Update on Battery Warranty Enhancement for 2011 & 2012 LEAF

[Volusiano]

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.

There are many sources. Here's one that talks about both: http://gm-volt.com/2010/05/16/nissan-admits-it-will-lose-money-on-the-leaf-at-first-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't need to have recent sources to confirm common knowledge that they will lose money in the first couple of years of the program. At least until they're able to crank out the volume they need in Smyrna, AND meet their projected sales for the mass volume they can produce at Smyrna. As of now, they're only barely a couple of months into selling 2013 LEAFs produced from Smyrna, and they're nowhere near the 150,000 car capacity at Smyrna nor are they anywhere near projecting to sell 150,000 cars per year yet.

It's ironic to point out the first sentence of the article: "Nissan has been working hard to achieve positive publicity..." It goes to the heart of my point, that they need to be prepared to spend money to recover from their negative publicity of the battery capacity loss. I think they're mistaken in thinking that they can fool customers into thinking that they're paying with a retroactive 30% loss warranty for 2011-2012 LEAFs. People can see right through it and know that there's enough buffer in there to save them from having to really pay much of anything for the negative publicity created.

Do you really think that those 2011-2012 early adopters are going to come back and buy from Nissan again, thanks to that generous 30% loss warranty? Or future potential customers that learn about that capacity fiasco? Putting that 30% loss warranty is only like putting a floor way at the bottom to keep things from falling through the hole. It's not anywhere near the level of having a reasonable remedy to restore confidence and trust to the customers.

Below is the article quoted directly for anyone too lazy to click on the link:

Nissan has been working hard to achieve positive publicity since they first began discussing the LEAF program. By then the Volt had been in the spotlight for two years and they had a lot of catching up to do.
Nissan has repeatedly contended they would make a profit from selling the LEAF, which contrasted from GM’s admission that they wouldn’t profit from the first year or two of Volt sales. GM always said the Volt was an investment in the future where Gen 2 and beyond economies of scale and price reductions would make the car profitable. After all lithium-ion batteries are very expensive at today’s prices.
Nissan has now admitted they are in a similar position to GM.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Nissan US sales and marketing cheif Brian Carolin said the LEAF also would lose money in its first two years.
“Over the course of the vehicle life, it is profitable—in year three,” he said.
The intial supply of LEAFs for the first two years will be built in Japan. That plant has an annual capacity of 50,000 cars, 20,000 of which will be shipped to the US.
In late 2012, Nissan will open its US-government funded Smyrna Tennessee LEAF plant that can build 150,000 cars per year.
It is at that volume when the cars will first turn a profit said Carolin.
According to Nissan USA director Mark Perry, the 24 kwh, 600 pound battery pack will cost less than $18,000 ($750 per kwh). The packs will eventually be made in the US at a plant in Tennessee that will have an annual capacity of 200,000.
Nissan has an internal target of $9000 ($370 per kwh) for the pack which it hopes to achieve when US high volume production starts.
The caveat here is Nissan can thus only turn a profit if the cars can sell at the projected volumes. Despite its low cost of $25,780 after the tax credit, and assuming no major gouging, concerns about range anxiety may hamper sales, especially if prospective buyers directly compare the car to the Volt and the flexibility it provides.
Though some will adjust their lifestyles to avoid using any gas at all cost, and they are to be commended, a larger segment of the population are more likely to consider EREVs for now.

 

[edatoakrun]

="Volusiano"...There are many sources. Here's one that talks about both: http://gm-volt.com/2010/05/16/nissan-admits-it-will-lose-money-on-the-leaf-at-first-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't need to have recent sources to confirm common knowledge that they will lose money in the first couple of years of the program. At least until they're able to crank out the volume they need in Smyrna, AND meet their projected sales for the mass volume they can produce at Smyrna. As of now, they're only barely a couple of months into selling 2013 LEAFs produced from Smyrna, and they're nowhere near the 150,000 car capacity at Smyrna nor are they anywhere near projecting to sell 150,000 cars per year yet.

