Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer

ALLWATZ · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:45 am

edatoakrun wrote:

Maybe I should add to my earlier post, that while the cost of this additional warranty coverage for all 2011-2013 LEAFs may not be very large, it is a cost that will have to be passed on to all future LEAF buyers (and perhaps the buyers of replacement batteries) if The LEAF is ever to be profitable to Nissan.

So, all future LEAF buyers who do not subject their cars to those factors, such as high temperature, high SOC over time, etc. that accelerate capacity loss, will neccessarilly be subsidizing those LEAF buyers who do.

You're welcome...

My LEAF experiences long periods with over 100 F temperatures in the Summer, and it's ~29 degrees outside, right now.

Any of you Arizona LEAF owners want to guarantee my battery capacity will be "70%" on this date in 2015, and pay the cost for my warranty?

edatoakrun wrote:

...Two years after the LEAF's US introduction, Nissan has now given all of us a capacity warranty significantly reducing the risk of ownership we accepted when we bought our LEAFs. I doubt Nissan executives did this out of the goodness of their hearts. I expect that it was a simple cost/benefit business calculation. And if the cost of this warranty was expected to be excessive, I doubt Nissan would have done it.

IMO, it suggests a relatively low percentage of LEAFs are now expected to sustain capacity loss below "9 bars" or ~"70% capacity" during the duration of the capacity warranty, and/or the battery packs can be inexpensively restored to higher capacity, which I consider very good news.

If any LEAF owners can't accept the inherent and unavoidable uncertainty of future cost of ownership of any BEV, I'd suggest you just sell your LEAFs now and buy yourself an ICEV or hybrid, or lease another LEAF, at the current very low (MY 2012) net price.

You forgot one point. All of those future Leaf owners will not be new cars. There will be used cars on the market that will be giving a bad reputation to the new car market, it's a cycle. This is why cars such as Camry is such a good seller, used ones are reliable and keep on running. The warranty is only in effect for 5 years so it will not be in effect for most used cars (it won't even cover those that financed for more than 60 months). As to your reference about those "who do not subject their cars to those factors, such as high temperature, high SOC over time, etc. that accelerate capacity loss, will neccessarilly be subsidizing those LEAF buyers who do", I can only say that without early adopters testing the limits of a vehicle that was clearly not tested properly and marketed as one that was, I defer to your post above in regards to the warranty being put into place and say to you, "You're welcome...".

garygid · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:57 am

As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?
Still, it is better than "no capacity warranty".

It appears that this warranty kicks in when the capacity bars
indicate BELOW 9 bars, thus when it only shows EIGHT bars, right?

The 12th bar is lost at about 85%, then loss of each bar below the 12th
would indicate another APPROXIMATELY 7.5% loss, right?

So, the car loses the 11th bar at about 77.5%
Lose the 10th bar at about 70%
Lose the 9th (showing 8 bars) at ABOUT 62.5%, right?

So, if your car has is down to about 63% of the original
capacity, it is still likely to be displaying NINE capacity bars,
and thus not yet BELOW 9 bars.

If my LEAF gets down below about 45 miles of useful range,
it will have lost much of its usefulness to me, especially
if the QC infrastructure has not grown well.

However, it might still be useful to somebody who only
commutes 30 miles round trip to work.

For me, the cost of a new battery pack (or all new modules)
becomes an important plan-ahead number.

Right now, in this chilly season, looking at GIDs, my car
appears to be down only about 5%, after 11,000 miles
in a "mild" climate, with gentle use over 21 months.

But, in the heat of summer, it appeared to be down
about 12%, which was rather more alarming.

WetEV · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:08 am

ALLWATZ wrote:

This is why cars such as Camry is such a good seller, used ones are reliable and keep on running. The warranty is only in effect for 5 years so it will not be in effect for most used cars (it won't even cover those that financed for more than 60 months).

Which is why the battery replacement cost is so important. Suppose, after 20 years, in Seattle area, the usual story on a Leaf is "Can't kill it, needs little maintainance other than a $4k battery pack every 150k miles or 10 years, and tires of course, just keeps on going"... The used market will be fine. The story wouldn't be as good for the Leaf in Az, of course, and I'd expect most of the Leafs there would have left for cooler climates. Perhaps the Ford Focus BEV or the Teslas will have the same kind of record... This sort of history for at least one type of BEV will probably be necessary for wide adoption.

WetEV · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:14 am

garygid wrote:

As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?

Counting GIDs, yes.

Counting range or real capacity, no. For example:

wiki/index.php?title=File:Percent_Capacity_vs_Percent_Gids.jpg

edatoakrun · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:38 am

garygid wrote:

As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?...

Lose the 9th (showing 8 bars) at ABOUT 62.5%, right? ...

Wrong, quite possibly.

Since most all range tests of cars with lost bars (all from hot climates so far) indicate capacity loss as displayed by bars is not as great as indicated by the percentages you quote, it is entirely possible that the "approximately 70 percent of its original battery capacity" Nissan stated is still there when the ninth bar is lost, does indicate the approximate actual capacity loss in hot climates.

