Update on Battery Warranty Enhancement for 2011 & 2012 LEAF

[mwalsh]

It appears that the new "Hot Battery" will meet the claims Nissan made about the longevity of the battery when the Leaf first came out. I would like to see those of us who took their statements at face value get a reduced price on a new battery that we could buy outright. Nissan could give us a one time purchase of a new heat resistant battery at a good price, without revealing what a new battery actually costs. The program could start after they put the new batteries in all the new Leafs being produced. It would only apply to those with the old sub-par chemistry. The new battery wouldn't be free, so Nissan and the owner would share the pain. If 80% of the Leaf "purchases" are leases, Nissan would only have to pony up for those who purchased, perhaps 5,000 Leafs.

I like it!

 

[KJD]

It appears that the new "Hot Battery" will meet the claims Nissan made about the longevity of the battery when the Leaf first came out. I would like to see those of us who took their statements at face value get a reduced price on a new battery that we could buy outright. Nissan could give us a one time purchase of a new heat resistant battery at a good price, without revealing what a new battery actually costs. The program could start after they put the new batteries in all the new Leafs being produced. It would only apply to those with the old sub-par chemistry. The new battery wouldn't be free, so Nissan and the owner would share the pain.

I think that would be a great solution to this problem.

Brian Brockman where are you on this ?

 

[Nubo]

Un huh, and I also believe in the tooth fairy...

Quite simply, when their new greatly-improved battery is ready for production, ramp up that shiny new $1.5 billion dollar battery plant that they like to brag about. And give every Nissan Leaf owner or lessee a "Get out of your old battery Free" card. No strings, bars or Gids attached.

No. No I don't think Nissan has it in their corporate DNA. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong!

 

[JPWhite]

Where did you get the information for this statement JP? My 2011 LEAF was manufactured the day before the tsunami, and apparently was parked in Oppama awaiting shipment. But wave heights there were very small and no damage was done at Oppama from the reports I read.
Do you have information on LEAFs that did actually experience very high water from the tsunami that would have flooded the battery compartment that survived and were put back into service?

I remember reading about the destroyed cars at the time. Sooooo to refresh our collective memories I did a quick google search and (ironically) came up with a NYT article on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/tsunami-reveals-durability-of-nissans-leaf.html?_r=0

I very much doubt any of the LEAF's involved in the tsunami were put back in service. It's ironic to read about how the Volt batteries durability was questioned while the LEAF got top marks. Of course they refer to different type of durability than this thread refers to

I too have a post tsunami LEAF, does your LEAF glow in the dark like mine? :shock: :lol:

 

[JPWhite]

I got a chuckle when listening to Jack Rickard when the LEAF Pheonix issues first surfaced.... He says some weird stuff, but he hit the nail on the head for this issue.

He claimed the BMS was the problem with a monologue that I did with his show. He also thinks battery packs should not have BMS (what are the odds that his dislike was the problem?).

Yeah he jumped to that conclusion pretty quickly, I remember that monologue as well. He's like listening to Michael Savage. Says some pretty wild stuff, but entertaining nonetheless.

 

[Nubo]

The new battery wouldn't be free, so Nissan and the owner would share the pain. If 80% of the Leaf "purchases" are leases, Nissan would only have to pony up for those who purchased, perhaps 5,000 Leafs.

I don't want to share the pain. I'm not the one who failed to live up to public claims about the product I was producing.

And why exclude lesees? Their potential residual cost is just as valid a value proposition as someone who bought outright. Sure they can walk away but this should be about Nissan UNDOING their problem completely, and without reservation. If the new battery is as big an improvement as they claim, it would be stupid to accept lease returns and resell 2 and 3 year old cars with the obsoleted battery packs. It's just a formula for more dissatisfied EV drivers.

Nissan needs to wake up and smell the diethyl carbonate.

 

[JPWhite]

I mean they could certify them and charge a premium as a result, but probably not enough to cover even a refurb pack.

You mean like the certified used LEAF program they introduced in Japan?

Good idea, but I expect that idea will stay in Japan.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...n-leaf-program-details-out--but-only-in-japan

 

[JPWhite]

I may have to pull some shenanigans of my own to make sure it happens or I'll end up loosing out on the warranty by just a couple of months, which would totally suck.

