sub3marathonman
Well-known member
cwerdna said:It was established from day 1 that gradual capacity loss wasn't covered. It only became covered per the announcement in near end of December 2012 (cited at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=462549#p462549) thanks to factors like the Phoenix media noise and range test and unbeknownst to us, a class action lawsuit that was happening in parallel.sub3marathonman said:By stating that gradual capacity loss is not covered, it is logical therefore to state that non-gradual capacity loss is covered.
Non-gradual capacity loss examples would be something like one or a small # of bad cells, loose connection inside the pack, some other defect that causes a sudden huge loss in capacity. We've seen a few instances of that.
Why is that? He waited until AFTER 5 years past he original in-service date to get the condition verified. His capacity warranty expired, which was arrived at due to the settlement.sub3marathonman said:So is the OP outside of the warranty, I don't think so,
No. The battery isn't "defective". It still functions. Gradual capacity loss was never originally warranted.sub3marathonman said:Nissan has once again been able to side-step their responsibilities for releasing a battery in 2011 that, I would estimate, nobody on this forum would state isn't defective.
It really does suck that we later learned of all the caveats as to Nissan's claims or that they were totally false (e.g. high temperature is murder on these batteries (e.g. Phoenix fiasco), their claim of "we don't need thermal management" was bunk, 70% to 80% remaining capacity after 10 years is a pipe dream for almost everyone except the mildest of climates, etc.)
It really does suck that the capacity warranty isn't pro-rated and legally obligates Nissan to provide nothing once you're past 5 years or 60K miles. Would be better if there was a decreasing scale of how much they'd cover the further you went past either 5 years or 60K miles. Unfortunately, the settlement didn't provide for that.
Well, I stand corrected! There is at least one person who thinks the 2011 batteries aren't defective. I'm just wondering why all those people had their 60% capacity packs replaced, those still "functioned." If you can make it to the end of your driveway after 5 years, even though Nissan made a grand show of promising 80% remaining capacity, why would people complain? Why did GM replace all those engines with "piston slap" awhile back, they still functioned, and people couldn't get used to a bit of noise? Of course the fact that the GM engine was on the verge of catastrophic failure might have entered into the replacement of a "functioning" engine. And as far as I understand, "gradual capacity loss" is still not covered, as the Klee settlement provided the line between "gradual" and beyond gradual into unacceptable.
The quote out of context showing I was incorrect about the warranty because he waited past 5 years is also interesting, as I was NOT referencing the Klee settlement, but rather the initial, as written in the "2011 Nissan LEAF Warranty Information Booklet," with a copyright of 2010 , and I was NOT referring to "gradual capacity loss" as implied by cwerdna's quoting liberties, and I stated as much several times in my posting.
People here can on the one hand attempt to claim Nissan has not installed defective batteries, while simultaneously saying Nissan should have been obligated to replace, on at least a pro-rated basis, battery packs that are still "functioning" beyond what the Klee settlement mandated.
For the record, in case people don't understand, I believe, and unless Leafer77 lied in his postings it seems that the BBB also believed, at least in Leafer77's case, that a claim for a defective battery, made under the original 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty made by Nissan and NOT part of a lawsuit settlement, was valid.