Below is the article quoted directly for anyone too lazy to click on the link:

...“Over the course of the vehicle life, it is profitable—in year three,” he said.
The intial supply of LEAFs for the first two years will be built in Japan. That plant has an annual capacity of 50,000 cars, 20,000 of which will be shipped to the US.
In late 2012, Nissan will open its US-government funded Smyrna Tennessee LEAF plant that can build 150,000 cars per year.
It is at that volume when the cars will first turn a profit said Carolin...

Actually, below is the article quoted directly for anyone too lazy to click on the link:

...The Leaf will be built in Japan only at first, and exported to the U.S. and Europe. The Japanese plant will have a 50,000-vehicle capacity. Mr. Carolin would like to get 20,000 cars from the plant for the U.S. market in 2011 and 2012.

Nissan will open a renovated portion of its Smyrna, Tenn., plant in December 2012 with a capacity to make 150,000 Leafs annually. At higher volumes, the car will be profitable, he said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635204575242382820806878.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The apparent misquote on the gm forum you posted of the rather stale (over two years old) WSJ article changes the meaning significantly. While it appears Nissan (unlike GM) has largely met the sales goals it set out two years ago, exactly what US sales volumes Nissan was planning then, and what sales levels will be required for profitability in this (or future) year(s) are not likely to be announced by Nissan.

Back on-topic:

="Volusiano...It's ironic to point out the first sentence of the article: "Nissan has been working hard to achieve positive publicity..." It goes to the heart of my point, that they need to be prepared to spend money to recover from their negative publicity of the battery capacity loss. I think they're mistaken in thinking that they can fool customers into thinking that they're paying with a retroactive 30% loss warranty for 2011-2012 LEAFs. People can see right through it and know that there's enough buffer in there to save them from having to really pay much of anything for the negative publicity created.

Do you really think that those 2011-2012 early adopters are going to come back and buy from Nissan again, thanks to that generous 30% loss warranty? Or future potential customers that learn about that capacity fiasco? Putting that 30% loss warranty is only like putting a floor way at the bottom to keep things from falling through the hole. It's not anywhere near the level of having a reasonable remedy to restore confidence and trust to the customers...

Well, I suppose the capacity warranty could be viewed largely as a placebo prescription for hypochondriacs, as Nissan realizes only a tiny fraction of US buyers will ever make a claim.

I doubt Nissan expects to placate the small number of LEAF owners who seem to be convinced that there is a capacity fiasco, a major miscalculation by Nissan of LEAF expected battery life. Nissan is probably more concerned with the other ~99.9% of potential BEV buyers.

I do hope that even the most uniformed LEAF buyers in the future will use the warranty's ~70% capacity range as the determining factor in their LEAF buying decision. I certainly knew three years ago I would be taking a risk in that I will need closer to 80% of my LEAFs "new" battery capacity to meet my minimal range needs for the first ~5 years and ~60,000 miles.

I am very pleased that all indications so far (My LEAF still having very close to "new" range after 19,000+ miles and 25 months) are that my gamble will probably pay off.

Of course, sometime between five and ten years from my purchase date, I will probably find out how well I did on the other bet I placed when I bought my LEAF, on the ~2016 to 2021 battery replacement cost.

I'm looking forward to the first major data point on that question, the 2013 battery price announcement from Nissan, expected in the next few days.

 

[RegGuheert]

The apparent misquote on the gm forum you posted of the rather stale (over two years old) WSJ article changes the meaning significantly. While it appears Nissan (unlike GM) has largely met the sales goals it set out two years ago, exactly what US sales volumes Nissan was planning then, and what will be required for profitability in this (or future) year(s) are not likely to be announced by Nissan.

I find it funny that this is what is being said on the Volt forum. Seriously, the manufacturing model for the LEAF is WAY ahead of what GM is doing for the Volt in terms of flexibility and the number of units they will need to reach profitability. There is a reason why GM is idling their factory occasionally while Nissan has increased from one factory to three.

