Nissan LEAF Update from Andy Palmer

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.
First off, thank you for popping in again. I'm glad to finally hear of a capacity warranty, of some sort. It's better than nothing. I do like the fact that it's retroactive.
Hawk0630 said:
Q. How does the frequency of fast charging affect the rate of capacity loss? Are there other factors that influence the rate of capacity loss?
A. Quick charging the vehicle more than one time a day will affect and may hasten the rate of battery capacity loss. Other factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: ...
That's interesting. Re: QC, that's a change in stance compared to before.

Does the 8 year/100K battery warranty against "sudden" loss still exist and will it continued to be offered on the MY '13 Leaf?

I am a bit disappointed that when it falls below 9 bars that it will only be restored to 9 bars or more instead of say 11 or 12.

I'm in agreement w/Weatherman's post at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=253620#p253620" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and Volusiano's post at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=253642#p253642" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
surfingslovak said:
This thread is such a fun read. It almost reminds of last summer. Please keep it coming, while I get popcorn :)
capwarrantymnl
Ha! I wonder if it'll grow to 500 pages. :lol:
 
This is good news IMHO. retroactive warranty on MY 2011 and 2012 LEAF's. Similar/same? warranty of 2013 MY going forward.

70% floor on capacity means that an EPA range of 73 miles corresponds to a 51.1 mile minimum range. If you need to commute more than 25 miles each way, don't buy a LEAF, otherwise you are assured of this minimum range. Many of us can beat the EPA range. For me this means that downtown Nashville should always be within range of my home. Well at least for another 3 years when I expect to hit 60,000 miles.

As for fears voiced here that Nissan may 'top off' a battery that dropped to 69% capacity to say only 72% while being technically possible and within the warranty terms, is improbable. Nissan don't want to cover the cost of replacing a single module every few months. I imagine they would add enough capacity to take the car past 60,000 miles or 5 years with any 'top off' performed with a reasonable margin for error. I'd expect mild generosity.

By and large I'm happy with this remedy. It does add security to BEV purchases from Nissan.

Tesla's warranty is for 5 years 60,000 miles also. The warranty appears to be 'competitive'.

I wonder if the remedy will only be available to '5 star' battery report holders. Nissan have to protect themselves against deliberate abuse.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
...what I really want (and fully expect) to see is a paid exchange program for ones who choose to maintain their SOC at a higher rate for a price. ...

Or, alternatively, upgrade their 24kWH pack to a __kWH pack? ;)

And suddenly you can see where a pool of 80-90% packs would become cheaply available for Nissan to reman and stockpile against warranty claims. :)


Hey, I can dream....
 
downeykp said:
Wouldn't a TMS have been a better fix moving forward. So using this logic if I had an ICE vehicle and the engine blew under warrantee Nissan would replace engine with a used one that had 50k miles on it. WTF.

Conversely, if a cylinder head cracked they'd probably just replace the part, not the whole engine.

Replace or repair -- at the manufacturer's option. In the event of a replacement you might end up with a remanufactured engine; warranty still in effect, of course.
 
downeykp said:
Wouldn't a TMS have been a better fix moving forward. So using this logic if I had an ICE vehicle and the engine blew under warrantee Nissan would replace engine with a used one that had 50k miles on it. WTF.
TMS can't be retrofitted into current cars.
 
LEAFfan said:
jspearman" said:
I've seen one car below nine bars, and it had 45 miles on the GOM at 100% charge;

J, the GOM number, as you know, doesn't tell the capacity or how many actual miles you can drive. If I had driven that car the last 5 miles, I could make the GOM show in the 60s. How many miles did it go with the Phoenix Test? It was at least 60 something.
[/quote][/quote]

Unfortunately, we couldn't do Tony's test. I know the GOM depends on the driver/speed/acceleration and probably the individual car. I'd like to have an objective number, but I would just rather be done with the car at this point unless the 2013 magically has a TMS.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/toyota-settles-lawsuit-over-accelerator-recalls-impact.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as to settlement disclosures, above link has plenty of details on Toyota accelerator settlement, which was also filed in federal court.
so settlements dont always mean: SILENCE.

as to counting up the MNLers who are pro and con, I am of mixed mind.
i dont like the 9-bar set point or the possibility that repairs would only reset to that level. but it could work out OK.
I so think 10 bars is the level Nissan has tacitly set with all of its manuals, etc., as described above.
 
