The unofficial Leaf dropout thread

[JPWhite]

Thank you. Coming from that experience is my opinion that both the enthusiasm of last year was overblown and the current pessimism is overblown. I might be wrong, I've been wrong before, but that is what I think.

I agree. I knew at purchase I was taking a risk, BUT tempered that concern with the knowledge that Nissan had taken care of their CVT customers who had to fork out large sums of money to repair their transmissions. Those customers did *eventually* get a refund. They demonstrated with the CVT that they would stand behind their product. It maybe incorrect to assume they will always take the customers side, but if they did once they could again.

It took complaints regarding the high cost of repair before Nissan did anything about the issue. Service departments probably heard things like 'I'll never buy another Nissan again" as they handed their credit cards over. So far this problem hasn't cost anybody anything other than lost sleep. When an Arizona LEAF owner is on the local TV station holding up his/her service bill for $12,000 to fix a worn out battery, Nissan will probably want to consider their options.

One important difference between the CVT issue and the LEAF Battery issue is the number of cars affected. EV's are still a small proportion of Nissan's revenue stream, so they don't have as much to protect or as many customers to piss off. If Nissan do absolutely nothing about this issue, they will in effect abandon their EV platform and future as an EV supplier. I suppose the decision is theirs.

 

[RegGuheert]

I agree. I knew at purchase I was taking a risk, BUT tempered that concern with the knowledge that Nissan had taken care of their CVT customers who had to fork out large sums of money to repair their transmissions. Those customers did *eventually* get a refund. They demonstrated with the CVT that they would stand behind their product. It maybe incorrect to assume they will always take the customers side, but if they did once they could again.

Was the CVT failure something that Nissan specifically excluded from the warranty? If not, then this is an important difference. The point here is that Nissan knew (and knows) about the capacity loss issue with these batteries and decided in advance to deal with it by a warranty exclusion and to publicly reassure prospective owners in hot climates that they had done lots of testing and that the LEAF battery should be expected to last long enough to justify their purchase. All of their public statements to date indicate they are sticking with their plan, as ill-conceived as it may have been.

 

[TonyWilliams]

A quick review of this forum:

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f213d8f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

leads me to believe that Nissan gave the CVT the placebo prescription that I predict LEAF batteries will get. It looks like a procedure to add oil was the fix.

But it also looks like they replaced a lot of transmissions. One post, from last month, says that they just bought a 2012 that has a transmission problem and the dealer told them "it's normal". Sound familiar?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

A quick review of this forum:

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f213d8f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

leads me to believe that Nissan gave the CVT the placebo prescription that I predict LEAF batteries will get. It looks like a procedure to add oil was the fix.

But it also looks like they replaced a lot of transmissions. One post, from last month, says that they just bought a 2012 that has a transmission problem and the dealer told them "it's normal". Sound familiar?

check out the 2012 Ford Focus transmission complaint. nearly identical. the new transmission is a dry type with can run in automatic or manual without clutch. in automatic the 6 speed shift pattern is a bit stiff for the first 1000 miles or so. there were so many complaints that Ford is discontinuing the option

 

[JPWhite]

I agree. I knew at purchase I was taking a risk, BUT tempered that concern with the knowledge that Nissan had taken care of their CVT customers who had to fork out large sums of money to repair their transmissions. Those customers did *eventually* get a refund. They demonstrated with the CVT that they would stand behind their product. It maybe incorrect to assume they will always take the customers side, but if they did once they could again.

Was the CVT failure something that Nissan specifically excluded from the warranty? If not, then this is an important difference. The point here is that Nissan knew (and knows) about the capacity loss issue with these batteries and decided in advance to deal with it by a warranty exclusion and to publicly reassure prospective owners in hot climates that they had done lots of testing and that the LEAF battery should be expected to last long enough to justify their purchase. All of their public statements to date indicate they are sticking with their plan, as ill-conceived as it may have been.

The customer complaints surrounded high repair cost after the 3yr 36,000 warranty ran out.

Nissan retroactively put a 8yr 100,000 warranty on the transmissions and refunded customers who had paid.

