2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

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.
dwl said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Pack replacement #1 of 4 is in process. Dealer confirmed capacity loss and new pack has been ordered. Supposed to be here in a week.
Six weeks later no new battery and nobody can tell us when it will arrive.
(New pack ordered around March 21st)
Now seven weeks and any sign of new battery ?
Was busy with other things and didn't have a chance to hound them this week, but wasn't notified it was in or anything. Fortunately range for work and back is still sufficient.
 
We have a report of 1 bar loser on a 30 kWh car in Santa Cruz, CA at https://www.facebook.com/groups/BayLeafs/permalink/1734816023242718/, built 1/2016. Pic shows 21,699 miles and he said it was 2 days before the 2 year anniversary.

Santa Cruz doesn't get very hot. This is pretty terrible compared to my 5/2013 built '13 (my 1st bar lost on 11/21/17 at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=511915#p511915). I live and work in much hotter parts of the Bay Area than Santa Cruz.

There is a reply mentioning that some folks in the Bay Area lost their 1st bar a year ago and some their 2nd bar already.
 
edatoakrun said:
What is your source for, and definition of, "charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A."?
The 88% value a guess based on several documents. The one at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2012Leaf.pdf for the older Leaf is one example. Hopefully we may get a better idea of that efficiency when charge via EVSE and discharge cycles are completed with DC current monitoring on the pack. It may not be very accurate but we are now getting a lot more cars with one bar lost which is nominally 20% less capacity so should be obvious if in correct ball park.
 
dwl said:
edatoakrun said:
What is your source for, and definition of, "charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A."?
The 88% value a guess based on several documents. The one at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2012Leaf.pdf for the older Leaf is one example. Hopefully we may get a better idea of that efficiency when charge via EVSE and discharge cycles are completed with DC current monitoring on the pack. It may not be very accurate but we are now getting a lot more cars with one bar lost which is nominally 20% less capacity so should be obvious if in correct ball park.
It's a good ballpark, easy to confirm with EPA CSI documents.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42085&flag=1
Bottom of the UDDS results page
 
SageBrush said:
It's a good ballpark, easy to confirm with EPA CSI documents.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42085&flag=1
Bottom of the UDDS results page
This is an excellent link thanks. If I go to a 30kWh version at https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=36671&flag=1 I see Recharge Event Voltage = 240 and Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) = 31.7807. I assume this means a new 30kWh Leaf when charged to 100% from a low SoC (turtle?) should take about 31.8 kWh. At lower SoH the charge time should reduce so overheads should be a similar ratio so this could be a viable method to check SoH.

Does anyone know the details of these tests and what is the starting SoC?
 
dwl said:
SageBrush said:
It's a good ballpark, easy to confirm with EPA CSI documents.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42085&flag=1
Bottom of the UDDS results page
I assume this means a new 30kWh Leaf when charged to 100% from a low SoC (turtle?) should take about 31.8 kWh.
From empty. The calculated usable is then 27.6 kWh in that new LEAF

Circling back to charging efficiency:
27.6 of 31.8 kWh reach the battery, so
276/318 = 86.8%
 
dwl said:
...If I go to a 30kWh version at https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=36671&flag=1 I see Recharge Event Voltage = 240 and Recharge Event Energy (kiloWatt-hours) = 31.7807. I assume this means a new 30kWh Leaf when charged to 100% from a low SoC (turtle?) should take about 31.8 kWh. At lower SoH the charge time should reduce so overheads should be a similar ratio so this could be a viable method to check SoH.

Does anyone know the details of these tests and what is the starting SoC?
These test results are submitted by manufacturers, and there seems to be no extrinsic information on test procedures available.

As I posted previously re the "30 kWh" LEAF epa test results above, with my best guess on available capacity and efficiency:

edatoakrun said:
...Here is my post from several months ago, to which none of the "30 kWh" pack owners ever replied:

="edatoakrun"

If you want to find actual capacity loss on a "30 kWh" LEAF, I'd suggest you test your pack the same way you would for a "24 kWh" pack, albeit with far fewer of the test parameters and variables known, and with only a single (?) "30 kWh" pack having been tested by a high-integrity source.

The EPA test of a 2016 "30 kWh" LEAF (strangely...) shows the same 31.7807 kWh from a 240 volt EVSE required to recharge after both the city (UDDS) and highway cycle tests.

This could correspond to a ~30 kWh (total) pack, that is ~90% accessible, and recharges at ~85% average efficiency over the entire accessible capacity.


Monitor the kWh your pack accepts (and/or the charge time, and voltage) after similar depletion from fully-charged (240 V) pack, after a similar single-event full (to stop) discharge.

