Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[Volusiano]

I will dispell this now. There are only 5 instances where the Volts engine will kick on (6 if you have a 2013 with hold mode).. 1.) When you run out of battery charge 2.) When you open the hood with the car energized/on to warn you that the car is live 3.) In mountain mode when you get below 14 miles of range remaining 4.) When the exterior temperature is less than 25F (or on the 2013's 15F if you set it to low temp) 5.) On the 45th day that you have run in EV mode alone 6.) When turning on Hold mode (2013's only).

7. ? Going 70mph or faster? (read this somewhere)

Not really. If there's still plenty of juice left in the battery, what happens when you get up to freeway speed at around 70mph is that the generator normally reserved to generate electricity for the ICE gets drafted into service in the reverse direction to become a secondary motor instead of a generator, drawing juice from the battery just like the main tractor motor does.

The purpose of inducting the generator into service at 70mph to become a secondary smaller motor is to engage and lock in gear with the main motor to slow down the very high rotation speed of the main motor (which is very inefficient at high speed). Reducing the rotational speed of the main motor at 70mph will improve efficiency of the battery driven motor a bit more (10-15%). At this point, the ICE is 100% decoupled from the generator/secondary motor because the clutch between the ICE and the generator is disengaged. So the ICE is NOT running in this mode.

This is a rather ingenious idea by GM engineers to make use of the idle generator that's sitting there doing nothing in this mode and turn it into a secondary motor to engage with and slow down the main motor to reduce high speed inefficiency.

If you want to know a little more details on how this work, you need to understand the planetary gear system a little bit. GM connects the main motor to the sun gear, and the planetary gears are connected to the drive train that spins the wheels in a 7:1 reduction ratio. At low speed, a clutch locks the ring gear in place to be stationary, and the sun gear drives the planet gears at low speed (good efficiency). At higher speed, the clutch that locks the ring gear is released, and a second clutch engages the generator/secondary motor with the ring gear. So now the secondary motor drives the ring gear in conjunction with the main motor driving the sun gear, both working in unison to provide power to the planet gears which drives the drive train of the wheels. When the secondary motor is clutched into the ring gear, the ring gear starts to rotate from slower to faster, which causes the sun gear (main motor) to slow down, until at some point both of them match in speed, causing the sun gear to spin slower than before (but the planet gears are still at the same speed that spins the wheels at 70mph.

All that above is strictly with the battery providing 100% power and the ICE is inactive. But while I'm at it, might as well discuss the scenario where the battery juice runs out and the ICE is kicked in to drive the generator to create juice. In this case, at low speed, the ICE is clutched in with the generator to create the juice, and the generator/secondary motor is de-clutched from the ring gear, and the ring gear is locked up by the ground clutch. So the juice generated by the generator/ICE drives the main motor (sun gear) to the wheels (via the planet gears). But going up toward higher speeds, a similar scenario as described above happens, but this time with the ICE engaged. In this case, the generator is clutched to the ICE on one side, and on the other side, again clutched into the ring gear (and ground clutch released from ring gear to free it up to spin) so generator becomes the secondary motor driving the ring gear again, and in effect slowing down the main motor/sun gear again to reduce spin rate and thereby reduce inefficiency by 10-15% again. Very similar to the battery only scenario described above.

But there's a new phenomena that starts happening how: mechanical power from the ICE in transferred to the generator/secondary motor to the ring gear to assist the rotation of the main motor. So in this mode, the operation is no longer 100% pure electric anymore, because the mechanical coupling described above is introducing mechanical power to the mix. In this case, the generator is still acting as a generator, but is pulling double duty and acts as a conduit to transfer mechanical power from the ICE to the drive train as well. GM really wants to down play this part because it takes away the notion of the Volt as a pure EV with extended range, and cause people to brand the Volt in the same lot as the hybrid crowd where the ICE is mechanically linked to and power the drive train at high speed. And GM really wants the Volt to stand out and not be lumped back together with the hybrid crowd because of this mechanical link between the ICE and the drive train at high speed.

By the way, GM refers to the high speed 70mph scenario as a dual motor mode, although the dual motor mode in battery only mode (charge depletion) works a little differently than in the ICE only model (charge sustaining), as you can see.

