Degradation Issues with VIN 222. A MUST Read!!

[donald]

You don't actually say how many miles 'in 4 months' were done.

If the SOH was right at the bottom of the 12th bar on purchase, and the BMS was being a bit, say 2%, optimistic in the warm weather in July and dropped into the 11th the next day, dropped down to 10th (6%) and onto 9th (6%), so that is 10%. Possibly the BMS is being a bit pessimistic now, say 2%, in the cold, so that'd be an 8% loss overall.

....Not saying 'is', just saying 'if'....

Nissan guarantee of 30% loss over 60,000 miles, so 8% equals guarantee loss might be expected in 16,000 miles.

Or say 1 in 4 people lose their first bar (15% loss) in av 15,000 miles, so 1 in 4 experience an initial 1% loss per 1,000 miles.

8% loss (which could be 3 battery bars in certain circumstances) could be experienced by 1 in 4 unlucky people over just 8,000 miles.

 

[dhanson865]

Good find! Intentionally resetting the BMS to obscure the battery capacity is every bit as bad as resetting an odometer. Since there could be legitimate reasons to reset the BMS, it really comes down to intent. That said, it should be the law that any seller of an EV either (1) make a good faith effort to provide a reasonable estimate of the true battery capacity, normally the reading reported by the car, or (2) disclose that the battery condition is unknown and/or incorrectly reported.

In this case everything should work out fine in the end, since that car should end up qualifying for a new battery under warranty. But with a higher mileage or older car that can't qualify for the warranty, the buyer could end up in a world of hurt.

Thanks for sharing, that is why NISSAN must make it right for ALL model year 2011-2012 drivers. NISSAN must guarantee a new battery replacement with no regard to years nor mileage.

Do you realize what you just said? No regard to years or mileage? So if the car is 20 years old with 500,000 miles on it, they should still replace the battery?

You have a point, but does anyone think a 2011/2012 LEAF battery is going to make it to 20 years or 500K miles? :lol:

resetting the BMS vs me as a used car buyer was exactly what I asked EVChels to ask Andy about in the Arizona meeting. She got confused or didn't understand the issue to begin with and didn't ask him the correct question and the issue has been left hanging until now.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11057&start=340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has one post on the issue I know I discussed it in several other threads but I'm not sure where.

A reset BMS is my biggest fear when dealing with buying a used Leaf in the next couple of years and I've been asking about that issue since before the Arizona meeting.

 

[TomT]

I suspect that they did a BMS reset... That is about the only way you could loose three bars that fast even if it was already near the bottom of the first bar... This should be illegal as it is no different that doing an odometer roll-back and defrauds the buyer!

Have a WAtonian purchased a used 2011 LEAF VIN 222 this year. It had all 12 bars but in the span of 4 months, she has lost THREE CAPACITY BARS.

 

[johnrhansen]

I wonder about the cars damage history. It's possible it just got painted and baked, and its slowly adjusting to its capacity afterwards.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Can't believe how many completely biased responses here

It is also possible that it may have been a mistake.

Mistake?? that they conveniently forgot to say that 25% of the bars were restored on the meter but not on the pack?

With that said - there is the "too good to be true" issue here... Really - someone buys a 2011 car with early VIN and over 33,700 miles on it and isn't surprised to see 12 bars? Buyers have a responsibility (especially with used) to understand what they are looking at.

"too good to be true?" WHAT?? you should at least have a vague idea of what you are saying before you say it. My 2011 had almost 45,000 miles on it and wasn't all that close to losing its first bar either (57.11 ahr)

Not to be too conspiratorial here, but doesn't the P3227 update reset the BMS?
If it was sold by a dealer, they probably did all the service bulletins on it before selling it.
Although even if that were the case, not disclosing the known true capacity is akin to rolling the odo..

well, ya! And why should the customer be at fault because a SW update completely changes the true nature of the degradation of the battery pack. Giving false witness is one thing and yes we can agree that it should have been part of the information given to the customer at the time of purchase

You don't actually say how many miles 'in 4 months' were done.

not going to bother to quote more of this response other than to say almost 3,000 and I guess you are going to ignore the fact that the same car was already reported as a 3 bar loser right here 10 months ago??

 

[downeykp]

Dave, It seems like too many have drank the Nissan Kool-Aid. Nissan can be commended for bringing a mass produced car to the masses, but like any corporation they are out to make the almighty buck and do not care who they rollover in the process.
This whole episode stinks, some heads need to roll and this poor buyer needs their money back or better yet a new new Leaf for pain and suffering. What a crock.

