Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[ElectricVehicle]

Effective range is what matters to owners : I agree.

That said, Nissan has devised a test described in the LEAF's service manual which consists in running down the battery using the AC and the heater running at full blast and checking how long it takes to drain the battery for a battery with nominal capacity according to Nissan. I would suspect they have done a similar test to determine the capacity of the packs of the cars they took. They know as much as we do that a driving range test has many external variables which are difficult to control (difficult, not impossible).

I've been asking a few days ago if anyone amongst the owners who have lost bars have attempted to perform this battery test as described by Nissan. Tony answered me with links to all the road tests that he and other people have conducted and I did not see any mention of that test beeing done. I am not sure if he misunderstood my question or if I missed this in the pages of discussion he pointed me to.

Let's not forget the uncertainty in this procedure. How closely calibrated are the heater coils in the Nissan LEAF? Is EVERY cars heater within 1% of a nominal value? 5%? 10%? I know if I want a 1% tolerance resistor, it's a different part and I pay more for it. I doubt Nissan went to the unnecessary expense of 1% tolerance heater coils. Resistance elements tend to have their resistance change over time ad their resistance is dependent on the temperatures of the hot element wire. Typical elements draw much more energy when they are cold than hot, like the inrush resistance of a light bulb. Changes in air flow due to dirty air filters, lint or dirt in the fan bearings or on the blades slowing down the fan and reducing air flow will affect the resistance. The fan motor itself will draw different amounts of power depending on the condition of the fan and the filter... The heater full blast has many internal variables also that aren't completely controlled or measured. I doubt they are more than 5% accurate across the fleet. The question is whether this test is even 10 or 20% accurate across the entire Nissan LEAF fleet. It's not a calibrated test - the heater elements fan condition, air filter cleanliness etc. are not calibrated.

If you do know how accurate this test is, that would be great information. If it's accurate to within 5%, it sounds like a good tool we should use. I would add the windows should be fully down and the test performed where 20+ kWh of heat can safely escape. If you do it in a closed garage, you'll heat up the entire garage and cook your battery pack that you're trying to test! The ambient temperature probably needs to be controlled within a reasonable range as it will affect both the LEAF's battery performance and the level of power load presented by the heater. I imagine such a test run at 32deg F ambient will have radically different results than one run at 105 deg F ambient.

I'm interested in the heater method, but let's not overlook it's limitations and real world accuracy. The heater method is also a much slower discharge rate than a drive test - 4 or 5 times less power, so the capacity will be a little more than you'll get from an actual drive and it may not expose weak modules that fail only at higher power - though that's not a problem we have at the moment.

Any test method is subject to critique, we need to work cooperatively to refine and develop better test methods within our capabilities that are practical to apply to multiple vehicles and as repeatable as reasonably possible within our means. I'm sure an offer to use Nissan's dynamometer to perform accurate tests will be warmly received! Until then, we work with what we have and not be too critical of a method unless you have a better method that can be practically used. Helpful, constructive criticism with suggestions for improvements and resource donations to support it is a good healthy thing to improve the process.

The drive tests were very well done. Maybe we can further improve in the future. Thanks to all for carefully orchestrated and controlled the drive tests!

 

[ElectricVehicle]

I do hope Nissan and the group commission recognizes there are people with problems beyond Arizona, like us Texas people and even those in California. As one of the original bar loosers in Texas (on second and well onto the third) I don't want to be left out. Arizona does have the greater problem so yes, concentration there and California, having the majority of the LEAFs gets attention too, but hopefully us Texas people don't get forgotten or become an after thought.

Being apart of a regional goverment organization (MPO) responsible for helping implement air quality programs and benefits, including an alternative fuel vehicles, its hard to recommend to local goverments and fleets Leafs knowing how my personal range loss I have experienced (from mid 80's to high 60's). We may even pull out the recommendation totally unless results are shown otherwise. Granted we don't dictate what fleets/school distrcits/local entities can use for fleets, but we do make recommendations and influence their choices (and give them grant monies!). Much will need to be rectified to persuade entities such as mine that all is "ok" when we have limited funding to spend, we can't afford to support something that will only last one or two years of service.

That's reality. Thanks for sharing this! Additional motivation to get this issue addressed quickly and satisfactorily so we can all get back to the business of getting more LEAFs on the road and making sure they are reliable for their chosen mission! We have to make this work so we can displace some gas vehicles and avoid all the things that happen from consuming that gas.

