Update on Battery Warranty Enhancement for 2011 & 2012 LEAF

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Valdemar said:
Mine is about same age and I can still can do 72 miles in mixed cycle on mostly flat terrain just after hitting LBW. Never needed to go farther on a single charge but I'm guessing 80 is not out of the question. 100 mile claim was a stretch, but doable still.


Me too. In fact, older. It takes careful driving, but I can still make 70-75 miles at full highway speeds.

Here is something that is bothering me - I am down to ~220 Gids on a charge. With the accepted threshold for bar loss being ~232 Gids, technically I should have lost a bar some time ago. Yet I still have all twelve. What is up with that?

Another thing that bothers me is the similarity between my car and xtremeflyer's - our cars are more or less the same age (mine was delivered 5 months earlier); we're at the same mileage; we live in similar micro-climates (Garden Grove vs. Orange, unless he lives up in the hills?); and it looks like our commutes are similar and our cars sit in similar micro-climates while we work (I work in Hawthorne and I assume, if he's doing 10 miles more than me daily, he's up around there too?). So, theoretically speaking, our battery packs should be twins. Yet he's lost two bars already? It just doesn't make sense. Actually, I'd like to discuss any unknown differences between him and me. The only one that seems like it could possibly make a difference to the pack is parking - I let my car sit out at night, and I'm wondering if his might be garaged? Xtremeflyer?
 
Valdemar said:
Great that it is now official. However, I can't resist but say that one is likely going to be prudent by delaying the s/w update for the capacity gauge until 60 months or 60,000 miles.

The way its worded you maybe right. However I also assume the s/w update will allow the LEAF to regain some of the driving range lost to a pessimistic evaluation of the battery health. So there is IMHO a benefit to the s/w update in driving range which may or may not be of value to the owner. Leased LEAF's will benefit the most by gaining range back if intending to turn the vehicle in at the end of the lease period.
 
usadiamond said:
This warranty just sounds offensive to me. A leaf with 9 bars or less is no better than a golf cart. First, false advertisement about 100 mile range BS and now warranty to guarantee 49 mile range?! I'd rather Nissan to be straight up and just tell the 1st gen Leaf owners to suck it up and prepare for their cars to run useless in a few years.
I still have all 12 bars, but only get about 60 mile range down from 80 after less than two years. #nissandisappointing

Sorry you feel this way. I am glad Nissan is standing behind it's product and would not want them to "tell the 1st gen Leaf owners to suck it up". So speak for yourself.

If you have lost 20 miles out of the 80 you had originally I make two observations.

1. The s/w update should restore some of your lost range, by how much remains to be seen.
2. I assume you are exaggerating, since 25% loss of range would mean the first (if not second) bar would be extinguished by now, especially true since the old software is pessimistic.

As for your comment about warranting 49 mile range only. While it does not match the marketing behind the vehicle, it is actually close to the range I tell potential owners to expect after many years of ownership. I advise folks to consider a LEAF if their daily round trip commute is 50 miles or less and intend to drive the LEAF like their ICE. I add if they are willing to change driving habits a little, they should be OK with a round trip commute of 60 miles. I factor in charging to 80%, winter reduced mileage and long term battery degradation.
 
Of course, to do it, you DO have to drive it like it is a golf cart! :lol:

As far as bars and gids, your results ARE weird as I have lost about the same number of Gids but also two bars!

mwalsh said:
Valdemar said:
Mine is about same age and I can still can do 72 miles in mixed cycle on mostly flat terrain just after hitting LBW. Never needed to go farther on a single charge but I'm guessing 80 is not out of the question. 100 mile claim was a stretch, but doable still.
Me too. In fact, older. It takes careful driving, but I can still make 70-75 miles at full highway speeds.

Here is something that is bothering me - I am down to ~220 Gids on a charge. With the accepted threshold for bar loss being ~232 Gids, technically I should have lost a bar some time ago. Yet I still have all twelve. What is up with that?
 
I don't expect to see any change in range, just a slightly more accurate capacity meter... I don't believe that the two are related.