And this is not entirely off-topic, either. One of the key reasons Nissan chose not to liquid-cool their battery was so that they could easily build it alongside any other Nissan vehicles. As I've said before, I think that is the correct long-term approach, even if it is not a great solution in hot climates today.

Also, I find it interesting to compare the battery capacity warranties between the Nissan LEAF and the Chevy Volt:

Vehicle        Months/Miles   %Degradation        %OfBatteryLeft
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chevy Volt      96/100,000         30%          70% of 65% = 45.5%
Nissan LEAF     60/60,000          30%          70% of 92% = 64.4%

In other words, Nissan warrants that LEAF owners will have access to the same percent of the overall battery capacity after 5 years and 60,000 miles as Chevrolet Volt owners have when new, although Chevrolet does not warrant that this much capacity will ever be available. And keep in mind the capacity of the LEAF battery is 50% larger than the battery capacity of the Volt to start with.

Put another way, to match the Chevrolet Volt battery warranty, Nissan would need to add a 45% capacity warranty at 8 years and 100,000 miles.

The difference is that Chevrolet hides capacity (and therefore capacity loss) from the owners to reduce cycling losses and so that owners do not feel the loss of capacity the way LEAF owners do. It's working. Chevrolet Volt owners are blissfully ignorant of the fact that their batteries are degrading while Nissan LEAF owners are painfully aware of this fact.

Frankly, I'll take Nissan's warranty over Chevy's warranty.

 

[TonyWilliams]

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.

At 7500 miles per year....

 

[scottf200]

And this is not entirely off-topic, either. One of the key reasons Nissan chose not to liquid-cool their battery was so that they could easily build it alongside any other Nissan vehicles. As I've said before, I think that is the correct long-term approach, even if it is not a great solution in hot climates today.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company_info/facilities/assembly/dham.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Other cars are built at the Detroit-Hamtramck (DHAM) plant:

PRODUCTS & PRODUCTION
* Chevrolet Volt
* Opel Ampera (2012 Model Year)
* Chevrolet Malibu (2013)
* Chevrolet Impala (2014)

Aside:

INVESTMENTS
* $336 million for the Chevrolet Volt / Opel Ampera (12/09)
* $121 million for the Chevrolet Malibu (4/10)
* $69 million for the Chevrolet Impala (5/11)
PLANT GREEN INITIATIVES:
* A 30kW solar carport located in the visitor’s parking lot has the capability of simultaneously charging up to 10 Chevrolet Volts and Opel Ampera electric vehicles.
* In partnership with a local utility company a 516kW solar array, 6.06 acres in size is located in a former section of an employee parking lot that is capable of providing 10% of the fixed demand for the plant.

 

[RegGuheert]

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company_info/facilities/assembly/dham.html
Other cars are built at the Detroit-Hamtramck (DHAM) plant:

PRODUCTS & PRODUCTION
* Chevrolet Volt
* Opel Ampera (2012 Model Year)
* Chevrolet Malibu (2013)
* Chevrolet Impala (2014)

I'm guessing those other cars are not built on the same production line as the Volt. Otherwise Volt production could simply be adjusted to match demand. (I'm just guessing, so I'm happy to be proven wrong on this point.)

 

[TonyWilliams]

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.

The "lie" was the omission of:

1. Heat impact on the battery, and outright falsehoods from the previous Nissan LEAF spokesperson blatantly saying heat had no impact

2. Degradation data was based on 7500 miles per year

3. The car would lose about 10% within six months to two years for all but the most moderate climates (Seattle, Norway, England, etc)

When Nissan is handing out assurances of 20% and 30% over 5 and 10 years respectively, nobody rightly bought a car that thinking that meant 7500 miles per year, not in any hot area, and it would lose 10% so quickly based on NISSAN's assurances.

They can't go back in time an change the facts, but they can do exactly what they are doing with this warranty. In addition, the consumer needs to be aware of what happens when they lease a car in Phoenix for 12,000 or 15,000 miles per year. They need to know that that is double the rate that Nissan tested the car for in the heat. Consumers need to know how both hot and cold affects both range today, and over time with increased degradation from ambient heat on the battery.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm guessing those other cars are not built on the same production line as the Volt. Otherwise Volt production could simply be adjusted to match demand. (I'm just guessing, so I'm happy to be proven wrong on this point.)

