Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[TickTock]

Nissan has informed us that they want to take 5 or 6 of our cars (we were a little fuzzy on which it was) down to their test facility in Casa Grande, AZ and run some tests.

It is 6. I just got back from vacation with a couple of voice mails inviting me to participate in their study. Looks like I got back just in time and was told I would make the total 6. Looks like they do pay attention, BTW, to this forum. My car had 11 bars last time I had it in and only reported my 2nd bar loss here. I never even filed a formal complaint. However, was told my car was selected because it had lost two bars. I supposed they could have been snooping over CarWings, but given my license plate avatar and published VIN it's not too hard to connect the dots. I'm happy to provide as much information as they want to help make a great car even better.

[RegGuheert]

I'm sorry, but I am getting hung up on this statement by a "Senior Vice President of Research & Development, Nissan Americas":

Battery capacity loss of the levels reported may be considered normal depending on the method and frequency of charging, the operating environment, the amount of electricity consumed during daily usage and a vehicle's mileage and age.

I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true. Why do I say that? Because an EV whose battery gets ruined that fast is an environmental disaster. It is also a financial disaster to anyone who buys the car.

That rate of loss is well OVER 4 TIMES the rate of battery capacity degradation that Nissan told prospective owners to expect from the LEAF. Sure, you warned that higher temperatures could make things worse, but I don't think ANYONE imagined you meant that it could be OVER 4 TIMES worse than what you stated. I know I didn't. Maybe twice as bad, in the worst case, is what I thought. In addition, the warnings about capacity loss implied that the owner could affect the rate of capacity loss by their habits, but it seems that in some climates the actions of the owner have only a secondary effect.

Simply put, you will find very few people who want to purchase an EV which loses 30% of its capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles. It simply makes no sense to buy such a car. Most of the people who bought LEAFs in Phoenix likely only did so because they believed misleading statements by Nissan that implied capacity loss in AZ was thoroughly tested and that it would be OK.

You should stop selling these cars in Phoenix immediately. Or, at the very least, you should tell prospective buyers what some customers are experiencing as their ACTUAL capacity loss in the area where they are making the purchase. Then they will have an opportunity to make an informed decision about how they spend their hard-earned money.

[lemketron]

It was only within the last week that the car started showing ~80 available miles after an overnight charge. This was a significant and sudden change since, for the last year, the car consistently showed ~100+ after an overnight charge.

Of note:
Put in service 05Jul11 in Bakersfield California. The car will soon have 12K miles on the odometer.
... Previously, the car would "use" miles rather quickly - seemingly more than actually being driven - for the first 20-30 miles. Now, the car drives a number of miles before it seems to "use" any. Yesterday, I left the house with 83 on the meter (ECO), drove about 15 miles, and had 85 on the meter (ECO) when I got home. I believe the actual difference in "available miles" is insignificant but, for some reason, my car has suddenly started evaluating battery condition differently.

You didn't just take it in for your first annual service, did you?
Updating the car's firmware could result in this new guessometer behavior...

[EVDRIVER]

One thing that would have been nice in the letter would be a sentence that said. "Nissan stands behind it's products and will take care of customers should there be any cases of excessive capacity loss." But that's not going to happen....

[DaveinOlyWA]

so "about" 40 of 400 vehicles affected (and probably more than that) so that is a minimal 10% affected and that was not found on testing??

ok, dont believe it for a second. the letter, nice as it was, told us nothing. emphasized that more time is needed (waiting for replacement modules from TN) to "investigate" the specific vehicles involved. should give them another few weeks of time. Battery plant start up for Sept? wondering if that date wont be moved up.

let me guess. cars dissected for a week to 10 days cars return first week of August. next statement; "we have gathered the data and are analyzing our findings. add another 7-10 days. (middle of August) determination; capacity loss is beyond what they had expected. process started to procure replacement parts. another week passes (end of August) letters sent to affected persons to start scheduling maintenance. its now Sept. first battery modules from TN plant arrive. parts replaced.

[shrink]

I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true.

If the first capacity bar is indeed 15%, I found it unacceptable that I lost that much capacity after 10-1/2 months and 10,200 miles; and found it even more frustrating Nissan called this "normal." Sorry to keep posting this, but here is hard evidence of that position:



That said, I am pleased with Nissan's letter. Yes, it's corporate speak, but necessary corporate speak. They are simultaneously trying to acknowledge the issue while continuing to express confidence in the car, which seems to be doing well in other areas.

