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.
OrientExpress said:
Notice that in the Gen 2 module the cells are open to the pack. Perhaps that is for improved thermal dissipation?
It looks more like they went from a "tin can" style crimped lip seal to a simple clam-shell and tab system to hold the cells together. Less material + simplified manufacturing = lower cost + less weight. If there is any improvement in thermal properties it's probably more incidental than deliberate.
=Smidge=
 
I wish to congratulate edatoakrun for posting a very level message.. I was surprised.
Kudos to Nissan for clearing up the situation in Phoenix and other extreme places.. Since they have offered a wear warranty on a wear item perhaps they should step up and offer a thread depth warranty on the tires as well, at least 15k miles.. there have been many complaints on that issue here also.


edatoakrun said:
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.
 
OrientExpress said:
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?

The cells are packed tightly inside the case so that heat dissipates by direct module-to-module contact and eventually to the steel case itself.. there is no room for air circulation.

Perhaps Nissan can manufacture a "special" thinner cell with a reduced capacity (to be used for repairing packs in Phoenix) that would allow room for spacers and air to move around (with the addition of an internal fan). Making a modified cell is easy, and also cheaper since it consumes 30% less of the active materials.. another plus is that its lighter. Other manufacturers seem to be depending on air cooling for lithium-ion packs so it may be the low cost answer.
 
jspearman said:
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.

Here's a hot-weather desert rat who is very happy about the announcement. Sure, I was hoping for 80% after 10 years as Perry said, but I never really believed that having seen how all my other batteries fare out here. 70%/5 years is a little disappointing, but it is at least something tangible that you can work with (far better than not knowing anything). Using Tony's range chart, and your daily driving habits it becomes simple to determine if a Leaf will work for you. Hopefully now there will be fewer people buying Leaf's for whom it won't be adequate and the negativity will diminish.

Am still holding my breath for the replacement cost, though, since I intend to drive my Leaf much further than 60000 miles.
 
Herm said:
I wish to congratulate edatoakrun for posting a very level message.. I was surprised.
Kudos to Nissan for clearing up the situation in Phoenix and other extreme places.. Since they have offered a wear warranty on a wear item perhaps they should step up and offer a thread depth warranty on the tires as well, at least 15k miles.. there have been many complaints on that issue here also.

Give someone an inch and they want a mile! No wonder it took Nissan so long to do this: it's like a no-win situation (there are obviously people NOT happy with capacity warranty anyway). As far as tires go, I've had so many stock tires not outlast their warranty miles it's not even funny, but it doesn't seem to end up on the news. The owner demographic of this car is so highly educated, highly compensated, and highly litigious, it's a wonder this car has made it this far!
 
Volusiano said:
Stoaty said:
gbarry42 said:
I'm trying to figure out, though, how they'd "repair" a worn pack where all the cells have the same capacity loss. Changing out a few cells for new ones has very little effect, as the weaker cells determine the overall capacity.
Fortunately, that would be Nissan's problem, which means that they take at least some of the risk here.
I don't see that Nissan has to take any risk here. They'll have plenty of leased cars returned by the time any warranty claim may kick in. They simply need to take a battery pack from one of the leased cars that still have 9 bars or more as a replacement, and voila, done. The one returned with less than 9 bar will simple get recycled as originally planned.

Do you have any idea of the logistics and high cost of that proposed process not to mention the fact it would likely result in much wasted labor that would need to be replicated.
 
Maybe I should add to my earlier post, that while the cost of this additional warranty coverage for all 2011-2013 LEAFs may not be very large, it is a cost that will have to be passed on to all future LEAF buyers (and perhaps the buyers of replacement batteries) if The LEAF is ever to be profitable to Nissan.

So, all future LEAF buyers who do not subject their cars to those factors, such as high temperature, high SOC over time, etc. that accelerate capacity loss, will neccessarilly be subsidizing those LEAF buyers who do.

You're welcome...

My LEAF experiences long periods with over 100 F temperatures in the Summer, and it's ~29 degrees outside, right now.

Any of you Arizona LEAF owners want to guarantee my battery capacity will be "70%" on this date in 2015, and pay the cost for my warranty?

edatoakrun said:
...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.
 
edatoakrun said:
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?
Umm...yeah. Not everyone leases and given a recent post on the federal tax incentive I may only be getting $4-5k. Factor in loan interest, car taxes which had to be included in loan since I didnt' have 3k laying around. Before tax return my loan cost for the life of the loan was $44k. Welcome to the land of 0 incentives.
 
TickTock said:
... Hopefully now there will be fewer people buying Leaf's for whom it won't be adequate and the negativity will diminish...

It seems to be that many of those who had unrealistic range expectations of their LEAFs are now moving to ICEVs, PHEVs Tesla S's or one of the "compliance " BEVs with longer range.

="TickTock"
...Am still holding my breath for the replacement cost, though, since I intend to drive my Leaf much further than 60000 miles.