 

[charge]

One simple question for Nissan...

If everything is normal/expected with cars losing capacity bars, why does it happen primarily to cars in hot climates and not others? If it's normal and expected, shouldn't it happen in more places?

 

[ElectricVehicle]

I disagree on this point. Though they may NOT be interchangeable at this point with LEAF, they really SHOULD be interchangeable. Miles/kWH * kWH = MILES. This is fundamental.

It is not as fundamental as you make it out to be. Two batteries can have identical kWh capacity, but if the series resistance is different, then you cannot drive two identical cars the same distance even if the conditions are also identical. That is one of the serious problems we have with discussions of the capacity of these degraded batteries. We really have NO IDEA how much the resistance has increased. To me, that is a "dirty little secret" that Nissan needs to come clean on.

Understood about internal resistance, but I would hope for that to be a calculation to be made before reporting capacity. The user wants to know how many "useable" kWH are in the battery.

The user wants to know will I be able to make this trip?
That requires knowing the trip, potentially terrain, weather etc. depending on how close an analysis the user wants to do. I typically like to have 20% more than I need unless I'm really pushing the limits. And if you do plan it down to the last mile or two, you have no margin for error - for example an unplanned detour of a few miles due to an event, constructions or accident.

Now you use your knowledge of the range of the vehicle under your driving style to the planned trip.

To know the range, you might use the EPA number, or geeks will calculate from battery kWh to miles acocunting for or allowing for all the variables involved - internal resistance, temperature, efficiency of the vehicle - the Honda FIT EV is more efficient in mi/kWh than the LEAF. The Electric Lincoln Navigator of the future will certainly be ess efficient in mi/kWH than the LEAF.

All these numbers and analysis all boil down to can I make this trip in this car.

 

[ericsf]

Effective range is what matters to owners : I agree.

That said, Nissan has devised a test described in the LEAF's service manual which consists in running down the battery using the AC and the heater running at full blast and checking how long it takes to drain the battery for a battery with nominal capacity according to Nissan. I would suspect they have done a similar test to determine the capacity of the packs of the cars they took. They know as much as we do that a driving range test has many external variables which are difficult to control (difficult, not impossible).

I've been asking a few days ago if anyone amongst the owners who have lost bars have attempted to perform this battery test as described by Nissan. Tony answered me with links to all the road tests that he and other people have conducted and I did not see any mention of that test beeing done. I am not sure if he misunderstood my question or if I missed this in the pages of discussion he pointed me to.

Let's not forget the uncertainty in this procedure. How closely calibrated are the heater coils in the Nissan LEAF? Is EVERY cars heater within 1% of a nominal value? 5%? 10%? I know if I want a 1% tolerance resistor, it's a different part and I pay more for it. I doubt Nissan went to the unnecessary expense of 1% tolerance heater coils. Resistance elements tend to have their resistance change over time ad their resistance is dependent on the temperatures of the hot element wire. Typical elements draw much more energy when they are cold than hot, like the inrush resistance of a light bulb. Changes in air flow due to dirty air filters, lint or dirt in the fan bearings or on the blades slowing down the fan and reducing air flow will affect the resistance. The fan motor itself will draw different amounts of power depending on the condition of the fan and the filter... The heater full blast has many internal variables also that aren't completely controlled or measured. I doubt they are more than 5% accurate across the fleet. The question is whether this test is even 10 or 20% accurate across the entire Nissan LEAF fleet. It's not a calibrated test - the heater elements fan condition, air filter cleanliness etc. are not calibrated.

If you do know how accurate this test is, that would be great information. If it's accurate to within 5%, it sounds like a good tool we should use. I would add the windows should be fully down and the test performed where 20+ kWh of heat can safely escape. If you do it in a closed garage, you'll heat up the entire garage and cook your battery pack that you're trying to test! The ambient temperature probably needs to be controlled within a reasonable range as it will affect both the LEAF's battery performance and the level of power load presented by the heater. I imagine such a test run at 32deg F ambient will have radically different results than one run at 105 deg F ambient.

I'm interested in the heater method, but let's not overlook it's limitations and real world accuracy. The heater method is also a much slower discharge rate than a drive test - 4 or 5 times less power, so the capacity will be a little more than you'll get from an actual drive and it may not expose weak modules that fail only at higher power - though that's not a problem we have at the moment.

