Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

KJD said:

The Nissan customer service people do NOT have time to read this forum. If you people have a problem with the battery pack you need to take time to report it to Nissan.

Click to expand...

But, don't forget that they're downloading info from every Leaf every time they plug into the OBDII or RS232 (both?) at the dealer. They're not compiling that data because it's fun, they're doing it to study and learn. They have to know. They had to know before most Leaf owners because so few own a meter. Nissan can't blame this on a lack of owners reporting issues when their own computers are regularly downloading the necessary data.

I guarantee that more than 5 people had reported their issue to dealers. As far as we understood this was considered reporting the issue. For a while range wasn't affected to the extent to hinder use of the car, so escalations weren't happening. When normal use of the car was affected, this is when we started escalating as per the guidelines in the warranty book. First dealer GM, then dealer customer relations, then Nissan customer relations.

As an everyday Joe, the dealer is the face of Nissan and was getting marching orders from corporate on what to tell us about how this is normal. How on earth would most of us know that visiting the dealer did not constitute reporting the issue? The dealer should be the one able to help us, not a CSR in a phone bank somewhere. It makes no sense. If nothing else, I'm glad that this news story exposed the disconnect between reality, dealers, and NNA corporate.

DANandNAN said:

But, don't forget that they're downloading info from every Leaf every time they plug into the OBDII or RS232 (both?) at the dealer. They're not compiling that data because it's fun, they're doing it to study and learn. They have to know. They had to know before most Leaf owners because so few own a meter. Nissan can't blame this on a lack of owners reporting issues when their own computers are regularly downloading the necessary data.

Click to expand...

Any Leaf that has had a one year battery check (or has been checked because the owner complained to the dealer about losing capacity) has already sent detailed data to Nissan. Perhaps we should ask Nissan to release their data for Phoenix area owners that have had their Leaf for more than one year (and thus had a battery check to keep "warranty" in force). Even a summary of that data with mean, median and standard deviation of capacity loss would put this issue to rest... unless, of course, the data shows what I suspect--that the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.

Stoaty said:

Any Leaf that has had a one year battery check (or has been checked because the owner complained to the dealer about losing capacity) has already sent detailed data to Nissan. Perhaps we should ask Nissan to release their data for Phoenix area owners that have had their Leaf for more than one year (and thus had a battery check to keep "warranty" in force). Even a summary of that data with mean, median and standard deviation of capacity loss would put this issue to rest... unless, of course, the data shows what I suspect--that the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.

Click to expand...

Yup, but everyone knows there's not a chance in heck they will hand over that info

Heck, "they" couldn't even let Mark Perry see it :lol:

TomT said:

Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of statistical analysis. You need to compare the number that have lost capacity in Phoenix to the total number sold IN Phoenix. Including others outside of these hot areas is completely meaningless.

Click to expand...

For this purposes of inciting hysteria or reinforcing a a preconceived argument, yes, always select the smallest sample possible, and make sure that the sample has data to support the conclusion one is trying to convey.

However in the larger scheme of things, all that cherry picking does is to discredit the argument. In this situation, it gets hot everywhere, not just in Phoenix, ergo a sample that includes the entire fleet universe is correct.

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

What is unusual is that this year has been special across the US with almost every historical high temp record shattered and new historical highs being set. My point is that it is the hottest this year, especially in the southern US, since records have been kept.

So the environment is outside the boundaries of normal 100 year heat ranges, and probably outside the range in which Nissan (and most other automobile manufacturers) designed to. But despite unprecedented historical extreme temperatures, the fact that only 0.0010625% of the fleet is experiencing questionable performance, despite that the vehicles are probably operating reliably in an environment that is outside their design envelope, is truly outstanding. The only complaint is that they need to be "filled-up" more frequently.

So despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread of a perceived travesty of trust, despite the historical extreme temperatures that not only Arizona but the world is experiencing this year, every LEAF, even in a cherry picked sample continues to start every day, no matter how hot it is, and perform with all its got.

Gosh, I sure wish I could live in the same isolated and eutopean world that you inhabit... :lol:

OrientExpress said:

TomT said:

Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of statistical analysis. You need to compare the number that have lost capacity in Phoenix to the total number sold IN Phoenix. Including others outside of these hot areas is completely meaningless.

Click to expand...

For this purposes of inciting hysteria or reinforcing a a preconceived argument, yes, always select the smallest sample possible, and make sure that the sample has data to support the conclusion one is trying to convey.

Click to expand...

Stoaty said:

...the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.

Click to expand...

It's 50 reported cases now.