As for fears voiced here that Nissan may 'top off' a battery that dropped to 69% capacity to say only 72% while being technically possible and within the warranty terms, is improbable.

+1. I am sure there will be some pro ration going on. someone with 10,000 miles is sure to get a "fuller" replacement than someone with 40,000 miles

surfingslovak said:
This thread is such a fun read. It almost reminds of last summer. Please keep it coming, while I get popcorn :)
capwarrantymnl


ya, dont you love this? way better than betting on the Super Bowl Winner!

my bet? TMS for 2013! now if you think that was a long shot? I also picked the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl in September and that was 750 to 1 shot. (of course I do that every year but that aint the point!) and that bet is looking better and better
 
glad to see some progress, I think this is a big step forward!

-I agree with others that it doesn't solve the real problem, which is heat accelerated range loss that appears to be happening in various shades of gray as you go from north to south in the US. The chemistry is apparently too prone to heat related loss and this ultimately needs to be dealt with.

-I also agree with others that I very much hope that Nissan does not use software updates to simply recalibrate the capacity bars, rendering the warranty meaningless and frustrating. If this is what Nissan has in store, it will backfire in a huge way. things need to be very above board going forward.

-I also feel that Nissan needs to re-brand the car. The early adopter is by nature a tester and prover. if you say the car goes 100 miles, people will set to prove or disprove that. Say it can be quick charged and people will try and prove how far you can drive it in a day by quick charging. If the car is more realistically marketed, then people will be happier with it in terms of their own expectations and it should be marketed based on the expected loss, not as new. If 20% loss is expected but no more than 30% loss is allowed, then give a realistic number for how far a commute is reasonable and comfortable on a daily basis with the Leaf assuming some side trips on occasion. What was it designed for in terms of maintaining customer satisfaction over it's intended lifespan? For instance, best to go with the 73 EPA rating, minus 30% for long term range loss or 51 miles, minus a 20% for comfort or 36 miles. I believe that marketing the car as ideal for a 30-40ish mile commute with no public charging required is way better than getting caught up with how many miles it can go on a single charge or how long it takes to recharge. 30-40 miles covers the vast majority of people's daily driving and that is impressive in and of itself. Now that I have stopped trying to prove the car and use it mostly for in town stuff, I am much happier with it, able to use the cabin heater and defroster freely and zip around town without hypermiling and I only QC on the occasion that I need a little boost rather than try and take it long distances ... I'm a much happier customer, and I believe this car can meet the needs of many more drivers in the US if only people could more realistically determine if it will meet their needs before buying it.
 
Hawk0630 said:
Q. How does the frequency of fast charging affect the rate of capacity loss? Are there other factors that influence the rate of capacity loss?
A. Quick charging the vehicle more than one time a day will affect and may hasten the rate of battery capacity loss. Other factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: (1) Sustained high battery temperatures (caused, for example, by exposure to very high ambient temperatures or extending highway driving with multiple quick charges); (2) Sustained high battery state of charge (caused, for example, by frequently charging to 100% state of charge and/or leaving the battery above 80% state of charge for long periods of time); and (3) Higher than estimated annual mileage accumulation (such as more than 12,500 miles per year).
I would like to understand if Nissan is going to use these as criteria to void their battery warranty. And if yes, how, with enough explicit details.

The warranty is worthless if the criteria are designed to be way too stringent and unreasonable such that very few people can qualify for their warranty claim.
 
