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

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.
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
RichCapeCod said:
Ebeighe, that's pretty disheartening! Would you have been better off with the Bolt and its battery temperature control system? Hindsight being 20-20 and all!

Rich
Bolt battery degradation is unknown, and the GM warranty replacement at under 60% capacity is nothing to swoon over.
OTOH, GM/LG Chem does have a excellent track record with the Volt and its active TMS
There is a whole lot of inferences and hope there:

That the Volt PHEV record translates to the Bolt
That the Volt battery health is even real. Those owners do not monitor battery degradation. The best they know is that range has remained the same for a couple of years, but they do not know if the battery reserve is being consumed.
 
ebeighe said:
This thread will soon have 1,000 posts. Lots of noise.

Anyway, thought I would report in on my 2017 Leaf S purchased 7/27/2017. Built 04/17. I'm in Phoenix but it was shipped in from Oregon, from what I understand soon prior to my purchase (there were running a 10K deal here in July); in other words, I don't believe it was sitting around here this summer before i bought it.

I have an openevse and mostly charge it to, say, 65% when it runs down to 30%. I've charged it to 100% a few times...
I never let it sit around at high charge.

It doesn't get driven at highway / high speeds very much, just a few miles at time a few times a week. The battery temp gauge doesn't get particularly high. I think it went to 9 bars once. We just have very high average temps.

Here's the report from LeafSpy when i first got Leafspy, and the most recent:

Code:
08/06/2017
Odo 292 
AHr 80.847	
SOH 100%	
Hx 96.6

11/17/2017
Odo 2727.2
Ahr 70.348	
SOH 88%	
Hx 84.95
ok I take back my earlier comments that there was an early batch of bad batteries.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
Bolt battery degradation is unknown, and the GM warranty replacement at under 60% capacity is nothing to swoon over.
OTOH, GM/LG Chem does have a excellent track record with the Volt and its active TMS
There is a whole lot of inferences and hope there:

That the Volt PHEV record translates to the Bolt
That the Volt battery health is even real. Those owners do not monitor battery degradation. The best they know is that range has remained the same for a couple of years, but they do not know if the battery reserve is being consumed.
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years. I just wish other companies had taken the same approach.

As to whether the Volt's record will translate to the Bolt, it's just as likely that its NMC with active TMS will, as AESC's without TMS will on the 2018 LEAF. And while there are undoubtedly differences between a PHEV's battery chemistry (as they are to some extent power batteries) and a BEV's (energy battery), with a PHEV battery that size it's likely they are more similar than different. The Bolt will also, in most cases, be using a smaller % of its capacity on a daily basis compared to a PHEV. And just in case the Bolt's battery doesn't prove to be durable, the Bolt comes with a warranty giving hard values, unlike the LEAF (so far). Given the available evidence, I know which one I'd trust more.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
OTOH, GM/LG Chem does have a excellent track record with the Volt and its active TMS
There is a whole lot of inferences and hope there:

That the Volt PHEV record translates to the Bolt
That the Volt battery health is even real. Those owners do not monitor battery degradation. The best they know is that range has remained the same for a couple of years, but they do not know if the battery reserve is being consumed.
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years.
Sure, but it means that significant battery degradation may have occurred and the Volt owners are none the wiser. That will not be the case in the Bolt
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
OTOH, GM/LG Chem does have a excellent track record with the Volt and its active TMS
There is a whole lot of inferences and hope there:

That the Volt PHEV record translates to the Bolt
That the Volt battery health is even real. Those owners do not monitor battery degradation. The best they know is that range has remained the same for a couple of years, but they do not know if the battery reserve is being consumed.
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years. I just wish other companies had taken the same approach.

