davewill
Well-known member
They likely have significant hardware and software differences from the home units, if they have much in common at all. I wouldn't hesitate, personally.mwalsh said:
GE WattStation Problem Thread (Was: Dead on Day 2 of use.)
- Thread starter jms
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
mikeEmike
Well-known member
Is there a specific TSB to refer to for the software update?jpokoraw1 said:
siai
Well-known member
I also need to know the TSB or whatever number is used to find this update. I use a Wattstation and when I asked my dealer about the update he gave me the "deer in the headlights" look.
sethr
Active member
Here's an interesting tidbit: I called my dealership to set up my annual battery check, and asked about the GE Wattstation software fix. He said there was nothing in the computer for me under my VIN. Then I called Nissan, and mentioned this thread on MNL and the fact that someone posted they got the software fix. I was told yes, there is a software fix but right now it is only being given to Leaf owners who have had the OBC fail while using the Wattstation! I said; "Why not be proactive and save a load of money? Isn't it cheaper to fix the software now, rather than replace the OBC after it fails AND do the software fix?" The representative agreed with me. I was then given a case number, and told a request would be put in to do it now, before my OBC fails. I'll let you know if it actually happens.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
sethr said:
i know it seems strange to wait for it to break, but the incident of issues is still probably low. It seems high to us because every event is magnified on this forum.
I am guessing Nissan is taking the stance they are taking because they are analyzing BOTH the failures and successes and you might be a success??
sethr
Active member
Here's an update as promised - I just got a call from the Nissan representative. Nissan is only doing the software fix for those who have had the OBC damaged; they will roll out the software fix for others at some indefinite future time. As for me and everyone else who has a Wattstation, we can just cross our fingers every time we plug in. No wonder Nissan's reputation is so poor. My previous car was a 2001 Toyota Prius. As new technology, it too had growing pains. I recall a specific instance when they discovered a VERY FEW Priuses had corrosion on the high voltage battery contacts. They called them ALL in for service immediately, and the fix was put into EVERY car, regardless of whether it showed any corrosion or not. I know because I was there: my Prius had no corrosion, but it got new contacts anyway. It really was an extremely similar situation: just a very few isolated instances where there was a problem. It was the reaction that was so different from Nissan's. It's called being PROACTIVE. Notice that Toyota is number 1 in Consumers Reports on brand perception. They didn't even mention Nissan. I think we can see why. Since the rep. told me it was a recorded line, I told her I had a message for the "higher ups" and said rather specifically what I think of Nissan not being proactive, comparing them to Toyota (mentioning the above). I wonder if anyone will listen. Maybe this is something for the advisory committee to bring up?
Nubo
Well-known member
sethr said:
To be fair, I'd say these are different situations. A specific physical modification for terminal corrosion is worlds different than modifying firmware that controls many interrelated functions, where "fixes" can have unintended consequences. I'd imagine the certification process to "bless" a firmware revision for general release, is quite rigorous. It not only has to fix the complaint, but everything else in the car has to continue functioning properly.
hat being said, it HAS been quite awhile since these "WattStation" issues came up... Like they say on Top Gear, "How hard could it be?" (with all of the self-deprecation implied of course)
siai
Well-known member
OK all. I just picked up my LEAF from the dealer from an appointment to get the "Whateverstation" software fix installed. They called an said it had been done. I had been complaining about this since I first heard about it (as I use a Wattstation) and didn't want to smoke the vehicle charger if it didn't need to happen. They finally got approval from Nissan to do the install. I asked the tech about what the fix entailed and he told me he knew nothing about it at all. He said he hooked the LEAF up to his test equipment and redied it for the installation. Nissan remotely installed the update and then removed the update program from the dealers system---he has no idea what was done, what was changed, TSB #, etc. There was no paperwork involved. As some others who have had this done noticed, there seems to be some timing differences in the contactors that close in the vehicle after power has been applied by the EVSE. That's all I know.
