Update on Battery Warranty Enhancement for 2011 & 2012 LEAF

[Stoaty]

Or the fact that they only gave you a lame 30%/9-bar warranty in 5 year is enough to tell you whether it's just a PR stunt, or whether they really put the money where their mouth was when they let their spokesman Mark Perry claim 20% average loss in 5 year and 30% average loss in 10 years in the beginning of the roll-out.

20% average loss in 5 years may very well be correct... but not in the hot climates.

 

[Valdemar]

Or the fact that they only gave you a lame 30%/9-bar warranty in 5 year is enough to tell you whether it's just a PR stunt, or whether they really put the money where their mouth was when they let their spokesman Mark Perry claim 20% average loss in 5 year and 30% average loss in 10 years in the beginning of the roll-out.

20% average loss in 5 years may very well be correct... but not in the hot climates.

Yet they chose 30% loss coverage under the new warranty. Why? Because they know that with the capacity bar "fix" there will only be a handful of claimants, even in Arizona.

 

[LEAFfan]

So if I understand this battery warranty, the replacement pack will have a 9 or so max recharge capacity instead of the original 12 bars? This is like getting a warranty on a tire and they give you a used tire for a replacement rather than a new one. This to me is unacceptable and the Leaf will be going back to Nissan in 21 months and moving on to another maker.

Ian, that's a good point, and Andy Palmer answered a similar question at the Phoenix Town Hall meeting. If I recall correctly, he said that Nissan's intention was return your battery to a state, where you will get good use out of it for some time. They wouldn't want a customer to return for a battery refresh every other month, since it would be counterproductive. As has been said many times earlier, there is indication that as of this writing a warranty repair would result in a factory-new battery pack.

+1 I also remember Andy saying this. I really believe they will replace the degraded pack with a new one.

 

[myleaf]

Or the fact that they only gave you a lame 30%/9-bar warranty in 5 year is enough to tell you whether it's just a PR stunt, or whether they really put the money where their mouth was when they let their spokesman Mark Perry claim 20% average loss in 5 year and 30% average loss in 10 years in the beginning of the roll-out.

20% average loss in 5 years may very well be correct... but not in the hot climates.

Yet they chose 30% loss coverage under the new warranty. Why? Because they know that with the capacity bar "fix" there will only be a handful of claimants, even in Arizona.

I am sure Nissan realizes that their "capacity bar" fix will be closely monitored by the Leaf owners. Knowing this, I believe they will be "straight" with the fix.

 

[Volusiano]

Or the fact that they only gave you a lame 30%/9-bar warranty in 5 year is enough to tell you whether it's just a PR stunt, or whether they really put the money where their mouth was when they let their spokesman Mark Perry claim 20% average loss in 5 year and 30% average loss in 10 years in the beginning of the roll-out.

20% average loss in 5 years may very well be correct... but not in the hot climates.

But that's why it adds more insult to their claim. While they do say that heat plays a role in capacity loss, when people asked Mark Perry whether there's any concern about hot climate areas and he said no, they've done extensive studies and have a test track in Casa Grande and all that, and they're not concerned based on their data. He said maybe they'll worry about TMS if they sold LEAFs in Dubai, but not AZ.

The bottom line is that they never said 20% in 5 years everywhere except hot climates. They said 20% in 5 years, and by the way, they have no concern with selling LEAFs in hot climates either. That can only lead people to draw the conclusion of 20% in 5 years everywhere including hot climates.

 

[cwerdna]

Or Nissan paying almost $3000 to cover all our expenses for the Sept 15, 2012 LEAF range test in Phoenix.

I didn't realize Nissan had done that. Thanks for sharing!!

He actually mentioned it a long time ago, but like many/most posts, it's easily buried. He mentioned that there was a (surprise?) benefactor. I had an early heads up w/some inside info and I was VERY surprised to hear who the benefactor was. Tony later publicly confirmed the inside info I'd gotten (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=236651#p236651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false.

Yes, I'll echo the thanks to Tony and the range test participants for their efforts and the risks they undertook.

I am sure Nissan realizes that their "capacity bar" fix will be closely monitored by the Leaf owners. Knowing this, I believe they will be "straight" with the fix.

I agree.

