Had the P3227 reprogram done today: interesting results.

[surfingslovak]

I cannot stand looking at my fully charged gauge with one tooth missing. So, I'm doing this update as soon as I can get in. The thing is...weather it fixes anything in terms of GIDs or range, I have no power to affect the outcome one way or the other. So, even if the range fix is imaginary or in fact just visual/esthetic, that's fine with me.

I think Nissan would have been better off showing a battery health value somewhere in the center console or in CarWings instead of having a dedicated capacity gauge. If I recall correctly, you were fine, and even went on record stating that your LEAF had no perceived loss of range. That apparently all changed once the "first tooth" was missing. I doubt that this is a good example of an appropriate user experience design.

 

[Valdemar]

Do you really think they'd honor the battery replacement warranty of an 8-bar Leaf if it didn't have the software update applied? Of course not -- they'll first update the software so it shows the correct level, and then see if it's still at 8 bars.

Talk about a biased reaction! You are directly contradicting what their announcement explicitly said.

Update on Battery Warranty Enhancement for 2011 & 2012 LEAF

If your vehicle’s battery capacity level gauge is already displaying eight (8) or fewer bars of capacity prior to the above referenced software update (and within the first 5 years or 60,000 miles, whichever comes first), your Nissan dealer will verify this condition and arrange for the repair or replacement of the lithium-ion battery in accordance with the terms of the warranty.

Ray

This was discussed previously. The thinking is if you had a qualifying loss at the time of the new warranty announcement they will not require the update. But if it happens after you must have the update applied. There will likely be a grace period of some kind. Hopefully we'll see the official mailers soon so this all becomes clear.

 

[TomT]

Well, we live in interesting times... After a 100% charge overnight, I am now showing 238 Gids, post-upgrade. This gave 393.0 volts and a 92.5% SOC which is unchanged from earlier readings. Pre-upgrade it was 220 Gids for 100%... So, it seems I have magically picked up 18 Gids of capacity and am now on the cusp of where one would normally expect to loose the first capacity bar. I'll know later this weekend if that translates to any real range increase.

(Now I have to figure out how to incorporate this new info in to my signature...)

 

[TomT]

No, there are no obvious other differences. Just the update to the battery capacity algorithm and a supposed improvement in the battery charger software to increase comparability. Without some sort of Gid meter, you'd likely never know anything changed unless you happened to be one of the ones that gains back (at least temporarily) a capacity bar...

Does this software update give us any other feature from the 2013 model? I was wondering if we also get rid of the 'OK' button press?

 

[garygid]

To answer an earlier inquiry, the GID-Meter is still available,
either as a Kit or Assembled and Tested.
See the link in my signature below.

 

[edatoakrun]

Well, we live in interesting times... After a 100% charge overnight, I am now showing 238 Gids, post-upgrade. This gave 393.0 volts and a 92.5% SOC which is unchanged from earlier readings. Pre-upgrade it was 220 Gids for 100%... So, it seems I have magically picked up 18 Gids of capacity. I'll know later this weekend if that translates to any real range increase.

IMO, it may be very difficult to find see small changes in capacity above the "noise" that is inevitable in any range test.

I would suggest that anyone seriously attempting to determine any changes in capacity from this update also try to measure the recharge, both before and after the test.

Some ideas for doing this are posted on the Collecting data:Off-the-wall power for turtle to 100% charge thread:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=6876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a minimum, I'd suggest a simple L2 time test from a known low SOC point to "100%".

Three examples of a LEAF with tested battery capacity with the timed recharges from ~turtle to "100%" to compare to are here:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2011nissanleaf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As discussed here:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=13265" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have never taken my LEAF below ~VLBW myself, but would consider doing so for this purpose.

If several range-testers find the update does not seem to alter the capacity levels at which the LBW/VLBW occur, then future LEAFers might only have to test from one of those levels for results.

 

[TomT]

Agreed. I have a route that I have been using for some time, perhaps in a different fashion than some, but which fits the purpose for me... I think it will be sufficient, at least, for me to determine if there is any actual increase in range from those phantom 18 Gids...

IMO, it may be very difficult to find see small changes in capacity above the "noise" that is inevitable in any range test.

 

[KJD]

Agreed. I have a route that I have been using for some time, perhaps in a different fashion than some, but which fits the purpose for me... I think it will be sufficient, at least, for me to determine if there is any actual increase in range from those phantom 18 Gids...

When you do your test run, I would really like to know if LBW still occurs at 49 GIDs or some other number.

 

[TomT]

I'll let you know. I'm curious about that too.

When you do your test run, I would really like to know if LBW still occurs at 49 GIDs or some other number.

