Poll : What is your reaction to 70% / 5 yrs / 60k warranty

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Your reaction to the battery capacity warranty is

  • Positive

    Votes: 117 60.9%
  • Negative

    Votes: 33 17.2%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 42 21.9%

  • Total voters
    192
  • Poll closed .
I voted Neutral because I see both positive and negative aspects of this announcement. I'm happy to see a capacity warranty and I'm encouraged by Nissan's decision to make it applicable to all current LEAFs. On the other hand, to use the warranty, you have to drop to 8 bars, and that is a pretty major drop in range before you get any recourse. I agree with the post above that measures capacity in kWh and not in Nissan's bars, especially since the announcement even states that Nissan will be addressing inaccuracy in the bar measurement, which I take to mean that Nissan can manipulate the reading, rendering the warranty useless. Further, Nissan needs to address the very early timeline of range loss, even seen in more temperate regions such as Southern California and Sacramento. A warranty that covers greater than 10% capacity loss in 1 year, 20% loss on 3 years, and 30% loss in 5 years would be appropriate.
 
Boomer23 said:
A warranty that covers greater than 10% capacity loss in 1 year, 20% loss on 3 years, and 30% loss in 5 years would be appropriate.
The 10% in first year loss is within Nissan's expectations given the inside info TickTock got from one of their engineers, so you certainly aren't going to see that one:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Nissan.27s_Responses_and_Actions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Boomer23 said:
I voted Neutral because I see both positive and negative aspects of this announcement. I'm happy to see a capacity warranty and I'm encouraged by Nissan's decision to make it applicable to all current LEAFs. On the other hand, to use the warranty, you have to drop to 8 bars, and that is a pretty major drop in range before you get any recourse.
This sums it up for me, and I voted 'neutral' as well.
 
I voted neutral, also. This is great for Nissan, as most unilateral contracts usually are... great for the guys who wrote it.

In the ENTIRE WORLD, I'll bet there are not five cars total with only 8 capacity bars or less. But, there are tons of folks who lost a lot of range that will never be addressed. Nissan Normal(TM) strikes again.

I never believed any of the pie-in-the-sky remedies (bigger, better, battery with TMS), so I didn't expect that. Large corporations with multi-year lead times on world wide products just don't act that way. But for an owner to have to lose MORE than 30% of the capacity of the car's battery before the company will even consider a warranty claim is just going to be a difficult road ahead for the average consumer.

Sure. We will continue to see the "I got mine in a cool environment so your complaint in a hot one doesn't count"; that's just normal human interaction I guess for a small percentage on the population. Heck, I'm eating pretty good here in my comfortable first world country, so I really don't want to hear about starving children with poor medical care. I'll just tell 'em to "eat more and don't get sick", right?

I suspect we are stuck with this, since it would have gone through their legal and world wide regulatory departments already, as is. Of the three automotive battery capacity warranties that I'm aware of, this one is the least generous.
 
TonyWilliams said:
In the ENTIRE WORLD, I'll bet there are not five cars total with only 8 capacity bars or less.
But, by 5 years, there will be more. Isn't the problem that people are losing capacity quickly, rather than that they lost at all ?
 
evnow said:
TonyWilliams said:
In the ENTIRE WORLD, I'll bet there are not five cars total with only 8 capacity bars or less.
But, by 5 years, there will be more. Isn't the problem that people are losing capacity quickly, rather than that they lost at all ?

The EV world will be in a new generation in five years. Look what's happened in the last five. LEAF will have an entirely new battery.

To lose 30% in one year is a whole different impact than five years (when the car is probably paid off for most folks). They could just buy a new "better" battery then.
 
TonyWilliams said:
To lose 30% in one year is a whole different impact than five years (when the car is probably paid off for most folks). They could just buy a new "better" battery then.
There is some merit in the argument that they should provide more granular yearly warranties. But bottmline is - people who are buying Leafs want a long term warranty. I don't see how it can be better than 70% is 5 years.

The best option, as I've argued from day 1, is to lease.
 
This 9 bar warranty is not exactly aimed at increasing LEAF sales or leases, not when it's this lame. The real purpose of the battery warranty is to shut up early adopters, especially those in hot climates (because they make the most noise), who unknowingly bought into the Nissan hype and now have to live with it because the heat affected their battery and they now are making noise demanding Nissan to make it right. The 9 bar warranty will help Nissan pretend to look like they are making it right, but still allows them to get away with it because the warranty still doesn't live up to the hype they made.

Of course many owners in cooler climate will applaud this smoke screen action and approve that Nissan is now moving in the right direction and making right with their early adopters. But the fact of the matter is that it still doesn't solve anything for those owners in hot climate states and they're still left holding the bag of hype, except now with the lame warranty serving as a duct tape over their mouth to shut them up as well, because most everybody else in cooler climate will overwhelm them with approval of the Nissan remedy.
 
