johnlocke
Posts: 299
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

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:12 pm

specialgreen wrote:
johnlocke wrote:If you plan to keep your car for 10 years better plan on at least one battery replacement out of your pocket(currently $8400 with exchange) unless you can live with 50% capacity.


When we're talking about battery life, please avoid exaggeration.

Either the battery degrades more than 20% in 8 years, or it doesn't. If it degrades slower, the worst case is that you hit 80% one day outside warranty, or just under 2.5% loss per year. After 10 years, you'd still have 75% SOH (not 50%).

If it degrades faster that 2.5% per year, then you will have a battery replaced under warranty before 8 years. If the initial battery was replaced after 4 years and 1 day (5% degradation per year), then the replacement battery may reach 80% after 8 years and 2 days (2 days out of warranty). At 5% loss per year, after an additional 2 years, you'd be down to 70% (not 50%).

If there were a group of customers needing two battery replacements under warranty, the worst-case would be 7.5% loss per year, such that the 3rd battery reaches 80% one day outside the 8-year warranty. In that case, after 10 years, the car has 65% SOH, not 50%.

For a customer with 3 replacements under warranty, worst-case has the 4th pack reaching 80% 1 day outside 8 years (10% loss per year). After ten years, you'd have 60%, not 50%.

Since actual loss is not linear, I could believe that customers who degraded to 80% in 2 years might degrade to 50% in 2 more years. But I believe the percentage of 30kwhr owners getting a new pack every 24 months is small (even before the firmware correction). The comment "if you plan to keep your car for 10 years... live with 50%" implies that 50% after 10 years is the general case. I don't see how that statement can possibly be accurate.

There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

SageBrush
Posts: 2910
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

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:26 pm

johnlocke wrote:There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.

1+

My modest (or is that mediocre ?) understanding of chemistry and the models I have looked all expect a geometric degradation but like you I see zero order kinetics. I have no idea why, and I wish it was not so. Perhaps it is a non linear dynamic where the degradation products affect the degradation rate.
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

johnlocke
Posts: 299
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

Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:00 pm

SageBrush wrote:
johnlocke wrote:There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.

1+

My modest (or is that mediocre ?) understanding of chemistry and the models I have looked all expect a geometric degradation but like you I see zero order kinetics. I have no idea why, and I wish it was not so. Perhaps it is a non linear dynamic where the degradation products affect the degradation rate.

My suspicion is that the battery experiences higher temperatures in the middle of the pack which accelerates the whole process. There have reports that the cells in the middle of the pack are less suitable for rebuilds and are more likely to be discarded. Most tests for battery life focus on a single cell with lots of air flow to keep the battery close to ambient. Also those tests tend to use a lower discharge rate (1/4 C or even 1/10 C) which cause less internal heat generation. I hope that Nissan has fixed the 30 KWH battery and would love to see the 2 1/2 % annual loss Nissan promised us (remember "80% at 8 yr/ 100,000 mi") but right now after 3 months of summer heat I appear to have lost about 1.5% which would put me at 5-6% annually. It's way too soon to say that these numbers are valid data points but that's all I have to go on. That number would put me at being down to 8 bars just after the warranty runs out. If the weather cools off and deterioration slows down with it, I might indeed see 2 1/2 or 3% annual loss. Time will tell.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

SageBrush
Posts: 2910
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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:54 am

johnlocke wrote:That number would put me at being down to 8 bars just after the warranty runs out.

Which I contend is exactly what Nissan asked of the engineers for the middle, say, 80% of cars sold.
It is quite an accomplishment that Nissan was able to increase capacity from 24 to 30 kWh in the same volume *and* extend the warranty from five to eight years, but it is overshadowed by the low bar. By that I mean $30k for a car that offers 19 kWh range after 8 years is still piss poor value
Last edited by SageBrush on Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
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

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13328
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:03 am

WetEV wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:But the question remains whether I can get below 65% to get an exchange before 100,000 miles. This is the decision I have to make near the end of my 3 year lease. My residual ($9600_ is simply too low to not consider the possibility.


Watch the Phoenix LEAFs. And similar very hot places.

If they get significant numbers of battery replacements before 40k miles or so, you might have a chance. If half get replacements before 35k miles, about 50% chance.