Me too. but I think that in three or four years there may also be aftermarket battery options, and maybe other options from Nissan, beyond what Nissan plans to announce in (hopefully early) Spring.
 
ksnogas2112 said:
edatoakrun said:
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?
Umm...yeah. Not everyone leases and given a recent post on the federal tax incentive I may only be getting $4-5k. Factor in loan interest, car taxes which had to be included in loan since I didnt' have 3k laying around. Before tax return my loan cost for the life of the loan was $44k. Welcome to the land of 0 incentives.

Why did you not lease, which would have given you (almost) the entire $7500 tax credit?

You cannot consider the the loan costs as a factor in the price. Wherever you choose to borrow money, at whatever rate, is your own decision, and your own responsibility.
 
edatoakrun said:
Maybe I should add to my earlier post, that while the cost of this additional warranty coverage for all 2011-2013 LEAFs may not be very large, it is a cost that will have to be passed on to all future LEAF buyers (and perhaps the buyers of replacement batteries) if The LEAF is ever to be profitable to Nissan.

So, all future LEAF buyers who do not subject their cars to those factors, such as high temperature, high SOC over time, etc. that accelerate capacity loss, will neccessarilly be subsidizing those LEAF buyers who do.

You're welcome...

My LEAF experiences long periods with over 100 F temperatures in the Summer, and it's ~29 degrees outside, right now.

Any of you Arizona LEAF owners want to guarantee my battery capacity will be "70%" on this date in 2015, and pay the cost for my warranty?

edatoakrun said:
...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.
You forgot one point. All of those future Leaf owners will not be new cars. There will be used cars on the market that will be giving a bad reputation to the new car market, it's a cycle. This is why cars such as Camry is such a good seller, used ones are reliable and keep on running. The warranty is only in effect for 5 years so it will not be in effect for most used cars (it won't even cover those that financed for more than 60 months). As to your reference about those "who do not subject their cars to those factors, such as high temperature, high SOC over time, etc. that accelerate capacity loss, will neccessarilly be subsidizing those LEAF buyers who do", I can only say that without early adopters testing the limits of a vehicle that was clearly not tested properly and marketed as one that was, I defer to your post above in regards to the warranty being put into place and say to you, "You're welcome...".
 
As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?
Still, it is better than "no capacity warranty".

It appears that this warranty kicks in when the capacity bars
indicate BELOW 9 bars, thus when it only shows EIGHT bars, right?

The 12th bar is lost at about 85%, then loss of each bar below the 12th
would indicate another APPROXIMATELY 7.5% loss, right?

So, the car loses the 11th bar at about 77.5%
Lose the 10th bar at about 70%
Lose the 9th (showing 8 bars) at ABOUT 62.5%, right?

So, if your car has is down to about 63% of the original
capacity, it is still likely to be displaying NINE capacity bars,
and thus not yet BELOW 9 bars.

If my LEAF gets down below about 45 miles of useful range,
it will have lost much of its usefulness to me, especially
if the QC infrastructure has not grown well.

However, it might still be useful to somebody who only
commutes 30 miles round trip to work.

For me, the cost of a new battery pack (or all new modules)
becomes an important plan-ahead number.

Right now, in this chilly season, looking at GIDs, my car
appears to be down only about 5%, after 11,000 miles
in a "mild" climate, with gentle use over 21 months.

But, in the heat of summer, it appeared to be down
about 12%, which was rather more alarming.
 
ALLWATZ said:
This is why cars such as Camry is such a good seller, used ones are reliable and keep on running. The warranty is only in effect for 5 years so it will not be in effect for most used cars (it won't even cover those that financed for more than 60 months).

Which is why the battery replacement cost is so important. Suppose, after 20 years, in Seattle area, the usual story on a Leaf is "Can't kill it, needs little maintainance other than a $4k battery pack every 150k miles or 10 years, and tires of course, just keeps on going"... The used market will be fine. The story wouldn't be as good for the Leaf in Az, of course, and I'd expect most of the Leafs there would have left for cooler climates. Perhaps the Ford Focus BEV or the Teslas will have the same kind of record... This sort of history for at least one type of BEV will probably be necessary for wide adoption.
 
garygid said:
As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?

Counting GIDs, yes.

Counting range or real capacity, no. For example:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:percent_Capacity_vs_Percent_Gids.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
garygid said:
As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?...

Lose the 9th (showing 8 bars) at ABOUT 62.5%, right? ...

Wrong, quite possibly.

Since most all range tests of cars with lost bars (all from hot climates so far) indicate capacity loss as displayed by bars is not as great as indicated by the percentages you quote, it is entirely possible that the "approximately 70 percent of its original battery capacity" Nissan stated is still there when the ninth bar is lost, does indicate the approximate actual capacity loss in hot climates.

The unfortunate omission in Nissan's Warranty announcement, IMO, is any mention of when or if our LEAFs energy consumption reports will be made accurate. As far as I am concerned, I paid not only my Car and the battery, but for the reasonably accurate reports of energy use from my LEAF's gauges, and the compilation of this information as reported by Carwings.

