Bought a 2011 Leaf on 03/15/2015 with a "new pack", but...

[pkulak]

I'm really starting to enjoy this thread.

 

[KillaWhat]

I'm really starting to enjoy this thread.

Man…. you all are so calm and reasonable.
I guess it’s nice to be associated with such kind people
(explains why so many of us are on plugshare)

However……
Stop!
I appreciate that you all are building reasonable and logical arguments explaining why replacing the gee-whiz module and the golly-boy component is not the same as a new battery, but just STOP!

So, You went to a car dealership, and you bought a 1966 mustang convertible with a rebuilt engine;
you paid your money, and when you went to drive it home, it had NO ENGINE!

Would you calmly explain to the dealership why the missing engine will greatly reduce the vehicle’s performance?

Would you explain that their replacing the left front tire is really not the same as NO ENGINE!?

I’m not criticizing. Really!

I too am beginning to enjoy this thread, especially now that I think the OP is going to make the lying cheating remorseless dealership cry like a 10 year old girl.

Just my suggestion.. But less calm reason and more righteous wrath raining legal fire down from above.

Or not.
Your Call

BTW, Did it cross State lines at any time??
(I’m just saying….)

 

[minispeed]

Can anyone point me towards any documentation that outlines the functions of the "Inverter control unit" or the "Intelligent Power Distribution Module" ?

I just talked to them again, and now they're trying to claim that since they replaced those, it's the same thing as replacing the battery, so they didn't really mislead me, it was just a misunderstanding. I think we all know that's a load of bullshit, but I need to find some proof that there's no way that could in any way be considered the same thing.

Although I can't tell you what those two things do you can compare it to a judge in a very easy way. Tell them to imagine that they bought a 30 mpg car with a 300 mile range from a 10 gal tank as you had to drive through a 280 mile desert with only one gas pump that takes 4-5 hrs to fill. You were told that it had a fuel system overhaul which includes a "new fuel tank". After you drive it you find out that it's got only75% of that range and when you investigate into it you find out that the fuel tank isn't new, it's old and has developed deposits on the inside that cannot be cleaned out and thus it will only hold 7.5 of it's 10 gal original size. The only way to restore it to 10 gal is to install a new one. They claim now that they told you "it had a fuel system overhaul and the injectors and fuel pump were replaced but not the tank but that means the same thing as the tank being replaced so they didn't mislead you, it was just a misunderstanding".

Regardless of what they think or believe they did at the time they should be able to clearly see now what they did was misrepresentation. Possibly it was by them actually thinking what they said was true and possibly thinking a BMS reset had infact restored the battery to like new shape because the GOM said so. In that case it's not dishonest, not criminal but still something they can be civilly liable for.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Got the quote from the other dealer. $6,152.35 for everything, including tax and rental car while it's being done.

Also talked to a family friend that's a partner in a large law firm back home in Chicago and he had some really good advice. I'll be contacting a couple of local attorneys on Tuesday and going from there.

Excellent. Follow the legal team's advice, even if it's counter to what you think is the best way to handle it.

DO NOT SHARE WITH THE DEALER THAT YOU HAVE VOICE RECORDINGS !!! You never show your hand until all the money is in the pot (the final meeting to a negotiated settlement or evidence in court).

Please tell me that you recorded that call "admitting" that they were confused about what a battery is. Also, please tell me that this was a "responsible party" of the dealership.

Next, do not contact the dealer any more in any way unless your legal team advises.

You have them by the balls, and they are quickly going to realize that. Your goal is a negotiated settlement of:

1) Return car
2) Pay for new battery in existing car

-or-

3) The uncertainty of a court order decision

One final negotiating tool. Carefully drive the car as I did in these tests. I will do it for you, as I will be in the Bay Area next weekend (driving the RAV4 EV up from San Diego):

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[kuri]

Welp... lost my second bar as of this morning. Less than 300 miles after losing the first one, and the second one dropped. Pictures and leafspy screenshots below:

https://imgur.com/a/t720v" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a call with an attorney a little later this morning to discuss. Wish me luck!

 

[mwalsh]

Welp... lost my second bar as of this morning. Less than 300 miles after losing the first one, and the second one dropped.

Told you it would be fast. You'll probably loose the 3rd one just as quickly.

 

[kuri]

Welp... lost my second bar as of this morning. Less than 300 miles after losing the first one, and the second one dropped.

Told you it would be fast. You'll probably loose the 3rd one just as quickly.

Well, I did turtle it on Saturday, just to see how much range it did have after the LBW (almost didn't make it back into the driveway either, haha). I wonder if maybe that "helped" it sync up a bit.

 

[Valdemar]

Hmm...didn't Nissan's lawyers say they had a statement under oath from Nissan that this could never happen? :lol:

I'd love to see them being brought to justice for this.

 

[dhanson865]

Welp... lost my second bar as of this morning. Less than 300 miles after losing the first one, and the second one dropped.

Told you it would be fast. You'll probably loose the 3rd one just as quickly.

congrats Kuri, at least you know you'll get a new pack from Nissan no matter what happens between you and the dealer.

 

[leafkabob]

Hmm...didn't Nissan's lawyers say they had a statement under oath from Nissan that this could never happen? :lol:

I'd love to see them being brought to justice for this.

The document Mike is referring to is the "Declaration of Jordan Lurie."

Lurie is an attorney for Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. In his declaration, submitted to support a claim of attorneys fees, he stated that some of the documents received from Nissan included "Documents and declaration explaining how customers are protected from the manipulation of the battery capacity gauge."

