Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[edatoakrun]

...Judging by the range test in Arizona, from 22% to 64% of the lost range by percent Gids (average 42%) is due to instrument error. The other 58% (average) is due to battery degradation.

The problem is individual LEAFs vary so much from that average, neither gids nor capacity bars displays are very useful in determining the capacity of any individual LEAF.

So we are really all arguing the question of how rapid loss the loss of battery capacity is, with very little accurate data, on what is actually happening.

That is why the "gauge problem", the apparent accuracy of the LEAF kWh data used to calculate dash and nav screen m/kWh, as well as all Carwings energy use, is a very serious problem for all LEAF owners, largely ignored in this and other discussions on this forum.

I've been trying to use range tests to track my capacity, and all I can say with near-certainty is that I believe my available capacity has declined between ~0 and ~11%, though I now think (based on the "TickTock" graph) whatever amount I've lost, most probably occurred before the time I began tracking my range, ~6 months from manufacture date and with ~3,300 miles on the odometer. So total loss near 0%, would now appear just as unlikely as near 11%.

That is the most likely explanation I have for my no noticeable loss of range over the last year, and that my LEAF probably still has the capacity necessary to either come close to or exceed, all the specific range estimates I had from Nissan before I leased/bought my LEAF.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

The problem is individual LEAFs vary so much from that average, neither gids nor capacity bars displays are very useful in determining the capacity of any individual LEAF.

So we are really all arguing the question of how rapid loss the loss of battery capacity is, with very little accurate data, on what is actually happening.

While we don't have reliable individual data, we do know there is significant battery capacity loss from the range test in Arizona, results of which match very closely with Nissan's bench testing in the two cases where we have comparison data. We can say with reasonable certainty that the greater the Gid Percent Loss the greater the capacity loss, and that the Gid Percent loss overstates the problem by an average of about 10% for cars with Gid Percentages in the 70's. In other words, on average if you Gid Percent is 75% after a full charge, you probably have about 85% of capacity remaining. However, I agree that for an individual there is enough variation that you may instead have closer to 80% or closer to 90% capacity. That isn't very helpful to that individual in knowing exactly how much capacity they have lost.

 

[edatoakrun]

The problem is individual LEAFs vary so much from that average, neither gids nor capacity bars displays are very useful in determining the capacity of any individual LEAF.

So we are really all arguing the question of how rapid loss the loss of battery capacity is, with very little accurate data, on what is actually happening.

While we don't have reliable individual data, we do know there is significant battery capacity loss from the range test in Arizona, results of which two cases where we have comparison data. match very closely with Nissan's bench testing in the We can say with reasonable certainty that the greater the Gid Percent Loss the greater the capacity loss, and that the Gid Percent loss overstates the problem by an average of about 10% for cars with Gid Percentages in the 70's. In other words, on average if you Gid Percent is 75% after a full charge, you probably have about 85% of capacity remaining. However, I agree that for an individual there is enough variation that you may instead have closer to 80% or closer to 90% capacity. That isn't very helpful to that individual in knowing exactly how much capacity they have lost.

Which is why the kWh information from the LEAF itself, is vital for useful data collection, IMO.

Even more so for the vast majority of LEAFs (like mine) that do not yet have the very significant capacity loss that can easily be detected, and calculated with any precision, in a range test.

The question I have for the statement:

...In other words, on average if you Gid Percent is 75% after a full charge, you probably have about 85% of capacity remaining...

Is whether it holds true for the entire LEAF population, in all conditions, and over time.

In particular, I think it could be inconsistent for age/cycles since new (so it may not prove accurate in the future) and even more suspect presently, for varying battery temperatures.

Those Phoenix LEAF test gid counts (presumably) were all for batteries at ~80% to ~100 F, and all definitely showing six temperature bars, right?

Many anecdotal reports, as well as some very impressive data collection by forum contributors such as TickTock, seem to have found significant gid/Wh content variation, apparently correlating to battery temperature.

So, I think you may need to qualify that statement, beyond just probably, but also to the specific battery temperature range, whatever that was, for the twelve test LEAFs.

Edit- Where is the data on the one other than TickTock's?

...two cases where we have comparison data...

 

[Stoaty]

Edit- Where is the data on the one other than TickTock's?

