Nissan Won't Honor Capacity Warranty, Says I Am 4 Days Late. 8 Bars

[sub3marathonman]

By stating that gradual capacity loss is not covered, it is logical therefore to state that non-gradual capacity loss is covered.

It was established from day 1 that gradual capacity loss wasn't covered. It only became covered per the announcement in near end of December 2012 (cited at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=462549#p462549) thanks to factors like the Phoenix media noise and range test and unbeknownst to us, a class action lawsuit that was happening in parallel.

Non-gradual capacity loss examples would be something like one or a small # of bad cells, loose connection inside the pack, some other defect that causes a sudden huge loss in capacity. We've seen a few instances of that.

So is the OP outside of the warranty, I don't think so,

Why is that? He waited until AFTER 5 years past he original in-service date to get the condition verified. His capacity warranty expired, which was arrived at due to the settlement.

Nissan has once again been able to side-step their responsibilities for releasing a battery in 2011 that, I would estimate, nobody on this forum would state isn't defective.

No. The battery isn't "defective". It still functions. Gradual capacity loss was never originally warranted.

It really does suck that we later learned of all the caveats as to Nissan's claims or that they were totally false (e.g. high temperature is murder on these batteries (e.g. Phoenix fiasco), their claim of "we don't need thermal management" was bunk, 70% to 80% remaining capacity after 10 years is a pipe dream for almost everyone except the mildest of climates, etc.)

It really does suck that the capacity warranty isn't pro-rated and legally obligates Nissan to provide nothing once you're past 5 years or 60K miles. Would be better if there was a decreasing scale of how much they'd cover the further you went past either 5 years or 60K miles. Unfortunately, the settlement didn't provide for that.

Well, I stand corrected! There is at least one person who thinks the 2011 batteries aren't defective. I'm just wondering why all those people had their 60% capacity packs replaced, those still "functioned." If you can make it to the end of your driveway after 5 years, even though Nissan made a grand show of promising 80% remaining capacity, why would people complain? Why did GM replace all those engines with "piston slap" awhile back, they still functioned, and people couldn't get used to a bit of noise? Of course the fact that the GM engine was on the verge of catastrophic failure might have entered into the replacement of a "functioning" engine. And as far as I understand, "gradual capacity loss" is still not covered, as the Klee settlement provided the line between "gradual" and beyond gradual into unacceptable.

The quote out of context showing I was incorrect about the warranty because he waited past 5 years is also interesting, as I was NOT referencing the Klee settlement, but rather the initial, as written in the "2011 Nissan LEAF Warranty Information Booklet," with a copyright of 2010 , and I was NOT referring to "gradual capacity loss" as implied by cwerdna's quoting liberties, and I stated as much several times in my posting.

People here can on the one hand attempt to claim Nissan has not installed defective batteries, while simultaneously saying Nissan should have been obligated to replace, on at least a pro-rated basis, battery packs that are still "functioning" beyond what the Klee settlement mandated.

For the record, in case people don't understand, I believe, and unless Leafer77 lied in his postings it seems that the BBB also believed, at least in Leafer77's case, that a claim for a defective battery, made under the original 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty made by Nissan and NOT part of a lawsuit settlement, was valid.

 

[cwerdna]

People here can on the one hand attempt to claim Nissan has not installed defective batteries, while simultaneously saying Nissan should have been obligated to replace, on at least a pro-rated basis, battery packs that are still "functioning" beyond what the Klee settlement mandated.

They absolutely still function. The OP's car (and even 5 bar losers) has many tens of miles of range autonomy vs. can't even move at all/more than a few feet.

Whether the amount of remaining range autonomy is sufficient will depend on the person's typical use cases, driving habits, and where they can charge. Someone who only has to commute 1 mile each way and has free charging at their destination could probably still use their Leaf w/all capacity bars gone. Per http://www.electricvehiclewiki.com/Battery#Battery_Capacity_Behavior, 0 capacity bars supposedly means somewhere below 16.25% capacity remaining.

And as far as I understand, "gradual capacity loss" is still not covered, as the Klee settlement provided the line between "gradual" and beyond gradual into unacceptable.

The 5 year/60K mile capacity warranty does provide for gradual capacity loss, provided verification at a Nissan dealer service department that you're a 4+ bar loser within 5 years/60K miles, whichever comes first, beginning from original in-service date.

Prior to that, there was no coverage for "gradual" capacity loss, only defects such as sudden capacity loss and some of the scenarios I mentioned already for a 8 year/100K mile period.

