411 on volontary recall P1273 LEAF VCM LBC TCU NTB12-014

[DaveEV]

This "feature" doesn't appear to have changed with the firmware. It's not a bug or a problem. If you had to call Nissan customer service while driving and request they change the position of their foot on your car's pedal, then I can see it being a dangerous situation, but as long as YOU are in control of your foot, this is not a problem.

No, it's not a problem - just annoying when you expect somewhat linear throttle response and you get very non-linear throttle response. I've had situations where I've stabbed the throttle, car continued to accelerate faster than expected, let off throttle, car slows down much more than expected, then have to push down _more_ than it was originally to get going again.

Or it could all be in my head. And it probably is!

It's very apparent why they did this, and they clearly understood and took advantage of the psychology of human interpretation of speed and pressure. It works to make the car seem faster and more responsive in D mode

Definitely - they car feels very responsive in D - it doesn't take much throttle to get to 40 kW.

Personally, I find it much more intuitive in ECO, so if you find this non-linear behavior troubling, just shift to ECO. You can still accelerate just as fast, you just have to put more foot into it.

That's what I do. ECO is much more predictable, and you get the benefit of limited HVAC power usage. I use ECO 98% of the time except when I want HVAC to kick in some extra power.

I still wish that D were more linear. I've never been a fan of cars with very sensitive accelerator tip-in. Late model Honda Civics w/automatics are really bad at this and make it very difficult to start smoothly. In general, manual transmission cars seem to be better.

I wonder if people would drive slower if gas pedals weren't so aggressively mapped?

 

[TimeHorse]

I can confirm the older firmware charges to a "real" SOC of exactly 80% when it cuts off. The Stored watt-hours on my car last time I looked were 18400 or 230 "Gids".

-Phil

Interestingly enough, when I charged to 80% (01:00-05:00) before the update, GreenCharge reported 87% full. Today it's reporting 84% full. Of course, this is through CARWINGS; one of these days I need to get something to probe the car through the OBD interface. I talk about writing a python script to set the charge times of my LEAF more accurately via CARWINGS on my computer but I suppose if the interface allows I could go that route with the right equipment.

 

[Ingineer]

Interestingly enough, when I charged to 80% (01:00-05:00) before the update, GreenCharge reported 87% full. Today it's reporting 84% full. Of course, this is through CARWINGS; one of these days I need to get something to probe the car through the OBD interface. I talk about writing a python script to set the charge times of my LEAF more accurately via CARWINGS on my computer but I suppose if the interface allows I could go that route with the right equipment.

I seem to remember someone here did an analysis (a long time ago) about the granularity of the numbers reported back to carwings. Anyone remember? Obviously 84/87% means it's at least 3% reported. I charged to 80% last night and mine now shows 83%. With our numbers, That means there's 1%. This contradicts what I remember reading, so either something is changed, my memory is not what it used to be, or both! (Likely! =)

Obviously there is some algorithm the car uses to convert Real SOC to whatever carwings reports, as these never agree.

-Phil

 

[Nubo]

Interestingly enough, when I charged to 80% (01:00-05:00) before the update, GreenCharge reported 87% full. Today it's reporting 84% full. Of course, this is through CARWINGS; one of these days I need to get something to probe the car through the OBD interface. I talk about writing a python script to set the charge times of my LEAF more accurately via CARWINGS on my computer but I suppose if the interface allows I could go that route with the right equipment.

I seem to remember someone here did an analysis (a long time ago) about the granularity of the numbers reported back to carwings. Anyone remember? Obviously 84/87% means it's at least 3% reported. I charged to 80% last night and mine now shows 83%. With our numbers, That means there's 1%. This contradicts what I remember reading, so either something is changed, my memory is not what it used to be, or both! (Likely! =)

Obviously there is some algorithm the car uses to convert Real SOC to whatever carwings reports, as these never agree.

-Phil

I haven't checked it thoroughly but I thought I'd noticed that CARWINGS was just reporting the decimalized fraction represented by the number of range bars. 1/12, 2/12....10/12.....12/12

 

[SierraQ]

Has anyone determined what changes the update makes to the climate control yet?

 

[kmp647]

I have not found a single thing different on climate control
And I have looked closely

 

[Ingineer]

I can confirm the update includes no firmware written to the HVAC ECU.

-Phil

 

[TonyWilliams]

I have the update, and the CarWings % numbers reported through my GreenCharge app appear to match the standard x/12 fuel bars formula. Right now, it says 67% (8/12). When I drove over to the meeting, it said something like 80-ish, but don't recall exactly. These %'s are different than previous.

I don't really care what number it gives, as long as its substantially correct.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

so is mine. in fact when i hit 241 GID i had 50 miles on the GOM. interesting

 

[DaveEV]

This "feature" doesn't appear to have changed with the firmware. It's not a bug or a problem. If you had to call Nissan customer service while driving and request they change the position of their foot on your car's pedal, then I can see it being a dangerous situation, but as long as YOU are in control of your foot, this is not a problem.

No, it's not a problem - just annoying when you expect somewhat linear throttle response and you get very non-linear throttle response. I've had situations where I've stabbed the throttle, car continued to accelerate faster than expected, let off throttle, car slows down much more than expected, then have to push down _more_ than it was originally to get going again.

Or it could all be in my head. And it probably is!

OK, so I tested this today on my stock firmware car.

In D from a stop, if you stab the pedal a bit from a stop (it's not much pedal movement, certainly much less than 50% throttle position, I'd guess more like 20%), power will climb to 80 kW as you accelerate past 30 mph.

