Poll : What is your reaction to 70% / 5 yrs / 60k warranty

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.

Your reaction to the battery capacity warranty is

  • Positive

    Votes: 117 60.9%
  • Negative

    Votes: 33 17.2%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 42 21.9%

  • Total voters
    192
  • Poll closed .
Positive.
Leaf ownership is a choice I made knowing this is the first generation and improvements will certainly come, probably before my lease ends. I still chose to get my first 100% electric car early and have no regrets. I am saving real dollars every month using the Leaf in place of the SUV. Even greater than the $450 savings I realize each month from not buying gas and related services, Nissan Leaf gives me the ability to finally be individually free from gasoline and the problems I see stemming from our dependency on international oil. Thank you Nissan. Remember, all things perish with use and will need to be maintained. I certainly had learned this long before the Leaf.
One more thing, notice where most of the complaints are coming from . It seems counter intuitive that most of us who actually live where we will more likely see battery issues are somewhat positive toward the new warranty. Many of the negative concerns come from the cool zones or even the far north. BTW, we're 73f and sunny today. Could we be suffering from sun stroke?
 
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.
 
I say positive but only because this announcement is a warm up to the real change which will be a battery exchange/purchase program for all LEAFs without regard to degradation or mileage.

iow, this announcement is a smoke screen but obscuring something very good for us.
 
Negative. I lost a bar at 6,771 miles despite impeccable charging and driving habits. I put on about 6,000 miles a year, so I will face a car with only 30,000 miles as it falls out of warranty coverage. I would definitely have leased if I knew that despite low mileage and vigilant battery protecting practices I would already be down 15%. Ideally I will get a buyback offer and immediately lease a new Leaf.
 
My view is positive. My car is just one year old and 10,000 miles so far, but the battery is holding up really well so far.
 
Nubo said:
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.
Looks like is hard to regain lost trust. What about GID as indication of capacity remaining/lost?
 
+1

downeykp said:
My vote was a negative. How is it possible that Nissan did not know that fried batteries were going to be a problem. They had to know there was going to be a problem, but they sold the car anyway. Someone made the decision to hide what they had to of known.
 
I see this as an overwhelmingly positive move by Nissan. I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners. For the vast majority of Leaf drivers, who remain silent, they are not experiencing capacity loss issues they are not posting/complaining about it. And most people who might be interested in an EV has no idea that this is even an issue. The "unwashed masses" have no idea that these cars even exist, let alone the nuances of ownership of an EV.
And for all those who voted this as a negative, don't you have some cute kitten videos on Youtube to vote down as well? :lol:
 
EdmondLeaf said:
Nubo said:
A major positive. It puts a limit on the worst-case scenario, which is absolutely necessary for any mainstream buyers to be able to determine if the LEAF will be a viable option for them. And, the enthusiasts (us) who bought WITHOUT ANY such reassurance, get a bonus of a retroactive warranty. Definitely a step in the right direction.

My only reservation is that it is trivial to adjust the firmware to light up as many or as few "bars" as one would like, so this is potentially a huge loophole. Who's to say that Nissan simply recalibrate the first 3 bars for all LEAFs to "hold" 50% of the SOC, such as the bottom 5 bars do now? Or even worse, adjust on a per-vehicle basis. E.g.: "Here's your LEAF. You will notice that all 12 bars are lighted again"... and you run out of power 40 miles later. Hopefully Nissan is smarter than to walk into that quicksand and I will give them the benefit of the doubt pending the final details.

"Bars" are not an objective measurement. Hopefully the warranty will offer objective terms that both parties can rely upon as true battery capacity measurement.
Looks like is hard to regain lost trust. What about GID as indication of capacity remaining/lost?

A warranty does not depend on trust, rather it is the other way around. It is a contract and needs to be enforceable. For this to be possible the language of the warranty must be unambiguous.

I see no need to base a warranty on "Bars" or "Gids", which are both variable abstractions, when the world already has standard units for energy which are unambiguous and and universally accepted. I would propose the Kilowatt hour. :)
 
TurboFroggy said:
I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners.
capwarrantymnl


Matt, you are joking, right? I get that you, and everyone you know, are doing great in the cool PNW, but are you familiar with the PIA battery study? I believe it shows clearly that range loss is likely something, which affects more than just 0.05% of owners. Granted, there are shades or gray, and not everyone who is significantly affected will feel the same way. It's also clear that you cannot make everyone happy, and some folks have a sunnier outlook than others, but could we at least agree that battery longevity and the viability of EVs in very hot and very cold climates is a significant issue not just for Nissan, but for the EV industry as a whole?
 
surfingslovak said:
TurboFroggy said:
I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners.
capwarrantymnl


Matt, you are joking, right? I get that you, and everyone you know, are doing great in the cool PNW, but are you familiar with the PIA battery study? I believe this shows clearly that range loss is likely something, which affects more than just 0.05% of owners. Granted, there are shades or gray, and not everyone who is significantly affected will feel the same way. It's also clear that you cannot make everyone happy, and some folks have a sunnier outlook than others, but could we at least agree that battery longevity and the viability of EVs in very hot and very cold climates is a significant issue not just for Nissan, but for the EV industry as a whole?

I'm more in the camp there is too much negative spin here and don't log in much anymore. As for very hot and cold climates and places to liver give Simon Winchester's book "A Crack in the Edge of the World" for a perspective on where we choose to live and it's risks.
 
Nubo said:
A warranty ... is a contract and needs to be enforceable. For this to be possible the language of the warranty must be unambiguous.