I think you guessed wrong!!! The Volt has, from the video I saw of the assembly, the same line like the LEAF does in Tennessee. Only one LEAF comes down the line every 15 minutes or so.

 

[Valdemar]

Did it occur to anyone that the new warranty is triggered by 34% loss and not 30%? Given that the bar percentages specified in the user's manual are correct, of course.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think you guessed wrong!!! The Volt has, from the video I saw of the assembly, the same line like the LEAF does in Tennessee. Only one LEAF comes down the line every 15 minutes or so.

O.K. Thanks for the correction, Tony. I stand corrected!

So I guess GM feels it is better to idle Volt production than to reduce the rate. Perhaps their supplier costs go up too much? I wonder why Nissan and Chevy deal with low sales differently if their production systems are so similar.

 

[leafwing]

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.

The "lie" was the omission of:

1. Heat impact on the battery, and outright falsehoods from the previous Nissan LEAF spokesperson blatantly saying heat had no impact

2. Degradation data was based on 7500 miles per year

3. The car would lose about 10% within six months to two years for all but the most moderate climates (Seattle, Norway, England, etc)

When Nissan is handing out assurances of 20% and 30% over 5 and 10 years respectively, nobody rightly bought a car that thinking that meant 7500 miles per year, not in any hot area, and it would lose 10% so quickly based on NISSAN's assurances.

They can't go back in time an change the facts, but they can do exactly what they are doing with this warranty. In addition, the consumer needs to be aware of what happens when they lease a car in Phoenix for 12,000 or 15,000 miles per year. They need to know that that is double the rate that Nissan tested the car for in the heat. Consumers need to know how both hot and cold affects both range today, and over time with increased degradation from ambient heat on the battery.

Thanks Tony for your insights and dedication. I could not have said it better.

 

[Volusiano]

I doubt Nissan expects to placate the small number of LEAF owners who seem to be convinced that there is a capacity fiasco, a major miscalculation by Nissan of LEAF expected battery life. Nissan is probably more concerned with the other ~99.9% of potential BEV buyers.

I agree that Nissan has obviously decided not to placate the small number of LEAF owners for the 2011-2012 MY who are affected by this capacity issue because of the misinformation. But I'm not so sure if Nissan is so concerned about the other 99.9% of potential EV buyers either because their MO has been to encourage and prefer to see more leases over actual purchases (to own) anyway. From this perspective, leasers probably don't care very much about the 30% loss warranty anyway over the 2 or 3 year term of their leases. Only buyers to own would care about it more, and the number of buyers is probably not as many as leasers anyway, and at least if they decide to buy now, they go into it fully knowing about the issue.

So from Nissan's rationale, why should they bother placate the small number of LEAF owners of 2011-2012 affected by the issue through misinformation? Because it would have been a smart thing to show good will to the rest of the 99.9% potential BEV buyers that Nissan always has the customer's interest at heart and is willing to own up to its past mistakes.

 

[TomT]

And because that group is very vocal and could cost Nissan a number of sales in future years by making their unhappiness well known......

So from Nissan's rationale, why should they bother placate the small number of LEAF owners of 2011-2012 affected by the issue through misinformation? Because it would have been a smart thing to show good will to the rest of the 99.9% potential BEV buyers that Nissan always has the customer's interest at heart and is willing to own up to its past mistakes.

 

[DaveEV]

And this is not entirely off-topic, either. One of the key reasons Nissan chose not to liquid-cool their battery was so that they could easily build it alongside any other Nissan vehicles.

I highly doubt that adding liquid TMS to the LEAF would affect their ability to manufacture the car easily alongside other vehicles. The '11-12 LEAF ran liquid cooling to the back of the car already for the OBC. Another coolant loop would not be difficult to add, though it would add significantly to the complexity of the battery pack itself. I don't know if other cars with TMS are able to use a single A/C compressor or have dedicated A/C compressors for cooling of the battery pack - at a minimum you'll need a number of control valves.

