2015: Battery Data Report @ 100% Charge

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.
Evoforce said:
o00scorpion00o said:
DNAinaGoodWay said:
^ there's another one.

I wonder if the "lizard" battery is actually engineered to perform better in cooler climates. Like Japan.
Click to expand...

I would say the changes to the current 24 Kwh Gen form July 2013 on are more than more heat resistance.

There could be better cycling performance and higher current capability or better C charging rates and perhaps discharge C rates also.

Could be improved cycling ability also or a combination of all, small changes can have a big impact.

The 30 kwh is a different chemistry altogether and it could last a very long time. Mine is due to arrive about the 3rd week in February, it charges faster also from the DC charger.
Click to expand...

I hope conclusions aren't being drawn on something that is unproven. I would be curious to see your comparison data to support your position. I am continuing to lose slightly less than 1% a month even in a more temperate climate (winter) with the lizard battery. I submit that they are not more heat resistant as touted by Nissan.

They did not make any further claims as to durability as far as I know. And could you point me to where they have said that the 30kWh battery is a different chemistry? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this to see if they should be called the penguin battery as someone else has suggested.
Click to expand...

In relation to the 30 Kwh being a different chemistry in the link below.

Getting back to the current Gen 24 Kwh, I have said reputedly now that there are changes quiet evident now from U.K and Irish leafs that compared to the 2011-2013 battery are lasting much longer for the same mileage/time and possibly in similar climates. While heat may still be an issue in hot climates the results are quiet clear now that the current 24 kwh battery is lasting much longer and it could also be the case that there is added heat resistance which makes the effects of fast charging even in cooler climates less noticeable.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100775_nissans-60-kwh-200-mile-battery-pack-what-we-know-so-far
 
o00scorpion00o said:
Evoforce said:
o00scorpion00o said:
I would say the changes to the current 24 Kwh Gen form July 2013 on are more than more heat resistance.

There could be better cycling performance and higher current capability or better C charging rates and perhaps discharge C rates also.

Could be improved cycling ability also or a combination of all, small changes can have a big impact.

The 30 kwh is a different chemistry altogether and it could last a very long time. Mine is due to arrive about the 3rd week in February, it charges faster also from the DC charger.
Click to expand...

I hope conclusions aren't being drawn on something that is unproven. I would be curious to see your comparison data to support your position. I am continuing to lose slightly less than 1% a month even in a more temperate climate (winter) with the lizard battery. I submit that they are not more heat resistant as touted by Nissan.

They did not make any further claims as to durability as far as I know. And could you point me to where they have said that the 30kWh battery is a different chemistry? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this to see if they should be called the penguin battery as someone else has suggested.
Click to expand...

In relation to the 30 Kwh being a different chemistry in the link below.

Getting back to the current Gen 24 Kwh, I have said reputedly now that there are changes quiet evident now from U.K and Irish leafs that compared to the 2011-2013 battery are lasting much longer for the same mileage/time and possibly in similar climates. While heat may still be an issue in hot climates the results are quiet clear now that the current 24 kwh battery is lasting much longer and it could also be the case that there is added heat resistance which makes the effects of fast charging even in cooler climates less noticeable.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100775_nissans-60-kwh-200-mile-battery-pack-what-we-know-so-far
Click to expand...

But I haven't seen this head to head comparison in facts and numbers, only your speculation. The link you supplied is for a 60kWh battery that is not in a production car yet. I would be interested in stats on the premise you have been talking about of the 13's-16's being better than 11's or 12's or even comparisons between 13's-15's and detailed reporting on percentage losses. Are people in your area compiling any comparison numbers?

Thank you for the link on the 60kWh battery though, it is very informative. I find myself disappointed that the 60kWh battery of the future still doesn't have cooling. We have already had one round of lizard batteries supposedly being better for hot climates. How many times can I be fooled? One more time?