So if I understand this battery warranty, the replacement pack will have a 9 or so max recharge capacity instead of the original 12 bars? This is like getting a warranty on a tire and they give you a used tire for a replacement rather than a new one. This to me is unacceptable and the Leaf will be going back to Nissan in 21 months and moving on to another maker.

Ian, that's a good point, and Andy Palmer answered a similar question at the Phoenix Town Hall meeting. If I recall correctly, he said that Nissan's intention was return your battery to a state, where you will get good use out of it for some time. They wouldn't want a customer to return for a battery refresh every other month, since it would be counterproductive...

Yep.

Andy addressed their intent as to how many bars/how much capacity the replacement will have at the ~22 min mark of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuPQe23vP0Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

 

[JPWhite]

Yup, I see this new warranty as nothing more but an official acknowledgement that the original claim you refer to was a lie.

I find that a bit strong. An average is an average, not a minimum.

The warranty will cover cars that deviate far enough away from a reasonable standard. If the warranty was 20% (2 bars) after 5 years, Nissan would have to replace half the batteries on the road. I don't think it reasonable to expect that.

Clearly they have done their homework and will repair outlier vehicles. Let's not forget we all signed agreements understanding there was NO warranty for capacity, to turn around and complain the new capacity warranty isn't adequate is unreasonable given what we all agreed to IMHO.

I do agree with comments here that Nissan should share more of what they know about expected degradation in each geographical region, so Phoenix purchasers should be able to see what is average for Pheonix and make an informed purchase. Heck we can see driver rankings on CarWings, why not have a battery section where we can see how we shape up with others in our area and who has the 'best' degradation record, provide advice on CarWings on how to minimize battery degradation and rank drivers on those factors as part of the CarWings 'Gamification' experience.

 

[planet4ever]

So if I understand this battery warranty, the replacement pack will have a 9 or so max recharge capacity instead of the original 12 bars?

So, I have to live with range anxiety for ? years until Nissan replaces the battery to 9 bars of capacity, or in my laymen terms to get four miles more?

You guys are not thinking this through logically. No, Nissan did not say they would repair to a maximum of 9 bars, but rather to at least 9 bars. Whether you get a new pack, as surfingslovak and LEAFfan think, or a refurbished pack, or a repaired pack, I'm willing to bet they are going to do their level best to give you a battery in good enough condition so that it will not drop below 9 capacity bars before the warranty runs out. No company wanting to stay in business is going to set itself up to give away multi-thousand-dollar rebuilds several times on the same car.

So, yes, if you already have 58,000 miles on your car when you make your claim, you might get a 9-bar battery back. But if you're below 30K miles and 30 months, you will get a brand new battery. Nothing else would make economic sense for them. And, as cwerdna just pointed out, that is exactly what Andy implied in Phoenix.

Ray

 

[LEAFfan]

Yup, I see this new warranty as nothing more but an official acknowledgement that the original claim you refer to was a lie.

I find that a bit strong. An average is an average, not a minimum.

The warranty will cover cars that deviate far enough away from a reasonable standard. If the warranty was 20% (2 bars) after 5 years, Nissan would have to replace half the batteries on the road. I don't think it reasonable to expect that.

Clearly they have done their homework and will repair outlier vehicles. Let's not forget we all signed agreements understanding there was NO warranty for capacity, to turn around and complain the new capacity warranty isn't adequate is unreasonable given what we all agreed to IMHO.

I do agree with comments here that Nissan should share more of what they know about expected degradation in each geographical region, so Phoenix purchasers should be able to see what is average for Pheonix and make an informed purchase. Heck we can see driver rankings on CarWings, why not have a battery section where we can see how we shape up with others in our area and who has the 'best' degradation record, provide advice on CarWings on how to minimize battery degradation and rank drivers on those factors as part of the CarWings 'Gamification' experience.

Advice on how to minimize battery degradation for Phoenix area drivers would be useless. You may have forgotten that several drivers here babied (did ALL the right things) their battery packs and still lost at least one bar. Why? Because high ambient heat/temps over time degraded the pack.

 

[Volusiano]

The warranty will cover cars that deviate far enough away from a reasonable standard. If the warranty was 20% (2 bars) after 5 years, Nissan would have to replace half the batteries on the road. I don't think it reasonable to expect that.

A 100% deviation (20% + 10% = 30% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is not a reasonable standard in my opinion. A 20% deviation (20% + 2% = 22% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is reasonable.