But the bottom line to the 70mph question is that the ICE does not have to turn on at 70mph as long as there's enough juice in the battery to continue the dual motor mode in the charge depletion mode.

 

[ewodraska]

Called yesterday to request a buyback. My old case number was inactive so they assigned me a new one. 10608223.
Nissan called me back today and denied my request. Wow, that was fast.

I filed with the BBB today.

Super disappointed with the way Nissan is handling hot weather LEAFs.

I love the LEAF, but when I get LBW at 49miles with only one capacity bar missing it really dissapoints me. I just can't see it lasting 5 years for my needs, even with a 70% warranty. Granted it was cold that day(20's for a low, 40 for a high), but I ran the heat to prewarm the cabin while plugged in, and then drove with gloves/blanket for the rest of the day. My average is 4.7 kWh/mile from the dash.

 

[Volusiano]

Called yesterday to request a buyback. My old case number was inactive so they assigned me a new one. 10608223.
Nissan called me back today and denied my request. Wow, that was fast.

I filed with the BBB today.

Super disappointed with the way Nissan is handling hot weather LEAFs.

I love the LEAF, but when I get LBW at 49miles with only one capacity bar missing it really dissapoints me. I just can't see it lasting 5 years for my needs, even with a 70% warranty. Granted it was cold that day(20's for a low, 40 for a high), but I ran the heat to prewarm the cabin while plugged in, and then drove with gloves/blanket for the rest of the day. My average is 4.7 kWh/mile from the dash.

Sorry to hear about your denied request for a buyback. I'm assuming that maybe it's because you haven't reached the 2 bar loss yet. It'll just be a matter of time by next summer that you'll see your 2nd bar loss. I'd suggest that you submit a new request at the time for a buyback again when you get to your 2nd bar loss (if the BBB filing still hasn't yielded any favorable results yet).

 

[Volusiano]

I turned my LEAF in today to Nissan. It was a sad moment for my whole family. My wife and kids and I have grown particularly attached to the car. But we gotta move on. At least we have a new Volt in our hands now to provide some distraction from this sad moment.

I would like to thank Nissan for the buyback. I'm resigned to the fact that we'll probably never see a true general solution to the battery heat problem for hot climate 2011/2012 early adopters. But I hope that at least Nissan would turn their currently haphazard and seemingly random buyback decision process into something more concrete so that people can follow to know how and when and whether they can qualify or not.

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators that process the buyback. For example, one AZ owner I talked to told me that his Use Allowance was calculated based on the IRS mileage allowance of $0.275/mile * #of miles he drove. But in my case, my Nissan Arbitrator used a different method of calculation. He took the base price of my car and multiplied it by (my miles/100K miles).

So he was basically saying that the residual value of my car is $0 by the time it reaches 100K miles. I don't think this is a fair assumption at all because when I bought the car, I was planning to use it way past 100K miles. Even if my battery capacity will be reduced to 70% by then (as Mark Perry of Nissan used to advertise), the car is still of great value to me because I can still use it for just shorter trips around town just fine. If Nissan had used the $0.275/mile method for my case, I would have come out much further ahead on the buyback refund (around $1K ahead).

I asked my Nissan arbitrator why he's using a different method than the other Nissan arbitrator for the other AZ owner I heard about, and he pretty much didn't bother answering that question. He simply said "In regard to your question, usage is calculated according to the Arizona State Lemon Law, which is used only as a guideline, as the vehicle is not a lemon. Please understand that this is a voluntary offer of Goodwill. ". The AZ lemon law model provides room for a Use Allowance but doesn't stipulate how it should be calculated to allow room for negotiation. So my interpretation of the Nissan arbitrator's reply to me is pretty much "don't push your luck, I don't have to explain or justify my method of calculation to you because I'm the one giving you the buyback here."

 

[cwerdna]

But I hope that at least Nissan would turn their currently haphazard and seemingly random buyback decision process into something more concrete so that people can follow to know how and when and whether they can qualify or not.
...
So he was basically saying that the residual value of my car is $0 by the time it reaches 100K miles. I don't think this is a fair assumption at all...

