Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer

[QueenBee]

A vehicle whose battery has nine remaining bars indicated on the gauge is retaining approximately 70 percent of its original battery capacity.

That is only approximately true. Assuming the table from the old service manual is still correct a car with 9 segments showing has between more than 66.25% remaining and less than or equal to 72.5% remaining capacity. So if the final wording of this warranty is literally going to be based on less than 9 segments showing doesn't that mean the warranty does not take effect until the battery is under or equal to 66.25%?

If we are going to base the warranty on bars I would hope that it would kick in AT 9 or less bars showing such that it takes effect when the car has 72.5% or less remaining capacity.

I am very pleased with the communication that is coming from Jeff and Andy, and I hope that the Phoenix LEAF owners will get a lot of the local visit. This is the kind of stuff that will go a long way.

A capacity warranty is certainly a great improvement. I would like it to include specific wording as to what some of the vague terms used currently mean. For example, bold emphasis mine.

Quick charging the vehicle more than one time a day will affect and may hasten the rate of battery capacity loss. Other factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: (1) Sustained high battery temperatures (caused, for example, by exposure to very high ambient temperatures or extending highway driving with multiple quick charges); (2) Sustained high battery state of charge (caused, for example, by frequently charging to 100% state of charge and/or leaving the battery above 80% state of charge for long periods of time);

Higher than estimated annual mileage accumulation (such as more than 12,500 miles per year).

What does this really mean? Clearly driving the car affects the capacity but does this mean that driving 25k in one year is worse for the capacity than driving 25k over two years?

 

[EdmondLeaf]

I still like much better what Mark Perry said @ 1:05 - 70 -80% capacity left after 10 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DShtvd5jJHQ

 

[LEAFfan]

I wonder if the remedy will only be available to '5 star' battery report holders. Nissan have to protect themselves against deliberate abuse.

Noooooooooooo! I guess you missed my post about the guy who never QCd, but just had to plug it in to get his readings as he used his own car for ECOtality's research. When he got his one year battery check, he received one (1!) star for QCing too much even though he never QCd even one time so it just keeps track how many times you plug in, but not necessarily the charging. And that 'five star' thing is a joke anyway.
QCing more than once a day isn't going to degrade the battery any more than some of the other things drivers do. In fact, that keeps changing. In the 2012 manual, it says multiple QCs a day is okay, but now Andy says only one. Since Andy isn't an engineer, I will believe the new manual. Maybe he forgot about the change... :lol:

 

[evnow]

I've started a poll thread here.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is your reaction to the announcement - +ve, -ve or neutral ?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Great maneuvering Nissan !!!! Now, they can keep pumping out exactly the same car in Phoenix, get exactly the same results, and pay virtually nothing. Bravo.

I'm not sure I follow you here, Tony. It appears to me that they will need to pay to maintain the LEAFs in Phoenix above 70% capacity until they reach 5 years or 60,000 miles.

How many cars are actually below 70% now? Not many.

The high mileage cars will swing past 60,000 miles well before 5 years. You'll get a used battery (75% maybe, that they otherwise couldn't do much with) for the cost to Nissan of a few shop hours at the dealership to swap.

Whatever battery you get will get you past 5yr/60k and cost Nissan less than putting a new CVT transmission in an Nissan Altima (google that one).

Personally, I think it's brilliant.

 

[cwerdna]

I admit I am surprised by the number of positive reactions to the announcement. I lost my first bar at only 6,771 miles, despite textbook charging and driving habits, and now I face owning a 35k car that may become close to useless after only five years? I am underwhelmed.

I don't think there's been a positive reaction from the hot-weather crowd yet. I really, really want to be positive.

I'm not surprised about the above. If I lived in a hot climate and were burned like by capacity loss already, I'd be still negative about the announcement.

I still like much better what Mark Perry said @ 1:05 - 70 -80% capacity left after 10 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DShtvd5jJHQ

Yep. I would feel pretty darned misled by that if I lived in AZ/TX and went thru my 2nd hot summer w/a Leaf.

A vehicle whose battery has nine remaining bars indicated on the gauge is retaining approximately 70 percent of its original battery capacity.

That is only approximately true. Assuming the table from the old service manual is still correct a car with 9 segments showing has between more than 66.25% remaining and less than or equal to 72.5% remaining capacity. So if the final wording of this warranty is literally going to be based on less than 9 segments showing doesn't that mean the warranty does not take effect until the battery is under or equal to 66.25%?

If we are going to base the warranty on bars I would hope that it would kick in AT 9 or less bars showing such that it takes effect when the car has 72.5% or less remaining capacity.

This is why there needs to be a consolidated action item list for Nissan w/due dates, milestones, expected deliverables, priority and maybe a severity, presumably filtered by Chelsea's group. I started a list at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=243197#p243197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; w/example items and am not sure if someone has started maintaining one somewhere.

That way people can all be on the same page and Nissan knows what their homework should be instead of having to sift thru a 500+ page thread + a bunch of others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/toyota-settles-lawsuit-over-accelerator-recalls-impact.html

as to settlement disclosures, above link has plenty of details on Toyota accelerator settlement, which was also filed in federal court.

If you want more details on the >$1 billion Toyota settlement, see the PDF at http://www.toyotaelsettlement.com/Home/CaseDocs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. We should start a separate thread if we want to talk about that.

 

[smkettner]

If Nissan was going to put in a 75% battery under warranty... I would like the option to pay a little more and get a 100% new battery installed.

 

[downeykp]

Sorry but it makes perfect sense. If an engine explodes or needs to be replaced under warrantee a car company does not find a used engine and slap that under the hood. At the very least they will put a remanufactured engine in or a new one. There is no way that I would except a car company pulling a used engine out of another vehicle and slapping it into a car.

Wouldn't a TMS have been a better fix moving forward. So using this logic if I had an ICE vehicle and the engine blew under warrantee Nissan would replace engine with a used one that had 50k miles on it. WTF.
Nice job Nissan!!

Your analogy does not make sense. Car makers do not warranty levels of wear on an ICE but if something fails they wil fix that. If Nissan warranties a capacity level then they need to only restore it to that level. If the warranty says they wil restore it to 100% should it drop to 70% then they need to do that, the coverage does not say that however. If one buys an EV knowing they wil get "X" capacity for a certain term then that seems quite clear. It was quite clear what was covered before, no capacity. I am sure some people will expect this new warranty will cover a full 100% no mater what they read or sign, that's almost a given. Consumers should read the warranty before buying a product and not "assume" coverage is implied.

The pack design was a business/engineering decision that may still make perfect sense for this application.

 

[nosuchthing]

9 bars for 60,000 miles and 5 years means it is intended strictly for the rapid capacity loss in hot areas and no one else, really. I will never reach that here in Marin. We log 20,000 miles per year and have no discernable loss of capacity thus far at 32,000 It will blanket all of the AZ TX cars though. So, good for them!

So this announcement is a PR no-brainer. It just took too much time, Nissan...

 

[abasile]

I see this announcement as a positive because it lets us know how much capacity we can expect to have in a worst case scenario. During the 5 year / 60K mile warranty period, no one has to worry about their LEAF's capacity totally falling off a cliff.

As much as it would be nice to retain more than only nine capacity bars, I don't think it is realistic to expect Nissan to warrant more than that at 5 years / 60K miles. We were warned before purchasing that some cars will have less than 80% capacity at five years. However, I do like adric22's suggestion of Nissan guaranteeing a higher level of capacity earlier in the warranty period. Up to 30K miles or 2.5 years, perhaps a guarantee of ten capacity bars would be reasonable.

The existence of this capacity warranty, however, won't change my charging and driving habits. I'm not in an extreme climate and I desire to preserve as much of my LEAF's battery capacity as possible. Considering that my LEAF has almost 28K miles at 20 months of ownership and the capacity loss isn't too bad, I'd be very surprised if I end up with a capacity warranty claim.

Years from now, it will be very nice to have the option of purchasing a new or refurbished pack at a hopefully reasonable price. That said, if the cost is more than we want to pay, we'll likely just keep using the old pack and relegate the LEAF to use within a smaller radius from home. I own the car outright and don't expect to sell it for many years. (For those who know our area, we'd likely still drive an older, degraded LEAF across the mountain to Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, and Big Bear, but we wouldn't drive it down to the Valley and back up.)

 

[Stoaty]

If we are going to base the warranty on bars I would hope that it would kick in AT 9 or less bars showing such that it takes effect when the car has 72.5% or less remaining capacity.

Note that 9 bars probably means something more like 75-80% capacity remaining, as the bars in the current Leaf appear to be overly conservative. This statement is based on Nissan's measurement of a couple of cars with bar loss, and is confirmed by the range test done in Arizona:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Analysis_of_Reported_Cases_of_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[EVDRIVER]

Sorry but it makes perfect sense. If an engine explodes or needs to be replaced under warrantee a car company does not find a used engine and slap that under the hood. At the very least they will put a remanufactured engine in or a new one. There is no way that I would except a car company pulling a used engine out of another vehicle and slapping it into a car.

Wouldn't a TMS have been a better fix moving forward. So using this logic if I had an ICE vehicle and the engine blew under warrantee Nissan would replace engine with a used one that had 50k miles on it. WTF.
Nice job Nissan!!

