Stoaty said:
surfingslovak said:
A recent
study conducted by six insurance carriers suggests that the average annual mileage driven in AZ was 13,021.
Yes, but you have to remember that is for cars with basically unlimited remaining range... unlike some of the Phoenix Leafs. Perhaps they drove just 7500 miles because that's all they could get from their degraded battery packs.
Spooka once wrote to me about the 7,500 mileage issue, and since it keeps coming up in this thread, here is a variation of my reply.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think that Andy Palmer was changing the capacity benchmarks in his video interview with Chelsea. I got the impression that he was merely observing that the average driver in AZ is putting about 7,500 miles per year on the car. Period.
You see, I have always understood that automakers issue years/miles projections with an industry-wide disclaimer: "whichever comes first." That is what the warranty for every car I have ever owned states, including the Leaf:
Nissan on page 7 of its warranty booklet said:
The Lithium-Ion coverage period is 96 months or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.
In other words, if I have driven 100,000 miles in only 4 years (instead of 8), the warranty expires. Similarly, if after 8 years I have driven only 20,000 miles (instead of 100,000), the warranty expires.
Whichever comes first.
This especially makes sense to me with batteries, because they also deteriorate with
age --not just miles.
Ergo... my interpretation of what Andy Palmer was actually stating is that, so far, the 400 AZ Leafs are putting an average of 7,500 miles per year on their cars, BUT... Nissan expects their capacity will still drop to approximately 80% (= 76% in AZ heat, apparently) after 5 years of
aging.
To interpret him otherwise would imply a change to the battery warranty, and I have a hard time believing he was stating that --only in AZ-- the warranty would now be 8 years/60,000 miles instead of the published 8 years/100,000 miles. I think the original warranty still applies, but according to the data gathered so far, it looks like AZ owners will simply hit the
age threshhold before they hit the mileage threshhold in Nissan's capacity benchmarks.
And I think that is the way LEAF owners should keep a watchful eye on their capacity, perhaps using my 6 scenario capacity
chart based on the polynomial curve.
For example, let's say someone has owned a Leaf for 24 months, but only driven 6,000 miles. To estimate its remaining capacity, the owner should look down the first column, because age trumps mileage:
- Its remaining capacity should thus be approximately 91% (age) --NOT about 98% (mileage).
Conversely, someone who has driven 24,000 miles, but in only 6 months, should look down the second column, because mileage trumps age:
- Its remaining capacity should thus be approximately 91% (mileage) --NOT about 98% (age).
Whichever comes first.
I get the impression that some AZ owners are now mistakenly focusing solely on mileage (7,500 x 5 = 37,500) because of Any Palmer's statement, and forgetting about the
age threshhold (5 years).
What I find most ironic is that the original complaints were stressing just the
opposite: owners were focusing on their Leafs'
age ("after only one year"), rather than mileage (29,000 miles). They were thus expecting the capacity to still be about 95% (age), when "normal" projections would estimate approximately 89% (mileage). And let's remember --once again-- that such projections do not take into account other factors stated in Nissan's disclaimer that "may hasten the rate of capacity loss": driving habits, vehicle usage, charging habits, etc.
In short, I have a hard time believing we can have it both ways. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I've never known an automaker to state "whichever comes
last"...?
My 2¢ worth, anyway. For the penny bowl.