DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
60 ahr?? do a few fast charges and report back. a new pack should be around 67.36 ahr. with your intiial drive, its pretty obvious you are not 10 % down
2013 Low Battery Capacity AHr Battery Degradation
- Thread starter stjohnh
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
mkjayakumar said:
i dont think its hidden so much as there is some sort of major recalibration going on...or not.
for your review;
i drive roughly 25-50 miles day for a week. each day, my ahr drops going from upper 66's to mid 63's. Each time, my SOC never drops below 50 %.
then next week comes. have 3 days of 90+ mile commutes. see small increase in ahr every day with big jump (1.81 ahr) happening on warmest day which also was day after longest commute (96 miles) Shortest commute for the week was 74 miles. I end up at 66.81 ahr from 63.73 ahr.
then comes 3 day weekend. back to driving 25- 40 miles a day and today my ahr is... hold on
is 64.24 ahr. now am i worried at the seemingly 4.6% loss of capacity? or actually not sure how we would measure this because one method would be ahr from 67.36 for new to 64.24 or we could use a much nicer option of 3.1 % loss due to having only 22 kwh instead of the new 22.7 kwh?
now, I present this as information and contend nothing simply because I really don't know what all this means
RegGuheert
Well-known member
^^^
Thanks for this data, Dave! We have long noted that there is some capacity lost due to imbalance which is regained when the LEAF is fully charged, but your experience seems to be something else entirely.
On your 90+ mile days, were you QCing once each day? I know you have noted previously that you see a bump in capacity after a QC.
I'm heading out to QC our LEAF until I get the capacity up from 57Ah to 67Ah. Wish me luck!
Thanks for this data, Dave! We have long noted that there is some capacity lost due to imbalance which is regained when the LEAF is fully charged, but your experience seems to be something else entirely.
On your 90+ mile days, were you QCing once each day? I know you have noted previously that you see a bump in capacity after a QC.
I'm heading out to QC our LEAF until I get the capacity up from 57Ah to 67Ah. Wish me luck!
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:^^^
Thanks for this data, Dave! We have long noted that there is some capacity lost due to imbalance which is regained when the LEAF is fully charged, but your experience seems to be something else entirely.
On your 90+ mile days, were you QCing once each day? I know you have noted previously that you see a bump in capacity after a QC.
I'm heading out to QC our LEAF until I get the capacity up from 57Ah to 67Ah. Wish me luck!
no QC'ing. just deeper than normal cycling. obtw, the phenomena of increasing ahr with fast charging started with the 2013's. don't remember 2011/12's doing this
IraqiInvaderGnr
Well-known member
AHr=64.17 SOH=98% HX=97.70% Odo=25,340 2 QCs 1672 L1/L2 SOC=97.1% 278 GIDS Battery Temp 85.0, 83.4, 81.4.
mkjayakumar
Well-known member
Now that is impressive. Your cooler Iowa temps helped though
I noticed that your signature says, "Top GIDs 295" ? I don't quite how could you get 295 GIDs at anytime ?
I noticed that your signature says, "Top GIDs 295" ? I don't quite how could you get 295 GIDs at anytime ?
IraqiInvaderGnr
Well-known member
mkjayakumar said:
Top GIDS was obtained using simulated GIDS count. When I first got leafspy app (before it was called leafspy) it didnt read GID count properly on the 13s so that's the theory why mine was 295. But yea very careful charging habits and cool temps have helped this battery pack out significantly. I haven't noticed any reduced range yet due to degradation. This car has exceeded my expectations soo much that within a year we are getting a Tesla Model S.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
IraqiInvaderGnr said:
gotta be one of the most confused statements I have ever read
IraqiInvaderGnr
Well-known member
DaveinOlyWA said:
:lol: Tesla is going to be the wife's car when we get it and it will replace both of our ICE cars. This household will be full electric...minus the oven and furnace :lol: .
BrockWI
Well-known member
Just jumping in and throwing in my numbers, typically charge to 80% with 100% about once a week, about 300 miles a week.
