surfingslovak said:Luke, if you wanted to do a range test, you will see some variability, that's for sure. I have done it twice, in similar weather conditions and using the same route. The first result returned 21 kWh, and the second result returned 20.3 kWh of usable battery capacity...
vegastar said:The wallmeter test is legit, so I think he can use that value and the low range claim to fill a warranty issue with Nissan.
It's becoming more and more obvious that the car either had a capacity deficiency when new, or has developed it way too quickly. I'd file a warranty claim in a heartbeat, and use whatever dirty tricks were necessary to convince Nissan that they should honor it.EVDRIVER said:You can't file a warranty claim when there is no warranty on capacity. Unless part of the pack is defined as defective by Nissans terms there in no coverage and the latter has no implied coverage for capacity.
davewill said:It's becoming more and more obvious that the car either had a capacity deficiency when new, or has developed it way too quickly. I'd file a warranty claim in a heartbeat, and use whatever dirty tricks were necessary to convince Nissan that they should honor it.EVDRIVER said:You can't file a warranty claim when there is no warranty on capacity. Unless part of the pack is defined as defective by Nissans terms there in no coverage and the latter has no implied coverage for capacity.
Herm said:It could also be a normal variation in manufacturing.. no two cells are exactly the same. Tick may have a better chance once he losses his first bar of battery capacity... plus proper documentation.
TickTock said:I disagree with this. Such a test adds more random variables to the measurement (wind, tire pressure, grade, condition of the road, driving style, etc.).edatoakrun said:TickTock,
Please reconsider the suggestion made by myself, and several similar ones by others, many pages of comments back:
IMO, the most accurate and comprehensive calculation of battery capacity, can (presently) be accomplished by range tests, from 100% charge, to the lowest level your situation allows...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8331&start=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did you post results of a capacity test, that I missed?
vegastar said:davewill said:It's becoming more and more obvious that the car either had a capacity deficiency when new, or has developed it way too quickly. I'd file a warranty claim in a heartbeat, and use whatever dirty tricks were necessary to convince Nissan that they should honor it.EVDRIVER said:You can't file a warranty claim when there is no warranty on capacity. Unless part of the pack is defined as defective by Nissans terms there in no coverage and the latter has no implied coverage for capacity.
+1
You are absolutely right, and I would recommend approaching this from the lemon law angle. This would be independent from individual manufacturer policies. It may be harder to argue, but if Luke can prove and document loss of use (i.e. loss of range), and that this condition was present from day one, he may have a case. There is also the possibility that Nissan will decide to resolve the situation in customer's favor.EVDRIVER said:You can file a claim and make noise, my point it that there is no warranty coverage though. Filing a claim against something that has no coverage in the warranty is not going to change the warranty. Until he contacts a factory rep it will go in circles.
PROBLEMS COVERED
The lemon law covers any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use and
value of the motor vehicle to the consumer. This is referred to as a nonconformity. The
lemon law provides manufacturers with an affirmative defense if it can be shown that
the nonconformity is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or
alterations of the motor vehicle.
DaveL said:Nissan should either replace the weak battery modules or prove to the owners satisfaction that there isn't a problem here. ...
Your opinion...not one I share. This, to me, does not qualify as "gradual loss of capacity" so I think it plainly DOES fall under the battery warranty. It also sounds like it's going to take a lot of noise to get Nissan to do the right thing.EVDRIVER said:You can file a claim and make noise, my point it that there is no warranty coverage though. ...
I agree. Either the car as delivered had a defective battery OR there has been a dramatic and sudden loss of capacity. Either way and Nissan needs to fix it. Point of sale representations will always trump any written documentation, and there were lots of announcements of what "gradual loss of capacity" would be. So 20% after years would qualify but in less than a year? I don't think so.davewill said:This, to me, does not qualify as "gradual loss of capacity" so I think it plainly DOES fall under the battery warranty.
davewill said:Your opinion...not one I share. This, to me, does not qualify as "gradual loss of capacity" so I think it plainly DOES fall under the battery warranty. It also sounds like it's going to take a lot of noise to get Nissan to do the right thing.EVDRIVER said:You can file a claim and make noise, my point it that there is no warranty coverage though. ...
It's their fault they were vague. Starting at day one doesn't sound like "gradual" and I'd be happy to see a judge decide the issue if that were the only way...but the court of public opinion is cheaper.EVDRIVER said:Please define gradual.davewill said:Your opinion...not one I share. This, to me, does not qualify as "gradual loss of capacity" so I think it plainly DOES fall under the battery warranty. It also sounds like it's going to take a lot of noise to get Nissan to do the right thing.EVDRIVER said:You can file a claim and make noise, my point it that there is no warranty coverage though. ...
Once again, their fault. By being vague, owners have no choice but to make noise, probably over smaller amounts of degradation than they could have set by being specific. I'm sure that a public relations boondoggle would cost them more than they thought they were saving by being vague.EVDRIVER said:Consider this. What is the exact percentage of loss that is warrantable or acceptable? What is the time frame, miles, conditions? Where is that written so every LEAF owner is not at the dealer asking for a repair? What is the number? It does not exist for this even reason.
EVDRIVER said:... Nissan never specifically defined gradual loss which could be 1% per month, year, etc. The fact is that Nissan may decide at their will to cover this "under warranty" but they are not obligated to do so...
The number does not exist, but in this case we don't need to find the exact number. The loss (12.5% at last report when full charge was 246 gids) is obviously so low that if it isn't covered who would want to buy a Leaf? I'm not talking about legal definitions or a court case, but whether Nissan wants to continue to own the EV market in the future. Not covering this sort of capacity loss could end up seriously undermining public confidence in the Leaf.EVDRIVER said:Consider this. What is the exact percentage of loss that is warrantable or acceptable? What is the time frame, miles, conditions? Where is that written so every LEAF owner is not at the dealer asking for a repair? What is the number? It does not exist for this even reason.
Stoaty said:The number does not exist, but in this case we don't need to find the exact number. The loss (12.5% at last report when full charge was 246 gids) is obviously so low that if it isn't covered who would want to buy a Leaf? I'm not talking about legal definitions or a court case, but whether Nissan wants to continue to own the EV market in the future. Not covering this sort of capacity loss could end up seriously undermining public confidence in the Leaf.EVDRIVER said:Consider this. What is the exact percentage of loss that is warrantable or acceptable? What is the time frame, miles, conditions? Where is that written so every LEAF owner is not at the dealer asking for a repair? What is the number? It does not exist for this even reason.
Enter your email address to join: