Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

[scottf200]

Nissan Leaf Range Issues
BY RUSS FINLEY ON OCT 10, 2012

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/10/10/nissan-leaf-range-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[jspearman]

Nissan buys back more cars: http://www.plugincars.com/nissan-moves-resolve-leaf-range-loss-claims-124827.html

This is good news, since we take our car in today at 2:30. If they offer close to our payoff, then we will definitely sell the car back. Don't know what we'll do, but I noticed when charging the Leaf at Bell Ford that the FFE is on the lot now. Whatever happens, it will be plug-in, and it will be a 2-year lease, not a purchase.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Nissan Leaf Range Issues
BY RUSS FINLEY ON OCT 10, 2012

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/10/10/nissan-leaf-range-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

very well written

 

[Stoaty]

Nissan Leaf Range Issues
BY RUSS FINLEY ON OCT 10, 2012

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/10/10/nissan-leaf-range-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While there are some good points in the article, it is marred by a selective focus that "everything is pretty much Normal(TM)". It ignores a number of facts:

--21 kwh is pretty much the agreed on usable energy in a new Leaf that hasn't sat on a dealers lot in the hot sun for months. If Nissan wants to disclose otherwise, so be it

--the results of the range test in Arizona (using 84 miles as the standard for a new Leaf at 4 miles per kwh) are spot on with the known capacities measured by Nissan at Casa Grande (only two cars, unfortunately, that we have data for)

--there is no suggestion of bias in the range test, as the article implies. The results clearly show instrument error (about 40%) and battery degradation (60%) with no attempt to skew the numbers on the part of the testers.

I would say this article is far from accurate--and I have spent a lot of time studying and graphing the results.

 

[surfingslovak]

very well written

I'm not sure about that, Dave. What I can tell you is that Russ had lengthy discussions in the comments section on greecarreports.com and elsewhere with some of us. He has toned down his criticism of the Phoenix range test, and acknowledged that what we are facing is likely a conflict about unmet expectations.

I would argue that this is due to lack of disclosure and failure to engage customers and early adopters properly. We all want to see this technology adopted on a large scale. However, we should not expect consumers to be experts in lithium ion batteries, know exactly what to do, and be able to adjust and fine-tune their daily routines based on some vague feedback.

What we seem to forget while emotions are flying high with continued media coverage is that many of the early adopters are experienced EV owners. I met at least two such folks in Phoenix last month. Based on what I learned, I would cation anyone to put the onus on customer behavior and their unrealistic expectations.

Yes, there are always two sides to a story, and we can choose to believe one of the parties. After all, we are entitled to our opinion. Personally, I would like to put fact before fiction, and while I appreciate what EV advocates such as Russ Finley and Mark Larsen have done, I'm disappointed that they appear to be selective listeners.

It's easy to pontificate from the comfort of their living room. If they don't like the range test Tony administered, and doubt the results it has produced, I would really like to see them prove their point. With data, not words.

 

[WetEV]

Nissan Leaf Range Issues
BY RUSS FINLEY ON OCT 10, 2012

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/10/10/nissan-leaf-range-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is too optimistic. Both the data that Nissan showed TickTock and the Tony's Tempe Test results point to a battery pack life in Arizona to a normal EOL at 70% of roughly 40,000 to 45,000 miles, and that is not assuming any specific "new leaf range". This will lead to a high cost of ownership, especially as there is no announced price for a battery pack from Nissan.

Note that there is an error in the table and the graph above it, Leaf534 did NOT go 79.7 miles, correct distance is 75.7. The first results showed the incorrect value, and it was corrected later.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Russ,

First, thank you for authoring your article without ad hominems. Our Nissan LEAF demonstration on September 15, 2012 in Phoenix was never intended to be a science experiment, and is why I titled it, “Nissan LEAF Range Autonomy Demonstration With Reduced Battery Capacity”. It’s purpose was to wake up Nissan to the fact that these cars weren’t handling the Phoenix heat well and get satisfaction for affected owners that were being told “all is well” by Nissan. To that end, it met its goal.

Since our test, four of the twelve cars tested have been returned to Nissan. Of course, with no admission that anything is wrong, as is prudent for a company that is in litigation over these very issues.

I don’t have the resources, or desire, to do all that might be required to make a clinical study of LEAF range. Naturally, neither you, nor Mr. Larsen that you quote, have conducted any tests to counter our results.