I think this is a positive first step and I am thankful to Nissan for standing by their product with a real warranty.

What I really want to know is the cost of a replacement battery and if they will offer more range options in future models and in replacement packs they sell. I tell my friends at Nissan the same thing every time I get the chance. Use the Tesla model and sell us another 10kwhs for $5,000 more as an option.

The Leaf doesn't get close to 100 miles a charge at freeway/highway speeds and for most of us who commute 15+ miles one way, we have to keep up with traffic to avoid being a road hazard. The fact that 50 miles of freeway range is about the place where the warranty would kick in makes it so many of us with a 25 mile one way commute and no charging at work will be arriving home on turtle. God forbid it may be cold and you had to turn on the heater and then you definitely wouldn't make it home. $35,000 is a lot for a car that is only guaranteed to go 50 miles after a few years at freeway speeds. I love the Leaf and the only real issue I have other than the slow 8 hour onboard charger is the fact the the range is not adequate. For some the range is perfect. Obviously not perfect for most people otherwise the Leaf would be selling like hotcakes. For most people, the 100 miles of range, which was found in Nissan's original PR and marketing, is a much better minimum range number. 100 miles EPA range at freeway speeds after 10 years would on average be 70 miles of remaining range after a 30% capacity loss.

The other questions I have are:
- If you turtle 10 times is the capacity warranty valid?
- What does 8 bars really mean in measurable capacity?
- If you always charge to 100% is the capacity warranty valid?

I never heard of 80% charging for long life until I was in the dealership taking delivery and looking at the manual. I can't make my commute with an 80% charge. I tried it but I was at vlb warning almost everyday and that was super stressful.

Good first step. I'm looking forward to the details on battery replacement and upgrade options especially around core deposits for replacements (Nissan originally planned to reuse old batteries for industrial storage) so they should have core value hopefully sliding based on remaining capacity. The reason that the range loss is such a big issue is because of the short range of the car when new so any capacity loss compounds in owner stress. I'm hoping to be able to upgrade to a bigger pack :) so the range loss will not be as big of an issue.
 
Volusiano said:
Hawk0630 said:
Q. How does the frequency of fast charging affect the rate of capacity loss? Are there other factors that influence the rate of capacity loss?
A. Quick charging the vehicle more than one time a day will affect and may hasten the rate of battery capacity loss. Other factors that will affect and may hasten the rate of capacity loss include, but are not limited to: (1) Sustained high battery temperatures (caused, for example, by exposure to very high ambient temperatures or extending highway driving with multiple quick charges); (2) Sustained high battery state of charge (caused, for example, by frequently charging to 100% state of charge and/or leaving the battery above 80% state of charge for long periods of time); and (3) Higher than estimated annual mileage accumulation (such as more than 12,500 miles per year).
I would like to understand if Nissan is going to use these as criteria to void their battery warranty. And if yes, how, with enough explicit details.

The warranty is worthless if the criteria are designed to be way too stringent and unreasonable such that very few people can qualify for their warranty claim.

If you remember, they originally quoted 80% after 5 years. The warranty is about 70% which allows room for additional capacity loss due to extreme conditions. It's not very generous, but should help deal with serious battery problems.

Of more interest to many, of course, will be the replacement battery prices.
 
I'm glad that the majority of you are taking heart in this as a positive step forward in the evolution of the LEAF. I would hope that those of you that are vying for the title of "Pessimist-in-Chief" :D will withhold final judgement until the official details of the new warranty are made available.

One other observation that I wanted to make was about the Gen 2 battery that will be part of the 2013 cars. One detail that I noticed in the photos I took in Yokohama is that the modules that hold the cells are no longer closed containers like the Gen 1 batteries have, but rather are open on the sides. Perhaps that is a small improvement for better thermal management of individual cells?

