Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

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.
drees said:
Yes, I will take it to the dealer first and see what happens from there. Frankly, I'd be satisfied if Nissan offered partial compensation, which was what I tried to push for at part of the Nissan LAB group almost two years ago. The all or nothing aspect of the warranty sucks for something you can watch slowly wither away.

My objection is that yes, you can only watch it slowly wither away, but Nissan has been allowed, with their P3227 update, to potentially change the point at which that 9th bar withers away. Which is why if I was a month or two out of the warranty, or within 3000 miles of the warranty, I would definitely take the approach of Tim Lee at first, but if that didn't work I'd seriously look into filing a case against them and getting discovery on what exactly that update did in regard to capacity bars disappearing vs how it was calculated originally. (I've heard that one company even set their computer programming to fool emissions testing. :eek: )

I have mentioned before Leafer's case with the BBB where he claimed and successfully argued, when he was beyond the settlement warranty period, that it was due to defective batteries. I'd say that's the situation in all LEAFs, as it is similar to putting a Grade 5 bolt in the wing of an airplane that should have gotten a Grade 8 bolt, good enough unless it encounters turbulence, in which case it is bad, and of course my example would be much worse than in the case of the LEAF which remains on the ground.
 
Finally hit 8 bars today. 22 days after the 5 yr. mark. Here are my specs:
Mileage: 33866
Gids: 180
SOC%: 95.8
V: 392.3
KWH: 14.0
Ahr: 41.87
SOH%: 63
Hx:%: 42.53
Max V Diff. (mv): 12
Temp Diff. (*): 3.2
Hopefully Nissan will work with me.
 
Lambtron said:
Finally hit 8 bars today. 22 days after the 5 yr. mark. Here are my specs:
Mileage: 33866
Gids: 180
SOC%: 95.8
V: 392.3
KWH: 14.0
Ahr: 41.87
SOH%: 63
Hx:%: 42.53
Max V Diff. (mv): 12
Temp Diff. (*): 3.2
Hopefully Nissan will work with me.

Pretty much identical to mine on the stats but I qualified for a new battery under warranty. It is terrible that you missed it.
 
Lambtron said:
Finally hit 8 bars today. 22 days after the 5 yr. mark. Hopefully Nissan will work with me.
Good luck. I was 2 months past 5 years, paid $120 for dealer diagnostics (after having paid about the same 2 months earlier) and Nissan would not provide any out of warranty assistance at all. Dealer was useless - all they'd say is that it's "normal". EV hotline was useless. Escalating the issue to managers proved useless as well. The car is almost useless for my wife's commute. 30 miles to LBW on a 80% charge and 45 miles to LBW on 100% charge are typical used to get 55 miles on 80% charge and 70 miles on 100%. Trips once taken worry free on a 80% charge the first year are no longer easily done on a 100% charge.

Way to take care of what should be your biggest fans, Nissan. :roll:
 
drees said:
... 45 miles to LBW on 100% charge are typical used to get ...70 miles on 100%...
How many "miles" do you get below the LBW?

Looks like ~one third of my available capacity (on average, the LBC is not very consistent on when it gives the battery warnings) is below the LBW now.

On my most recent range/capacity test on 8/15/16 I got ~101.1 total miles, and ~6,500 ft. total ascent and descent, using the capacity from "100%"/192 gids to VLBW/24 gids.

~60.1 miles and ~1500 ft. net ascent to LBW (the first-I got the LBW twice on this trip) and another ~40.0 miles and ~1500 ft. net descent from that LBW to the VLBW.

I expect I had another ~15 (slow) "miles" left in the pack before turtle, but I'm still reserving that capacity for when-and-if I really need it...
 
edatoakrun said:
drees said:
... 45 miles to LBW on 100% charge are typical used to get ...70 miles on 100%...
How many "miles" do you get below the LBW?
I estimate about 12 miles to turtle once LBW hits.

I did drain it to turtle in 35.4 mi on a 80% charge last month (got LBW around 25 miles on that one), but that was at a dismal 3.4 mi/kWh. FWIW, it took 17.9 kWh to recharge to 100% after that according to Blink. I never took the car to turtle the first year I had the car, but reports of 25-26 kWh weren't uncommon, so that matches up fairly closely with the gauges.

Also interesting is that the other day I topped it off from 80%-100% and it took 4.7 kWh. I rarely do that anymore because I need the range of a 100% charge now, but looking back at my charging notes, the most I ever saw the car take from 80-100% was 5.0 kWh, but lots of times it would only take 3.5-4.2 kWh to charge from 80-100%.
 
edatoakrun said:
On my most recent range/capacity test on 8/15/16 I got ~101.1 total miles, and ~6,500 ft. total ascent and descent, using the capacity from "100%"/192 gids to VLBW/24 gids.
At what average speed? What average speed on the uphill portion? What efficiency from the dash?
 
Stoaty said:
edatoakrun said:
On my most recent range/capacity test on 8/15/16 I got ~101.1 total miles, and ~6,500 ft. total ascent and descent, using the capacity from "100%"/192 gids to VLBW/24 gids.
At what average speed? What average speed on the uphill portion? What efficiency from the dash?
Slow, only a few mph slower, and 7.4 m/kWh, using CarWings/NC reports of 98.3 miles/~13.4 kWh.

