How long 'til 4th bar drops?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
timgross said:
How are you charging? I just dropped my 4th bar, as soon as I did an L2 charge. Prior to that I was doing QC and an occasional L1 charge. I did just one full L2 charge and it dropped, but I have heard that others dropped a bar after switching to L2 for a couple of weeks. It seems to make the battery reset somehow. My Leaf is a 2013 also and dropped at 42.56 AHr, but I have the bad battery from early 2013. You might have the improved Lizzard battery, which might explain the big difference. I agree with sandeen. I would be very surprised if you didn't drop the 4th bar before July. My suggestion is to just drive it and not look at LSP frequently if you can help it. It will really get inside your head. :(


I don't have access to L2 charging. I don't even have access to QC. My area blows for electric vehicles. Manufacture date of my car is Feb 2013 so I doubt I would have the lizard battery. Isn't it more likely on cars manufactured Mar 2013 and later?
 
Leafy76 said:
I don't have access to L2 charging. I don't even have access to QC. My area blows for electric vehicles. Manufacture date of my car is Feb 2013 so I doubt I would have the lizard battery. Isn't it more likely on cars manufactured Mar 2013 and later?
Lizard battery did NOT officially exist until model year 2015. Search http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=17168 for lizard.

Nissan had alluded to a "hot" battery in testing stages at various events and communications. http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13192&p=320754&hilit=testing#p320754 was mentioned in late Aug 2013.
BBrockman said:
Currently, we have almost completed testing of a new battery chemistry intended to substantially slow capacity loss in extreme heat. During constant testing at battery temperatures of 45 C/113 F, the new battery chemistry is performing similar to the manner that the current battery performs in temperate areas like San Francisco or Seattle.

We expect that, if testing continues on its current path, we will have this new chemistry ready to implement by mid-2014, and it will be compatible with 2011-2013 model vehicles. For those owners who have already had a replacement due to heat-related capacity loss, we intend to provide a transferable coupon for a battery with the updated chemistry to use within five years.
Presumably, the result of that got rolled out as the '15 lizard battery.

It does seem that Leafs built 4/2013 and later but prior to model year 2015 have better batteries than ones before, but they're definitely NOT lizard batteries.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=473995#p473995 was what happened to a 5/2013 built Leaf in Phoenix. (Mine is also 5/2013 built but I live in a cooler climate but nowhere near as mild as the PNW. I lost my 1st capacity bar a few weeks ago at a bit past 49.5K miles: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=511915#p511915. My SOH has actually climbed to 85% but Hx is fluctuating. Was last at 82.xx%.)

Compare to a Phoenician w/lizard battery: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=23606&p=507283&hilit=bars+11#p507283.
 
Lizard battery did NOT officially exist until model year 2015.

They are referring to the 4/2013-2014 improved pack, which until now has been nameless. To remedy that, I've started calling this pack the "Wolf pack." Great, tough pack, unless it gets really Hot.
 
Thanks for the clarification on the Lizzard vs "Wolfpack" battery. I did not know that. My suggestion for Leafy76 is to try to find a Nissan dealer that has an L2 charger if you want to drop the 4th bar sooner. If you aren't in a hurry, you have plenty of time left.
 
Any 2014 data points? I've lost two bars and at ahr=49.47 and hx=63.64. My warranty is up in 4/19 and I have 49265 miles on the car. I think I'm screwed but I do live in Texas.
 
bigbearballs said:
Any 2014 data points? I've lost two bars and at ahr=49.47 and hx=63.64. My warranty is up in 4/19 and I have 49265 miles on the car. I think I'm screwed but I do live in Texas.

There is a possibility of getting it to drop before 4/19, due to the climate you are in, but you would have to abuse the battery (and keep the mileage under 60,000). It would require a long, hot summer of aggressive driving, 100% charging in the heat, and sitting at full charge on pavement or concrete. There is also the gamble that the battery would deteriorate, but just not enough in time to get that warranty replacement, and you would suffer the range reduction with no payoff.
 
When I bought my LEAF in 2011, I fell in love with it. Great pickup, almost zero maintenance. Unsuitable for long trips, but great for errands around town. And with a 5-year warranty on the battery maintaining "approximately 70% of battery capacity", I should be covered, right?

Wrong.

As my car approached the 5-year expiration date, with 22,000 miles on the odometer, the car was charging to approx. 62 miles - well short of 70% of its original 102-mile range. Disappointed, I brought the car in to have the battery replaced. At the dealer (Glendale Nissan) I was told, "OK, we need to update the car's operating system anyway. Leave it here, we'll check it out."

