How should Nissan respond to dropping capacity?

[TomT]

Yes, it arrived here with 6 old bars (this is a port arrival report) which means it had to have left with at least 6... I believe the 35% means that do not want it shipped with LESS than that.

Tom, than is it possible that car was shipped with 6 bars from Japan and arrived here with 6? My car was not charged by the dealer, because no evse as well knowledge that there was L1 in the trunk. It was also stored for 3 wk at dealer location, when I got was 50% charged. I guess dealer charging to 100% is "full tank of gas fully charged" deal and not necessarily Nissan recommendation.

 

[surfingslovak]

The reports of battery studies I've seen posted on this forum, also show only small, or negligible, increases in battery life, by maintaining a 50% charge, rather than anywhere from 20% to 80%. I find it unlikely, that Nissan would have omitted the simple expedient of allowing a 50% "extra long life" option to the charge timer, if this would significantly extend battery life.

looking what leafkabob did to protect his car I am not sure if keeping low SOC will help, unfortunately keeping battery, car, at recommended by GM 71F is not really an option here

Again, this depends on your situation and objectives. If you are concerned about battery capacity for whatever reason, lowering the average SOC and keeping the battery cool will help. This has been an accepted practice, and is common to many battery types.

Asking fellow owners and enthusiasts on this forum to tell how much effect this will have exactly over the projected life of the battery is unrealistic. We don't have access to these batteries, and even if we did, few of us would have the time and resources to entertain such projects.

The reports we look at provide an additional perspective. They are a great point of reference, and can be educational. I would take them with more than a grain of salt however. Cells can have different properties and sizes. They are managed differently and these reports apply varying charge protocols and discharge cycles.

I don't think that anyone will fault you if you followed the recommendations from the owner's manual to the letter. In fact, I think you should do that. I'm confident that Nissan has done their homework. If you ask me or others for advice, I will help you to the best of my knowledge. Although I consider myself well-intentioned, I can be wrong at times, and I'm ready to admit it. However, asking repeatedly for the type of information you requested on this forum, might be unrealistic.

Source: Comparison of Battery Life Across Real-World Automotive Drive-Cycles

 

[RegGuheert]

It seems that Nissan has known for years what would happen to the LEAF batteries in Phoenix but has still chosen to offer them for sale there without any capacity warranty: post at GM-Volt on Volt thermal management system temperature band. That thread was started in 2010 and contains a lot of details about the LEAF battery and the impact of temperature on battery life. I recommend it if you are interested in the effects of temperature on the LEAF's battery capacity.

Nissan knows and acknowledges that they’re going to have to replace battery packs early, under warranty, in hot climates. (I’ve been in meetings with fleet customers in hot climates where I’ve seen Nissan tell them to expect a 4 to 5 year battery pack life, which is why Nissan is urging them to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease, rather than purchase.) Nissan has done their own financial cost-benefit/trade-off analysis whereby they determined that it will be cheaper for them to replace a few battery packs early, under warranty, in those few hot-climate areas of the country, for those few customers who don’t take the hint to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease rather than purchase, than it would have been for them to design, engineer, develop, and manufacture a sophisticated and relatively expensive active-cooled TMS, especially when most of the country probably won’t need it (as much). (It’s just in really hot climates where the economics strongly favor going with an active-cooled TMS.) For Nissan, it was simply a cold, hard-nosed business decision. There are reasons why the Volt costs $8,220 more than the Leaf.

So my opinion that Nissan should only offer leases on the LEAF in Phoenix is unchanged except it seems clear that the capacity drops are not, in any way, a surprise to them. As such, they should never have offered them for sale there and their public statements should have reflected their actual expectations for those hot climates.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

RegGuheert, good work finding this! If they are actually planning on replacing the battery packs early, then I would suggest that they should keep selling them in hot climates but disclose to the buyer that they will experience more than typical gradual loss leading to an early pack replacement under warranty. I feel much better reading this, if they actually follow through and make good on the warranty.