Stoaty said:
Boomer23 said:
A warranty that covers greater than 10% capacity loss in 1 year, 20% loss on 3 years, and 30% loss in 5 years would be appropriate.
The 10% in first year loss is within Nissan's expectations given the inside info TickTock got from one of their engineers, so you certainly aren't going to see that one:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Nissan.27s_Responses_and_Actions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'd make it 80% remaining (20% lost) at 2 years, 70% remaining (30% lost) at 5 years if Nissan wants to keep the hard line on below 9 bars

I'd make it 85% remaining (15% lost) at 2 years, 75% remaining (25% lost) at 5 years if Nissan wants to do the right thing for the 2011 / 2012 buyers.

And thats if you do it by raw percentage and make sure the raw percentage shows on the annual battery check and on carwings and maybe in a screen in the car (by way of a hidden menu).

If you do it by bars it'd be complicated because you get into bars that disappear seasonally and the thresholds are

12 bars 85% or more
11 bars 78.75% to 85%
10 bars 72.5% to 78.75%
9 bars 66.25% to 72.5%
8 bars 53.75% to 66.25%

So to keep the hard line Nissan can guarantee at least 10 bars at 2 years and 9 bars at 5 years (meaning you have to see 8 on the display to get a remedy at the 5 year mark).

To do the right thing by bars (if they don't show raw %) they would guarantee at least 10 bars at 5 years (the bars are too wide to guarantee anything at the 2 or 3 year mark).

By far I'd prefer a percentage or wattage based metric over vague inaccurate bars.
 
I like the new warranty.. but I still think it was a bad idea to sell Leafs in Phoenix.. the emotional scars of GM crushing the EV-1 (lease returns) probably has something to do about it. People know that lithium-ion batteries degrade, and people in Phoenix know how long 12V batteries last.
 
Herm said:
I like the new warranty.. but I still think it was a bad idea to sell Leafs in Phoenix...
... and it is still a bad idea to sell Leafs in Phoenix, unless there is full disclosure--which of course there isn't.
 
I voted a very decisive neutral. It is better than nothing, but it is far short of the implied warranty we heard in the sales pitch. I never lost a bar this summer, but it seems likely for the coming year. Even with the new warranty, I don't feel nearly as protected as an owner as I would if I were leasing.
 
The warranty does carry its own 'moral hazard'. Say you are a Leaf owner in a hot climate, and you are down to 9 bars after four years. An owner might adopt charging and driving habits not favorable to the battery pack in order to cross the goal line before the five year mark.
 
DesertDenizen said:
The warranty does carry its own 'moral hazard'. Say you are a Leaf owner in a hot climate, and you are down to 9 bars after four years. An owner might adopt charging and driving habits not favorable to the battery pack in order to cross the goal line before the five year mark.

Which is probably why Nissan has never revealed (and probably never will) precisely what the LEAF's battery history reveals to Nissan. As another example, it would probably be very easy to cause major damage to the LEAF battery, triggering the capacity warranty, just by intentional (or unintentional) exposure to high heat. Of course, Nissan's policy of only guaranteeing a "nine bar" battery pack, is obviously intended to minimize the moral hazard the capacity warranty creates.

Those of you who feel Nissan has been recalcitrant in satisfying your "lemon law" complaints might consider the following story, which might allow you to see the warranty question (expressed, implied, or legislated) from another point of view:

I recently stood on the showroom floor of a Los Angeles-area luxury car dealership as their sales manager pointed out a middle-aged couple browsing the lot. “We will never sell them a car,” he said. “In fact, we are going to politely ask them to leave.” Why? “One of our salespeople recognized them. They are professional Lemon Law scammers. They have hit two other dealers but they are not going to hit us.” ...

The con works like this: go lease a high-end automobile for the longest term, the least miles and lowest down payment you can negotiate. For example, you can lease a 2013 BMW 535i for 39 months at 10,000 miles per year for as little as $585 per month with a few hundred dollars down for title, and license fees. That’s a cut-rate payment for a $55,000 ride and you are now cruising Colorado Boulevard in style.

Enjoy driving your Beemer for a year or so or until you decide you want the latest Lexus. At this point you are buried in your lease deeper than Jimmy Hoffa as it would cost mega-thousands of dollars over the value of the vehicle to pay off the contract.

It is now time for the twist: you or a technician friend tamper with the mechanics of the car to make it eligible to be a Lemon Law buyback for being unrepairable. In California, a defect that cannot be repaired in as little as two visits to the dealer, or if the vehicle is in the shop over 30 days, can be eligible for Lemon Law status. Thus, a stuck dashboard warning light, a balky seat belt buckle or leaking brake fluid can make you the poor victim of the evil carmaker. All it takes is a little tinkering.