Further along in his declaration he said:

Plaintiffs’ Counsel also undertook a rigorous analysis of the Settlement’s responsiveness to Class Members’ concerns about the LEAF battery
life as expressed on blogs and in Internet message boards. For example, Class Members were concerned about manipulation of the battery capacity gauge by dealers or third parties to avoid the capacity warranty. To that end, Plaintiffs’ Counsel sought and obtained a detailed declaration under oath from a senior
manager responsible for the Nissan LEAF who concluded that it would be nearly “impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle’s battery capacity gauge or to install a new program that would show a different battery capacity than that of the vehicle’s actual battery.”

The declaration from the "senior manager responsible for the Nissan Leaf" may not have been filed in court, although should be in the possession of Plaintiffs' lawyers. It would be interesting if a class member requested a copy of that declaration from plaintiffs' lawyers.

Link to Lurie's declaration: http://classaction.kccllc.net/Docum...on for Attorneys' Fees JL Final Conformed.pdf

 

[mwalsh]

nearly “impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle’s battery capacity gauge or to install a new program that would show a different battery capacity than that of the vehicle’s actual battery.”

I remember that in context now. I think I wrote at the time how suspicious the positioning of the opening quotation mark was. In front of impossible it would appear to be, well, impossible, but in front of nearly it becomes improbable. I found myself wondering if that was a purposeful mistake, so that later on they could go back if they had to and say, "Oh, sorry, we put the quote mark in the wrong place...it was supposed to be before nearly".

 

[Valdemar]

nearly “impossible for a dealer technician to manipulate the vehicle’s battery capacity gauge or to install a new program that would show a different battery capacity than that of the vehicle’s actual battery.”

I remember that in context now. I think I wrote at the time how suspicious the positioning of the opening quotation mark was. In front of impossible it would appear to be, well, impossible, but in front of nearly it becomes improbable. I found myself wondering if that was a purposeful mistake, so that later on they could go back if they had to and say, "Oh, sorry, we put the quote mark in the wrong place...it was supposed to be before nearly".

Selecting an option to clear historical capacity loss data in Consult III is hardly "nearly impossible", pretty simple actually. The argument may be that the reading will eventually stabilize at the actual value, so the effects are relatively short-lived. Long enough to sell a car but not enough to decline a warranty claim which what the lawsuit was about

 

[Elephanthead]

So used car dealers lie about the quality of the cars they sell? I would never in my life believe they would do that.

 

[Phatcat73]

irregardless of a lawsuit to get a new battery, OP is on target to get a new one within a few weeks due to the warranty coverage. Based on the AHR & SOH reading, it may already have been a 4 bar loser prior to the reset. Charge to 100% and know you're getting a fresh battery this summer.

If anything, Nissan should file an exemption and just speed up the process.

 

[mwalsh]

irregardless of a lawsuit to get a new battery, OP is on target to get a new one within a few weeks due to the warranty coverage. Based on the AHR & SOH reading, it may already have been a 4 bar loser prior to the reset. Charge to 100% and know you're getting a fresh battery this summer.

If anything, Nissan should file an exemption and just speed up the process.

45AHr...that's a 3 bar looser, not a 4 bar.

 

[Valdemar]

irregardless of a lawsuit to get a new battery, OP is on target to get a new one within a few weeks due to the warranty coverage. Based on the AHR & SOH reading, it may already have been a 4 bar loser prior to the reset. Charge to 100% and know you're getting a fresh battery this summer.

If anything, Nissan should file an exemption and just speed up the process.

45AHr...that's a 3 bar looser, not a 4 bar.

And can be a year away from losing the 4th in a moderate climate and low mileage usage.

 

[mwalsh]

And can be a year away from losing the 4th in a moderate climate and low mileage usage.

You said it, brother!

 

[TimLee]

Selecting an option to clear historical capacity loss data in Consult III is hardly "nearly impossible", pretty simple actually. The argument may be that the reading will eventually stabilize at the actual value, so the effects are relatively short-lived. Long enough to sell a car but not enough to decline a warranty claim which what the lawsuit was about

I have extra points because on two separate occasions during a dealer inspection, they reset my BMS . This caused my SOH to read 100% for a day and the cap bars to reset back to all 12. It took six months for them to finally return to the correct state.

If technician can make the mistake on TickTock's car twice, it must be easy to do.
But this dealer said it had a new battery.
That is fraud.

 

[kuri]

Well... here's the latest.

The dealer has admitted they screwed up by telling me the car had a new battery (yes, I'm as shocked as anyone) and they offered to replace the battery with a new one. When I asked for other concessions as compensation for their crap and the headaches, I was told "yeah, I'm not doing that".

I've talked to 3 different attorneys, and according to all 3 of them, under CA state law, I'm basically hamstrung by their offer. I won't get anything else out of a judge besides *maybe* getting them to buy the car back, which is going to cause a whole load of other issues and isn't even guaranteed since they've already offered to correct their "mistake".

So, now I have to decide if it's worth paying a 2 to 3 thousand retainer and rolling the dice in the hope I get something better, or just dealing with the fact that they tried to screw me, got caught doing it, and get away with it with just a "sorry, let us do what we said we did in the first place" and no other ill effects.

 

[ampitupco]

The dealer has admitted they screwed up by telling me the car had a new battery (yes, I'm as shocked as anyone) and they offered to replace the battery with a new one. When I asked for other concessions as compensation for their crap and the headaches, I was told "yeah, I'm not doing that".

No brainer for me, take the new battery.