24% loss in 5 years is "normal" says NISSAN

[cwerdna]

They've said the failure rate for the version 1 Prius was 1% (but fully covered). They now claim the version 2 and 3 prius batteries will last at least 180,000 miles. I guess they improved the software?

Source of your first claim? Over what time span? How long ago was it made?

I've never heard the 180K mile figure either. Toyota usually likes to say "will last the life of the car" but not many people are aware of the clause in their brochures like http://www.toyotacertified.com/ebrochures/12_prius.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (for the '12 Prius) that says on the last page "Hybrid vehicle battery expected life is 150,000 miles based on laboratory bench testing".

My source is simply myself. I'm a self-proclaimed Prius expert and I've changed a fair share of batteries in the 2001-2003 models. Battery failures in the 2004 and newer are very rare and most of the time it is because the car was allowed to sit in a discharged state for a year or so. The main improvement with the cells appears to be mechanical in design rather than chemical. The problem with the 1st gen cells is that they were prone to leakage, which in time would allow the cell to dry out. Not sure what they changed, but the 2004 and newer do not leak. But even the 1st gen models tended to survive through the warranty period.

Thanks! I always not meaning to question you, adric22. I was wondering about theaveng's claims.

 

[SanDust]

2010, when the Owner's Manual was published, is new?

The owners manual? Surely you jest. How can an owners manual that you get after the sale be used to render nugatory oral representations made before the sale? Next you'll be telling us that we're obligated to buy those books we didn't ask for that they sent us in the mail.

What counts are the oral representations made before the sale which induce someone to buy the product. His point was the Perry said the battery would lose 20% over ten years. He's right, that's what he said. And the crux of the problem is what he said. It doesn't matter practically or legally what is in the owners manual.

 

[planet4ever]

I have no idea where they are getting the five years from, though that does seem to be the new talking point.

2010, when the Owner's Manual was published, is new?

The owners manual? Surely you jest. How can an owners manual that you get after the sale be used to render nugatory oral representations made before the sale?

I'm sure it must have been only by accident that you failed to quote your own statement that I was responding to. You said you had "no idea where they were getting the five years from." I said, from the manual, published two years ago.

Personally, I downloaded an official copy of the Owners Manual from an official Nissan website before the very first American LEAF was delivered to Gudy on Dec 11, 2010, and five months before I got mine. Perhaps you choose to believe verbal assertions by a person paid to promote a product more than you believe what is written in the product's official documentation, but I feel sorry for you if so. And it's not like you had to read the whole manual. On the third page of the first (Overview) section, in a note printed in bold type, it said:

NISSAN estimates that battery capacity will be approximately 80% of original capacity after five years, although this is only an estimate, and this percentage may vary (and could be significantly lower) depending on individual vehicle and Li-ion battery usage.

Incidentally, I would interpret "significantly lower" as meaning that it might be 80% in three years, but it is not reasonable to interpret that as 80% in one year, so I am by no means trying to blow off the people who are currently having that kind of experience.

It doesn't matter practically or legally what is in the owners manual.

On the contrary, it matters very much.

Ray

 

[leafkabob]

The owners manual? Surely you jest. How can an owners manual that you get after the sale be used to render nugatory oral representations made before the sale?

I'm sure it must have been only by accident that you failed to quote your own statement that I was responding to. You said you had "no idea where they were getting the five years from." I said, from the manual, published two years ago.

Personally, I downloaded an official copy of the Owners Manual from an official Nissan website before the very first American LEAF was delivered to Gudy on Dec 11, 2010, and five months before I got mine. Perhaps you choose to believe verbal assertions by a person paid to promote a product more than you believe what is written in the product's official documentation, but I feel sorry for you if so. And it's not like you had to read the whole manual. On the third page of the first (Overview) section, in a note printed in bold type, it said:

NISSAN estimates that battery capacity will be approximately 80% of original capacity after five years, although this is only an estimate, and this percentage may vary (and could be significantly lower) depending on individual vehicle and Li-ion battery usage.

Incidentally, I would interpret "significantly lower" as meaning that it might be 80% in three years, but it is not reasonable to interpret that as 80% in one year, so I am by no means trying to blow off the people who are currently having that kind of experience.

It doesn't matter practically or legally what is in the owners manual.

On the contrary, it matters very much.

Ray

But when it comes to Consumer Fraud laws, oral misrepresentations probably matter more. Not every Leaf purchaser downloaded the manual prior to purchase, nor should they be required go to those lengths prior to purchase. Thankfully, they can rely on what a company tells them, either in advertisements or by their paid representatives.

 

[theaveng]

I saved $20,000 simply by buying a used insight instead of Leaf (that's the difference in pricetag). Plus the gas savings at $4.20 a gallon is $8200/100k with no expensive battery to place.

Until you have to trade out those transmissions. I have multiple co-workers that have had to change them out at least once on their Hondas.

The insight is a manual. I might need to change the clutch around 200,000 miles but that's about it. I'm now looking for a manual Civic for around the same cost.

 

[theaveng]

I saved $20,000 simply by buying a used insight instead of Leaf (that's the difference in pricetag). Plus the gas savings at $4.20 a gallon is $8200/100k miles with no expensive battery to place.

You can save a lot more by using a bicycle. You are comparing Apples to oranges here, you can't compare a Leaf to a Gen 1 Insight any more than a Bike to an Insight.

+1 I couldn't agree with you more.

AND AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE (but which you callosuly ignored) my dad was hit while on a cycle, and had his hip bone smashed. He can barely walk anymore. That same month a friend's dad also got impacted by a car. So "no thanks" to the bicycle unless I'm trying to get myself killed.

I prefer to have a freaking shell of metal around me. Besides at my current 89MPG average I'm barely having any impact on the planet. And yes the insight and leaf are comparable since they both serve the same purpose: Drag my body to work at highway speeds. The second used insight I bought was the cheaper way of doing it.

 

[ztanos]

I saved $20,000 simply by buying a used insight instead of Leaf (that's the difference in pricetag). Plus the gas savings at $4.20 a gallon is $8200/100k with no expensive battery to place.

Until you have to trade out those transmissions. I have multiple co-workers that have had to change them out at least once on their Hondas.

The insight is a manual. I might need to change the clutch around 200,000 miles but that's about it. I'm now looking for a manual Civic for around the same cost.

Fair enough. Guess I need to read up on the Insight.

 

[downeykp]

You are really missing the point. All Leafs have the same problem. The battery is faulty. Just add heat and your Leaf will also melt. It is a design flaw. I hope you never get sent to a hot climate with your Leaf. you will be singing another tune.

Faulty?

I don't think so. Poorly advertised, yes. Poorly documented, yes. Poorly instrumented, yes. Customer relationship massive bobble, yes.

Nissan didn't tell you what to expect? You got a case.

The battery is faulty? Sorry, but no such evidence has been shown.

The battery is doing just what a battery (of that chemistry) does. Nothing more, nothing less.

A design flaw? Depends on what you think the design should do. Sure, cost per mile will be higher in hot places compared with a BEV with a TMS or battery thermal management system. Cost per mile will be lower in most places compared with a BEV with a TMS.

A TMS will add cost, reduce efficiency, reduce reliability and have a marginal impact on average battery life most places.

This would have been fine, if Nissan had spelled it out. They didn't. You got a case there. But you do not have a case for claiming the battery is faulty.

Design flaw yes!!! If every Leaf ever sold was sold in Arizona, they would all have huge capacity loss. How is that not a capacity flaw? Just because it does not affect cars in moderate climates does not mean the design is good. It just means you will not have the same problem. Unless?

 

[WetEV]

Design flaw yes!!! If every Leaf ever sold was sold in Arizona, they would all have huge capacity loss. How is that not a capacity flaw? Just because it does not affect cars in moderate climates does not mean the design is good. It just means you will not have the same problem. Unless?

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold.

A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates.

It is not a flaw, it is what it is.

Don't compain that your sailboat doesn't climb hills well. Don't complain that your airplane doesn't do well under water. Don't complain that the dog can't meow and is bad at catching mice.

If someone sold you a sailboat and told you it could climb hills well, the flaw isn't in the sailboat!

 

[gaswalla]

Design flaw yes!!! If every Leaf ever sold was sold in Arizona, they would all have huge capacity loss. How is that not a capacity flaw? Just because it does not affect cars in moderate climates does not mean the design is good. It just means you will not have the same problem. Unless?

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold.

A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates.

It is not a flaw, it is what it is.

Don't compain that your sailboat doesn't climb hills well. Don't complain that your airplane doesn't do well under water. Don't complain that the dog can't meow and is bad at catching mice.

If someone sold you a sailboat and told you it could climb hills well, the flaw isn't in the sailboat!

On the other hand, if someone sells an "innovative" sailboat that they say climbs hills well, (but they know it really shouldn't be sold for that particular hill), they do have some responsibility about the misleading marketing. History will tell is there is a "flaw," and it doesn't look like it will be pretty for Nissan.

 

[GRA]

Design flaw yes!!! If every Leaf ever sold was sold in Arizona, they would all have huge capacity loss. How is that not a capacity flaw? Just because it does not affect cars in moderate climates does not mean the design is good. It just means you will not have the same problem. Unless?

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold.

A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates.

It is not a flaw, it is what it is.

Don't compain that your sailboat doesn't climb hills well. Don't complain that your airplane doesn't do well under water. Don't complain that the dog can't meow and is bad at catching mice.

If someone sold you a sailboat and told you it could climb hills well, the flaw isn't in the sailboat!

On the other hand, if someone sells an "innovative" sailboat that they say climbs hills well, (but they know it really shouldn't be sold for that particular hill), they do have some responsibility about the misleading marketing. History will tell is there is a "flaw," and it doesn't look like it will be pretty for Nissan.

+1 to both of you. Selling off-grid AE systems, I had a simple rule. If I knew that the system couldn't meet the customer's needs over the stated period of time, I wouldn't sell it to them.

 

[theaveng]

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold.

A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates. It is not a flaw, it is what it is....... If someone sold you a sailboat and told you it could climb hills well, the flaw isn't in the sailboat!

By that logic if Nissan started selling cars without radiators, and the engines worked okay elsewhere but started dying in Arizona, it wouldn't be Nissan's fault. It would be the fault of the user who bought the non-Thermal management EV, non-hill-climbing sailboat, non-radiator-cooled gasoline car.

 

[GRA]

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold.

A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates. It is not a flaw, it is what it is....... If someone sold you a sailboat and told you it could climb hills well, the flaw isn't in the sailboat!

By that logic if Nissan started selling cars without radiators, and the engines worked okay elsewhere but started dying in Arizona, it wouldn't be Nissan's fault. It would be the fault of the user who bought the non-Thermal management EV, non-hill-climbing sailboat, non-radiator-cooled gasoline car.

Well, no. It would be the fault of the company and/or dealer if they marketed and sold it as suitable for those conditions. Which is what Nissan did, and why they're being sued.

I agree with WetEV, the problem isn't (strictly speaking) with the design of the car, it's the sales and marketing, although the design limits the car's practicality in a large proportion of the U.S.

For instance, if I sold you a PV system for your house, suitable for your needs if you lived in Phoenix but you live in Anchorage, and I told you that it would be suitable for Anchorage, that would be on me. If I told you it wasn't suitable for Anchorage and you bought it anyway (assuming I would sell it to you), that would be on you. Even if you live in Phoenix but subsequently move to Anchorage (and hadn't required me to sell you a system that would have to work both places), that would still be on you. Nissan's actions fall into the first category. The 'flaw' is the lack of full disclosure, not the design.

 

[theaveng]

If Nissan has set expectations correctly, they likely would have sold fewer Leafs in Arizona. But that doesn't make it a design flaw. It is a failure to explain what is being sold. A BEV without a TMS is just a BEV without a TMS. Better in moderate climates, expensive to keep in batteries in hot climates. It is not a flaw, it is what it is.......

By that logic if Nissan started selling cars without radiators, and the engines worked okay elsewhere but started dying in Arizona, it wouldn't be Nissan's fault. It would be the fault of the user who bought the... non-radiator-cooled gasoline car.

Well, no. It would be the fault of the company and/or dealer if they marketed and sold it as suitable for those conditions. Which is what Nissan did, and why they're being sued.

Agree 100%.

 

[TomT]

Did you really feel that you had to resurrect an old thread by essentially saying nothing???

Agree 100%.

 

[theaveng]

Did I violate some rule?

 

[Herm]

Did I violate some rule?

It depends, if you drink the local kool aide and fervently believe in AGW then you can get away with a lot of things.. every clique has its unspoken rules

Suck up a bit and you will be accepted into the club

 

[theaveng]

Well I discovered in another thread that TomT just hates me. He calls me a "troll". (I'm also a black guy so maybe he should be using a different insult.)

 

[Stoaty]

It depends, if you drink the local kool aide and fervently believe in AGW then you can get away with a lot of things.. every clique has its unspoken rules

True... we give more credence to those who follow the science of climate change rather than their politically motivated "beliefs".

 

[surfingslovak]

Suck up a bit and you will be accepted into the club

Well, I would just follow good netiquette, and try not to be annoying.