Nissan to announce official Battery Replacement Program soon

[uwskier20]

Although unlikely, I am hoping they make additional concessions to their vanguard owners, since our avid support early on undoubtedly had a hand in the LEAF's success.

A very romantic notion which I appreciate..

Yeah, I probably should have tempered my language a bit more still.

 

[ydnas7]

I'm still ready to be enthusiastic about Nissan, but they gotta stop with the bonehead stuff and make things right with us. We've been in an abusive relationship for almost 4 years and we need to have this leopard change his spots! What could do this and would he? Well, no more nonsense about the battery replacement warranty would be one way, and a bit more transparency going forward on the lizard battery would be another.

I still love the car. The company...not so much.

The transparency is partly what got Nissan into trouble in the first place.
lawsuits have a chilling effect on communication (and innovation)

also, battery suppliers don't sell packs that are over 60V to the general public, voltage over 60V are considered dangerous and only suitable for professional instalment. Even Tesla won't go there, packs over 60V get vetted through professional electricians (ie solarcity etc)

 

[Stoaty]

The transparency is partly what got Nissan into trouble in the first place.

Huh?

 

[cgaydos]

I am still in that phase where I am loving my Leaf and recommending it to people. But this gives me pause.

I am still in love with my LEAF, and am an old timer myself, but am no longer in love with Nissan. I think much of the fanboyism is gone, save for a few here in the PNW who are trying to justify going to all-LEAF garages to themselves.

When people ask about the LEAF, I'm no longer lavish in my praise, and mostly bill it as being appropriate for driving routines of less than 40 miles a day to account for capacity loss. I also strongly recommend leasing, despite having been strongly opposed to the notion of leasing in the past.

I think what Nissan announces in the coming weeks will definitely help me in my decision process. Although unlikely, I am hoping they make additional concessions to their vanguard owners, since our avid support early on undoubtedly had a hand in the LEAF's success.

I can't argue with that, but I'm not quite so negative on Nissan or the LEAF yet, probably because I haven't seen any manufacturer be particularly good about customer communication regarding difficult issues. The truth is while my family were fans of Datsun in the late 70s and early 80s we learned in the mid-1980s that Nissan nee Datsun just wasn't as good about quality, design, or customer relations as were Toyota, Honda, BMW, Audi/VW, or even smaller Japanese companies like Subaru. The LEAFs are the first Nissan's I've had since the mid 1980s. I would hope that Nissan realizes the opportunity they have here to improve reputation and increase customer base, but I haven't see any evidence that they have done so.

 

[thankyouOB]

I am not negative on the LEAF, either.
we need more fossil-fuel-free and ghg-reduced transportation.

i just wish i knew where my next battery is coming from and what it will cost. at least, one option should be syb-free, as well.

by the way, in the lottery for the announcement date: I pick June 30.

 

[evnow]

yes, the SYB is a well-deserved name.

Yes, just like "death panels".

 

[TomT]

I have very minimal expectations these days, the good news of which is that it will not be hard for Nissan to meet or exceed them...
Only 35.8571428571429 weeks to go before my lease is up.

 

[thankyouOB]

yes, the SYB is a well-deserved name.

Yes, just like "death panels".

but they are STEALING my battery if the (perpetual) monthly fee to lease a 12-bar, replacement battery -- as previously announced at $100, and you only get that if you agree to let nissan take your still working battery -- is the same for owners of the car and those who merely lease it.

(edited for clarity. in case, the commenter didnt get my point, instead of stubbornly insisting that nissan isnt taking my battery with no compensation at all.)

 

[evnow]

but they are STEALING my battery if the battery lease rate -- as previously announced for every car, at $100 and turn in the battery -- is the same for owners of the car and those who lease it.

Apparently you don't understand leasing, if this is your basis for "stealing". As I said as valid as "death panels" - just throwing out words like demagogues do. Have you explored getting into politics - you will probably do quite well.

 

[ydnas7]

The transparency is partly what got Nissan into trouble in the first place.

Huh?

How many other companies gave any indication of BEV battery life before Nissan gave a capacity warranty? Only A123 related cars did, no one else did?
Nissan was also the first to give a capacity warranty.
Nissan's AESC was/is also far more informative than LG, Samsung, Panasonic in regards to cell specifics for a vehicle.

Even today
Tesla's warranty page 34 battery capacity is excluded from warranty http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_quick_guide_-_na_rev_d_for_web.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
'The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this Battery Limited Warranty. See your owner documentation for important information on how to maximize the life and capacity of the Battery.'

or about disclosure, tesla has no official mention of number of cells in a car, supplier of cells in a car, chemistry of cells in a car. Yes, cell# can be counted by others, and Panasonic has public supply agreements, but if Tesla used Li ion batteries from Samsung or LG that were of any Li ion chemistry, no customer would know, because Tesla has always kept that information to itself. and Tesla reserves the right to.