Your references to the EPA LA4 cycle tests that show the LEAF going 100 miles, or more, just do not reflect reality of the average consumer. As you know, these tests are not conducted on a road, but are instead are run on a chassis dynomometer to simulate driving in those prescribed conditions. That’s not to say that you can’t drive 100 miles in a LEAF; I’ve done it exactly twice. Both times were difficult exercises that the average consumer will not do. About 41 drivers have chronicled their successful milestone of 100 miles on the “MyNissanLEAF” forum, out of more than 13,000 LEAFs in the USA to have a chance at that milestone. I’ll bet that neither you, nor Mr. Larsen, have actually driven a LEAF 100 miles. It’s easy to say; not so easy to do, nor is it typical.

I do agree that “out-of-calibration gauges really are contributing to misperceptions”, and make reference to that in the paper. I’m not sure why you suggest otherwise. That’s not to suggest that those batteries are OK; it’s not an either/or situation. Both the instruments are faulty, and the batteries are degrading quickly.

Since you reference Mr. Larsen’s claim that 76 miles should be used in lieu of 84 miles of range for a new LEAF, per the Nissan technical bulletin that I reference (76 to 84 mile range when consuming energy at a rate of 4 miles/kWh at 70 degrees F ambient air temperature), let me just say we disagree. The LEAF is fully capable of 84 miles when new at 4.0 miles/kWh, and I have demonstrated that MANY times outside this test. Granted, it’s an omission in the test, but again, we worked within the limitations presented us. The biggest limitation was not having a SINGLE car that could reach 84 miles. That doesn’t mean they can’t; they did when new on the factory floor in Japan.

I disagree that heat is a potential issue for “only a few dozen cars in very hot places”. Let’s revisit this one year from now and see who is right, ok? I predict hundreds, if not one thousand or more complaints of reduced range. You and Mr. Larsen will likely blame that on instruments, as Nissan has done, and the rest of the folks who are suffering the effects of bona fide reduced range will think differently. What the court’s will rule is anybody’s guess.

You make an assumption that I somehow am “convinced that (my) new Leaf is also deficient even though it has never been exposed to the ‘heat of Phoenix.’ ”

My LEAF, “Black782”, much like “Red244” that I owned for one year and 25,000 driving miles before it, both were able to drive 84 miles at 4 miles/kWh. We knew that information BEFORE Nissan published their referenced technical bulletin in December 2011. I drove Black782 from Mexico to Canada, and lo and behold, it did in fact hit that target range over and over, as expected. Whether you believe it, or not, Black782 drives 10% less than it did when new, 4 months ago. If you understand the chemistry used in the LEAF, you know that this is normal; it’s just not information that Nissan shared with customers when they purchased or leased the LEAF.

I took Black782 to Phoenix for it to be one of two “control” cars. There was no expectation that either my car, or the other 2012 LEAF tested, would not go 84 miles, considering they were both built in April 2012. I physically towed my car 400 miles to Phoenix, only to find out that the “measured stored energy” was only about 90% on both cars. This is before we drove either car.

You make some further assumptions that mileage varies “all over the place” in your wife’s Prius, and while I can’t comment on that, as I’ve never tested a Prius, I can tell you that the LEAF can be VERY consistent in it’s range given specified parameters. I’ll suggest, once again, that you haven’t actually tested a LEAF to generate those assumptions.

I see that you have an aviation background, as I do, so you may find some use in a “Range Chart” that I’ve compiled, much like the performance data for aircraft.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=101293#p101293" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tony Williams
San Deigo

 

[mksE55]

Classic arm chair quarterbacking. Lets see , Proof, These writers did none. Just as easy for me to say. these individuals have no training or degrees in statistics and with limited information (Hence they do not have access to all the Data from Tony's range test or Nissan's own range testing) have falsely made unsubstantiated claims as to what constitutes normal for a Nissan Leaf. Nissan has already presented data, the AZ Nissan Leaf Miles(TM) to suggest their battery range was correct. Talk about playing with numbers. Best case scenario the car will do 84 miles for the first 6 months then it will decline rapidly the first year and maybe less the next few years if your in perfect climate of which Nissan failed to disclose to the consumer. The FACTS ARE OBVIOUS, and people will see thru all this smoke and mirrors of ALL IS NORMAL from Nissan.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The FACTS ARE OBVIOUS, and people will see thru all this smoke and mirrors of ALL IS NORMAL from Nissan.