Here is a Gen 1 module
leafbatt12.jpg


And here are Gen 2 modules in a pack

leafbatt07.jpg


Notice that in the Gen 2 module the cells are open to the pack. Perhaps that is for improved thermal dissipation?

Initially I thought that perhaps the modules used in the display Gen 2 pack were simply open so you could see their internal pieces, but in looking at some assembly photos from the US battery plant, those modules are the same. I think that this could be good news in the area of performance in edge case extreme operating environments. We will have to wait and see what the details of 2013 announcement are.
 
I admit I am surprised by the number of positive reactions to the announcement. I lost my first bar at only 6,771 miles, despite textbook charging and driving habits, and now I face owning a 35k car that may become close to useless after only five years? I am underwhelmed.
 
GaslessInSeattle said:
glad to see some progress, I think this is a big step forward!

-I agree with others that it doesn't solve the real problem, which is heat accelerated range loss that appears to be happening in various shades of gray as you go from north to south in the US. The chemistry is apparently too prone to heat related loss and this ultimately needs to be dealt with.

-I also agree with others that I very much hope that Nissan does not use software updates to simply recalibrate the capacity bars, rendering the warranty meaningless and frustrating. If this is what Nissan has in store, it will backfire in a huge way. things need to be very above board going forward.

-I also feel that Nissan needs to re-brand the car. The early adopter is by nature a tester and prover. if you say the car goes 100 miles, people will set to prove or disprove that. Say it can be quick charged and people will try and prove how far you can drive it in a day by quick charging. If the car is more realistically marketed, then people will be happier with it in terms of their own expectations and it should be marketed based on the expected loss, not as new. If 20% loss is expected but no more than 30% loss is allowed, then give a realistic number for how far a commute is reasonable and comfortable on a daily basis with the Leaf assuming some side trips on occasion. What was it designed for in terms of maintaining customer satisfaction over it's intended lifespan? For instance, best to go with the 73 EPA rating, minus 30% for long term range loss or 51 miles, minus a 20% for comfort or 36 miles. I believe that marketing the car as ideal for a 30-40ish mile commute with no public charging required is way better than getting caught up with how many miles it can go on a single charge or how long it takes to recharge. 30-40 miles covers the vast majority of people's daily driving and that is impressive in and of itself. Now that I have stopped trying to prove the car and use it mostly for in town stuff, I am much happier with it, able to use the cabin heater and defroster freely and zip around town without hypermiling and I only QC on the occasion that I need a little boost rather than try and take it long distances ... I'm a much happier customer, and I believe this car can meet the needs of many more drivers in the US if only people could more realistically determine if it will meet their needs before buying it.
Agree with all the above, and I'm glad that Nissan plans to clarify what charging procedures are most likely to reduce battery life.

As others have mentioned, even if 80%/5 years is the median expected loss, there's no way you'd ever warranty that unless you did as the Volt does, and sequester some capacity at the outset. I was figuring a 70%/5 year warranty months ago. Of course, that still leaves the people who need 80% for their normal driving screwed, and they need the option of getting out of their purchase/lease.

Although Nissan did what I expected with a battery warranty (if they were going to offer one), I think they really need to include 2 years/25k miles or 3 years or 37.5k miles/ 80% in the warranty as well, for those people who are leasing and in hot climates. They also need to include more info on degradation rates. Going forward, _provided_ they stress the details of this in their pre-sale information (yeah, like the typical salesman is going to do so), both customer and company are protected.

As George mentions above, for pre-purchase calculations to see if the car fits your needs you should figure on a max. daily commute range of about 36 miles at battery EOL, figured as 73 x .5 (.7 [new capacity] - .2 [LBW reserve] = .5), modified plus or minus depending on the details of your commute. For those in more benign climates who wish to take a bit of a chance, you can use 73 x .6 (.8 -.2) = 43.8 miles instead. And of course either group needs to make allowances for local climate - realistically, unless you're one of the people willing to do without heat and defrost, a long-term Leaf in daily usage for 5+ years shouldn't be considered viable for more than a guaranteed 30 miles/charge in temperate climates, and perhaps as little as 20-25 miles in cold climates (depending on how effective the new heat pump is at lower temps). The same calculation can be used for any other BEV battery with a similar chemistry, i.e. similar degradation rate and usable SOC range and not sequestering capacity.