But the CW miles are obviously incorrect, and I don't find that ~13.4 kWh use report plausible over this route of 100.43 miles and~6460 ft ascent and descent (plus another ~0.7 miles and ~150 ft of descent and ascent on my driveway that Google can't map):



So, usingactual miles driven/estimated actual kWh use:

101.1 miles/14.7 kWh =~6.9 m/kWh

See the explanation I posted on p 735, RE another long trip:

="Stanton" What was your miles/kW?
There are many incorrect ways to answer that question (three of which are below) and one fairly accurate correct answer.

Below are the results for the entire Vacaville (Nut Tree Plaza L2) to Corning (Heritage RV park) segment of my trip:

Actual miles driven/LBC (gid) kWh use report:

~114.4/14.3 = 8.0 m/kWh

Odometer miles driven/CarWings kWh use report (the Nav screen m/kWh display):

114.2/14.8 = 7.7 m/kWh

CarWings miles driven/CarWings kWh use report (the dash m/kWh display):

111.4/14.8 =7.5 m/kWh

Actual miles driven/estimated actual kWh use:

~114.4/~16.5 = ~6.9 m/kWh

Back to "average speed" of the 8/13 trip.

That might be a misleading gauge of efficiency on a trip like this, with such varying terrains and speeds.

The ~35 miles of 55mph highway was driven mostly at 30 to 45 mph.

The ~55 miles of lower-speed paved roads was driven mostly at 20 to 30 mph.

The ~10 miles of gravel and cinder roads were all driven under 20 mph.

Additionally, I try to limit kW use to 20 below the LBW ( which I got twice, at 59.8 and again at 79.0 odometer miles) and 10 kW after the VLB, which I go at 97.9 miles.

That means I try limit my speed to ~20 mph on the second ascent of Hatchet mountain (I actually did the last mile at ~15 mph behind a slow truck on 8/13/16) and it takes me close to 10 minutes for the final steep climb up my driveway.

I can tell you the total time for the first trip on 8/13 ( see report below) was ~114 minutes, and the return trip (with the additional miles driven, all off-highway, to bring the pack to VLB) took ~167 minutes, but both of those times include many stops for four stop signs, four stoplights, two stops for other reasons, and most significantly, at least a dozen full stops (sometimes waiting for several minutes to let the road clear) required to let faster traffic pass on the highway.



That's probably the slowest I've ever driven this route, and probably the last time I'll be trying for 100 miles without driving past the VLBW.

Traffic is far heavier on this route than it was when I started driving this trip in my LEAF in 2011 (during the great recession, when gas cost ~$5 a gallon).

Now, having to pull over and stop on the two-lane highway for passing vehicles so frequently (and I try to do so before I obstruct them) when I drive this slowly is not only a PIA, but using the friction brakes to do so reduces overall efficiency and range.

And while there is, IMO, little chance my pack has actually lost ~31% of available (or total) capacity since delivery as my LBC indicates, I estimate (from metered recharge capacity) that my available capacity is down ~20% from that available from a 24kWh total pack, and probably about 17% less than It had available at delivery ~47k miles ago.
 
edatoakrun said:
Stoaty said:
edatoakrun said:
On my most recent range/capacity test on 8/15/16 I got ~101.1 total miles, and ~6,500 ft. total ascent and descent, using the capacity from "100%"/192 gids to VLBW/24 gids.
At what average speed? What average speed on the uphill portion? What efficiency from the dash?
Slow, only a few mph slower, and 7.4 m/kWh, using CarWings/NC reports of 98.3 miles/~13.4 kWh.
A more meaningful test would be how far you can go at 60 MPH on a level road, since that would allow comparison with Tony's test of a new Leaf and accurately determine loss of capacity.
 
I bought a used 2012 with 11 capacity bar. Lost another one few weeks back at about 32k Miles.

Ahr = 50.62
SOH = 77%
QC = 45
 
As of this morning September 15, 2016 we lost our third bar. We now sit at 47.49Ahr, 72%SOH and Hx 51.78, 48,960 miles 4585 L1/L2 and 3 DCQC charges.

palmermd said:
As of August 1st 2015 we lost our second bar. We now sit at 51.51Ahr, 78%SOH and Hx 60.23%, 37,016 miles, 3245 L1/L2 charges and 0 DCQC charges.

palmermd said:
... As of today, 1st of June 2014 we have 54.91Ahr SOH 83% and Hx 68.63%, 25,382 miles, 1890 L1/L2 charges and 0 DCQC charges. ...

Seems like we lose one every year. Not sure why its been slower than others in the area, but I guess that is a good thing since were way beyond the warranty period.
 
1 new member to the 11-bars-club here. :|

This, after 3,5 years and 37.00KM ( 23.000miles) , very temperate maritime climate ( I only see 6 temperature bars 5-10 days in a year), 20 quick-charges a year and the first 1,5 year mostly charging to 80% (90% of the time).

Dissapointed, but knowing this was coming, for the last half year I experienced about 20% (!) less performance of the battery pack, although all 12 capacity-bars were still showing.