Nissan gave some fleet wide guidance, and it is used against them, from the lawsuit on, capacity warranty is all that a large automaker will say and nothing else.
The large automakers and Nissan understand that a capacity warranty is what protects them lawsuits, or they use total silence.

 

[uwskier20]

Apparently you don't understand leasing, if this is your basis for "stealing". As I said as valid as "death panels" - just throwing out words like demagogues do. Have you explored getting into politics - you will probably do quite well.

Do you work for Nissan? I see no demagoguery here. thankyouOB and others are rightfully pissed off!

 

[Stoaty]

How many other companies gave any indication of BEV battery life before Nissan gave a capacity warranty? Nissan was also the first to give a capacity warranty.

Nissan gave some fleet wide guidance, and it is used against them, from the lawsuit on, capacity warranty is all that a large automaker will say and nothing else.

I think you are re-writing history here. It wasn't Nissan's transparency that got them into trouble, it was the things they loudly proclaimed that just weren't true:

--the 100 mile range they advertise to this day, when they should be using the EPA figure
--the claim that on average the Leaf battery would last 10 years until 70% capacity

Nissan only gave the capacity warranty (which at 5 years is half of what they claimed earlier) after the class action lawsuit was filed. The warranty was probably as a direct result of the lawsuit, although they tried to make it appear they were being generous and only concerned about their customers.

 

[ydnas7]

I think you are re-writing history here. It wasn't Nissan's transparency that got them into trouble, it was the things they loudly proclaimed that just weren't true:

--the 100 mile range they advertise to this day, when they should be using the EPA figure
--the claim that on average the Leaf battery would last 10 years until 70% capacity

Nissan only gave the capacity warranty (which at 5 years is half of what they claimed earlier) after the class action lawsuit was filed. The warranty was probably as a direct result of the lawsuit, although they tried to make it appear they were being generous and only concerned about their customers.

for better or worse, 100 mile LA4/JC08/NEDC range seems to have a design goal, from long back, Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car.

also, Nissan probably thought they were conservative with that claim, an ambient temperature battery design using daily or monthly average temperature with Arrhenius Law would make Hawaii the worst USA case scenario. With hindsight, that was not the case because almost no one recharges their EV outside at night-time. Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car. As it stands, from a global perspective 5 years to 80% and 10 years to 100% still seems pretty good. Maths 101 at uni may have a 50% pass rate, that also means 50% will fail.

Nissan obviously gave the capacity warranty in response to the lawsuit, (which itself was partially jump started by Tony's range test). Nissan's warranty actions sets the reference that other large companies will follow. Nissan's PR might have avoided all reference to the lawsuits, but how many non safety related lawsuits do car companies reference when they provide a free 'bonus'?

AESC site gives a discharge profile of the cells in a LEAF, can the equivalent be sourced for any LG battery car, or any Samsung SDI battery car, or any Panasonic car? No http://www.eco-aesc-lb.com/product/liion_ev/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nissan may not be forthcoming with information about its cells, but its insufficient disclosure is far better than its competitors.

Nissan's 2011-2012 cathode is 82% Manganese Spinel, 18% NCA

Nissan could've avoided most of the lawsuit and most of angst by just offering the warranty at the start, at nil additional cost. As it turns out, excessive capacity fade resulted in Nissan carrying a capacity warranty anyway, Nissan misunderstood how customers could throw that back at them.

At the end of the day, Nissan knew very well how the cells/battery performed in the lab, and in test fleets, but didn't know how humans would use the car in the rest of the world. such is life.

 

[TimLee]

Nissan only gave the capacity warranty (which at 5 years is half of what they claimed earlier) after the class action lawsuit was filed. The warranty was probably as a direct result of the lawsuit, although they tried to make it appear they were being generous and only concerned about their customers.

+10^1,000,000

for better or worse, 100 mile LA4/JC08/NEDC range seems to have a design goal, from long back, Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car.

also, Nissan probably thought they were conservative with that claim, an ambient temperature battery design using daily or monthly average temperature with Arrhenius Law would make Hawaii the worst USA case scenario. With hindsight, that was not the case because almost no one recharges their EV outside at night-time. Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car. As it stands, from a global perspective 5 years to 80% and 10 years to 100% still seems pretty good. Maths 101 at uni may have a 50% pass rate, that also means 50% will fail.

