Well, that's why we only did a 2-year lease, but that's admittedly of little consolation considering the 2 and 3 bar losses being reported after a little over a year. However, our piece of mind is giving back the car at lease end. I wish affected owners had the same option.jspearman wrote:Sadly, I would not even lease a Leaf in Phoenix after this meeting, since it's apparent that losing 30%--or more--of your capacity within even the three-year lease is quite likely here.
Sorry for the confusion. It was a local Nissan dealer.thankyouOB wrote:Nissan or a dealer made those offers?
I thought Nissan had not reacted to the complaints. If they are offering buy backs--and low-ball prices, that adds a new dimension.
The numbers have been falling like a rock. We also heard last night that at least one dealer in Phoenix WILL NOT buy used Leafs. We were told that they cannot get any money from them at auction. We were even told about a few Leafs that were shipped to CA and sold and all they did was recover their shipping costs.shrink wrote:Nissan offered me $21,000 for my 2011 LEAF. I think someone else was offered $18K in Phoenix from a different dealer? NADA was saying upper $25K with dealer resale in the high $20's. I felt fortunate to get $25K from someone else.
Actually, the dealer that offered me $21,000 said the same thing. They tried to sell a used 2012 at auction, but could not and it was back sitting on their lot.opossum wrote:[We were told that they cannot get any money from them at auction.
The heart of the issue is indeed testing and neither global warming or selective statistics are relevant. Statistics only show us a clustering of data around a specific variable--ambient temperature in this case--and it is okay to dig deeper on that. And any idiot with a thermometer or access to weather.com can tell you that Phoenix is 100+ in the summer and always has been. In terms of technology it shouldn't matter if it is 5-10 degrees hotter than last year, last decade, or 10,000 years ago. If Nissan engineers were smart they would have designed the pack to handle temps a healthy margin above the hottest they were likely ever to face, but if they chose not to (e.g. cutting the TMS to save costs) then they still would have known the consequences and likely marketed accordingly. For us living in hot areas we know and expect to replace our $80 12V car batteries once every 2-3 years for they are not designed to handle heat. We do not expect to replace our $20,000 traction battery under the same terms.OrientExpress wrote:Not an excuse at all, just a fact. This year is the hottest it has been in the US since records have been kept. This is an unprecedented year climate-wise, and stuff is going to have issues, especially things whose performance is related to the temperature of the environment it has to operate in.Herm wrote:Ahh, the old Global Warming excuse.. its ironic that Leafers are fighting GW and just took one on the chin.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.
I would suspect that every manufacturer of equipment that is temperature sensitive is re-evaluating their design criteria.
You're really blowing smoke here to cover the fact that ANYBODY who loses 35% when they reach 25K miles, whether it takes them 1 year or 2 years or 3 years to get there, is going to be VERY unhappy with this loss.OrientExpress wrote:2K miles/Mo. is truly an edge case and any vehicle operated that much in such an extreme environment would experience some degradation of its systems. 25K miles/yr. is taxi/law enforcement/delivery van miles.