Glad to hear about the buyback. I agree w/all of the above.

A car's value doesn't become $0 at 100K miles. That's nuts.

 

[Volusiano]

One more thing I'd like to share about my "turn in the LEAF back to Nissan" experience today. I was asking the rep who processed the turn in for Nissan how often he does this "turn in". He said it varies, but it used to be a couple of times a week for him, but more like once a week lately. But he said that he's not the only one doing this. There are multiple of people in his company that does it, too.

So my whole point is that it looks like the buyback is still alive and on-going and people are still getting their buyback request approved and processed (like me). So don't be discouraged to request it if you feel like your situation justifies it because the range of the car doesn't work out for your need anymore.

Of course I'm in AZ so I'm only talking about the frequency of the buyback process locally here in AZ here.

 

[leafkabob]

I turned my LEAF in today to Nissan. It was a sad moment for my whole family. My wife and kids and I have grown particularly attached to the car. But we gotta move on. At least we have a new Volt in our hands now to provide some distraction from this sad moment.

I would like to thank Nissan for the buyback. I'm resigned to the fact that we'll probably never see a true general solution to the battery heat problem for hot climate 2011/2012 early adopters. But I hope that at least Nissan would turn their currently haphazard and seemingly random buyback decision process into something more concrete so that people can follow to know how and when and whether they can qualify or not.

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators that process the buyback. For example, one AZ owner I talked to told me that his Use Allowance was calculated based on the IRS mileage allowance of $0.275/mile * #of miles he drove. But in my case, my Nissan Arbitrator used a different method of calculation. He took the base price of my car and multiplied it by (my miles/100K miles).

So he was basically saying that the residual value of my car is $0 by the time it reaches 100K miles. I don't think this is a fair assumption at all because when I bought the car, I was planning to use it way past 100K miles. Even if my battery capacity will be reduced to 70% by then (as Mark Perry of Nissan used to advertise), the car is still of great value to me because I can still use it for just shorter trips around town just fine. If Nissan had used the $0.275/mile method for my case, I would have come out much further ahead on the buyback refund (around $1K ahead).

I asked my Nissan arbitrator why he's using a different method than the other Nissan arbitrator for the other AZ owner I heard about, and he pretty much didn't bother answering that question. He simply said "In regard to your question, usage is calculated according to the Arizona State Lemon Law, which is used only as a guideline, as the vehicle is not a lemon. Please understand that this is a voluntary offer of Goodwill. ". The AZ lemon law model provides room for a Use Allowance but doesn't stipulate how it should be calculated to allow room for negotiation. So my interpretation of the Nissan arbitrator's reply to me is pretty much "don't push your luck, I don't have to explain or justify my method of calculation to you because I'm the one giving you the buyback here."

Congratulations on getting out from under the car. But I empathize on the feeling of loss. We are still mourning the loss of our leaf after our buyback on 1/10/13. I am the person you referred to above who said they charged me $.275 per mile. Apparently the "arbitration specialists" are allowed to make it up as they go. Nissan never ceases to amaze me at how they treat people. And I agree with you that to call these buybacks a "program" is a stretch.

 

[edatoakrun]

I turned my LEAF in today to Nissan....

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators that process the buyback. For example, one AZ owner I talked to told me that his Use Allowance was calculated based on the IRS mileage allowance of $0.275/mile * #of miles he drove. But in my case, my Nissan Arbitrator used a different method of calculation. He took the base price of my car and multiplied it by (my miles/100K miles).

So he was basically saying that the residual value of my car is $0 by the time it reaches 100K miles. I don't think this is a fair assumption at all because when I bought the car, I was planning to use it way past 100K miles. Even if my battery capacity will be reduced to 70% by then (as Mark Perry of Nissan used to advertise), the car is still of great value to me because I can still use it for just shorter trips around town just fine. If Nissan had used the $0.275/mile method for my case, I would have come out much further ahead on the buyback refund (around $1K ahead)..."

Congratulations on getting out from under the car. But I empathize on the feeling of loss. We are still mourning the loss of our leaf after our buyback on 1/10/13. I am the person you referred to above who said they charged me $.275 per mile. Apparently the "arbitration specialists" are allowed to make it up as they go. Nissan never ceases to amaze me at how they treat people. And I agree with you that to call these buybacks a "program" is a stretch.