Nissan obviously gave the capacity warranty in response to the lawsuit, (which itself was partially jump started by Tony's range test). Nissan's warranty actions sets the reference that other large companies will follow. Nissan's PR might have avoided all reference to the lawsuits, but how many non safety related lawsuits do car companies reference when they provide a free 'bonus'?

AESC site gives a discharge profile of the cells in a LEAF, can the equivalent be sourced for any LG battery car, or any Samsung SDI battery car, or any Panasonic car? No http://www.eco-aesc-lb.com/product/liion_ev/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nissan may not be forthcoming with information about its cells, but its insufficient disclosure is far better than its competitors.

Nissan's 2011-2012 cathode is 82% Manganese Spinel, 18% NCA

Nissan could've avoided most of the lawsuit and most of angst by just offering the warranty at the start, at nil additional cost. As it turns out, excessive capacity fade resulted in Nissan carrying a capacity warranty anyway, Nissan misunderstood how customers could throw that back at them.

At the end of the day, Nissan knew very well how the cells/battery performed in the lab, and in test fleets, but didn't know how humans would use the car in the rest of the world. such is life.

So you think Nissan taking the grossly unethical approach of completely false and inaccurate marketing statements is a good thing :?: :?: :?:
PLEASE find some morals :shock: :!:

 

[ydnas7]

upon re-reading, my comment wasn't as clear as it should be, so I'll add further description

--the 100 mile range they advertise to this day, when they should be using the EPA figure

for better or worse, 100 mile LA4/JC08/NEDC range seems to have a design goal, from long back, Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car.

--the claim that on average the Leaf battery would last 10 years until 70% capacity

also, Nissan probably thought they were conservative with that claim, an ambient temperature battery design using daily or monthly average temperature with Arrhenius Law would make Hawaii the worst USA case scenario. With hindsight, that was not the case because almost no one recharges their EV outside at night-time. Nissan misunderstood how customers would actually use the car. As it stands, from a global perspective 5 years to 80% and 10 years to 70% still seems pretty good. Maths 101 at uni may have a 50% pass rate, that also means 50% will fail.

--Nissan only gave the capacity warranty (which at 5 years is half of what they claimed earlier) after the class action lawsuit was filed. The warranty was probably as a direct result of the lawsuit, although they tried to make it appear they were being generous and only concerned about their customers.

Nissan obviously gave the capacity warranty in response to the lawsuit, (which itself was partially jump started by Tony's range test). Nissan's warranty actions sets the reference that other large companies will follow. Nissan's PR might have avoided all reference to the lawsuits, but how many non safety related lawsuits do car companies reference when they provide a free 'bonus'?

The transparency is partly what got Nissan into trouble in the first place.

Huh?

Nissan's disclosure of what they thought was the capacity / time expectancy was used against them.
Nissan giving the option of 80% or 100% was also used against them.

No other automaker gives capacity/time expectancy, not even Tesla. Most now offer a capacity warranty, but Nissan did so first.
No other battery supplier (except perhaps A123) gives correlation between products and vehicles they are in. not Panasonic, not Samsung, not LG chem.
And Nissan has also removed the 80% option, since it weakened their position, it also is not even a factor in Stoaty's model.

At the end of the day, Nissan knew very well how the cells/battery performed in the lab, and in test fleets, but didn't know how humans would use the car in the rest of the world. such is life.

 

[ydnas7]

So you think Nissan taking the grossly unethical approach of completely false and inaccurate marketing statements is a good thing :?: :?: :?:
PLEASE find some morals :shock: :!:

not sure if you're talking about range or durability, but considering that according to Japanese taxation law, the Nissan LEAF gets 200-225km JC08 range.
I really think the first hand experience of the Nissan employees is efficiency giving 100mile range in summer and minimal degradation, and that the dissonance between their first hand experience and what they are told coming out of America was a key factor in their slow pre-lawsuit response.

Post lawsuit, everything gets second guessed by lawyers.

 

[RegGuheert]

At the end of the day, Nissan knew very well how the cells/battery performed in the lab, and in test fleets, but didn't know how humans would use the car in the rest of the world. such is life.

I think they knew all of these things, including how humans would use the cars. But I think Nissan had a major disconnect between *accelerated* lab and vehicle testing and how that translates into the customer experience. Specifically, cycling tests *only* tell of total battery losses in a regime that is dominated by constant (or nearly) cycling. Unfortunately, such testing does not provide insight into what proportion of the capacity loss is due to the cycling and how much is simply due to the battery aging (calendar losses).

