It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:33 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 462 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Posts: 9646
Location: Olympia, WA
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2013
Leaf Number: 423014
More hints at unknown enhancements for the 2013 model, which builds a bit of anticipation in me and well that was about all of it right?

_________________
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: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:41 pm
Posts: 1460
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
jspearman wrote:
This is great if you live in Seattle and want an extra feeling of security. This does absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem of Leafs in hot spots and the lack of a TMS. I've seen one car below nine bars, and it had 45 miles on the GOM at 100% charge; at that point my wife would barely be able to complete her 25-26 mile commute. This was a carefully crafted offer to essentially give nothing, but come out looking generous. So if I reach 8 bars you only have to boost me back to 9?

No thanks. I'll be calling Nissan today.
I totally agree that a 9 bar warranty is useless for people who needs sufficient range to cover their trips. I think the minimum acceptable warranty should be at least 10 bars, which would be consistent with Nissan's advertised average of 80% capacity remaining after 5 years in their manual.

I, for one, would not buy a Nissan Leaf, if I had known that I would lose 30% capacity up front (not at the end) within 5 years of service. The whole point is that Nissan chose not to disclose the fact at the point of sales about premature capacity loss in hot states and advertised 80% capacity remaining after 5 years in their manual. The whole point is that 2011 and 2012 owners were not provided sufficient information about battery capacity loss up front at the point of sale so they could make an informed decision.

Because of this, what would be fair is to offer a 10 bar warranty for 2011 and 2012 LEAFs because Nissan was not honest with those owners and set the expectation of 80% remaining after 5 years. The 10 bar warranty for 2011 and 2012 LEAFs would be consistent with the 80% loss expectation that was set.

Now if Nissan wants to offer a 9 bar warranty for the 2013 LEAF and later, I think that would be OK, because the information will be disclosed up front and the expectation is set clearly to allow potential buyers to make an informed decision themselves. If they still chose to buy the LEAF with a 9 bar warranty, then they know what they're getting into.

But because 2011 and 2012 owners were not provided with sufficient battery loss information to make informed decision at the point of sale, their battery warranty should be 10 bars instead of 9 bars because Nissan did not tell them what they were getting into like with 2013 buyers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:56 pm
Posts: 1073
Location: Lenexa KS (Kansas City)
Delivery Date: 23 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 021881
I think this is a very positive move by Nissan. We purchased vehicles with a warranty that did not cover capacity and it was known that it did not cover capacity but we purchased anyway. Whether the effects of heat on the pack were known and hoped it wouldn't happen, or weren't known, the fact that Nissan has made an effort to address the current fleet of vehicles should be applauded.

Could it be better? I think falling below 9 during the new warranty period it would be appropriate to bring it up to 10 especially because the border between 9 and 8 is a very small window. The difference between 69% and 70% is nothing. The difference between 69% and 75% is more significant albeit still minute in terms of range.

The comments about adding TMS are fine and it would be great, but that would only apply to future vehicles and would still leave the current owners without recourse. It would be completely unrealistic for anyone to expect Nissan to recall 100% of the existing fleet to pull the pack and add TMS to 2 years worth of batteries. This isn't a floor mat stuck under the accelerator(Toyota) or a bolt strategically placed in front of the gas tank (Ford Pinto).

The best thing about the enhancement is that it does exactly what it says it's purpose is....the enhancement provides a sense of security to the owner that the manufacturer backs their product. That is exactly the warm fuzzy that has been missing in all discussions to date. Some people may see this as a band-aid (TM) or sugar coating. My opinion is this change is a good thing, a needed thing, and a step in the right direction for Nissan.

_________________
Tom in KS
100 Mile Club-#57
http://ksnogas.blogspot.com/
Try reading a book, it's a novel experience
Cayenne Red-27,000+ miles


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Posts: 2909
Location: Shasta County, North California
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
ksnogas2112 wrote:
...I think falling below 9 during the new warranty period it would be appropriate to bring it up to 10 especially because the border between 9 and 8 is a very small window. The difference between 69% and 70% is nothing. The difference between 69% and 75% is more significant albeit still minute in terms of range...