 

[thankyouOB]

i measure range typically by how many miles i get per juice bar.
i used to get 6...now it widely varies, particularly when i charge to 80%.
that first bar is often low. and so is the next.



i would like to know if the remap of the software affects that on the tested cars.

 

[mwalsh]

Well, we live in interesting times... After a 100% charge overnight, I am now showing 238 Gids, post-upgrade. This gave 393.0 volts and a 92.5% SOC which is unchanged from earlier readings. Pre-upgrade it was 220 Gids for 100%... So, it seems I have magically picked up 18 Gids of capacity and am now on the cusp of where one would normally expect to loose the first capacity bar. I'll know later this weekend if that translates to any real range increase.

(Now I have to figure out how to incorporate this new info in to my signature...)

That sounds pretty promising. That SOC though...is that according to the Android app? That seems a bit high to me for 238 Gids (which would be 84.6% of Gids). I would have thought your true SOC would be a bit lower? Not by much, but a bit.

18 Gids back would be worth around 5-6 miles to me. That would be massive (if it holds out to be e case)!

 

[TomT]

No, it was from the Lincomatic meter...

That sounds pretty promising. That SOC though...is that according to the Android app? That seems a bit high to me for 238 Gids (which would be 84.6% of Gids). I would have thought your true SOC would be a bit lower? Not by much, but a bit.

 

[edatoakrun]

Agreed. I have a route that I have been using for some time, perhaps in a different fashion than some, but which fits the purpose for me... I think it will be sufficient, at least, for me to determine if there is any actual increase in range from those phantom 18 Gids...

IMO, it may be very difficult to find see small changes in capacity above the "noise" that is inevitable in any range test.

Again, I suggest you take a look at:

Three examples of a LEAF with tested battery capacity with the timed recharges from ~turtle to "100%" to compare to are here:

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/fact2011nissanleaf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to indicate an 3%+ variation in the final charge accepted between ~turtle and "100%" was shown in just three tests on a single LEAF, which seems to have been largely responsible for the variation in charge times as well.

Remember way back when Phil wrote that "100%' was (IIRC) all over the place?

You will be trying to see what proportion (if not all) of your ~8% gid increase is "real", with a relatively large variation in initial capacity, in addition to hard-to-control test variables such as wind conditions and variable driver efficiency.

I encourage you to give it a try, and I will myself, when and if I get the update.

I'd especially encourage those with the largest indicated (by capacity bars or the various other sources) capacity losses pre-update to give it a try, since the noise/reality ratio (presumably) should be lowest.

It's just that I don't think anyone should be taken in by any illusion of precision in determining battery capacity and condition from range tests, as has, IMO, occurred many times in the past.

 

[TomT]

I concur. I'm looking at an INDICATED 8% increase in capacity. I'm hoping the test accuracy will be at least good enough to determine if there is any ACTUAL increase in range or if it is all smoke and mirrors...

It's just that I don't think anyone should be taken in by any illusion of precision in determining battery capacity and condition from range tests, as has, IMO, occurred many times in the past.

 

[supra410]

I concur. I'm looking at an INDICATED 8% increase in capacity. I'm hoping the test accuracy will be at least good enough to determine if there is any ACTUAL increase in range or if it is all smoke and mirrors...

It's just that I don't think anyone should be taken in by any illusion of precision in determining battery capacity and condition from range tests, as has, IMO, occurred many times in the past.

It's time to make an 11 bar 100 mile club attempt..

 

[Nubo]

I think Nissan would have been better off showing a battery health value somewhere in the center console or in CarWings instead of having a dedicated capacity gauge. If I recall correctly, you were fine, and even went on record stating that your LEAF had no perceived loss of range. That apparently all changed once the "first tooth" was missing. I doubt that this is a good example of an appropriate user experience design.

Yeah, but not because they are giving "too much" information, but because it was

- of questionable accuracy
- not granular enough

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.

 

[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:

• 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

What else?

 

[surfingslovak]

6) turtle-100% charge power from wall

This is an important detail. Getting the number of kWh pulled from the wall is crucial, since recharge times can vary and introduce another source of error.

 

[dsh]

Had Reprogram just done. No change capacity guage. Next step Module Replacement when goes down to 8 remaining.

 

[TomT]

I believe you have to be very near to the top capacity edge of a given bar to have any chance of recovering a bar after the update. Since the 12th bar has such a low granularity compared to the others, I also think there is no chance of ever recovering the 12th bar. If you have a Gid meter, your readings before and after the update would be noteworthy...

Had Reprogram just done. No change capacity guage. Next step Module Replacement when goes down to 8 remaining.