...two cases where we have comparison data...

The Wiki is your friend:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Range_Test_on_Cars_with_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look between the second and third tables in that section.

 

[edatoakrun]

Edit- Where is the data on the one other than TickTock's?

...two cases where we have comparison data...

The Wiki is your friend:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Range_Test_on_Cars_with_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look between the second and third tables in that section.

Thanks. I looked, but couldn't find that note.

I have to reiterate, though, that it seems to me you may be basing your conclusions (of the even relatively low level of gid/Wh consistent inaccuracy) over the entire LEAF population on some pretty thin data. You are looking at only two LEAFs with fairly close build dates, fairly similar history of ambient temperature exposure (?) and totals of miles driven/charge cycles, gid readings taken at fairly similar (?) battery temps, and still showing gid-reported capacity variation from each other (one 2.5% under, the other 0.5% over) when comparing the two Casa Grande reports, and the actual range test results.

...The test results match very closely with the known capacity for two cars tested at Casa Grande. Red500 (Azdre/opossum) tested at 85% by Nissan, and was at 82.5% capacity during the range test. White 626 (Ticktock) tested at 87% by Nissan, and 87.5% during the range test...

 

[opossum]

But what I was wondering was is 'full price' based on the buyer's purchase price or the out-of-pocket price?

In *this* case (things may vary state to state), it is a refund of every item you were charged for on your purchase contract. Purchase price, sales tax, tire disposal fee, Zaktek paint protection, doc fee, upgraded muffler bearing, premium blinker fluid, etc. Then deduct an "offset for use," which is based on mileage, and you have the amount they are paying. Hit Google if you want to approximate what that deduction would be. There are formulas used in various jurisdictions that will ballpark it for you. In our case, it was the mileage recorded with Nissan or the BBB a while ago, not our current odometer reading.

 

[JPVLeaf]

But what I was wondering was is 'full price' based on the buyer's purchase price or the out-of-pocket price?

In *this* case (things may vary state to state), it is a refund of every item you were charged for on your purchase contract. Purchase price, sales tax, tire disposal fee, Zaktek paint protection, doc fee, upgraded muffler bearing, premium blinker fluid, etc. Then deduct an "offset for use," which is based on mileage, and you have the amount they are paying. Hit Google if you want to approximate what that deduction would be. There are formulas used in various jurisdictions that will ballpark it for you. In our case, it was the mileage recorded with Nissan or the BBB a while ago, not our current odometer reading.

Thanks, opossum.

 

[Stoaty]

I have to reiterate, though, that it seems to me you may be basing your conclusions (of the even relatively low level of gid/Wh consistent inaccuracy) over the entire LEAF population on some pretty thin data. You are looking at only two LEAFs with fairly close build dates, fairly similar history of ambient temperature exposure (?) and totals of miles driven/charge cycles, gid readings taken at fairly similar (?) battery temps, and still showing gid-reported capacity variation from each other (one 2.5% under, the other 0.5% over) when comparing the two Casa Grande reports, and the actual range test results.

Yes, I am, but that is all the data I have right now. Conclusions are subject to revision with more data (which I am sure Nissan has, but they haven't released it). This is just a "best guess" based on what we know now. It is an indication of what is likely to be the case, but could be wrong or have very large error bars. These "best guesses" often turn out to be a pretty good indicator. When I analyzed the Phoenix one bar losers a couple of months ago (I think there were 26 of them) I found that much higher mileage predicted about twice the rate of degradation--that's pretty much what Nissan is saying now.

 

[spooka]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

I asked him to repeat this, which he did. I then asked him if he understood what this would do to sales of the LEAF considering that customers were told by Nissan to expect this type of loss after 5 years. He said he didn't expect the loss to continue at that rate. Gee, thanks! $40,000 for a car that goes 45 operative miles on an 80% charge after 1 year.

What in the world is Nissan thinking?

 

[gaswalla]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

I asked him to repeat this, which he did. I then asked him if he understood what this would do to sales of the LEAF considering that customers were told by Nissan to expect this type of loss after 5 years. He said he didn't expect the loss to continue at that rate. Gee, thanks! $40,000 for a car that goes 45 operative miles on an 80% charge after 1 year.