As to whether the Volt's record will translate to the Bolt, it's just as likely that its NMC with active TMS will, as AESC's without TMS will on the 2018 LEAF. And while there are undoubtedly differences between a PHEV's battery chemistry (as they are to some extent power batteries) and a BEV's (energy battery), with a PHEV battery that size it's likely they are more similar than different. The Bolt will also, in most cases, be using a smaller % of its capacity on a daily basis compared to a PHEV. And just in case the Bolt's battery doesn't prove to be durable, the Bolt comes with a warranty giving hard values, unlike the LEAF (so far). Given the available evidence, I know which one I'd trust more.
Nissan did the same thing for us. Why do you think the first bar doesn't drop until you hit 80% on the 16's and 17's? Most Leaf drivers don't use Leaf Spy. Until that first bar drops, they don't have a clue except that they don't have quite as much range anymore if they even notice it at all.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
There is a whole lot of inferences and hope there:

That the Volt PHEV record translates to the Bolt
That the Volt battery health is even real. Those owners do not monitor battery degradation. The best they know is that range has remained the same for a couple of years, but they do not know if the battery reserve is being consumed.
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years.
Sure, but it means that significant battery degradation may have occurred and the Volt owners are none the wiser. That will not be the case in the Bolt
Certainly, but with a warranty based on hard numbers, a liquid cooled TMS, and a much longer range to start, is there currently any other semi-affordable BEV besides Tesla that's likely to still be usable for most people's commute when the pack's eight or ten years old? 238 x .6 = 142.8, which is to say that even with a battery ready for warranty replacement, it's still going to have about as much range as the 2018 LEAF does when brand new, and there's no doubt which one's going to suffer greater degradation due to heat.
 
johnlocke said:
GRA said:
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years. I just wish other companies had taken the same approach.

As to whether the Volt's record will translate to the Bolt, it's just as likely that its NMC with active TMS will, as AESC's without TMS will on the 2018 LEAF. And while there are undoubtedly differences between a PHEV's battery chemistry (as they are to some extent power batteries) and a BEV's (energy battery), with a PHEV battery that size it's likely they are more similar than different. The Bolt will also, in most cases, be using a smaller % of its capacity on a daily basis compared to a PHEV. And just in case the Bolt's battery doesn't prove to be durable, the Bolt comes with a warranty giving hard values, unlike the LEAF (so far). Given the available evidence, I know which one I'd trust more.
Nissan did the same thing for us. Why do you think the first bar doesn't drop until you hit 80% on the 16's and 17's? Most Leaf drivers don't use Leaf Spy. Until that first bar drops, they don't have a clue except that they don't have quite as much range anymore if they even notice it at all.
It's not the same thing. NIssan hides degradation on the bars while the usable capacity and range continually decrease. GM hid extra capacity that is only accessed to retain the original usable capacity, so the owner doesn't experience any range loss for years. The latter method's much more conservative (and more expensive), but it has kept the Volt's customers a lot more satisfied than Nissan's approach has kept LEAF customers.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
They don't care, because GM was smart enough to hide capacity so that there's no degradation apparent to the user for several years.
Sure, but it means that significant battery degradation may have occurred and the Volt owners are none the wiser. That will not be the case in the Bolt
Certainly, but with a warranty based on hard numbers, a liquid cooled TMS, and a much longer range to start, is there currently any other semi-affordable BEV besides Tesla that's likely to still be usable for most people's commute when the pack's eight or ten years old? 238 x .6 = 142.8, which is to say that even with a battery ready for warranty replacement, it's still going to have about as much range as the 2018 LEAF does when brand new, and there's no doubt which one's going to suffer greater degradation due to heat.
If the Bolt is bought to carry out LEAF range type tasks then you are right, but if it is bought to carry out 200 mile range type tasks then unexpected, early degradation down to 60% of new is a problem.

Which brings us back to my point: we don't know yet if the Bolt will be good for a long run of time, and the Volt does not really inform us one way or another.
 
