Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[Jay]

Yes, I just see this doing anything but delaying the inevitable. Next summer in Phoenix, there will be dozens and dozens of multi-bar loser LEAFs. Just saying everything is normal and "average" ain't gunna cut it.

I'm with you on this one Tony, this is just delaying the inevitable a little longer. Basically the summer is over, so everything is going to normalize on the losses for the next 9 months or so. Nissan knows this as well.

Obviously since we published out the full range test from you and many others here, we had to comment on Perry/Nissan's statement. But I think the nutshell is that Nissan is saying 'its mostly about the high mileage because all the cars we tested had 19,000 or more miles' and therefore we still think 76% after 5 years/60K in Phoenix is going to happen.

The problem of course is that Nissan handpicked all those high mileage cars to test, rather than a full sample size of the cars. From my understanding there is about 150 cars now that have lost a bar in the US, and 47 of those have lost at least one bar AND are under Nissan's 1,040 miles per month (12,500/year) threshold.

Here is the story if anyone wants to check it out:
http://insideevs.com/nissan-says-capacity-loss-issues-is-due-to-high-mileage-phoenix-cars-expected-to-retain-76/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think next summer when you have dozens of LEAFs with 3-4 bars gone, and quite likely some with 5 or 6, this is going to blow up again...that is unless Nissan eventually decides to get ahead of it.

Nissan could still very well be right, and Phoeonix owners average 76% retention at 5years/60K, however that really isn't the problem anymore. The problem is it is a PR nightmare, and Nissan is viewed as sidestepping and being slow to respond. The cost to make it right in Phoenix/south is probably a lot cheaper than having this story continually repeat itself.

EDIT: updated with stats, lol

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony Williams is convinced that by demonstrating a new car will cover 84 miles at 4.0 miles/kw, this settles the arguments about what the baseline expectation for all cars shall be. However, in the most objective frame of mind, it is statistically insignificant and proves nothing. I do not doubt that a single car, or set of cars, will be capable of achieving this range.

No, I don't believe that. I believe it will complete my study as planned. Folks like Mark will pop in to spew fact challenged comments, and Ed just seems to want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But, beyond that, this is pretty much the DEMONSTRATION that was planned. Not a science experiment.

Im happy to provide data, but I actually do have other things to do each day (I know that might shock a few). When I get around to it, I have a number of edits and corrections to incorporate into the source document. This doesn't solve anything for the Eds and Marks of the world; it merely fuels more froth.

Nothing to be gained except my own desire for completeness and accuracy.

 

[ALLWATZ]

Clearly they have a heat issue, but they are not willing to admit to it just yet and are still deflecting the conversation by saying its due to high mileage.

Those projections, based on battery testing during development of the Leaf, assume the car covers 12,500 miles a year, in climates largely similar to those of Los Angeles (50 to 90 degrees F, with an average temperature of 68 or 70 degrees).

They are saying we should not have the car over 90F and should average 69F. This sort of implies the excess heat in AZ is a problem but they do not say it outright.

Clearly mileage is not the determining factor in the loss of capacity because we have cars with double the mileage that the AZ cars have (TaylorSF) and have almost no loss of capacity, but this car is in the temperature range that they used in their projections quoted above. DaveinOly has similar mileage to the ones Nissan is claiming have excess mileage causing the degradation and his car shows very little loss of capacity.

Nissan is still deflecting attention and diverting from the real problem.

+1 But I thought Nissan did test in Arizona before release and did state that there would be no heat problems in the US.
P.S. Why do I get a flame reference from derkraut and not you?

 

[palmermd]

P.S. Why do I get a flame reference from derkraut and not you?

I'm confused...what does flame reference mean?

 

[WetEV]

When LEAF lessees in Phoenix are having to turn in their cars before even HALF of their lease period is over, it seems clear to me that Nissan should not still be offering them for sale there.

I don't get why this is clear. If a replacement pack is $5000, and if the expected life of a battery pack is 35,000 miles in AZ, the cost per mile isn't unreasonable. Why should Nissan not sell the Leaf in AZ?

