Open Letter from Nissan, September 22, 2012

[thankyouOB]

at some point, in the not to distant future -- -1-2 years at the very most -- there will be some good number of folks who have a car in which they cannot do their commute.
they will want a new battery installed so they can keep using the car, or they will want to sell it. i dont think the trade or sale price of a degraded-batter vehicle will be attractive.
My hopes are on a battery with install at a price below 7-8k.
(that would still be a very expensive engine job.)

I dont see the utility of a price based on at the end of warranty, chelsea, as the warranty does NOT cover loss of range.
perhaps, you can explain why that idea serves.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I suspect the reason Nissan doesn't like to give out a price quote for a new battery pack is because it'll probably just shock the heck out of everybody for being exorbitantly high.

I'm sure that's part of it- none of the automakers really want to give out prices. Sometimes they become public first through a body shop who had to buy one after a wreck, but that would still be today's price and only partially useful. Better than nothing, but would absolutely scare potential buyers away. You really need a projected price for when you might actually have to buy a new pack (or at a few different milestones, e.g. 3,5,8 years from time of purchase). And that's something no one in the industry wants to commit to, especially this early.

If you guys could get enough clarification around the warranty to be comfortable with it, how would you feel about a price (or a "not to exceed") at the end of the warranty term? If not, what's the preferred alternative?

Ultimately, I'd like to see extended battery warranty or insurance options, which would also help make dealers happier since they're another revenue stream for them.

Unless you are talking about rewriting the warranty to have some sort of capacity coverage, which it doesn't have now, I don't see that the "end of warranty term" is a useful parameter.

I'd certainly like to see an actual capacity warranty (much more important than an extended warranty under the current terms that exclude "gradual" capacity losses). But, as others have said, what is also needed are some hard numbers for battery pack replacement. Either an actual price (installed) or "not to exceed" would be fine. That way we could calculate TCO, a number that isn't remotely possible to come up with now, except for lessees.

Right now the "end of warranty term" for capacity losses is the day we drive our cars off the dealers' lots.


Edit: I am likely not going to face the early capacity losses experienced by those in very hot weather areas, so a capacity warranty probably wouldn't affect me directly. My hope is to keep my LEAF for many years and replace the battery pack as needed. My concern is that the problems experienced by those in hot weather areas will affect resale values, should I ever want to trade up to a newer model or, worse, kill the "LEAF experiment" entirely and damage the whole EV movement. Not to mention the simple idea of fairness to the hot weather folks.

 

[KJD]

If you guys could get enough clarification around the warranty to be comfortable with it, how would you feel about a price (or a "not to exceed") at the end of the warranty term?

For me that would be good enough.

If the pack will last 5 years with 20% loss and 10 years with 30% loss, I will be a happy Nissan customer. At this point in time, I am not sure that is a realistic expectation and that is why I am concerned with the replacement cost.

The LEAF is my first Nissan product. How Nissan handles this battery problem for the AZ people will determine if I buy another LEAF or not.

I really really want this car to succeed. However Nissan is making it hard to be a loyal customer.

 

[DaveEV]

Also needed is a public price for a replacement battery pack, and some realistic warranty. The point to these is to reduce the number of people that feel the need to take the "guaranteed buyback".

Agreed, and I've reiterated these points directly to Nissan.

One more thing that's needed: How capacity and range will degrade over time with various usage patterns and climates. Obviously 80% at 5 years and 70% at 10 years doesn't cut it as a general guideline knowing that where you live and how much you drive (and how you charge, etc) could cut in half or double those numbers. Knowing the cost of the pack doesn't help unless one can estimate how long it will be before they need a replacement to continue to maintain desired range/capacity.

 

[wiltingleaf]

I hope this advisory board can help make the LEAF program and technology a success. Through all of my issues, I really want this program to succeed. For an entire year I LOVED my car, and am very sad at the way I feel now. Chelsea Sexton, I for one will help you in any way I can if it means a successful mass-market EV comes out at some point. If you'd like to come down to Phoenix and drive one of these cars that Nissan says operates within normal parameters, I'll help buy your plane ticket, just PM me if you'd like to come down into the trenches with us fighting the good fight.

I completely agree with azdre on this. I really loved my LEAF for the first year and told everyone how much I loved it. I wish there could be a better way to work with our community to come up with a solution instead of just telling us "performing as designed".

 

[kolmstead]

Those who haven't seen it yet need to read TickTock's message, about halfway down page 392 of the Early Capacity Losses thread. TickTock gave just a brief summary today. He sat down with a Nissan engineer yesterday and saw real data. It was not good news.