This is an honest appraisal of a BEV like the Leaf's true guaranteed capability, and should prevent a flood of customers in future from finding out that the car is useless for them after a short period of time. The problem, of course, is that with the early adopters having already gotten their cars, I don't think there's much of a remaining market for a $30k+ car that can only be depended on to go 30-40 miles. The economic return isn't there for most people, and even if you are so fortunate that the numbers work for you, the perceived value just isn't there.

I think anyone who really is committed to getting a BEV and who could possibly afford it will opt for a Tesla S-60 (or even an 85), because you're paying less than twice as much for over 2.5 times the range (figure 104 miles @ EOL, minus climate allowance) a far more useful range. Everyone else will go ICE/HEV/PHEV, or, if the range of the Tesla S-40 is acceptable, opt for the RAV4 instead.
 
philipscoggins said:
Can they snoop all that stuff on carwings?
They don't have to. They can download logged information from the car, and allowing them to do so is a condition of the battery warranty.
 
My take is that this is a good first step, that it is long overdue, but that 9 bars is too low. As was mentioned above, anyone seriously considering the LEAF should do some range vs need calculations with the assumption of 30% loss from EPA 73 mile range, and assume that this loss may hit at any time after purchase. This is worst case, of course, but many of us in coastal So Cal have experienced 15% or greater range loss within 15 months, so there is no assurance that we won't lose 25% or more within two years. Folks who bought or leased a LEAF expecting to be able to do a 65 mile RT commute for three or four years will still be hosed and this warranty won't help them. Nissan still needs to step up for these folks because they were misled by Nissan's claims prior to purchase.
 
DesertDenizen said:
... I face owning a 35k car that may become close to useless after only five years?...

Did you, or any other US LEAF buyer actually pay $35k, after incentives?

If Your LEAF is down to ~70% "new" range after five years, and that ~50 mile Summer freeway range is insufficient for your needs, you will need to decide whether to buy a new battery, or sell your LEAF to someone else, who does not find it "close to useless".

Two years after the LEAF's US introduction, Nissan has now given all of us a capacity warranty significantly reducing the risk of ownership we accepted when we bought our LEAFs. I doubt Nissan executives did this out of the goodness of their hearts. I expect that it was a simple cost/benefit business calculation. And if the cost of this warranty was expected to be excessive, I doubt Nissan would have done it.

IMO, it suggests a relatively low percentage of LEAFs are now expected to sustain capacity loss below "9 bars" or ~"70% capacity" during the duration of the capacity warranty, and/or the battery packs can be inexpensively restored to higher capacity, which I consider very good news.

If any LEAF owners can't accept the inherent and unavoidable uncertainty of future cost of ownership of any BEV, I'd suggest you just sell your LEAFs now and buy yourself an ICEV or hybrid, or lease another LEAF, at the current very low (MY 2012) net price.
 
DesertDenizen said:
I admit I am surprised by the number of positive reactions to the announcement. I lost my first bar at only 6,771 miles, despite textbook charging and driving habits, and now I face owning a 35k car that may become close to useless after only five years? I am underwhelmed.

I don't think there's been a positive reaction from the hot-weather crowd yet. I really, really want to be positive. I was very positive about the Leaf for about 9 months, and I still love everything else about the car. I didn't start out with this disposition, but Nissan's response went from non-existent to guarded, and now it's just tepid, and I don't see this new warranty as improving the situation in the least for those of us with actual problems. The only way you would get to 8 bars in a less harsh environment is if you had a defective battery, in which case it's already covered, so I see this as little more than public relations BS.
 
Back
Top