior to the LEAF launch in the US, and prior to even being interested in the car.

1) The battery pack had no active thermal management.
2) Lithium batteries degrade in extreme heat, and they can't store as much energy in extreme cold.
3) Mark Perry went on record saying, "We don’t need thermal management for the U.S., but we are looking at the technology for Dubai and other locations like that…. We’ve gone on the record saying that the pack has a 70 to 80 percent capacity after 10 years... If it wasn’t our pack and it wasn’t our engineers and we weren’t working on it for 17 years … we wouldn’t make the statement if we weren’t confident in our ability to do so".
4) Elon Musk said the LEAFs battery was "primative" and would show "huge degradation".
5) The battery pack had no warranty when it comes to range / capacity.

If I lived in AZ, I wouldn't have purchased or leased the LEAF. I almost didn't lease my LEAF due to Michigan's cold weather (cold pack + cabin heat + snow tires = HUGE impact on range). I'm surprised other people didn't know the risk when they decided to be an early adopter. I figured everyone knew.

Anyway, not blaming LEAF owners that have been hit with capacity loss. Just saying many of us knew the risks, knew the packs design flaws, and decided to accept the risks and be an early adopter, pretending that the promises from a marketing director had more weight than the fact that the car had absolutely no warranty on range or capacity.

With that said, Nissan's current warranty is a good first step (it's the only mass-produced EV that I know of offering a capacity warranty), but still a long ways from how the car was marketed (70-80% after 10 years).

I want to see a 10 year/100,000 mile/80% capacity warranty. If they can't offer it standard, no problem, offer it as an optional extended warranty if you have to. If Nissan offered that kind of a warranty at a reasonable price, I would buy out my lease today and Nissan would have a Ford-A-Plan-customer for life. Without a strong warranty backing their product, I'm only going to be in it for a lease and then I'll switch to the next best product, with or without a Nissan badge, makes no difference to me. Brand loyalty only comes after the brand is loyal to its customer- and Nissan can get that by backing an aggressive warranty on their battery.

 

[surfingslovak]

I want to see a 10 year/100,000 mile/80% capacity warranty. If they can't offer it standard, no problem, offer it as an optional extended warranty if you have to.

Thank you. Yes, this is precisely what I put into a list of suggestions for the meeting their engineering team held at Google a year ago. I'm pretty sure that they have heard about this idea before, and I hope that the leadership at Nissan is giving it consideration. I believe that several Phoenix owners raised the issue of the original capacity estimates, and that they would like to see those warrantied instead of the 70% threshold. I'm convinced that there is a lot of goodwill in the early adopter community. If I didn't want to support Nissan's EV program, I would not have purchased a LEAF in the first place. A paid-for warranty might be a good move, much like a purchase option for the battery.

 

[Volusiano]

1) The battery pack had no active thermal management.
2) Lithium batteries degrade in extreme heat, and they can't store as much energy in extreme cold.
3) Mark Perry went on record saying, "We don’t need thermal management for the U.S., but we are looking at the technology for Dubai and other locations like that…. We’ve gone on the record saying that the pack has a 70 to 80 percent capacity after 10 years... If it wasn’t our pack and it wasn’t our engineers and we weren’t working on it for 17 years … we wouldn’t make the statement if we weren’t confident in our ability to do so".
4) Elon Musk said the LEAFs battery was "primative" and would show "huge degradation".
5) The battery pack had no warranty when it comes to range / capacity.

If I lived in AZ, I wouldn't have purchased or leased the LEAF. I almost didn't lease my LEAF due to Michigan's cold weather (cold pack + cabin heat + snow tires = HUGE impact on range). I'm surprised other people didn't know the risk when they decided to be an early adopter. I figured everyone knew.

Anyway, not blaming LEAF owners that have been hit with capacity loss. Just saying many of us knew the risks, knew the packs design flaws, and decided to accept the risks and be an early adopter, pretending that the promises from a marketing director had more weight than the fact that the car had absolutely no warranty on range or capacity.

Early adopters take educated and calculated risks and made purchase decision based on the information the manufacturer feeds them about the car. Early adopters rely on the integrity of this information and the integrity of the manufacturers to provide true and correct information. Early adopters don't take dumb unfounded risks and don't rely on unreliable sources.

With this said, early adopters are entitled to expect the company to have their back when problems that the company assured them wouldn't happen arised.

All these concerns were raised to Nissan and Mark Perry squashed them all. He represented Nissan and he was practically the only high level face of Nissan back then. He's not some rank-and-file customer support representation. Nissan by virtue of allowing him to make all those statements implies that Nissan accepted his claims and statements. Nissan never refuted any of his statements to-date. So how can you dismiss that Mark Perry was a mere marketing director making stand-alone mere promises that did not represent Nissan?

If Nissan had refuted any of those things Mark Perry said there and then, then I agree that nobody would have the right to call on Nissan to put the money where their mouth was today and fix the problem. That didn't happen. Nissan hadn't refuted anything Mark Perry said to-date.

If Nissan had refuted those things that Mark Perry said, there might have been much less early adopters buying into the car as there were.

