12% capacity loss in 9 months is "normal"

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.

TickTock

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
1,701
Location
Queen Creek, Arizona
After analyzing my Leaf for a full week and confirming that my car showed 80% lower capacity then a new car, my reduced capacity was described to the dealer technician by Nissan engineers as "consistent with normal battery operation/capacity." The technician was really helpful and spent a lot of time trying to figure it out. His own test confirmed that my range was 80.4% of the range of their demo when run side-by-side under the same conditions (39 miles driven + 35 miles remaining versus 39 miles driven and 53 miles remaining). Sent multiple logs to Japan for analysis, was asked to get more data, more people looked at them but finally the decision was made that there wasn't anything wrong with the car. Dealer isn't allowed to make any repairs or replacements without Nissan sign off so all I ended up with was the following explanation:


The engineers contacted me, this morning, with their analysis of your LEAF’s battery performance. It was their conclusion that the data we collected is consistent with normal battery operation/capacity; taking into consideration the number of charge cycles, age and regular use. When I questioned the varying results we found when your range/capacity was compared to our demo unit (@200 total miles on demo vehicle vs 11K on your LEAF) I was informed that the results were consistent with the more rapid decrease in battery performance that occurs during the first 6 months of service. At that point, engineering informed me that the rate of battery degradation levels out to minimal decreases. Long term capacity estimated at 80% after 5 years. I was able to complete the “Cell voltage loss inspection” with a result of 3696 mV and “No module requires replacement” result (I placed a copy of this result in your vehicle). According to TSB# NTB11-076a (copy also in your vehicle) for an average economy of 4.4 estimated range to 1 segment is 67-76 miles, which falls in line with the 35 miles remaining after the 38.8 mile test drive of your LEAF.

Thank you for your patience while we evaluated your range concerns and the detailed information you were able to provide. It is a pleasure to work with an informed and conscious owner. Your LEAF is fully charged, clean and ready for you.

I cannot believe that my battery will not degrade any more then an additional 0.4% over the next 4.25 years (since 80 is expected and I am at 80.4) and I said as much but my only option now is to wait and watch it.

Although I have no doubt that I will still see further degradation over the next few years, I have not yet seen any. In fact, over the last few months my capacity has increased slightly (+6%) from when I first started monitoring (255 gids now versus 239 gids in October). So I'll be watching as summer comes along to see if the low was seasonal. Maybe at the 1 year mandatory battery inspection I'll learn more...

They (Earnhardt Nissan) didn't try to charge me anything despite providing a rental for the week so that was nice.

I also think it's nice how they appreciate a "conscious" owner (as opposed to all the unconscious owners they deal with) :).
 
Well, that sucks. But, perhaps you could change the title to reflect the "20% loss".

If it were me, I'd probably consider if I needed that additional 20% for my daily driving now. If so, I'd just trade it off now.

Of course, we don't know where you'll be in 5-10 years and 100,000 miles. I'm not thinking it'll be good.
 
Sounds like you got a lemmon. I hate to admit it, but if I were you I'd call around to dealers, see if there is the same car available in a 2012 with CWP, tell them you want to trade up for the heated seats and steering wheel if they are willing to give you a decent deal. Deduct the $7,500 rebate you are getting, minus any other rebates minus some decent depreciation per mile and see if you can get a trade in value close to what makes sense to you. If Nissan is unwilling to admit a problem, then let them have it back and deal with it. Since they claim it's normal, there is nothing compelling you to bring up the issue. Your car is the only car I've heard of losing serious capacity... super lame that they won't do anything about it. Had a similar issue a while back with a toyota hybrid... went to another dealer and got over bluebook for the car in trade in.

moderator please change the title to "20% capacity loss..."
 
Something isn't right here...There are people on this forum who owned Leaf for longer time and even put over 20k and didn't report any degradation.
 
IBELEAF said:
Something isn't right here...There are people on this forum who owned Leaf for longer time and even put over 20k and didn't report any degradation.

Obviously, something isn't right. It has nothing to do with other cars and how many miles those cars have. Nissan has quite ungraciously swept this under the carpet, like we kind of knew they would. I'll bet a nickel that all 12 capacity bars are still lit up, even though one is supposed to disappear at 85% and below.

Nissan is going to always hedge their mistakes to their advantage. Every time.
 
255 GIDs means 9% below standard.. probably a low capacity module from day one.. perhaps a normal variation in cell manufacture. I suspect that bad module will quickly die as you deep cycle it. Interesting that only GIDometer owners will find out issues like this, perhaps prior to purchase.

Ready for some do-it-yourself repairs?
 
"When I questioned the varying results we found when your range/capacity was compared to our demo unit (@200 total miles on demo vehicle vs 11K on your LEAF) I was informed that the results were consistent with the more rapid decrease in battery performance that occurs during the first 6 months of service."
This is crazy considering that you have seen similar GID counts for at least half the time you've owned the car now... Looking at your post history you first posted a low full GID count way back at the beginning of October when you only had 4,000 miles on it.

