jspearman
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:04 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Aug 2011
Leaf Number: 5954
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:22 am

I really enjoyed talking to all the other bar-losers last night as I cried into my alcohol (just kidding, no crying occurred, only angry laughter). What a nice group of people.

Here's the one important thing I came away with from the meeting: the only consistent factor across drivers was the intense Phoenix heat. Charging patterns, driving habits, miles driven, etc. were different across the board. These cars are not some kind of strange anomaly, and after seeing this group, I am 100% confident that all Phoenix cars will suffer this fate.

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. They are still telling him, by the way, that his loss is normal.

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 9:51 am

It was great meeting you also, loser! :o :lol:

Francisco, welcome.

1) 6 and 7 temperature bars seem to be the norm out here in the hotter months. Yes, people have seen 8... and I think higher also!

2) Without tipping our hand to Nissan in a public forum, yes, some Phoenix owners have been working with lawyers and other people/agencies.

3) Last night's meeting in Phoenix... we laughed, we cried, we punched our fists through walls. 8-) We filmed with KPHO CBS 5 for their follow-up story, which should air soon. We measured GIDs on a few cars, including Scott's car with 3 lost bars (see my posts since last night).
azdre/opossum, Phoenix, 3/21/11 purchase, 10/2/12 lemon law return.
23k miles, 3 bars lost, officially rated "normal" by Nissan

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:48 am

Sorry I couldn't make it last night, everybody. I work weird hours.

I did, however, e-mail personally the reporter and gave her "the evidence" I had on my 2011 with a lost capacity bar - including a Nissan service report indicating my car lost one capacity bar after 10-1/2 months and 10,200 miles and that Nissan termed such loss "normal." She was very quick to reply.

Let me know if I can help or further support your efforts in any way.
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.
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.

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.

If Nissan is saying the car is "normal" why aren't they buying them back at market value? They have been claiming limited supply is a factor behind low sales. How about increasing supply with 400 "normal" LEAFs in the Phoenix area?
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

thankyouOB
Posts: 3583
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:14 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2011
Leaf Number: 1442
Location: Coastal LA

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:00 am

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.

please clarify.
may reserve/delivery 4/30/11
--
ECOtality/LADWP/ Blink 4/4/11
--
Gardena Nissan, msrp -1k
red SL with etec L3
SOLAR POWERED since 2008

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:12 am

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.

please clarify.
Sorry for the confusion. It was a local Nissan dealer.
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

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 11:18 am

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.
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.

If anyone is interested in shopping his/her Leaf around, I'd be very curious to see whether anyone would offer more than a 6-pack of Dr. Pepper for the car.
azdre/opossum, Phoenix, 3/21/11 purchase, 10/2/12 lemon law return.
23k miles, 3 bars lost, officially rated "normal" by Nissan

shrink
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:21 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Jun 2012
Leaf Number: 21842
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:29 am

opossum wrote:[We were told that they cannot get any money from them at auction.
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.
2011 LEAF (Sold) | 2012 Volt (Sold) | 2012 LEAF (Lease Ended) | 2010 Tesla Roadster #501 | 2013 Tesla Model S #9001 | 6.827 kW SunPower PV System

User avatar
mwalsh
Posts: 9754
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:10 am
Delivery Date: 05 Jan 2011
Leaf Number: 0213
Location: Garden Grove, CA

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:33 am

It's a very depressing situation. I find myself wondering how many more inland CA owners would be in the same place now if we'd had a typical summer last year and were set up for another this year. It would also be very enlightening to know just what the temperature mean average is for this condition to become evident.
2011 Blue Ocean SL with 87,000 miles
2015 pack on 12/30/15
Tinted windows
Bosch AGM 12v
Ecopia 422+ tires
L1 EVSE upgrade
FIAMM horns
Superbright LED lighting
2013 sun visors
LED shifter
Heated seats
GT-R map lamp lenses
Altima illuminated door switches

SierraQ
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:44 am
Delivery Date: 02 Sep 2011
Location: Dallas, TX

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:34 am

OrientExpress wrote:
Herm wrote:
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.
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.

I would suspect that every manufacturer of equipment that is temperature sensitive is re-evaluating their design criteria.
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.

The complaint here is that Nissan seems to have NOT tested these cars sufficiently in hot areas. I think we know this implicitly because look at how much care they took with cold regions. We saw Leafs driving on top of frigid mountains, we saw cold-weather packages, we saw literature on the affects of cold temporarily reducing capacity, we saw a deliberate lock-out of all states with sub-freezing weather during the roll-out. Did we see Leafs driving for months in Death Valley? Did we see hot-weather packages? About the only thing we know they tested is baking a battery in a paint room for 24-hours at 120F+ because they specifically warn you not to do that.

I think this has taken them by surprise. I think it is the tip of the iceberg and by the end of summer we may see the list double or triple. Losing 20-35% capacity in one year is not under any definition except perhaps Nissan's "normal" for average usage. It would be like a 30MPG ICE car suddenly dropping to 20MPG after a year. No one would accept that. There is no justification for it. The truth is that either they were aware of it and didn't disclose for fear of hurting sales--unlikely in my view since whatever they gained would be lost in future lawsuits and trust in the brand. Or more likely they were not aware of it which means lack of testing.
"Please tell me this doesn't run on gas! Gas explodes, you know?" --Susan in I-Robot

Volusiano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:41 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ

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

Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:55 am

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.
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.

25K miles/year is not the issue. Already losing 35% capacity at only 25K miles is the issue.

If you want to make an issue out of capacity loss due to time passed, then it's actually the other way around. This owner is actually minimizing capacity loss due to time passed because his battery is only 1 year old. So any capacity loss due to time passed is the minimal factor here, and capacity loss due to miles driven is the more significant factor in this case. But losing 35% at only 25K miles is still unacceptable.

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”