cwerdna said:
Martytdi said:
We lost our 3rd capacity bar sometime in april. It's amazing a month after the warranty ended. Wouldn't be supprised if nissan programed the computer to make that happen.
No on the latter. Plenty of folks have lost 4 or more bars before the 5 year/60K capacity warranty expired. They need to be in hotter climates, of course.
That is a pretty definite answer to a question I think is still open for debate. It is not logical proof that because "plenty of folks" have collected on the warranty that Nissan did not reprogram the computer. In fact there is suspicion that Nissan did just that.
I agree that I have no proof to the contrary specifically in the case of Nissan. However, the P3227 update, which is
REQUIRED for warranty validation under the Klee settlement, seems extremely suspicious.
It is possible for somebody to continue without the P3227 update, and I believe some here have done that. So, theoretically, a person could have gone to 59999 in a day under 5 years without the P3227 update, and then gone to the dealer for the required update. The warranty couldn't be denied for not having the update when it came out.
I think there is complete consensus that the P3227 update does, without changing the underlying true state of the battery, alter the capacity bar display calculations and the underlying battery capacity data itself. To see proof of this, you've only got to go one page prior and look at drees' 2013 LEAF Ah data. The P3227 update "turned back the clock" for the battery degradation by about a year (if I'm reading the chart correctly), and although it apparently came back into better accuracy within a few weeks, there is no proof that going forward the data wasn't calculated slightly higher than prior to the update. Or that the capacity bars displayed weren't reprogrammed to a different level of percentage than prior. Or that the fourth capacity bar wouldn't have dropped that day, week, or month, earlier, when the warranty was still in effect.
The truly sad part is that even proving my theory would not, in any way, impact Nissan legally under the Klee settlement. The lawyers agreed that the warranty basis was simply capacity bars displayed. It has been agreed that 63% remaining capacity, as some have displayed upon dropping the fourth bar, is "approximately 70%" as spelled out in the settlement. And the judge, who may have been truly interested in justice, may have been fooled into signing off on this truly unfair settlement. The fact that a $6000 obligation for Nissan disappears one mile after 60K, or one day after 5 years, seems nothing less than obnoxiously unfair to those who have and are losing out.
Is it pure cynicism on my part to doubt Nissan just because other automakers have been caught cheating in order to increase their profits, or decrease their obligations? Or that, as I've been told, on occasion auto salesmen do not tell the truth to customers? I would be shocked, shocked to find proof that Nissan has surreptitiously altered these calculations solely to decrease warranty claims and increase their financial bottom line.