If half of the Phoenix LEAFs get replacements just before 100k miles, then you would have a 50% chance of getting to 287k miles before loss of fourth bar. Would you keep the car that long?


Yeah, well I know one in Phoenix who will not even be close to replacement by 35,000 miles. In fact, she may not even have lost one bar by then.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13328
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:32 am

johnlocke wrote:
specialgreen wrote:
johnlocke wrote:If you plan to keep your car for 10 years better plan on at least one battery replacement out of your pocket(currently $8400 with exchange) unless you can live with 50% capacity.


When we're talking about battery life, please avoid exaggeration.

Either the battery degrades more than 20% in 8 years, or it doesn't. If it degrades slower, the worst case is that you hit 80% one day outside warranty, or just under 2.5% loss per year. After 10 years, you'd still have 75% SOH (not 50%).

If it degrades faster that 2.5% per year, then you will have a battery replaced under warranty before 8 years. If the initial battery was replaced after 4 years and 1 day (5% degradation per year), then the replacement battery may reach 80% after 8 years and 2 days (2 days out of warranty). At 5% loss per year, after an additional 2 years, you'd be down to 70% (not 50%).

If there were a group of customers needing two battery replacements under warranty, the worst-case would be 7.5% loss per year, such that the 3rd battery reaches 80% one day outside the 8-year warranty. In that case, after 10 years, the car has 65% SOH, not 50%.

For a customer with 3 replacements under warranty, worst-case has the 4th pack reaching 80% 1 day outside 8 years (10% loss per year). After ten years, you'd have 60%, not 50%.

Since actual loss is not linear, I could believe that customers who degraded to 80% in 2 years might degrade to 50% in 2 more years. But I believe the percentage of 30kwhr owners getting a new pack every 24 months is small (even before the firmware correction). The comment "if you plan to keep your car for 10 years... live with 50%" implies that 50% after 10 years is the general case. I don't see how that statement can possibly be accurate.

There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.


You are one to talk about erroneous comments.

Even if degradation was linear, it would still accelerate due to lower capacity which is essentially a smaller pack working harder so maybe not logarithmic but hardly linear either.

The other thing is the "15% per year" comment. How long are we going to continue to kick the dead horse? It won't take a year to evaluate the pack. The evaluation literally begins the day of the update.

To this point; Has ANYONE reported regaining a bar to lose it rapidly?

To this point; Has anyone reported the same range as before the update, "definitively?"

If you have heard, let me know. I personally haven't. What I have heard is several people now taking trips after the update that they did not think possible before. They were all successful. A few had LEAF Spy so their evaluations of added range were quite quantitative.

In reality; if all things are equal. losing an average 10% on a 24 kwh pack would imply losing less simply due to static need being supplied by a larger pack. Less stress, less cycling. At least that is the theory.

But that is not reality and yes, Nissan did what it could to circumvent that. For many; 24 kwh was a small compromise that became a large one due to degradation. So moving to 30 kwh only allowed compromise to a lesser degree so no advantage of a larger pack. Sure we piled on more mileage, etc. But the durability was not better because we no longer had 80% charging.

Either way, MANY 30 kwh LEAFs were seeing noticeable degradation EVERYWHERE in well less than 6 months including someone in NW Oregon.

I guess we should know something in a few months if we are not already convinced since its already been a few months. There is no doubt that some will see heavy degradation. Phoenix won't be solved with software but we already knew that.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

johnlocke
Posts: 299
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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:47 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
johnlocke wrote:
specialgreen wrote:
When we're talking about battery life, please avoid exaggeration.

Either the battery degrades more than 20% in 8 years, or it doesn't. If it degrades slower, the worst case is that you hit 80% one day outside warranty, or just under 2.5% loss per year. After 10 years, you'd still have 75% SOH (not 50%).

If it degrades faster that 2.5% per year, then you will have a battery replaced under warranty before 8 years. If the initial battery was replaced after 4 years and 1 day (5% degradation per year), then the replacement battery may reach 80% after 8 years and 2 days (2 days out of warranty). At 5% loss per year, after an additional 2 years, you'd be down to 70% (not 50%).

If there were a group of customers needing two battery replacements under warranty, the worst-case would be 7.5% loss per year, such that the 3rd battery reaches 80% one day outside the 8-year warranty. In that case, after 10 years, the car has 65% SOH, not 50%.