Any test method is subject to critique, we need to work cooperatively to refine and develop better test methods within our capabilities that are practical to apply to multiple vehicles and as repeatable as reasonably possible within our means. I'm sure an offer to use Nissan's dynamometer to perform accurate tests will be warmly received! Until then, we work with what we have and not be too critical of a method unless you have a better method that can be practically used. Helpful, constructive criticism with suggestions for improvements and resource donations to support it is a good healthy thing to improve the process.

The drive tests were very well done. Maybe we can further improve in the future. Thanks to all for carefully orchestrated and controlled the drive tests!

Thanks for the constructive answer. I do agree with all the weaknesses you've exposed which I had overlooked. To date the driving test range might be indeed the best method. The more I think about it the more I wish that an independant test lab would offer a battery disgnostic service for the LEAF. Calibrated equipment, controlled environment, certified results. I would pay for that if I was buying a used LEAF tomorrow.

 

[ElectricVehicle]

IMO - if internal resistance is high enough to significantly affect usable capacity under normal conditions (even freeway driving at 20-30kW) - that also means that the internal resistance is high enough to significantly heat up the battery pack. I don't think it's a valid concern as the LEAF's pack has been shown to be very resistant to heat-rise even when racing on the track. You can bet that the 80kW limit of the motor was chosen to help limit this under those types of conditions.

Call me naive but I've decided to believe Nissan.

Ok, you're naive if you really believe that the 450 LEAFs in AZ will have at least 76% capacity after five years when according to Nissan one capacity bar loss is a 15% loss of capacity.

That's not what Nissan said. They said that AZ cars are on a glide path to an average of 76% capacity after 5 years.

Based on actual vehicle data, we project the average vehicle in that market to have battery capacity of 76 percent after five years

Big difference. Without knowing the standard deviation it's impossible to tell what the typical capacity loss will be.

1,000 AZ LEAFs are in the garages of grannies who drive them 2 miles a week to church and that's it, returning to an air conditioned garage... Substantially raising the AZ LEAF fleet average battery capacity! If that's an average over the entire fleet of LEAFs in AZ, it really doesn't tell us anything.

Hmmm... refrigerated transport trucks and dealer storage lots for LEAFs in AZ...

 

[surfingslovak]

1,000 AZ LEAFs are in the garages of grannies who drive them 2 miles a week to church and that's it, returning to an air conditioned garage... Substantially raising the AZ LEAF fleet average battery capacity! If that's an average over the entire fleet of LEAFs in AZ, it really doesn't tell us anything.

Hmmm... refrigerated transport trucks and dealer storage lots for LEAFs in AZ...

Ha! One factoid to remember here is that Skywagon lost a capacity bar after 16 months of ownership and 15K miles. He reportedly had A/C in his garage.

 

[ElectricVehicle]

I don't think it's a valid concern as the LEAF's pack has been shown to be very resistant to heat-rise even when racing on the track. You can bet that the 80kW limit of the motor was chosen to help limit this under those types of conditions.

Albeit anecdotal, I have definitely noted more heat development when driving close to turtle when compared to last year. I believe that I chimed in on an earlier discussion noting that internal resistance seems to be going up, but we din't have much evidence for it.

You can do an approximate internal resistance test by say noting battery voltage and battery current at low or no power at the end of 5 minutes or so to allow for voltage recovery from load and then immediately peg it to full power and immediately note the voltage and current. So now you have sort of a steady state low / no power reading to directly compare to a full power rating at the same time, temperature and state of charge. From that you can calculate the internal resistance of the battery. Internal resistance depends on numerous factors including temperature, state of charge, battery age, mother's maiden name, etc.

 

[ElectricVehicle]

The Capacity bars are a good thing.

Yes, if they were accurate. On the LEAF they seem to be as pessimistic as the GOM is optimistic.
The odometer is virtually indisputable (unless it's been tampered with which I believe is a illegal). The battery capacity bars, we're not there yet.

I think there will soon be a market for independent battery testing / benchmarking. An EV buyer would need one as badly as you need a Carfax report.

Batteryfax(TM)

 

[gmlawrence]

Hi, I am one of those Austin buyers. We were told that if the battery was truly defective and that if it lost capacity too fast (not the normal lithium ion capacity loss) then that was under warranty. We were also told that the "modules" could be replaced so that you are not just replacing the entire battery pack. Is this not a correct statement?