Let off the pedal a tiny bit and reapply back to the same position, power will be in the 20-30 kW range. Stabbing the pedal back to the same position from speed results in 20-30 kW.

So I stand by my hypothesis that the car gets stuck at 100% power when you ask for more power than is available at low speeds and doesn't recalculate until you release the accelerator pedal some.

Really wacky throttle mapping - I haven't driven a gas car that behaves this way, even ones with electronic throttles, but I haven't driven that many. I've seen TPS maps for electronic throttle cars that adjust TPS based on RPMs/engine load, but this is mainly to open up the throttle more at low rpms / low engine load to make the car more responsive but as RPMs/engine load increases they reduce the throttle position for the same pedal position. Seems like Nissan forgot to program that bit in or there's a bug in the firmware.

 

[TomT]

It appears that all the upgrade really does is add the door-open-in-D alarm, make the charge duration estimate a little more accurate (unimportant to me), and flash the TCU update, if you don't already have that. Pretty disappointing, really, considering all the fixes they could and should have done at the same time..

I can confirm the update includes no firmware written to the HVAC ECU.
-Phil

 

[Ingineer]

It appears that all the upgrade really does is add the door open in D alarm and the TCU update, if you don't already have that. Pretty disappointing, really..

Don't forget version 2: "The second-guessing" of the GOM! :lol: (Actually I guess it's V3)

-Phil

 

[TomT]

Have we actually definitively determined that there IS a difference in the GOM with the update? Mine gets done March 1st which is exactly one year from when I took delivery.

It appears that all the upgrade really does is add the door open in D alarm and the TCU update, if you don't already have that. Pretty disappointing, really..

Don't forget version 2: "The second-guessing" of the GOM! :lol: (Actually I guess it's V3)

-Phil

 

[Atebit]

I just had mine done on Friday. The GOM does seem a little more "responsive" in both directions, meaning that punching the pedal will cause a large decrease in miles, but after easing off the number comes back up pretty quickly. In my previous experience, it took a lot longer to recover from impulse acceleration, which of course was diluted by the intervening mileage driven over that time.

Due to my EVSE fiasco yesterday I was driving on a lot less charge than I had planned. Only did about 75% of my errands, and got off the highway with Mother warning me I had 4 miles remaining before the Nostromo self-destructs. Made it into the pod bay with a flashing "2" after having been at one bar for a while.

One other thing I noticed after the upgrade is the driver side window. I could've sworn before it was auto up AND down. Now, it is only auto-down. Nannied again, apparently.

 

[TickTock]

One other thing I noticed after the upgrade is the driver side window. I could've sworn before it was auto up AND down. Now, it is only auto-down. Nannied again, apparently.

Can anyone confirm? Mine is definitely auto up and down now. I may pass on the update if this and the new door alarm is the only tangible difference. Did they at least fix the alarm you hear when you turn off the car when the driver door is open?

 

[garygid]

Resetting the LEAF requires resetting the auto-up on the window.

As I dimly recall (could be wrong on the details), drive the window full down, then full up, and hold the up button for an extra 2 seconds.

Then, being "recalibrated", the auto-up will work again.

Your Timers, if any, might need to be reprogrammed.

A savy dealer would check these things.

 

[saywatt]

i'm not sure this is the most accurate way to test this scenario. To be accurate, you must insure that the pedal is depressed to the exact position each time. Perhaps a wood block behind the pedal or on the floorboard would insure that the pedal stops at the exact position each time.

Even if this condition does exists on the Leaf (and I have not consciously noticed it), I have never, ever, felt like something was wrong with the car or was unable to control the car or produce smooth accel/decell in the 8 months I've owned the car.

OK, so I tested this today on my stock firmware car.

In D from a stop, if you stab the pedal a bit from a stop (it's not much pedal movement, certainly much less than 50% throttle position, I'd guess more like 20%), power will climb to 80 kW as you accelerate past 30 mph.

Let off the pedal a tiny bit and reapply back to the same position, power will be in the 20-30 kW range. Stabbing the pedal back to the same position from speed results in 20-30 kW.

So I stand by my hypothesis that the car gets stuck at 100% power when you ask for more power than is available at low speeds and doesn't recalculate until you release the accelerator pedal some.

Really wacky throttle mapping - I haven't driven a gas car that behaves this way, even ones with electronic throttles, but I haven't driven that many. I've seen TPS maps for electronic throttle cars that adjust TPS based on RPMs/engine load, but this is mainly to open up the throttle more at low rpms / low engine load to make the car more responsive but as RPMs/engine load increases they reduce the throttle position for the same pedal position. Seems like Nissan forgot to program that bit in or there's a bug in the firmware.

 

[Randy]

Does the update include the "time to charge" estimates on the dash? I thought that was suppsoed to be more accurate, which would come in handy for those who only set an end time on their timers...

 

[Ingineer]

One other thing I noticed after the upgrade is the driver side window. I could've sworn before it was auto up AND down. Now, it is only auto-down. Nannied again, apparently.

Can anyone confirm? Mine is definitely auto up and down now. I may pass on the update if this and the new door alarm is the only tangible difference. Did they at least fix the alarm you hear when you turn off the car when the driver door is open?

RTFM! When the 12v battery is disconnected, the Auto-Up will not function until the current sensor is recalibrated. As Gary mentions, there is a simple procedure covered in the owners manual.

-Phil

 

[evnow]

I got the update done yesterday. I thought I saw some GOM differences - but I've to check more to be sure.

Ofcourse, I got the Annual battery check done as well. Infact, it was exactly 1 year ago yesterday I got the car.