It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:01 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Your reaction to the battery capacity warranty is
Poll ended at Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:43 pm
Positive 61%  61%  [ 117 ]
Negative 17%  17%  [ 33 ]
Neutral 22%  22%  [ 42 ]
Total votes : 192
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
Forum Supporter

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:14 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Delivery Date: 07 Sep 2012
Leaf Number: 022368
Positive.
Leaf ownership is a choice I made knowing this is the first generation and improvements will certainly come, probably before my lease ends. I still chose to get my first 100% electric car early and have no regrets. I am saving real dollars every month using the Leaf in place of the SUV. Even greater than the $450 savings I realize each month from not buying gas and related services, Nissan Leaf gives me the ability to finally be individually free from gasoline and the problems I see stemming from our dependency on international oil. Thank you Nissan. Remember, all things perish with use and will need to be maintained. I certainly had learned this long before the Leaf.
One more thing, notice where most of the complaints are coming from . It seems counter intuitive that most of us who actually live where we will more likely see battery issues are somewhat positive toward the new warranty. Many of the negative concerns come from the cool zones or even the far north. BTW, we're 73f and sunny today. Could we be suffering from sun stroke?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Posts: 3217
Location: Vallejo, CA
Delivery Date: 0-12-2011
Leaf Number: 16000
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.

_________________
I noticed you're still working with polymers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Posts: 9639
Location: Olympia, WA
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2013
Leaf Number: 423014
I say positive but only because this announcement is a warm up to the real change which will be a battery exchange/purchase program for all LEAFs without regard to degradation or mileage.

iow, this announcement is a smoke screen but obscuring something very good for us.

_________________
44,598 miles! on my 2011 LEAF (retired) 2013 LEAF;12,121 miles. Ah; 63.84-65.15, Hx; 97.80-100.02%. @70% estimate; 117,726 miles
Jul 2014 Drive Stats. Corolla; 113.1 miles, $13.57, LEAF; 1969.4 miles $42.18
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:23 am
Posts: 344
Location: Tucson
Delivery Date: 11 Jan 2013
Leaf Number: 024988
Negative. I lost a bar at 6,771 miles despite impeccable charging and driving habits. I put on about 6,000 miles a year, so I will face a car with only 30,000 miles as it falls out of warranty coverage. I would definitely have leased if I knew that despite low mileage and vigilant battery protecting practices I would already be down 15%. Ideally I will get a buyback offer and immediately lease a new Leaf.

_________________
Fully charged by photo voltaic system.
Jan 11 2013, 10,300 miles now, 11 bars. Ave 5.0 m/kwh.
Loving my leased 2012 SL. 24 month lease, I am now free from 'capacity anxiety'. (I traded in my 2011 Leaf when it lost a bar at 6,771 miles.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 1230
Location: SLC, UT
Delivery Date: 08 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 15656
My view is positive. My car is just one year old and 10,000 miles so far, but the battery is holding up really well so far.

_________________
2012 SL Delivered 12/08/2011
100% charge on 01/01/2014 = GID 242 - 18,126 miles AH=56.95 (85.96%)
100% charge on 08/01/2014 = GID 238 - 22,118 miles AH=56.97 (85.98%)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:18 pm
Posts: 1437
Location: Edmond, OK
Nubo wrote:
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.

Looks like is hard to regain lost trust. What about GID as indication of capacity remaining/lost?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:07 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:09 pm
Posts: 8938
Location: Foothills of Granada Hills, CA
Delivery Date: 01 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 000360
+1

downeykp wrote:
My vote was a negative. How is it possible that Nissan did not know that fried batteries were going to be a problem. They had to know there was going to be a problem, but they sold the car anyway. Someone made the decision to hide what they had to of known.

_________________
Red SL-e with 53K miles/10 bars/203 Gids/47.67 AHr/72% SOH/52.09% Hx on 15Aug14. Ordered 9/1/10 (Fontana Nissan).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Everett, WA
Delivery Date: 21 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2398
I see this as an overwhelmingly positive move by Nissan. I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners. For the vast majority of Leaf drivers, who remain silent, they are not experiencing capacity loss issues they are not posting/complaining about it. And most people who might be interested in an EV has no idea that this is even an issue. The "unwashed masses" have no idea that these cars even exist, let alone the nuances of ownership of an EV.
And for all those who voted this as a negative, don't you have some cute kitten videos on Youtube to vote down as well? :lol:

_________________
Reserved 4/25/2010 - Ordered 12/2010 - picked up 6/21/2011
6.88KW Grid-Tie Solar
2013 Tesla Model S P85, Reserved 11/10/2012 picked up 3/8/2013.
2011 Nissan Leaf
2000 Ford Ranger EV NiMH (SOLD)
2 Ton Geothermal
Zero Energy Bills


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 11:01 am
Posts: 3217
Location: Vallejo, CA
Delivery Date: 0-12-2011
Leaf Number: 16000
EdmondLeaf wrote:
Nubo wrote:
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.

Looks like is hard to regain lost trust. What about GID as indication of capacity remaining/lost?


A warranty does not depend on trust, rather it is the other way around. It is a contract and needs to be enforceable. For this to be possible the language of the warranty must be unambiguous.

I see no need to base a warranty on "Bars" or "Gids", which are both variable abstractions, when the world already has standard units for energy which are unambiguous and and universally accepted. I would propose the Kilowatt hour. :)

_________________
I noticed you're still working with polymers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 3750
TurboFroggy wrote:
I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners.
Image

Matt, you are joking, right? I get that you, and everyone you know, are doing great in the cool PNW, but are you familiar with the PIA battery study? I believe it shows clearly that range loss is likely something, which affects more than just 0.05% of owners. Granted, there are shades or gray, and not everyone who is significantly affected will feel the same way. It's also clear that you cannot make everyone happy, and some folks have a sunnier outlook than others, but could we at least agree that battery longevity and the viability of EVs in very hot and very cold climates is a significant issue not just for Nissan, but for the EV industry as a whole?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Advertise on the forum | Upgrade your account


© My Nissan Leaf Forum - part of the MyElectricCarForums.com Group