 

[cwerdna]

For the record, in case people don't understand, I believe, and unless Leafer77 lied in his postings it seems that the BBB also believed, at least in Leafer77's case, that a claim for a defective battery, made under the original 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty made by Nissan and NOT part of a lawsuit settlement, was valid.

Thank you for a reminder of that. I don't have committed to memory the arguments used/how each person who won a replacement battery via arbitration.

For reference, here were some of his posts re: that.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=19880&p=443359#p443359
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=19880&p=439941#p439941

 

[DaveEV]

They absolutely still function.

Sure - they might function to a significantly limited degree, but the pack certainly fails to do a number of things that many would consider end-of-life.

1. Typically rechargeable batteries are considered end of life when 70-80% of it's original capacity remains, including the ones in automobiles. It's no accident that ~70% was chosen as the trigger for the capacity warranty.
2. By the time 2 bars are gone, regenerative braking fails to function in many cases where it used to when 12 bars are showing.

Regarding gradual capacity loss - the fact that you quote gradual is an admission on your part that there is no single definition of gradual. I think most would expect the battery pack, or any other major part in a vehicle to last the life of the car. Most people would expect a car to last at least 10 years / 100k miles without any major part replacement. Even Hyundai warrants the powertrain on all their vehicles for that period. Hyundai warrants the battery in the Soul EV to retain 70% capacity for that period of time. Nissan even stepped up with the 30 kWh LEAFs and increased the capacity warranty to 8 years / 100k miles.

How many '11-14 LEAFs do you expect to retain 70% capacity after 8 years / 100k miles - 10 years / 100k miles?

 

[dhanson865]

They absolutely still function.

Sure - they might function to a significantly limited degree, but the pack certainly fails to do a number of things that many would consider end-of-life.

1. Typically rechargeable batteries are considered end of life when 70-80% of it's original capacity remains, including the ones in automobiles. It's no accident that ~70% was chosen as the trigger for the capacity warranty.
2. By the time 2 bars are gone, regenerative braking fails to function in many cases where it used to when 12 bars are showing.

FWIW, my 2012 SL is at 76% SOH and I don't notice any difference in regenerative braking vs when it was at 83% SOH.

I'm sure regen is weaker now than it was in 2012 but not enough that I care. I can still regen more than I need to on most roads.

 

[dm33]

Nissan's reputation continues to be tarnished. The LEAF's reputation continues to be tarnished. Its abysmal resale value is a clear indication that people know to avoid this vehicle.

The Leaf's low resale value isn't limited to the Leaf. I used Kelly Blue Book to compare values for a 2013 Leaf SV, 500e, and Focus Electric. For my area, their values were respectively $9200, 9500, and $8100. This assumes no added options, 30k miles in "Good" condition, being sold private party.

Range anxiety is still a potential worry for many new car buyers, low gas prices aren't helping sales of most BEVs, and government incentives on new EVs guarantees a minimum $7500 depreciation right off the top, on top of whatever the depreciation curve would normally be if it were an ICEV. I don't expect my eGolf to be worth much either when its lease is up a bit over 2 years from now.

According to Inside EVs, the Leaf is still the #1 selling all-electric in the US that doesn't have the word "Tesla" in it, though it has lost its previous sales lead over the Volt/Fusion Energi. However, so far this year it's outselling the #2 non-Tesla BEV, the BMW i3, by a factor of 2 to 1, much less most other BEVs. So I guess its reputation isn't that badly tarnished.

I know its hard for folks outside of California or CARB states to relate to the rest of us in the EV desert. Where I am we don't have many choices. The only three choices for BEV here are LEAF, Tesla and i3. The i3 is significantly more expensive for a similar or slightly smaller car so its no surprise its not selling as well.

Model S is managing to outsell the LEAF despite being 2-3x the price.

Although the Volt doesn't work for me, it seems that GM has treated its customers better and the car, although much more complex, has not had the battery degradation issues that plague the LEAF, especially pre-2013 LEAFs.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I know its hard for folks outside of California or CARB states to relate to the rest of us in the EV desert. Where I am we don't have many choices. The only three choices for BEV here are LEAF, Tesla and i3. The i3 is significantly more expensive for a similar or slightly smaller car so its no surprise its not selling as well.

Model S is managing to outsell the LEAF despite being 2-3x the price.