JPWhite said:
The way its worded you maybe right. However I also assume the s/w update will allow the LEAF to regain some of the driving range lost to a pessimistic evaluation of the battery health. So there is IMHO a benefit to the s/w update in driving range which may or may not be of value to the owner. Leased LEAF's will benefit the most by gaining range back if intending to turn the vehicle in at the end of the lease period.
 
usadiamond said:
This warranty just sounds offensive to me. A leaf with 9 bars or less is no better than a golf cart. First, false advertisement about 100 mile range BS and now warranty to guarantee 49 mile range?! I'd rather Nissan to be straight up and just tell the 1st gen Leaf owners to suck it up and prepare for their cars to run useless in a few years.
I still have all 12 bars, but only get about 60 mile range down from 80 after less than two years. #nissandisappointing

70% of 84 miles is 58.8 which is disappointing but then the warranty kicks in. its high mileage people like Steve who still doesn't have the option to plan financially for future options because of the unknown battery cost which has 2 weeks to be resolved...maybe
 
TomT said:
I don't expect to see any change in range, just a slightly more accurate capacity meter... I don't believe that the two are related.
Agreed. However, it appeared that there were some LEAFs in last year's Phoenix range test which had somehow squirreled away a bunch of range below LBW. If this update can have the result that more of the total available range will exist above LBW, then I would consider that a nice improvement which would increase the USABLE range of the car.

Here's hoping, anyway...
 
JPWhite said:
Valdemar said:
Great that it is now official. However, I can't resist but say that one is likely going to be prudent by delaying the s/w update for the capacity gauge until 60 months or 60,000 miles.

The way its worded you maybe right. However I also assume the s/w update will allow the LEAF to regain some of the driving range lost to a pessimistic evaluation of the battery health. So there is IMHO a benefit to the s/w update in driving range which may or may not be of value to the owner. Leased LEAF's will benefit the most by gaining range back if intending to turn the vehicle in at the end of the lease period.

you gain range back with the new software?
that is not how i read it. it reads to me that you get better, more accurate numbers on the dash and in the GOM, not that the car actually rolls farther before it goes LBW.

the software tweak is just PR not a real change in range. isnt that CORRECT?

Perhaps the NISSAN rep can explain the real-world effect in range of the software update?
Brian of Nissan did say this:
The 2013 LEAF features many improvements, including updated software that improves the performance of the battery capacity level gauge (outlined below) to more accurately reflect actual battery capacity. This update does not change the amount of capacity represented by the each of the bars in the meter.

so, I read that to me nothing changes in range, just how the car tells us about the health of our battery and its potential for holding a charge.
 
Hawk0630 said:
This is Jeff from Nissan.

It appears that Brian was warmly received by the community. Brian will be a regular on the forum.

I see that he has responded to a number of questions already. For those that we have not answered immediately, we will verify the question and response with the engineers and come back to this thread with an update.

I see the question about the "battery price" announcement. I (still) am committing to starting a new thread on or before June 20 (the date that Andy committed to) where we will provide details of our program.

Regards,

Jeff

thanks.
we solstice observers will be counting down the days.
 
Stoaty said:
According to Nissan, it's the other way around. The current software "masks" the true health of the battery, making it look like it has lost more capacity than it has actually lost. The software update is designed to reveal the true health of the battery. There is plenty of information in the Wiki to support their contention that the current gauge is overly pessimistic about battery capacity. You can read all about it:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Range_Test_on_Cars_with_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PS Even with the current bars, 12 capacity bars covers a range of about 232 Gids to 281 Gids. It's only when you get below around 232 Gids that you lose the first capacity bar.

if the battery software update improves accuracy, i am assuming that NISSAN will require that 2011 owners get the upgrade before they are considered for any warranty work on battery.

logically, it may even move some battery eligibles out of warranty eligibility.
 
Valdemar said:
Volusiano said:
Valdemar said:
Great that it is now official. However, I can't resist but say that one is likely going to be prudent by delaying the s/w update for the capacity gauge until 60 months or 60,000 miles.
I would assume that doing the sw update may be conditional to claiming the battery warranty, but maybe Nissan can clarify this point better.