For a customer with 3 replacements under warranty, worst-case has the 4th pack reaching 80% 1 day outside 8 years (10% loss per year). After ten years, you'd have 60%, not 50%.

Since actual loss is not linear, I could believe that customers who degraded to 80% in 2 years might degrade to 50% in 2 more years. But I believe the percentage of 30kwhr owners getting a new pack every 24 months is small (even before the firmware correction). The comment "if you plan to keep your car for 10 years... live with 50%" implies that 50% after 10 years is the general case. I don't see how that statement can possibly be accurate.

There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.


You are one to talk about erroneous comments.

Even if degradation was linear, it would still accelerate due to lower capacity which is essentially a smaller pack working harder so maybe not logarithmic but hardly linear either.

The other thing is the "15% per year" comment. How long are we going to continue to kick the dead horse? It won't take a year to evaluate the pack. The evaluation literally begins the day of the update.

To this point; Has ANYONE reported regaining a bar to lose it rapidly?

To this point; Has anyone reported the same range as before the update, "definitively?"

If you have heard, let me know. I personally haven't. What I have heard is several people now taking trips after the update that they did not think possible before. They were all successful. A few had LEAF Spy so their evaluations of added range were quite quantitative.

In reality; if all things are equal. losing an average 10% on a 24 kwh pack would imply losing less simply due to static need being supplied by a larger pack. Less stress, less cycling. At least that is the theory.

But that is not reality and yes, Nissan did what it could to circumvent that. For many; 24 kwh was a small compromise that became a large one due to degradation. So moving to 30 kwh only allowed compromise to a lesser degree so no advantage of a larger pack. Sure we piled on more mileage, etc. But the durability was not better because we no longer had 80% charging.

Either way, MANY 30 kwh LEAFs were seeing noticeable degradation EVERYWHERE in well less than 6 months including someone in NW Oregon.

I guess we should know something in a few months if we are not already convinced since its already been a few months. There is no doubt that some will see heavy degradation. Phoenix won't be solved with software but we already knew that.

And your point is? You do make a good point that as range is lost charging does become more frequent. And that changing the battery size to 30 KWH didn't change charging habits because people just drove the cars on longer trips. That could explain why the deterioration appears to linear rather than a flattening curve as many expected.

In a forum where people obsess over the rolling resistance of tires or which way to mount mudflaps, why haven't we heard of nearly magical increases in range after the LBC mod? The few reports I have seen are on the order of "eh, I think it might have helped". Reports of changes in the SOH from LeafSpy have not been accompanied by reports of an increase in range. In the case Nissan's capacity bars, Nissan has been very good about obfuscating what they actually mean or what values they represent. The first bar doesn't drop until you hit 80-83%(ymmv) so it's not likely that people are going see that bar drop unless they were already 3 bars down to start with. Part of the problem is that the mod is recent and not everyone has taken advantage of it.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 13328
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:19 am

This is true and the reality is most didn't know what there range was before the update. Without LEAF Spy, they simply used only what the LEAF displayed so anything after VLB was "unusable" to "not reliable" enough to risk. This is the reason why the GOM is their chief indicator of range or lack thereof... :shock:
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 11,987 miles, 485 GIDs, 37.6 kwh 110.89 Ahr , SOH 96.00, Hx 115.22
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:33 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
johnlocke wrote:
specialgreen wrote:
When we're talking about battery life, please avoid exaggeration.

Either the battery degrades more than 20% in 8 years, or it doesn't. If it degrades slower, the worst case is that you hit 80% one day outside warranty, or just under 2.5% loss per year. After 10 years, you'd still have 75% SOH (not 50%).

If it degrades faster that 2.5% per year, then you will have a battery replaced under warranty before 8 years. If the initial battery was replaced after 4 years and 1 day (5% degradation per year), then the replacement battery may reach 80% after 8 years and 2 days (2 days out of warranty). At 5% loss per year, after an additional 2 years, you'd be down to 70% (not 50%).

If there were a group of customers needing two battery replacements under warranty, the worst-case would be 7.5% loss per year, such that the 3rd battery reaches 80% one day outside the 8-year warranty. In that case, after 10 years, the car has 65% SOH, not 50%.

