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.
April update. 348 GID's 76.08AH SOH=95.72% Hx=84.27% 59185 total mi. 14256 mi on new battery. 13 DCFC and 272 l2 charges on the new battery. The new battery continues to do better than the old one but we are still in the cool weather portion of the year. The next six months should show the truth of whether the software update and/or new battery are really are the improvement Nissan claims it is. At the current rate of deterioration, this battery should last at least 4-5 years before it no longer fits my needs. That would put me at 130K-150K miles before I junk it. I suppose the battery might be worth a couple of grand at that point as part of a solar backup system or TOU power shifter.
 
2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16

30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:

AHr= 82.34
SOH= 103.60%
Hx= 97.45%
Odo= 18,729 mi
QC= 31
L1/L2= 660

Battery Software update already installed

4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SOH= 93.08%
Hx= 79.36%
Odo= 27,556 mi
QC= 36
L1/L2= 902


3-year lease was up this month. Just got 3 month extension.
 
SageBrush said:
iPlug said:
2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16

30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:
AHr= 82.34

4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98

That is just depressing.

Yup. Value of car after and leading up to end of battery warranty will probably be quite low.

We were considering buying out the lease, but this puts more pressure on the no go side.

For now, with a 3 month lease extension, we will see what opportunities there are by the end of the second quarter.
 
iPlug said:
2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16

30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:

AHr= 82.34
SOH= 103.60%
Hx= 97.45%
Odo= 18,729 mi
QC= 31
L1/L2= 660

Battery Software update already installed

4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SOH= 93.08%
Hx= 79.36%
Odo= 27,556 mi
QC= 36
L1/L2= 902


3-year lease was up this month. Just got 3 month extension.

That is way too much loss
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
iPlug said:
2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16

30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:

AHr= 82.34
SOH= 103.60%
Hx= 97.45%
Odo= 18,729 mi
QC= 31
L1/L2= 660

Battery Software update already installed

4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SOH= 93.08%
Hx= 79.36%
Odo= 27,556 mi
QC= 36
L1/L2= 902


3-year lease was up this month. Just got 3 month extension.

That is way too much loss
Re-ran the OBDII/LeafSpy numbers again this morning with different SOC, and the numbers almost identical, a tad less on all metrics. Can wait 3 more months to get into a new lease or possibly buy new BEV if the terms are right.
 
May update. 345 GID's 75.58AH SOH=95.09% Hx=83.01% 60627 total mi. 15708 mi on new battery. 15 DCFC and 299 l2 charges on the new battery. The new battery continues to do better than the old one but weather is just starting to warm up. By amp hours the battery is down about 9% but by the GIDs values I've only lost about 5%. I'm beginning to believe that either the software update really worked or that the new battery is much better than the original one. The old battery was down 12% after 10 months as compared to 5% for the new one, That is still too rapid with a projected loss of 40% or more over 8 years. It would leave me at about 70-75% in 5 more years at 150K mi. My best guess is that I will still have close to 80% left as I cross the 100K mark so a third battery is not likely. It does give me 2-3 years to look for a replacement car.
 
johnlocke said:
May update. 345 GID's 75.58AH SOH=95.09% Hx=83.01% 60627 total mi. 15708 mi on new battery. 15 DCFC and 299 l2 charges on the new battery. The new battery continues to do better than the old one but weather is just starting to warm up. By amp hours the battery is down about 9% but by the GIDs values I've only lost about 5%. I'm beginning to believe that either the software update really worked or that the new battery is much better than the original one. The old battery was down 12% after 10 months as compared to 5% for the new one, That is still too rapid with a projected loss of 40% or more over 8 years. It would leave me at about 70-75% in 5 more years at 150K mi. My best guess is that I will still have close to 80% left as I cross the 100K mark so a third battery is not likely. It does give me 2-3 years to look for a replacement car.

The SW update plays a huge part. There was one who just got the update a few weeks ago and gained 13% SOH. She is quite a ways from a battery exchange.
 
The person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/437741293059829/permalink/1212144445619506/ posted there and at least 2 other closed FB groups. He has a 30 kWh Leaf and wrote
Bought my 2016 SV new in August of 2016...
-Lost my first bar Oct 2017
23,384 miles
-Lost my second bar Apr 2018
33,025 miles
*Got the battery update/recall (30kWh)
June 2018, and got my two bars back.
35,505
-Lost my first bar AGAIN Aug 2018.
38,803 miles
-Lost my second bar AGAIN today May 2019
51,088 miles
Live in temperate climate.
Don't have LEAF Spy.
...Still love my little LEAFY
His profile says he lives in Utah.