Wouldn't it contradict this part?

If your vehicle’s battery capacity level gauge is already displaying eight (8) or fewer bars of capacity prior to the above referenced software update (and within the first 5 years or 60,000 miles, whichever comes first), your Nissan dealer will verify this condition and arrange for the repair or replacement of the lithium-ion battery in accordance with the terms of the warranty.
The way I interpret what there is a conditional event (for lack of a better word) going on here. And that conditional event is the introduction of the warranty for the 2011-2012 LEAFs, and part of this warranty introduction is the SW update, all happening here in June 2013.

So the way I read it is that if you already lost more than 3 bars before June 2013 (before the conditional event), they still would honor the warranty retroactively, because at the time you lost your 4th bar (or more), Nissan can't blame you for not having the sw update installed because it was not available at that time yet, until now.

But now that the sw update is available, as part of the conditional event in June 2013, they expect you to come in to do the sw update. If you don't come in and do the sw update now, but claim your warranty say a year from now, they will not honor it unless you do the sw update first.

Nissan didn't write that sentence to give you a loop hole to not do the sw update. On the contrary, Nissan wrote that sentence to close the loop hole. Why else would they have written it like that? The whole point is that the sw update will result in less warranty claim, because the capacity reading will be less pessimistic. So why would Nissan write a clause in there to allow users to not do the sw update so that their capacity reading remains pessimistic so that they can claim their warranty sooner? It just doesn't make any sense.

The only sensible interpretation of that clause is Nissan saying "We'll let those of you who rely on the pessimistic reading to claim your warranty get away with it because your capacity loss happened before we were able to tighten up the reading with the software update." It also implies to mean that "Now that we have a sw update to tighten up the capacity reading, everyone else who claims the warranty after June 2013 (the conditional event) will need to make their claim based on the tightened-up reading caused by the sw update." For sure I doubt that it means "Oh, but we'll give you a loop hole whereby you don't have to get a sw update to tighten up the reading, and we will also honor the warranty after June 2013 just the same if you're smart enough to use our loop hole to continue having the pessimistic reading so you can claim your warranty sooner."
 
mwalsh said:
Here is something that is bothering me - I am down to ~220 Gids on a charge. With the accepted threshold for bar loss being ~232 Gids, technically I should have lost a bar some time ago. Yet I still have all twelve. What is up with that?

First of all, I don't see where you believe that 232 Gids is the 'accepted' threshold for first bar loss. The % Gids is usually around 80-81%/225-227 Gids for first bar loss, not 83%/232 Gids. I've tested many cars and every one was around 80-81% Gids when they lost their first bar. Your car will lose one soon as yours is the first I've seen to be in the 70s % and still have all 12 CBs. So I'm going to call your car an Outlier.
 
Volusiano said:
The only sensible interpretation of that clause is Nissan saying "We'll let those of you who rely on the pessimistic reading to claim your warranty get away with it because your capacity loss happened before we were able to tighten up the reading with the software update." It also implies to mean that "Now that we have a sw update to tighten up the capacity reading, everyone else who claims the warranty after June 2013 (the conditional event) will need to make their claim based on the tightened-up reading caused by the sw update." For sure I doubt that it means "Oh, but we'll give you a loop hole whereby you don't have to get a sw update to tighten up the reading, and we will also honor the warranty after June 2013 just the same if you're smart enough to use our loop hole to continue having the pessimistic reading so you can claim your warranty sooner."

exactly.
Nissan loves us, but not that much.
 
thankyouOB said:
you gain range back with the new software?
that is not how i read it. it reads to me that you get better, more accurate numbers on the dash and in the GOM, not that the car actually rolls farther before it goes LBW.

the software tweak is just PR not a real change in range. isnt that CORRECT?

Maybe. Maybe not.

If the s/w was squirreling away Ah due to faulty logic, this may come back with new software. I have observed my batteries Ah rating decline 4.5% in 4 weeks using Turbo3's battery app. I'm pretty confident that my battery did not degrade to this extent, conventional wisdom has Lion batteries gaining capacity as they warm, not decline. Something doesn't add up, and it maybe Nissan firmware.