If I end up starting with a 200 mile car that degrades 10-11% a year, I will have a 100 mile car after only 5 years of use meaning a 50 mile trip away from home then come back not at highway speeds.. Who knows what an 8 bar loss will be as far as related to percentage of degradation calculation. Will 8 bars still be considered a 40 mile range at under 45 mph an acceptable degradation loss before replacement? I know that the 60kWh battery that you supplied the link for, probably only Nissan has the answers to those questions and will not be forthcoming with those revelations.
 
Evoforce said:
o00scorpion00o said:
Evoforce said:
I hope conclusions aren't being drawn on something that is unproven. I would be curious to see your comparison data to support your position. I am continuing to lose slightly less than 1% a month even in a more temperate climate (winter) with the lizard battery. I submit that they are not more heat resistant as touted by Nissan.

They did not make any further claims as to durability as far as I know. And could you point me to where they have said that the 30kWh battery is a different chemistry? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this to see if they should be called the penguin battery as someone else has suggested.
Click to expand...

In relation to the 30 Kwh being a different chemistry in the link below.

Getting back to the current Gen 24 Kwh, I have said reputedly now that there are changes quiet evident now from U.K and Irish leafs that compared to the 2011-2013 battery are lasting much longer for the same mileage/time and possibly in similar climates. While heat may still be an issue in hot climates the results are quiet clear now that the current 24 kwh battery is lasting much longer and it could also be the case that there is added heat resistance which makes the effects of fast charging even in cooler climates less noticeable.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100775_nissans-60-kwh-200-mile-battery-pack-what-we-know-so-far
Click to expand...

But I haven't seen this head to head comparison in facts and numbers, only your speculation. The link you supplied is for a 60kWh battery that is not in a production car yet. I would be interested in stats on the premise you have been talking about of the 13's-16's being better than 11's or 12's or even comparisons between 13's-15's and detailed reporting on percentage losses. Thank you for the link on the 60kWh battery though, it is very informative. I find myself disappointed that the 60kWh battery of the future still doesn't have cooling. We have already had one round of lizard batteries supposedly being better for hot climates. How many times can I be fooled? One more time?
Click to expand...

Opps, wrong link.

Here you go

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...le-range-with-30-kwh-battery-leaf-s-unchanged

You may think I'm talking **** but the data is there and I only have the time to give you two examples of the Gen 1 Leaf V the Gen 1.1 Gen 1.5 or whatever you want to call it from July 2013.

This is a U.K Leaf

https://transportevolved.com/2014/0...eaf-loses-first-capacity-3-years-52-8k-miles/

https://transportevolved.com/2015/0...ur-nissan-leaf-loses-its-second-capacity-bar/

Here's a link to the leaf spy data of an Irish leaf, from this blog. https://selfficiency.wordpress.com/automotive/nissan-leaf-diary/

screenshot_2014-10-17-11-33-09.png


Notice that he lost 11% after 62,000 miles and 488 DC and 1893 L2 ?

Now compare to the 203 U.K Taxi that after 100,000 miles and 102,000 miles lost 11% but the difference is 1,788 DC charges and 7,249 L2. That is a vast improvement if you ask me !

http://insideevs.com/100000-mile-nissan-leaf-taxi-shows-12-5-battery-degradation/

10923257_10206644148243273_7088522337677513261_n-450x800.jpg


So it's not just a moderate climate after all !
 
Of your 2 transportevolved links are highlighting 2 separate 2011 leafs respectively and one original report is nearly 2 years old and the other is nearly a year old. Nor are they compared to 13's-15's. I find it interesting in the comments sections of the articles that not all commenters are having as good of luck or the same results.

I still am not seeing any proof that the two 2011 leaf's in these articles prove that the 13-15 or even 16 are any more durable then the 11's-12's. These two articles still do more focusing on bars than good data points. That being said, I wish my cars would be doing so well!

The third article (selfsufficiency link) also is a bit older article or saga about a 2011 leaf and still no data or comparisons on how you arrive at your belief that 13's and newer are more durable.