Results should be expected to vary a great deal with pack and ambient temperatures, which I don't know for the EPA tests...

In "24 kWh" LEAF pack tests, there is significant variation in charge accepted even for the same pack, in identical tests.

This is evidently due to the LBCs inaccuracy in determining the upper and lower charge limits.

You should expect the same in the larger packs, so do not expect a single test to be determinative...
dwl said:
edatoakrun said:
What is your source for, and definition of, "charging efficiency of nominally 88% at 230V and 16A."?
The 88% value a guess based on several documents. The one at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2012Leaf.pdf for the older Leaf is one example...
Have you looked at all the AVTA documentation on 2011-15 LEAFs?

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-make/nissan

I think you may agree that total (grid-to-road) efficiency for "24 kWh" LEAFs is usually significantly lower than 88%.

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2012Leaf.pdf

I estimate that my 2011 pack has an efficiency range of about 88% (40 C pack temperature, recharging to "80%") to about 82% (recharging to "100%", at ~0 C), which corresponds pretty well to the multiple AVTA test results, which, IMO, seem to me to generally show about 83% to 85% efficiency for a "100%" recharge at moderate temperatures.

Efficiency certainly should also be expected to decline as a pack degrades, but that does not seem to be significant factor for my pack... yet

One major issue is that "efficiency" is really a misnomer when discussing the ratio of kWh accepted/expended in a BEV like the LEAF with passive thermal management, not utilizing an auxiliary battery pack heating system.

A cold battery has lower "efficiency", because energy is utilized to warm the pack to a (desirable) higher operating temperature range.

A warmer pack has much higher "efficiency", as well as higher capacity.
 
One more datapoint for the mix:

2017 lost first bar at 11,200 miles and 84% SOH, Hx=81%. I'm certainly disappointed and expecting to need a replacement within the 8-yr warranty period.

11/16 build date. I bought it fresh off the truck; it was not sitting in the dealer lot.

Location: Texas, so, it's hot, but I park and charge in a covered parking garage. Mostly 6kW level 2 charging. One or two QCs a month.

I always drive in B non-eco.

My recent annual battery check (that useless thing from the dealer) showed 5-stars on every category.
 
chirpyboy said:
One more datapoint for the mix:

2017 lost first bar at 11,200 miles and 84% SOH, Hx=81%. I'm certainly disappointed and expecting to need a replacement within the 8-yr warranty period.

11/16 build date. I bought it fresh off the truck; it was not sitting in the dealer lot.

Location: Texas, so, it's hot, but I park and charge in a covered parking garage. Mostly 6kW level 2 charging. One or two QCs a month.

I always drive in B non-eco.

My recent annual battery check (that useless thing from the dealer) showed 5-stars on every category.


How often do you charge above 80%? theres been speculation that the 30 kwh version degrades because its charged over 80% more often, as well as heat.

i got leafspy at 2500km, and it showed 86% SOH, but it was cold in december. recently ran it to turtle, then charged to 100%. soh is now 88%, at 5500km. i've tried to avoid going over 80%, but mine seems to be degraded right from the get go.
 
chirpyboy said:
One more datapoint for the mix:

2017 lost first bar at 11,200 miles and 84% SOH, Hx=81%. I'm certainly disappointed and expecting to need a replacement within the 8-yr warranty period.

11/16 build date. I bought it fresh off the truck; it was not sitting in the dealer lot.

Location: Texas, so, it's hot, but I park and charge in a covered parking garage. Mostly 6kW level 2 charging. One or two QCs a month.
If your 30 kWh is as bad as the 4 bar losers we've already seen and the replacements are equally bad, I wouldn't be surprised if you receive 2 replacement packs within 8 years/100K miles.
 
smkettner said:
Insane....Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.
Yes, thousands of posts of nearly meaningless ...bar losers and (LBC indicated) capacity losses, outnumbering reports of efforts made to determine actual capacity loss for "30 kWh" packs by about 1,000 to 1.

This is very reminiscent of the "24 kWh" pack MNL experience...
 
marcelg said:
How often do you charge above 80%? theres been speculation that the 30 kwh version degrades because its charged over 80% more often, as well as heat.

I usually try to stop charging around 90% to keep regen braking. Of course there's no setting for 80% charge anymore, so I often don't stop it in time and end up hitting 100%.
 
edatoakrun said:
smkettner said:
Insane....Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.
Yes, thousands of posts of nearly meaningless ...bar losers and (LBC indicated) capacity losses, outnumbering reports of efforts made to determine actual capacity loss for "30 kWh" packs by about 1,000 to 1.

