cwerdna
Posts: 8417
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun May 13, 2018 2:35 pm

chirpyboy wrote:One more datapoint for the mix:

2017 lost first bar at 11,200 miles and 84% SOH, Hx=81%. I'm certainly disappointed and expecting to need a replacement within the 8-yr warranty period.

11/16 build date. I bought it fresh off the truck; it was not sitting in the dealer lot.

Location: Texas, so, it's hot, but I park and charge in a covered parking garage. Mostly 6kW level 2 charging. One or two QCs a month.

If your 30 kWh is as bad as the 4 bar losers we've already seen and the replacements are equally bad, I wouldn't be surprised if you receive 2 replacement packs within 8 years/100K miles.

'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)
'06 Prius

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

smkettner
Posts: 7221
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun May 13, 2018 4:24 pm

Insane. Nissan is dragging down the entire EV movement with these batteries.
Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
I-Pace on order for end of 2018 delivery

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun May 13, 2018 6:07 pm

smkettner wrote:Insane....Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.

Yes, thousands of posts of nearly meaningless ...bar losers and (LBC indicated) capacity losses, outnumbering reports of efforts made to determine actual capacity loss for "30 kWh" packs by about 1,000 to 1.

This is very reminiscent of the "24 kWh" pack MNL experience...
no condition is permanent

chirpyboy
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:30 pm
Delivery Date: 11 Jan 2017

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Sun May 13, 2018 8:58 pm

marcelg wrote:How often do you charge above 80%? theres been speculation that the 30 kwh version degrades because its charged over 80% more often, as well as heat.


I usually try to stop charging around 90% to keep regen braking. Of course there's no setting for 80% charge anymore, so I often don't stop it in time and end up hitting 100%.

dwl
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:06 pm
Delivery Date: 08 Jan 2016
Leaf Number: 112097
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Mon May 14, 2018 1:57 am

edatoakrun wrote:
smkettner wrote:Insane....Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.

Yes, thousands of posts of nearly meaningless ...bar losers and (LBC indicated) capacity losses, outnumbering reports of efforts made to determine actual capacity loss for "30 kWh" packs by about 1,000 to 1.

This is very reminiscent of the "24 kWh" pack MNL experience...

For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement. I am looking forward to hearing about the next replacements and what modules are being used.

Thanks for the extra links and I have seen the detailed tests on the 2013 Leafs before - it is a pity they weren't repeated for the 30kWh. On the issue of temperature, the report at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/2013NissanLeafElectricChargingReport.pdf suggests only a few percent difference in capacity as the temperature varies significantly which is a surprise to me. Maybe there was battery heating which could explain the difference between the graph and table.
2014 S - 6000 km Jan 2016; 45000 km May 2017 95% SoH; 68,000 km Mar 2018 90% SoH

SageBrush
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Mon May 14, 2018 5:45 am

dwl wrote:For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement..

And the *only* evidence they accept for warranty replacement.
This is what makes Ed's poo-pooing of the bar changes so ridiculous. He might know better (NOT) than every owner reporting battery degradation but he is sure he knows better than Nissan as well.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

edatoakrun
Posts: 5222
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Mon May 14, 2018 6:46 am

dwl wrote:...For the US market, where you are now covered by 8 year warranties, there is probably not too much interest in measuring capacity when Nissan provide bars on the dash which they seem to accept as enough evidence for replacement...

Nissan's policy is quite beneficial to Nissan, and also to those LEAF owners who lose enough capacity bars to get replacement packs under warranty.

The far larger (?) number of American "30 kWh" pack owners who may find themselves in the same position as so many "24 kWH' LEAF owners (including myself) do today who were not lucky enough to receive warranty replacement packs, and whose only option is to exchange their OE packs under the unsatisfactory terms dictated by Nissan, may not be so satisfied when they face similar circumstances...

dwl wrote:...Thanks for the extra links and I have seen the detailed tests on the 2013 Leafs before - it is a pity they weren't repeated for the 30kWh....

With no explanation for the abrupt termination of the AVTA testing program, this appears to be yet another victim of the current war on reality.

This is particularly unfortunate for BEV drivers, since BEV manufactures have managed to avoid many of the standards and accountability mechanisms that government agencies world-wide have established and enforced for ICEV manufacturers.

Without any independent review, BEV manufactures now can specify any BEV pack's "kWh" at essentially whatever they want to, within the uncertainty range of the customer's limited ability to determine.

And the manufactures themselves provide the less-than-fully -detailed EPA test results, the only information on pack capacity available to the public.

It is quite clear to me that my major complaint RE my own 2011 pack is not loss of capacity, which apparently has not occurred more rapidly than Nissan disclosed, but that my pack had significantly less than "24 kW" at delivery, as also appears to have been the case for every 2011-12 LEAF pack subject to testing by the AVTA.

dwl wrote:...On the issue of temperature, the report at https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/2013NissanLeafElectricChargingReport.pdf suggests only a few percent difference in capacity as the temperature varies significantly which is a surprise to me. Maybe there was battery heating which could explain the difference between the graph and table.

Exactly.

As the graph shows, it actually takes only slightly more energy from the grid to charge a hot LEAF battery pack than a cold one, even though a hot pack provide much greater energy when discharged.

Due to higher efficiency on charge and discharge, you get significantly more of that grid kWh capacity available for traction and other on-road use, due to the higher efficiency (a misnomer) of a hot pack over the entire grid-to-road cycle.

How is this reality reflected in EPA tests submitted by BEV manufactures?

Are passively heated packs like the LEAF required to be tested at some standard temperatures, or can manufactures use ideal (HOT) conditions?

Are actively managed packs tested, the same standard temperatures, or their own optimum efficiency within their temperature control programs?

In testing packs with active thermal management, is the energy used in pre/post conditioning, the heating and/or cooling energy used outside the test cycles accounted for?

I have no idea.
no condition is permanent

cwerdna
Posts: 8417
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Jul 2013
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu May 17, 2018 1:20 am

Another 1 bar loser on a '17 Leaf at 13K miles: https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan. ... 365183195/. He says he's in the Washington DC area.

'13 Leaf SV w/premium package (owned)
'13 Leaf SV w/QC + LED & premium packages (lease over, car returned)
'06 Prius

Please don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4565
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Thu May 17, 2018 2:50 am

Eight weeks now waiting for a new battery. They say they think it will be here in about a week but have no confirmation it has shipped or anything.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

johnlocke
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm
Delivery Date: 14 Dec 2015
Leaf Number: 300582

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Tue May 22, 2018 8:26 pm

Lost the fourth bar this morning! 44784 mi. 50.68AH SOH = 63.76% Hx = 56.08% 232 GIDs. 109 L3, 869 L2. Called the local Nissan dealer to set up an appointment to verify the condition and start the replacement process. Since I haven't heard anything from Nissan about an improved battery, it seems likely that I will have to do this again at about 90000 mi. I doubt that a replacement battery will last much longer than the original and with 55000 mi left on the warranty I expect to get a second replacement battery for free as well. That will take me out to about 135000 mi before I junk the car. Not what I was hoping for. I had always expected that the battery would fail under warranty but had expected it to last 75000-85000 mi before dying. Then a second battery would have got me to 150000-170000 mi and 8 or 9 years of operation. At that point, I could either sell it or put a new battery in it (hopefully, from a third party manufacturer) and go another 50000 mi or so. That doesn't seem feasible now with batteries that don't last more than 40K or so. I'll likely sell it off after 6 or 7 years for a pittance. Fortunately, I ought to have a much batter selection to choose from by then.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”