The issue is not about early adopters refusing to live with the risks that they took.

The issue is about Nissan feeding early adopters false information (no heat problem in AZ), expressedly so in the face of skepticism from others such as Elon Musk in the industry. So now Nissan must eat their words and make it right to early adopters.

Unlike what you think, I believe early adopters are truly entitled to have the heat capacity resolved to their satisfaction in this case.

 

[Herm]

This warranty is for THEM.... not for you (unfortunately).
This warranty is to quell their fears by providing a lower limit... and a sense of confidence.
Nissan needs to address your issue properly. A technical fix would be desirable.. but is not likely in the short term.
But this warranty is not meant to provide you (those who have already lost so much) with any reparations.

+10 Joe

The warranty is the first part of the solution, the second part is the cost of the replacement battery.. yet to be released.
The stunning price released today bodes well, perhaps the replacement battery will be as cheap

 

[TomT]

+10!

I want to see a 10 year/100,000 mile/80% capacity warranty. If they can't offer it standard, no problem, offer it as an optional extended warranty if you have to. If Nissan offered that kind of a warranty at a reasonable price, I would buy out my lease today and Nissan would have a Ford-A-Plan-customer for life. Without a strong warranty backing their product, I'm only going to be in it for a lease and then I'll switch to the next best product, with or without a Nissan badge, makes no difference to me. Brand loyalty only comes after the brand is loyal to its customer- and Nissan can get that by backing an aggressive warranty on their battery.

 

[JPWhite]

The issue is not about early adopters refusing to live with the risks that they took.

Agreed, early adopters accept risk. Up until now Nissan have not shared the capacity loss risk at all, asking us to sign disclaimers at purchase, essentially making owners accept 100% of the risk for the capacity of the battery.

What the supplemental warranty does is introduce risk sharing by Nissan. They are meeting us halfway/partway. Have they got the balance/formula of the risk sharing right? We can argue that ad infinitum, but they have at least taken on some of the risk with their customers. (They should have done it from the get go, but that's water under the bridge).

While I believe it was wrong for them to not accept any risk with regard to battery capacity, by the same token it would also be wrong for early adopters to insist they take all the risk.

It's all about risk sharing. Time will tell if they got it right or not. They've made their bed now they will lay in it.

 

[Herm]

Agreed, early adopters accept risk. Up until now Nissan have not shared the capacity loss risk at all, asking us to sign disclaimers at purchase, essentially making owners accept 100% of the risk for the capacity of the battery.

Yeah, you guys were forced to sign under duress

 

[Stoaty]

What the supplemental warranty does is introduce risk sharing by Nissan. They are meeting us halfway/partway. Have they got the balance/formula of the risk sharing right? We can argue that ad infinitum, but they have at least taken on some of the risk with their customers. (They should have done it from the get go, but that's water under the bridge).

I believe that Nissan has properly shared the risk for most areas of the country and it does give some confidence to many that there is a floor below which their capacity can't fall too quickly without some remedy. I agree that early adopters should share unknown risks, but in the case of the very hot areas (primarily Arizona and Texas, a few parts of California--so far) I think we are talking about something quite different. In those hot climates, there is every indication that we are not talking about unknown risks, but about a near certainty that was known by Nissan, but not by the buyers. Where do you think the graph that TickTock drew from his discussion with the Nissan engineer came from? Clearly Nissan knew (roughly) what would happen to the battery packs in Arizona. The issue here is not risk, but lack of disclosure of a material fact that would be very likely to affect a purchase decision. That's also the reason many of the Arizona purchasers are still pissed off--because this problem wasn't something unforeseen, it was something ignored.

 

[vrwl]

I'm not trying to pick on early adopters- but here's what I knew in 2010 prior to the LEAF launch in the US, and prior to even being interested in the car.

1) The battery pack had no active thermal management.
2) Lithium batteries degrade in extreme heat, and they can't store as much energy in extreme cold.
3) Mark Perry went on record saying, "We don’t need thermal management for the U.S., but we are looking at the technology for Dubai and other locations like that…. We’ve gone on the record saying that the pack has a 70 to 80 percent capacity after 10 years... If it wasn’t our pack and it wasn’t our engineers and we weren’t working on it for 17 years … we wouldn’t make the statement if we weren’t confident in our ability to do so".
4) Elon Musk said the LEAFs battery was "primative" and would show "huge degradation".
5) The battery pack had no warranty when it comes to range / capacity.

This car was introduced to the public as an "EV for the masses". Essentially that means the public should be able to purchase this car just like any other car without a whole bunch of obscure background knowledge or research to bolster their purchasing decision. This was not a Beta-version of the car, it was a "production for the masses" car. I would agree with your statements if this had been a Beta version still in the throes of testing or if it was only being marketed to a select customer type with backgrounds in engineering or science. But that's not what's happening here. These are being marketed to us "regular" folks too, many of whom had no prior knowledge of the statements you listed above, or were told something completely different by the salespeople at the dealerships.

 

[JRP3]

I've been getting the same messages to this and other MNL threads, but this time it didn't show up. Maybe it's fixed?