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.
JPWhite said:
rcm4453 said:
That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?

After reprogramming the BMS it will be reset and will show all 12 bars. It will settle quickly down to the real capacity within a few weeks of driving as the BMS determines the batteries characteristics. This is normal after a BMS reprogram and not fancy finger-work by Nissan.

Ok so after the BMS settles it's still going to show the battery has more capacity than what it had before doing the update. Which translates to the consumer having to wait longer for a battery replacement. Otherwise Nissan wouldn't bother doing this update in the first place.

So you go to the dealer with 4 bars dropped and instead of getting a new battery they do this update. Then you have to wait a couple weeks for BMS to settle. Now it's showing you're only down 2 or 3 bars. So much for getting your new battery, how is this a good thing for the consumer?
 
goldbrick said:
OrientExpress said:
It's great news that the BMS reprogramming fix has finally hit the streets. Nissan has been testing this fix since last year when it was first observed. In some cases they are still replacing the entire pack, but now most cars presenting with the phantom accelerated capacity loss can be fixed.

Do you have any data to support the 'phantom' part of the accelerated capacity loss?

My 2017S is supposedly down to SOH of 92% or so but I still regularly go > 100 miles on a 90% charge but I live at 5400 ft elevation and my dash shows my efficiency at 4.5 mi/kWh so maybe that's expected. I suppose it's possible that the 30kWh BMS has faulty firmware but this is the first I've heard of it.

This fix has been in the works since last fall. I would suggest that if you have not had this recall fix done to your 16-17 LEAF, that you have it done. Keep in mind this is classified as a recall not a TSB. I would imagine that at some point owners/lessors of all 2016/17 cars will receive an official recall notice in the mail.

While the fix was being tested, cars that presented with accelerated degradation had their batteries replaced as that was the best way to provide customer satisfaction, but the reality was that there wasn't anything wrong with any of the cells in the battery, it was just how the SW was interpreting their health. This recall fixes that faulty interpretation of the battery health, and should be applied to all 2016-17 cars even those that have had their traction battery replaced.

And no, this is not at all like when the BMS was reset on earlier cars.
 
rcm4453 said:
That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?

The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.
 
rcm4453 said:
So you go to the dealer with 4 bars dropped and instead of getting a new battery they do this update. Then you have to wait a couple weeks for BMS to settle. Now it's showing you're only down 2 or 3 bars. So much for getting your new battery, how is this a good thing for the consumer?

I have a 2011 LEAF and there was a similar BMS update made available (and applied) shortly after the retroactive warranty was announced.

One could interpret this as a way for Nissan to kick the can down the road. Alternatively we can give them the benefit of the doubt and understand the update is to correct BMS bugs and issues that may either falsely report a weak battery or even worse cause such degradation to occur due to mismanagement of the pack. (Why Nissan is still dealing with poor BMS firmware over 8 years after the original LEAF came to market is worthy of discussion all by itself).

In much the same way when you call for tech support on tech products, a common action is to upgrade firmware to a recent firmware and see if the problem persists prior to taking additional corrective actions. Nissan's approach is similar.

If a battery is truly degraded and we are wiling to trust Nissan to report the capacity bars honestly, then yes this is a inconvenience for a customer with a degraded battery having to wait the time it takes for the new firmware to re-calibrate and show a 4 bar loser. I do not interpret this as a way to avoid their responsibilities or mask true degradation. Nissan are slow to act, which I believe is why customers can and do get frustrated with them.
 
OrientExpress said:
The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.

I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.
 
WetEV said:
I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.

I don't see any way of lay individuals validating what Nissan has done. There is absolutely no way of interpreting how the fix is accomplished or how it is working given that Nissan does not provide access to its IP.
 
I'd volunteer but I just checked my car and LS says it is at 94.25% SOH. So my SOH just went up a bit. Did I pick up a few % points due to the warmer weather?

In any case, I'm probably not a good candidate to use since the loss of capacity range will be small and so any errors magnified. LS also said my efficiency was 4.0 mi/kWh so that makes me quite happy as my full range would extrapolate to about 120 mi on a full charge, assuming the %charge display on the dash and the odometer are linear and accurate respectively.
 
JPWhite said:
I have a 2011 LEAF and there was a similar BMS update made available (and applied) shortly after the retroactive warranty was announced...
Which only temporarily corrected part of the over-report of capacity loss common on 2011-12 LEAFs.

WetEV said:
...I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.
Odd that no one has suggested that previously...

OrientExpress said:
...There is absolutely no way of interpreting how the fix is accomplished or how it is working given that Nissan does not provide access to its IP.
Which is why there is no reason to expect Nissan has actually managed to produce accurate available or total pack capacity measurements from the LBC, on any LEAF, for any year, pre-update of post-update, for the original "24 kW" packs (or the comically designated lizards, canaries, etc which followed) or the "30 kWh" and "40 kWH" packs.