For those on the cusp of qualifying for a new battery due to degradation losses, the irony is that those who 'abused' their batteries may just qualify while those who 'babbied' their batteries may just loose out.

I've always wondered if that by charging to 80% almost all of the time whether I'd was just costing myself short term inconvenience via reduced range and not gain much at the other end. With 31,000 miles and 1 bar lost, I may join you in the camp of those who 'almost' got a new battery under warranty. My commute has doubled, so I expect to get to 60,000 much earlier than I was on track to previously. Probably hit 60,000 in 2015 after 2 more summers.

 

[JPWhite]

It appears that the new "Hot Battery" will meet the claims Nissan made about the longevity of the battery when the Leaf first came out. I would like to see those of us who took their statements at face value get a reduced price on a new battery that we could buy outright. Nissan could give us a one time purchase of a new heat resistant battery at a good price, without revealing what a new battery actually costs. The program could start after they put the new batteries in all the new Leafs being produced. It would only apply to those with the old sub-par chemistry. The new battery wouldn't be free, so Nissan and the owner would share the pain. If 80% of the Leaf "purchases" are leases, Nissan would only have to pony up for those who purchased, perhaps 5,000 Leafs.

I like it!

Moi aussi

Freaking brilliant.

 

[edatoakrun]

It appears that the new "Hot Battery" will meet the claims Nissan made about the longevity of the battery when the Leaf first came out. I would like to see those of us who took their statements at face value get a reduced price on a new battery that we could buy outright. Nissan could give us a one time purchase of a new heat resistant battery at a good price, without revealing what a new battery actually costs. The program could start after they put the new batteries in all the new Leafs being produced. It would only apply to those with the old sub-par chemistry. The new battery wouldn't be free, so Nissan and the owner would share the pain. If 80% of the Leaf "purchases" are leases, Nissan would only have to pony up for those who purchased, perhaps 5,000 Leafs....

Of course, we can expect Nissan to do something very much like this.

Look what Nissan has already committed to in LEAF buybacks and the battery capacity warranty, above and beyond the disclaimer we all signed when we bought our LEAFs.Nissan is probably considering details of plans to do something for other buyers as well, when the need arises, as the ~90k mile LEAF owner from the PNW (TaylorSF?) already has suggested.

As a warm climate LEAF owner myself, I'm not too worried.

I believe Nissan can make a lot of Money with BEV's, and they are not dumb enough to blow it by leaving any LEAFER with legitimate and reasonable complaints unhappy

="Stoaty"

...While the battery in my Leaf is doing fairly well, that is probably mainly because I baby it, and don't drive it to areas where the battery temperature can climb much above 86 degrees. This means that for about 2 months a year I can't use my Leaf to drive to work, or on longer trips on the weekend. I have to take the old ICE vehicle.

Now this does worry me...

From the sound of it, our gen 1 LEAF batteries probably will have superior replacements (at least for those in warmer climates) in ~ a year.

I expect that LEAF batteries improved beyond that level will probably be available by the time I need one, anytime in the ~3 more year to ~7 more year range, within which I expect to need one.

I think it's highly doubtful that the cost/benefits of parking your LEAF ~2 months a year will benefit you financially, or benefit the environment, when compared to the ICEV alternative.

I am damn-near-ecstatic that about 95% of my driving and passenger miles over the last 27 months have been in my LEAF.

I would feel deprived and dissatisfied, if I felt I had to drive an ICEV for ~2 months a year.

 

[Stoaty]

Of course, we can expect Nissan to do something very much like this.
Look what Nissan has already committed to in LEAF buybacks and the battery capacity warranty, above and beyond the disclaimer we all signed when we bought our LEAFs.Nissan is probably considering details of plans to do something for other buyers as well, when the need arises, as the ~90k mile LEAF owner from the PNW (TaylorSF?) already has suggested.

I don't expect it at all, as a matter of fact, I think it unlikely. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the capacity warranty appears to be significantly motivated by a class action lawsuit.

I think it's highly doubtful that the cost/benefits of parking your LEAF ~2 months a year will benefit you financially, or benefit the environment, when compared to the ICEV alternative.