Still, GM has earned some trust in this area and one could justify giving them the benefit of the doubt until problems become apparent. Nissan is deserving of the exact opposite, until they sell something that's shown to hold up over time I'm inclined to assume it's another fail, particularly in the absence of TMS which most everyone agrees is required to protect these batteries.
 
well reports from Bolt owners it would appear that the Bolt pack is not allowed as deep a discharge as the LEAF pack and that alone will enhance longevity. I think advertising usable range is probably something Chevy decided would mask any true degradation since at this point we can only speculate on how big the Bolt pack really is. I have seen several speculative numbers and it seems like 67 kwh seems to be the accepted capacity.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
Sure, but it means that significant battery degradation may have occurred and the Volt owners are none the wiser. That will not be the case in the Bolt
Certainly, but with a warranty based on hard numbers, a liquid cooled TMS, and a much longer range to start, is there currently any other semi-affordable BEV besides Tesla that's likely to still be usable for most people's commute when the pack's eight or ten years old? 238 x .6 = 142.8, which is to say that even with a battery ready for warranty replacement, it's still going to have about as much range as the 2018 LEAF does when brand new, and there's no doubt which one's going to suffer greater degradation due to heat.
If the Bolt is bought to carry out LEAF range type tasks then you are right, but if it is bought to carry out 200 mile range type tasks then unexpected, early degradation down to 60% of new is a problem.

Which brings us back to my point: we don't know yet if the Bolt will be good for a long run of time, and the Volt does not really inform us one way or another.
IMO, anyone buying any BEV with range similar to the Bolt's for routine 200 mile tasks is asking for trouble, short but especially long-term. All BEVs have to allow a large margin for weather, terrain, HVAC use and degradation and/or restrictive SoC range to slow that down. Personally, I think any BEV's routine range for any but initial usage should be considered no more than 2/3rds of max, and in many cases less. Anyone anticipating keeping the car for a decade or more should probably consider 1/3rd as the reliable long-term range capability, until proven otherwise. As we've only had production Li-ion BEVs for 7 years now (the Roadster being more of a proof-of concept IMO), there's little basis for counting on more as yet.
 
Another 30 kWh 3 bar loser at https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan.leaf.owners.group/permalink/1711603382243829/. Person reports they are in Riverside, CA.
 
My 2016 SL lost 1st bar around 9,000 miles, second bar just disappeared at just over 12,600 miles. Manufactured in January, 2016, purchased in May, 2016. Lives in Georgia, so exposed to 90+ temps in summer. Never fast-charged.
 
BiscuitEater said:
My 2016 SL lost 1st bar around 9,000 miles, second bar just disappeared at just over 12,600 miles. Manufactured in January, 2016, purchased in May, 2016. Lives in Georgia, so exposed to 90+ temps in summer. Never fast-charged.

what is your average SOC you charge to every night?
 
Scaramanga said:
So I read this post and started thinking about my car, and fussed a bit, fiddled. There's a couple things I just don't understand I guess, namely the relationship between SOH in LeafSpy, GIDS and bars. I have 12/12 bars with 1800 miles as you'd expect, but even after a full charge last night and topping it off (just to be sure) this morning, my SOH @ 92% is not as high as I thought it would be. Perhaps you can help me interpret the results.

Car was built in 2/2016, ordered by Campbell-Nelson Nissan in Edmonds, WA and sold @ Tacoma Nissan. Delivered 12/29/2016 with something like 31 miles on it. It was raining. :)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/94xkupwnybxzc5q/File%20Apr%2029%2C%209%2020%2051%20AM.png?dl=0

Same here: My SoH is 92%, HX 88 at 2.5k miles. The car was built June 2017 and I took delivery on 31 Aug 2017. The car is parked outdoors in the shade. We had a cool summer in the DC area. We don't drive much and I keep the SoC at 50-80% for most daily driving. We have 7 QCs (3 at delivery?! The dealer we purchased from doesn't even have DCFC yet.). It gets a 100% charge about once a week, though I try to not park it at above 85%.

I knew that we were going to add charging stops as the battery aged, but I was surprised at this level of degradation. I didn't check the SoH immediately. Then my phone died and I lost my early LeafSpy logs. In the warmer weather we were easily exceeding the EPA range, so range anxiety has only been on my mind recently with cooler weather.

Still trying to decide if I should be super careful to try to extend the life of the pack, or just not worry about it and hope for a warranty replacement.
 