We'll know for sure in a few months as s/w is updated and those armed with Turbo3's app will be able to compare Ah rating before/after the s/w update.

Right now its all conjecture, but we'll know for sure before long.
 
I'm not sure there will be much difference in your AH reading because as our heat/ambient temps has increased my AH reading has gone down along with the CAP. When the temps were in the high 80's, low 90's, my readings were 63AH/95 CAP. Now, with temps in the high 100s, my AH is 61/92 CAP.
Also, right now the garage is 101F (108F outside) and my highest BS is 92F.
 
LEAFfan said:
I'm not sure there will be much difference in your AH reading because as our heat/ambient temps has increased my AH reading has gone down along with the CAP. When the temps were in the high 80's, low 90's, my readings were 63AH/95 CAP. Now, with temps in the high 100s, my AH is 61/92 CAP.
Good point - no reason to believe that if your 2013 still loses Ah in the heat that the software update will affect the Ah readings much for the 2011-2012 cars after the update.
LEAFfan said:
Also, right now the garage is 101F (108F outside) and my highest BS is 92F.
Stayin' "cool". How'd you manage that? Let it cool off outside overnight?
 
Yep, nowhere is there any indication that there will be any change in the actual range available... It just supposedly makes the capacity bar meter more accurate in depicting the battery degradation... It will be interesting to see how many people "gain a bar back" after update but experience no actual difference in range...

thankyouOB said:
you gain range back with the new software?
the software tweak is just PR not a real change in range. isnt that CORRECT?
 
drees said:
LEAFfan said:
I'm not sure there will be much difference in your AH reading because as our heat/ambient temps has increased my AH reading has gone down along with the CAP. When the temps were in the high 80's, low 90's, my readings were 63AH/95 CAP. Now, with temps in the high 100s, my AH is 61/92 CAP.
Good point - no reason to believe that if your 2013 still loses Ah in the heat that the software update will affect the Ah readings much for the 2011-2012 cars after the update.
LEAFfan said:
Also, right now the garage is 101F (108F outside) and my highest BS is 92F.
Stayin' "cool". How'd you manage that? Let it cool off outside overnight?

I like your theory about the lower resistance/chemistry tweaking keeping it cooler because at the end of the day, the garage is around 104-106F, but by 5AM it's down to 88-90F and my highest TS is around 90F at that time. If my wife didn't have an ICE, the garage would cool down faster at night, but that hot engine really adds the heat. Maybe insulating the garage door and above the garage (attic) is helping too. When our hot water heater needs replaced (10 yrs. old...I just replaced the anode), we're going to buy a heat-pump one.
 
thankyouOB said:
you gain range back with the new software?
that is not how i read it. it reads to me that you get better, more accurate numbers on the dash and in the GOM, not that the car actually rolls farther before it goes LBW.
Whoa there! You are reading a lot into the statement that I don't see. The only difference in the display that I see mentioned is to the capacity gauge. Not to the 12 available charge bars, not to the GOM, or to any other numbers displayable on the dash. I will agree that it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that you will gain range back. My expectation is that they are only changing the algorithm in the part of the dash display software that calculates capacity gauge segments. Until proven otherwise, I'm willing to take their word that they are making it more accurate.

While I'm at it, I'm going to go out on a limb and give my theory on that table vijayl pointed to. I think that is what Nissan wanted the capacity bars to show, but they yanked the table from the Service Manual when it became obvious to them that the display wasn't really working that way. Now that they have hopefully fixed the algorithm, they may be willing to make that table official again, or they may make some very slight adjustments to it before doing so.

Ray
 
Psyclonus said:
Does "greater compatibility with an expanded range of EV charging equipment" mean that it'll be safe to use the power button on my GE Wattstation following the update? For those of us who are already aware of the potential issue, not being vague about the change would be very helpful. :)

Psy: Yes. I'm told your GE Wattstation issue is addressed by the OBC software update.
 
Back
Top