 

[DaveEV]

I'm sure that's part of it- none of the automakers really want to give out prices. Sometimes they become public first through a body shop who had to buy one after a wreck, but that would still be today's price and only partially useful. Better than nothing, but would absolutely scare potential buyers away. You really need a projected price for when you might actually have to buy a new pack (or at a few different milestones, e.g. 3,5,8 years from time of purchase). And that's something no one in the industry wants to commit to, especially this early.

At a minimum one needs to know today's price. Hopefully Nissan would update the price periodically as the cost declines. Frankly, I don't expect the cost of the current pack to decline all that much. Typically, the cost comes down because of new chemistries and other enhancements - so unless Nissan plants on making those enhanced packs available in old LEAFs (which I highly doubt based on historical actions but dream of) the cost isn't going to change all that much. Some of the cost will come down because of economies of scale - but presumably Nissan will be making new types of batteries for new cars that aren't possible to retrofit to an old car like the LEAF.

If you guys could get enough clarification around the warranty to be comfortable with it, how would you feel about a price (or a "not to exceed") at the end of the warranty term? If not, what's the preferred alternative?

Ultimately, I'd like to see extended battery warranty or insurance options, which would also help make dealers happier since they're another revenue stream for them.

As a customer - I know that Tesla had the option of an up-front replacement of the Roadster pack that could be exercised at a later date - I think it was around $12k. The LEAF with less than half the capacity would have to be proportionally less. But even then - people are going to balk at paying $5k up front for a replacement battery. I don't think many people took Telsa up on that offer.

From a technical perspective - we all know how it's possible to abuse the battery pack - whether it's by leaving it 100% charged, or multiple QCs / day. Providing a warranty (or even pricing insurance) while accounting for those types of abuse is going to be very difficult unless you can account for that type of behavior. From this perspective, I absolutely agree that as long as the pack's capacity degrades "gradually", the pack is performing as expected.

As I've said before - the key is to defining "gradual" - and give it some legs. The problem is that it is very difficult to do.

Look at all the specifics in there which might affect life - 100% vs 80% charging, what time you start charging, how often you QC, whether you typically accelerate at 20kW, 40kW, or 80kW, etc.

Really, I think that one would have to drive a car under typical conditions and then upload a data-log into a simulator which takes all those factors into account. Even then you have the huge issue of variance due to ambient temperatures. Without some sort of thermal management, there is simply going to be huge variances in calendar life (and thus "gradual") depending on those temps - you can't argue with physics.

 

[evchels]

I dont see the utility of a price based on at the end of warranty, chelsea, as the warranty does NOT cover loss of range.
perhaps, you can explain why that idea serves.

It may not be useful, which is why I asked. But I prefaced the suggestion with the contingent that enough warranty specificity be established that you guys are generally comfortable with it- which I'd imagine would have to include some range or capacity floor under which degradation would be covered.

This may be another area in which different approaches for the 2011/12 vs future buyers is appropriate, I'm not sure. I understand the desire by current drivers for a near-term price as part of the resolution of the capacity issue, even if a "safety net" is in place. But I'm also thinking about 2013 on, and how best to present this type of information to new buyers so that they are both reasonably informed but not unnecessarily scared away. Assume for now that any "premature" degradation issues won't be a factor, the appropriate warranty is in place, and that we can get Nissan to set more realistic expectations for buyers on range and the various things that impact it- including normal degradation - from the start. There wouldn't be many reasons that someone would need to replace a pack before the warranty expires, and that's the price new buyers are most interested in based on the questions I get. Why scare them (and invite the negative press) with today's price?

 

[myleaf]

I suspect the reason Nissan doesn't like to give out a price quote for a new battery pack is because it'll probably just shock the heck out of everybody for being exorbitantly high.

I'm sure that's part of it- none of the automakers really want to give out prices. Sometimes they become public first through a body shop who had to buy one after a wreck, but that would still be today's price and only partially useful. Better than nothing, but would absolutely scare potential buyers away. You really need a projected price for when you might actually have to buy a new pack (or at a few different milestones, e.g. 3,5,8 years from time of purchase). And that's something no one in the industry wants to commit to, especially this early.

If you guys could get enough clarification around the warranty to be comfortable with it, how would you feel about a price (or a "not to exceed") at the end of the warranty term? If not, what's the preferred alternative?

Ultimately, I'd like to see extended battery warranty or insurance options, which would also help make dealers happier since they're another revenue stream for them.

I feel Nissan should disclose the replacement cost of a battery. Someone with "money to burn" that loves the Leaf (but is not happy with it's current range), should be able to walk into a Nissan dealership and order a battery replacement.

 

[SanDust]

So, with a slight of hand, 80% in five years is re-indexed to 76% at five years, and now it all makes sense.