Would someone explain?

 

[ALLWATZ]

P.S. Why do I get a flame reference from derkraut and not you?

I'm confused...what does flame reference mean?

Flame means that you are defaming/slandering/putting down something. In this case, the company (Nissan).

 

[foobert]

If a replacement pack is $5000

Where does this number come from?

 

[surfingslovak]

I don't get why this is clear. If a replacement pack is $5000, and if the expected life of a battery pack is 35,000 miles in AZ, the cost per mile isn't unreasonable. Why should Nissan not sell the Leaf in AZ?

Would someone explain?

Nissan has never disclosed what a replacement pack would cost, and this figure is based on hearsay. Likewise, Nissan has never disclosed what the minimum usable capacity of a new Leaf should be, and in what manner it would decline over time. Climatic influences were never called out, and the disclaimer and the warranty material presented to the buyers looked exactly the same in all locales.

I must say that in this light Larsen's article, its content, its timing and the lack of response to factual problems with it, would make it appear that he wrote it on Nissan's request and with their help. I continue to have objections to both what this company says and how it's done. Perhaps the rest of the buying public thinks and reacts differently, but to me, it looks like they need to work on their public relations first, and on their legal department second. Sometimes it appears as if they lived in a different universe, where other realities applied.

 

[edatoakrun]

Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079343_nissan-suggests-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-due-to-high-miles-exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WetEV

"Looking at 450 Nissan Leafs now in Arizona, Perry said, using data each car transmits to a Nissan control center, it appears that Leafs in Arizona are "on a glide path" to average battery capacity of 76 percent after five years rather than 80 percent."

Taking this at face value, Nissan needs to notice that the owner satisfaction or dissatisfaction isn't based on the average loss, but on the loss in that owner's car. The old joke about "Bill Gates walking into a bar and as the average wealth of the bar patrons is then over a billion dollars, the bar owner doubles the drink prices" probably applies somehow...

The statement "...Perry said, using data each car transmits to a Nissan control center, it appears that Leafs in Arizona are "on a glide path" to average battery capacity of 76 percent after five years rather than 80 percent." is the most important news from this article, IMO.

Nissan has not published the data to back it up, of course, but it is entirely plausible, and not contradicted by the rather blurry phoenix range test results, or any other source.

The problem with demanding that Nissan bring every LEAF driver's range and capacity over time, up to "average", is that it will necessarily involve Nissan assessing higher costs to those who take better care of their batteries, to compensate those who choose to ignore the warnings they were given about the practices that would cause early capacity loss.

The fact that Nissan has acknowledged slightly greater capacity loss than even it estimated, suggests that those who feel they their own capacity loss was greater than they were warned to expect, might find Nissan willing to work with them to find reasonable accommodation.

It sounds like the Four-bar loser from the test was allowed to terminate the lease at terms better than he/she originally contracted to. I'd suggest anyone else who who thinks high temperatures have led to premature capacity loss wants to modify the terms of their original lease or sale contract might now find Nissan willing to work with them, to give reasonable satisfaction.

But I very much doubt Nissan will agree to give you a new battery every time you lose 10% to 15% of capacity, which seems to be what some disgruntled LEAF drivers have been demanding.

 

[palmermd]

P.S. Why do I get a flame reference from derkraut and not you?

I'm confused...what does flame reference mean?

Flame means that you are defaming/slandering/putting down something. In this case, the company (Nissan).

ok I understand what flame means, but why are you asking me this question...I'm still confused. You don't like my comment about Nissan?

 

[edatoakrun]

Tony Williams is convinced that by demonstrating a new car will cover 84 miles at 4.0 miles/kw, this settles the arguments about what the baseline expectation for all cars shall be. However, in the most objective frame of mind, it is statistically insignificant and proves nothing. I do not doubt that a single car, or set of cars, will be capable of achieving this range.

No, I don't believe that. I believe it will complete my study as planned...

Nothing to be gained except my own desire for completeness and accuracy.

In your future endeavors, you might consider it a better procedure to complete the study, before you announce your conclusions, Tony.