Scaramanga said:
So I read this post and started thinking about my car, and fussed a bit, fiddled. There's a couple things I just don't understand I guess, namely the relationship between SOH in LeafSpy, GIDS and bars. I have 12/12 bars with 1800 miles as you'd expect, but even after a full charge last night and topping it off (just to be sure) this morning, my SOH @ 92% is not as high as I thought it would be. Perhaps you can help me interpret the results.

Car was built in 2/2016, ordered by Campbell-Nelson Nissan in Edmonds, WA and sold @ Tacoma Nissan. Delivered 12/29/2016 with something like 31 miles on it. It was raining. :)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/94xkupwnybxzc5q/File%20Apr%2029%2C%209%2020%2051%20AM.png?dl=0

Well, I have some purely speculative thoughts about your stats if you care to hear them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ok, you blew your chance to blow me off so!!

Notice the difference in SOH and Hx? This generally means your stats are depressed by low usage. This is not a bad thing. A long trip will bounce BOTH your Hx and ahr up. How far up? guessing at least 4% and likely about 6%. That brings you nowhere near where you should be.

The concern I have is time on the lot and how the car was treated. It obviously wasn't shaded so we need to see what likely occurred.

**WARNING MORE UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION IMMINENT!!**
.
.
.
.
.
Ok so what likely happened is the dealer (mostly because that is what they were told) kept the car charged to 80% or so all the time thinking it was ok and it is... as long as the temps are low enough. How low? In full Sun, an ambient temp of 75º is too high for me especially when its just sitting there not being driven or cycled.

for more info, I have an entire blog full of speculation! Its the Degradation part 2 entry.
 
rcm4453 said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
jbuntz said:
I suspect you too have one of the early batch of bad batteries. No charging plan is goin to help them. Might as well charge it whatever is best for you and wait for a replacement which is in our near future.

Sounds more like low mileage along with maintaining a high SOC in very warm weather.


Nope that's not it, I too have a 2016 Leaf SV with a bad battery that's degrading really fast, I already lost my first bar too and I live in a cool climate. My friend has a 2013 Leaf with almost 60k miles and still has all 12 bars! He lives in my area too and he doesn't baby his battery either.

Another Minnesotan here. Adding some initial stats to this thread:

'13 Leaf SV (Leased) - Leased 34 months. Drove 41K miles. All 12 bars intact when returned car. Mostly charged to 80% between midnight and 5a.

'16 Leaf SV (Purchased - Manufactured 12/15) . Typical charging pattern is to try and charge to 75-90%. Charging typically happens between midnight and 5a.

Date Ahr SOH V Hx ODO QC L1/L2 SOC
11/10/2016 74.49 93% 388.84 88.41 9769 3 350 87.70%
11/26/2017 70.85 89% 345.54 83.71 24414 7 1198 30.30%

The 11/10/2016 was actually a test for a friend. He wanted to ensure he could get a good read before testing used Leafs.
The 11/26/2017 reading is my test to make sure I could get the readings on my phone.

Pretty happy that in over a year my SOH only dropped 4%.

On Tuesday I plan on charging the car to 100% SOC and taking another set of readings which I will report back into the thread.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Well, I have some purely speculative thoughts about your stats if you care to hear them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ok, you blew your chance to blow me off so!!

Notice the difference in SOH and Hx? This generally means your stats are depressed by low usage. This is not a bad thing. A long trip will bounce BOTH your Hx and ahr up. How far up? guessing at least 4% and likely about 6%. That brings you nowhere near where you should be.

The concern I have is time on the lot and how the car was treated. It obviously wasn't shaded so we need to see what likely occurred.

**WARNING MORE UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION IMMINENT!!**
.
.
.
.
.
Ok so what likely happened is the dealer (mostly because that is what they were told) kept the car charged to 80% or so all the time thinking it was ok and it is... as long as the temps are low enough. How low? In full Sun, an ambient temp of 75º is too high for me especially when its just sitting there not being driven or cycled.

for more info, I have an entire blog full of speculation! Its the Degradation part 2 entry.
Thanks, interesting info and theory. Went to visit my folks over the holiday, which included a QC at about the halfway point for each leg of 115 mi. The pack was fully charged at the start of each leg. The SoH has increased to 93% (+1) and Hx to 90 (+2). So, you may be right that low miles and mostly short trips is masking the "real" SoH. Hoping for the best!
 
mn4az said:
Another Minnesotan here. Adding some initial stats to this thread:

'13 Leaf SV (Leased) - Leased 34 months. Drove 41K miles. All 12 bars intact when returned car. Mostly charged to 80% between midnight and 5a.