Stories of 10% capacity loss in 4 months and Nissan not doing anything isn't going to help adoption much...

It sure is going to encourage people to buy GID meters or LEAFSCANs when they're available to fully document battery capacity from new...

Looking at your commute logs, you're getting 215-220 GIDs for 80% charges and 250-265 GIDs for 100% charges. You seem to have a lot of voltage fluctuation on your 80% charges - anyone else have data to compare?
 
drees said:
Stories of 10% capacity loss in 4 months and Nissan not doing anything isn't going to help adoption much... It sure is going to encourage people to buy GID meters or LEAFSCANs when they're available to fully document battery capacity from new...
Yes, this story is quite discouraging. Thankfully, this seems to be an isolated case, but then most owners are not as technical or "conscious", as the dealer put it. I have heard through the grapevine that battery degradation figures are a closely guarded secret. Considering that, and given this particular story, I believe that Phil's new product will become the gold standard, and many, if not all, Leaf owners will purchase it. Alone the ability to track pack temperature, and display actual battery capacity will make it worth it.
 
smkettner said:
So did you lose one of the capacity bars?
How often do you charge to 100%?
Anything odd about your driving or charging routine?
Still have all 12 capacity bars, charged to 100% about 25 times since I started keeping track in August, charge on a timer starting at midnight in an enclosed garage, park in covered parking at work, and my average speed is ~30mph (very little freeway driving).
 
TickTock,

Are you saying the dealer actually used GOM "miles remaining", as part of the calculation of battery capacity?

Haven't you had (to the level of precision of measurement available) the same range and presumed battery capacity, from the day of delivery, with no decrease, as has most every other poster here?

And hasn't every poster, other than you, had range results correlating to 19-21 kWh capacity, even with (predictable) variations within the "normal" battery temperature range?

I would suggest you do whatever necessary to get satisfaction. My suspicion, is that Nissan has set a fairly fluid definition of capacity loss "over time" that, unfortunately, your situation has put into play.

In other words, you inadvertently triggered Nissan's "not our problem" policy.

I would encourage any owner who's LEAF does not meet the range predictions provided by Nissan, from the day of delivery, have them documented, and attempt resolution immediately, at the nearest Nissan dealer.

As to the cause of your problem, this is pure speculation, but I noticed your delivery date and serial number, indicates your car's production /and or delivery could have been delayed by the earthquake/tsunami and the chaos that followed.

Could we be seeing the result of a battery pack degraded by "hard use", a battery kept in a long period-maybe months-of very low, or very high, state of charge, that was not picked up by Nissan quality control, before delivery?
 
TonyWilliams said:
Well, that sucks. But, perhaps you could change the title to reflect the "20% loss".

If it were me, I'd probably consider if I needed that additional 20% for my daily driving now. If so, I'd just trade it off now.
.
I am thinking about it, but am pretty sure this will not be cheap. Probably lose at least $10k in the process. I also had leather and tinting put in and doubt I'll get much of my cost back on that. My usual commute gets me home with 8-15 miles remaining from an 80% charge so as long as I continue to have 80% capacity, it is still useful. However, I am forced to pre-plan any errands (charge to 100) unless I start just charging to 100% every day. This is kinda inconvenient and 18 more miles to play with each day would be really nice. Anyway, I won't do anything rash. I will continue to watch and log for a little while. One thing is for certain, if I do trade in, I'm bringing my SOC meter with me and going to look at the full charge count before buying anything (probably a good idea for anyone waiting for a Leaf on the forum, too).
 
edatoakrun said:
TickTock,

Are you saying the dealer actually used GOM "miles remaining", as part of the calculation of battery capacity?
Yes
edatoakrun said:
Haven't you had (to the level of precision of measurement available) the same range and presumed battery capacity, from the day of delivery, with no decrease, as has most every other poster here?

And hasn't every poster, other than you, had range results correlating to 19-21 kWh capacity, even with (predictable) variations within the "normal" battery temperature range?
Yes and yes
edatoakrun said:
I would suggest you do whatever necessary to get satisfaction. My suspicion, is that Nissan has set a fairly fluid definition of capacity loss "over time" that, unfortunately, your situation has put into play.

In other words, you inadvertently triggered Nissan's "not our problem" policy.

I would encourage any owner who's LEAF does not meet the range predictions provided by Nissan, from the day of delivery, have them documented, and attempt resolution immediately, at the nearest Nissan dealer.

As to the cause of your problem, this is pure speculation, but I noticed your delivery date and serial number, indicates your car's production /and or delivery could have been delayed by the earthquake/tsunami and the chaos that followed.

Could we be seeing the result of a battery pack degraded by "hard use", a battery kept in a long period-maybe months-of very low, or very high, state of charge, that was not picked up by Nissan quality control, before delivery?

