Poll : What is your reaction to 70% / 5 yrs / 60k warranty

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Your reaction to the battery capacity warranty is

  • Positive

    Votes: 117 60.9%
  • Negative

    Votes: 33 17.2%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 42 21.9%

  • Total voters
    192
  • Poll closed .

evnow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Seattle, WA
Nissan announced on MNL today that they will warranty battery capacity of Leaf as well. What is your reaction to the announcement ?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11043" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under an expanded New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty, Nissan will protect against capacity loss in LEAF batteries that fall below nine bars, of the available 12 bars displayed on the vehicle’s battery capacity gauge, for the first five years or 60,000 miles in the United States, whichever comes first. 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.

A vehicle whose battery has nine remaining bars indicated on the gauge is retaining approximately 70 percent of its original battery capacity. This new limited warranty coverage remains subject to the other terms, conditions and exclusions of the Nissan New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty, which otherwise remain unchanged.

As previously mentioned, we are also looking at opportunities to improve the precision of the battery capacity gauge that displays remaining capacity in the LEAFs electric vehicle battery, and intend to have more to report on this topic in the New Year.

The specifics of this new limited warranty coverage will be communicated to each owner in a dedicated communication early next year. The expanded warranty coverage will apply in the United States to the upcoming Model Year 2013 Nissan LEAF upon its release. Importantly, Nissan will provide this expanded coverage to all model year 2011 and 2012 Nissan LEAFs sold and distributed by Nissan in the United States to date, effective upon a date to be announced but which is anticipated to be in the Spring of 2013.
 
I put positive as I think it will have a positive effect on sales. And that is important to keep LEAF in production and improving.

The other positive is that as part of the announcement Nissan has said a battery replacement price should be available within a year.
 
cwerdna said:
I answered neutral but was hoping for a bit more granularity, like 5 choices. I'm somewhere between neutral and positive.
+1 Better than no capacity warranty for LEAF owners overall, but also negative, especially in view of QueenBee's observation of 9 bars ambiguity re 70% (actually "under or equal to 66.25%").
 
I voted "Positive" on the survey.

It won't help everyone, I know that. But it will show Nissan standing behind their product. That should help their reputation (along with the LEAF's rep). Eventually I will sell my LEAF and a bad reputation will affect the sale price. The warranty will also help Nissan dealers sell new LEAFs because they will be able to tell prospective customers that the battery does have a warranty. (Most customers won't understand the details, even if they ask for them.)

My LEAF lost a bar a couple of months ago. I bought the car instead of leasing it because I want to keep it for many years by just refurbishing the battery. This warranty announcement gives me hope that Nissan will provide battery refurbishing post-warranty when my LEAF is ready for it.
 
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.
I would not have bought or leased if this was disclosed at launch. I wish that I would have leased but I was stupid enough to believe that I was buying a quality product. So much for being a launch customer.
 
cwerdna said:
I answered neutral but was hoping for a bit more granularity, like 5 choices. I'm somewhere between neutral and positive.
This is like the presidential approval polls ;)
 
downeykp said:
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.
I would not have bought or leased if this was disclosed at launch. I wish that I would have leased but I was stupid enough to believe that I was buying a quality product. So much for being a launch customer.
Based on your location, the problem with heat and the Leaf batteries isn't going to effect you. The batteries in your Leaf should last a long time. At some point, beating a dead horse isn't going to help anyway. Key issue is that Nissan should be disclosing properly the effects of heat in those areas where it is likely to be a problem, and they should be buying back the Leafs of those that are having a problem in those areas. I voted positive, because it is a good step in the right direction, but without proper disclosure before the sale this problem is going to come back and bite them in the a**.
 
I would have been satisfied if the warranty were 60 months and allowed for a 30% loss to kick in. Besides that I think it's pretty good.
 
I voted positive, in that it is a step in right direction beyond the completely unacceptable original approach of no warranty on capacity.
It should provide some help with what otherwise might be even more severe drops in market price of used LEAFs, and further degradation in sales of new LEAFs.
But warrantying 70% / 5 yrs is quite a bit short of the original statements of 80% capacity after five years and 70% capacity after 10 years.
A step in the right direction, but I don't think it is close to the proper level of commitment to the vehicle. With the concerns on the ICE CVT transmissions, Nissan extended a 10 year / 120,000 mile warranty, which was a proper level of OEM commitment.
But the reality is that they don't think they can afford to commit that the LEAF battery will achieve 70% capacity at 100,000 miles / 10 years.
It certainly won't do that in very hot climates.
And it likely won't do that for people like myself that drive ~7,000 miles per year in a moderate temperature environment, because of the effect of capacity deterioration with battery age and due to the overall limited number of battery cycles (my miles / kWh long term average is 3.4, too much interstate high speed driving).
But as others stated, the OEM commitment to a capacity warranty means that replacement batteries to keep the vehicle functional to >100,000 miles may be possible at a more tolerable price.
 