What in the world is Nissan thinking?

wow.. that confirms the real life experience of many people. Are you able to elaborate on the source of this statement.

 

[opossum]

Thanks, Paul. I look forward to a lawyer's subpoena of the audio from that phone call and the corporate documentation dictating such a statement be made to customers!

 

[Stoaty]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

Was this somone at the 877-NO-GAS-EV (i.e., a paid flunky) or someone higher up in the company? If higher up, do you have a name? Is this part of their legal strategy, or someone just making stuff up on the fly? This would be a good time for Jeff to chime in and let us know if this is now the official corporate line or some renegade who needs to be taken out behind the woodshed.

 

[shrink]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

Thank you for pointing that out and emphasizing this absurdity.

Debate all you want over how much is actually degraded, climate variances - whatever - but knowing that this is the official position of the manufacturer that does not warranty battery capacity is all current owners and prospective buyers need to know.

Nissan does not have your back when it comes to battery degradation.

Now, if they're considering such a large amount "normal" in the 1st year, there was nothing in the original purchase paperwork that would make any reasonable person aware of this - nor was there any information about the Nissan LEAF Year (tm).

There is a strong argument that the failure to disclose such information to prospective buyers is consumer fraud.

So sad.

 

[spooka]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

I asked him to repeat this, which he did. I then asked him if he understood what this would do to sales of the LEAF considering that customers were told by Nissan to expect this type of loss after 5 years. He said he didn't expect the loss to continue at that rate. Gee, thanks! $40,000 for a car that goes 45 operative miles on an 80% charge after 1 year.

What in the world is Nissan thinking?

wow.. that confirms the real life experience of many people. Are you able to elaborate on the source of this statement.

The best I can do right now is tell you I have a first and last name as well as the phone number of the representative in Tennessee. I will be speaking with him again later this week and I will ask this question again. I can not tell you if the rep was stating actual corporate policy at this point. All I can say for sure is that it was stated and then re-stated for confirmation. I would also ask anyone else that is currently in any type of communications with Nissan to check on this and follow up with what they tell you here. If this is a shift in Nissan corporate policy, it would be safe to conclude that Nissan's plan is to abandon all support for their customers regarding the degradation issue. I really am hoping the rep misspoke.

 

[opossum]

I was told the KPNX NBC 12 story will air on the 5 PM newscast today.

 

[spooka]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

Was this somone at the 877-NO-GAS-EV (i.e., a paid flunky) or someone higher up in the company? If higher up, do you have a name? Is this part of their legal strategy, or someone just making stuff up on the fly? This would be a good time for Jeff to chime in and let us know if this is now the official corporate line or some renegade who needs to be taken out behind the woodshed.

It is possible that it is nothing more than posturing. I guess we'll all find out more as this plays out (or doesn't).

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Sounds like poorly trained customer service

 

[surfingslovak]

Sounds like poorly trained customer service

I could be wrong, but I believe their technical support in the US is outsourced to TeleTech Services. Would anyone care to confirm that?

 

[jspearman]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

Was this somone at the 877-NO-GAS-EV (i.e., a paid flunky) or someone higher up in the company? If higher up, do you have a name? Is this part of their legal strategy, or someone just making stuff up on the fly? This would be a good time for Jeff to chime in and let us know if this is now the official corporate line or some renegade who needs to be taken out behind the woodshed.

It is possible that it is nothing more than posturing. I guess we'll all find out more as this plays out (or doesn't).

With news like this, I feel like any Nissan buyout will be like the one on the Simpsons where Bill Gates bought Homer's internet startup.

 

[JPWhite]

Just wanted you all to know that while speaking with a Nissan corporate representative today, I was told that
a 20% capacity loss in a year is considered NORMAL by Nissan.

I asked him to repeat this, which he did. I then asked him if he understood what this would do to sales of the LEAF considering that customers were told by Nissan to expect this type of loss after 5 years. He said he didn't expect the loss to continue at that rate. Gee, thanks! $40,000 for a car that goes 45 operative miles on an 80% charge after 1 year.

What in the world is Nissan thinking?

Sorry to hear that your has deteriorated so. FYI when contacting Nissan LEAF support I always use the chat feature from the LEAF we page. That way I get a transcript of what is communicated. You never know when something in writing from Nissan may come in handy.