ODO - Ahr - SOH - QC - L2 - SOC - kWh - GID - % - Date
1649 - 63.68 - 97 - 97.74 - 1 - 172 - 97.2 - 21.1 - 277 - 98.6 - April 25 2014
2844 - 62.97 - 96 - 96.80 - 1 - 241 - 96.4 - 20.6 - 271 - 96.4 - May 23 2014
4192 - 60.79 - 92 - 93.39 - 1 - 346 - 96.9 - 20.1 - 264 - 94.0 - July 04 2014
ODO - Ahr - SOH - QC - L2 - SOC - kWh - GID - % - Date
1649 - 63.68 - 97 - 97.74 - 1 - 172 - 97.2 - 21.1 - 277 - 98.6 - April 25 2014
2844 - 62.97 - 96 - 96.80 - 1 - 241 - 96.4 - 20.6 - 271 - 96.4 - May 23 2014
4192 - 60.79 - 92 - 93.39 - 1 - 346 - 96.9 - 20.1 - 264 - 94.0 - July 04 2014
johnrhansen
Well-known member
Just like my own aging, my car sadly is not immune. I just got assigned to a different work place, and a longer commute. There was a certain location that I used to always pass by at about 80 percent charge. that was even in the winter with the heat on. Now, 6 months later with the heat off, I passed by at 78 percent... heavy sigh....
MikeinDenver
Well-known member
Maybe this is answered somewhere else but I have not come across it so far. In another thread someone was asking why the difference between the dash saying 100% charge and leafspy showing a lower number. In my case 97.1%. Am I correct then in thinking I have lost 2.9% capacity? Or do I need to dig more into the weeds to determine that? My AHr numbers are on the lower side. Currently around 58-59. They have been that way from about a month after I purchased the car and I plugged in the odb scanner. Range seems to be fine. I have not yet done a test down to turtle though.
swaltner
Well-known member
MikeinDenver said:
The dash ignores the reserved space at the top and bottom of the battery charge (the battery is never fully charged or discharged), while the SOC shown internally (LeafSpy, LeafDD, etc...) is the raw SOC including this capacity that is not used. That's the reason for the discrepancy between the two SOC values.
BrockWI said:
Your numbers basically agree with mine at 9K miles:
Ahr - 59, SOH - 93, SOC - 97, GIDs - 263, Capacity (LeafDD) - 61 Ahr
Which makes me wonder about the very high capacity numbers being reported
in this thread for similar mileage, e.g. over 64 Ahr.
BrockWI
Well-known member
lorenfb said:
Exactly what I was thinking, at least I know our numbers are not WAY off, it just looks like some folks got some super batteries or something?
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Actually, the point of this thread is that MOST LEAFs ship with 66+Ah indicated. But starting in 2013, some are indicating ~60Ah, even when new. Fortunately, range tests indicate that these LEAFs have about the same range as all the others, but more of the range is available below the VLBW.BrockWI said:
BrockWI said:
Your VIN number (last 6 digits - production #) is very close to Dave's in WA, but your capacity
is like mine, i.e. about 10% below Dave's. You would think if some battery tweaking occurred
in production, you and Dave would have similar capacities. Strange!
Production #s
Dave - 423014 - MY 2013
Brock - 423875 - MY 2013
Mine - 416635 - MY 2013
Note: The last 5 digits of the above represents the actual production number of the model year (MY).
TimLee
Well-known member
Where did you determine this?lorenfb said:
It may be correct, but it may not necessarily mean that the vehicles were produced in this chronological sequence on the production line.
It was clearly shown that 2011 and 2012 Japan produced VINS were assigned earlier and sometimes were several weeks different than actual chronological production sequence.
Not sure if this is the case at Smryna.
Boomer23
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
EXACTLY Reg. Luckily it seems that the cars with these strange readings are relatively few, seeming to include a percentage of the early 2013 cars only, mine included. With the availability of all of these monitoring devices, hordes of new buyers would be going nuts worrying about their "bad batteries" if all of the 2013 and 2014 cars showed these numbers. And while I was reassured to find that my driving range was unaffected, the fact that 10 miles or so of that range is "hidden" below VLBW is NOT a good thing for driver confidence. I'm very glad that this thread exists to reassure owners of early 2013 LEAFs who are panicked when they first put a LEAFSpy on their cars.
TimLee said:
First, that's how all OEM vehicle manufacturers assign VINs in sequencial order based
on release from manufacturing. Additionally, one can check the production date
on the vehicle which some post in this forum and that correlates with the last digits
of the VIN when compared to another Leaf's data.
Similar threads