The real mystery is why tens of thousands of posts on this forum have been devoted to moronic recitations of gid values and capacity bar losses, when there has never been the slightest evidence that either actually provided consistent accurate data on battery capacity.
 
OrientExpress said:
rcm4453 said:
That's not a good thing will mean many won't be getting a new battery. If you're down 2 bars like the guy on FB was, they reprogram the BMS now it shows 12 bars isn't Nissan just hiding the capacity loss to avoid so many battery replacements? Sure sounds like it to me! After all when has Nissan ever had the consumer's best interest in mind?

The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.

Well I'm down 2 bars on my 2016 and I know for sure there's been capacity loss. I get far less range then what I got when car was new in the exact same driving conditions, same driving style and same routes driven. Had I not lost any range then what you're claiming would be true.
 
I can assure you that my battery loss was not a "Phantom Loss". My range decreased from 90 miles at VLBW to 65 miles at VLBW and 53 miles at LBW. LBW went from 13% to 21% over the course of 30 months. This was a real loss of range. Nissan has monkeyed around with the values of the capacity bars to confuse and disarm consumers. The first bar doesn't disappear until the battery is down by 20%. With 12 bars available the first bar ought to vanish at 92% of original capacity. Four bars down is actually 62% of original capacity. Nissan won't even define what a four bar loss actually is and uses confusing language ("more than a three bar loss") in the owners manual. Nissan might as well have put a simple warning light "Change the Battery" instead of a misleading gauge and just been upfront about it.
 
John, It's doubtful that you really know how your battery was preforming, as the controller was presenting data that was based on faulty calculations that affected the presented SOC, Capacity, and range. This is what the fix is all about.

I have reached out to Nissan for more information about this, and as soon as I get their response, I will post it. BTW, Nissan is calling this fix a "Customer Service Campaign" and not a recall.

Nissan has know about this issue since last fall, and has been working on the fix, making sure that it is an actual fix. In the mean time, customers whose cars presented the excessive degradation were provided with replacement batteries. But those cars will still need to get the SW fix, and of course the battery warranty still is in place.
 
johnlocke said:
I can assure you that my battery loss was not a "Phantom Loss"...
Of course you pack has lost capacity, the question is how much.

johnlocke said:
My range decreased from 90 miles at VLBW to 65 miles at VLBW...
And, even if the ranges you state correspond to capacity accurately (it's a lot simpler if you learn to state capacity in kWh instead of "miles") and the additional range available from VLBW to shutdown was ~10 "miles" when new, and increased to ~12 "miles" by the time you lost bar nine, your range-determined loss of available capacity was 73/100, or ~23%, not the 38%, as you insist:

johnlocke said:
Four bars down is actually 62% of original capacity...
For comparison, when My pack lost its ninth bar, at ~seven years and ~60k miles from delivery, it had ~24% lower available capacity than Nissan specified, while my LBC showed a ~36% loss of capacity.

However, since all evidence suggests most "24 kWh" 2011-12 LEAFs (including my own) actually had deficient capacity when new, I'm fairly sure my pack had not actually lost the full 24% of available or total capacity, from delivery.
 
WetEV said:
OrientExpress said:
The issue is that a battery presenting 2-4 lost bars, actually still has its nominal capacity, so the consumer hasn't lost anything at all. That is the issue, batteries that still had their nominal capacity for their age and mileage were displaying accelerated capacity loss when in reality they didn't have that loss at all.

I'd like to see a recharge or range test done by a third party (such as one or more MNL regulars) to convince me that this is just mostly a reporting/BMS measuring flaw.
Yep
 
So, I am not following. Can someone summarize.

* Am I to understand that there is a recall type campaign that somehow affects the BMS?

* Is the degradation on the 2016 batteries real or is it just reporting incorrectly.

* Does this fix somehow restore the battery or just prevent further degradation.

Please be patient with me. Reading various sources and not seeing any consistency.

Thanks all.

John
 
webeleafowners said:
So, I am not following. Can someone summarize.

* Am I to understand that there is a recall type campaign that somehow affects the BMS?

* Is the degradation on the 2016 batteries real or is it just reporting incorrectly.

* Does this fix somehow restore the battery or just prevent further degradation.

Please be patient with me. Reading various sources and not seeing any consistency.

Thanks all.

John
I don't think it's going to make the pack temp any cooler after multiple QC but might add some stability to the GOM , I hope it does't slow the charge rate like the 2018's.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=25998&start=10
IHave not yet been contacted by Nissan regarding this

Edit cwerdna beat me to post the link
 
The customer communication will be going out by mail directly.

Here is the documentation provided to the dealer service centers:

leafbatterycampaign-1.jpg


leafbatterycampaign-2.jpg


leafbatterycampaign-3.jpg


The bottom line is that the BMS is providing bad calculated data to the rest of the cars systems. This SW patch corrects that.
 
Back
Top