2019 "60 kWh" Leaf e-Plus

[WetEV]

To make a LONG story short. The ideology that charging habits or temperature will significantly change the usable capacity of the pack is simply not possible.

Temperature does temporarily change the usable capacity of the pack. The battery stores less energy when cold, and more when hot. If you do a recharge capacity test, make sure you do it at the same temperature every year.


https://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/learn/article/discharging_at_high_and_low_temperatures

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Yes there is that and brings up the age old question; if I warm the battery up am I charging it?

The answer is obviously no but a warmer battery provides more energy so...

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

I am just hoping that the quarterly reductions will be coming to an end, and the car moves into the flattened part of the curve.

anyone notice whehter the car charges more fully using L1 vs. L2 charging? Sometimes I have seen the GID level post level 2 charging to 100% stop significantly shorter than with L1. I don't have alot of great data to support, just anecdotal. I don't know if L1 charging allows for better time for the battery to balance.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Leaf continues to prove its super safe. I wonder where the model 3 shows up in the deaths per million miles.

https://www.torquenews.com/1083/volkswagen-golf-and-nissan-leaf-defy-safety-trends-much-safer-other-small-cars

 

[salyavin]

I bet Tesla is pretty high. The rare battery fire is not a huge thing (none in Leaf that I know about), I'd say most of it for Tesla is people using the self driving inappropriately.

 

[GerryAZ]

Leaf continues to prove its super safe. I wonder where the model 3 shows up in the deaths per million miles.

https://www.torquenews.com/1083/volkswagen-golf-and-nissan-leaf-defy-safety-trends-much-safer-other-small-cars

I am not surprised by the results for LEAF. The LEAF is classed as a midsize car and it is much heavier than the average midsize car. The weight distribution is balanced front/rear and side/side which helps with handling and braking to avoid crashes. Also, the large battery mass is directly under the passenger compartment so crash forces are absorbed by sheet metal rather than violently accelerating the passenger compartment. I was amazed how well the 2011 performed when it was rear-ended by a 3/4-ton 4X4 diesel pickup while I was stopped at a traffic light. The back of the LEAF and the front of the pickup absorbed a lot of energy, but I did not feel significant crash force acceleration.

Since weight distribution and overall size are similar, I would expect the Tesla Model 3 to perform well in real world crashes and crash avoidance. The battery mass under the passenger compartment helps in real world crashes, but penalizes EV's during crash testing into fixed barriers.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I bet Tesla is pretty high. The rare battery fire is not a huge thing (none in Leaf that I know about), I'd say most of it for Tesla is people using the self driving inappropriately.

Not high at all actually. One thing we have to accept that even when abusing self driving, it is still safer than we are.

 

[WetEV]

I am not surprised by the results for LEAF. The LEAF is classed as a midsize car and it is much heavier than the average midsize car. The weight distribution is balanced front/rear and side/side which helps with handling and braking to avoid crashes. Also, the large battery mass is directly under the passenger compartment so crash forces are absorbed by sheet metal rather than violently accelerating the passenger compartment. I was amazed how well the 2011 performed when it was rear-ended by a 3/4-ton 4X4 diesel pickup while I was stopped at a traffic light. The back of the LEAF and the front of the pickup absorbed a lot of energy, but I did not feel significant crash force acceleration.

Having been rear-ended by a car going fairly fast, I'm also not surprised. I did feel significant acceleration, but it was smooth. Nothing hurt, then or later.

 

[salyavin]

Sorry by high, I mean a high safety ranking, not dangerous.

I bet Tesla is pretty high. The rare battery fire is not a huge thing (none in Leaf that I know about), I'd say most of it for Tesla is people using the self driving inappropriately.

Not high at all actually. One thing we have to accept that even when abusing self driving, it is still safer than we are.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Leaf continues to prove its super safe. I wonder where the model 3 shows up in the deaths per million miles.

https://www.torquenews.com/1083/volkswagen-golf-and-nissan-leaf-defy-safety-trends-much-safer-other-small-cars

I am not surprised by the results for LEAF. The LEAF is classed as a midsize car and it is much heavier than the average midsize car. The weight distribution is balanced front/rear and side/side which helps with handling and braking to avoid crashes. Also, the large battery mass is directly under the passenger compartment so crash forces are absorbed by sheet metal rather than violently accelerating the passenger compartment. I was amazed how well the 2011 performed when it was rear-ended by a 3/4-ton 4X4 diesel pickup while I was stopped at a traffic light. The back of the LEAF and the front of the pickup absorbed a lot of energy, but I did not feel significant crash force acceleration.

Since weight distribution and overall size are similar, I would expect the Tesla Model 3 to perform well in real world crashes and crash avoidance. The battery mass under the passenger compartment helps in real world crashes, but penalizes EV's during crash testing into fixed barriers.

To add to crashworthiness; If you didn't read the blog, just look at the pix. I was t boned by a large car doing 40+ mph with the initial impact directly on the drivers door. I walked away literally w/o a scratch. (I worked a 10½ shift less than 30 hours later)

What I realized is the extra bracing for the battery pack not only protects the pack but it also protected me. Despite "extensive" exterior damage, the inside damage (minus the air bags) was ZERO.

IOW; side collisions have no crumple zones (which is a VERY good thing!) with the impact shoving me sideways until I hit the curb (the wheel on that side was destroyed) This forced the intruding car to pivot sideways with our cars ending up side by side facing opposite directions. I was literally 5 feet from the other driver.

https://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2018/01/she-gave-all.html

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Dave

Glad to see you posting again in your blog. My latest thought on the 90 day steps downs is that Nissan uses the first year to build a buffer on the battery to improve longevity and reduce the degradation. When I first got the car, Leaf spy read over 59kWh, which would only be a 4% buffer at the top. I looking at the other brands (Audi, Mercedes, even GM) it looks like 8-10% is a safer buffer. Supposedly even GM did a software update to hide about 2kWh on the Bolt battery (news Coulomb), but I don’t have anything beyond YouTube reports to back that up.

So Nissan gives you a tighter buffer in quarter 1, allowing for a higher epa range. It then slowly pulls a little away each quarter for a year (let’s hope just a year) to bring the buffer up. Now what we can’t see is in that first year, is how much the battery itself degrades, hence I believe some of the variations on the board. All hypothesis.

Let’s see what the next adjustment brings.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Dave

Glad to see you posting again in your blog. My latest thought on the 90 day steps downs is that Nissan uses the first year to build a buffer on the battery to improve longevity and reduce the degradation. When I first got the car, Leaf spy read over 59kWh, which would only be a 4% buffer at the top. I looking at the other brands (Audi, Mercedes, even GM) it looks like 8-10% is a safer buffer. Supposedly even GM did a software update to hide about 2kWh on the Bolt battery (news Coulomb), but I don’t have anything beyond YouTube reports to back that up.

So Nissan gives you a tighter buffer in quarter 1, allowing for a higher epa range. It then slowly pulls a little away each quarter for a year (let’s hope just a year) to bring the buffer up. Now what we can’t see is in that first year, is how much the battery itself degrades, hence I believe some of the variations on the board. All hypothesis.

Let’s see what the next adjustment brings.

Interesting thought but has no logic but then again, that wouldn't be unheard of concerning LEAF design decisions.

It would have been better to advertise the pack as 60 kwh instead but then again... who knows? Considering the logic behind selling a 200+ mile range EV without "any" custom charge settings is still something I am struggling to understand.

You see; I pride myself in be able to get inside someone's head to understand how they think and what rationalizations they use to come up with their opinions on several things. Now with people like trump, its easy. He is as transparent as freshly polished glass but the Nissan decision? I need some help on that...

 

[danrjones]

Dave

Glad to see you posting again in your blog. My latest thought on the 90 day steps downs is that Nissan uses the first year to build a buffer on the battery to improve longevity and reduce the degradation. When I first got the car, Leaf spy read over 59kWh, which would only be a 4% buffer at the top. I looking at the other brands (Audi, Mercedes, even GM) it looks like 8-10% is a safer buffer. Supposedly even GM did a software update to hide about 2kWh on the Bolt battery (news Coulomb), but I don’t have anything beyond YouTube reports to back that up.

So Nissan gives you a tighter buffer in quarter 1, allowing for a higher epa range. It then slowly pulls a little away each quarter for a year (let’s hope just a year) to bring the buffer up. Now what we can’t see is in that first year, is how much the battery itself degrades, hence I believe some of the variations on the board. All hypothesis.

Let’s see what the next adjustment brings.

Wouldn't that be illegal? If the EPA rating is XYZ and then the carmaker steals that from you, that seems pretty shady. I know I signed a bunch of papers to the fact the battery would degrade, but I do not remember signing anything that Nissan could artificially degrade my battery. That sounds, if true, like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

Tesla and GM have done similar changes as they understand their customers batteries better.

 

[danrjones]

Tesla and GM have done similar changes as they understand their customers batteries better.

Yes I do recall Tesla making adjustments, but in that case, if I remember correctly, TESLA still was giving the customer at least the EPa rated range were they not? plus some of their adjustments were to charging profile, which is not guaranteed.

If a manufacturer actually reduced your range artificially below the EPA number that they sold it to you at, that sounds illegal.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

In Tesla's case, I believe the batteries were reduced to provide a larger cushion a couple years after sale (maybe more)..so in a weird way you could say Nissan took a page out of Tesla's playbook.

Its why I also find the fact that they both offer the same battery warranty (70% remaining life or better over 8 years) rather interesting. Bolt, Tesla, Kona, Niro all keep battery capacities a little more opaque then Nissan. I do feel like Nissan as a result has taken an absolute beating because of it.

I don't deny that Nissan dropped the ball in terms of innovation, and were falling well behind by 2015, but the platform, due to its simplistic nature, has become the go to for aftermarket modification now.

 

[danrjones]

In Tesla's case, I believe the batteries were reduced to provide a larger cushion a couple years after sale (maybe more)..so in a weird way you could say Nissan took a page out of Tesla's playbook.

Its why I also find the fact that they both offer the same battery warranty (70% remaining life or better over 8 years) rather interesting. Bolt, Tesla, Kona, Niro all keep battery capacities a little more opaque then Nissan. I do feel like Nissan as a result has taken an absolute beating because of it.

I don't deny that Nissan dropped the ball in terms of innovation, and were falling well behind by 2015, but the platform, due to its simplistic nature, has become the go to for aftermarket modification now.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think it opens them up to a lawsuit unless they informed the buyer somewhere in the paperwork.
I'm waiting for my 3 month update and am hovering almost exactly at 90%, so it will be interesting to see what happens next to mine.

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

On a day to day basis, because the Plus range is so much higher than the 2013 I had, it doesn't impact anything that I do with the car. My geeky side really wants to understand that the BMS is doing, and wants to see if its actually successful in keeping the long term battery health better.

the oldest 40kW Leafs aren't even at 3 years yet, so its going to be a couple year before we understand better.

 

[Blueflex2]

2020 SL plus built 12/19
delivered Feb 27 2020
Initial SOH 99.36
March 29 99.31
April 30 99.21
May 31 99.08
June 2 98.65
June 5 98.15
June 6 97.37
June 7 97.09
June 8 97.02 ODO 1747
Except for SOC of 90% at dealership on pickup
Leaf has always been charged to less than 80%
and remained above 30% so far.
It took more than 5 months to show first big drop.
Maybe a 2020 feature?

 

[DougWantsALeaf]

My Leaf was built in May 2019/bought early June and dropped to the 97s in December. Maybe it’s 6 months for the first drop down. My data seems to support that.

I was then hopeful that 97 was where it was going to stay, but then a drop mid Feb to 95.6 and then in mid May to 94.6. I keep hoping now that I am at flat line.

I would prefer that we could keep the full amount and have a charge limiter on the car.