'16 Leaf SV (Purchased - Manufactured 12/15) . Typical charging pattern is to try and charge to 75-90%. Charging typically happens between midnight and 5a.

Date Ahr SOH V Hx ODO QC L1/L2 SOC
11/10/2016 74.49 93% 388.84 88.41 9769 3 350 87.70%
11/26/2017 70.85 89% 345.54 83.71 24414 7 1198 30.30%

The 11/10/2016 was actually a test for a friend. He wanted to ensure he could get a good read before testing used Leafs.
The 11/26/2017 reading is my test to make sure I could get the readings on my phone.

Pretty happy that in over a year my SOH only dropped 4%.

On Tuesday I plan on charging the car to 100% SOC and taking another set of readings which I will report back into the thread.

Here's my state from today from the Lite version of LeafSpy

Ahr = 70.85
SOH = 89%
V = 395.32
Hx = 83.71%
ODO = 24414
QC = 7
L1/L2 = 1205
SOC = 97.8%

Anyone care to comment on what they see within those stats?

The only change we'll make is to charge to 100% SOC when we know we may be at risk of dropping to <25% during the days driving. In the past we focused on holding near 80% SOC and if you got home at 5% SOC so be it. One other change will be, if we get home with <25% SOC to charge it to 30% - then finish the charge off during the evening hours when rates are less (off peak charging).
 
mn4az said:
mn4az said:
Another Minnesotan here. Adding some initial stats to this thread:

'13 Leaf SV (Leased) - Leased 34 months. Drove 41K miles. All 12 bars intact when returned car. Mostly charged to 80% between midnight and 5a.

'16 Leaf SV (Purchased - Manufactured 12/15) . Typical charging pattern is to try and charge to 75-90%. Charging typically happens between midnight and 5a.

Date Ahr SOH V Hx ODO QC L1/L2 SOC
11/10/2016 74.49 93% 388.84 88.41 9769 3 350 87.70%
11/26/2017 70.85 89% 345.54 83.71 24414 7 1198 30.30%

The 11/10/2016 was actually a test for a friend. He wanted to ensure he could get a good read before testing used Leafs.
The 11/26/2017 reading is my test to make sure I could get the readings on my phone.

Pretty happy that in over a year my SOH only dropped 4%.

On Tuesday I plan on charging the car to 100% SOC and taking another set of readings which I will report back into the thread.

Here's my state from today from the Lite version of LeafSpy

Ahr = 70.85
SOH = 89%
V = 395.32
Hx = 83.71%
ODO = 24414
QC = 7
L1/L2 = 1205
SOC = 97.8%

Anyone care to comment on what they see within those stats?

The only change we'll make is to charge to 100% SOC when we know we may be at risk of dropping to <25% during the days driving. In the past we focused on holding near 80% SOC and if you got home at 5% SOC so be it. One other change will be, if we get home with <25% SOC to charge it to 30% - then finish the charge off during the evening hours when rates are less (off peak charging).


there is very little risk to charging to 100% during cold weather. Degradation after A YEAR is only 6% @ 32ºF verses 2% @ 40% SOC (general Li guidelines only here) so an overnight or even a few days? Not something you should do but if it happens, its nothing to lose sleep over. We also have to keep in mind, lower Winter range so charging to a higher SOC is not only minimally bad thing to do, its simply being prepared for the worst.

Its Summer you need to worry about and yeah, it will be more than warm enough.

The reality appears to be what happened before you got the car. 10% down on day one it would seem. Look at the stats of your 2013 and I think time on the lot is your main factor.
 
Back
Top