Phoenix Range Test Results, September 15, 2012

[TonyWilliams]

You've got an number of factual errors in your review, and this is just wrong also.

Could be! I am as prone to error as anyone, no question.

Tell ya what, though, Tony: please include what, in fact, Nissan projects to be the normal capacity loss according to an odometer's mileage. I have merely taken my best guess by extrapolating from the admittedly limited parameters Nissan provides. If you have more accurate, reliable figures for expected range losses according to mileage, please post them alongside the actual ranges achieved in the test. Without knowing what Nissan considers normal capacity losses, it is impossible to substantiate abnormal losses —as the owners continue to assert via the news media.

Ok, excellent point on "normal" versus "abnormal" losses. Of course, in the interest of mass market simplicity, the message is, "a new car should go 84 miles in these conditions, according to Nissan, and 12-18 months later in Phoenix, these cars only went something far, far less. Actually, up to 30% less."

I know I've said this about a million times, but the argument over the "84 mile car" ends when a car goes 84 miles. Each of you who have danced around that number are not telling me anything that I don't already know, and knew the very second I learned that neither 2012 would pull anything close to 100% stored wattHours.

So, I've asked, and I'll ask again; please stop generating pages of guessing. I'm not against guessing on things, and I've done plenty myself. But this one has been guessed to death, when a readily available answer is coming.

The many, many times I've made mistakes (and plenty on this range demonstration), I hope and think that I'm man enough to admit to the mistake and fix it. Through this thread, you'll see that I have done that. So, I'm not opposed to fixing this one.

The missing 84 mile car is a mistake. I'm to blame, due to my oversight. I will fix it. Until then, you'll just have to "trust me" on that. Sure, we can belly ache and pontificate until then, but why? I will get the number, and I know the number VERY well, as others like LEAFfan pointed out (and he also has mucho experience in this area, and believe me, we didn't always agree on the details).

Oh... and thanks, once again, for attacking and insulting the messenger when you do not like the message. Sorry to have to tell you this, Tony, but people skills are not exactly your forté.

Gosh, I think I'm merely responding to you in a "like" manner and by my measure, deserved manner. Eh, no biggie. I suspect you mean well. Thanks for not escalating issues further.

Beyond the finger pointing, accusations, and other misc. BS in your piece, if you just got the basic numbers right, you have solid stuff there.

[surfingslovak]

If you have more accurate, reliable figures for expected range losses according to mileage, please post them alongside the actual ranges achieved in the test. Without knowing what Nissan considers normal capacity losses, it is impossible to substantiate abnormal losses —as the owners continue to assert via the news media.

Oh... and thanks, once again, for attacking and insulting the messenger when you do not like the message. Sorry to have to tell you this, Tony, but people skills are not exactly your forté.

Mark, point taken. I just realized that you only had your Leaf for about four months, and it looks like you might have caught the EV bug a while ago. I believe that most of us did, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What confused me a bit was the beginning of your article. It seemed fairly argumentative. Some of us spent inordinate amount of time looking into this battery capacity issue, but that pales in comparison to what some of the owners with significant range loss have gone through.

I'm sure that Tony will get you the numbers you are looking for. I joined this forum when he just published the first version of his range chart. Very interesting idea, which hasn't been applied to EVs before, from what I can tell. The 21 kWh you mentioned in another write-up of yours were defined here on the forum. There were long debates about that. Nissan never said anything specific, that's why NTB11-076a was such a big deal when it came out.

Anyway, let me conclude with one observation: it appears that you live in a desert climate and drive about 1,000 miles per month, give or take. This is just a rough estimate, but all things being equal, there is a good chance that you will observe about 10 to 15% reduction in range by the end of next summer. We don't know how it will progress from there. There were a few ideas, but nothing panned out so far.

I don't have the latest correlation coefficients at hand, but battery capacity, and by extension range, seems to depend on ambient temperature to a large degree. This relationship was never clearly defined by Nissan. All they ever mentioned was vehicle mileage and a few warranty disclaimers.

[azdre]

If you're going to sit on your throne and judge the way we've handled this situation by involving the media and publish some defaming blog post, you should know that you are spewing a big load of bull. I've posted this before, but I'll do it again for the people who can't be bothered to keep up, but still insist on flaming us. We did not go to the media until we had been told by 2 dealers, 1 GM, 1 Nissan field operations manager, and 1 Nissan EV specialist that our car, that had lost 22-27% range (based on the entire range in the NTB to LBW) was performing as designed and the capacity loss was normal. This says nothing of the changing story we were told at each of these levels. It was obvious pretty quickly that they were moving their 'normal' target all summer. Nissan did not decide to take our cars to casa grande until AFTER the first story aired, and the second was in the can waiting for airtime.

For the last several months, a few early adopters of the Nissan Leaf in Phoenix have been complaining long and loud about losing capacity bars prematurely, supposedly because of the extremely hot temperatures in Arizona. What originally started out as a worrisome concern has now snowballed (fireballed?) into something of a feeding frenzy, with nearly 400 pages of discussion piling up in the “My Nissan Leaf” forum.
A few of those Leaf owners then decided to raise the volume of their outcry even further by contacting the news media, and the Arizona CBS affiliate, KPHO, aired a segment with their complaints on July 18, 2012. Although toward the beginning of the broadcast two owners praised the Leaf, they then lamented in no uncertain terms that their enthusiasm had “shriveled up” with “disappointment” and “frustration.” One claimed that, when his Leaf was new, he could drive a 90-mile commute on a single charge, but now he was only getting 44 miles —less thathalf the original range. Yow! Had the capacity really dropped that far in one year? The other owner then predicted that “Soon I'll be left with a very expensive paper weight in the garage.” Ouch!
Yet it gets even worse. Only two days later, KPHO ran another segment, in which they showed numerous owners gathering together to "commiserate" about the problem. In this broadcast, they claimed that they had lost “30% of their driving range after only one year,” and one individual stated that Nissan failed to mention at the time of purchase that they “were going to lose capacity at 3 times the rate of anybody else.” Double ouch!
I had to groan upon viewing these broadcasts. Real great, folks. That’ll sure teach Nissan a lesson: let’s turn the concern into another “runaway Prius” news blitz in front of the public eye. Although I totally agree that Nissan should have addressed these concerns much earlier, according to these broadcasts the company had, in fact, already arranged to gather together, test, and analyze five of the affected Leafs at their Arizona Testing Center. So why air these stories? To publicly turn the screws even tighter on Nissan, regardless? Whatever the motives, you can bet that any potential car buyers who viewed these segments have now crossed the Leaf off their list of vehicles to consider. Niiiiice...!

