User avatar
TickTock
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Delivery Date: 31 May 2011
Leaf Number: 3626
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:22 pm

opossum wrote: Nissan has informed us that they want to take 5 or 6 of our cars (we were a little fuzzy on which it was) down to their test facility in Casa Grande, AZ and run some tests.
It is 6. I just got back from vacation with a couple of voice mails inviting me to participate in their study. Looks like I got back just in time and was told I would make the total 6. Looks like they do pay attention, BTW, to this forum. My car had 11 bars last time I had it in and only reported my 2nd bar loss here. I never even filed a formal complaint. However, was told my car was selected because it had lost two bars. I supposed they could have been snooping over CarWings, but given my license plate avatar and published VIN it's not too hard to connect the dots. :-) I'm happy to provide as much information as they want to help make a great car even better.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:25 pm

I'm sorry, but I am getting hung up on this statement by a "Senior Vice President of Research & Development, Nissan Americas":
Carla Bailo, Nissan Americas Senior Vice President of Research & Development wrote:Battery capacity loss of the levels reported may be considered normal depending on the method and frequency of charging, the operating environment, the amount of electricity consumed during daily usage and a vehicle's mileage and age.
I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true. Why do I say that? Because an EV whose battery gets ruined that fast is an environmental disaster. It is also a financial disaster to anyone who buys the car.

That rate of loss is well OVER 4 TIMES the rate of battery capacity degradation that Nissan told prospective owners to expect from the LEAF. Sure, you warned that higher temperatures could make things worse, but I don't think ANYONE imagined you meant that it could be OVER 4 TIMES worse than what you stated. I know I didn't. Maybe twice as bad, in the worst case, is what I thought. In addition, the warnings about capacity loss implied that the owner could affect the rate of capacity loss by their habits, but it seems that in some climates the actions of the owner have only a secondary effect.

Simply put, you will find very few people who want to purchase an EV which loses 30% of its capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles. It simply makes no sense to buy such a car. Most of the people who bought LEAFs in Phoenix likely only did so because they believed misleading statements by Nissan that implied capacity loss in AZ was thoroughly tested and that it would be OK.

You should stop selling these cars in Phoenix immediately. Or, at the very least, you should tell prospective buyers what some customers are experiencing as their ACTUAL capacity loss in the area where they are making the purchase. Then they will have an opportunity to make an informed decision about how they spend their hard-earned money.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
lemketron
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:46 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 1554
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:36 pm

allenthompson wrote:It was only within the last week that the car started showing ~80 available miles after an overnight charge. This was a significant and sudden change since, for the last year, the car consistently showed ~100+ after an overnight charge.

Of note:
Put in service 05Jul11 in Bakersfield California. The car will soon have 12K miles on the odometer.
... Previously, the car would "use" miles rather quickly - seemingly more than actually being driven - for the first 20-30 miles. Now, the car drives a number of miles before it seems to "use" any. Yesterday, I left the house with 83 on the meter (ECO), drove about 15 miles, and had 85 on the meter (ECO) when I got home. I believe the actual difference in "available miles" is insignificant but, for some reason, my car has suddenly started evaluating battery condition differently.
You didn't just take it in for your first annual service, did you?
Updating the car's firmware could result in this new guessometer behavior...
Reserved: 4/20/10, Ordered: 10/27/10, Delivered 5/10/11
Drivin' on sunshine! 5.4 KW Solar PV, PG&E E6 TOU, Blink EVSE (EV Project)
20,000+ miles of zero-emission solar-powered driving at $.01/mile!

User avatar
EVDRIVER
Moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:51 am

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:38 pm

One thing that would have been nice in the letter would be a sentence that said. "Nissan stands behind it's products and will take care of customers should there be any cases of excessive capacity loss." But that's not going to happen....

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14028
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:38 pm

so "about" 40 of 400 vehicles affected (and probably more than that) so that is a minimal 10% affected and that was not found on testing??

ok, dont believe it for a second. the letter, nice as it was, told us nothing. emphasized that more time is needed (waiting for replacement modules from TN) to "investigate" the specific vehicles involved. should give them another few weeks of time. Battery plant start up for Sept? wondering if that date wont be moved up.

let me guess. cars dissected for a week to 10 days cars return first week of August. next statement; "we have gathered the data and are analyzing our findings. add another 7-10 days. (middle of August) determination; capacity loss is beyond what they had expected. process started to procure replacement parts. another week passes (end of August) letters sent to affected persons to start scheduling maintenance. its now Sept. first battery modules from TN plant arrive. parts replaced.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:42 pm

RegGuheert wrote:I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true.
If the first capacity bar is indeed 15%, I found it unacceptable that I lost that much capacity after 10-1/2 months and 10,200 miles; and found it even more frustrating Nissan called this "normal." Sorry to keep posting this, but here is hard evidence of that position:

Image

That said, I am pleased with Nissan's letter. Yes, it's corporate speak, but necessary corporate speak. They are simultaneously trying to acknowledge the issue while continuing to express confidence in the car, which seems to be doing well in other areas.