Although the Volt doesn't work for me, it seems that GM has treated its customers better and the car, although much more complex, has not had the battery degradation issues that plague the LEAF, especially pre-2013 LEAFs.

not bashing the Volt because its still a BIG step forward and works very well for a lot of people I know but how do we know what the degradation level of the Volt is? this is an honest question because I don't keep up on them but in the past there was so much unused capacity, it was not really possible to tell what was going on. In the LEAF where its nearly all used, there is no place to hide so is the Volt's batteries holding up that well or are we simply not seeing the whole picture?

 

[knightmb]

not bashing the Volt because its still a BIG step forward and works very well for a lot of people I know but how do we know what the degradation level of the Volt is? this is an honest question because I don't keep up on them but in the past there was so much unused capacity, it was not really possible to tell what was going on. In the LEAF where its nearly all used, there is no place to hide so is the Volt's batteries holding up that well or are we simply not seeing the whole picture?

The Volt batteries, from what I understand, are never fully depleted or fully charged. So it sits in the middle of the charge range it's whole life. For all intents and purposes, the Volt is a gas powered vehicle with some batteries for electric only driving. You can charge up the batteries from the grid, you can use the gas to charge it up (least efficient way to use gas, but by design), or you can deplete the batteries and just run all gas for a trip instead. If you press the battery power of the Volt hard enough you can kick in the gas engine to provide additional power.

Since the batteries are never worked as hard as a Leaf, I would expect them to last longer. So while it is great that the batteries do last a long time in a Volt, at the same time it is not really an engineering accomplishment in my opinion. Something that is used more heavily doesn't last as long as the same thing used lightly is not really a surprise.

Also, is there even something close to LeafSpy for a Volt (VoltSpy?) that would allow someone to actually see what battery data is available. Without it, it would all be pie in the sky just to guess what battery degradation a Volt has exactly?

 

[kubel]

If you press the battery power of the Volt hard enough you can kick in the gas engine to provide additional power.

Nope. The ICE on the Volt will not automatically turn on unless:

1) You run out of battery power.
2) The car is running maintenance mode to burn off old gas.
3) The engine runs due to cold temperature.

You can manually kick on the ICE by:

1) Opening the hood with the car running.
2) Pressing hold or mountain mode.

Volt is pretty much a full-electric-performance hybrid.

 

[knightmb]

If you press the battery power of the Volt hard enough you can kick in the gas engine to provide additional power.

Nope. The ICE on the Volt will not automatically turn on unless:

1) You run out of battery power.
2) The car is running maintenance mode to burn off old gas.
3) The engine runs due to cold temperature.

You can manually kick on the ICE by:

1) Opening the hood with the car running.
2) Pressing hold or mountain mode.

Volt is pretty much a full-electric-performance hybrid.

Oh, guess those sales people at the dealership need better info. :?

 

[Jeffoff]

Curious as to what they meant about not having "maintenance done recently?"

What did they want done?
Is it a valid reason to deny Warranty?

That as one of the statements the leaf Dept. gave me, after I asked them to reconsider my situation. I has no validity as a reason to deny at all, but they still did say it. They simply do not care to do the right thing. And they don't care what impact treating customers unfairly. So I don't care what happens to Nissan either. They will get theirs in due time. I don't know if you saw ny of my other posts, but I then brought this to the BBB, and then in a couple days nissan offered to pay half cost of battery. i denied that option and requested arbitration. A few days later Nissan and BBB on their own, decided that Nissan cant be taken to Arbitration on a battery issue that already has been settled! I disagreed with BBB, but did not want to now fight BBB and Nissan so I accepted the 50% settlement, an I will sue them for the rest. then I will bad mouth this chicken Sh** company for the rest of my life. I hate them for being so dishonest and unfair. If I could convince 1 person per week to not buy a Nissan, I will be happy.

 

[Jedlacks]

Curious as to what they meant about not having "maintenance done recently?"

What did they want done?
Is it a valid reason to deny Warranty?

I will sue them for the rest.

I can assure you that Nissan has more lawyers than you lawyer has clients. The only person that will come out on top is the lawyer you hire because he will want his money at the end of the day.

With all the rants that have taken place on this thread, not many have acknowledged that most car companies will deny a claim if a mechanic who is not ASE certified rotates your tires your warranty can be voided. If you change your own oil in an ICE it can also void your warranty. If you do not bring your car in according to the schedule in the owners manual, your warranty can also be voided.

