This story was ran in the AZ Republic today

[mark1313]

They also ran a large pic with story ...

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/20121025nissan-refund-car-sanchez-call12.html?nclick_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

cant access article. says cookies need to be enabled

 

[RegGuheert]

cant access article. says cookies need to be enabled

Same here, but this one works: Call 12: Report juices Nissan to refund car.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

cant access article. says cookies need to be enabled

Same here, but this one works: Call 12: Report juices Nissan to refund car.

Thanks! that worked fine although i have to admit i already knew what the article would say and it provided no surprises.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

If a manufacturer buys back a defective EV, are taxpayers refunded the subsidy?

 

[surfingslovak]

This story broke and was covered two weeks ago. The only new element is that John Noble ended up getting another Nissan. I don't believe that was the case with other Phoenix owners who returned their car earlier this month. I was wondering about the federal tax credit as well, but to my knowledge, there is no requirement on minimum length of service.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If a manufacturer buys back a defective EV, are taxpayers refunded the subsidy?

There's no resell, or buy back provision in the law. The end consumer (Nissan Finanacial for a lease) gets $7500, if they meet the requirements (had to have paid $7500 in taxes).

So, yes, Nissan could sell every electric car, take $7500 for each one (if they are all leased), and then buy them back at some value less than a $7500 loss to the company, and actually turn a profit buying back every LEAF and crushing them.

 

[JPVLeaf]

And it appears that if the Leaf was purchased, the (former) owner
gets to pocket the $7500 Fed tax credit, or whatever portion that
they claimed. In the end, not a bad deal.

 

[surfingslovak]

And it appears that if the Leaf was purchased, the (former) owner
gets to pocket the $7500 Fed tax credit, or whatever portion that
they claimed. In the end, not a bad deal.

JP, that's a good point. If the Leaf was driven for less than 25,000 and the owner was able to claim a the full amount of the federal tax rebate, then they might end up with extra cash in their pocket. If that was indeed the case, then it will likely help sweeten the bitter experience of going through this process. I doubt that any of the affected owners would elect that voluntarily.

 

[JPVLeaf]

And it appears that if the Leaf was purchased, the (former) owner
gets to pocket the $7500 Fed tax credit, or whatever portion that
they claimed. In the end, not a bad deal.

JP, that's a good point. If the Leaf was driven for less than 25,000 and the owner was able to claim a the full amount of the federal tax rebate, then they might end up with extra cash in their pocket. If that was indeed the case, then it will likely help sweeten the bitter experience of going through this process. I doubt that any of the affected owners would elect that voluntarily.

No doubt. How would they have known at the time? In the end, what matters
is if each feels they've been made whole. Seems Nissan tried to make things
such that, in the end, each could say "Yes." I hope that was the case.

 

[surfingslovak]

Seems Nissan tried to make things
such that, in the end, each could say "Yes." I hope that was the case.

I believe that's the case, at least based on my personal impression. Even though there might be quite a bit of bitterness left about what transpired this summer, and the amount of time and energy it all consumed, it's a good sign that some of these owners are considering another Nissan vehicle. That said, I believe that there are at least two people in Phoenix who feel quite frustrated, and one would hope that they will be able to see the resolution they are looking for sooner than later.

 

[Volusiano]

Taking action to make whole only those few who go to the news and ignoring hundreds of others who have opened a case with Nissan on capacity loss is in no way meeting customer satisfaction in my opinion.

Why don't these news pieces also mention the fact that there are still hundred of others with cases opened with Nissan on the same issue but are not getting anywhere with Nissan?

 

[Volusiano]

In the end, what matters is if each feels they've been made whole. Seems Nissan tried to make things such that, in the end, each could say "Yes." I hope that was the case.

I'm not seeing it at all. I only see Nissan trying to shut up those who makes the most noise on TV and newspaper by paying them off, but they're not coming up with any general remedy for the rest of the people who are affected at all.

 

[JPVLeaf]

Sorry, I know I'm behind in reading forum posts/threads in case this has been discussed elsewhere ....

How many of the 4-bar and/or 3-bar folks did they end up contacting and/or meeting with to offer 'remedies'?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

A buyback of my LEAF would have been my least desired outcome. I have heard little feedback from those whose LEAFs were returned but have to think they did not want that option either.

What i was wanting (hoping for) was MUCH more information regarding research and information Nissan "already" had on hot degradation issues. A promise to provide effective monitoring of critical LEAF systems, A possible explanation (a real one) over mechanics of the battery issues in Phoenix...

I mean if you in Phoenix and you are driving a Versa and you are $20,000 richer than you were a month ago, i guess that is great. you are back to where you were 12, 16 or 21 months ago complete with a brand new car and all but I would have been pretty disappointed that Nissan could not address my LEAF problem.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Sorry, I know I'm behind in reading forum posts/threads in case this has been discussed elsewhere ....

How many of the 4-bar and/or 3-bar folks did they end up contacting and/or meeting with to offer 'remedies'?

The results don't exactly follow the logical "worst cars get addressed first" methodology. So far, 4 of the 12 tested in Phoenix on Sept 15 have been leased returned or bought back.

Of course, the two newest cars from the test (manufactured 4/2012) aren't looking for a buy back. That leaves 6 remaining, and I know that some of those aren't interested in pursuing a buy back. A few others will likely be bought back soon.

 

[Volusiano]

For owners in hot states who have lost capacity prematurely (with case opened with Nissan) but aren't interested in a car buyback, the proper remedy is to provide an option for a battery swap at some point later on down the line when the diminished battery capacity can no longer serve the owner's purpose.

It doesn't have to be a free battery swap, it can be pro-rated to the miles already put on the battery.

There should be an incentive to encourage these owners to push out the swap to as far out as possible to benefit from a reduced/falling battery price in the future (by pricing out the battery at a reduced cost over the years).

Another incentive for owners to delay the battery swap is to provide them with free Blink charging card so owners can fill-up more frequently in the middle of long trips where the diminished range battery can't get them as far as it could before.

There should be a credit given to owners with premature loss compared to a standard loss at the time of the swap. For example, at the time of the swap, if the capacity loss of the problem battery is 25% while the standard loss of a normal/mild-climate battery is only 10%, then a 15% credit should be given to the problem battery to compensate for the premature loss.

 

[DaveEV]

There should be a credit given to owners with premature loss compared to a standard loss at the time of the swap. For example, at the time of the swap, if the capacity loss of the problem battery is 25% while the standard loss of a normal/mild-climate battery is only 10%, then a 15% credit should be given to the problem battery to compensate for the premature loss.

Good idea, but I think your calculation is wrong.

To make the math easy, if one expects to reach 15% capacity loss after 5 years and 30% after 10 years, but you reach 30% after 5 years of "normal" usage, you should expect 50% of the cost to be compensated, not 15%.