It seems that Nissan has known for years what would happen to the LEAF batteries in Phoenix but has still chosen to offer them for sale there without any capacity warranty: post at GM-Volt on Volt thermal management system temperature band. That thread was started in 2010 and contains a lot of details about the LEAF battery and the impact of temperature on battery life. I recommend it if you are interested in the effects of temperature on the LEAF's battery capacity.

Nissan knows and acknowledges that they’re going to have to replace battery packs early, under warranty, in hot climates. (I’ve been in meetings with fleet customers in hot climates where I’ve seen Nissan tell them to expect a 4 to 5 year battery pack life, which is why Nissan is urging them to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease, rather than purchase.) Nissan has done their own financial cost-benefit/trade-off analysis whereby they determined that it will be cheaper for them to replace a few battery packs early, under warranty, in those few hot-climate areas of the country, for those few customers who don’t take the hint to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease rather than purchase, than it would have been for them to design, engineer, develop, and manufacture a sophisticated and relatively expensive active-cooled TMS, especially when most of the country probably won’t need it (as much). (It’s just in really hot climates where the economics strongly favor going with an active-cooled TMS.) For Nissan, it was simply a cold, hard-nosed business decision. There are reasons why the Volt costs $8,220 more than the Leaf.

So my opinion that Nissan should only offer leases on the LEAF in Phoenix is unchanged except it seems clear that the capacity drops are not, in any way, a surprise to them. As such, they should never have offered them for sale there and their public statements should have reflected their actual expectations for those hot climates.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Interesting. My dealer (Courtsey Nissan) was pushing so hard for the Lease instead of a buy he was almost winking at me, and urging me to take the Lease option.

 

[RegGuheert]

RegGuheert, good work finding this! If they are actually planning on replacing the battery packs early, then I would suggest that they should keep selling them in hot climates but disclose to the buyer that they will experience more than typical gradual loss leading to an early pack replacement under warranty. I feel much better reading this, if they actually follow through and make good on the warranty.

I'm sorry, but that is not my take. I think this was written at a time when everyone assumed the LEAF would be offered with a capacity warranty. Rather, to me it appears that they knew this and subsequently decided to explicitly exclude capacity losses from the LEAF warranty without ever telling their customers the whole deal. Of course that doesn't mean they won't make good on this, but it certainly would be a strange way to go about it.

 

[RegGuheert]

Interesting. My dealer (Courtsey Nissan) was pushing so hard for the Lease instead of a buy he was almost winking at me, and urging me to take the Lease option.

That's actually good to hear. But it would have been better if he had given you the reason you would want to lease.

Somehow I don't imagine all dealerships in the hot climates are pushing the lease over a sale, but I could be wrong.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Great news no doubt. Do we have any other sources that verify Nissans warranty plans?

 

[Stoaty]

RegGuheert, good work finding this! If they are actually planning on replacing the battery packs early, then I would suggest that they should keep selling them in hot climates but disclose to the buyer that they will experience more than typical gradual loss leading to an early pack replacement under warranty. I feel much better reading this, if they actually follow through and make good on the warranty.

Here is the end of that quote, which I find to be the most interesting:

"In the final analysis, Nissan’s decision to forgo an active TMS for the first generation of the Leaf was really one of expediency that was driven by competitive time-to-market pressures, to shorten the development cycle (in which Nissan was already a few years behind GM and playing catch-up) and bring the Leaf to market at the same time as the Volt. More recently, Nissan has admitted that the lack of an active TMS is a shortcoming that will be corrected in the next major model upgrade to the Leaf, likely in 2013, which will have an active TMS. "

 

[Herm]

So my opinion that Nissan should only offer leases on the LEAF in Phoenix is unchanged except it seems clear that the capacity drops are not, in any way, a surprise to them.

Poppycock.. if a) there are real problems in AZ and b) they have to replace 4 year old batteries, then if they knew ahead of time it would have been much simpler to just not sell or lease the cars in Arizona at all. Plenty of other places that were clamoring for Leafs. They could have also offered an extra cost battery cooling package for AZ Leafs. They also would have made you sign a statement acknowledging the lack of capacity warranty at the time of purchase.