As you correctly point out we don't have a warranty to apply or extend with regard to capacity.

The two issues are different and one can't assume one thing from another. My point is that Nissan will protect their brand when they are faced with a large enough problem.

 

[surfingslovak]

Folks who get rid of the LEAF, remember to:

LEAF Sale Checklist

1. Erase the Homelink (garage door opener). Just press the first and third button together (with car on) for 20 seconds and then light will blink quickly.

2. Navigation- delete stored routes, address book, bluetooth devices, and set to default.

3. Remove from CarWings

4. Get your money back from any Nissan extended warranty you bought

5. Stop automated lease or car payments

6. California release of liability

7. Remove from insurance

8. Cancell SiriusXM subscription

9. Notify government agencies concerning rebates you may have received

Thank you for putting this together! Resale prices have been holding steady, the ActiveE has not broken down in the past four weeks, and I'm days away from pulling the trigger. Any update on returning a prorated portion of the CVRP? I went through the implementation manual and found the following reference (see below). Also, how do you delete stored routes and the address book from the Navigation system? One by one or is there a factory reset?

 

[cwerdna]

I agree. I knew at purchase I was taking a risk, BUT tempered that concern with the knowledge that Nissan had taken care of their CVT customers who had to fork out large sums of money to repair their transmissions. Those customers did *eventually* get a refund. They demonstrated with the CVT that they would stand behind their product. It maybe incorrect to assume they will always take the customers side, but if they did once they could again.

Was the CVT failure something that Nissan specifically excluded from the warranty? If not, then this is an important difference. The point here is that Nissan knew (and knows) about the capacity loss issue with these batteries and decided in advance to deal with it by a warranty exclusion and to publicly reassure prospective owners in hot climates that they had done lots of testing and that the LEAF battery should be expected to last long enough to justify their purchase. All of their public statements to date indicate they are sticking with their plan, as ill-conceived as it may have been.

The customer complaints surrounded high repair cost after the 3yr 36,000 warranty ran out.

Nissan retroactively put a 8yr 100,000 warranty on the transmissions and refunded customers who had paid.

As you correctly point out we don't have a warranty to apply or extend with regard to capacity.

The two issues are different and one can't assume one thing from another. My point is that Nissan will protect their brand when they are faced with a large enough problem.

Actually, on that note, the CVT extension was to 10 years/120K miles from the regular 5 year/60K mile powertrain warranty. See http://www.nissanassist.com/ProgramDetails.php?menu=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. CVTs are available on most of Nissan branded cars in the US and in some cases, it's the only transmission choice.

Nissan has done a few other campaigns that you can see at http://www.nissanassist.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

When I had my 350Z (my memory is foggy on all the details), the 03 350Z had issues w/the inner edge of the front tires cupping and feathering. After a lot of YMMV activity by dealers (replacing tires, alignment, swapping tires side to side, etc.), Nissan extended the alignment warranty (normally just 1 year/12K miles) and created a TSB w/clear criteria on feathering, tire replacement, instructions on getting an alignment done, etc. Us 04 350Z owners asked "what about us?" Well, they ended up extended it for 03 folks and added 04 folks too. I don't remember if it was extended once more.

At the time, the Nissan Assist site didn't exist yet. The first item on Nissan Assist site was (IIRC) the CVT warranty extension. Other stuff got added over the years.

The replacement tires had a slightly different tread pattern on the inner edge. It's unclear if the above was just to temporarily satisfy people and leave them high and dry later...

 

[LEAFfan]

And where do they draw the line on who is really affected? Offer it to one, it will be hard to deny anybody making claims.

To me, it's pretty simple: Anyone with a one or more capacity bar loss receives a new improved pack. For the others with all their bars, if they want the new, improved pack, they'll be able to trade the pack in for a Nissan-set-price. If the others still have 80% capacity after five years, and they want the new pack, they'll still have to pay.