Mod note: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act

 

[Firetruck41]

With all the rants that have taken place on this thread, not many have acknowledged that most car companies will deny a claim if a mechanic who is not ASE certified rotates your tires your warranty can be voided. If you change your own oil in an ICE it can also void your warranty. If you do not bring your car in according to the schedule in the owners manual, your warranty can also be voided.

This is not true at all, in fact it is patently false. It is illegal for the vehicle manufacturer to do that.

There is absolutely no requirement that the maintenance must be done by a dealer or "certified mechanic". Magnusson-Moss Act ensures that.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

 

[Jedlacks]

With all the rants that have taken place on this thread, not many have acknowledged that most car companies will deny a claim if a mechanic who is not ASE certified rotates your tires your warranty can be voided. If you change your own oil in an ICE it can also void your warranty. If you do not bring your car in according to the schedule in the owners manual, your warranty can also be voided.

This is not true at all, in fact it is patently false. It is illegal for the vehicle manufacturer to do that.

There is absolutely no requirement that the maintenance must be done by a dealer or "certified mechanic". Magnusson-Moss Act ensures that.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

If you read the law you would have understood that it says the manufacturer cannot arbitrarily void a warranty, but they have to prove that the warranty was voided by some action. Using the wrong blend of oil to save money can void a warranty. In other words, if the car calls for synthetic and you put in the Walmart special... If you don't have your car serviced can void your warranty. If you add a trailer hitch to the back of the Leaf, that also can void your warranty.

A manufacturer can easily prove that the torque on a lug nut was incorrect and that caused your rotors to warp. That is why they cannot be compelled to give you a full set of brakes because you quoted a law to them. The OP did not have his car checked at the dealer (at least according to him) on a periodic basis, so that also will lead them to claim that proper precaution was not taken. Just like buying a car and never changing the oil.

I know I don't live in lollipop land, but hey, if you say that the manufacturer cannot void a warranty because of a 1970s act in Congress, then you must be right. Because back then and now nobody understood the laws.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Your original claim was quite a bit more general than what you just wrote above.

 

[Firetruck41]

With all the rants that have taken place on this thread, not many have acknowledged that most car companies will deny a claim if a mechanic who is not ASE certified rotates your tires your warranty can be voided. If you change your own oil in an ICE it can also void your warranty. If you do not bring your car in according to the schedule in the owners manual, your warranty can also be voided.

This is not true at all, in fact it is patently false. It is illegal for the vehicle manufacturer to do that.

There is absolutely no requirement that the maintenance must be done by a dealer or "certified mechanic". Magnusson-Moss Act ensures that.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

If you read the law you would have understood that it says the manufacturer cannot arbitrarily void a warranty, but they have to prove that the warranty was voided by some action. Using the wrong blend of oil to save money can void a warranty. In other words, if the car calls for synthetic and you put in the Walmart special... If you don't have your car serviced can void your warranty. If you add a trailer hitch to the back of the Leaf, that also can void your warranty.

A manufacturer can easily prove that the torque on a lug nut was incorrect and that caused your rotors to warp. That is why they cannot be compelled to give you a full set of brakes because you quoted a law to them. The OP did not have his car checked at the dealer (at least according to him) on a periodic basis, so that also will lead them to claim that proper precaution was not taken. Just like buying a car and never changing the oil.

I know I don't live in lollipop land, but hey, if you say that the manufacturer cannot void a warranty because of a 1970s act in Congress, then you must be right. Because back then and now nobody understood the laws.

I see you are trying to make me look dumb, however what I wrote in response to your false claims is true. And yes, I am right about the 1970s act of congress that is common knowledge and understood among many auto enthusiasts, being in force today. A dealer does not have to do anything because I quote a law to them, but that might let them know I won't be bamboozled. It is actually illegal for them to deny a claim arbitrarily and they have some financial penalty/liabilty that could be leveraged against them. Just because you have been lied to or bullied by the dealer into wasting thousands of dollars on their services, doesn't mean you are actually required to do so.

Yes, you are correct that they can not deny warranty arbitrarily. They can not easily prove that a lugnut caused a rotor to warp (have you ever seen the tech measure the torque on your lug nuts with a torque measuring tool prior to removing the wheel to look at the rotor), they would also have to prove they did not do it the last time you were there, they would have to prove that a XX over torqued bolt caused the condition, etc. They probably wouldn't have to give you new brakes, because they are probably excluded from the warranty as a consumable type part anyway, but that is unrelated.