Mark Larsen and Russ Finley both are pro-EV, which makes the whole situation odd. They want to support Nissan, and the LEAF, and will not be swayed by "facts" which suggest issues.

They do a disservice, in my opinion, as people will see through the smoke, and instead of being compelled to buy the car with known, stated flaws and limitations, they may instead see "anything goes" to "protect" the LEAF, and EV's in general.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

"well written" the ability to introduce an idea, explain it, justify it, and quantify it. Never is there a mention that the information is correct or complete. It is very one sided and I did post my thought directly to the author.

 

[jspearman]

Just dropped off the car after being contacted by Nissan corporate. They sent a technician from Casa Grande and are keeping it overnight. I asked him how many car have been affected in Arizona. He said out of 450 cars in Arizona only 10 have been affected, all high-mileage. He said none had been affected in Tucson. I did a physical doubletake and said, "What?" I was practically speechless. I told him I had personally met more than ten people. My own car only has 16k miles, but that's more than 2 Nissan years, I guess.

He had me fill out a questionnaire with three questions. How often do you charge to 100% at L2, what is your daily commute, and how often do you QC? I never QC'd until after the 2nd bar loss and found we just couldn't make it without one with the loss of range, so I made sure to list that fact.

So he's doing fact-finding and said he would be passing his info on to corporate for a final decision about what action would be taken (or not taken). Apparently I will get one of those fantastic battery check up sheets for my trouble.

 

[Stoaty]

"well written" the ability to introduce an idea, explain it, justify it, and quantify it. Never is there a mention that the information is correct or complete. It is very one sided and I did post my thought directly to the author.

Except for the justify and quantify, I would agree. You really need to include all facts, not just the ones that fit your thesis. It's interesting that he was actually doing what he accused the owners testing in Arizona of doing--arriving at a predefined conclusion.

 

[TonyWilliams]

He had me fill out a questionnaire with three questions. How often do you charge to 100% at L2, what is your daily commute, and how often do you QC?

That data is all nicely stored in the LEAF. They don't need a questionnaire.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

He only has to provides what he wants to.

Now my statement in no way says I agree with what he said. His "its ok for me so it should be ok for everyone" attitude I can never agree with but st the same time I have read many articles where people cannot explain their own feelings st all. He does that very well. Now whether those feelings are fought wrong our indifferent dies more matter

 

[RegGuheert]

Nissan Leaf Range Issues
BY RUSS FINLEY ON OCT 10, 2012

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/10/10/nissan-leaf-range-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Others have commented on the main thrust of the article, but I wanted to point out one "fact" which the author throws out there with no support whatsoever:

 Some pundits are questioning the wisdom of Nissan’s decision not to use an active battery cooling system.
Heat is an anticipated potential issue for a few dozen cars in very hot places. Certainly for 99% of the Leafs in the world, the passive system is perfectly adequate.

I have stated on several occasions that I am a big fan of Nissan's decision to use a passive cooling system on the LEAF. That said, Nissan has not taken the necessary steps to carefully restrict access to the LEAF to areas where the technology is appropriate.

While I do not have any proof of my convictions, I will go on record to state my belief that significantly more than 1% of the LEAFs in the world will reach the end of their useful life for their owners prior to what the owners consider acceptable. I expect this to be true EVEN IF the worldwide population of LEAFs retain 80% of their battery capacity after five years. As time goes on, it is likely that more and more LEAF owners will determine that the LEAF is not "perfectly adequate". In fact, I expect we will continue to hear from more and more owners that the LEAF is no longer even "adequate" for their needs. While that statement could be made about just about any car, I expect it will happen much more quickly with the LEAF.

In other words, my expectations are quite contrary to what the author has stated is "certainly" true. If it is "certainly" true, then he should provide some form of evidence to support that definitive statement.

 

[Stoaty]

I corrected a few factual errors in the authors quote:

Some pundits are questioning the wisdom of Nissan’s decision not to use an active battery cooling system. Heat is an issue for all Leafs in very hot places. Certainly for 99% of the Leafs in cool to moderate climates, the passive system is perfectly adequate.