I believe that the marketing department as Nissan incorrectly assumed that ALL the losses were associated with driving the vehicle and that the capacity loss at the number of miles achieved at the track in Arizona would be the worst case situation, regardless of how little the customer drove the car. In fact, I suspect many assumed driving fewer miles would give the best battery life, even though the reality is that those of us who drive the fewest miles will likely get the smallest number of miles out of our batteries, even if we get more years out of them. I believe it was a case of them not knowing what they didn't know: that in the customer application these batteries would lose more capacity when NOT being driven than they did while being driven.

As it stands, from a global perspective 5 years to 80% and 10 years to 70% still seems pretty good.

Not from where I sit, for a variety of reasons:

- I suspect that the median capacity remaining in 2011/2012 LEAFs after five years of ownership will be below 80%, perhaps significantly. Time will tell, although only Nissan is likely to learn the answer.
- Even Nissan LEAFs which lose less than 20% of their capacity during their first five years are likely to lose way more than half as much during their second five years. As I have pointed out many times, the published literature indicates long-term calendar losses do NOT slow down with time and sometimes they accelerate. The data we have on the LEAF does not indicate that our batteries are any different. Cycling losses typically do slow over time, so I expect there *might* be some slowing with time. Again, time will tell. In this case, we WILL learn this answer.
- Nissan LEAF sales are not evenly distributed in the various geographic regions. Significantly, many LEAFs are located in California, Arizona and Texas. The fact that Stoaty in CA is at three years with low miles and has 18% battery degradation tells me that the typical customer in the largest market for the Nissan LEAF is going to go WAY beyond the capacity loss that Nissan projected in our owners manuals.
- Many statements by Nissan marketing indicated that these were "expect-to-have" numbers rather than average or median numbers. While that is not what was printed in the owners manuals, the spoken words were often expressed in this fashion.

What I am wondering now is how much of the technological and marketing deficiencies with the LEAF have been addresses if/when the promised "hot battery" is released. Specifically, I wonder the following:

- Do the improvements to the battery help with calendar life, with cycling life, or both?
- If there are improvements to calendar life, have the factors which cause linear calendar losses been reduced to the point where they will not dominate calendar losses until much later in the battery's life? (To me, this is the key point that ALL EV batteries must address, regardless of chemistry and/or use of a TMS. But the battery industry still mainly discusses cycling life of emerging technologies.)
- How much of an improvement in capacity fade will a high-mileage customer in a cool climate achieve with the new battery technology?
- How much of an improvement in capacity fade will a low-mileage customer in a hot climate achieve with the new battery technology?

Unfortunately Nissan has chosen to provide no guidance on any of these topics and it seems their customers are again on their own to learn these things without any clear guidance.

 

[GregH]

Just a guess here... But I wouldn't be surprised if the guys crafting the $100 lease deal and the guys working on the lizard battery hadn't really been properly communicating with each other. At some point Nissan realized the new chemistry was the future and wanted to put as few of the old chemistry packs back out there on warranty or $100 lease as possible. Once the new battery was imminent then things could proceed with the lease. Could be just a lawyer<->engineer disconnect..

 

[JPWhite]

think they knew all of these things, including how humans would use the cars. But I think Nissan had a major disconnect between *accelerated* lab and vehicle testing and how that translates into the customer experience. Specifically, cycling tests *only* tell of total battery losses in a regime that is dominated by constant (or nearly) cycling. Unfortunately, such testing does not provide insight into what proportion of the capacity loss is due to the cycling and how much is simply due to the battery aging (calendar losses).

I think your analysis is sound. Nissan offered the 80% charge limit to extend battery longevity, which indicates they were more concerned with cycling degradation, to the point of providing a vehicle feature to minimize cycle/storage losses.

As always, 'accelerated wear' in the lab is only an approximation of what will happen with real world calendar loss. Something they couldn't test for unless they ran test mules for several more years before launching the product. Given they had to catch up with Tesla and keep shoulder to shoulder with GM they didn't want to wait.

 

[JPWhite]

At some point Nissan realized the new chemistry was the future and wanted to put as few of the old chemistry packs back out there on warranty

Agreed.

They faffed around 'deciding' if they wanted to increase production up from 2,000 units/month or not when all the signs were they should. THEN they took 6 months to initiate the production increases after announcing their decision to do so - all along blaming long lead times from their supply chain of anodes or cathodes or some such nonsense. BMW saw a growing shortfall in production of the i3 and increased production significantly almost overnight as if it was nothing. Any major OEM can up production in short order if they put their weight behind it.

Nissan have been dragging their heels until they can solve the battery issue once and for all.

I think we would have more sympathy for their situation had they admitted the battery had some issues and also promised to underwrite replacements. We and Nissan won't truly know if the Lizard battery (should they chose to release it) solves the heat issues or not for several more years.