OrientExpress said:
Oddly, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous 30kwh packs that had the update done, and have now lost 2-4 capacity bars anyway.
40 kw-hr battery in 2016 leaf
- Thread starter CaliLeaf
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Oddly, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous 30kwh packs that had the update done, and have now lost 2-4 capacity bars anyway.
OrientExpress
Well-known member
No, there are always out of bounds failures. But that was not was I was taking about.
OrientExpress said:
Uh huh.
30 KWH batteries still suffer from excessive degradation and the replacement batteries are only marginally better. After a year and a half and 30,000 miles, my replacement battery is down 13%. By the time I hit the warranty limit the second battery will be down 25%. And that's after all the software upgrades. The 30 KWH battery will fail early in any excessively warm climate. Conversely, it does well in cool climates. That is not accidental but a result of Nissan's decision to go with passive cooling. Blowing it off as "out of bounds" failures does a disservice to anyone struggling with excessive degradation. Remember that Nissan stated that they expected this battery to " typically retain 80% of the original capacity at 100,000 miles or 8 years." They didn't add"only in cool climates." Nissan's apparent decision to start replacing defective 30 KWH batteries with 40 KWH batteries is an indication that even Nissan thinks the 30 KWH batteries are marginal at best.OrientExpress said:
OrientExpress
Well-known member
That’s a good data point. I knew that the 30 kWh batteries were much better than the earlier ones, but weren’t quite there. In 16 and 17 the 40 and 62kWh battery was already in durability testing in Stanfield Arizona, and it was looking very promising.
Looks like the third try is the charm, the 40s seem to perform as good as other active cooling batteries but cheaper and that’s why the 40 is now the warranty replacement. I’m glad to see it.
Now what would be an extra credit bonus would be to package the new chemistry cells in a 24 kWh package for the old school LEAFs.
Looks like the third try is the charm, the 40s seem to perform as good as other active cooling batteries but cheaper and that’s why the 40 is now the warranty replacement. I’m glad to see it.
Now what would be an extra credit bonus would be to package the new chemistry cells in a 24 kWh package for the old school LEAFs.
No. Both the 4/2013 - 2014 "Wolf Pack" and the 2015-2016 "Lizard Pack" are better batteries than the 30kwh "Lettuce Pack" batteries - especially in warmer climates. So far the Lizard is the best pack that Nissan has made, at least until the 62kwh packs prove otherwise.
That's what you'd have if they still manufactured Lizard packs. Using the new higher capacity cells would result in either physically smaller and lighter 24kwh packs, or, well, the existing 40 or 62kwh packs. (The 62kwh pack wouldn't fit without modifications to the car as has been done recently by our non-Nissan leaf experts.)
joeriv
Well-known member
The data from the Geotab Study does not support your conclusions:
2017 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 94.7
2016 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 93.9
2015 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 89.0
2014 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 89.6
2013 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 92.1
It would be terrific if we could get the underlying data but not possible. I think the latter years are more robust simply because there were more Leafs around than for the early years, but that's a guess on my part. FWIW my 2017S is at 95.6 SOH after 2 1/2 years.
2017 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 94.7
2016 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 93.9
2015 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 89.0
2014 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 89.6
2013 Leaf SOH at 2 years 8 months - 92.1
It would be terrific if we could get the underlying data but not possible. I think the latter years are more robust simply because there were more Leafs around than for the early years, but that's a guess on my part. FWIW my 2017S is at 95.6 SOH after 2 1/2 years.
joeriv said:
These cars were all in the same location...?
danrjones
Well-known member
OrientExpress said:
I do not believe that. My 2018 has 7 months on it and I'm down around 91%. I have seen data on Tesla and Chevy Bolt batteries and they do not loose close to 10% that quickly.
Cheaper yes. As good? No.
GaleHawkins
Well-known member
danrjones said:
Wish I had not read that. Well going from a ran of 45-60 with the 30 after 38 months to 150 miles hopefully with the 40 kWh will be a plus at least. With min side trips I can just charge once every 2 days instead of twice a day.
I was surprised the Roe 41 kWh battery is liquid cooled and reports a 400 km range per a article I read last week.
danrjones
Well-known member
Keep I mind I'm in a very hot area. Depending on where you are, the 40 may last you a very long time.
I just don't buy the idea they are equal to thermally managed packs. Not where I live anyway.
I just don't buy the idea they are equal to thermally managed packs. Not where I live anyway.
joeriv
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
The study consists of cars in Arizona, Rhode Island, New York, Nashville TN, Florida and Lincoln, Nebraska. Other areas may open up later.
danrjones
Well-known member
Is that 2 years 8 months since manufacture date or from purchase?
Would make a big difference on mine.
Based on the 40 battery topic the average for 2018s here is around 92 to 93% currently irregardless of mileage or age.
Would make a big difference on mine.
Based on the 40 battery topic the average for 2018s here is around 92 to 93% currently irregardless of mileage or age.
Then given the sensitivity of Leaf packs to climate, the study is worthless. You could reshuffle the locations for different Leafs and get different results for each generation pack.
joeriv
Well-known member
Dan, I assume the start date is when the car enters the study.
Leftie, I don’t understand your comment about “reshuffling”. The study is not being manipulated by anyone and represents aggregate results of the cars studied. There is no way for me to massage this data. If someone has better data, I’d love to see it. If the results go against “conventional wisdom”, refute it with better data.
Leftie, I don’t understand your comment about “reshuffling”. The study is not being manipulated by anyone and represents aggregate results of the cars studied. There is no way for me to massage this data. If someone has better data, I’d love to see it. If the results go against “conventional wisdom”, refute it with better data.
joeriv said:
I mean that the Leafs from hot climates will degrade faster, while those in colder climates will degrade more slowly. Unless they used an equal number of cars from each climate (cold, temperate, hot) for each generation pack, the results will not be useful. I don't think the results were manipulated, just not useful because of this.
GaleHawkins
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
LeftieBiker that is my view as well. The study is another set of data but not very discriminating.
GaleHawkins
Well-known member
CaliLeaf said:
CaliLeaf do you have any more charging/range experience with since the 30 to 40 swap. After reading all weekend I did not find the expected range difference in when using the 40 kWa pack with a 107 HP motor than the stock 147 HP motor in Gen 2 Leafs. Thanks
The motor is actually the same in both cars. The inverter was upgraded to provide more power to the motor in the 2018+ Leaf. Since little time is spent at full throttle in either car by the typical Leaf driver, range should be about the same in typical driving.
GaleHawkins
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
That was the info that I was searching for but had not found. So a 40 kWh battery at full throttle in a Gen 2 Leaf will be a tad quicker of the line than a 2017 Gen 1 Leaf with the same battery but basically the same performance and current drain in day to day driving?