 

[RegGuheert]

Poppycock.. if a) there are real problems in AZ and b) they have to replace 4 year old batteries, then if they knew ahead of time it would have been much simpler to just not sell or lease the cars in Arizona at all. Plenty of other places that were clamoring for Leafs. They could have also offered an extra cost battery cooling package for AZ Leafs. They also would have made you sign a statement acknowledging the lack of capacity warranty at the time of purchase.

I expect Charles Whalen is talking about a 30% loss of capacity as the end of the LEAF battery life, which is explicitly NOT covered by the warranty on the LEAF. As long as you can still drive your LEAF, and no cells are damaged, it seems Nissan claims no responsibility.

 

[Stoaty]

I think this was written at a time when everyone assumed the LEAF would be offered with a capacity warranty. Rather, to me it appears that they knew this and subsequently decided to explicitly exclude capacity losses from the LEAF warranty without ever telling their customers the whole deal. Of course that doesn't mean they won't make good on this, but it certainly would be a strange way to go about it.

Not so strange. It gives them a lot of "wiggle room" to replace only packs that were in hot temperatures, but not abused. They only have to replace enough to keep their reputation intact, rather than being bound by the legal strictures of an explicit warranty.

 

[palmermd]

Here is the end of that quote, which I find to be the most interesting:

"In the final analysis, Nissan’s decision to forgo an active TMS for the first generation of the Leaf was really one of expediency that was driven by competitive time-to-market pressures, to shorten the development cycle (in which Nissan was already a few years behind GM and playing catch-up) and bring the Leaf to market at the same time as the Volt. More recently, Nissan has admitted that the lack of an active TMS is a shortcoming that will be corrected in the next major model upgrade to the Leaf, likely in 2013, which will have an active TMS. "

My first impression on reading the quote several posts above was that it was a great GM marketing post to explain why their active thermal management system is better than Nissan's decision to not include it. On reading the remaining quote above, my suspicions were confirmed when he added that Nissan was rushed and was playing catch-up with GM. Reality is that GM started their battery program much later than Nissan. The entire quote is propaganda and FUD. This entire thread is bordering on FUD. I agree that there is something strange about 6 cars that have lost capacity, but there is still not nearly enough evidence to conclude anything from this. No proof that it was from heat, although it is suspicious. It could still be any number of reasons and just random luck that they are all from AZ. Heck AZ probably has 1/3 of all Leafs sold in the early vehicles (which is what we are discussing). This will continue to be an interesting topic, and I look forward to Nissan's response to this issue, and I'm sure they are well aware of this thread and are working on a response. It took over 1 month for Nissan to send an official response to the cars dying on the road due to the A/C issue last March. I suspect because this issue is less severe that it will take 2-3 months before we hear anything. Perhaps more if they are waiting for data to accumulate from the 1 year checkups. Last May and June were huge sales months, so they should get a big data-set coming in this month. We had under 1000 data points to May, but we'll have an additional 3000 points of data at the end of June. I hope all May and June deliveries get their checkup this month if not already for the May folks. I know I was about 3 weeks past one year (my bad...).

 

[edatoakrun]

We do not know whether a loss of a bar might correspond to a permanent loss in battery capacity of 2%, or 20%.

Gid count info is not much better, since the necessary temperature records and readings have not been made, to determine what part of the lower gid count is capacity loss, and what percentage is the LEAF battery management restricting charge level during high temperatures to protect the battery pack.

We do not know how useful TMS would be, for the LEAF, or for other BEVs or PHEVs.

In a hot Climate, TMS requires large amounts of energy consumption, during peak grid hours, when electricity is most expensive.

And, if not plugged in to the grid, cooling with ATM will both reduce EV range, and increase cycling of the battery, which will itself reduce battery life.

Finally, at some point, TMS must be shut off, to preserve capacity, and then your TMS system, isn't TM-ing.

Whether passive or active battery management actually incurs lower life cycle costs, even in hotter climates, is an open question, IMO.

 

[Stoaty]

We do not know whether a loss of a bar might correspond to a permanent loss in battery capacity of 2%, or 20%.