I have always suspected that the battery of my Leaf was below average. It showed and shows all signs of higher internal resistance.

2rr1d80.png
 
EV1 said:
1 new member to the 11-bars-club here. :|

This, after 3,5 years and 37.00KM ( 23.000miles) , very temperate maritime climate ( I only see 6 temperature bars 5-10 days in a year), 20 quick-charges a year and the first 1,5 year mostly charging to 80% (90% of the time).

I'm convinced now that 2011 Leaf had different chemistry compared to 2014 Leaf.
Very similar climate, few days of 6 bars per year.
Twice as much of mileage compared to you but 2,4 years old. Same charging behavior (80% for 95% of the time).
And Hx and SOH values still above 90%.

SOH value has 7% difference but Hx is 20%. Climate and usage pattern is very similar.
 
EV1 said:
Dissapointed, but knowing this was coming, for the last half year I experienced about 20% (!) less performance of the battery pack, although all 12 capacity-bars were still showing.

I'm curious, could you elaborate on how to measured this 20%? Did you drive from 100% charge to turtle? Or just down to LBW? If the latter, be aware that the LBW will happen at a higher relative SoC as the battery degrades. It seems that the amount of energy available below LBW is constant. Therefore, the degradation is taken "off the top".
 
I'm convinced now that 2011 Leaf had different chemistry compared to 2014 Leaf.

There isn't any doubt about that. The only questions are how much did Nissan change the chemistry in April of 2013, and is the second generation pack the same as the "lizard" pack, or just an incremental improvement between 4/13 and 2015.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
be aware that the LBW will happen at a higher relative SoC as the battery degrades. It seems that the amount of energy available below LBW is constant. Therefore, the degradation is taken "off the top".

LBW always happens at 50 GID limit and VLBW at 25 GID limit. So yes. Amount of available energy is almost the same (it fluctuates in both directions as calculations are sometimes off).

What happened in 2015? Another battery "upgrade"?
 
arnis said:
GetOffYourGas said:
be aware that the LBW will happen at a higher relative SoC as the battery degrades. It seems that the amount of energy available below LBW is constant. Therefore, the degradation is taken "off the top".

LBW always happens at 50 GID limit and VLBW at 25 GID limit. So yes. Amount of available energy is almost the same (it fluctuates in both directions as calculations are sometimes off).

What happened in 2015? Another battery "upgrade"?

2015 Model Year happened in 2014. So what happened in 2015 is they kept selling what they made in 2014. But yes the 2015 MY car had a change in battery chemistry.

Nissan announced it here in this thread http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=17168 on Jun 27, 2014

First build date on a 2015 Model is 04/14 as discussed in http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=20706&start=200

But you are highly off topic for a thread about 2011/2012 Leafs so please take this to another thread if you need to ask more questions.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I'm convinced now that 2011 Leaf had different chemistry compared to 2014 Leaf.

There isn't any doubt about that. The only questions are how much did Nissan change the chemistry in April of 2013, and is the second generation pack the same as the "lizard" pack, or just an incremental improvement between 4/13 and 2015.

Nissan reps and executives have said on more than one occasion that the 2013 rev was a packaging change more than a chemistry change and that the 2013 packs didn't change chemistry significantly.
 
dhanson865 said:
LeftieBiker said:
I'm convinced now that 2011 Leaf had different chemistry compared to 2014 Leaf.

There isn't any doubt about that. The only questions are how much did Nissan change the chemistry in April of 2013, and is the second generation pack the same as the "lizard" pack, or just an incremental improvement between 4/13 and 2015.

Nissan reps and executives have said on more than one occasion that the 2013 rev was a packaging change more than a chemistry change and that the 2013 packs didn't change chemistry significantly.
Enormous epirical evidence clearly shows that chemistry was improved around April 2013. Batteries after that time degrade MUCH slower than those before.

We had a early 2013 that was totaled and replaced with a later 2013. It was day and night difference. The early 2013 degraded more in 6 months and 6,000 miles than the second car did in almost 3 years and 36,000 miles.
 
dm33 said:
dhanson865 said:
LeftieBiker said:
There isn't any doubt about that. The only questions are how much did Nissan change the chemistry in April of 2013, and is the second generation pack the same as the "lizard" pack, or just an incremental improvement between 4/13 and 2015.

Nissan reps and executives have said on more than one occasion that the 2013 rev was a packaging change more than a chemistry change and that the 2013 packs didn't change chemistry significantly.
Enormous epirical evidence clearly shows that chemistry was improved around April 2013. Batteries after that time degrade MUCH slower than those before.

We had a early 2013 that was totaled and replaced with a later 2013. It was day and night difference. The early 2013 degraded more in 6 months and 6,000 miles than the second car did in almost 3 years and 36,000 miles.

No, empirical evidence shows that degradation was reduced after build dates of 04/13. Chemistry is not the only thing that could be changed. Nissan stated that chemistry did not change significantly so it's reasonable to assume it's another factor or factors.

Again this is off topic in this thread and should be taken to another thread if you wish to continue discussing it.
 
Back
Top