Why don't the buyback recipients post the original price you paid, the mileage driven and time owned, and the cash value of the buyback you received?

Vehicle depreciation is not linear, and it generally decelerates over time, representing the market's perception of the increased utility of a newer vehicle. The first mile driven and first day of ownership will always incur greater costs to the owner than the second, and the second mile driven and day owned costs more than the third.

So no simple calculation based on cents per mile or a percentage of miles driven is likely to match a "fair" price of the utility to a vehicle owner, IMO.

 

[Volusiano]

Why don't the buyback recipients post the original price you paid, the mileage driven and time owned, and the cash value of the buyback you received?

Vehicle depreciation is not linear, and it generally decelerates over time, representing the market's perception of the increased utility of a newer vehicle. The first mile driven and first day of ownership will always incur greater costs to the owner than the second, and the second mile driven and day owned costs more than the third.

So no simple calculation based on cents per mile or a percentage of miles driven is likely to match a "fair" price of the utility to a vehicle owner, IMO.

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude because they are personal sensitive information that people may not want to share. It's like asking people how much money they make a year.

But it's not like it's that hard to guess, because pretty much everybody paid full price for the LEAF back then, maybe minus a thousand or two for discount (if any) if you're lucky. Cash value of the buyback is also not that hard to guess -> OTD price minus the Use Allowance. Any add-ons the owner put on the car like window tint, new tires, special wheels, accessories like after market leather seat upgrade, bike hitch, etc that are not recoverable also need to be factored into the loss.

So this information varies, and although it's rude to ask, it's really not relevant anyway to know this information from the perspective of the point you're making about older and higher mileage cars should depreciate less. Only the mileage and time owned information is relevant to the point you're making about older and higher mileage cars should depreciate less.

My car had 25K miles with 19 months owned when I turned it in. I believe my car had much higher mileage than Leafkabob's car with about same time owned (maybe a month apart) according to the Wiki page on battery loss reported. And I think his car has 17 months owned roughly when he turned his in.

So as you can see, the method of calculation Nissan used for my car is less favorable (to me) than the method of calculation Nissan used on Leafkabob's car for Use Allowance, even though my car has higher mileage with more time owned compared to Leafkabob's car. This is the complete opposite of your argument that older, higher mileage cars should depreciate less. Nissan's different and inconsistent methods of calculation depreciated my older and higher mileage car faster than Leafkabob's car.

 

[JRP3]

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude because they are personal sensitive information that people may not want to share. It's like asking people how much money they make a year.

Not at all the same thing. Product pricing is well known and publicly disseminated, salaries are not.

 

[Volusiano]

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude because they are personal sensitive information that people may not want to share. It's like asking people how much money they make a year.

Not at all the same thing. Product pricing is well known and publicly disseminated, salaries are not.

If it's public information, then why did he need to ask? He wasn't asking for the public pricing information. He was asking for the actual prices paid by the buyers. Some buyers may over pay MSRP for their cars if the car is in high demand. Even buyers who pay MSRP or below MSRP may not wish to share how much they pay, because it's nobody else's business but theirs.

And as I pointed out, the pricing information is not necessary for the discussion around his point (older and higher mileage car should depreciate less than new cars). Only the mileage and time owned is relevant to that discussion. And while I agree with his point (older and higher mileage car should depreciate less), I've shown between my case and Leafkabob's case that Nissan's different methods of calculation for Use Allowance in our cases is the reverse of the conventional wisdom that he pointed out.

 

[edatoakrun]

Why don't the buyback recipients post the original price you paid, the mileage driven and time owned, and the cash value of the buyback you received?

Vehicle depreciation is not linear, and it generally decelerates over time, representing the market's perception of the increased utility of a newer vehicle. The first mile driven and first day of ownership will always incur greater costs to the owner than the second, and the second mile driven and day owned costs more than the third.

So no simple calculation based on cents per mile or a percentage of miles driven is likely to match a "fair" price of the utility to a vehicle owner, IMO.

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude...