For a customer with 3 replacements under warranty, worst-case has the 4th pack reaching 80% 1 day outside 8 years (10% loss per year). After ten years, you'd have 60%, not 50%.

Since actual loss is not linear, I could believe that customers who degraded to 80% in 2 years might degrade to 50% in 2 more years. But I believe the percentage of 30kwhr owners getting a new pack every 24 months is small (even before the firmware correction). The comment "if you plan to keep your car for 10 years... live with 50%" implies that 50% after 10 years is the general case. I don't see how that statement can possibly be accurate.

There are a couple of errors in your assumptions. First battery deterioration in a Leaf battery is closer to linear then an inverse log function. second, the losses for the 24 KWH battery in hot climates are on the order of 7-10% per year ( that is 7-10% of original capacity each year is lost). Hence the replacement under warranty in under 5 years. For the 30 KWH battery, the annual loss was closer to 15% a year. Hence the replacement of batteries in some cars in less than 2 1/2 years. Under that scenario, you could expect to replace the battery at least twice and possibly third time just before the warranty ran out. Nissan has updated the LBC firmware so we are essentially back to square one with Nissan claiming that the previous failures were essentially a math error. It will take a year or more to accumulate enough data points to see how well the battery holds up. As others have pointed out battery replacement will not occur until the battery is down to 65% of the original capacity or less ( 8 bars remaining) not 80% as you state. If the battery did indeed lose 2 1/2% per year, I would be quite happy.


You are one to talk about erroneous comments.

Even if degradation was linear, it would still accelerate due to lower capacity which is essentially a smaller pack working harder so maybe not logarithmic but hardly linear either.

The other thing is the "15% per year" comment. How long are we going to continue to kick the dead horse? It won't take a year to evaluate the pack. The evaluation literally begins the day of the update.

To this point; Has ANYONE reported regaining a bar to lose it rapidly?

To this point; Has anyone reported the same range as before the update, "definitively?"

If you have heard, let me know. I personally haven't. What I have heard is several people now taking trips after the update that they did not think possible before. They were all successful. A few had LEAF Spy so their evaluations of added range were quite quantitative.

In reality; if all things are equal. losing an average 10% on a 24 kwh pack would imply losing less simply due to static need being supplied by a larger pack. Less stress, less cycling. At least that is the theory.

But that is not reality and yes, Nissan did what it could to circumvent that. For many; 24 kwh was a small compromise that became a large one due to degradation. So moving to 30 kwh only allowed compromise to a lesser degree so no advantage of a larger pack. Sure we piled on more mileage, etc. But the durability was not better because we no longer had 80% charging.

Either way, MANY 30 kwh LEAFs were seeing noticeable degradation EVERYWHERE in well less than 6 months including someone in NW Oregon.

I guess we should know something in a few months if we are not already convinced since its already been a few months. There is no doubt that some will see heavy degradation. Phoenix won't be solved with software but we already knew that.


My sister has. She bought a used 2016 with 4 bars lost back in early July (I encouraged her to, with the expectation that she'd get a new battery before the warranty expired). Got the BMS updated near the end of July, which only restored 3 of the 4 bars. She was seeing much improved range (from what it was at 4 bars down). Then in mid August, she lost her 2nd bar. Will need to take a leafSpy reading to see when we can expect to see the 3rd bar to disappear.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

johnlocke
Posts: 299
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

Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:34 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
johnlocke wrote:.


My sister has. She bought a used 2016 with 4 bars lost back in early July (I encouraged her to, with the expectation that she'd get a new battery before the warranty expired). Got the BMS updated near the end of July, which only restored 3 of the 4 bars. She was seeing much improved range (from what it was at 4 bars down). Then in mid August, she lost her 2nd bar. Will need to take a leafSpy reading to see when we can expect to see the 3rd bar to disappear.

I'd be very interested to hear the results on that. Also, any estimates on how much her range improved. In any case, with two bars down already she should qualify for a replacement battery soon. two bars down should put her at 73-75% SOH. She only needs to lose 10% more to qualify for a new battery and has 5 years to do it.
2016 SV, New battery at 45K mi.
Jamul, CA
San Diego East County

Return to “Problems / Troubleshooting”