If we drive around 30 miles a day and charge to 80% every day or every other day I will lose capacity even in the first year?

If a module is bad, they can replace just a module. BUT... there are many people in hot/warm climates that are experiencing rapid decreases in range during the 2nd summer of ownership, the modules are not defective, it's just 'normal', sudden loss of 15-30% range. Nothing to fix, all modules have degraded equally. There is nothing in the warranty that defines 'too fast', so it's up to Nissan to decide if your scenario fits their own internal definition of 'gradual' at the time you complain. I would imagine with your usage, you'd be on the slower end of this degradation and wouldn't notice it with the short commutes. A bad cell/module can be a cause of degradation, but it's not always the case.

Would you say your salesperson led you to believe that all/most degradation can be addressed by individual module replacements? Or that degradation more than 80% in 5 years would be considered defective?

The way that I took it was the latter that if we had something happen such as example given was we suddenly lost a huge amount of capacity within a small amount of time of owning the car then that would be replaced. Perhaps they were lying to us I do not know but that was what I remember the explanation being.

 

[azdre]

1,000 AZ LEAFs are in the garages of grannies who drive them 2 miles a week to church and that's it, returning to an air conditioned garage... Substantially raising the AZ LEAF fleet average battery capacity! If that's an average over the entire fleet of LEAFs in AZ, it really doesn't tell us anything.

Hmmm... refrigerated transport trucks and dealer storage lots for LEAFs in AZ...

Ha! One factoid to remember here is that Skywagon lost a capacity bar after 16 months of ownership and 15K miles. He reportedly had A/C in his garage.

So we're back to accelerated degradation based on number of miles in hot climates (with some other factors mixed in). Apparently the average Phoenix LEAF driver is 7,500 miles per year, and they are tracking to around 76% after 5 years/37,500 miles whereas the national average is 80% after 5 years/62,500 miles. If I'm reading things incorrectly, please correct me.

 

[Stoaty]

So we're back to accelerated degradation based on number of miles in hot climates (with some other factors mixed in). Apparently the average Phoenix LEAF driver is 7,500 miles per year, and they are tracking to around 76% after 5 years/37,500 miles whereas the national average is 80% after 5 years/62,500 miles. If I'm reading things incorrectly, please correct me.

That is how I read it. Sounds like "How to Lie with Statistics". Using their own numbers, and assuming linear capacity loss, the correct comparison would be:

Arizona - 80% capacity after 4.16 years and 31,250 miles
National Average - 80% capacity after 5 years and 62,500 miles

In other words, the rate of capacity loss would be 61250/31250 = 2 times the national average

Or, at the very least, since capacity loss may slow over time 62500/37500 = 1.67 times the national average.

Isn't this pretty much what we have been saying? Why would Nissan use an Arizona specific annual mileage rather than putting every state/region on a level playing field? If Arizona and other regions are having the same rate of degradation per 12500 miles traveled per year, why not publish the data for Washington state, California, and Oregon? I am sure the reason is that the data would show that the states in the Northwest would show capacity loss far below the national average, just as Arizona is far above the national average. There isn't anything wrong with different rates of battery capacity loss in different climates, as long as that information is disclosed prior to sale. Nissan has basically admitted that they expected this rate of capacity loss in Arizona, and thus the loss is "normal". The only problem is that none of the buyers in Arizona had access to this information at the time they purchased (or leased) the Leaf.

 

[GenericUser]

Nothing personal against Chelsea and Jeff, but the creation of the proposed "advisory board" is a well known smokescreen and delaying tactic. Nissan has a network of dealers who have been stonewalling their customers over an obvious product design defect. All it takes is a phone call to each of them from Nissan headquarters to start supporting their customers. What is the problem with doing that?

I do not currently own a Leaf, but was on the verge of buying one when I stumbled upon this forum and the news about the capacity losses. I feel like I dodged a bullet. If my business treated customers this way I would be out of business very shortly. Not only is Nissan shooting themselves in the foot, they are endangering the entire future of electric cars.

Here's how much Nissan really cares about customers and communication with them: This morning I called their Leaf support line (877 NO GAS EV), as a prospective customer interested in the Leaf and asked what Nissan will be doing to address the issue. Well, the rep I talked to had never heard of the problem (at least that is what she told me).

