How should Nissan respond to dropping capacity?

[Herm]

I will do that, it's my and all the other owners only option, we have supported Nissan with our hard earns dollars by being first adopters and probably talking other people into buying the car, I know I have! I am seeing so many posts on this all over the forum, I wonder if Nissan will come up with some very small print that we all missed!

You may irreparably damage EVs forever, I think you should take a bullet for the planet.

 

[djchrispaul]

I will do that, it's my and all the other owners only option, we have supported Nissan with our hard earns dollars by being first adopters and probably talking other people into buying the car, I know I have! I am seeing so many posts on this all over the forum, I wonder if Nissan will come up with some very small print that we all missed!

You may irreparably damage EVs forever, I think you should take a bullet for the planet.

Yea right! Wanna buy my LEAF?

 

[KJD]

Yea right! Wanna buy my LEAF?

Maybe I do since my wife never wants to give me the keys back for my Leaf. It depends on a lot of things, but for starters how much capacity you have lost so far. Have you put a GID meter on it yet?

 

[Volusiano]

In May, I had completed a 80% charge, displayed 10 bars...the car sat for maybe 2 hours. Upon return, it had only 9 bars.

80% charge completed.
Displayed 10 bars.
2 hours passed.
Displayed 9 bars.

This is a perfect example of the cells "settling" and the BCM making an adjustment to the SoC calculation after the car has been off for a while.

Unless you want to explain what a "80% 9 bar" event is to you.

My scenario is a little different but still similar:
80% charge completed.
Displayed 9 bars.
I manually restarted the charge for a few minutes -> displayed 10 bars. I then stopped the charge.
A few hours later, car not driven anywhere yet, just sat there, a check showed it back down to 9 bars.

I've observed this happening a few times already.

 

[smkettner]

I've charged to 100% to see if it helps balance the cells and get my 80% SOC back to show 10 bars. But it didn't help. My 80% SOC has been consistently showing 9 bars every time now for the last few months.

Mine also is pretty much 9 bars now at 80% charge even after 100% charge this weekend.

No GID readings. Will post when the 12th bar is gone.

For those charging to 100% and testing again, are you allowing it time to cell balance? I've seen my EVSE cut back on ~4 hours after the initial "completed" event occurs, it then stays on for a little longer to balance before no longer supplying power.

Also, it can take multiple "100%" cycles to fully balance the cells. So I wouldn't expect an immediate result from charging to 100%.

I just use the end timer set to 6a. I roll by 7:30a. This morning I was back to 10 bars at 80% and initial distance was back up to "normal". I don't think any special treatment is needed to get the cells balanced. I also don't think 100% charge is needed for the balance or charge correction.

Battery temperature is near the bottom of 6 bars.

 

[TNleaf]

Mine also is pretty much 9 bars now at 80% charge even after 100% charge this weekend.

No GID readings. Will post when the 12th bar is gone.

For those charging to 100% and testing again, are you allowing it time to cell balance? I've seen my EVSE cut back on ~4 hours after the initial "completed" event occurs, it then stays on for a little longer to balance before no longer supplying power.

Also, it can take multiple "100%" cycles to fully balance the cells. So I wouldn't expect an immediate result from charging to 100%.

I just use the end timer set to 6a. I roll by 7:30a. This morning I was back to 10 bars at 80% and initial distance was back up to "normal". I don't think any special treatment is needed to get the cells balanced. I also don't think 100% charge is needed for the balance or charge correction.

Battery temperature is near the bottom of 6 bars.

Knowing a bit about LiPo and other battery type cell balancing, I will respectfully disagree with you there on cell balancing. (I'm not just 'guessing' at this behavior). Also, I remember reading that Ingineer confirmed cell balancing taking place hours after charge is completed at 100%... I'll see if I can dig that up again.

Edit-- there is a longer topic about cell balancing, but I believe this is what I was referring to above. Not to say Ingineer knows everything, but his findings are in line with my independent experiences.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7360&p=161421&hilit=#p161421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't 100% know the inner workings, but I believe the top balancing is the only time this will occur. It would not be needed any other time.

-Phil

 

[Volusiano]

Also, I remember reading that Ingineer confirmed cell balancing taking place hours after charge is completed at 100%... I'll see if I can dig that up again.

It's in one of those 9 bars at 80% SOC completion threads. He said to charge to 100% AND let it sit for up to 6 hours for cell balancing to do its job (if I remember correctly).