 

[IBELEAF]

So, I forgot to remove from Carwings and keep getting notifications. Technically, I still have control with all Carwings functions of the car. Nissan should probably address this security hole.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Thank you for putting this together! Resale prices have been holding steady, the ActiveE has not broken down in the past four weeks, and I'm days away from pulling the trigger. Any update on returning a prorated portion of the CVRP? I went through the implementation manual and found the following reference (see below). Also, how do you delete stored routes and the address book from the Navigation system? One by one or is there a factory reset?
]

There's a default setting, and a "delete all".

 

[Herm]

To me, it's pretty simple: Anyone with a one or more capacity bar loss receives a new improved pack.

I think the line should be drawn at 3 bars within 5 years.. similar to the Honda Hybrid battery: no warranty replacement until the battery fault indicator lights up.

3 bars is a substantial loss.. 1 or 2 not so.

 

[TonyWilliams]

To me, it's pretty simple: Anyone with a one or more capacity bar loss receives a new improved pack.

I think the line should be drawn at 3 bars within 5 years.. similar to the Honda Hybrid battery: no warranty replacement until the battery fault indicator lights up.

3 bars is a substantial loss.. 1 or 2 not so.

I disagree what threshold is normal. Losing 15% capacity is substantial (1 bar). To my knowledge, not a single GM Volt / Ampera has lost anything from the available battery to the end user. ZERO.

But, is 15% reasonable for year one? Maybe, except the stated (over an over) threshold of 20% in 5 years surely doesn't imply that. I would want to hold Nissan to at least the stated loss, knowing that virtually anything they have said is covered with so many weasel words and wiggle room to make them meaningless.

So, if the car exceeded 20% within the first 5 year period, and 30% in ten years, a new battery would be installed. That would be met at two missing capacity bars within 5 years, and 4 missing capacity bars in 10 years (assuming they don't software update and redefine the values of the bars).

That way, instead of dreading that next capacity bar disappearing, you'd be excited to know that you're that much closer to a new battery.

 

[TomT]

Considering the large difference in capacity loss for a first, versus the additional loss for a second and/or third tick, the loss of the first tick is VERY significant.

I think the line should be drawn at 3 bars within 5 years.. similar to the Honda Hybrid battery: no warranty replacement until the battery fault indicator lights up.
3 bars is a substantial loss.. 1 or 2 not so.

 

[hill]

If one of the traction pack's taxing scenerios is driving in the 'low-battery range" - it stands to reason that you're necessarily performing a taxing scenerio, once you have a couple missing bars. Otherwise, you'd have to really limit your range.

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

 

[ALLWATZ]

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

That statement is a little offensive (actually, it's very offensive) to those of us who have lost capacity, "baby" our Leafs and our only condition is living in a hot climate. Sure you wouldn't like to mention how homeless people don't take enough showers or give your views on "legitimate rape".

 

[WetEV]

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

That statement is a little offensive (actually, it's very offensive) to those of us who have lost capacity, "baby" our Leafs and our only condition is living in a hot climate. Sure you wouldn't like to mention how homeless people don't take enough showers or give your views on "legitimate rape".

+1

Nissan didn't give good information on expected battery life variation over temperature. To say the least.

 

[edatoakrun]

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

That statement is a little offensive (actually, it's very offensive) to those of us who have lost capacity, "baby" our Leafs and our only condition is living in a hot climate. Sure you wouldn't like to mention how homeless people don't take enough showers or give your views on "legitimate rape".

All of us signed a disclosure statement when you bought or leased your LEAF that stated that "exposure to very high ambient temperatures" was one of the factors that may "hasten" loss of battery capacity.

Clearly, battery capacity loss due to climate was one of many factors each of us had to consider, before deciding to drive a LEAF.

The fact that climate will probably be a greater factor in battery life than most believed, and Nissan revealed, does not mean that you now are a helpless "victim" of your climate. It does mean that any action to compensate for battery capacity loss greater than expected, due to climate, will have to be carefully considered by Nissan, so as to not shift those costs to other LEAF drivers.

And neither should anyone be called a "battery killer", just because they decided to use their own LEAF in any way they chose.

