Had the P3227 reprogram done today: interesting results.

[GregH]

I'm guessing it will take a few cycles for the new software to "learn" your actual capacity based on the new system. It'll be interesting to see what changes..

I'm doing the opposite on my car.. my current sensor is off by about 1A so my partial charge and discharge cycles are leading my car's (2012) software to think my capacity is going down (when I touch low voltages but rarely see a full charge). I normally just charge a few hours before leaving for work and a few hours before leaving for home. Good for the battery, bad for the SOC and Capacity software. I may have to do a few "full" to VLBW cycles to see what my capacity really is..

I'd also like to propose we call a full charge "full" rather than 100%.. since it's not 100% (except maybe on a 2013's display). 80% is 80%, but full is somewhere between 94% and 97%.. there is no 100%.

 

[dsh]

My LEAF app stated I had 47 miles when leaving the dealer after reprogram. I stopped off at bank, and when came back to car and powered up had 62 miles w/o Air Conditioning on. The SOC is at 8 bars and capacity at 9 bars.

 

[TomT]

Another subjective data point:

I just got home from a 68 mile work trip that involved a number of stops along the way... I have made this trip many times before so I have a good feeling for what it normally requires...

The biggie: At the last of three stops, my 11th capacity bar re-disappeared when I restarted the car...

I hit LBW about 1/2 mile from my house (the end of the trip)... The last few times I have done this trip I hit LBW about two to three miles from my house... This is not enough difference to be out of the noise so I'd call this result inconclusive.

I still believe that the BCM is relearning the battery and that the results will continue to change for a bit until it stabilizes... LBW is still at 49 Gids, by the way.

I'll recharge tonight to, umm, whatever we are calling a full charge now and see what that brings...

 

[Valdemar]

The biggie: At the last of three stops, my 11th capacity bar re-disappeared when I restarted the car...

Bummer. At least we know now that the fix doesn't over-inflate the capacity bars.

 

[Stoaty]

The biggie: At the last of three stops, my 11th capacity bar re-disappeared when I restarted the car...

Bummer. At least we know now that the fix doesn't over-inflate the capacity bars.

Reassuring in a way. Doesn't appear any "cheating" is going on.

 

[hieuous]

The biggie: At the last of three stops, my 11th capacity bar re-disappeared when I restarted the car...

Bummer. At least we know now that the fix doesn't over-inflate the capacity bars.

Reassuring in a way. Doesn't appear any "cheating" is going on.

i always hope for magic and good people with good intentions when it comes to stuff like that.

to date i've always been a bit disappointed.

 

[TomT]

But it still doesn't explain why my Gid numbers are suddenly so much more optimistic (8%)... We'll see if they slowly inch down too...

Reassuring in a way. Doesn't appear any "cheating" is going on.

 

[TomT]

+1!

i always hope for magic and good people with good intentions when it comes to stuff like that. to date i've always been a bit disappointed.

 

[Valdemar]

The biggie: At the last of three stops, my 11th capacity bar re-disappeared when I restarted the car...

Bummer. At least we know now that the fix doesn't over-inflate the capacity bars.

Reassuring in a way. Doesn't appear any "cheating" is going on.

Yeah, but of course the "cheating" may kick in at lower values

 

[edatoakrun]

...The available power (or Nissan's best guess of it) should be viewable at all times. Not in funkadelic units such as "bars" or even "Gids", but in terms of energy. Adult units. Watt-Hours are what make the car go. Don't hide them behind a curtain; tell us how many we have. Then we can see the effect of aging over time without fighting through the obfuscation with clever antics.

While "Nissan's best guess" of my LEAFs available kWh capacity may be way off, Nissan may have inadvertently made it viewable in real time, but only with considerable (approaching comical) efforts.

First, determine what your LEAF is reporting as kWh available between your desired SOC's. I use 100% and VLBW.

...Below is how Carwings has reported the total energy use from "100%" to ~VLBW on my warm climate LEAF two years from the factory and with ~16,000 miles on the odometer.