 

[smkettner]

All I am saying is my initial range seems to degrade over 5 to 10 days then at some point it gets restored. This happens at 80% or 100% charging using just the end timer. It happens if plugged in for an extended period or not.

I only use end timer. I understand Leaf may give boost or what not well after charging but if a timer is set I would think NO charging event would take place outside the timer window. Is it being said that timers must be off or a large window provided to complete the cell balancing?

Generally with end timer set there will never be an extended period after charging where more charge is allowed.

 

[leafkabob]

In the "Lost a bar . . ." thread, ravi100 said:

Anyway, they printed out a test report and I have called and letf a message on the 800
number to lodge an official complaint.

My question - have all of the 17 owners on the list called Nissan directly on this? If not,
don't you think some concerted action by all of us will elicit a better response than "oh its normal/expected"?

Great idea ravi100!

I absolutely believe that everyone who has lost a bar should call the 1-877-664-2738 and have them open a case number. I did that last week and happened to talk to Wesley (X457250). He was very nice, listened carefully and listened to all of my issues. He called me back a couple of days later and basically said that "Nissan isn't hearing from many people about this problem."

I think one reason Nissan has been quoted as saying they only know of a few cases of battery capacity loss may be because us "bardroppers" aren't registering our concerns. I don't blame Nissan for not acknowledging that there are 20 bardroppers if only 5 have contacted them. As far as they are concerned the higher numer is hearsay. If everyone lets them know, then they have to acknowledge it.

Will it do any good to lodge formal complaints? I can't promise that it will, but it certainly will do no harm. Be prepared to articulate your complaint and to tell them what you want done ("I want my money back"/"I want a new battery"/"I want an answer from Nissan"/whatever).

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Stoaty]

I think one reason Nissan has been quoted as saying they only know of a few cases of battery capacity loss may be because us "bardroppers" aren't registering our concerns. I don't blame Nissan for not acknowledging that there are 20 bardroppers if only 5 have contacted them. As far as they are concerned the higher numer is hearsay. If everyone lets them know, then they have to acknowledge it.

I agree with this, except that I think Nissan knows exactly what is happening in these hot areas. After all, the one year battery checkup sends far more data to Nissan than whether a capacity bar has been lost. They see the cases that are a couple of percentage points from losing a capacity bar (and I bet there are a lot of those). Of course, if no one complains to Nissan about the early loss of capacity, they are going to figure it isn't that big a deal.

 

[TomT]

No, Nissan is the one who should take the bullet...

You may irreparably damage EVs forever, I think you should take a bullet for the planet.

 

[leafkabob]

I think one reason Nissan has been quoted as saying they only know of a few cases of battery capacity loss may be because us "bardroppers" aren't registering our concerns. I don't blame Nissan for not acknowledging that there are 20 bardroppers if only 5 have contacted them. As far as they are concerned the higher numer is hearsay. If everyone lets them know, then they have to acknowledge it.

I agree with this, except that I think Nissan knows exactly what is happening in these hot areas. After all, the one year battery checkup sends far more data to Nissan than whether a capacity bar has been lost. They see the cases that are a couple of percentage points from losing a capacity bar (and I bet there are a lot of those). Of course, if no one complains to Nissan about the early loss of capacity, they are going to figure it isn't that big a deal.

Yep.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Yea, none of the cars to the dealers had that consult info sent to Nissan and they are completely in the dark. The standard line is to say they are not hearing much. Nissan CS is really good at that line, I've heard it several times. :lol:

 

[djchrispaul]

No, Nissan is the one who should take the bullet...

You may irreparably damage EVs forever, I think you should take a bullet for the planet.

+1
We all want this technology to work, and the beta testers (us early adopters) should be treated in a fair and honest way, even if it means a few thousand new battery packs or cell replacements regardless of what they consider "normal"! After all, it's not like they cant refurbish the old ones!

 

[Volusiano]

I think one reason Nissan has been quoted as saying they only know of a few cases of battery capacity loss may be because us "bardroppers" aren't registering our concerns. I don't blame Nissan for not acknowledging that there are 20 bardroppers if only 5 have contacted them. As far as they are concerned the higher numer is hearsay. If everyone lets them know, then they have to acknowledge it.

I agree with this, except that I think Nissan knows exactly what is happening in these hot areas. After all, the one year battery checkup sends far more data to Nissan than whether a capacity bar has been lost. They see the cases that are a couple of percentage points from losing a capacity bar (and I bet there are a lot of those). Of course, if no one complains to Nissan about the early loss of capacity, they are going to figure it isn't that big a deal.