I'd also like you to look at the 4th link insideeves. The comment section at the bottom of the article is again very interesting in regards to opinion on battery changes as they apply to durability.

On the 16's with 30kWh batteries, it only says that they have a higher energy density. That is how they can pack 30kWh into a space that was previously designed for 24kWh but not that they are designed better on durability.

There is no question in my mind that almost everywhere, other than hot desert like regions, are having better result. But I still don't see how you arrive at saying any year battery, is more durable than the next, if compared to identical conditions. I still would like to see that. By the way, thanks for indulging me in this quest.
 
o0OscorpionO0o, I might be leaning some in your direction. See my post on page 51 in the thread "Post Your Battery Degradation Results" and the work through on maybe why 2011 cars with lizard batteries are showing different Leafspy numbers. It leads me to a theory that 2013-15 have slightly increased energy density per cell.
 
Evoforce said:
o0OscorpionO0o, I might be leaning some in your direction. See my post on page 51 in the thread "Post Your Battery Degradation Results" and the work through on maybe why 2011 cars with lizard batteries are showing different Leafspy numbers. It leads me to a theory that 2013-15 have slightly increased energy density per cell.
Click to expand...

They might have a small increase in energy density but it doesn't explain why the 2013+ Leaf battery stats are vastly better than the 2011-13 batteries, in moderate climates at least.

I believe they have improved the cycling capability, C rate and heat resistance, even small changes can have a big impact.

Some here choose to ignore the improved battery in the current gen, but that's up to them.
 
LeafMuranoDriver said:
Nobody really chimed in when a couple posters said that these stats are not to be relied on as current usable capacity.

What's the point of LeafSpy then?
Click to expand...

I'll chime in. I've been monitoring my 2015 pack religiously since a few months after I got it and I think that the reason this statement was made was because it looks like there's a lot of changes in the 2015 pack and BMS that indicates a greater hidden capacity as well as intentional usable capacity fluctuations between seasons, at least this is what I've seen in mine. I think that they can be relied upon to determine capacity, but there are some variable that are unknowns and not as predictable as prior packs.
 
tkdbrusco said:
LeafMuranoDriver said:
Nobody really chimed in when a couple posters said that these stats are not to be relied on as current usable capacity.

What's the point of LeafSpy then?
Click to expand...

I'll chime in. I've been monitoring my 2015 pack religiously since a few months after I got it and I think that the reason this statement was made was because it looks like there's a lot of changes in the 2015 pack and BMS that indicates a greater hidden capacity as well as intentional usable capacity fluctuations between seasons, at least this is what I've seen in mine. I think that they can be relied upon to determine capacity, but there are some variable that are unknowns and not as predictable as prior packs.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

I still think what LeafSpy reports is accurate.
 
tkdbrusco said:
BMS that indicates a greater hidden capacity
Click to expand...
Where is this evidence that indicates that the BMS is hiding capacity?

tkdbrusco said:
intentional usable capacity fluctuations between seasons
Click to expand...
Which way is usable capacity moving in hot vs cold seasons?

You have to keep in mind that your typical automobile ECU has a lot of maps which dictate how certain parameters are determined.

At there very least, there is going to be a temperature compensation map and an internal resistance map and these will affect all sorts of things - maximum available power, charge rate, regen rate, reported SOC, etc.

If you go back to the original '11-12 LEAF firmware, there was a large reported seasonality in GID values depending on summer/winter. But if you actually looked at the usable capacity as measured by amount of energy used to charge from the wall, this capacity did not also go up with GIDs in the winter. It simply slowed down. The P3227 update largely eliminated this effect, but it appears that the '13+ LEAFs still have this artifact.

Another artifact is that the reported available capacity goes up temporarily if you heavily cycle the battery, especially if you QC. But the effect is short-lived at best. Perhaps what happens here is that the heavy cycling / QC raises the pack temp so that the internal resistance drops. But because it appears that the temperature compensation map is slow to act (otherwise you'd see different values depending on ambient temp), but the internal resistance of the pack drops when hot, so it temporarily boosts what it thinks the capacity is.
 