TimLee said:
A step in the right direction, but I don't think it is close to the proper level of commitment to the vehicle. With the concerns on the ICE CVT transmissions, Nissan extended a 100,000 mile warranty, which was a proper level of OEM commitment.
Yep. For those who are unaware of the above (and covered vehicles), see http://www.nissanassist.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
 
I voted negative. Too little too late. Same disappointment since day one of over-promise and under-deliver. It is a step in the right direction, but simply too late and not good enough for the early adopters. Without the collective voice of this forum and its ultra-active members (you now who you are) , Nissan would have done nothing, so only after they have been "caught" and the poor battery design "exposed" have they announced a new warranty. Nothing they have done or said since I put a deposit down 30 months ago has been forthright. I still like the car, but it is still disappointing.

I wonder if Nissan will offer a new battery pack upgrade (for $XX,XXX) for any Leafs in the shop for new warranty service? "We can bring your capacity back to 9 bars for free (?) under the new 70%/5yr/60K warranty, but for only $$$, we can replace all the batteries....).
 
I voted positive because I think it is a good step to establish customer confidence, but I am disappointed that the capacity warranty is not put into the same term as the original 8 year, 100K miles "power" warranty. I bought the car based on the claim by Nissan that I would have at least 70% at the end of 100K miles, not 50K miles. It may very well be that I will meet the 70%@100K mark, since I am in a temperate climate, but lowering the bar now to 70%@50K seems timid and weasel-ish to me, designed to save them face and a ton of $$$.

TT
 
ttweed said:
I voted positive because I think it is a good step to establish customer confidence, but I am disappointed that the capacity warranty is not put into the same term as the original 8 year, 100K miles "power" warranty. I bought the car based on the claim by Nissan that I would have at least 70% at the end of 100K miles, not 50K miles. It may very well be that I will meet the 70%@100K mark, since I am in a temperate climate, but lowering the bar now to 70%@50K seems timid and weasel-ish to me, designed to save them face and a ton of $$$.

TT

When I was buying my Leaf I was told "do not worry battery capacity warranty is 100KM and 8 years" now they should say do not worry battery capacity warranty is 60KM and 5 years
 
I voted positive. I knew going in that battery capacity was not covered. This to me is certainly better than nothing, which is what I currently had up until now as far as a battery capacity guarantee, and more than what I was expecting given Nissan's previous track record with the LEAF early adopters up to this point. I'm not a battery expert or a lawyer or an auto industry insider, but I knew enough to take Nissan's original battery pitch with a grain of salt before I signed the paperwork, especially when I saw that the warranty clearly did not cover capacity. The fact that they're now providing some type of guarantee makes this a positive for me.
 
mikeEmike said:
I voted positive. I knew going in that battery capacity was not covered. This to me is certainly better than nothing, which is what I currently had up until now as far as a battery capacity guarantee, and more than what I was expecting given Nissan's previous track record with the LEAF early adopters up to this point. I'm not a battery expert or a lawyer or an auto industry insider, but I knew enough to take Nissan's original battery pitch with a grain of salt before I signed the paperwork, especially when I saw that the warranty clearly did not cover capacity. The fact that they're now providing some type of guarantee makes this a positive for me.

Couldn't agree more, and thanks for saying this. We LEAF'ers just got a capacity warranty, something I never expected. I made my purchase decision knowing this risk, and I have no regrets. The benefits I receive (early adopter, first-on-my-block/neighborhood, great commuter vehicle, no gas stops, just downright fun to drive, yadda yadda) far outweigh the hesitation I felt for about 3 seconds prior to purchase when I learned of no capacity warranty.

My vote, perhaps obviously, was "positive." What we got may not have been what some had wanted, but the fact that we got something we never had, got it for no additional charge (heh heh), got it retroactively to all US-sold LEAFs, how can that be anything but positive? Glass was definitely half full this time to my mind.
 
I voted neutral because it is not what was stated at purchase. With my low mileage in El Cajon I don't think I'll ever need to use it. I am glad that it will help those in hot climates.
 
I'm voting positive. They are giving us a warranty that we all knew we wouldn't get, and for those that purchased, it means higher resale value now. I hope they consider offering additional capacity warranty protection as part of their extended warranty services so people have an option of paying for more coverage. But this alone is a huge leap forward and shows customers that they are now standing behind their product.
 
I voted positive.

More for the "battery price will be announced" statement than the battery warranty, of course, as I would be shocked if I ever hit the battery warranty in a cool climate.

This should have been part of the original terms and conditions, and it is also too bad that the range expectation wasn't set correctly at first.

This is both good news and bad news, of course. The good news is that learning is going on. Oh, and the bad news? Is that learning is going on.
 
I voted this as a positive. With 2 bars down in the first year, I'm estimating that I'll probably need to utilize this after the summer of 2014, based on my expected degradation curve. This will help resale value, particularly right after the battery exchange in my case. I'm curious if there are caveats involved for '>12,500 miles/year usage or quick charging. They included these topics in the FAQs, but it looks like that won't be a factor in determining eligibility.
 
Back
Top