Clearly they have done their homework and will repair outlier vehicles. Let's not forget we all signed agreements understanding there was NO warranty for capacity, to turn around and complain the new capacity warranty isn't adequate is unreasonable given what we all agreed to IMHO.

The original comment from Valdemar was about Nissan trying to regain trust. If Nissan has reminded everyone (like you just did) that we all signed agreements understanding that there was NO warranty, then we wouldn't have had to debate how reasonable the warranty is.

But it was Nissan who opened the door and tried to restore the trust from customers by offering a warranty, which means that they opened the door to criticism and that means that customers are entitled to voice their opinion on the warranty since Nissan is the one who opened that door in the first place.

So Nissan should either shut the customers up by reminding them that they signed to agree to no warranty. Or offer a reasonable warranty. But instead, they tried to have it both ways and offered a lame warranty.

I would settle for Nissan offering 22% capacity warranty for 2011-2011 owners, and 30% capacity to 2013 and later owners. The whole point is that they should put the money where their mouth is when they set the expectation with customers. They can set a 30% expectation with 2013 customers now up front and that's fine as long as they set it up front with customers. But for 2011 and 2012 customers, the expectation was 20% so they should honor 2011-2012 with 22% warranty to match with the expectation that THEY had set.

 

[Stoaty]

A 100% deviation (20% + 10% = 30% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is not a reasonable standard in my opinion. A 20% deviation (20% + 2% = 22% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is reasonable.

If you look at it from the standpoint of retained capacity, then the deviation is 10/80 = 1/8 = 12.5%. Guessing that at 5 years retained capacity may be average of 80% with a standard deviation of 5% (but not in Phoenix at 12,500 miles per year). If the capacity is less than 70% it would be more than 2 standard deviations below the mean. The outliers on the positive side will be places like Seattle.

 

[Volusiano]

A 100% deviation (20% + 10% = 30% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is not a reasonable standard in my opinion. A 20% deviation (20% + 2% = 22% on one side, the other side is irrelevant) is reasonable.

If you look at it from the standpoint of retained capacity, then the deviation is 10/80 = 1/8 = 12.5%. Guessing that at 5 years retained capacity may be average of 80% with a standard deviation of 5% (but not in Phoenix at 12,500 miles per year). If the capacity is less than 70% it would be more than 2 standard deviations below the mean. The outliers on the positive side will be places like Seattle.

Sure, there are many ways to look at the deviation, and I'm sure Nissan would love to look at it your way.

From my perspective, I'd like to say that Nissan has increased their 20% loss expectation by 50%. The bottom line is that had Nissan said that their battery loss will be at 30% after 5 years on the average, especially in AZ, nobody would have bought LEAFs in 2011-2012. Is anybody still buying brand new LEAFs in AZ today anymore, or did most people lease only in AZ now (now that the cat is out of the bag)? So saying 20% to entice people to buy in 2011-2012, and now saying 30% retroactively, to me is a big difference.

Again, a 30% warranty for 2013 LEAFs with such expectation set up front is fine for me. No criticism there. But for 2011-2012 LEAFs, the retroactive warranty should be 20% as set from the previous expectation by Nissan.

 

[Valdemar]

Despite my criticism I should be more or less of a happy camper, my battery degradation is fairly mild after almost 2 years and 30k miles. But it is more than I originally expected and what pisses me off now is that at the rate it is progressing I will likely be very close to 30% loss just before the new warranty expires but will not lose enough to be able to file a claim under this warranty. The capacity bar fix is not helping either considering it is going to make readings more optimistic, if nothing else hopefully it will at least help with the car resale value.

 

[planet4ever]

But for 2011-2012 LEAFs, the retroactive warranty should be 20% as set from the previous expectation by Nissan.

You remind me of Garrison Keillor on Prairie Home Companion, where "all the children are above average". Except that he knows that is impossible, and you apparently don't. No company in its right mind would give a warranty that would cost them thousands of dollars for every item they sold that was below the average of all that they sold. The only way anyone can stay in business is to set the warranty level considerably below the average, as Stoaty says. And from the very beginning we were told (page 3 of the first section of the Owner's Manual):

NISSAN estimates that battery capacity will be approximately 80% of original capacity after five years, although this is only an estimate, and this percentage may vary (and could be significantly lower) depending on individual vehicle and Li-ion battery usage.