Nissan can play dumb all they want, but they know it, we know it, and the public knows it. They'd be very dumb to bury their heads in the sand and lie to themselves and believe that they wouldn't need to address the issue as long as they don't see formal complaints lodged.

I agree that it doesn't hurt to lodge in a formal complaint, but I don't believe that lodging a formal complaint will make any difference, except to allow Nissan to play dumb. But Nissan should be smart enough not to play dumb. Nissan already has all the battery data they need from all 1 year-old Leafs to analyze. They don't need formal complains to learn about anything new. But if they actually come out and make a public statement saying that affected owners should log a formal complaint, I'll be the first in line to do it.

But for now, I believe that it's more effective to continue the discussion here on this forum and keep fanning the fire on this issue until Nissan comes out with a formal response. And if their first response says to lodge a complaint, I'll do it. But for now, I'd rather play MY game and not THEIR game.

I believe that the Leaf buyer demographic is very savvy and as potential buyers, the majority of them are following closely on potential issues such as this one on this forum to help them make informed purchase decision. This is currently the single hottest issue Nissan has had to face since all other aspects have so far been faring pretty favorable to them (except maybe price point).

The longer Nissan sits on this issue and not address it, the more sale Nissan is going to lose, and they can kiss goodbye their grand sale projection for the Smyrna roll out. Even buyers in cooler climate will now have doubts, because the issue in the near future is not going to be about battery capacity anymore, but it's going to be about how Nissan can be trusted with anything anymore if they won't even address this one issue?

 

[Herm]

I think they will eventually provide a capacity warranty.. perhaps 70% in 5 years (or 3/36), and refurbishment may not restore the capacity back to new but an appropriate level for a car with that age. Assuming the battery has not been abused and demonstrated by good scores on the annual battery test. Similar to what GM offers.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

I agree 100%, this issue is a confidence drain and is effecting brand loyalty, at least in our house.

The longer Nissan sits on this issue and not address it, the more sale Nissan is going to lose, and they can kiss goodbye their grand sale projection for the Smyrna roll out. Even buyers in cooler climate will now have doubts, because the issue in the near future is not going to be about battery capacity anymore, but it's going to be about how Nissan can be trusted with anything anymore if they won't even address this one issue?

 

[Stoaty]

I agree 100%, this issue is a confidence drain and is effecting brand loyalty, at least in our house.

I am no longer recommending anyone to buy a Leaf, unless the climate is very cool. Hot areas of Southern California may be problematic (not as bad as Phoenix, of course). If Nissan addresses this issue, I will recommend the Leaf again, as otherwise the car is trouble free. Still love my Leaf, glad I bought, but my Leaf spends most of its life about 4 miles from the coast.

 

[Weatherman]

I am no longer recommending anyone to buy a Leaf, unless the climate is very cool.

I agree. I can't, at this time, recommend anyone in South Florida buy a LEAF due to our consistently warm temperatures.

My LEAF started out with less than nominal range last winter and has gotten considerably worse since the weather got real warm over the past month (20% less range from an 80% charge than I was getting back in March and April). I don't know why the range has dropped so much, and I don't expect any kind of intelligent answer if I was to take it to one of the local Nissan dealers for a check. But it's very disconcerting to start out with below average range and see a rapid drop from there.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Your reaction is exactly what Nissan's lack of transparency is breeding... doubt. Now that we know heat is a big problem in extreme climate zones and Nissan's denial only magnifies our uncertainty. we need to know where the dividing line is in terms of geography/ambient temps. if we are still in the guinea pig phase of development, it would be best if Nissan simply stated that and gave some level of assurance that they will take care of the effected after a trial period is concluded. My enthusiasm and willingness to promote this car goes way beyond whether it's enough for my family, it really needs to work for all climates to be a truly practical alternative for the mainstream.

I agree 100%, this issue is a confidence drain and is effecting brand loyalty, at least in our house.

I am no longer recommending anyone to buy a Leaf, unless the climate is very cool. Hot areas of Southern California may be problematic (not as bad as Phoenix, of course). If Nissan addresses this issue, I will recommend the Leaf again, as otherwise the car is trouble free. Still love my Leaf, glad I bought, but my Leaf spends most of its life about 4 miles from the coast.