While the reported kWh use has dropped quite a bit, My LEAF has displayed no significant loss of range from my first test, to most recent, on range tests of 95-113 miles, when corrected for all test variables, including speed, temperature both when charging and when driving, and my own driving efficiency (as reflected in the regen kWh reported by CarWings).

Of course my battery has lost capacity in the last 18 months, it just not yet a large enough loss to show up clearly in a range test, and is, IMO, nearly certainly far less than the kWh use results below, showing capacity loss approaching 15% just over the last 18 months (when (not) adjusted for battery temperature) would indicate:

All charges prior to testing were to “80%", battery allowed to return to ambient temperature, and then charged @ 16 A 240 V to “100%”, two to three hours before range/capacity test begins, and then left plugged into the EVSE until departure.

IMO The distance driven at the point where the battery temp bars increased, when that has occurred, is useful data as to the relative battery temp and temperature the (temperature variable) battery capacity when the "100%" charge was completed.

9/7/11 18.7 kWh from "100%" to VLBW, 6 dash battery temp bars constant (as recalled later)

5/10 12 17.2 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~mile 73

5/31/12 17.5 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~mile 5

6/17/12 17.5 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

8/18/12 17.0 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

8/30/12 16.8 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

9/08/12 16.7 kWh, 5 to 6 temp bars ~ 4.6 miles

10/1/12 16.6 kWh, 6 temp bars constant

11/3/12 16.2 kwh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 14

1/31 15.7 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 24

2/16/13 15.8 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 18

3/1/13 15.6 kWh, 4 to 5 temp bars ~mile 18

3/13/13 16.0 kWh, 5 bars temp constant


I think it is nearly certain, that the LEAF "gauge error" that has shown up in premature battery capacity bar loss and Wh/gid error in other LEAFs is also displaying itself in the dash and nav screen m/kWh, and also in the (more accurate) CarWings kWh use reports, from my LEAF, as I have posted above.

IMO, any LEAFer who can learn to use CarWings, may see the same sort of results I have, and also be able to largely differentiate any range loss due to real battery capacity loss, from their LEAF's questionable kWh use reports, as I believe I have been able to do...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9195&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then adjust for battery charge temperature, (which the battery app has made viewing much more precise since I posted the data above). I am back up to the low 16 kWh kWh range from ~VLBW to "100%", with recent warmer charge temps, BTW.

Then your miles driven, divided by the m/kWh your car displays, subtracted from your estimated nominal kWh capacity, gives you a fairly good view of what Nissan's "guess" of your remaining available capacity is.

For example, once I drive 50 miles with 5 m/kWh on the nav screen, I know I have used a reported 10 kWh, and have slightly over 6 kWh remaining. Unfortunately, while the battery app does seem to indicate LBW and VLBW consistently, it does not seem to produce consistent results in higher SOC ranges in real time usage. If you've ever watched the app indicate increased Wh or rapidly decreasing Wh while you are parked, you will have seen that problem.

In my LEAF, the capacity losses shown by the kWh readings, both in real time on the nav screen, and slightly more precisely from the retrospective CW report, seem to be quite close to the total capacity loss currently reported by the battery app, ~13%.

I have very little confidence in either, however, as accurate gauges of capacity, since both my range and recharge tests seem to indicate a significant overstatement of the percentage of capacity loss since my first kWh report a few months and a few thousand miles after I got my LEAF.

And I suspect Nissan's own analysis shows this significant inaccuracy in assessing any current or total kWh capacity readings may explain Nissan's unwillingness to go beyond the capacity bar display, or the "~70%" capacity warranty, either before or after this update.

 

[TickTock]

But it still doesn't explain why my Gid numbers are suddenly so much more optimistic (8%)... We'll see if they slowly inch down too...

Reassuring in a way. Doesn't appear any "cheating" is going on.

Recall that after my Leaf went to the track for extensive testing, it came back with all 12 bars (had 10 when I dropped it off). Furthermore, my gids *also* came back much higher but recovered later. So both the lost bar and the increased gids are consistent with the BMS getting reset.