I suggest that ALL Leaf owners contact their local congressman/woman and apply some pressure for governmental action, given that the Obama administration used $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money to subsidize Nissan's Tennessee Leaf factory.

(See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/27/nissans-99-mpg-smugmobile/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

There is absolutely no "communication problem" that needs to be addressed by "advisors". There is only a craven and absolutely unacceptable corporate response to having released a poorly designed and defective product.

 

[gmlawrence]

Hi Jeff,

Sounds like you have your work cut out for you at this point. I am a new Nissan Leaf owner and I am trying to be optimistic and I want this to succeed. I keep thinking after reading these posts that I will be watching a Who Killed the Electric Car II soon if something is not done appropriately.

I want this program to succeed and it has to we have no other choice because oil and gas is not an option. Nissan has treated me well in the past and I can only hope that you guys see in your hearts to appease owners on this site. I think many of the owners have great ideas and if we could just move towards a compromise and talk about things other than the normal PR stuff then we could move forward.

Everyone on this site knows that they signed up for a certain amount of battery degradation and battery capacity loss but what they didn't know was the environments and circumstances make that happen faster. We all signed an agreement to buy the car that made us understand what we were buying but that was based off of numbers that I feel should be held up. If the cars are starting to show signs of use outside of that signed contract then shouldn't that be under warranty?

I love my car and I knew the risk because I wanted to get the word out and give to innovation and show that an EV car can be an "everyday" car. Now we just need to prove to the ICE community what they are missing out on and not giving the oil and gas companies any reason to jump and end this great and wonderful chance we have at making this work.

Thanks

M. Lawrence

 

[WetEV]

"Based on actual vehicle data, we project the average vehicle in that market to have battery capacity of 76 percent after five years"

Apparently this is based on average Phoenix milage of 7,500 miles per year?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079343_nissan-suggests-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-due-to-high-miles-exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[UPDATE: After this article was published, Nissan used the actual mileage of the seven cars in the test to provide additional data. "The average mileage for the cars investigated was 19,600 miles, and the average in-service time was 14.7 months," wrote the company's Katherine Zachary. "Average annual mileage [of those cars] is about 16,000 per year, more than double the average Phoenix customer mileage of 7,500 miles per year."]

That would project out to 1.25×7500×5=46875 miles to EOL battery.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Much will need to be rectified to persuade entities such as mine that all is "ok" when we have limited funding to spend, we can't afford to support something that will only last one or two years of service.

Your story should make the hair stand up on the back of Nissan's neck. Once these fleet sales (and to some extent, the resale market) has decided this car is a flop, they won't be getting that business back for a LONG time.

Some damage is already happening.... dealers in Phoenix aren't super anxious to take in a LEAF on trade with missing capacity bars (actually, some just won't take a LEAF trade at all). CarMax is still sitting on my car that I sold them in July, and it won't take long for them, and other mass market resellers to have an asterisk next to LEAF.

That means either leases go up in monthly cost (with lower residuals), or Nissan eats the lease returns when they wholesale them for far less than the residual.

The "all is normal" line is just going to kill this car.

 

[TonyWilliams]

In fact, there was a >50V difference in voltage at which the Phoenix range-test LEAFs turtled.

I originally said that, but it's not accurate. The two cars that had 350v-ish were just past the voltage "knee" at VLB, but had not made the plunge to 300v-ish at turtle. Therefore, those voltages should not be considered.

When I made the statement, I didn't qualify that important nuance. So, please just magically erase that from your memory!

 

[Volusiano]

Welcome to both Chelsea and Jeff; Nissan backing your presence here is long overdue, and I don't envy the job Jeff has. I have no financial interest or emotional stake in whether or not the Leaf is a success or failure, only a wish to see EVs as a whole succeed. Having dealt with a similar early adopter market a couple decades ago while selling off-grid AE systems, I've been both amazed and appalled at Nissan's approach to customer relations. If they'd deliberately set out to damage/destroy all the goodwill they'd earned by introducing the first reasonably mainstream EV, and to alienate the enthusiast early adopters who were (and should be) their best salespeople, they couldn't have done a more thorough job.

FWIW, here's my take on what needs to change:

1. Mark Perry needs to stop making statements about the Leaf. To put it as politely as I can, every time he does so he contradicts his previous statements and/or misstates facts, further damaging both his and Nissan's credibility.