 

[DaveEV]

One way as a potential buyer of a used to to see if the car's BMS is out of line is to look at the Hx value from LeafDD or LeafSpy before/after a test drive. The BMS adjusts that value very quickly compared to Ah.

 

[johnrhansen]

Couldn't you evaluate the state of the battery simply plugging it into a charging station and noting how many seconds it takes to go up a percent and calculate the energy the battery can hold? You could tell if you know the charging rate. Doesn't leaf spy display all those things?

 

[donald]

Can't believe how many completely biased responses here

That's fantastically ironic, Dave. I showed no bias, just caution to be sure it might not be a real event.

YOU, however, are showing extreme bias by convicting some Nissan dealer of fraud before seeing any real evidence for it.

Your suspicions might well be right, but your methods of securing the evidence to be sure of that have a looooong way to go. It is perfectly appropriate for people to pursue their suspicion of some maleficence, but NOT to state it as fact before they have all the facts.

I am not aware that the car was reported as a 3 bar loser 10 months ago. It might have well had a recent module replaced FOR ALL YOU KNOW and in YOUR BIAS you can't be bothered to find that out. Maybe it is simply a case that the BMS needs to be reprogrammed to deal with the new module, or needed time to get used to it?

Maybe this is the point in time that we discover if one module is replaced in a failing pack, that for some period of time you get a false set of bars, which will serve as a warning to 2nd hand buyers and might even be news to Nissan.

I'd be incandescent too, but I'd want to make sure I am in possession of ALL the facts before lighting my one-way, one-time firework.

Just remember that the warranty is for a car of 70% capacity, and it is still a car with more than 70% capacity. That's what she bought. That's what everyone who buys a Leaf buys into - a car with 15kWh useable. Anything else is there but for the grace of the fickle God of battery chemistry.

 

[kubel]

Can't believe how many completely biased responses here

You are implying fraud took place with no evidence. It is a possibility. There are other possibilities. Surely you must agree with that.

Regardless of how it happened, I don't believe a buyer should be stuck with a 3 bar loser after closing the sale with the impression that it had 12 bars- but I think Nissan needs to do something to prevent this.

 

[mwalsh]

Regardless of how it happened, I don't believe a buyer should be stuck with a 3 bar loser after closing the sale with the impression that it had 12 bars- but I think Nissan needs to do something to prevent this.

+1.

After seeing a couple of instances where a car was inadvertently reset back to 12 bars, I'm not willing to imply fraud without more details. But this is the equivalent of odometer rollback and it should only be allowed to happen with installation of a brand new battery pack. Period. There should be no way to inadvertently reset the BMS, at all.

As to whether it does happen with the P3227 update...we don't have enough data points. Perhaps that needs it's own thread and maybe a poll?

I'm torn about having the update done when I take my car in next month. On the one hand I don't want to see myself back at 12 bars too close to warranty expiration (the B0133 against my car notwithstanding), on the other hand I don't think I could take the loss in regeneration that we've seen after others have had it. Definitely torn.

 

[mwalsh]

I took a look back at Omkar's posts. He mentions having a software update done with his annual battery check in February 2013. The P3227 update didn't become available until June 2013, and he turned in his car at the beginning of this year. So it's entirely possible (probable even) that he didn't have any further work done and the car received the update between being turned in and now.

 

[TimLee]

Can't believe how many completely biased responses here

It is also possible that it may have been a mistake.

Mistake?? that they conveniently forgot to say that 25% of the bars were restored on the meter but not on the pack?

I don't think my response and most of the responses are biased.

It is certainly possible that the dealer got the vehicle off of auction missing three capacity bars and willingly and knowingly reset it to twelve and if they did that is fraud.

But the reset may have happened before they got it, possibly from another dealer that reset it.

But also some technicians have managed to reset the BMS when working on LEAFs.
Probably through mistake.
I don't think properly done P3227 resets the BMS. A lot just got one capacity bar back.

Car dealers are a mess. You know that as you have stated you worked in the business at one point. The This American Life story points it out. Many lie throughout the process of selling new and used cars.

But whether the dealer committed fraud or not, the purchaser has a valid contract dispute with the seller that the vehicle is not what it was represented to be when she bought it.