In this case, however, "foobert" is correct.

Even if you do find your "great white (or silver, red, blue or black) whale", the fact that a single LEAF can drive 84 miles under the same test conditions, would never correct the fundamental errors in your previously announced conclusions.

 

[azdre]

Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079343_nissan-suggests-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-due-to-high-miles-exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LIES!!! More LIES! If Nissan can't even divide number of miles by the number of months owned, how on earth can anyone expect them to design a car?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?

On the July 23rd, when our car was taken to Casa Grande for testing, it has 20,803 miles on the odometer. We purchased our car on March 21, 2011, 16 months prior to the test. This equates to 1300.1875 miles per month or 15,602.25 miles per year.

According to the Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false the average US driver, in our demographic drives 15,291 miles per year.

I have seen the milage and manufacture date for 3 of the other Casa Grande cars, and they are WELL below 19,000 per year.

 

[azdre]

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the test results. I never hoped to glean some final hallelujah moment to confirm that I in-fact cannot drive my car as far as I was able to last summer. But,,, I was happy to help. My car travelled 25 miles beyond LBW and still didn't hit turtle. That's a whole lotta range that shouldn't be used often. What that means, is it hit LBW at 46 miles, which (for a new car) should have happened somewhere between 60 and 76 miles (per the NTB). This means that I have lost between 20 and 25% of the number of miles I can drive my car. Last summer it took 6 energy bars to get back and forth to work, now it takes 9.

I have done this test many, many times over the last 6 months, in cool weather, hot weather, freeway, non-freeway. This is not imagined, speculation, conjecture, smoke and mirrors, blown out of proportion, or whatever else skeptics want to call it. This is real.

That difference between 46 and 60-76 miles is the difference between being able to pick the kids up from school on the way home. Swinging by the mall to by your wife an anniversary present, stopping by the hospital to visit a sick relative. LIFE! Real life worth living is the difference.

 

[derkraut]

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the test results. I never hoped to glean some final hallelujah moment to confirm that I in-fact cannot drive my car as far as I was able to last summer. But,,, I was happy to help. My car travelled 25 miles beyond LBW and still didn't hit turtle. That's a whole lotta range that shouldn't be used often. What that means, is it hit LBW at 46 miles, which (for a new car) should have happened somewhere between 60 and 76 miles (per the NTB). This means that I have lost between 20 and 25% of the number of miles I can drive my car. Last summer it took 6 energy bars to get back and forth to work, now it takes 9.

I have done this test many, many times over the last 6 months, in cool weather, hot weather, freeway, non-freeway. This is not imagined, speculation, conjecture, smoke and mirrors, blown out of proportion, or whatever else skeptics want to call it. This is real.

That difference between 46 and 60-76 miles is the difference between being able to pick the kids up from school on the way home. Swinging by the mall to by your wife an anniversary present, stopping by the hospital to visit a sick relative. LIFE! Real life worth living is the difference.

Very well stated, azdre.

 

[edatoakrun]

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the test results. I never hoped to glean some final hallelujah moment to confirm that I in-fact cannot drive my car as far as I was able to last summer. But,,, I was happy to help. My car travelled 25 miles beyond LBW and still didn't hit turtle. That's a whole lotta range that shouldn't be used often. What that means, is it hit LBW at 46 miles, which (for a new car) should have happened somewhere between 60 and 76 miles (per the NTB). This means that I have lost between 20 and 25% of the number of miles I can drive my car. Last summer it took 6 energy bars to get back and forth to work, now it takes 9.

I have done this test many, many times over the last 6 months, in cool weather, hot weather, freeway, non-freeway. This is not imagined, speculation, conjecture, smoke and mirrors, blown out of proportion, or whatever else skeptics want to call it. This is real.

That difference between 46 and 60-76 miles is the difference between being able to pick the kids up from school on the way home. Swinging by the mall to by your wife an anniversary present, stopping by the hospital to visit a sick relative. LIFE! Real life worth living is the difference.