"may vary" means that 80% is an average, and they made it perfectly clear that it "could be significantly lower". They also said, in the same paragraph,

The capacity of the Li-ion battery in your vehicle to hold a charge will, like all such batteries, decrease with time and usage. As the battery ages and capacity decreases, this will result in a decrease from the vehicle’s initial mileage range. This is normal, expected, and not indicative of any defect in your Li-ion battery.

I don't see the slightest hint of ambiguity there. 80% is average, it could be significantly lower, and that is normal battery behavior. It seems to me that they are being generous by now saying that they will treat anything below 70% as abnormal.

Ray

 

[Stoaty]

Despite my criticism I should be more or less of a happy camper, my battery degradation is fairly mild after almost 2 years and 30k miles. But it is more than I originally expected and what pisses me off now is that at the rate it is progressing I will likely be very close to 30% loss just before the new warranty expires but will not lose enough to be able to file a claim under this warranty. The capacity bar fix is not helping either considering it is going to make readings more optimistic, if nothing else hopefully it will at least help with the car resale value.

The capacity bar fix isn't going to make the readings more optimistic, it will (presumably) make them more accurate. The fix may very well show that you have less degradation than you thought. I don't see how that can be a bad thing, unless you are suggesting that you want to take advantage of Nissan's warranty by exaggerating how much capacity you have lost.

 

[DaveEV]

But for 2011-2012 LEAFs, the retroactive warranty should be 20% as set from the previous expectation by Nissan.

You remind me of Garrison Keillor on Prairie Home Companion, where "all the children are above average". Except that he knows that is impossible, and you apparently don't.

This debate brings up a good point - people tend to be optimists, so naturally everyone expects their situation to be better than "average".

The only way (and I've been saying this for a long time) around this is to present specific examples of capacity loss in varying climates/cities under typical usage so customers can make their own educated decisions on whether buying/leasing or skipping makes sense for them.

For example, simply say that if you charge to 100% at night, drive 25 miles during the day, you should to have approximately X% capacity remaining after 3 years, in each of Seattle, Los Angeles and Phoenix, you'd provide realistic expectations.

Unfortunately, the truth may hurt.

 

[QueenBee]

So if I understand this battery warranty, the replacement pack will have a 9 or so max recharge capacity instead of the original 12 bars? This is like getting a warranty on a tire and they give you a used tire for a replacement rather than a new one. This to me is unacceptable and the Leaf will be going back to Nissan in 21 months and moving on to another maker.

Ian B

It seems to me that I'm not the only one who is disappointed with this warranty announcement except that I won't be able to walk away from my purchase or trade in the car because it has no resale value.
So, I have to live with range anxiety for ? years until Nissan replaces the battery to 9 bars of capacity, or in my laymen terms to get four miles more?

That is shameful.

Ugh, no.... How are you reading that 9 bars is the MAX capacity of the replacement pack?? That makes zero sense on so many levels and is clearly not the case. That's the minimum capacity and technically the max capacity could be higher than the original pack.

leafwig, could you backup your claim that your LEAF has no resale value? I think what you mean to say is that you bought a car with brand new technology that was unproven in the marketplace and the value of this car has decreased with time just like every other new car. Were you really so delusional that you thought your purchase would hold its value?? If resale value and battery capacity loss were concerns for you why did you buy the car instead of leasing it?

 

[leafwing]

So if I understand this battery warranty, the replacement pack will have a 9 or so max recharge capacity instead of the original 12 bars? This is like getting a warranty on a tire and they give you a used tire for a replacement rather than a new one. This to me is unacceptable and the Leaf will be going back to Nissan in 21 months and moving on to another maker.

Ian B

It seems to me that I'm not the only one who is disappointed with this warranty announcement except that I won't be able to walk away from my purchase or trade in the car because it has no resale value.
So, I have to live with range anxiety for ? years until Nissan replaces the battery to 9 bars of capacity, or in my laymen terms to get four miles more?

That is shameful.

Ugh, no.... How are you reading that 9 bars is the MAX capacity of the replacement pack?? That makes zero sense on so many levels and is clearly not the case. That's the minimum capacity and technically the max capacity could be higher than the original pack.

leafwig, could you backup your claim that your LEAF has no resale value? I think what you mean to say is that you bought a car with brand new technology that was unproven in the marketplace and the value of this car has decreased with time just like every other new car. Were you really so delusional that you thought your purchase would hold its value?? If resale value and battery capacity loss were concerns for you why did you buy the car instead of leasing it?