Well, I'm not entirely sure how Miss Manners would view your post of last night, where you first thanked Nissan for your buyback, then complained Nissan didn't pay you as high a price as they paid another buyback recipient.

="Volusiano

I would like to thank Nissan for the buyback...

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators...

The point is, the vagueness of your several posts, including how Nissan handled the question of the tax credit on leases/purchases, would seem to leave any reader completely uninformed as to what your actual costs were to have owned or leased your LEAFs, after you accepted the buybacks.

I would think any LEAF owner trying to decide whether to pursue a buyback or rely on the rather vague "capacity warranty" would like to have the facts I suggested you and other buyback recipients might chose to post, but it is entirely your own decision as to whether you wish to do so.

 

[JRP3]

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude because they are personal sensitive information that people may not want to share. It's like asking people how much money they make a year.

Not at all the same thing. Product pricing is well known and publicly disseminated, salaries are not.

If it's public information, then why did he need to ask?

General pricing is known, I don't think that many people would be concerned about telling if they paid a few thousand more or less. Obviously those who are need not divulge that info, but frankly I've never understood why some people feel the need to keep that a secret. Sharing is caring after all, and helps everyone.

 

[Volusiano]

Why don't the buyback recipients post the original price you paid, the mileage driven and time owned, and the cash value of the buyback you received?

Vehicle depreciation is not linear, and it generally decelerates over time, representing the market's perception of the increased utility of a newer vehicle. The first mile driven and first day of ownership will always incur greater costs to the owner than the second, and the second mile driven and day owned costs more than the third.

So no simple calculation based on cents per mile or a percentage of miles driven is likely to match a "fair" price of the utility to a vehicle owner, IMO.

Asking people the original price they paid and the cash value of the buyback received on a public forum is considered rude...

Well, I'm not entirely sure how Miss Manners would view your post of last night, where you first thanked Nissan for your buyback, then complained Nissan didn't pay you as high a price as they paid another buyback recipient.

="Volusiano

I would like to thank Nissan for the buyback...

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators...

The point is, the vagueness of your several posts, including how Nissan handled the question of the tax credit on leases/purchases, would seem to leave any reader completely uninformed as to what your actual costs were to have owned or leased your LEAFs, after you accepted the buybacks.

I would think any LEAF owner trying to decide whether to pursue a buyback or rely on the rather vague "capacity warranty" would like to have the facts I suggested you and other buyback recipients might chose to post, but it is entirely your own decision as to whether you wish to do so.

I think Miss Manner would have found my manner just fine, thank you very much, because those are 2 separate issues.

The inconsistency of how Nissan calculates the Use Allowance in different cases is after the fact of Nissan making the decision to accept the buy back request or not. So if you want me to spell it out to make it clearer, I am thankful that Nissan accepted my buyback request. But on the other hand, I'm not thankful that Nissan used inconsistent/different method of calculating the Use Allowance within their own company by different Nissan arbitration specialists for different cases. I think using the $0.275 allowance is fair because this is the standard IRS allowance for mileage. I think assuming that your car is worth $0 value at 100K miles is not fair because your can is still worth something at 100K miles because it's still fully usable, albeit at less range.

There is no vagueness about my posts. I already said the buyback value to the owner is OTD price minus the Use Allowance minus your investment in aftermarket add-ons to your cars, didn't I?

I never mentioned about how Nissan handles the tax credit because Nissan doesn't handle the tax credit. If you haven't already figured it out yet, it's still OTD price minus the Use Allowance minus your investment in aftermarket add-ons. Like I said before.

If you're implying that for people with very low mileage (translating to low Use Allowance) and no market add-ons, they may end up making money and not lose any if the $7500 tax credit is factored in, then it's true. There's nothing vague about that. But don't forget that not everybody qualifies for the full $7500 tax credit either. So the vagueness is not on purpose to hide anything. The vagueness is because all individual situations are different. And there's no way Nissan can factor in the tax credit into the buyback because not everybody gets the full tax credit.

In my case, I didn't make any money and I lost several grands after all is said and done, if that's what you wanted to know. It's because I had a lot of aftermarket items invested into the LEAF, like window tint, Wet Okole seat covers, brand new Michelin MXV4 tires, bike hitch, upgraded horn, cargo rack, upgraded EVSE, trunk skid pad, floor mats, etc.