Actually, we do know. It is 15%. While there may be some seasonal variation, the loss of a bar is a significant loss in battery capacity that I expect will be permanent.

 

[edatoakrun]

We do not know whether a loss of a bar might correspond to a permanent loss in battery capacity of 2%, or 20%.

Actually, we do know. It is 15%. While there may be some seasonal variation, the loss of a bar is a significant loss in battery capacity that I expect will be permanent.

I am constantly amazed at the willingness of some to give credit to the LEAF dash information display, when so many variables clearly render them inaccurate or incorrect. Tell me, in your opinion:

Is that 15% reported,

Plus or minus 1%?

Or, is it:

Plus or minus 10%?

What are the sources, on which you formed your opinion?

 

[LEAFfan]

There's a chart in the manual showing each bars % loss. The first bar is 15% loss and the next one is around 6%. Each one after is 6% or 7% (rounded). A Gid meter or BCM (my LEAF SG) confirms the 15% loss.

 

[edatoakrun]

There's a chart in the manual showing each bars % loss. The first bar is 15% loss and the next one is around 6%. Each one after is 6% or 7% (rounded). A Gid meter or BCM (my LEAF SG) confirms the 15% loss.

And when multiple owners, including yourself, report capacity loss correlated for temperature over time, we should get a good idea of what proportion of this "15%" is permanent, and what is seasonal, and what proportion of LEAFs have losses greater than expected (whatever it was you were expecting).

I expect that permanent loss could turn out be 15% (or even more) for some LEAFs, and 1.5% (or even less) for others, after one year, depending on conditions, including temperature. I am actually amazed at the low level of LEAF battery defects, and low number of cases of reduced battery capacity, reported so far. I am sure Nissan will have to make warranty repairs or replacements on some batteries, and I expect those repairs will probably correspond to "hard use", including hot climates.

There just isn't sufficient evidence of the severity or extent of the "early degradation" problem, for the multiple alarmist threads, IMO.

 

[Stoaty]

I expect that permanent loss could turn out be 15% (or even more) for some LEAFs, and 1.5% (or even less) for others, after one year, depending on conditions, including temperature.

I fully agree with this statement. Personally, I am at the low end of capacity loss due to having my Leaf mostly in a cool climate. However, we have a number of people reporting the 15% capacity loss. Just because the GOM is meaningless doesn't mean that the capacity information is inaccurate. We can see that Nissan went out of their way to hide early losses with the 15% loss needed for the first bar--but some people are still reporting loss of one capacity bar much earlier than any of us expected. So far, all of them have been told this is "normal" when battery was analyzed by dealer.

I am actually amazed at the low level of LEAF battery defects

Agree with this. There have been a couple of reports (at most) of individual cell replacement. Rather surprising.

I am sure Nissan will have to make warranty repairs or replacements on some batteries, and I expect those repairs will probably correspond to "hard use", including hot climates.

The rest of us aren't so sure about this. There isn't any warranty on capacity, so Nissan will not be legally required to make repairs unless an individual cell fails. We can hope that they will, but that is an open question.

 

[RegGuheert]

My first impression on reading the quote several posts above was that it was a great GM marketing post to explain why their active thermal management system is better than Nissan's decision to not include it. On reading the remaining quote above, my suspicions were confirmed when he added that Nissan was rushed and was playing catch-up with GM. Reality is that GM started their battery program much later than Nissan. The entire quote is propaganda and FUD. This entire thread is bordering on FUD.

Actually, if you read the thread I quoted starting from the beginning you will see that the OP is really bashing GM for not doing enough in their TMS to sufficiently cool the battery in the Volt to get a long life in climates like Phoenix. OP of that thread indicates he will work around the limitations of the Volt by leaving it on while he is at work so that the TMS will keep the battery cool.

Again, I will encourage anyone who is interested in the battery in the LEAF to read that thread. There are details about the chemistry and who manufactures the different components of the cells, etc. Dismiss the OP if you like, but he seems to know many details about the application of this chemistry to electric vehicles and wrote about what is being seen in Phoenix 18 months before it was discussed here.