I'm still upset it took a lot of time and effort on the part of a lot of worried owners to get this acknowledgment, but finally getting a corporate response is encouraging. It is a great they are studying some of the cars. Continuing to say losing capacity bars after about a year is "normal" was maddening.

I will reserve final judgment pending the findings of the study. It seems like they are trying to do the right thing. I had my doubts, but let's see what happens.
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

azdre
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:28 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:46 pm

+1!! Well said!!
RegGuheert wrote:I'm sorry, but I am getting hung up on this statement by a "Senior Vice President of Research & Development, Nissan Americas":
Carla Bailo, Nissan Americas Senior Vice President of Research & Development wrote:Battery capacity loss of the levels reported may be considered normal depending on the method and frequency of charging, the operating environment, the amount of electricity consumed during daily usage and a vehicle's mileage and age.
I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true. Why do I say that? Because an EV whose battery gets ruined that fast is an environmental disaster. It is also a financial disaster to anyone who buys the car.

That rate of loss is well OVER 4 TIMES the rate of battery capacity degradation that Nissan told prospective owners to expect from the LEAF. Sure, you warned that higher temperatures could make things worse, but I don't think ANYONE imagined you meant that it could be OVER 4 TIMES worse than what you stated. I know I didn't. Maybe twice as bad, in the worst case, is what I thought. In addition, the warnings about capacity loss implied that the owner could affect the rate of capacity loss by their habits, but it seems that in some climates the actions of the owner have only a secondary effect.

Simply put, you will find very few people who want to purchase an EV which loses 30% of its capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles. It simply makes no sense to buy such a car. Most of the people who bought LEAFs in Phoenix likely only did so because they believed misleading statements by Nissan that implied capacity loss in AZ was thoroughly tested and that it would be OK.

You should stop selling these cars in Phoenix immediately. Or, at the very least, you should tell prospective buyers what some customers are experiencing as their ACTUAL capacity loss in the area where they are making the purchase. Then they will have an opportunity to make an informed decision about how they spend their hard-earned money.

User avatar
Gonewild
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:05 pm
Delivery Date: 18 May 2011
Leaf Number: 229
Location: Chandler, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:46 pm

TickTock wrote:
opossum wrote: Nissan has informed us that they want to take 5 or 6 of our cars (we were a little fuzzy on which it was) down to their test facility in Casa Grande, AZ and run some tests.
It is 6. I just got back from vacation with a couple of voice mails inviting me to participate in their study. Looks like I got back just in time and was told I would make the total 6. Looks like they do pay attention, BTW, to this forum. My car had 11 bars last time I had it in and only reported my 2nd bar loss here. I never even filed a formal complaint. However, was told my car was selected because it had lost two bars. I supposed they could have been snooping over CarWings, but given my license plate avatar and published VIN it's not too hard to connect the dots. :-) I'm happy to provide as much information as they want to help make a great car even better.
Last edited by Gonewild on Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Over 25,300 miles Plus - Now Sold/ Lease given back to Nissan 8-25-2012
Ordered Glacier Pearl Nissan Leaf SL eTech Edition on 8/31, Delivered March 1, 2011
POWERED By SunPower 5.16kw PV Solar home 3 Solar water panels.
Reserved 4/20

User avatar
TickTock
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Delivery Date: 31 May 2011
Leaf Number: 3626
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:54 pm

Well, even knowing what I know now, I would still buy a Leaf. 30% loss *is* unacceptable but I have complete faith that Nissan agrees and will make sure any such developments are satisfactorily addressed. I had my concerns about the battery when I bought last year but bought anyway because I couldn't imagine Nissan not addressing any unexpected losses. Still can't. It would be suicide (or, I suppose, hari-kari). They have been a bit slow and cautious, true, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a respectable automobile manufacturer which can easily cover their bet if it comes to that. First step is to head off the hysteria so their engineers can figure out what is going on. Then they can properly address the issue based on data. Stay cool.

Volusiano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:41 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:57 pm

shrink wrote:found it even more frustrating Nissan called this "normal." Sorry to keep posting this, but here is hard evidence of that position:
Image
^I guess you can read this in a couple of ways:

1. (Normal) (capacity lost) = the capacity loss is normal, to be expected, not out of the ordinary (what Shrink interpreted).
2. (Normal capacity) (lost) = the (normal capacity), as opposed to the (extra/actual/real/or whatever) capacity, is lost. This doesn't necessarily say the it's normal to lose this capacity. It just says that you lost this type of capacity that they label "normal capacity".

To me, the interpretation in 1 makes more sense. But it's still vague enough to mean 2.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”