Nissan announced:

Quote:
...For LEAF vehicles whose batteries have fallen below nine bars during this period, Nissan will repair or replace the battery under warranty with a new or remanufactured battery to restore capacity at or above a minimum of nine bars...


I expect Nissan will not want repeat claims from those who make efforts to avoid degrading their LEAF's batteries, so most LEAF drivers can probably expect to get their LEAFs back from a capacity warranty claim with something above the "9 bar" minimum level.

_________________
no condition is permanent


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:23 pm 
Offline
Forum Supporter

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:16 pm
Posts: 351
Location: Tullahoma, TN
Delivery Date: 12 Nov 2012
Leaf Number: 022745
I would like to see the fine print of the limitations of this warranty. Would I have voided it last week when I made 2 quick charges in one day when I drove home for Christmas, even though the battery temp never went above 6?

Can they snoop all that stuff on carwings?

Hope they stand behind the car like they imply. I LOVE the car & want to drive it 'til I give it to one of my kids and upgrade to a fancier EV in the future.

Philip

_________________
- 2012 Black SL, 47,000 miles, 22 months, 220 gids ~ 19% capacity loss - Lost first capacity bar at 44,800 miles & 20 months of driving.
Member of the 100 mile & 200km club http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=291344#p291344


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:44 pm
Posts: 176
Will the Nissan-issued extended warranty that I purchased for my 2011 extend this battery warranty?

_________________
2011 Blue Leaf SL | 2012 Blue Toyota RAV4 EV | 2012 White Toyota RAV4 EV


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:04 pm
Posts: 244
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Delivery Date: 20 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 5954
ksnogas2112 wrote:

The comments about adding TMS are fine and it would be great, but that would only apply to future vehicles and would still leave the current owners without recourse. It would be completely unrealistic for anyone to expect Nissan to recall 100% of the existing fleet to pull the pack and add TMS to 2 years worth of batteries. This isn't a floor mat stuck under the accelerator(Toyota) or a bolt strategically placed in front of the gas tank (Ford Pinto).


The real issue is that, under certain conditions (extreme heat), the Leaf is a defective product and Nissan was negligent in testing the battery sufficiently. They operate a testing facility not far from here, so that makes the negligence inexcusable.

I absolutely do expect Nissan to fix this problem in hot climates, not give a weak alternative in the form of a very poor battery warranty. Again, this warranty is fine for other, cooler locales and most people will never need it, but it's just insulting to those of us who have lost a great deal of capacity in a very short time. I'm really tired of these games with Nissan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Posts: 8757
Location: 100 Mile Club San Diego
Leaf Number: 00000
thankyouOB wrote:

i wonder what the settlement is?
where can we learn about that.

also, does the warranty ensure that the restoration of 9 bars is not done by changing software or resetting the coding; rather that the software on the car will be left intact so that it is true restoration.


Folks don't settle lawsuits and then expose any gory details. Nissan will just say it had no merit (if they comment at all) and the results will be sealed. I expect they just made a cash offer that the plaintiff(s) and lawyers all agreed to, and like all these lawsuits, nothing changes substantially except cash.

Nissan gains, because just like buying up Arizona cars just before a judgement against them, there is no record of EVER having a faulty car. Just wild accusations and disappearing cars.

They wisely based their warranty on "9 bars", which they can (and do) make to mean anything they want. Again, bravo to Nissan.

For Nissan, I give this TWO THUMBS UP !!!!

_________________
EVRAV4, was PLGS IN (#2244), & PLGIN2 (#20782)

Range Chart
All EV Rally, BC2BC, Mexico 2 Canada, Aug 10, 2014
100 Mile Club + Longest Drive
Next San Diego EVent
Battery Degradation Summary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 3750
This thread is such a fun read. It almost reminds of last summer. Please keep it coming, while I get popcorn :-)Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:20 pm
Posts: 1
Delivery Date: 01 Sep 2011
Leaf Number: 00000
I just have a simple question for Nissan: You kept telling consumers to expect 20% capacity loss over 5 years yet your new warranty covers only 70% capacity. What else do we do not know and why is Nissan not standing by their own publicized numbers???


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 462 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 47  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