I see no need to base a warranty on "Bars" or "Gids", which are both variable abstractions, when the world already has standard units for energy which are unambiguous and and universally accepted. I would propose the Kilowatt hour. :)
+1 :idea: :!: :!: :!:
 
surfingslovak said:
TurboFroggy said:
I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners.
capwarrantymnl


Matt, you are joking, right? I get that you, and everyone you know, are doing great in the cool PNW, but are you familiar with the PIA battery study? I believe it shows clearly that range loss is likely something, which affects more than just 0.05% of owners.

As they say, 90% of all statistics is made up.

Remember Plugin study is not scientific i.e. the sample is not representative. So while it is informative - we don't know what % of people are affected. Just like this poll.
 
Nubo said:
A warranty does not depend on trust, rather it is the other way around. It is a contract and needs to be enforceable. For this to be possible the language of the warranty must be unambiguous.

I see no need to base a warranty on "Bars" or "Gids", which are both variable abstractions, when the world already has standard units for energy which are unambiguous and and universally accepted. I would propose the Kilowatt hour. :)

this is certainly the most sensible thing said on this post.
why are we dealing with bars, let alone bars that can be manipulated to carry any value whatsoever.
have firmware will travel.

that joke aside, wouldnt it be better, as Nubo points out, to have a warranty that says the battery will be upgraded when it no longer holds 75% of the 21.4 kWh (or whatever the exact OEM number is).

that would be sensible, measurable, not corruptible, and clear.
 
evnow said:
As they say, 90% of all statistics is made up.

Remember Plugin study is not scientific i.e. the sample is not representative. So while it is informative - we don't know what % of people are affected. Just like this poll.
Yes, and I believe there are people out there using the very same argument against climate change. Nobody has ever claimed that the data on MNL or in the Wiki was authoritative or representative. That's hardly possible, and difficult to obtain. However, this does not mean that significant trends cannot be spotted and acted upon. I believe that the PIA study is the most thoughtfully conducted independent inquiry into the matter to date. But don't take my word for it, here is a quote from Andy:

Andy Palmer said:
I would encourage every LEAF owner to digest PIA’s data, which came from over 240 vehicles, with contributions from over 25 states, two Canadian provinces, and the UK, representing over 3 million miles driven.

I think it's counterproductive to continue to paint the issue as a fabrication of the vocal few. Yes, range loss will not be a problem for the majority of owners, and certain regions will do exceedingly well. That does not mean that this issue does not need to be addressed, and we have to trivialize it.
 
TurboFroggy said:
I see this as an overwhelmingly positive move by Nissan. I think there is a lot of negativity on MNL around the battery problem that affects %0.05 of all Leaf owners. For the vast majority of Leaf drivers, who remain silent, they are not experiencing capacity loss issues they are not posting/complaining about it.
I think this is a really naive thing to say that only 0.05% of LEAF owners are affected by this issue.

If only affect 0.05% of all LEAF owners, then why do you think Nissan is so worried that they can only offer a lame 9 bar warranty instead of at least man up and back up their 80% after 5 years claim (or 70% after 10 years claim) instead?
 
I voted negative because Nissan has now demonstrated that they really don't put the money where their mouth is to back up their claim of 80% capacity after 5 years as printed in their owners manual. It can only be positive if they give a 10 bar in 5 year/60K warranty to 2011 and 2012 owners.

If they want to change their tune now for the 2013 MY and give only a 9 bar warranty for 2013 models and later, that's fine and dandy. Tell that to 2013 customers up front about this new NORMAL and let them decide.

But in order to show that they've got the early adopters' back like they claim they do, man up and give a 10 bar 5yr/60K warranty for 2011 and 2012 owners because that's the old NORMAL that they advertised and sold to 2011 and 2012 buyers. People based on this false information to make their purchase decision after all. If it's not false information, then why not back it up? If it's false information, then own up to giving people false information and take responsibility and make it right.
 
Nekota said:
I'm more in the camp there is too much negative spin here and don't log in much anymore. As for very hot and cold climates and places to liver give Simon Winchester's book "A Crack in the Edge of the World" for a perspective on where we choose to live and it's risks.
That's too bad, I enjoyed reading your posts. Are you in a regional FB group? This forum is frequently targeted for tech support and troubleshooting questions. Many contributors are highly technical, and the discussions can meander and go off on tangents. It's the nature of the beast, but that does not mean that positive outcomes cannot be achieved.

Azdre's first post in the 500-page long thread looked like a typical troubleshooting or tech support question as well. Although it ended up taking a lot of space over the last six months, which not everyone appreciated, it doesn't mean that it was all bad. Nissan has obviously paid attention, and if other EV manufacturers will follow suit, and start offering voluntary capacity warranty in the future, then it might have been worth all the heartache.
 
thankyouOB said:
Nubo said:
A warranty does not depend on trust, rather it is the other way around. It is a contract and needs to be enforceable. For this to be possible the language of the warranty must be unambiguous.

I see no need to base a warranty on "Bars" or "Gids", which are both variable abstractions, when the world already has standard units for energy which are unambiguous and and universally accepted. I would propose the Kilowatt hour. :)

this is certainly the most sensible thing said on this post.
why are we dealing with bars, let alone bars that can be manipulated to carry any value whatsoever.
have firmware will travel.

that joke aside, wouldnt it be better, as Nubo points out, to have a warranty that says the battery will be upgraded when it no longer holds 75% of the 21.4 kWh (or whatever the exact OEM number is).

that would be sensible, measurable, not corruptible, and clear.

+1
 
Back
Top