The difference is that Chevrolet hides capacity (and therefore capacity loss) from the owners to reduce cycling losses and so that owners do not feel the loss of capacity the way LEAF owners do. It's working. Chevrolet Volt owners are blissfully ignorant of the fact that their batteries are degrading while Nissan LEAF owners are painfully aware of this fact.

You are making a lot of assumptions there without any real data on Volt battery behavior over time...

 

[Volusiano]

The difference is that Chevrolet hides capacity (and therefore capacity loss) from the owners to reduce cycling losses and so that owners do not feel the loss of capacity the way LEAF owners do. It's working. Chevrolet Volt owners are blissfully ignorant of the fact that their batteries are degrading while Nissan LEAF owners are painfully aware of this fact.

You are making a lot of assumptions there without any real data on Volt battery behavior over time...

I agree with Drees here that a lot of speculation is being made here by RegGuheert about what GM does or doesn't do. And it's wrong for RegGuheert to think that Volt owners are blissfully ignorant about the fact that their batteries are degrading. Why would they think that when GM had said themselves in their own capacity warranty statement that their battery may degrade as little as 10% and as much as 30% in 8-year/100K miles?

Volt owners are not being duped by GM and they're not blissfully ignorant of anything. And it's irrelevant what GM is or is not showing anyway. What's relevant are the following facts that Volt owners have been able to observe:

1. While capacity loss is inevitable, it can be minimized with the help of TMS. The living proof of this is in hot weather climates like AZ where Volt batteries can still deliver the same range as before 2 years after its introduction. Sure, eventually the capacity will be reduced, but at least TMS has proven to help slow down the loss very effectively.

2. Even if GM opens up the allowable usage range of the battery to compensate for the inevitable range loss over the years, there's nothing wrong with doing this and it's actually a smart strategy by GM to save enough buffer in the first place to be able to use it up later in order to be able to deliver a more consistent range throughout its warranty period of 8-year/100K.

3. The bottom line is that with very similar battery chemistry (Lithium Ion Manganese), GM has been able to deliver a 30% capacity warranty for 8-year/100K miles from day 1, while Nissan had been unable to do this upfront, and only offered 30% capacity warranty for 5-year/60K miles 2 years later only because they were forced to do so due to the capacity fiasco.

So the difference is not because GM hid the capacity information and Nissan didn't. The difference is because GM has TMS to slow down capacity loss while Nissan doesn't.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The '11-12 LEAF ran liquid cooling to the back of the car already for the OBC. Another coolant loop would not be difficult to add, though it would add significantly to the complexity of the battery pack itself. I don't know if other cars with TMS are able to use a single A/C compressor or have dedicated A/C compressors for cooling of the battery pack - at a minimum you'll need a number of control valves.

Rav4 EV uses a single compressor for cabin and battery cooling. They very simply just tee into the existing system.

 

[mkjayakumar]

I'm sorry. Increasing the capacity from 66% to 72%, which is approx 50 miles to 55 miles seems pretty useless and does not give me any enthusiaism to buy the Leaf at the end of my lease. Especially for someone paying $450/month on lease payments.

 

[cwerdna]

I'm sorry. Increasing the capacity from 66% to 72%, which is approx 50 miles to 55 miles seems pretty useless and does not give me any enthusiaism to buy the Leaf at the end of my lease. Especially for someone paying $450/month on lease payments.

Nissan or rather Andy Palmer already stated that it wasn't their intent to just take you to 9 bars w/a replacement. We already discussed this at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=300329#p300329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I do wish they were more prescriptive and said something like, the replacement battery will have 11 bars or more or 12 bars instead of leaving so much wiggle room.

I don't think it's their intent to make you any more enthusiastic about buying your vehicle at the end of the lease. If I lived in a hot climate, I wouldn't buy a Leaf at all until it gets a TMS or something that can withstand the heat.