The main thing that I notice is that the reserved capacity at the bottom is significantly higher in the winter than it is in the summer. For example, when I am at a low charge (10% or so) during the winter, I am reading about 17-18% on Leaf Spy and max GIDS of roughly 268-270 (This year at least), but when the weather warms up and I'm at 10% charge, I'm reading about 14% via Leaf Spy. Therefore I'm thinking that the decrease in Gids may at least be partially due to the additional reserved capacity at the bottom due to temp. Why they would add this capacity, I'm not sure. Perhaps they've realized that it benefits the battery over the long term.
 
There is more capacity after LBW and VLBW on the 2015 than on the 2011, but the capacity is not reserved. The BMS (LBC) will let the voltage drop down to 270 or 280 (depending upon how well balanced the pack is) before the main contactor opens on the 2015 and it charges to 395.5 volts. I believe this wider voltage range gives slightly more range than the 2011.

Edited to add: The charging and discharging voltages on the 2015 have not changed in almost 1 year and over 18,000 miles of driving.

Gerry
 
We have a 2015 Nissan Leaf S. I began using LeafSpy in August at 6,500 miles. Here's what I have to date at 8,900 miles. The bump at the end is from a 500 mile trip and 8 or 9 quick charges. We charge to 100% on an L2 at home except when we're on a trip where we may have access to a DCQC. We've charge twice since we returned and it appears the SOH and Gids are drifting down again since we returned.

RTEmagicC_Nissan_Leaf_GIDs_01.jpg.jpg


Paul Gipe
 
I have data for every month, but to keep this from becoming too unwieldy, I'll only include sample data points for 2015:

12/28/14 / 93mi / 9 L1/L2s & 1 QC:
96.4% SOC / 289 GIDs / 22.4 kWh / 63.28 AHr / 100% SOH / 97.45% Hx

02/28/15 * 1,477mi * 54 L1/L2s & 1 QC * 4.4 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.3% SOC * 281 GIDs * 21.0 kWh * 59.72 AHr * 96% SOH * 92.08% Hx

04/27/15 * 2,927mi * 95 L1/L2s & 1 QC * 4.5 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.3% SOC / 287 GIDs / 22.2 kWh / 61.02 AHr / 98% SOH / 94.22% Hx

06/29/15 * 4,264mi * 132 L1/L2s & 2 QC * 4.4 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.2% SOC * 292 GIDs * 22.6 kWh * 62.99 AHr * 100% SOH * 97.09% Hx
Funny that these are essentially the best numbers I've ever recorded--right in the middle of the hot, central valley, California summer!

07/31/2015 * 4,695 mi * 138 L1/L2s & 5 QC * 4.4 mi/kWh (for the past month):
96.6% SOC * 286 GIDs * 22.2 kWh * 61.26 AHr * 98% SOH * 94.61% Hx


During October 2015, I decided to use the CHAdeMO Quick Charger at my local Nissan dealer on a regular basis, as sort of an experiment, and my battery has--perhaps coincidently--really gone to hell during this time:
10/01/2015 * 6,281 mi * 187 L1/L2s & 7 QC * 4.4 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.3% SOC * 280 GIDs * 21.7 kWh * 57.73 AHr * 95% SOH * 91.41% Hx
10/31/2015 * 7,281 mi * 211 L1/L2s & 16 QC * 4.5 mi/kWh (for the past month):
96.2% SOC * 268 GIDs * 20.8 kWh * 57.69 AHr * 92% SOH * 88.37% Hx
(Note that these are the worst/lowest values I have recorded since buying the car about 10 months ago. I am NOT going to use the QC on a regular basis again!)