This is very reminiscent of the "24 kWh" pack MNL experience...
For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement. I am looking forward to hearing about the next replacements and what modules are being used.

Thanks for the extra links and I have seen the detailed tests on the 2013 Leafs before - it is a pity they weren't repeated for the 30kWh. On the issue of temperature, the report at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/2013NissanLeafElectricChargingReport.pdf suggests only a few percent difference in capacity as the temperature varies significantly which is a surprise to me. Maybe there was battery heating which could explain the difference between the graph and table.
 
dwl said:
For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement..
And the *only* evidence they accept for warranty replacement.
This is what makes Ed's poo-pooing of the bar changes so ridiculous. He might know better (NOT) than every owner reporting battery degradation but he is sure he knows better than Nissan as well.
 
dwl said:
...For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement...
Nissan's policy is quite beneficial to Nissan, and also to those LEAF owners who lose enough capacity bars to get replacement packs under warranty.

The far larger (?) number of American "30 kWh" pack owners who may find themselves in the same position as so many "24 kWH' LEAF owners (including myself) do today who were not lucky enough to receive warranty replacement packs, and whose only option is to exchange their OE packs under the unsatisfactory terms dictated by Nissan, may not be so satisfied when they face similar circumstances...

dwl said:
...Thanks for the extra links and I have seen the detailed tests on the 2013 Leafs before - it is a pity they weren't repeated for the 30kWh....
With no explanation for the abrupt termination of the AVTA testing program, this appears to be yet another victim of the current war on reality.

This is particularly unfortunate for BEV drivers, since BEV manufactures have managed to avoid many of the standards and accountability mechanisms that government agencies world-wide have established and enforced for ICEV manufacturers.

Without any independent review, BEV manufactures now can specify any BEV pack's "kWh" at essentially whatever they want to, within the uncertainty range of the customer's limited ability to determine.

And the manufactures themselves provide the less-than-fully -detailed EPA test results, the only information on pack capacity available to the public.

It is quite clear to me that my major complaint RE my own 2011 pack is not loss of capacity, which apparently has not occurred more rapidly than Nissan disclosed, but that my pack had significantly less than "24 kW" at delivery, as also appears to have been the case for every 2011-12 LEAF pack subject to testing by the AVTA.

dwl said:
...On the issue of temperature, the report at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/2013NissanLeafElectricChargingReport.pdf suggests only a few percent difference in capacity as the temperature varies significantly which is a surprise to me. Maybe there was battery heating which could explain the difference between the graph and table.
Exactly.

As the graph shows, it actually takes only slightly more energy from the grid to charge a hot LEAF battery pack than a cold one, even though a hot pack provide much greater energy when discharged.

Due to higher efficiency on charge and discharge, you get significantly more of that grid kWh capacity available for traction and other on-road use, due to the higher efficiency (a misnomer) of a hot pack over the entire grid-to-road cycle.

How is this reality reflected in EPA tests submitted by BEV manufactures?

Are passively heated packs like the LEAF required to be tested at some standard temperatures, or can manufactures use ideal (HOT) conditions?

Are actively managed packs tested, the same standard temperatures, or their own optimum efficiency within their temperature control programs?

In testing packs with active thermal management, is the energy used in pre/post conditioning, the heating and/or cooling energy used outside the test cycles accounted for?

I have no idea.
 
Another 1 bar loser on a '17 Leaf at 13K miles: https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan.leaf.owners.group/permalink/1948876365183195/. He says he's in the Washington DC area.
 
Eight weeks now waiting for a new battery. They say they think it will be here in about a week but have no confirmation it has shipped or anything.
 
Lost the fourth bar this morning! 44784 mi. 50.68AH SOH = 63.76% Hx = 56.08% 232 GIDs. 109 L3, 869 L2. Called the local Nissan dealer to set up an appointment to verify the condition and start the replacement process. Since I haven't heard anything from Nissan about an improved battery, it seems likely that I will have to do this again at about 90000 mi. I doubt that a replacement battery will last much longer than the original and with 55000 mi left on the warranty I expect to get a second replacement battery for free as well. That will take me out to about 135000 mi before I junk the car. Not what I was hoping for. I had always expected that the battery would fail under warranty but had expected it to last 75000-85000 mi before dying. Then a second battery would have got me to 150000-170000 mi and 8 or 9 years of operation. At that point, I could either sell it or put a new battery in it (hopefully, from a third party manufacturer) and go another 50000 mi or so. That doesn't seem feasible now with batteries that don't last more than 40K or so. I'll likely sell it off after 6 or 7 years for a pittance. Fortunately, I ought to have a much batter selection to choose from by then.
 
Back
Top