It's just a battery. And like every other battery, it will have a useful "life" largely determined by conditions of use.

IMO, the largest question now, is how much it will cost to replace the battery pack, when and if that becomes necessary.

And I think an announcement of replacement/reconditioned battery pack costs, trade-in values, and any cost adjustment by Nissan for hot climate-accelerated capacity loss, will be the ultimate solution, to the problem.

 

[Valdemar]

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

Not to insult affected owners but making enough stink after you realized you messed up has surely been proven to work in the past. Mortgage modifications/bailouts is just one recent example.

 

[edatoakrun]

Btw, I'd probably be PO'd if anyone got a new/rebuilt pack, simply because they frequently drove harder, charged to 100% more regularly in 100+ degree heat - etc. What reward is there for those of us who've babied their Leafs, other than better battery life. A reward for one group is a tacit slap in the face to the other group. And THAT's why Nissan will basically going to give early battery killers nothing.

Not to insult affected owners but making enough stink after you realized you messed up has surely been proven to work in the past. Mortgage modifications/bailouts is just one recent example.

A more pertinent example might be how the "unintended acceleration" hysteria nearly destroyed Audi in the US market.

Essentially, all auto designs since have been "idiot proofed" to prevent the driver error that led to "unintended acceleration".

Unfortunately, I don't think BEVs will be nearly as easy to "idiot proof" for battery capacity loss, as ICEVs were for "unintended acceleration".

If BEV/PHEV manufactures need to warranty capacity over time, they may have to greatly restrict BEV drivers use of their battery capacity, and/or add ATM (whether BEV buyers want it or not) such as has been done by GM with the Volt.

Also note that the Audi class action is last reported, as still unsettled, after 25 years...

....Audi 5000 unintended acceleration

Sales in the United States fell after a series of recalls from 1982 to 1987 of Audi 5000 models[22] associated with reported incidents of sudden unintended acceleration linked to six deaths and 700 accidents.[22] At the time, NHTSA was investigating 50 car models from 20 manufacturers for sudden surges of power.[23]

A 60 Minutes report aired 23 November 1986,[24] featuring interviews with six people who had sued Audi after reporting unintended acceleration, showing an Audi 5000 ostensibly suffering a problem when the brake pedal was pushed.[25][26] Subsequent investigation revealed that 60 Minutes had engineered the failure – fitting a canister of compressed air on the passenger-side floor, linked via a hose to a hole drilled into the transmission.[24]

Audi contended, prior to findings by outside investigators,[23] that the problems were caused by driver error, specifically pedal misapplication.[23] Subsequently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the majority of unintended acceleration cases, including all the ones that prompted the 60 Minutes report, were caused by driver error such as confusion of pedals.[27] CBS did not acknowledge the test results of involved government agencies, but did acknowledge the similar results of another study.[25]

With the series of recall campaigns, Audi made several modifications; the first adjusted the distance between the brake and accelerator pedal on automatic-transmission models.[22] Later repairs, of 250,000 cars dating back to 1978, added a device requiring the driver to press the brake pedal before shifting out of park.[22] A legacy of the Audi 5000 and other reported cases of sudden unintended acceleration are intricate gear stick patterns and brake interlock mechanisms to prevent inadvertent shifting into forward or reverse.

Audi's U.S. sales, which had reached 74,061 in 1985, dropped to 12,283 in 1991 and remained level for three years.[22] – with resale values falling dramatically.[28] Audi subsequently offered increased warranty protection[28] and renamed the affected models – with the 5000 becoming the 100 and 200 in 1989[23] – and only reached the same sales levels again by model year 2000.[22]

A 2010 BusinessWeek article – outlining possible parallels between Audi's experience and 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls – noted a class-action lawsuit filed in 1987 by about 7,500 Audi 5000-model owners remains unsettled and is currently being contested in county court in Chicago after appeals at the Illinois state and U.S. federal levels.[22]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Valdemar]

A more pertinent example might be how the "unintended acceleration" hysteria nearly destroyed Audi in the US market.

Probably, however the element of responsible PO'd individuals is missing from that case.