Your car obviously has a significant problem with the range bar display and when the LBW is initiated (and apparently, a significantly smaller problem, with total range loss) which you have found greatly reduces it's utility, in your particular circumstances. I expect I would have just as big a problem as you do, if my LEAF was having the same problems. Speaking for myself, I think your complaint is entirely valid, as also seem to be those of several other of the Phoenix test cars, and probably, many more nationwide.

Have you escalated your complaint to the point that you have received Nissan's "best offer" to terminate the lease early, or to sell it back?

If so, I'd suggest you consider just how far away from your opinion of "fair", is Nissan's or your dealer's offer.

IMO, If this car is ruining your life, put your life first.

No product will ever give every buyer 100% satisfaction.

But I hope that Nissan's desire to sell a lot more LEAFs, might lead it to want to try to satisfy valid complaints, and yours sure sounds like one to me.

 

[azdre]

Your car obviously has a significant problem with the range bar display and when the LBW is initiated (and apparently, a significantly smaller problem, with total range loss) which you have found greatly reduces it's utility, in your particular circumstances. I expect I would have just as big a problem as you do, if my LEAF was having the same problems. Speaking for myself, I think your complaint is entirely valid, as also seem to be those of several other of the Phoenix test cars, and probably, many more nationwide.

Have you escalated your complaint to the point that you have received Nissan's "best offer" to terminate the lease early, or to sell it back?

If so, I'd suggest you consider just how far away from your opinion of "fair", is Nissan's or your dealer's offer.

IMO, If this car is ruining your life, put your life first.

No product will ever give every buyer 100% satisfaction.

But I hope that Nissan's desire to sell a lot more LEAFs, might lead it to want to try to satisfy valid complaints, and yours sure sounds like one to me.

Thank you, Ed... We have been working our way through the dispute resolution process as outlined in the warranty manual through all of this as we suggest everyone whose car is no longer useful do.

 

[ALLWATZ]

Your car obviously has a significant problem with the range bar display and when the LBW is initiated (and apparently, a significantly smaller problem, with total range loss) which you have found greatly reduces it's utility, in your particular circumstances. I expect I would have just as big a problem as you do, if my LEAF was having the same problems. Speaking for myself, I think your complaint is entirely valid, as also seem to be those of several other of the Phoenix test cars, and probably, many more nationwide.

Have you escalated your complaint to the point that you have received Nissan's "best offer" to terminate the lease early, or to sell it back?

If so, I'd suggest you consider just how far away from your opinion of "fair", is Nissan's or your dealer's offer.

IMO, If this car is ruining your life, put your life first.

No product will ever give every buyer 100% satisfaction.

But I hope that Nissan's desire to sell a lot more LEAFs, might lead it to want to try to satisfy valid complaints, and yours sure sounds like one to me.

Thank you, Ed... We have been working our way through the dispute resolution process as outlined in the warranty manual through all of this as we suggest everyone whose car is no longer useful do.

Agreed but, just remember the "dispute resolution" rules are written by the companies with the intention of protecting their rights above all. You go in with one hand tied behind your back to start with.
This was posted by one of the "47% who feel entitled" to buying a car that will live up to the claims a manufacturer advertises.

 

[jspearman]

Mark Perry has responded, pretty much as expected:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079343_nissan-suggests-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-due-to-high-miles-exclusive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why does Nissan continue to torpedo themselves in the court of public opinion? Are they simply trying to make it until the new batteries come online, offer replacements in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement, and hope it all goes away? I had been waiting for some kind of official announcement, and that sounds pretty official to me, especially if they are only going to talk with the six owners whose cars were at Casa Grande. Very disappointing. A real kick in the nuts.

 

[KJD]

Thank you, Ed... We have been working our way through the dispute resolution process as outlined in the warranty manual through all of this as we suggest everyone whose car is no longer useful do.

Azdre, do you own the car outright or did you lease the car ?

 

[azdre]

Thank you, Ed... We have been working our way through the dispute resolution process as outlined in the warranty manual through all of this as we suggest everyone whose car is no longer useful do.

Azdre, do you own the car outright or did you lease the car ?

Technically, Bank of the West owns the car currently. We did not lease.