To be perfectly fair to Nissan, what it said was that the battery would degrade 20% over ten years, closer to 30% if the owner relied on DC fast charging for a daily charge. The ten years --> five years transform seems worse than the 20% --> 25% transform.

 

[09Bamb00]

we'll all have to purchase golf carts - they plug in, get a 20 mile radius and have a top speed of maybe 25.

 

[Pipcecil]

Actually I support the idea from evchels. I think of it as an extended warranty, BUT really more inclusive. On car warranties I kindof just balk and leave alone, but on some larger purchases when known issues arrives (like a fridge) sometimes its in your worth while to purchase.

Today, knowing what i know now and Nissan was honest and said, "well if you do a lot more driving than normal [based on the maintanence schedule of 15,000 - don't pull something like normal is 7k a year] or use QC frequently or live in a hot climate [dealerships would know if they are in this hot area] then you should buy this battery capacity warranty." hell I would shell out that money hand-over fist.

You're right, the warranty serves as revenue for the dealerships, it gives piece of mind to people, and for those affected it can be a source of replacement. I think a warranty of capacity at certain years/miles AND range loss over years/miles. The mileage and or capacity can be low if they fell like it, but it needs to be spelled out and detailed such as 85% capacity for a complete battery (24 kWh) or 85% of usable battery (~21 kWh) this NEEDS to be clarified as well.

 

[WendyF70]

Well when they worry about why they haven't been able to make their sales quota for the year, the answer is right here. People are nervous enough about the range but hearing that the range is lower in extremes of heat and cold, and that the life of the battery will decrease @20%, no one will buy. Other companies are coming out with electric versions so there's definitely a market. This is the reason my husband and I leased the car for 3 years. We've had for more than a year. I can confirm that where I live and where I need to commute (66 miles) round trip with some hills, that in the colder weather, I cannot not make this trip w/o a charge. Hopefully an upgraded battery will be offered but haven't a clue how much that will cost.

 

[GRA]

Agreed, and I've reiterated these points directly to Nissan.

that is a big bravo from me, particularly for the battery replacement WITH install* price.

*variations for removal and replace in an accident have ranged from 1k to 3.3k, as reported on this forum.
nissan needs to set a standard price for this. i see dealer gouging.

+1. Nor can anyone calculate an accurate TCO without this info.

 

[Boomer23]

If Nissan really has as much battery life projection data as TickTock says they showed him this week, and if they are using different definitions of annual driving mileage in different US cities, this information clearly needs to be available to prospective buyers prior to sale. Vague statements, identical throughout the nation, that you can expect battery capacity to be a certain percentage after a certain number of years are clearly misleading if Nissan fails to state that A) There are regional differences, B) By "years" Nissan means X driving miles in Phoenix and Y in Seattle, and C) These numbers are statistical medians, not quantities that any given buyer should expect.

I've been generally supportive of Nissan in this whole thing because I believe that they deserve lots of props for going all-in on the first mass market BEV and I feel that as early adopters, we should expect some rough edges. But as it is becoming clear that Nissan is using more and more undisclosed caveats to explain their case that this is normal, I am more persuaded that they knew more than they shared with buyers and that they need to step up with extraordinary support for buyers who were misled.

I'm of the opinion that Nissan can yet save the day, both for the LEAF and for the success of EVs in general, by providing support plans that amaze and delight affected buyers in hot climates and by providing sufficiently bulletproof warranties that completely calm the worriers in other regions and allay fears of resale value implosion.

Information available to new buyers would include full disclosure of Nissan's battery capacity degradation projection data and the annual mileage expected specific for the region of the sale. For the affected owners, I would expect the following steps to fit my definition of "amaze and delight": Offer the option to sell back the cars to Nissan at prices equal to the lease residual values; Offer five year unlimited battery pack replacement when the useful range on affected LEAFs charged to 100% drops to 60 miles (or some other predetermined limit) at the first LBW, with no penalty to the owner for charging to 100% regularly, regardless of region or current odometer mileage ("affected owners" to be defined in the same way); To demonstrate support and appreciation for Nissan's current customer base of early adopters: If new battery chemistry is available for model years 2013 through 2016 that is significantly more long lasting or greater in driving range by 20% (or other figure), provide an upgrade path for current owners either by offering the new battery as a retrofit, or if not technically feasible, offer to buy back affected early cars (same definition of "affected" as above) at very favorable above-resale market values, as trade on the new LEAF (one time only).

EDIT: I forgot to add that current lessees whose driving range is affected same as defined above would have access to the same remedies outlined above for purchasers, or would be able to return the car to Nissan for no early lease termination penalty.