I can't agree with you there. I estimate about 35 gallons of gas extra per year for times I take the ICE vehicle instead of the Leaf due to excessive heat. Over 4 summers, that would be 140 gallons, or about $560. If babying the battery this way gives me an extra 6 months of use of the Leaf, I would be saving about 140 gallons of gas by not taking the ICE vehicle. Building a new battery creates significant CO2 emissions, and the longer I wait to get a new battery, the cheaper it will be. My guess is that my actions are cheap insurance for a substandard battery from Nissan and that the overall CO2 emissions are probably a wash.

 

[DaveEV]

While the battery in my Leaf is doing fairly well, that is probably mainly because I baby it, and don't drive it to areas where the battery temperature can climb much above 86 degrees. This means that for about 2 months a year I can't use my Leaf to drive to work, or on longer trips on the weekend. I have to take the old ICE vehicle.

This seems crazy to me. Let's assume your battery gets 10C hotter during those 2 months compared to not driving it. Thanks to Arrenhious' Equation that means that your battery might age twice as fast, or 4 months worth compared to not using it.

In other words, by driving the car for two hot months you "lose" 2 months of battery life. Or you can drive your ICE and lose 2 months of use while your battery ages anyway.

Unless you can keep the battery 15C cooler or more, it doesn't seem to make much sense to park it instead of driving it to me.

If your battery will stay at 86F (30C) when stored, then you might not park it unless the battery will get to at least 104F (40C) and stay there without cooling off at all at night.

 

[Stoaty]

This seems crazy to me. Let's assume your battery gets 10C hotter during those 2 months compared to not driving it. Thanks to Arrenhious' Equation that means that your battery might age twice as fast, or 4 months worth compared to not using it.

Say what you will, but you are assuming that the 10 degrees C. is the standard to use. In testing the "research" battery I mentioned previously, NEC estimated 6.85 degrees degrees C. for a doubling of degradation. Our battery is not as rugged, so the number of degrees may be less. A lot of folks in Arizona are doing worse than the Battery Aging Model suggests, so I have little confidence that the degradation won't be substantially higher than the model predicts. After all, the model was tuned to match Nissan's "glide slope", hardly a gold standard. My Gids at 80% charge (212 Gids) didn't budge for 6 months during the cool season, but over the last 3 months I have lost 9 Gids (203 at 80% charge). It's all about the heat. Using my strategy, I have managed to match the Battery Aging Model predictions for Santa Monica, even though my Leaf is in the San Fernando Valley about 40 hours per week. I estimate I have 87-88% capacity remaining after 2 years and am currently on a "glide path" to about 12 years to EOL (70% capacity remaining), while many in Southern California have already lost 1 or 2 capacity bars. You may not agree with my strategy, but you can't argue with my results.

 

[scottf200]

<snip> I estimate I have 87-88% capacity remaining after 2 years and am currently on a "glide path" to about 12 years to EOL (70% capacity remaining), while many in Southern California have already lost 1 or 2 capacity bars.<snip>

Seems like you should legitimately use the car as much as you want. Those folks you mentioned are likely going to get a new "hot battery". You can bet they will "use" their cars even more now.

 

[Stoaty]

Seems like you should legitimately use the car as much as you want. Those folks you mentioned are likely going to get a new "hot battery". You can bet they will "use" their cars even more now.

My guess is that most of those in Southern California will miss the "hot battery", as they won't quite make the 5 year/60,000 mile cutoff. Hard to be sure, of course.

 

[DaveEV]

Say what you will, but you are assuming that the 10 degrees C. is the standard to use. In testing the "research" battery I mentioned previously, NEC estimated 6.85 degrees degrees C. for a doubling of degradation.

The NEC study uses the same assumption. Their 6.85C doubling figure is based on the assumption that when the car is operating, battery temperature is 10C above ambient and when the car is stored, battery temperature is 5C above ambient - in other words since they assume you're driving when it's typically hotter, and that the battery cools off immediately the effect of ambient temperature is exaggerated over Arrhenious equation. I don't think this is very accurate for a number of reasons.

A lot of folks in Arizona are doing worse than the Battery Aging Model suggests, so I have little confidence that the degradation won't be substantially higher than the model predicts.

it's easy to bake your car in a hot garage all summer...

My Gids at 80% charge (212 Gids) didn't budge for 6 months during the cool season, but over the last 3 months I have lost 9 Gids (203 at 80% charge). It's all about the heat.

GIDs are affected by temperature - there's no way battery capacity goes up as the weather cools down as TickTock has documented (it remains to be seen whether or not the P3227 update fixes this).

