Page 101 of 183

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:30 pm
by joeriv
One more "sticking with my 2017".

First off I got such a deal on the 2017 that I am totally spoiled (rebates = $20,500). Second my driving is strictly as a "local" car so I'm happy with 50 mile range. Third I test drove the 2018 and it's a very nice car, but trading in is a joke and it's not worth it to me for the extra range and e-pedal.

I sold my 2013 in a day (just luck!) and that pushed me over the edge, plus the battery degradation warranty is 8 years. I just don't believe Nissan is so stupid that they will replace 30 kWh batteries with the same technology so they wind up replacing these potentially 2-3 times over the 8 year warranty period. In the same way there were changes to the original 24 kWh pack, I believe we'll see changes to the 30 and 40 packs.

And as an aside, the 2018 Leaf is a bit of an unknown right now, especially considering that the 40 is a denser package than the 30, so we may see some premature battery aging. Until things sort out over the next year or so, I can wait.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:50 pm
by Stanton
joeriv wrote:I just don't believe Nissan is so stupid that they will replace 30 kWh batteries with the same technology so they wind up replacing these potentially 2-3 times over the 8 year warranty period. In the same way there were changes to the original 24 kWh pack, I believe we'll see changes to the 30 and 40 packs.
I hate to say it ...but I think we've seen the best version of the AESC battery pack we're going to see.
My "lizard" battery degradation is only marginally better than my original (2011) battery, and we now know that the 30 kWh packs are more densely constructed (apparently leading to even worse heat dissipation).
We also know that Nissan is moving to LG battery technology with the 60 kWh packs (the 40 kWh packs are still "old" tech which I expect will perform no better than the 30 kWh ones), and can only hope that the design change plus some active cooling will "fix" the problem.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:17 pm
by jbuntz
berclese wrote:
berclese wrote:
berclese wrote:
I am under the suspicion that Nissan may have moved the SOH/capacity bar relationship for the 30 kWh battery. My car will likely drop it's second bar very soon. Have you taken your car in for the yearly battery check? That may help you in the long run (no pun intended). I have not contacted customer service. Please let us know how that goes.
UPDATE: I lost the second bar today. 237 GIDs AHr= 51.85 SOH= 65% HX= 65.88% 5899 miles.
UPDATE 2: I lost the 4th bar today at 7577 miles. GOM is still reporting range at 75 miles, but my actual range has been much lower. Off for a new battery on Monday. I can't wait to turn this leased vehicle in. Nissan really should consider pulling the Leaf from the Southwest.
What is the current LeafSpy stats?

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:14 pm
by lorenfb
If those with a 30kWh Leaf who QC could complement the helpful data provided here; http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 90#p523924
by Dave's data gathering on his 2018 40kWh Leaf, i.e. internal battery resistance data, by performing the same type of test (about 10-15
seconds at the start of a QC), that would result in having battery data on all the Leaf batteries, 24/30/40 kWhs. If that test results in the
battery resistance of the 30 kWh battery being about the same as both the 24 & 40 kWh batteries ( ~ 50 - 60 mohms), then it could be
implied that the additional prolonged 30 kWh battery heat over time (like the 40 kWh) results from a higher battery thermal resistance
(lower heat conductance) to ambient, e.g. resulting from a higher density battery volume. This would help explain the higher battery
degradation some 30kWh Leaf owners have experienced over the 24 kWh battery, and what some 40 kWh Leaf owners will probably
have to confront over time, which in hindsight necessitated TMS more so as the battery density increased over the 24 kWh battery.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:47 am
by SageBrush
joeriv wrote: I just don't believe Nissan is so stupid that they will replace 30 kWh batteries with the same technology so they wind up replacing these potentially 2-3 times over the 8 year warranty period. In the same way there were changes to the original 24 kWh pack, I believe we'll see changes to the 30 and 40 packs.
Nissan is no longer in the battery business. Even if they wanted to improve the pack (doubtful), it is not in their hands now.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:52 am
by joeriv
Nissan is no longer in the battery business. Even if they wanted to improve the pack (doubtful), it is not in their hands now.
IMHO Nissan is in a better position by outsourcing the battery - Nissan writes the specs and always has the option to change suppliers, so they have more leverage compared to an in-house source. Nothing like competition to keep a vendor on their toes.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:50 am
by berclese
jbuntz wrote:
berclese wrote:
berclese wrote:
UPDATE: I lost the second bar today. 237 GIDs AHr= 51.85 SOH= 65% HX= 65.88% 5899 miles.
UPDATE 2: I lost the 4th bar today at 7577 miles. GOM is still reporting range at 75 miles, but my actual range has been much lower. Off for a new battery on Monday. I can't wait to turn this leased vehicle in. Nissan really should consider pulling the Leaf from the Southwest.
What is the current LeafSpy stats?
Here's all the stats.
7505 mi
11 QCs and 384 L1/L2
16.1 kWh, 44.53 Ah
208 GIDs
AHr = 45.55
Hx = 57.28
SOH = 57.31%