Now if you still want to know whether I got the full $7500 tax credit or not, I'd have to say that it's rude to ask and please mind your own business.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I turned my LEAF in today to Nissan. It was a sad moment for my whole family. My wife and kids and I have grown particularly attached to the car. But we gotta move on. At least we have a new Volt in our hands now to provide some distraction from this sad moment.

I would like to thank Nissan for the buyback. I'm resigned to the fact that we'll probably never see a true general solution to the battery heat problem for hot climate 2011/2012 early adopters. But I hope that at least Nissan would turn their currently haphazard and seemingly random buyback decision process into something more concrete so that people can follow to know how and when and whether they can qualify or not.

The buyback "program" (if you can even call it that) is so inconsistent right now that even the method of calculation for the Use Allowance (the $ subtracted from the OTD price for your use of the vehicle) varies amongst the various Nissan Arbitrators that process the buyback. For example, one AZ owner I talked to told me that his Use Allowance was calculated based on the IRS mileage allowance of $0.275/mile * #of miles he drove. But in my case, my Nissan Arbitrator used a different method of calculation. He took the base price of my car and multiplied it by (my miles/100K miles).

So he was basically saying that the residual value of my car is $0 by the time it reaches 100K miles. I don't think this is a fair assumption at all because when I bought the car, I was planning to use it way past 100K miles. Even if my battery capacity will be reduced to 70% by then (as Mark Perry of Nissan used to advertise), the car is still of great value to me because I can still use it for just shorter trips around town just fine. If Nissan had used the $0.275/mile method for my case, I would have come out much further ahead on the buyback refund (around $1K ahead).

I asked my Nissan arbitrator why he's using a different method than the other Nissan arbitrator for the other AZ owner I heard about, and he pretty much didn't bother answering that question. He simply said "In regard to your question, usage is calculated according to the Arizona State Lemon Law, which is used only as a guideline, as the vehicle is not a lemon. Please understand that this is a voluntary offer of Goodwill. ". The AZ lemon law model provides room for a Use Allowance but doesn't stipulate how it should be calculated to allow room for negotiation. So my interpretation of the Nissan arbitrator's reply to me is pretty much "don't push your luck, I don't have to explain or justify my method of calculation to you because I'm the one giving you the buyback here."

Congratulations on getting out from under the car. But I empathize on the feeling of loss. We are still mourning the loss of our leaf after our buyback on 1/10/13. I am the person you referred to above who said they charged me $.275 per mile. Apparently the "arbitration specialists" are allowed to make it up as they go. Nissan never ceases to amaze me at how they treat people. And I agree with you that to call these buybacks a "program" is a stretch.

ok, please correct me if i am wrong but are not arbitration people 3rd party?

in EVERY arbitration case I have been involved with, a 3rd party determined damages, payout, etc. After Nissan agrees to the buyback, i believe that ends their role.

so maybe that is the reason each chooses a different method to determine value on buyback?

ed; it is ok for Vol to thank Nissan and still be unhappy with the settlement because they are two different entities here or is this whole post based on an incorrect assumption because if it is, then Nissan has effectively redefined the word

 

[edatoakrun]

...I never mentioned about how Nissan handles the tax credit because Nissan doesn't handle the tax credit. If you haven't already figured it out yet, it's still OTD price minus the Use Allowance minus your investment in aftermarket add-ons. Like I said before.

If you're implying that for people with very low mileage (translating to low Use Allowance) and no market add-ons, they may end up making money and not lose any if the $7500 tax credit is factored in, then it's true. There's nothing vague about that. But don't forget that not everybody qualifies for the full $7500 tax credit either. So the vagueness is not on purpose to hide anything. The vagueness is because all individual situations are different. And there's no way Nissan can factor in the tax credit into the buyback because not everybody gets the full tax credit.

In my case, I didn't make any money and I lost several grands after all is said and done...

If I understand you correctly, I would not describe your ownership experience as having “lost several grands”.