Very possible. Mine did arrive shortly after the tsunami, but may have been already on the boat.
 
TickTock said:
TonyWilliams said:
Well, that sucks. But, perhaps you could change the title to reflect the "20% loss".

If it were me, I'd probably consider if I needed that additional 20% for my daily driving now. If so, I'd just trade it off now.
.
I am thinking about it...

Do you feel you have entirely exhausted your options for satisfaction from Nissan?

I can't believe, that since you apparently have documented that your LEAF has not suffered capacity loss over time, but in fact, was defective, with significantly less battery capacity and range on the day of delivery, than promised by Nissan, you do not have a valid warranty claim.
 
edatoakrun said:
TickTock said:
TonyWilliams said:
Well, that sucks. But, perhaps you could change the title to reflect the "20% loss".

If it were me, I'd probably consider if I needed that additional 20% for my daily driving now. If so, I'd just trade it off now.
.
I am thinking about it...

Do you feel you have entirely exhausted your options for satisfaction from Nissan?

I can't believe, that since you apparently have documented that your LEAF has not suffered capacity loss over time, but in fact, was defective, with significantly less battery capacity and range on the day of delivery, than promised by Nissan, you do not have a valid warranty claim.
Unfortunately I don't. I took possession at the end of May, but didn't start logging my data until September (once I started to suspect I was an outlyer). Before that all I have is anecdotal evidence. So it is possible the degradation occurred in the first four months (although I don't believe this to be true). Since logging, my capacity has actually increased so it's a tough case to make. I did make it clear to the dealer that I believe I have been getting this range since the beginning (but it isn't clear that this was conveyed the the engineers in Japan).
 
This sounds like material for an article on autobloggreen or by Chelsea Sexton. I think your best weapon against Nissan is the threat of negative publicity. I would even go so far as to alert Nissan USA (e.g., Mark Perry) that this is what you plan to do if you don't get satisfaction. Your car is clearly an outlier, and Nissan is trying to keep from doing any kind of repair of marginal battery packs, even when the problem occurs in the first year. While you don't want to hurt the Leaf, facts is facts. Nissan needs to put up or shut up.
 
TickTock said:
... I took possession at the end of May, but didn't start logging my data until September (once I started to suspect I was an outlyer). Before that all I have is anecdotal evidence. So it is possible the degradation occurred in the first four months (although I don't believe this to be true). Since logging, my capacity has actually increased so it's a tough case to make. I did make it clear to the dealer that I believe I have been getting this range since the beginning (but it isn't clear that this was conveyed the the engineers in Japan).

You are describing battery capacity, that in relation to my experience of consistency (as adjusted for temperature) and no observable degradation, over the same time period, since last May, is clearly not "normal".

I can't believe Nissan would not what to investigate this further, and try to find out why your battery behaviour is so atypical.

I suspect there was a failure in the daisy chain of communication between your dealer, and the stages beyond.

I suggest you take any further steps you can, first through any escalation of the repair/warranty claim process open to you, then to any options afforded to you by "lemon laws" or other legal (small claims?) options.

In fact, I have been a little surprised that there seem to have been, so few, (other than yours zero?) significant battery problems reported in the 20,000+ LEAFs sold.

But, IMO, Nissan would have to be run by idiots, not to try to give you some satisfaction, considering the damage to future sales that would be done, by denying warranty coverage, for battery performance such as that you have reported.
 
TickTock said:
Very possible. Mine did arrive shortly after the tsunami, but may have been already on the boat.
Luke, my VIN and the delivery date are very similar. To my knowledge, the car was manufactured in April and it left Japan on the first boat after the tsunami. I would encourage you to check this, but I was keenly following the goings-on then, and this is my recollection of the events.

In any case, I performed several range tests over the course of the last few months, and I was able to drive 107 miles on a charge with 5.1 energy economy in early December. Recently, I was able to put 103 miles on the odometer with the same energy economy and similar road conditions. That's about 4% less, and I would chalk up some of this difference to a delta in pack temperature, which we all can measure only very coarsely. I was able to charge to 281 Gids in January, but I'm getting 279 or 280 now. I've heard a similar story from another local Leaf owner, who has received his car in early May 2011.

I hope that this anecdotal data will help you, since I suspect that our cars were on the same ship.
 
I was wondering how long it would take for something like this to surface. Since there is no capacity warranty there is no definitive recourse. However, 20% loss in the first year is pretty bad based on Nissan's hype. I would not handle this issue with a dealer but call the regional factory rep directly. If they are not open to solutions like fixing the pack or offering you a very good price on a new car and selling yours privately then I would consider telling them you consider it excessive and although not covered in the warranty that you are going to inform the public about the potential for rapid capacity loss. If many cars are loosing this type of capacity in the first 9 moths I suspect LEAF sales to decline rapidly. Unfortunately I was expecting this bad news at some point. Try your factory rep first.
 
Back
Top