[TonyWilliams]

If you're going to sit on your throne and judge the way we've handled this situation by involving the media and publish some defaming blog post... Nissan did not decide to take our cars to casa grande until AFTER the first story aired, and the second was in the can waiting for airtime.

I hate to see you get upset over this. We know that Nissan isn't going to do squat without the threat of bad publicity. Keep your chin up!

[azdre]

If you're going to sit on your throne and judge the way we've handled this situation by involving the media and publish some defaming blog post... Nissan did not decide to take our cars to casa grande until AFTER the first story aired, and the second was in the can waiting for airtime.

I hate to see you get upset over this. We know that Nissan isn't going to do squat without the threat of bad publicity. Keep your chin up!

There's plenty of very valid ways to insult me, there's no need to tell lies!

[TonyWilliams]

There's plenty of very valid ways to insult me, there's no need to tell lies!

I know I was not smelling too good after last weekend, so I'm glad nobody insulted me for stinking too bad! Actually, I think I would have just agreed.

Have some vino, and wait to see what Nissan has got for you in a few days. We'll be anxious to hear from you, since you'll know first.

[surfingslovak]

If you're going to sit on your throne and judge the way we've handled this situation by involving the media and publish some defaming blog post... Nissan did not decide to take our cars to casa grande until AFTER the first story aired, and the second was in the can waiting for airtime.

I hate to see you get upset over this. We know that Nissan isn't going to do squat without the threat of bad publicity. Keep your chin up!

+1

Don't laugh, but it's been suggested that I might have been working on an illicit owner delegation for the Sunday event in SF. There appeared to be some consternation about that

[azdre]

Don't laugh, but it's been suggested that I might have been working on an illicit owner delegation for the Sunday event in SF. There appeared to be some consternation about that

Come on! I can't laugh at that?!? No fair!!!

[surfingslovak]

Come on! I can't laugh at that?!? No fair!!!

First item on our shopping list tomorrow: eggs. They gotta be organic though

[RegGuheert]

Azdre and opossum, I'm sorry that you are being attacked, yet again, for posting about your bad experiences with your new-yet-oh-so-old Nissan LEAF.

Tony, I'm sorry that you, too, are being attacked again for all of your efforts to try to make heads or tails of this situation.

Let's be frank about NTB11-076a: That document is NOT freely available to buyers of the Nissan LEAF, but it should be. I'm sure that most Nissan LEAF purchasers are unaware that it even exists. If fact, given the publication date of December 22, 2011, it did not even exist when most of the capacity-bar-loser LEAFs were purchased. Why not? Because Nissan has been very consistent with their marketing of the LEAF: they have over-promised on both range and battery reliability and they have left their service departments to clean up the mess that results when customers learn the truth about their new car: it does not go nearly as far as Nissan lead them to believe before their purchase. It's no wonder that a self-proclaimed Nissan service manager came on this site complaining that he couldn't stand LEAF owners.

But why does Nissan include a range chart in NTB11-076a with ranges that cover usable battery capacity from 19 to 21 kWh? My conclusion is that 21 kWh is what Nissan believes is the usable capacity of a new LEAF with a fully-balanced pack. But Nissan also knows that the pack may not always be fully balanced, which would account for losing up to about 1 kWh of usable energy. So what does the other 1 kWh account for? Many things, perhaps, but certainly it might account for degradation that occurs between the time LEAF is manufactured and when it is finally delivered. I'm sure Nissan knows as well as we do that most Nissan dealers charge these things up to 100% the moment they get them and leave the battery to degrade.

Just like Yanquetino wrote on his blog, I have also been waiting for decades to purchase an EV. And I'm very pleased to be able to be driving one today. Nissan is to be commended for designing and delivering a very fine automobile. They have certainly done that and I hope that this is only the start of a long line of Nissan EVs. But none of that excuses the very poor marketing practices and customer relations that Nissan has used for this program. 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'm pretty sure that Azdre and opossum wish that they had leased their LEAF instead of purchased it outright. Perhaps they wish they had avoided the LEAF altogether. The point is that NEARLY ALL LEAF owners in AZ would choose to lease if they had known what they know now or will find out in the near future: the range in their car is dropping much faster than they had expected it to. And the only reason they did not know this is because Nissan did not tell them.

Let's be honest with ourselves: there is a very wide range of experiences among those of us who have purchased or leased our LEAFs. Fortunately most of us are finding that the LEAF meets or exceeds our expectations. But I see no reason to denigrate those for whom the car is a disappointment. Did some people purchase the LEAF without sufficiently researching what they are getting? Absolutely! But not all cases of owner's disappointment are the fault of the owner: in some cases Nissan needs to take the responsibility. It seems that they may be doing that in their own way. Let's just hope that it is a way that we can all live with.

Can't we all just get along?