Your analogy does not make sense. Car makers do not warranty levels of wear on an ICE but if something fails they wil fix that. If Nissan warranties a capacity level then they need to only restore it to that level. If the warranty says they wil restore it to 100% should it drop to 70% then they need to do that, the coverage does not say that however. If one buys an EV knowing they wil get "X" capacity for a certain term then that seems quite clear. It was quite clear what was covered before, no capacity. I am sure some people will expect this new warranty will cover a full 100% no mater what they read or sign, that's almost a given. Consumers should read the warranty before buying a product and not "assume" coverage is implied.

The pack design was a business/engineering decision that may still make perfect sense for this application.

You are correct, I don't think they are slapping in used batteries.

 

[gbarry42]

I see this announcement as a positive because it lets us know how much capacity we can expect to have in a worst case scenario. During the 5 year / 60K mile warranty period, no one has to worry about their LEAF's capacity totally falling off a cliff.

No one had to worry anyway, because if it "totally falls off a cliff", that's a bad cell, and that's the one thing that was covered under the current warranty.

I'm trying to figure out, though, how they'd "repair" a worn pack where all the cells have the same capacity loss. Changing out a few cells for new ones has very little effect, as the weaker cells determine the overall capacity.

 

[Stoaty]

I'm trying to figure out, though, how they'd "repair" a worn pack where all the cells have the same capacity loss. Changing out a few cells for new ones has very little effect, as the weaker cells determine the overall capacity.

Fortunately, that would be Nissan's problem, which means that they take at least some of the risk here.

 

[nosuchthing]

We'll never know. It's gonna be a trade secret. Just like those battery checks at the dealer. Smokescreen. Not that I have any complaint to lodge. My biggest bother is that stupid bluetooth that will recognize only the last user and goes chasing it's tail first before it lets you TELL IT who's phone is in the car. Lately I just gave up on it and don't even bother to check in with the dumb thing. So it's set for wife's phone and that's it.

DUUUUMB!

Nissan - how about addressing THAT!!!

 

[Volusiano]

Nissan is now finally admitting to the world that the NORMAL that they've been touting all along of 20% average loss in 5 years is bogus , and that the real NORMAL they're only willing to put money where their mouth is is 70% in 5 years.

If they want to change their tune now with the new battery warranty for the 2013 MY, that's fine and dandy going forward. But it's not acceptable to their early adopters.

To really show that they're standing behind their 2011 and 2012 early adopters like they say they want to, they really need to own up to their responsibility and eat their words on what they've been advertising to their early adopters all along: 20% loss in 5 years. This translates to a 10 bar warranty in 5 years/60K for 2011 and 2012 early adopters.

It's a very reasonable and small price to pay to earn back their early adopter's loyalty. I would bet you that whatever cost they have to pay for this 10 bar warranty to their early adopters, they will regain it 10 fold in the good will and ambassadorship and good word of mouth from these early adopters to new potential buyers, knowing that Nissan would really have their back for real.

 

[evnow]

Nissan is now finally admitting to the world that the NORMAL that they've been touting all along of 20% average loss in 5 years is bogus , and that the real NORMAL they're only willing to put money where their mouth is is 70% in 5 years.

If they warranty anything lower than "normal" they would have to service about 50% of the cars.

Unfortunately, most of those "below normal" cars will be in hot areas.

 

[Volusiano]

I'm trying to figure out, though, how they'd "repair" a worn pack where all the cells have the same capacity loss. Changing out a few cells for new ones has very little effect, as the weaker cells determine the overall capacity.

Fortunately, that would be Nissan's problem, which means that they take at least some of the risk here.

I don't see that Nissan has to take any risk here. They'll have plenty of leased cars returned by the time any warranty claim may kick in. They simply need to take a battery pack from one of the leased cars that still have 9 bars or more as a replacement, and voila, done. The one returned with less than 9 bar will simple get recycled as originally planned.

 

[azdre]

Wow! This is big. Maybe we wouldn't have gone on the news 3 times if we knew we wouldn't be left in the cold by Nissan... Yeah, we probably still would have. I think a much more worthy statement would be to define the word gradual... 70% is less than 5 years is not gradual, but 72% in 1.25 years _is_ gradual?

 

[JPWhite]

I think a much more worthy statement would be to define the word gradual... 70% is less than 5 years is not gradual, but 72% in 1.25 years _is_ gradual?

Nissan have not tried to put a glide curve to this warranty as much as we would like them to. They have simply put a floor on capacity over a given time period. If a car really looses 27.5% in 1 1/4 years then a warranty top off would be on the cards before the second year was out. Compared to the previous situation of "you're on your own" that is a significant improvement for those affected the most.

Interestingly drivers like Steve Marsh get zero benefit from this warranty. He's probably already hit 60,000 miles by now. But then again his LEAF was holding up well at 1 year old.