12/01/2015 * 8,007 mi * 239 L1/L2s & 17 QC * 4.0 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.2% SOC * 268 GIDs * 20.8 kWh * 56.98 AHr * 91% SOH * 86.89% Hx

01/01/2016 * 8,593 mi * 261 L1/L2s & 18 QC * 3.7 mi/kWh (for the past month):
95.5% SOC * 263 GIDs * 20.4 kWh * 57.18 AHr * 92% SOH * 87.32% Hx

01/31/2016 * 9,308 mi * 289 L1/L2s & 18 QC * 3.8 mi/kWh (for the past month):
97.3% SOC * 266 GIDs * 20.6 kWh * 56.59 AHr * 91% SOH * 86.09% Hx

Relative to what others are reporting, I think I must have one of the worst 2015 lizard batteries ever produced. It doesn't matter to me much right now, but I suspect I'll be even more unhappy in another 2-3 years.
 
GerryAZ said:
There is more capacity after LBW and VLBW on the 2015 than on the 2011, but the capacity is not reserved. The BMS (LBC) will let the voltage drop down to 270 or 280 (depending upon how well balanced the pack is) before the main contactor opens on the 2015 and it charges to 395.5 volts. I believe this wider voltage range gives slightly more range than the 2011.

Edited to add: The charging and discharging voltages on the 2015 have not changed in almost 1 year and over 18,000 miles of driving.

Gerry
Click to expand...

How does this explain the difference in bottom capacity in the winter compared to the summer? ex. 10% dash showing 17% in winter on leaf spy, and 10% dash showing 14% on leaf spy in summer?
 
tkdbrusco said:
GerryAZ said:
There is more capacity after LBW and VLBW on the 2015 than on the 2011, but the capacity is not reserved. The BMS (LBC) will let the voltage drop down to 270 or 280 (depending upon how well balanced the pack is) before the main contactor opens on the 2015 and it charges to 395.5 volts. I believe this wider voltage range gives slightly more range than the 2011.

Edited to add: The charging and discharging voltages on the 2015 have not changed in almost 1 year and over 18,000 miles of driving.

Gerry
Click to expand...

How does this explain the difference in bottom capacity in the winter compared to the summer? ex. 10% dash showing 17% in winter on leaf spy, and 10% dash showing 14% on leaf spy in summer?
Click to expand...

I have not noticed that variation, but have not been looking for it. I suspect it is just variation in data on the CAN bus from the LBC. I do know that "Gids" count down VERY slowly toward the bottom of VLBW so I use pack voltage as a better indicator of how close I am to Turtle. The 2015 battery and associated CAN bus data are significantly different from the 2011 at low charge levels.

Gerry
 
MartinChico said:
Relative to what others are reporting, I think I must have one of the worst 2015 lizard batteries ever produced. It doesn't matter to me much right now, but I suspect I'll be even more unhappy in another 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
I feel the same. Paulgipe's results and mine are very similar to yours. We've both been under 260 GIDs.

I'm definitely disappointed and have had the car less than a year and 6,500 miles.

The only difference between our 3 cars is the SOH, I'm at 99% while yours are lower but our GID's, kWh, Hx, etc... are all similar. Interesting!!
 
Most recent reading on my 2015 S, 23,700mi, mfg 4/14

270 Gids
20.92 kwh
97.30 SOC
86.53 SOH
87.62 HX
57.33 Ahr
72.1 Degrees

Warmer temps so I'm guessing that this bumped up the GIDS a bit. Kind of surprised with a SOH at 86% and 270 GIDS
 

Similar threads

L
Are there any benefits to fully cycling the battery periodically (full to turtle)?
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Mcflocki
M
L
Research Data on 2011-2015 Leaf Range/ Battery Health
Replies
13
Views
5K
SageBrush
S
G
Lost Another Bar (10 bars) HELP analyze LeafSpy Results
Replies
7
Views
4K
gmcjetpilot
G
F
Used leaf suspicious battery SOH
Replies
12
Views
4K
DaveinOlyWA
D
C
Buying a used leaf in cool climate & Leafspy data
Replies
1
Views
5K
LeftieBiker
L

Latest posts

Back
Top