johnlocke wrote:In that case, I won't lose the first bar until I'm down to 235-240 GID's. If that's the case, NIssan will be back in court again.
On what grounds? At no time did Nissan make any statements about bars loss vs. remaining % capacity this time. From their point of view it would be operating "as designed".
The first grounds would be lack of usability due to range loss. Second grounds would be failure to define loss of more than three bars as anything other than a straight percentage value. Third grounds would be false advertising I.E. Nissan execs stating that a typical Leaf would retain 80% capacity at 100,000 miles and an 8 year/100000 mile battery warranty to back up that claim.
Seriously, we already went through this with the 24KWH batteries. Same arguments will apply. Nissan lost last time and I'd expect them to lose again. If I'm told that loss of more than three bars (I.E Four Bars) out of twelve will trigger the warranty then I expect that if the battery drops below 66% of it's stated capacity, it will be repaired. Nissan might elect to replace the battery or they could overhaul it but I'd expect it to be at least repaired to 80% of the stated 30KWH value. NIssan can define a warranty failure any way they want but the court may have other ideas.
From a practical standpoint, Nissan should get ahead of any battery failures if they want to continue selling electric cars. Another round of early battery failures would kill their chances forever. Who is going to buy a next generation Leaf with two rounds of battery failures in its history. They will buy a Ford or Chevy or even a Volkswagen before a Leaf. If Tesla delivers on the model 3 as promised, the Leaf is likely toast anyway.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
San Diego East County