They can not arbitrarily deny warranty, with the other example you gave either, a trailer hitch doesn;t mean anything has ever been towed, could be for a bike rack, even if you have towed, whatever warranty claim would have to be proven to be caused by the trailer hitch... good luck with that. They have to prove that a specific thing you did caused the failure that you are making a claim on, and if they do prove it, it does not invalidate further unrelated warranty claims. Basically, there is no such thing as "voiding the warranty". They can deny a claim if they can prove the causation was use case not covered, or something caused by negligence, etc. But they would have to do it for every claim.

Here's some clarifying language from the FTC, that specifically says some of the claims you are making, if repeated by a dealer would be illegal and considered deceptive practices:

No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of
only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty
service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge
under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section
102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty
is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all
replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the
service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two
ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying
arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a
written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized”
articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting
reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s
purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is
similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an
authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where
the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does
not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused
by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying
liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused

 

[TomT]

So, an acquaintance has a 2012 that just lost its 4th bar at 60, 287 miles... Nissan denied the claim even though there is definitive proof and evidence that the odometer on the Leaf is fast and she was actually well within the mileage limit... They claim that displayed mileage is what counts and that actual mileage is irrelevant...

I'm so glad that I am off the Nissan bus!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

With all the rants that have taken place on this thread, not many have acknowledged that most car companies will deny a claim if a mechanic who is not ASE certified rotates your tires your warranty can be voided. If you change your own oil in an ICE it can also void your warranty. If you do not bring your car in according to the schedule in the owners manual, your warranty can also be voided.

This is not true at all, in fact it is patently false. It is illegal for the vehicle manufacturer to do that.

There is absolutely no requirement that the maintenance must be done by a dealer or "certified mechanic". Magnusson-Moss Act ensures that.

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

If you read the law you would have understood that it says the manufacturer cannot arbitrarily void a warranty, but they have to prove that the warranty was voided by some action. Using the wrong blend of oil to save money can void a warranty. In other words, if the car calls for synthetic and you put in the Walmart special... If you don't have your car serviced can void your warranty. If you add a trailer hitch to the back of the Leaf, that also can void your warranty.

A manufacturer can easily prove that the torque on a lug nut was incorrect and that caused your rotors to warp. That is why they cannot be compelled to give you a full set of brakes because you quoted a law to them. The OP did not have his car checked at the dealer (at least according to him) on a periodic basis, so that also will lead them to claim that proper precaution was not taken. Just like buying a car and never changing the oil.

I know I don't live in lollipop land, but hey, if you say that the manufacturer cannot void a warranty because of a 1970s act in Congress, then you must be right. Because back then and now nobody understood the laws.

nice explanation. you can now delete your previous statement now that you have clarified the obvious

 

[sub3marathonman]

Just because you have been lied to or bullied by the dealer into wasting thousands of dollars on their services, doesn't mean you are actually required to do so.

A bit off topic example, classic dealership though.

I was away at college. My mom, with my grandma, took her '72 Dodge Dart to the dealer for a "free" oil change. She calls me up about 7 p.m. crying and said the dealer won't let her drive the car off the lot because the brakes are shot and it is completely unsafe to drive, and it will be about $500 or so to fix it. I almost started laughing, because I had just worked on the brakes and redid everything including turning the drums just a month or so prior. So I asked her if the car stopped when she pulled into the dealership. She said it did. I said then it doesn't need anything fixed, and just drive away with it. The dealership still tried to bully her into paying over $100 for "services" they'd done in addition to the "free" oil change. She told them, "What do you think, I carry around over $100 all the time?" She told them to give her the keys or she'd be calling the police. She drove away, obviously able to stop, and drove the car for years, with me taking over then for years more after that.

 

[sub3marathonman]

So, an acquaintance has a 2012 that just lost its 4th bar at 60, 287 miles... Nissan denied the claim even though there is definitive proof and evidence that the odometer on the Leaf is fast and she was actually well within the mileage limit... They claim that displayed mileage is what counts and that actual mileage is irrelevant...

I'm so glad that I am off the Nissan bus!

This is something I'd be very interested in, as I agree that 60,287 odometer indicated miles is most likely less than 60,000 actual miles, as it would require an odometer accuracy greater than 0.5%.

I'm not a lawyer, but if somebody were to pursue this I would think they'd have to bring their LEAF somewhere to have the odometer accuracy officially certified.