 

[Joeviocoe]

...I will go on record to state my belief that significantly more than 1% of the LEAFs in the world will reach the end of their useful life for their owners prior to what the owners consider acceptable. I expect this to be true EVEN IF the worldwide population of LEAFs retain 80% of their battery capacity after five years. As time goes on, it is likely that more and more LEAF owners will determine that the LEAF is not "perfectly adequate". In fact, I expect we will continue to hear from more and more owners that the LEAF is no longer even "adequate" for their needs. While that statement could be made about just about any car, I expect it will happen much more quickly with the LEAF.

In other words, my expectations are quite contrary to what the author has stated is "certainly" true. If it is "certainly" true, then he should provide some form of evidence to support that definitive statement.

The problem will be amplified by statistical selection of the irate and vocal left side of the bell curve over the quiet and unknown right side.

If the mean is 20% loss over 5 years. And the first bar is lost after 15% loss... then the average (mean) Leaf will lose their FIRST bar 3 yrs 9 months after manufacture. If the standard deviation is large (which it should be considering the multitude of variables affecting calendar life)... we may see 20% or more on each side of the bell curve. That is to say that thousands of Leafs will lose that first bar before 3 years. But also, thousands of Leafs will retain all 12 bars after 4.5 years too.

The main point is... we shall hear from the thousands of Leaf owners who lose their first bar by the 3rd year... but the thousands of Leaf owners who will retain 12 bars past 4.5 years cannot say anything, since they don't know who they are, YET. So we get a naturally biased perception of things. This will be the case until at least 1 FULL generation of Leafs has come and gone into pasture. Which is at least 2018. Only then, can we know how many Leafs actually exceeded expectations, and not just the Leafs who fell short. Then, and only then, can we match up the observed reality with the estimations by Nissan.

Unfortunately, it is a bit of a gamble. And many people feel cheated (rightly so) because they were not properly informed of the stakes of this gamble. Most people would never know if they will fall to the left or the right of the mean in this bell curve. Although those in hot climates should have been told, they would fall to the extreme left of mean.

 

[mksE55]

"well written" the ability to introduce an idea, explain it, justify it, and quantify it. Never is there a mention that the information is correct or complete. It is very one sided and I did post my thought directly to the author.

hmmmm, Vampire novels are well written to, just not factual. I guess when I am on this site I am looking for factual information not fictional reading. My bad.

 

[azdre]

I remain ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED that people still have the nerve to tell me that I had UNREALISTIC expectations about the performance of this vehicle over time. :evil: Or that signing a waiver means that I'm accepting the fact that I'm being sold a big pile of lies and I'm supposed to lay down and take it. If you send your kid on field trip and you sign a waiver that says you absolve liability to whomever and something happens, does that mean you're supposed to sit on your hands and say 'Oh Well'. NO! You fight for what's right, and in my case, you WIN! If you add up every piece of information that was fed to buyers pre-sale, no reasonable consumer would have expected this.

The warranty covers the battery except for GRADUAL capacity loss. Losing 15% capacity in 1 year IS NOT GRADUAL!!!!!!!!

You cannot say that 99% of cars will be ok. You don't have the data to support that. The cars in Phoenix have had less than 30,000 miles and less than 18 months on them. If I were a betting woman (and I am) I would BET anyone here that Phoenix is seeing the fastest and worst of what many, many other southern drivers will be seeing as the months and miles on their cars start racking up.

Don't forget that Phoenix was a rollout market, so we've got older cars here than most places. Nissan has themselves admitted that Phoenix batteries are deteriorating at a rate about twice the national average, yet for months the message continued... 'If you treat your batteries as outlined in the user manual you can EXPECT 80% in 5 years'.

This speaks nothing to the fact that Nissan doesn't protect the battery they have given you in order to maintain that magic '73'. Anywhere between 9 and 20 miles of that 73 are miles that shouldn't be used according to the owners manual. Do you expect each user to read the EPA test standard and find that the EPA 73 miles is driving to DEAD, and that Nissan puts 9 to 24 miles between LBW and dead where you shouldn't be tapping into it?

 

[azdre]

AND, I almost forgot that Nissan actually appearantly took range from our vehicles with the early 2012 SW. They hid even more miles in that unusable range after that update, so with battery deterioration and range theivary the 75% 'rule of thumb' that Russ thinks we should live by goes out the window.