Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

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.
thankyouOB said:
dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.

Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!

I prefer to stick with known facts:

1. Cars were sold with a range of XX miles in XYZ scenario (I'm purposely not mentioning 100 mile BS)

2. One year later, plus or minus a few months, those same cars have significantly reduced range.

3. The manufacture (and its dealers) has publically stated that virtually any range reduction is "normal"

4. Consumers , by and large, don't find this quantity of range reduction acceptable
 
TonyWilliams said:
thankyouOB said:
dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.

Nor you putting words in my mouth (destroy village BS). I will applaud your prolific use of clichés!!!

i didnt misquote you, paraphrase you or cite your post.
I just made a statement that you do not like.
 
thankyouOB said:
i didnt misquote you, paraphrase you or cite your post.
I just made a statement that you do not like.

You're right, of course. You didn't misquote me. Your inference that I, or anybody except Teabagger idiots, wants to "burn down the metaphorical EV village" is complete BS.

Did I get it right this time?
 
i prefer to wait for some answers. things are apparently happening.
that was true for line-jumping, blink, delivery delays, and perhaps for batteries in the dessert.

tick tock seems to be supplying some good data, and Nissan may, as well.

please do not flame me because you disagree with me.
i apologize if you feel the burn-the-village analogy was too personal.
I tried to distance it from you by not quoting you; and regular readers could appropriately attach it to all who feel Nissan is dragging its feet or hiding something. I admire your persistence, but think the conspiracy theories should await the currrent fact-finding and investigation of batteries.

this is a big corporation that moves slowly, but is moving.
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.
 
thankyouOB said:
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.

Well, calling every instance of range reduction "normal" doesnt fall into the area of good will.

I personally have never been professionally employed in any business that relied on "crossing fingers" and hoping for the best. So, when things don't look right, I'll assume they are not, and find a way to prove or disprove that assumption.

For every "sky-is-falling" proclamation is a blissful hope that 2013 has a fantastic new battery (denied by Nissan decision makers recently) or other denier response.

So far, Nissan's posture suggests other than forthrightness. Calling the issues "5 or 6 cars" when in fact the problem is many multiples larger (and they know it), all degradation is normal, and issuing 5 stars to any battery that can roll into a dealership are at the top of my list. Heck, they have yet to officially recognize that there is a problem.

I don't say it often here, but I truly do hope for the best. However, I recognize that the only real fix will come from a government mandate or lawsuit.
 
More information transparency is always a good thing, but I just don't see that happening from any corporation really. Speaking of information transparency, 250+ pages is a bit much. I'd like to keep up on what's happening, but the thread is moving too fast and wanders too much. You can't tell when something significant happens from the thread title. Can one of the key regulars involved in this issue start a separate summary thread that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up with? I'm tempted to start one myself, but I don't want to misrepresent anything as I'm not having the issue myself. I appreciate the need for dialog and discussion, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low...
 
I agree (and will leave it at that).
TickTock tried to do that very thing and provided the link to a new topic in a recent post.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
TonyWilliams said:
thankyouOB said:
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.

Well, calling every instance of range reduction "normal" doesnt fall into the area of good will.

cmon, we all knew then it was nothing but a knee jerk, politically correct thing to say by a customer service dept that probably had barely a clue as to what a battery even is. there is no doubt that at a very minimum; the CS dept was cautioned from making anything resembling a concrete statement about anything.
 
Stanton said:
I agree (and will leave it at that).
TickTock tried to do that very thing and provided the link to a new topic in a recent post.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I saw that thred, but it just provides numbers and figures with no indication of what's going on with Nissan, etc..
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
TonyWilliams said:
thankyouOB said:
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.

Well, calling every instance of range reduction "normal" doesnt fall into the area of good will.

cmon, we all knew then it was nothing but a knee jerk, politically correct thing to say by a customer service dept that probably had barely a clue as to what a battery even is. there is no doubt that at a very minimum; the CS dept was cautioned from making anything resembling a concrete statement about anything.

Which is a shame in and of itself. It's hardly a defense for a corporation to lament: "...it takes so long for that kind of information to make it through the pipeline...". Not when it's THEIR pipeline. Hiding behind a dysfunctional CS dept that you keep at arm's length is not a viable stragegy in this day and age. It just makes people angry and makes the situation worse.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
TonyWilliams said:
thankyouOB said:
I dont see a stonewall.
I could be wrong.

Well, calling every instance of range reduction "normal" doesnt fall into the area of good will.

cmon, we all knew then it was nothing but a knee jerk, politically correct thing to say by a customer service dept that probably had barely a clue as to what a battery even is. there is no doubt that at a very minimum; the CS dept was cautioned from making anything resembling a concrete statement about anything.

Who, in many (virtually every?) cases, the dealer contacted Nissan and was reiterating what Nissan told the dealer, who told the customer. Everything was normal.

Maybe I'll ask my Infinti dealer if they would think there was a problem if my G37 went 15-30% less range than one year ago, when new.
 
Ultimately, the free market is going to decide the LEAF's fate.

If Nissan dealers insist on asking top dollar for a limited use vehicle, and are unwilling to provide hardly any support to solve issues with the most expensive single component, then people just won't buy the car. 400 U.S. sales a month could seem like a fond, distant memory by the end of this year.

I'm willing to given them three years to either solve the battery problem or discontinue the model. I don't expect any significant change in the next couple of years. If there is no significant improvement by the 2015 or 2016 model years, I'll just move on (as, I'm sure, many others will, as well).
 
Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.

As I have said before, patience is the keyword here as this issue is resolved.

Thank You.
 
And I also believe in the Tooth Fairy...

OrientExpress said:
Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest that a software bug that is providing a corrupted data stream which is being used by various battery management subsystems which cause them to provide faulty indications is the leading candidate.
 
OrientExpress said:
Of the current root-cause candidates for this issue, a software bug or a run of defective components, reputable highly-placed sources suggest......

Thank You.


Since you've advertised your rubbing shoulders with Nissan execs (as I have), I'll just assume that's your source. You do recognize the motivation for Nissan to want us to believe that it's a "simple" teeny tiny software glitch, and "all is well"?

Or, maybe you can't. Gosh, wouldn't it be awesome to overlook that heat significantly reduces the livelihood of ANY battery that isn't protected from such (with TMS). Or using 93% of the total battery capacity isn't beneficial to long life.

Yes, patience. That's exactly what Nissan needs. And lots of it. Maybe through model year 2015, when they are expected to get a new battery.
 
TomT said:
And I also believe in the Tooth Fairy...

I have to hand it to him, he plays like he's on Nissan's payroll :|

I think first year law school teaches strategies like this. Magicians, too. Slight of hand... Look over there, not here... Nothing to see here.

But, like the basis for the strategy, you can't easily and quickly disprove it. It might be true!

I do think "Tooth Fairy" won't come up for quite some time, though.
 
Back
Top