2. Similarly, Carlo Bailo has to stop issuing letters to the Leaf community full of vapid platitudes and vague, weasel-worded generalities approved by lawyers and lifted direct from the owner's manual. These statements are seen as insulting and condescending by the informed, educated, technically savvy Leaf early adopter community. What is needed is not more repetition of statements along the line of 'heat, charging frequency, driving habits etc. may result in faster levels of degradation' - early adopters need and want specifics. How much heat, how long, what driving and charging habits? What is the driving range under a variety of conditions?

It's a scandal that an owner (Tony Williams) had to run his first Leaf repeatedly to turtle to provide owners with range data that should have been in the owners manual from day one. Unless Nissan engineers are far less competent than GM's (see "The Car that Could"), they had all this information. What is needed are graphs, charts and tables in the owners manual providing the info that the owners need to maximize the Leaf's performance, utility, range and longevity. Nissan has been trying to sell the Leaf as if its customers were the same mostly uninformed mass audience for their ICEs, rather than the curious, technically knowledgable early adopters that they are. This has to change, until EV performance, price and infrastructure has improved to the point that they will be adopted by mainstream users.

3. We need one point of contact with Nissan, and that should be you, Jeff. Tell us what you know, and don't be afraid to tell us if you don't; we'll wait while you consult the engineers who do have the answer, but be honest and open with us. And if THEY don't know, tell us that, too; we can accept it.

4. RegGuheert and others have made excellent suggestions as to steps Nissan can take to try and recover their reputation. While all those that deal with taking care of current owners are important, I see three that are most critical for re-establishing trust between the company and its customers, giving them confidence that Nissan will stand behind their cars in the long-term and aren't just interested in taking the money and running:

• a) Admit there's a problem, and the lawyers be damned. If Nissan had done this up front and asked for the help of the customers, instead of denying, delaying and treating their customers like the ill-informed masses, they wouldn't be in this situation. It may cost them some millions of dollars in the short term, but that's far less than what continuing on their current path of denial will cost them in goodwill over the long haul. Ms. Bailo's announcement that there's nothing wrong with the batteries, but they're going to discuss compensation individually with some owners (presumably requiring them to sign NDAs as a condition of any settlement), is exactly the wrong approach if you're trying to establish a reputation for openness and honest dealing. Follow GM's lead on how they dealt with the Volt (non-) safety issue - a public statement by the CEO, that if you want return the car you can, no questions asked.

• b) Stop selling cars in Arizona and other affected areas, and only lease them for short terms and with massive pre-purchase warning to potential buyers, until Nissan develops a battery chemistry or installs an active TMS that can deal with the conditions. As long as Nissan continues to sell the car in these unsuitable areas to unsuspecting members of the public, any other steps they take to try to re-establish the company's reputation for integrity will be seen as just lip-service.

• c) Warranty battery capacity. All EV companies will have to do this to move into the mainstream, especially while battery technology remains so immature. Large numbers of people just aren't going to take a multi-thousand dollar flyer on how long a battery may last.

Good Luck to both of you - You'll need it.

Edit: cleaned up typos etc.

Very well said! I couldn't have agreed more with all the points made here.

 

[RegGuheert]

So will I, but that brings up a good question for Nissan: Will Nissan provide a battery upgrade path for the 2011/2012 LEAF or will we need to move to a different vehicle to access newer battery technology?

I can't imagine Nissan would do something like that and on the slight chance that they did, it means they are building the Leaf as a "disposable" vehicle. They might as well package them up in threes like cheap flashlights.

Seriously, isn't there a requirement that auto manufacturers provide parts for a car x years after they discontinue a model?

There is a requirement to provide parts for 10 years after the sale of a car. But I asked about an "upgrade path". There is NO requirement for Nissan to make upgraded batteries available for the LEAF. If they do not, it will be very unattractive to purchase a new battery for our LEAFs seven years from now when newer cars come with much better, cheaper batteries.

 

[RegGuheert]

When I made the statement, I didn't qualify that important nuance. So, please just magically erase that from your memory!

50V difference in turtle voltage erased from memory banks. I looked at the data and replaced it with 22V. That still allows for the 200 mohm resistance that I think is somewhat inevitable for degraded LEAF batteries. But again I concede to Nubo and drees that 200 mohm should only reduce range by about two miles in that test.

Thanks for the correction!