In my opinion, Nissan still has an opportunity to save the day here, and steps like these would go a long way toward restoring lost trust and allaying the fears of previously enthusiastic but currently unaffected customers in cooler regions. Half measures, paying off the few and having them sign NDAs, hiding behind "this is normal and expected" fall completely flat for the broad base of LEAF owners. Since early adopters are the most enthusiastic about EVs and are Nissan's best ambassadors to the future EV buying public, weaseling out with the usual half measures will do more harm than good to the company's plans in the US, both for EVs and for Nissan's core market.

 

[palmermd]

+1 Boomer. Very nice post.

 

[gaswalla]

If Nissan really has as much battery life projection data as TickTock says they showed him this week, and if they are using different definitions of annual driving mileage in different US cities, this information clearly needs to be available to prospective buyers prior to sale. Vague statements, identical throughout the nation, that you can expect battery capacity to be a certain percentage after a certain number of years are clearly misleading if Nissan fails to state that A) There are regional differences, B) By "years" Nissan means X driving miles in Phoenix and Y in Seattle, and C) These numbers are statistical medians, not quantities that any given buyer should expect.

I've been generally supportive of Nissan in this whole thing because I believe that they deserve lots of props for going all-in on the first mass market BEV and I feel that as early adopters, we should expect some rough edges. But as it is becoming clear that Nissan is using more and more undisclosed caveats to explain their case that this is normal, I am more persuaded that they knew more than they shared with buyers and that they need to step up with extraordinary support for buyers who were misled.

I'm of the opinion that Nissan can yet save the day, both for the LEAF and for the success of EVs in general, by providing support plans that amaze and delight affected buyers in hot climates and by providing sufficiently bulletproof warranties that completely calm the worriers in other regions and allay fears of resale value implosion.

Information available to new buyers would include full disclosure of Nissan's battery capacity degradation projection data and the annual mileage expected specific for the region of the sale. For the affected owners, I would expect the following steps to fit my definition of "amaze and delight": Offer the option to sell back the cars to Nissan at prices equal to the lease residual values; Offer five year unlimited battery pack replacement when the useful range on affected LEAFs charged to 100% drops to 60 miles (or some other predetermined limit) at the first LBW, with no penalty to the owner for charging to 100% regularly, regardless of region or current odometer mileage ("affected owners" to be defined in the same way); To demonstrate support and appreciation for Nissan's current customer base of early adopters: If new battery chemistry is available for model years 2013 through 2016 that is significantly more long lasting or greater in driving range by 20% (or other figure), provide an upgrade path for current owners either by offering the new battery as a retrofit, or if not technically feasible, offer to buy back affected early cars (same definition of "affected" as above) at very favorable above-resale market values, as trade on the new LEAF (one time only).

In my opinion, Nissan still has an opportunity to save the day here, and steps like these would go a long way toward restoring lost trust and allaying the fears of previously enthusiastic but currently unaffected customers in cooler regions. Half measures, paying off the few and having them sign NDAs, hiding behind "this is normal and expected" fall completely flat for the broad base of LEAF owners. Since early adopters are the most enthusiastic about EVs and are Nissan's best ambassadors to the future EV buying public, weaseling out with the usual half measures will do more harm than good to the company's plans in the US, both for EVs and for Nissan's core market.

Great points!! The need to support the resale value seems to be underappreciated - the resale value is currently in a freefall. No one will want a car that is worth near zero at 50k miles - that will end up affecting Nissan and EV's in general for long, long time. On the other hand, if Nissan steps in, and sets a floor for resale values, it props up the whole EV industry and will eventually be very beneficial to Nissan in the long run (not sure if Nissan has long-range planning though - no pun intended)

 

[JRP3]

presumably Nissan will be making new types of batteries for new cars that aren't possible to retrofit to an old car like the LEAF.

From the perspective of someone who has retrofit an old ICE with an electric drivetrain I disagree A newer, better battery chemistry should be quite easy to retrofit into an older EV. In fact there is no reason the new pack can't fit where the old pack was and provide longer range and longer life span than the original. If Nissan won't do it probably others will.

 

[theaveng]

"Stretching" a battery by filling it to 100% is not like blowing-up a balloon. When you go to 100% it causes minute damage to the internal chemicals. This damage is small and not noticeable, but it does accumulate over time until the battery can no longer hold as much energy.

The same thing happens when a battery is drained to empty (minute damage internally). Toyota has found that keeping a battery around 70% is the best state. It's why their batteries are considered lifetime installs & should last as long as the engine.

 

[gmlawrence]

can we please eliminate the troll, or send him back to the fantasy land he claims to be from?
he is spamming numerous posts with his ideological BS.

I was thinking the same exact thing