Link below. Gap in the middle is when Nissan had the car and it came back with BMS reset. You can clearly see the increase in 100% charge gids (blue dots) immediately following the test (but no increase in power from the wall for the same 100% charge).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An7gtcYL2Oy0dHNwVmRkNkFnaEVOQTVENW5mOTZlb0E#gid=3

 

[TickTock]

I would also note, that this data also illustrates how poorly gids track true capacity (as shown by the 0-100% charge power from the wall). It'll be very interesting to see if they track better after the update.

 

[TomT]

That would tend to jib with my informal results this morning where I saw no statistically significant increase in range...

You can clearly see the increase in 100% charge gids (blue dots) immediately following the test (but no increase in power from the wall for the same 100% charge).

 

[TonyWilliams]

Since we all only get one shot at this, I thought I'd poll those following this for a set of before (and after) measurements to take. I'll start:

• 
  x) turtle to 100% kWh from wall
  1) number of capacity bars
  2) pack volts at LBW,VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  3) gids at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  4) SOC at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  5) Ah at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  6) turtle-100% charge power from wall
  

 

[kolmstead]

If you are going to submit this data, make sure you specify whether you are talking True GIDs (TM), from an EV-CAN bus monitor, or simulated GIDs ('GIDs) from Turbo3's Android app. In my car, LBW occurs at 49 GIDs, but at 65 'GIDs. In its standard form, the ELM327 BlueTooth device we're using has no access to EV-CAN bus, so the software is calculating 'GIDs based on parameters which ARE available. At high levels of charge, the two agree pretty well. At the bottom end, the 'GIDs are about 33% high.

Just trying to head off some of the confusion that I can see coming.

First we had 'old bars' and 'new bars' on the GOM. Then GIDs and 'GIDs. Now old and new battery capacity bars....

-Karl

 

[surfingslovak]

First we had 'old bars' and 'new bars' on the GOM. Then GIDs and 'GIDs. Now old and new battery capacity bars....

Yes, enough to make your head spin. I wish that Turbo3 had listened and adjusted the 'Gids formula to make this "unit" of measure more accurate. What we started out with was an approximation based on a number of assumptions, and some did not pan out.

 

[TickTock]

Since we all only get one shot at this, I thought I'd poll those following this for a set of before (and after) measurements to take. I'll start:

• 
  x) turtle to 100% kWh from wall
  1) number of capacity bars
  2) pack volts at LBW,VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  3) gids at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  4) SOC at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  5) Ah at LBW, VLBW, 80% charge, 100% charge
  6) turtle-100% charge power from wall
  

So.. Tony, are you trying to emphasize the importance of measuring the energy required to charge or pointing out my poor choice of units on #6 (said power, but meant energy (kWh))

 

[Luft]

First we had 'old bars' and 'new bars' on the GOM. Then GIDs and 'GIDs. Now old and new battery capacity bars....

Yes, enough to make your head spin. I wish that Turbo3 had listened and adjusted the 'Gids formula to make this "unit" of measure more accurate. What we started out with was an approximation based on a number of assumptions, and some did not pan out.

I have Turbo3's WattsLeft meter and I'm scheduled for this update. Is this update going to screw up my meter readings?

 

[davewill]

I have Turbo3's WattsLeft meter and I'm scheduled for this update. Is this update going to screw up my meter readings?

If you mean "screw up" as in make it not work, no. If you mean "screw up" as in change the readings, then the answer is maybe.

 

[DaveEV]

First we had 'old bars' and 'new bars' on the GOM. Then GIDs and 'GIDs. Now old and new battery capacity bars....

Yes, enough to make your head spin. I wish that Turbo3 had listened and adjusted the 'Gids formula to make this "unit" of measure more accurate. What we started out with was an approximation based on a number of assumptions, and some did not pan out.

Yeah, I would not bother reporting 'Gids. However, if you report Ah and SOC%, that should be enough to get close to GIDs (search the big ELM327 thread for a decent formula which is much closer than the current formula for estimating GIDs from Ah and SOC%).