It does seem like these 30 kWh packs are a step backwards from the "lizard" packs, even post-update.
 
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
 
Another person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/NissanLeafOwners/permalink/2461228413975133/?comment_id=2461265303971444 (initials WL) also replying to the same person's (initials TC) post (in another group) mentions they're down 2 bars on their 30 kWh Leaf, post-update (with about 17.8K miles). Don't know where they are now, but in older posts, they (WL) said they live in Los Angeles.
 
cwerdna said:
Another person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/NissanLeafOwners/permalink/2461228413975133/?comment_id=2461265303971444 also replying to the same person's (initials TC) post (in another group) mentions they're down 2 bars on their 30 kWh Leaf, post-update (with about 17.8K miles). Don't know where they are now, but in older posts, they said they live in Los Angeles.

Based on what I've seen (not that much) it looks to me like we're seeing a pack with heat resistance in between the Canary and Wolf packs. My first nickname of "Lettuce pack" may be too harsh. "Cabbage Pack"...?
 
cwerdna said:
The person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/437741293059829/permalink/1212144445619506/ posted there and at least 2 other closed FB groups. He has a 30 kWh Leaf and wrote
Bought my 2016 SV new in August of 2016...
-Lost my first bar Oct 2017
23,384 miles
-Lost my second bar Apr 2018
33,025 miles
*Got the battery update/recall (30kWh)
June 2018, and got my two bars back.
35,505
-Lost my first bar AGAIN Aug 2018.
38,803 miles
-Lost my second bar AGAIN today May 2019
51,088 miles
Live in temperate climate.
Don't have LEAF Spy.
...Still love my little LEAFY
His profile says he lives in Utah.

It does seem like these 30 kWh packs are a step backwards from the "lizard" packs, even post-update.

Seen worse in the Pacific NW. Primary driver for degradation is likely the end user. He didn't say anything about his charging habits. It still comes back to Nissan not providing any options other than "just plug it in"
 
LeftieBiker said:
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.

I think LG capability to supply cells was another factor. Its not like they are having problems finding customers.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.

I think LG capability to supply cells was another factor.
Their contract with AESC forces them into a non-competitive, one supplier only position. This is not an LG issue, this is Nissan eating crow to partially exit AESC.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.

The "games" to which I refer are claiming that this is all just a BMS programming error, and that their BMS update will fix the problem - which never really existed according to them. I was suspicious of this from the first, because a factory programming error should have affected ALL of the BMS units manufactured in a certain time frame - not just some of them.
 
LeftieBiker said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.

The "games" to which I refer are claiming that this is all just a BMS programming error, and that their BMS update will fix the problem - which never really existed according to them. I was suspicious of this from the first, because a factory programming error should have affected ALL of the BMS units manufactured in a certain time frame - not just some of them.

Do you, or have you done computer programming of embedded systems for a living, Leftie?
 
Do you, or have you done computer programming of embedded systems for a living, Leftie?

Nope. And despite not having a degree in automotive engineering I managed to discover, at my desk at home, that Nissan was using the old battery chemistry in early build 2013 Leafs. Sometimes all you need is a firm grasp of general scientific and technological principles - like realizing that all the BMS units manufactured at the same time, at the same factory, would have all received the same firmware, and that all of those BMS units - not just some of them - would then misreport the pack's capacity. You are engaging in a logical fallacy that is very similar to the "appeal to authority" that argues that only those who have been officially titled as experts in a field can understand that field, and are thus the only people to be believed in any discussion of that field. Like Ford engineers, in a discussion of why Pintos were exploding in low speed accidents. Or Boeing engineers, in a discussion of why their planes only needed one airspeed sensor, and why a system relying entirely on that sensor should be able to override pilot input...

Had this been just a 'batch issue' then Nissan wouldn't be trying to reprogram every 30kwh pack BMS. No, they found that some packs responded to the "update" by regaining all lost capacity bars for at least several months, and doing that was far easier and cheaper than replacing the packs themselves. It appears that in reality, there are quite a few poor quality 30kwh packs out there, some very good ones, and an unknown number that belong to one, or neither, category.
 
Back
Top