I'm still upset it took a lot of time and effort on the part of a lot of worried owners to get this acknowledgment, but finally getting a corporate response is encouraging. It is a great they are studying some of the cars. Continuing to say losing capacity bars after about a year is "normal" was maddening.

I will reserve final judgment pending the findings of the study. It seems like they are trying to do the right thing. I had my doubts, but let's see what happens.

[azdre]

+1!! Well said!!

I'm sorry, but I am getting hung up on this statement by a "Senior Vice President of Research & Development, Nissan Americas":

Battery capacity loss of the levels reported may be considered normal depending on the method and frequency of charging, the operating environment, the amount of electricity consumed during daily usage and a vehicle's mileage and age.

I'm sorry, Nissan, but if you believe that a 30% drop in the LEAF's battery capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles is NORMAL under ANY circumstances, then you should NOT be selling LEAFs in climates where that could be remotely true. Why do I say that? Because an EV whose battery gets ruined that fast is an environmental disaster. It is also a financial disaster to anyone who buys the car.

That rate of loss is well OVER 4 TIMES the rate of battery capacity degradation that Nissan told prospective owners to expect from the LEAF. Sure, you warned that higher temperatures could make things worse, but I don't think ANYONE imagined you meant that it could be OVER 4 TIMES worse than what you stated. I know I didn't. Maybe twice as bad, in the worst case, is what I thought. In addition, the warnings about capacity loss implied that the owner could affect the rate of capacity loss by their habits, but it seems that in some climates the actions of the owner have only a secondary effect.

Simply put, you will find very few people who want to purchase an EV which loses 30% of its capacity after 15 months and 25,000 miles. It simply makes no sense to buy such a car. Most of the people who bought LEAFs in Phoenix likely only did so because they believed misleading statements by Nissan that implied capacity loss in AZ was thoroughly tested and that it would be OK.

You should stop selling these cars in Phoenix immediately. Or, at the very least, you should tell prospective buyers what some customers are experiencing as their ACTUAL capacity loss in the area where they are making the purchase. Then they will have an opportunity to make an informed decision about how they spend their hard-earned money.

[Gonewild]

Nissan has informed us that they want to take 5 or 6 of our cars (we were a little fuzzy on which it was) down to their test facility in Casa Grande, AZ and run some tests.

It is 6. I just got back from vacation with a couple of voice mails inviting me to participate in their study. Looks like I got back just in time and was told I would make the total 6. Looks like they do pay attention, BTW, to this forum. My car had 11 bars last time I had it in and only reported my 2nd bar loss here. I never even filed a formal complaint. However, was told my car was selected because it had lost two bars. I supposed they could have been snooping over CarWings, but given my license plate avatar and published VIN it's not too hard to connect the dots. I'm happy to provide as much information as they want to help make a great car even better.

[TickTock]

Well, even knowing what I know now, I would still buy a Leaf. 30% loss *is* unacceptable but I have complete faith that Nissan agrees and will make sure any such developments are satisfactorily addressed. I had my concerns about the battery when I bought last year but bought anyway because I couldn't imagine Nissan not addressing any unexpected losses. Still can't. It would be suicide (or, I suppose, hari-kari). They have been a bit slow and cautious, true, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a respectable automobile manufacturer which can easily cover their bet if it comes to that. First step is to head off the hysteria so their engineers can figure out what is going on. Then they can properly address the issue based on data. Stay cool.

[Volusiano]

found it even more frustrating Nissan called this "normal." Sorry to keep posting this, but here is hard evidence of that position:

^I guess you can read this in a couple of ways:

1. (Normal) (capacity lost) = the capacity loss is normal, to be expected, not out of the ordinary (what Shrink interpreted).
2. (Normal capacity) (lost) = the (normal capacity), as opposed to the (extra/actual/real/or whatever) capacity, is lost. This doesn't necessarily say the it's normal to lose this capacity. It just says that you lost this type of capacity that they label "normal capacity".

To me, the interpretation in 1 makes more sense. But it's still vague enough to mean 2.