My Nissan Leaf Forum

First off, thank you for popping in again. I'm glad to finally hear of a capacity warranty, of some sort. It's better than nothing. I do like the fact that it's retroactive.

That's interesting. Re: QC, that's a change in stance compared to before.

Does the 8 year/100K battery warranty against "sudden" loss still exist and will it continued to be offered on the MY '13 Leaf?

I am a bit disappointed that when it falls below 9 bars that it will only be restored to 9 bars or more instead of say 11 or 12.

I'm in agreement w/Weatherman's post at viewtopic.php?p=253620#p253620 and Volusiano's post at viewtopic.php?p=253642#p253642

Ha! I wonder if it'll grow to 500 pages.

This is good news IMHO. retroactive warranty on MY 2011 and 2012 LEAF's. Similar/same? warranty of 2013 MY going forward.

70% floor on capacity means that an EPA range of 73 miles corresponds to a 51.1 mile minimum range. If you need to commute more than 25 miles each way, don't buy a LEAF, otherwise you are assured of this minimum range. Many of us can beat the EPA range. For me this means that downtown Nashville should always be within range of my home. Well at least for another 3 years when I expect to hit 60,000 miles.

As for fears voiced here that Nissan may 'top off' a battery that dropped to 69% capacity to say only 72% while being technically possible and within the warranty terms, is improbable. Nissan don't want to cover the cost of replacing a single module every few months. I imagine they would add enough capacity to take the car past 60,000 miles or 5 years with any 'top off' performed with a reasonable margin for error. I'd expect mild generosity.

By and large I'm happy with this remedy. It does add security to BEV purchases from Nissan.

Tesla's warranty is for 5 years 60,000 miles also. The warranty appears to be 'competitive'.

I wonder if the remedy will only be available to '5 star' battery report holders. Nissan have to protect themselves against deliberate abuse.

Or, alternatively, upgrade their 24kWH pack to a __kWH pack?

And suddenly you can see where a pool of 80-90% packs would become cheaply available for Nissan to reman and stockpile against warranty claims.


Hey, I can dream....

Conversely, if a cylinder head cracked they'd probably just replace the part, not the whole engine.

Replace or repair -- at the manufacturer's option. In the event of a replacement you might end up with a remanufactured engine; warranty still in effect, of course.

TMS can't be retrofitted into current cars.

Unfortunately, we couldn't do Tony's test. I know the GOM depends on the driver/speed/acceleration and probably the individual car. I'd like to have an objective number, but I would just rather be done with the car at this point unless the 2013 magically has a TMS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/busin ... mpact.html

as to settlement disclosures, above link has plenty of details on Toyota accelerator settlement, which was also filed in federal court.
so settlements dont always mean: SILENCE.

as to counting up the MNLers who are pro and con, I am of mixed mind.
i dont like the 9-bar set point or the possibility that repairs would only reset to that level. but it could work out OK.
I so think 10 bars is the level Nissan has tacitly set with all of its manuals, etc., as described above.

+1. I am sure there will be some pro ration going on. someone with 10,000 miles is sure to get a "fuller" replacement than someone with 40,000 miles




ya, dont you love this? way better than betting on the Super Bowl Winner!

my bet? TMS for 2013! now if you think that was a long shot? I also picked the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl in September and that was 750 to 1 shot. (of course I do that every year but that aint the point!) and that bet is looking better and better

Kudos!

glad to see some progress, I think this is a big step forward!

-I agree with others that it doesn't solve the real problem, which is heat accelerated range loss that appears to be happening in various shades of gray as you go from north to south in the US. The chemistry is apparently too prone to heat related loss and this ultimately needs to be dealt with.

-I also agree with others that I very much hope that Nissan does not use software updates to simply recalibrate the capacity bars, rendering the warranty meaningless and frustrating. If this is what Nissan has in store, it will backfire in a huge way. things need to be very above board going forward.

-I also feel that Nissan needs to re-brand the car. The early adopter is by nature a tester and prover. if you say the car goes 100 miles, people will set to prove or disprove that. Say it can be quick charged and people will try and prove how far you can drive it in a day by quick charging. If the car is more realistically marketed, then people will be happier with it in terms of their own expectations and it should be marketed based on the expected loss, not as new. If 20% loss is expected but no more than 30% loss is allowed, then give a realistic number for how far a commute is reasonable and comfortable on a daily basis with the Leaf assuming some side trips on occasion. What was it designed for in terms of maintaining customer satisfaction over it's intended lifespan? For instance, best to go with the 73 EPA rating, minus 30% for long term range loss or 51 miles, minus a 20% for comfort or 36 miles. I believe that marketing the car as ideal for a 30-40ish mile commute with no public charging required is way better than getting caught up with how many miles it can go on a single charge or how long it takes to recharge. 30-40 miles covers the vast majority of people's daily driving and that is impressive in and of itself. Now that I have stopped trying to prove the car and use it mostly for in town stuff, I am much happier with it, able to use the cabin heater and defroster freely and zip around town without hypermiling and I only QC on the occasion that I need a little boost rather than try and take it long distances ... I'm a much happier customer, and I believe this car can meet the needs of many more drivers in the US if only people could more realistically determine if it will meet their needs before buying it.