Does anybody have a pic, preferrably higher quality, of a LEAF battery capacity gauge that had lost three bars? Two bars? Thanks.

OrientExpress said:

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.

aqn said:

It's 50 reported cases now.

Click to expand...

It's still 37. Those of us in the 2-bar table also have lines in the 1-bar table to show when we lost 1-bar. And the 2 poor saps who are in the 3-bar table also have lines in the 1-bar and 2-bar table. So just count the 1-bar table.

Herm said:

OrientExpress said:

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.

Click to expand...

Not an excuse at all, just a fact. This year is the hottest it has been in the US since records have been kept. This is an unprecedented year climate-wise, and stuff is going to have issues, especially things whose performance is related to the temperature of the environment it has to operate in.

I would suspect that every manufacturer of equipment that is temperature sensitive is re-evaluating their design criteria.

aqn said:

It's 50 reported cases now.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but no, that's not quite right...

The people on the "2 Bars Lost" list and on the "3 Bars Lost" list are also on the "1 Bars Lost" list. It's done that way so that we can document the date, mileage, and months owned at the time of each bar lost. So actually, there's only 37 documented cases on our list (those on the 1 bar list), because the people on the 2-bar and 3-bar lists are the same people that are on the 1-bar list.

aqn said:

Does anybody have a pic, preferrably higher quality, of a LEAF battery capacity gauge that had lost three bars? Two bars? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Here you go. Scott's car. Neither picture was taken the day he lost the bar.





The full-resolution versions are here (as full as I have):

http://www.1opossum.com/temp/scott_3_bars.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.1opossum.com/temp/scott_2_bars.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironically, the last few years it has been cooler here than normal...

Herm said:

OrientExpress said:

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.

Click to expand...

Note that, in addition to the obvious association with hot climates, there also seems to be a relationship of relatively high miles driven to bar loss, especially with the two and three bar loss LEAFs.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss#three_bars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the three bar losses has been reported as having occurred at 26k, in only 13 months.

What is the mileage history of the other one, NOC8H18?

Generally, the more miles you put on a LEAF each month, the more high and low states of charge tend to occur, and/or the more battery-heating midday charge events are required, both of which would probably tend to accelerate loss of either available or total battery capacity.

In any case, if you put on miles at a rate to reach 100k miles in far less than eight years, you should expect battery capacity bars to disappear sooner.

Maybe, in addition to failing to anticipate the record US temperatures over the last few years, Nissan also failed to anticipate how many LEAF owners would pile up the miles on what many still consider a "short-range commuter" vehicle.

TomT said:

Ironically, the last few years it has been cooler here than normal...

Click to expand...

Yes, about the only folks that are getting a break from the record heat are those on the Western coastline. Temperatures in the Bay Area have been more like Santa Barbara this year and last. But our good fortune is everyone else's curse because of how the jet stream changes are affecting the North American climate currently.

One of the three bar losses has been reported as having occurred at either 26k, in only 13 months.

Click to expand...

2K miles/Mo. is truly an edge case and any vehicle operated that much in such an extreme environment would experience some degradation of its systems. 25K miles/yr. is taxi/law enforcement/delivery van miles.

Tucson picked up on the story. They were probably trolling the Phoenix stations.

Here's the video. I sent a link to Vicki for the wiki, along with some detail updates for the capacity loss table (not a new line, just details).

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/19059851/some-drivers-claim-nissan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get that you are mad at Nissan and feel cheated, but Orient Express makes some sense.
He is not talking to the wall.

The PX crowd IS doing us all a service and I have modulated my charging protocols based on their canary-in-the-coal-mine alerts. I remain curious about the other very-hot-weather cars, however, including those who are not degrading at this high rate.

I am bothered by the lack of response from Nissan. Because I am in a region where this is less of an issue, I am most troubled by Nissan's PR stance on this.
If I am correct, they basically have not said anything other than -- it is normal -- to the 30-40 folks who have experienced rapid pack degradation.

I am in Phoenix and only have less than 8000 miles on my car. Luckily I have not experienced the bar loss problem yet. However, I am VERY concerned. I just found this thread and I apologize for not reading all 150 pages, however, I did spend a few hours last night going through quite a bit of the pages. I have a few questions:

1) For those that have experience the battery bar loss, what was the average or range in battery temperature bars? My battery is usually at 7 bars and sometimes 6 bars. is that an indication that there will be a problem? Were your bars EVER any higher?

2) Anyone consider speaking with a legal expert to see what can be done to get help with this issue or get Nissan to do something? maybe buy back our cars for the price that they said they would be worth?

3) What happened at the Phoenix meeting last night?


Thanks!!!


Francisco