DANandNAN
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:25 am
Location: St. Johns/Jacksonville

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:46 am

KJD wrote: The Nissan customer service people do NOT have time to read this forum. If you people have a problem with the battery pack you need to take time to report it to Nissan.
But, don't forget that they're downloading info from every Leaf every time they plug into the OBDII or RS232 (both?) at the dealer. They're not compiling that data because it's fun, they're doing it to study and learn. They have to know. They had to know before most Leaf owners because so few own a meter. Nissan can't blame this on a lack of owners reporting issues when their own computers are regularly downloading the necessary data.
Chevy Volt! - I hate burning gas but the Volt can't be Turtled!
Waiting for a 2013 Leaf w/6.6 or FFE to accompany the Volt and complete our EVolution

azdre
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:28 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:47 am

I guarantee that more than 5 people had reported their issue to dealers. As far as we understood this was considered reporting the issue. For a while range wasn't affected to the extent to hinder use of the car, so escalations weren't happening. When normal use of the car was affected, this is when we started escalating as per the guidelines in the warranty book. First dealer GM, then dealer customer relations, then Nissan customer relations.

As an everyday Joe, the dealer is the face of Nissan and was getting marching orders from corporate on what to tell us about how this is normal. How on earth would most of us know that visiting the dealer did not constitute reporting the issue? The dealer should be the one able to help us, not a CSR in a phone bank somewhere. It makes no sense. If nothing else, I'm glad that this news story exposed the disconnect between reality, dealers, and NNA corporate.

Stoaty
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:52 am

DANandNAN wrote:But, don't forget that they're downloading info from every Leaf every time they plug into the OBDII or RS232 (both?) at the dealer. They're not compiling that data because it's fun, they're doing it to study and learn. They have to know. They had to know before most Leaf owners because so few own a meter. Nissan can't blame this on a lack of owners reporting issues when their own computers are regularly downloading the necessary data.
Any Leaf that has had a one year battery check (or has been checked because the owner complained to the dealer about losing capacity) has already sent detailed data to Nissan. Perhaps we should ask Nissan to release their data for Phoenix area owners that have had their Leaf for more than one year (and thus had a battery check to keep "warranty" in force). Even a summary of that data with mean, median and standard deviation of capacity loss would put this issue to rest... unless, of course, the data shows what I suspect--that the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

DANandNAN
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:25 am
Location: St. Johns/Jacksonville

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:55 am

Stoaty wrote:Any Leaf that has had a one year battery check (or has been checked because the owner complained to the dealer about losing capacity) has already sent detailed data to Nissan. Perhaps we should ask Nissan to release their data for Phoenix area owners that have had their Leaf for more than one year (and thus had a battery check to keep "warranty" in force). Even a summary of that data with mean, median and standard deviation of capacity loss would put this issue to rest... unless, of course, the data shows what I suspect--that the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.
Yup, but everyone knows there's not a chance in heck they will hand over that info :(

Heck, "they" couldn't even let Mark Perry see it :lol:
Chevy Volt! - I hate burning gas but the Volt can't be Turtled!
Waiting for a 2013 Leaf w/6.6 or FFE to accompany the Volt and complete our EVolution

User avatar
OrientExpress
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2331
Location: San Jose, Ca

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:12 am

TomT wrote:Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of statistical analysis. You need to compare the number that have lost capacity in Phoenix to the total number sold IN Phoenix. Including others outside of these hot areas is completely meaningless.
For this purposes of inciting hysteria or reinforcing a a preconceived argument, yes, always select the smallest sample possible, and make sure that the sample has data to support the conclusion one is trying to convey.

However in the larger scheme of things, all that cherry picking does is to discredit the argument. In this situation, it gets hot everywhere, not just in Phoenix, ergo a sample that includes the entire fleet universe is correct.

Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.

What is unusual is that this year has been special across the US with almost every historical high temp record shattered and new historical highs being set. My point is that it is the hottest this year, especially in the southern US, since records have been kept.

So the environment is outside the boundaries of normal 100 year heat ranges, and probably outside the range in which Nissan (and most other automobile manufacturers) designed to. But despite unprecedented historical extreme temperatures, the fact that only 0.0010625% of the fleet is experiencing questionable performance, despite that the vehicles are probably operating reliably in an environment that is outside their design envelope, is truly outstanding. The only complaint is that they need to be "filled-up" more frequently.

So despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread of a perceived travesty of trust, despite the historical extreme temperatures that not only Arizona but the world is experiencing this year, every LEAF, even in a cherry picked sample continues to start every day, no matter how hot it is, and perform with all its got.
Current EV
2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime XSE PHEV
Supersonic Red
Delivery January 29 2021

Prior LEAF:
2018 LEAF SL
Gun Metalic
Delivery April 10 2018
Return March 12 2021

User avatar
TomT
Posts: 10656
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:09 pm
Delivery Date: 01 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 000360
Location: California, now Georgia
Contact: Website

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:17 am

Gosh, I sure wish I could live in the same isolated and eutopean world that you inhabit... :lol:
OrientExpress wrote:
TomT wrote:Once again, you fail to grasp the concept of statistical analysis. You need to compare the number that have lost capacity in Phoenix to the total number sold IN Phoenix. Including others outside of these hot areas is completely meaningless.
For this purposes of inciting hysteria or reinforcing a a preconceived argument, yes, always select the smallest sample possible, and make sure that the sample has data to support the conclusion one is trying to convey.
Leaf SL 2011 to 2016, Volt Premier 2016 to 2019, and now:
2019 Tesla Model 3; LR, RWD, FSD, 19" Sport Wheels, silver/black; built 3/17/19, delivered 3/29/19.

User avatar
aqn
Gold Member
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:59 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1333
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:24 am

Stoaty wrote:...the problem is far worse than 34 reported cases.
It's 50 reported cases now.
Anna Nguyen

User avatar
aqn
Gold Member
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:59 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1333
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:26 am

Does anybody have a pic, preferrably higher quality, of a LEAF battery capacity gauge that had lost three bars? Two bars? Thanks.
Anna Nguyen

Herm
Posts: 3765
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 3:08 pm
Delivery Date: 29 Aug 2012
Location: Timbuktu, Mali

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:29 am

OrientExpress wrote: Now there has been an argument proposed that "Nissan botched its testing badly" for hot weather. I think not, and here is why. They have been doing hot weather testing for quite a while, but most likely using a 100 year high temp average for the hottest area of the US.
Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.

opossum
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:40 pm
Delivery Date: 21 Mar 2011
Leaf Number: 500
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:39 am

aqn wrote:It's 50 reported cases now.
It's still 37. Those of us in the 2-bar table also have lines in the 1-bar table to show when we lost 1-bar. And the 2 poor saps who are in the 3-bar table also have lines in the 1-bar and 2-bar table. So just count the 1-bar table. :)
azdre/opossum, Phoenix, 3/21/11 purchase, 10/2/12 lemon law return.
23k miles, 3 bars lost, officially rated "normal" by Nissan

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”