I don't like the tone of your post. Nevertheless, I will stay objective. I believed back then Nissan's claim that the battery will retain 80% of its capacity after 5 years, 70% after ten years. No word on the influence of the heat on battery capacity. Is this enough answer for you as why I bought the car? I was not prepared to lose the first bar (15% or more?) after 16 months and 13K miles only. I babied the car, 80% charging, no QC( I paid money for that too) eco driving...etc, 5 stars on both battery tests. And, no. I do not think that a car purchase is investment; that a dealer's BS. The car loses its value when you leave the lot. Period. I purchased the car because I like it, and I still like it, and because I believe in the technology. The new Warranty states clearly that Nissan is not going to replace the damaged battery with a new (or 12 bars) one. All the other stuff is speculation. I have to ask you one question: why the warranty kicks in below 9 bars ( that's way below 80% in 5 years or 60K)? Do you think it is fair for me to lose one bar after 13K, while another driver in colder climate, loses a bar after driving 76K miles? Do you know why I'm frustrated?
Resale value: I was offered $14K for my car (18k miles). Do you think that $38K(or $31K) will worth that much after less than two years of ownership. I have been patient, but after all this waiting, the result was not satisfactory at all.

 

[Volusiano]

But for 2011-2012 LEAFs, the retroactive warranty should be 20% as set from the previous expectation by Nissan.

You remind me of Garrison Keillor on Prairie Home Companion, where "all the children are above average". Except that he knows that is impossible, and you apparently don't. No company in its right mind would give a warranty that would cost them thousands of dollars for every item they sold that was below the average of all that they sold. The only way anyone can stay in business is to set the warranty level considerably below the average, as Stoaty says.

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of trying to minimize the cost of operating business like you're looking at. The perspective I'm looking at is to come up with a reasonable publicity remedy that would solve the PR disaster that Nissan faced last year with the capacity loss issue.

If you're looking purely from the perspective of minimizing the cost of business, then Nissan should have quit while they're ahead already because they're losing money on every LEAF they've sold so far. Just the same as GM with every Volt they've sold so far. But they're sticking with it and they're eating their losses because in their mind, this is an initial investment period where their losses will eventually be recouped in the long run once EV sales will have taken off and they'll have been established as the forefront leaders of the EV market.

Nissan didn't get off to a good start and this capacity issue has been a big egg in their face, not to mention their piss-poor reaction to it (it's normal) and their deafening silence in the management of it. Sure, a 20% warranty for 2011 and 2012 model year will be a money-losing proposition for them. But it's a necessary investment loss they need sustain in order to restore customers' trust and not lose their position in the EV market. There are many ways they can come up with to mitigate this loss because time is on their side before the warranty claims will start pouring in to come up with a cheaper battery replacement, and also the loss is only contained within the 2011-2012 model years, where they haven't sold that many units during those first 2 years in the first place anyway. But to come up with a lame unacceptable remedy will only make it more obvious that they don't really have the customers' best interest at heart. Now, that loss of trust will be a lot more expensive to them in the long run compared to the monetary loss that they will incur through a reasonable battery warranty. It also shows that they have no faith in their battery technology like they initially claimed they did.

The bottom line is that this is not about trying to determine what's above and below average and how to minimize losing money in a business. This is about paying for past mistakes to save consumer's confidence and trust in your company's name. It's about a necessary expense to protect all the investment that you have poured into this new venture so far for the good of the long term of the business.

And again, I'm not asking Nissan to give 20% capacity warranty for ALL models years. I'm only saying they should give 20% capacity warranty for 2011-2012 model years. Again, they can stick with 30% capacity for 2013 model year and later, as long as they set that 30% expectation upfront clearly.

It's about standing by your claim and saving your reputation, even at the expense of losing some money to save it.

 

[QueenBee]

Nissan should have quit while they're ahead already because they're losing money on every LEAF they've sold so far. Just the same as GM with every Volt they've sold so far.

What's your source for that? I don't recall reading anything at all recent about the profitability of the LEAF or Volt. Obviously if you include the massive R&D that went into these cars that's the case but for accounting purposes I don't know how long and for how many cars they are able to divide that up.