 

[RegGuheert]

I highly doubt that adding liquid TMS to the LEAF would affect their ability to manufacture the car easily alongside other vehicles. The '11-12 LEAF ran liquid cooling to the back of the car already for the OBC.

Nissan told us that by moving the OBC from the back of the vehicle to the front, they reduced the number of "special" assembly stations for the LEAF from four to two. The point is that their manufacturing a approach drives the design of the LEAF.

You are making a lot of assumptions there without any real data on Volt battery behavior over time...

No, I am making only one assumption here: that the battery in the Chevy Volt degrades with time and cycling. The statement you quoted follows dirrectly from this one assumption and the many reports from Volt owners that their available battery capacity has not reduced. And the idea originally was reported by Lyle at GM-Volt.com that this is how someone at GM told him the BMS in the Volt works.

Does anyone REALLY believe that assumption is false?

 

[RegGuheert]

And it's wrong for RegGuheert to think that Volt owners are blissfully ignorant about the fact that their batteries are degrading.

Can you link to ANY statement anywhere showing how much of the original 16kWh remains on ANY 2011/2012 Volt? If not, then I contend that we are still completely ignorant of that degradation. If I couple that with the many reports from Volt owners that they have not lost any available capacity based on dash gauges and with statements here from Scott200 (a moderator over there, IIRC) that the idea posted by Lyle that GM gradually gradually releases more percentage of the battery as it degrades is a "myth" then I can only conclude that some, and likely most, Chevy Volt owners believe that their batteries have not degraded.

Why would they think that when GM had said themselves in their own capacity warranty statement that their battery may degrade as little as 10% and as much as 30% in 8-year/100K miles?

In the same way that many LEAF owners believed (believe?) that their batteries did not degrade for the first year or so because their GIDmeter still read 281. I believe, but do not know this for sure, that the LEAF BMS tries to limit the maximum value of GIDs to 281 regardless of the battery voltage. Yes, I know there were a couple sightings of 282 and even 283, but batteries simply aren't that consistent from unit to unit. This is a simple conclusion based on the belief that a battery does not simply have NO capacity loss for a year and then one day start degrading at one or two percent per month.

1. While capacity loss is inevitable, it can be minimized with the help of TMS.

No argument. I'm the guy who proclaimed that Nissan should only lease LEAFs in hot climates like where you live.

The living proof of this is in hot weather climates like AZ where Volt batteries can still deliver the same range as before 2 years after its introduction. Sure, eventually the capacity will be reduced, but at least TMS has proven to help slow down the loss very effectively.

Actually, that is not proof, since their approach to BMS also reduces capacity loss. As I said in my thread about applying the Volt BMS to the LEAF, it is doubtful that any LEAFs would have lost any available capacity until about now, had it used the same scheme.

2. Even if GM opens up the allowable usage range of the battery to compensate for the inevitable range loss over the years, there's nothing wrong with doing this and it's actually a smart strategy by GM to save enough buffer in the first place to be able to use it up later in order to be able to deliver a more consistent range throughout its warranty period of 8-year/100K.

Agreed! I never said there was anything wrong with it. Frankly I think it is a terrific idea!

That said, Nissan likely would not have sold many LEAFs had they tried the same approach.

3. The bottom line is that with very similar battery chemistry (Lithium Ion Manganese), GM has been able to deliver a 30% capacity warranty for 8-year/100K miles from day 1, while Nissan had been unable to do this upfront, and only offered 30% capacity warranty for 5-year/60K miles 2 years later only because they were forced to do so due to the capacity fiasco.

No argument except that it appears GM's warranty is for 55% capacity loss, not 30%. Yes, that is an assumption, but this seems to be the consensus view at GM-Volt.com as well.

So the difference is not because GM hid the capacity information and Nissan didn't. The difference is because GM has TMS to slow down capacity loss while Nissan doesn't.

This is where we differ. While I agree that TMS is needed where you live, I also believe that the battery in the Chevy Volt would degrade FASTER where I live since the TMS buys us very little, but the smaller battery would receive a higher DOD on each trip we take. TMS is not a cure-all.