The unfortunate omission in Nissan's Warranty announcement, IMO, is any mention of when or if our LEAFs energy consumption reports will be made accurate. As far as I am concerned, I paid not only my Car and the battery, but for the reasonably accurate reports of energy use from my LEAF's gauges, and the compilation of this information as reported by Carwings.

We will never really have an accurate view of our actual battery capacity and the percentage loss over time, until the "gauge problem" is repaired.

Quote:

="garygid"

...Right now, in this chilly season, looking at GIDs, my car
appears to be down only about 5%, after 11,000 miles
in a "mild" climate, with gentle use over 21 months.

But, in the heat of summer, it appeared to be down
about 12%, which was rather more alarming.

Shouldn't this be taken as an indication that the gid count is extremely unreliable as an indication of battery capacity, and so your "alarm" was (and is) unfounded?

Stoaty · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:42 am

WetEV wrote:

garygid wrote:

As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?

Counting GIDs, yes.

Counting range or real capacity, no. For example:

wiki/index.php?title=File:Percent_Capacity_vs_Percent_Gids.jpg

That's exactly what I keep trying to tell everyone. Is there significant capacity loss in very hot states? Yes, definitely. Is it as bad as the Gid-o-meter or the capacity bars indicate (based on what the service manual says)? Definitely not, according to our own range test that Tony Williams arranged. I don't think it is fair to Nissan to omit this material fact.

garygid · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:50 am

Those look like Summer (Hot) GIDs.
How did you gather the "capacity" data so "accurately"?

I was speaking of the capacity percentages stated by Nissan
in their service manual (or a recollection thereof).

Seems like 100% Capacity should be 100% GIDs, at least
for cool-weather GIDs.

I read 88% hot-weather GIDs, but now 95 or 96% cool-weather GIDs.

SilverLeaf · Ordered 9/2/2010

I think this is a very positive response from Nissan. I also plan to attend the PHOENIX event on Jan. 8th. I will not require charging. I am available mostly any time that day. SilverLEAF will arrive in my RED 2011 Nissan LEAF with 11 bars and 10,000 miles.

thankyouOB · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:01 am

the only way to know whether Nissan was fair or foul in the development and marketing of the LEAF is to go ahead with that lawsuit and get all the corporate emails between engineering and the decisionmakers.

wanna know about the tire and tms, as well as hundreds of other compromises? it will all be in there. will you find sloppiness, deception, cost-cutting, mistakes, incompetence?

one thing that irks me are the tires. the Ecopias were weak sisters, but when i put on MXV4s -- very well-rated, high rolling-resistance tires -- I took a real hit in range. it was no accident that the Ecopias were the OEM.
i could go 50 miles for my roundtrip commute on 8 bars with the Ecopias. with the mxvs, i was into the 10th bar sometimes and always the 9th on the same commuting trip. (the change began the very first time i tried the new tires, so it has nothing to do with battery wear.) there were scores of decisions by Nissan similar to the tire choice, so Nissan could market a 100-mile car, or whatever they said.

all that into account, my experience has been very positive after 16 months; colored by living in the perfect EV climate and having L1 charging at work about 6 months into the game.
so i have a warm spot for NISSAN. the car works for me.
regardless, i want a battery replacement price and i want a 10-bar warranty.

edatoakrun · **Posted:** Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:08 am

Stoaty wrote:

...That's exactly what I keep trying to tell everyone. Is there significant capacity loss in very hot states? Yes, definitely. Is it as bad as the Gid-o-meter or the capacity bars indicate (based on what the service manual says)? Definitely not, according to our own range test that Tony Williams arranged. I don't think it is fair to Nissan to omit this material fact.

Nice to hear reality entering into the discussion of capacity loss.

As I posted over three months ago:

Quote:

edatoakrun:

Below, in my opinion, is an accurate short summary of the test results, and significant conclusions, based on the partial release of test data:

After selecting LEAFs nationwide, whose drivers believed them to have some of the largest range losses, a recent range test in Phoenix showed less than the range loss as had been expected, by relying on what the test showed were inaccurate capacity bars displays, and "gid" counts.

One outlier on the low side got only 59.3 miles. The unknown conditions experienced by this LEAF during over 29,000 miles of use, make it impossible to determine if any factor or factors of use contributed to this car's relative under-performance.

While the other eleven of the twelve did all have close to the highway range (and many, even more) that Nissan had estimated for new LEAFs in its promotional materials, many, but not all, seemed to show a significant reduction from the higher "new" LEAF range, as estimated by another source, Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a.

There was large variability between the LEAFs individual ranges, of between 66.1 and 79.6 miles. Inadequate test protocols could only seem to explain a small part of the large range disparities, between all twelve cars.

We can now conclude, in all likelihood, that many or all LEAFs have a a significant flaw or flaws in their energy use reports, that make it difficult to determine with great precision what capacity or range loss has been experienced by any LEAF, either from new, or from an assumed standard range.

Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.

However, all data indicating accuracy or inaccuracy of all m/kWh reports from the test LEAFs, has so far been withheld, by the promoter of the range test.

Quote:

Stoaty:
Ed, we already know your opinion. Please give it a rest.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10040&start=90

My Nissan Leaf Forum

The forum for all aspects of the Nissan Leaf

Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer