Page 144 of 804

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:04 pm
by vrwl
GaslessInSeattle wrote:... I directed the rep to this thread and specifically to page 135 where the last tally is. he was unaware of a tally and he said he frequents this site. the tally and this thread is now officially included in my complaint as a reference ...
Since we're now adding additional data (case numbers & VIN numbers) to the MNL Wiki that aren't currently included in the tally posted in this thread, the Wiki might be the best place to point Nissan to for consolidated data.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:05 pm
by DaveinOlyWA
Gee George; if that is the way you feel, then it is what it is but i highly doubt it will gain traction. Nissan could simply stop selling the LEAF in AZ and concentrate on places that dont have excessive battery degradation which is just about everywhere else.

i understand your wanting to show compassion for fellow LEAFers who are being forced between a rock and a bus pass, but i believe Nissan will look upon your complaint as blackmail if they give it a 2nd look at all

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:05 pm
by OrientExpress
10.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:07 pm
by IBELEAF
Here is an idea. Post a picture(s) of the capacity gauge with 2-3 bar loss in the facebook page and comment the heck out of it:

http://www.facebook.com/nissanleaf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:14 pm
by opossum
CHANNEL 5 will be at our happy hour tonight to work on the follow-up story! Please attend if you can!

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:17 pm
by GaslessInSeattle
yeah maybe so, but I figure it was worth a try. As I told the guy, I thought they should know what is going through my mind before I make my decision... if I'm a statistical outlier then they can ignore the likes of me. Mostly, I wanted to make sure they were aware of just how widespread the issue was, and from the sounds of it, I may have helped in that regard.
DaveinOlyWA wrote:Gee George; if that is the way you feel, then it is what it is but i highly doubt it will gain traction. Nissan could simply stop selling the LEAF in AZ and concentrate on places that dont have excessive battery degradation which is just about everywhere else.

i understand your wanting to show compassion for fellow LEAFers who are being forced between a rock and a bus pass, but i believe Nissan will look upon your complaint as blackmail if they give it a 2nd look at all

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:28 pm
by surfingslovak
DaveinOlyWA wrote:Nissan could simply stop selling the LEAF in AZ and concentrate on places that dont have excessive battery degradation which is just about everywhere else.
The data we have collected so far, as anecdotal as it is, suggests that the problem won't be limited to AZ. Texas, Florida and even some parts of California will likely be affected, albeit to a lesser degree than Phoenix.
OrientExpress wrote:It still sounds like even the >1% cars still perform very well, with the only complaint being that they have to be "filled-up" more often than they used to, or that their "MPC" is less than they expected. They still seem to start every time, all of their systems work, and no one has been left stranded.

If you operated an ICE car in a harsh environment like the Arizona desert, and complained that the MPGs it got was less than cars operated in less harsh environments, what do you think the response from the manufacturer would be? Especially if they told you up front that its MPG would be less.
The problem is not constrained to Arizona anymore. I believe that the best way forward is to consider a battery lease program. This would divorce the battery, which is a consumable item, from the rest of the vehicle. Please have a look at this article, which describes the idea more eloquently. Renault states the following in their official blog:

Image

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:39 pm
by vrwl
opossum wrote:CHANNEL 5 will be at our happy hour tonight to work on the follow-up story! Please attend if you can!

Give them the URL for the Wiki so they can see HOW MANY people are REALLY affected! (not just 5)

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:40 pm
by mwalsh
surfingslovak wrote:The data we have collected so far, as anecdotal as it is, suggests that the problem won't be limited to AZ. Texas, Florida and even some parts of California will likely be affected, albeit to a lesser degree than Phoenix.
From the looks of the extreme temps we're seeing in all parts of the country (except the PNW and parts of CA), I expect that it'll be a(n almost) nationwide phenomenon going forward. But, rightly so, maybe to a lesser degree than in PDX.

Re: Early Capacity Losses-Was(Lost a bar...down to 11)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:41 pm
by TomT
It's significantly different for two reasons:

1) Your ICE gas tank does not have a limited 73 mile (EPA) gas tank capacity so a small decrease in range is not noticeable or problematic like it is on the Leaf...
2) When you return from the harsh environment in your ICE, the range will return to normal. It won't in your Leaf...
OrientExpress wrote: If you operated an ICE car in a harsh environment like the Arizona desert, and complained that the MPGs it got was less than cars operated in less harsh environments, what do you think the response from the manufacturer would be? Especially if they told you up front that its MPG would be less.