 

[TimLee]

I'm torn about having the update done when I take my car in next month. On the one hand I don't want to see myself back at 12 bars too close to warranty expiration (the B0133 against my car notwithstanding), on the other hand I don't think I could take the loss in regeneration that we've seen after others have had it. Definitely torn.

I was torn in May but chose to avoid it.
I thought Nissan might fix P3227, so I decided to wait.
They still might, it has only been seventeen months :? :?

My main risk is if the charger fails, which several have reported failures, Nissan might question why it was not done.

But as you approach four bar loss, you have to keep in mind that Nissan will do it before they will replace battery under warranty, assuming they lift B0133.
And it takes three to five months to know where battery capacity is after that.

 

[TomT]

I was one of the first to have the P3227 update done (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13273&hilit=p3227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false and while I did very temporarily gain back one bar (from 10 to 11), it is clear that my BMS was not reset and I did not gain back the full 12 bars... Thus, a BMS reset is not, in my opinion, normally part of the P3227 update.

As to whether it does happen with the P3227 update...we don't have enough data points. Perhaps that needs it's own thread and maybe a poll?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Well, I am NOT sorry that my definition of fraud does not support this forum's.

But one thing is definitely clear. a buyer was PURPOSEFULLY misled into buying a car that was portrayed to be in "like new" condition.

Nissan is NOT BLAMED in this as they have little to do with used cars like any other car manufacturer. The car was likely sent to auction and bought sight unseen by an out of state dealer who then found they were sold "a bill of goods"

so they in the proper "used car business" sense, found a buyer and resold "their bill of goods"

What has been found out is that ANY Nissan dealer can review the warranty history of any Nissan product to KNOW the history of the car. So whether Tacoma Nissan fully knew the circumstances of the car matters not since IGNORANCE HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF ANY SELLER's Rights in this state concerning cars.

Another thing that needs to be "legally" defined is what constitutes a visual indication of a car's level of use. The odometer tends to be one relied upon and there are severe laws governing its accuracy. I find it a bit weird I have to go to these lengths to describe how a battery capacity gauge "rolled back" would be similar especially on this forum.



Dash Pix of car in question taken Aug 3, 2014 a few weeks after purchase.

Finally; if you had read my blog, I stated that further info was required to determine the level of complicity and blame in the case. What level of guarantee at auction is completely unknown to me and again the true condition of the battery pack is simply a lie but an essential characteristic used in the purchase decision of the car. Its no less important imm then choosing between an S and an SL. So even at that level, the auction does have a moral level of responsibility as well

 

[donald]

Dash Pix of car in question taken Aug 3, 2014 a few weeks after purchase.

I think you are absolutely right to be outraged if your suspicions are correct. People should end up with criminal records or worse, if that is the case.

What sort of range was the car delivering, before losing these bars? I mean, bar indication is one thing, but was the battery pack actually performing and then the range performance died away suddenly, or was the range steady and always bad? Did the buyer not notice anything anomalously 'short' about the range, until the battery indicator dropped.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

What sort of range was the car delivering, before losing these bars?

i say.... about 68.3 miles more or less (GOM considered)

Now, I really hate to say this because I think our litigious society has caused way more problems than it has solved which has been many (too much of a good thing at work here!) but this situation really requires legal action and precedence setting.

The bottom line issue is the Lady was sold a car "in like new condition" and it was not. What is to prevent this from becoming a normal way to maximize profits? As Tom T stated, restoring all 12 bars from 9 IS NOT A COMMON characteristic of any recommended service or update.

 

[johnrhansen]

What kind of paper trail is created in the sales of these cars? Is it possible to know? I remember once a case of a real estate property boundary dispute where it bounced back through seven owners over 40 years. In the end, all seven owners split the responsibility for payment of the settlement. If Nissan doesn't make good with the battery, I'd say that 's the route that should be taken. The new owner sues the dealer where she bought the car and demands a new battery or a refund, then that dealer can sue where they bought it, and down the line. That's what litigation is for. It appears intentional fraud is involved, in that case all disclaimers are invalid.

 

[edatoakrun]

In the bizarro world of Nissan's current policy of giving new replacement batteries after four bar loss, I would far prefer my ~32 k mile LEAF was showing nine capacity bars today, rather than eleven.

It will be hard for this LEAF buyer to argue monetary damages, if she recieves a new battery pack from Nissan when her LEAF loses another bar (probably next Spring) replacing the ~four-year-old/35k-miles-driven pack that's in her LEAF today.

Greater lesson from this incident?

Never trust the LBC to give you an accurate report on battery condition.