You (apparently) drove a new car for many months and many thousands of miles, at as cost far below what you would have had to pay for similar use of any other new car, and far less than those of us who are satisfied with our LEAFs (so far) have had to pay.

It sounds like Lessees may not get such a sweet deal, if they pursue early termination.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

before I could determine a loss, I would have to have factored in a replacement option for the same period which means $2,000 in fuel costs right off the top minus $600 in electricity so ANY other option starts out $1400 in the hole

then payments (i can use recently purchased car) of $260 a month *24 =6240 plus $2000 down.

so I am looking at "best" case scenario of having spent $9640 on a regular car.

verses my LEAF (which i got one of the WORST deals here) i put $10,000 down and paid $162 a month or $ 3888 plus $600 in juice for $14488

so my LEAF was about $5000 more but keep in mind gas cost was based on 49.8 MPG Prius not a 38 MPG Yaris that the payments are based on but that is pennies. also does not include maintenance of about 4-5 oil changes at $50 each, etc. and it also does not include the value of driving electric.

the Yaris only has a range of roughly 350 miles in Winter so it requires a LOT more stops to get gas than the Prius so it really does whittle away at the price difference

 

[RickS]

It's been a little while since I posted last. My last post mentioned I had started jumping through the hoops. I got a specialist to come out and look at the car last week. I dropped it off in the morning and got my loaner at Larry Miller "Riverview" Nissan and went to work. They apparently had an update to one of the control modules which hadn't taken previously that they tried updating, the power went out at the dealership apparently during the update and I took this for AKA we bricked the car and need to keep it overnight, so I let them. The next day it took all day to get the car reprogrammed and I was finally told to come get it.

The service write up was interesting, had poor grammar and was full of spelling, punctuation and syntax errors, but basically stated that they had to have Nissan remote in to the scan tool to get the car to take the update. I also had asked them to look at several rattles that were in the car including a really bad one around the rear wiper motor trim. They "fixed" this by repositioning my rear seat belt buckles. The rattles are all still there, I'm not too happy with their service.

That aside, I got a call back from Nissan customer support yesterday with the "report" that my car was functioning normally.

I'll be filing with the BBB in the next few days. This turn of events also made me decide to activate my web site in my signature. I'm currently running through the blog starting from day 1 and working toward current. I'm a little bug eyed working on this for the past several hours though so it might take until tomorrow to get it fully up and running.

 

[surfingslovak]

before I could determine a loss, I would have to have factored in a replacement option for the same period which means $2,000 in fuel costs right off the top minus $600 in electricity so ANY other option starts out $1400 in the hole

Sure, but this calculation wouldn't apply if the other option was another EV or a Volt, which several folks in Phoenix opted for.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

before I could determine a loss, I would have to have factored in a replacement option for the same period which means $2,000 in fuel costs right off the top minus $600 in electricity so ANY other option starts out $1400 in the hole

Sure, but this calculation wouldn't apply if the other option was another EV or a Volt, which several folks in Phoenix opted for.

that might be true but i still dont consider the Volt as a viable option. if it works for you, all power to you but to me its EV or not. I have both because I need both. There is no other EV out there that would work for me because Chademo is an essential part of the equation, an irreplaceable part. now, the other thing to remember is i got one of the worst LEAF deals here so my example extreme as it is, nearly everyone else would be better. even a doubling of the electricity rates dont come close to the hit i took on a poor lease rate.

the other thing is (I do like Volts in general but only because I know a lot of people they would work perfectly for) I exceed the Volts range frequently. my office is outside the Volts range but easily reached in the LEAF (52 mile RT) Centrailia 64 miles, etc. In the Volt I would be burning gas EVERY week since L2 is rarely convenient to me and my schedule

its funny because Thurs, I worked where L2 was available so drove 46 miles, plugged in, worked and then drove home. it was awesome and still free but L2 rarely works out that way despite being very prevalent in this area.

for Fast charging, its ok to detour a few miles and charge 15 minutes.

now, everything i said goes for me. for different people, different needs so i get it and my post was for my situation. i would love to get a Tesla but that is never going to happen. even if i did somehow get the money, it still wouldnt be an option simply because there are too many other things i want to spend money on first. now, if i won the lottery, sure but...