davewill
Well-known member
There's another reason they may be hesitant. Changing that timing could conceivably cause some EVSEs to stop working with the LEAF.siai said:
sethr
Active member
After reading that siai got the "Wattstation fix" without having the OBC burn out first, I called Nissan again. I and pointed out that even though they had said before that only those whose OBC's had to be replaced were getting the update, here was someone with a Leaf exactly the same age as mine who got the update without waiting for something bad to happen. So, squeaky wheel gets the grease - I am now approved for the firmware fix. I go in next week (the Leaf tech is taking a few vacation days). I only use my Wattstation, never travel far enough to use any other EVSE, so I'm not concerned about the possibility that there might be problems with the timing using other EVSE's. I look forward to plugging in without crossing my fingers first.
siai
Well-known member
Sethr, after reading your last post it looks like our LEAFs must have been shipmates on the trip from Japan judging from our close serial numbers and same delivery dates. I almost always use the Wattstation but have charged on the dealer's Aeroviornment charger and a city owned Eaton charger with no problems since the update.
sethr
Active member
I got my G.E. Wattstation fix applied yesterday, and thought I would post the "part number" for the OBC reprogramming from my paperwork. It seems strange to have a part number for a non-physical repair, but it's # 296A0-3NA3A. The update, counting the technician being on the phone to Nissan for some 15 minutes first, took approximately an hour. Hope this helps everyone else.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
sethr said:
ya, it is strange but not the first time I have seen a software tweak assigned a "part number" it was pretty common at Ford. in the old days, it kinda made sense because that is how the CD containing the update was cataloged. now, i think its just a limitation of the system that requires the field to be filled in
Nubo
Well-known member
This is one area in which Tesla seems light-years ahead. Why, in this day and age, is a firmware update treated like some holy relic, complete with a pilgrimage, priestly consultations and laying on of hands? Does your car smell like incense now?
My goodness Nissan, it's just some data. Make it available over the air and be done with it.
My goodness Nissan, it's just some data. Make it available over the air and be done with it.
^^^
yeswaydude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 75
Nubo said:
The difference between a Silicon Valley car company and a modeled-on-Detroit car company. ;-)
I work in the software business, and I can tell you that most people are still afraid of software -- especially a company that still uses part numbers for software! So it doesn't surprise me that they're taking their time rolling out this "patch".
Fortunately, all the problems with the WattStation sparked up just as I was being told that there was a 30-day lead time on the delivery of the one I'd just ordered from Lowe's, so I cancelled and was later able to obtain a Blink for cheap. I've still yet to even see a WattStation in operation!
bowthom
Well-known member
Hello,
I get it, It's not some patch to your laptop software that can and does go bad often when updating "in the air" as you say. This is a piece of hardware that , if it gets hosed, somebody's life is a stake along with huge financial liabilities. As cool as technologies are I'm glad my car does not require host > network > cell > carwings reliability to operate. We go weeks at a time when "services" do not function normally.
I understand fully that want to have as much control as humanly possible. Have you ever worked tech support for the general public? I rest my case.
I get it, It's not some patch to your laptop software that can and does go bad often when updating "in the air" as you say. This is a piece of hardware that , if it gets hosed, somebody's life is a stake along with huge financial liabilities. As cool as technologies are I'm glad my car does not require host > network > cell > carwings reliability to operate. We go weeks at a time when "services" do not function normally.
I understand fully that want to have as much control as humanly possible. Have you ever worked tech support for the general public? I rest my case.
Nubo
Well-known member
bowthom said:
The point is to design a system where software updates don't get hosed.
Network reliability is not an issue in any case. Checksums and verification methods can be put into place so the update doesn't happen unless the correct patch has been fully downloaded and verified. Additional routines for backing out or entering failsafe if there is a problem during application, and additional verifications when installed.
If for some reason you are not in an area where the updates can be received over the air, a visit should always still be an option. But for most people it just shouldn't be necessary.