Using my strategy, I have managed to match the Battery Aging Model predictions for Santa Monica, even though my Leaf is in the San Fernando Valley about 40 hours per week. I estimate I have 87-88% capacity remaining after 2 years and am currently on a "glide path" to about 12 years to EOL (70% capacity remaining), while many in Southern California have already lost 1 or 2 capacity bars. You may not agree with my strategy, but you can't argue with my results.

Certainly can't argue with your results - but how much of that is because you average 5.6 mi/kWh and your other habits rather than avoiding driving during 2 hot months of the year? Could it be that the model underestimates the effects of efficient driving? Easy to estimate the effects - see what temperature your battery settles in during those 2 hot months (probably follows ambient temp of your garage) - then take it out for 3 hot days in a row while recording temperature (easy to do with the ELM327 app).

Regardless - driving the stinker during the hottest two months of the year when air quality is typically at it's worst seems to defeat a lot of the purpose of the LEAF - especially when out on the "glide path" the difference in capacity between EOL at 10 vs 12 years is minimal.

 

[smkettner]

Seems like you should legitimately use the car as much as you want. Those folks you mentioned are likely going to get a new "hot battery". You can bet they will "use" their cars even more now.

My guess is that most of those in Southern California will miss the "hot battery", as they won't quite make the 5 year/60,000 mile cutoff. Hard to be sure, of course.

This is where Nissan needs a price to sell the battery. Price should be prorated to reduce cost just barely out of warranty. So that 10yr/120,000+ pays full pop

Can't wait for the 1 month, 1,000 out of warranty and Nissan says tough and start paying $100 per month

 

[DaveEV]

Seems like you should legitimately use the car as much as you want. Those folks you mentioned are likely going to get a new "hot battery". You can bet they will "use" their cars even more now.

My guess is that most of those in Southern California will miss the "hot battery", as they won't quite make the 5 year/60,000 mile cutoff. Hard to be sure, of course.

This is where Nissan needs a price to sell the battery. Price should be prorated to reduce cost just barely out of warranty. So that 10yr/120,000+ pays full pop

Can't wait for the 1 month, 1,000 out of warranty and Nissan says tough and start paying $100 per month

Yep. Though wouldn't one expect it the cutoff to be 8-years 100k miles - the length of the existing battery warranty?

 

[Stoaty]

Certainly can't argue with your results - but how much of that is because you average 5.6 mi/kWh and your other habits rather than avoiding driving during 2 hot months of the year?
Could it be that the model underestimates the effects of efficient driving?

It is certainly possible that it underestimates the effects of efficient driving, plus I only drive about 10,000 miles a year in the Leaf, significantly less than many others.

Easy to estimate the effects - see what temperature your battery settles in during those 2 hot months (probably follows ambient temp of your garage)
- then take it out for 3 hot days in a row while recording temperature (easy to do with the ELM327 app).

Parked in the garage in the summer for a period of time, battery pack is typically at 68-70 degrees F. When I take the Leaf out on moderately hot days (max temp of 94-95 degrees), battery pack gets up to 90 degrees F. and doesn't drop below 80 by recharge the next morning. On the especially hot days it would be higher.

Regardless - driving the stinker during the hottest two months of the year when air quality is typically at it's worst seems to defeat a lot of the purpose of the LEAF - especially when out on the "glide path" the difference in capacity between EOL at 10 vs 12 years is minimal.

That's a good point. If I had faith that the glide path would be 10 years by driving the Leaf on hot summer days (what is predicted by the model), I would certainly take it to work. My strong impression is that heat is a lot more damaging to the battery than the model suggests. Of course, I can't prove it any more than others can prove me wrong. All of the input is good food for thought.

 

[HighDesertDriver]

Your leased leaf goes back to a dealer not Nissan corporate. Dealers will do the minimum they can get away with to put that car into another buyers hands.

I mentioned to a nearby Nissan dealer that I had read of lease returns or buy-backs from the southwest areas being resold in cooler states, and asked what they did with their Leaf lease returns. His response was that they had not yet taken in lease returns because the California rebate inspired only 36-month contracts, but that leased vehicles belong to Nissan which decides what to do with them. He said the dealer where the return is made has the option of buying the car at around the residual value for their used car lot.