Page 114 of 141

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 2:35 pm
by cwerdna
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.

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 4:24 pm
by smkettner
Insane. Nissan is dragging down the entire EV movement with these batteries.
Apparently nothing has been learned since 2011/2012 model years.

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 6:07 pm
by edatoakrun
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...

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 8:58 pm
by chirpyboy
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%.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 1:57 am
by dwl
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.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 5:45 am
by SageBrush
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.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 6:46 am
by edatoakrun
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.

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

Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:20 am
by cwerdna
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.

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

Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 2:50 am
by LTLFTcomposite
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.

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

Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 8:26 pm
by johnlocke
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.