dhanson865 wrote:I've read tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of posts here. I don't know if you read all the posts I did.
I hear you --and empathize! Yes, I've also read all the posts related to the Phoenix capacity loss kerfuffle
since the getgo --so many that it's a wonder we're not cross-eyed at this point. However, I never remember seeing any actual Ahr data from the Leafs tested back then, which is why I asked. I also tried running some searches in those threads today --to no avail.
This would make sense, since that was prior to the release of bona fide
CAN bus tools like Leaf Spy Pro and LEAFStat to access the actual battery data. Indeed, this is why Tony Williams and his crew conducted their miles-per-charge test on those Leafs: at the time, it was the only means available to estimate the capacity loss in them. Had they been able to extract the Ahr from the vehicles... it would have saved them a ton
of time and effort, and produced more accurate results.
dhanson865 wrote:Whatever the trigger logic I don't see any significant variance between the early losers and the late other than temperature and time.
Mmmm. Well... if that's true, it would mean that Nissan did not
change the bar loss thresholds with its P3227 update, as promised. After all, that was supposedly the very purpose of the update: to recalibrate the capacity bar gauge.
How can we tell if a change occurred? And if so, what was the change? Without actual Ahr readouts prior to the update, its seems to me that the only solution is to compare what Nissan claimed
were the thresholds in the original service manual with the real world
thresholds owners are now experiencing. This is what the table on the original page MWI-23 stated, reiterated verbatim
in the Nissan LEAF Wiki
So far, I haven't found one report of losing a capacity bar at those percentages or higher (Ahr ÷ 66.25).
Now, to give Nissan the benefit of the doubt, perhaps their technicians later discovered that their original thresholds were flat out wrong. However, if such was the case, why delete
the table entirely from the service manual? Why not simply correct
it with more accurate, real world thresholds, something like this, postulated from the Ahr reports in the Wiki
In my mind, that would have been more open, honest, transparent --and helpful. I might be mistaken, but I suspect that most consumers think that the thresholds specified in the original service manual and the Wiki still apply. I purport that owners deserve to know the true
parameters behind Nissan's battery capacity warranty so that they can measure and anticipate their own bar losses using tools like LEAFStat and Leaf Spy Pro.
But maybe that's just me...?