We will never really have an accurate view of our actual battery capacity and the percentage loss over time, until the "gauge problem" is repaired.

="garygid"

...Right now, in this chilly season, looking at GIDs, my car
appears to be down only about 5%, after 11,000 miles
in a "mild" climate, with gentle use over 21 months.

But, in the heat of summer, it appeared to be down
about 12%, which was rather more alarming.

Shouldn't this be taken as an indication that the gid count is extremely unreliable as an indication of battery capacity, and so your "alarm" was (and is) unfounded?
 
WetEV said:
garygid said:
As stated, this is not a 70% warranty, but it is a 62% warranty, right?

Counting GIDs, yes.

Counting range or real capacity, no. For example:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:percent_Capacity_vs_Percent_Gids.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's exactly what I keep trying to tell everyone. Is there significant capacity loss in very hot states? Yes, definitely. Is it as bad as the Gid-o-meter or the capacity bars indicate (based on what the service manual says)? Definitely not, according to our own range test that Tony Williams arranged. I don't think it is fair to Nissan to omit this material fact.
 
Those look like Summer (Hot) GIDs.
How did you gather the "capacity" data so "accurately"?

I was speaking of the capacity percentages stated by Nissan
in their service manual (or a recollection thereof).

Seems like 100% Capacity should be 100% GIDs, at least
for cool-weather GIDs.

I read 88% hot-weather GIDs, but now 95 or 96% cool-weather GIDs.
 
I think this is a very positive response from Nissan. I also plan to attend the PHOENIX event on Jan. 8th. I will not require charging. I am available mostly any time that day. SilverLEAF will arrive in my RED 2011 Nissan LEAF with 11 bars and 10,000 miles.
 
the only way to know whether Nissan was fair or foul in the development and marketing of the LEAF is to go ahead with that lawsuit and get all the corporate emails between engineering and the decisionmakers.

wanna know about the tire and tms, as well as hundreds of other compromises? it will all be in there. will you find sloppiness, deception, cost-cutting, mistakes, incompetence?

one thing that irks me are the tires. the Ecopias were weak sisters, but when i put on MXV4s -- very well-rated, high rolling-resistance tires -- I took a real hit in range. it was no accident that the Ecopias were the OEM.
i could go 50 miles for my roundtrip commute on 8 bars with the Ecopias. with the mxvs, i was into the 10th bar sometimes and always the 9th on the same commuting trip. (the change began the very first time i tried the new tires, so it has nothing to do with battery wear.) there were scores of decisions by Nissan similar to the tire choice, so Nissan could market a 100-mile car, or whatever they said.

all that into account, my experience has been very positive after 16 months; colored by living in the perfect EV climate and having L1 charging at work about 6 months into the game.
so i have a warm spot for NISSAN. the car works for me.
regardless, i want a battery replacement price and i want a 10-bar warranty.
 
Stoaty said:
...That's exactly what I keep trying to tell everyone. Is there significant capacity loss in very hot states? Yes, definitely. Is it as bad as the Gid-o-meter or the capacity bars indicate (based on what the service manual says)? Definitely not, according to our own range test that Tony Williams arranged. I don't think it is fair to Nissan to omit this material fact.

Nice to hear reality entering into the discussion of capacity loss.

As I posted over three months ago:

edatoakrun:

Below, in my opinion, is an accurate short summary of the test results, and significant conclusions, based on the partial release of test data:

After selecting LEAFs nationwide, whose drivers believed them to have some of the largest range losses, a recent range test in Phoenix showed less than the range loss as had been expected, by relying on what the test showed were inaccurate capacity bars displays, and "gid" counts.

One outlier on the low side got only 59.3 miles. The unknown conditions experienced by this LEAF during over 29,000 miles of use, make it impossible to determine if any factor or factors of use contributed to this car's relative under-performance.

While the other eleven of the twelve did all have close to the highway range (and many, even more) that Nissan had estimated for new LEAFs in its promotional materials, many, but not all, seemed to show a significant reduction from the higher "new" LEAF range, as estimated by another source, Nissan Technical Bulletin NTB11-076a.

There was large variability between the LEAFs individual ranges, of between 66.1 and 79.6 miles. Inadequate test protocols could only seem to explain a small part of the large range disparities, between all twelve cars.

We can now conclude, in all likelihood, that many or all LEAFs have a a significant flaw or flaws in their energy use reports, that make it difficult to determine with great precision what capacity or range loss has been experienced by any LEAF, either from new, or from an assumed standard range.

Alternate means of testing of the battery capacity, such as by measuring the charge accepted, might allow more accurate battery capacity results, from which standardized ranges at m/kWh use levels, could be calculated.

However, all data indicating accuracy or inaccuracy of all m/kWh reports from the test LEAFs, has so far been withheld, by the promoter of the range test.

Stoaty:
Ed, we already know your opinion. Please give it a rest.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10040&start=90" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Back
Top