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:52 am
by LTLFTcomposite
IDK the numbers but gather that the total number of cars with 30kwh packs is not that great to begin with. Of those, Nissan's exposure is limited to the subset of cars:
- in warm climates
- were purchased, not leased, or leased and subsequently bought out (don't look for a big number there)
- don't get totaled in an accident or experience an out of warranty failure that isn't economically viable to repair (both of which Nissan can heavily influence with parts pricing)

I don't expect Nissan to make any improvements, the costs just aren't worth it. Remember when the lizard pack was introduced they still had a ways to go in that model cycle, here we have a car that is out of production and Nissan will have no interest in making improvements to cars they have already sold. This isn't Tesla.

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:58 pm
by mn4az
mn4az wrote:
mn4az wrote: Another Minnesotan here. Adding some initial stats to this thread:

'13 Leaf SV (Leased) - Leased 34 months. Drove 41K miles. All 12 bars intact when returned car. Mostly charged to 80% between midnight and 5a.

'16 Leaf SV (Purchased - Manufactured 12/15) . Typical charging pattern is to try and charge to 75-90%. Charging typically happens between midnight and 5a.

Date Ahr SOH V Hx ODO QC L1/L2 SOC
11/10/2016 74.49 93% 388.84 88.41 9769 3 350 87.70%
11/26/2017 70.85 89% 345.54 83.71 24414 7 1198 30.30%

The 11/10/2016 was actually a test for a friend. He wanted to ensure he could get a good read before testing used Leafs.
The 11/26/2017 reading is my test to make sure I could get the readings on my phone.

Pretty happy that in over a year my SOH only dropped 4%.

On Tuesday I plan on charging the car to 100% SOC and taking another set of readings which I will report back into the thread.
Here's my state from today from the Lite version of LeafSpy

Ahr = 70.85
SOH = 89%
V = 395.32
Hx = 83.71%
ODO = 24414
QC = 7
L1/L2 = 1205
SOC = 97.8%

Anyone care to comment on what they see within those stats?

The only change we'll make is to charge to 100% SOC when we know we may be at risk of dropping to <25% during the days driving. In the past we focused on holding near 80% SOC and if you got home at 5% SOC so be it. One other change will be, if we get home with <25% SOC to charge it to 30% - then finish the charge off during the evening hours when rates are less (off peak charging).
Update on stats from Minnesota over the winter. 1% drop in SOH over ~5K miles and ~4.5 months.

'16 SV

Ahr = 70.15
SOH = 88%
V = 394.97
Hx = 80.78%
ODO = 29348
QC = 9
L1/L2 = 1530
SOC = 97.8%

Re: 2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:05 pm
by cwerdna
Yet another '16 30 kWh 4 bar loser at https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan. ... 2823283883. Their initials are KWM and they mentioned Phoenix.

They said SOH had to drop below 55% for them. Leaf Spy shows SOH of 54.98%.