Next, hire one of scores of LA lawyers like this one who specialize in Lemon Law cases. Under the threat of a lawsuit, the attorney will negotiate with BMW of North America for them to buy your car back and pay off the lease and will often score a few extra dollars for your “hardship.” Once the case is settled, you head over to your local Lexus store and repeat the process.

One Lemon Law attorney discusses the tampering issue on his website but does not specifically discourage the practice:


…OWNERS BEWARE! What consumer’s don’t know is what the car manufacturer’s DO know about owners tampering with their vehicle’s to “create” a California Lemon Law case…Typical “tampering” of cars include repeated incidents of dash warning lights for various vehicle systems, including, but not limited to: SRS/airbag, “CHECK ENGINE”, traction control, brakes, ABS, and more…Making matters even MORE serious, auto dealers now have special “tamper-seal” for electrical connectors and devices that are invisible to the eye. The newest generation even has a “imprint” film, that takes fingerprints…

The lawyer’s assessment of automakers’ countermeasures is a few years out of date. The latest defense tactics must not be revealed here as the crooks no doubt have Google Alerts set for the words, “tamper” and “Lemon Law.”

Customers caught tampering with their cars find their claims denied and are advised to never set foot in that brand’s dealerships again. Like with most fraud, prosecution by carmakers or their banks is uncommon – accusing a car owner of fraud and losing the case would result in a public relations disaster...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/tales-from-the-cooler-the-land-of-the-crooked-car-buyer-part-one/#more-470611" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Didn't they say the expected loss at 100K miles was 20% in late 2011 and then change it to 30%? Now they offer a warranty that 30% shouldn't be gone in 60K miles? What are they offering here - only a modest effort to get it back to 70%. This is marketing hype - I doubt this warranty will see much action. I'm over 62K miles and about 20% loss. The way I see things, the only way they measure battery loss is with loss of displayed bars - not actual loss of range. Kinda ticked off that I'm already where I expected to be at 100K miles.

All of us now know what the community has determined over the last two years - but it wasn't offered by Nissan when I told everyone that I expected to save the cost of the car with lower operating costs. Instead they have taken my money, and my commute has gone from 70 minutes to over 1-1/2 hours minimum with having to make a QC stop each way so I can complete 65 miles. And then there is the lack of response from Nissan to my request to get a price for replacing the battery - it is only available for warranty repairs and my desire to get a price to avoid the QC stop doesn't qualify.

If any of you know of a way to extend the range (with physical battery expansion or third party replacement) I'd be interested. I don't want to be flamed with all the ways to extend my range by changing my driving route, style or speed.

When the rest of you get to 60K miles and your LEAF can only go 64 miles to turtle you will not be happy either. You can belittle my situation as an extreme, but I don't think you will feel the same way when it happens to you. I'm just there before you.
 
TaylorSFGuy said:
If any of you know of a way to extend the range (with physical battery expansion or third party replacement) I'd be interested. I don't want to be flamed with all the ways to extend my range by changing my driving route, style or speed.
Enginer is supposed to be offering an extra battery to extend the range - not seen anyone buy one, though.
 
evnow said:
Enginer is supposed to be offering an extra battery to extend the range - not seen anyone buy one, though.
I believe they went out of business recently. I wouldn't know of anyone offering a range-extending solution right now, aside from Phil's Capstone trailer.
 
TaylorSFGuy said:
...I'm over 62K miles and about 20% loss. The way I see things, the only way they measure battery loss is with loss of displayed bars - not actual loss of range. Kinda ticked off that I'm already where I expected to be at 100K miles...

So, you fell pretty sure of that 20% loss, but still haven't lost a capacity bar?

That would be another anecdotal report that capacity bar loss (and gid counts) seem to under-report capacity loss in cooler climates, in contrast to their documented tendency to over-report capacity loss in hotter climates.

Which, IMO, is another reason why we should be demanding that Nissan correct the "gauge problem", so that each of us can monitor our own battery capacity in kWh with reasonable accuracy.

Your problem, of course, is that being over 60k miles, the capacity warranty won't help you, no matter how many bars your dash displays.

Which is why Nissan can only help you, by announcing the cost for pack replacement ASAP.
 
surfingslovak said:
evnow said:
Enginer is supposed to be offering an extra battery to extend the range - not seen anyone buy one, though.
I believe they went out of business recently. I wouldn't know of anyone offering a range-extending solution right now, aside from Phil's Capstone trailer.

Pluginconversions will probably make you one.
 
TaylorSFGuy said:
When the rest of you get to 60K miles and your LEAF can only go 64 miles to turtle you will not be happy either. You can belittle my situation as an extreme, but I don't think you will feel the same way when it happens to you. I'm just there before you.
While I sympathize with your situation, you are using a pretty broad brush here. For me, 64 miles to turtle would work just fine (not that I want to get there any time soon). If I drop below 50 miles range, that would be a problem for me, but with my driving style that will be at 50% remaining capacity. Everyone has different needs for the range they need to make the Leaf work for them.
 
Back
Top