When I went back to pick it up, the service consultant told me, "There are still 9 bars on the dash displaying battery capacity. Unfortunately, you don't qualify for replacement." But worse: after a full charge the available distance displayed on the dashboard had magically increased to 72 miles. Either Nissan Service had enhanced my car's battery capacity, or the software "update" had tweaked the car's operating system, Volkswagen-style, to show more range than was actually available!

After purchasing the Leaf Spy app (which plugs directly into the car's maintenance port) I discovered the car had 64.8% of battery capacity remaining (182 GIDs). So I went back to Nissan Service and showed them their bar display was wrong - remaining capacity was well below 70% - and demanded the new $5,500 battery to which I was entitled. "But it's not below 9 bars," I was told. So I demanded to talk to the Service Manager. "But it's not below 9 bars," he said.

In two consecutive calls to Nissan America Customer Service I tried to explain. "Because your 'bars' don't correspond to any physical property they're useless to consumers for evaluation purposes," I said. "I purchased the car based on the battery's capacity not falling 'below approximately 70%' of original capacity." Both times I was told, "But it's not below 9 bars."

Despite my original enthusiasm for the LEAF (and reading comments of others with the same experience), I'm entirely turned off by Nissan's obvious deception and refusal to abide by the terms of their warranty. I would never consider buying another LEAF, and encourage others to look at the numerous other options available. :(
 
Yes I was in the same situation. Unfortunately I did not know the real value of the $1,000 L3 option was to roast the original battery into the warranty zone and passed on the option.

The Nissan replacement batteries seemed to be better but recently more reports of short battery life. No way would I go back to Nissan.

RAV4-EV has been perfect as far as range and battery longevity. However the integration with Tesla drivetrain seems to be a bit quirky and prone to failure. Parts are way too expensive out of warranty. Basic heater fix is close to $3,000. I will get by with the seat heaters thank you.

This leaves a sore spot for both Toyota and Tesla for me. Besides that Tesla is a bit too much tech and not enough basic vehicle for me. Right now I expect to have an I-Pace within the next year.
 
EVadvocate said:
After purchasing the Leaf Spy app (which plugs directly into the car's maintenance port) I discovered the car had 64.8% of battery capacity remaining (182 GIDs). So I went back to Nissan Service and showed them their bar display was wrong - remaining capacity was well below 70% - and demanded the new $5,500 battery to which I was entitled. "But it's not below 9 bars," I was told. So I demanded to talk to the Service Manager. "But it's not below 9 bars," he said.
(

There is a reason the title of this thread is How long 'til the 4th bar drops and not How long 'til I'm below 70%.
The bars always have been...and always will be...the metric for warranty battery replacement per the legal settlement.
 
Stanton said:
There is a reason the title of this thread is How long 'til the 4th bar drops and not How long 'til I'm below 70%.
The bars always have been...and always will be...the metric for warranty battery replacement per the legal settlement.

I wasn't party to any legal settlement, so I have no idea to what you're referring. Frankly, I don't give a * about "when the fourth bar drops," nor does anyone except Nissan.

"Bars" are meaningless to consumers. Bars are arbitrary, bars mean whatever Nissan's programmers want them to mean. And I have every indication Nissan has represented them to potential buyers, and to owners, to be an accurate indication of "remaining battery capacity". They aren't, and I have proof. When a company refuses to honor a warranty commitment based on their own misrepresentation, deliberate or not, that would constitute fraud.

I built my own electric car in 2007, Stanton. I have a good understanding of the electrochemical characteristics of lithium-ion cells and their cycle durability, so this "bar" nonsense is insulting. Though it's not worth it to me to file a class action lawsuit for a $5,500 battery, I have and will continue to warn members of the EV community not to expect Nissan to honor battery warranty commitments.
 
EVadvocate said:
When I bought my LEAF in 2011...
with a 5-year warranty on the battery maintaining "approximately 70% of battery capacity", I should be covered, right?

...
As my car approached the 5-year expiration date, with 22,000 miles on the odometer, the car was charging to approx. 62 miles - well short of 70% of its original 102-mile range.
...

After purchasing the Leaf Spy app (which plugs directly into the car's maintenance port) I discovered the car had 64.8% of battery capacity remaining (182 GIDs). So I went back to Nissan Service and showed them their bar display was wrong - remaining capacity was well below 70% - and demanded the new $5,500 battery to which I was entitled. "But it's not below 9 bars," I was told. So I demanded to talk to the Service Manager. "But it's not below 9 bars," he said.

In two consecutive calls to Nissan America Customer Service I tried to explain. "Because your 'bars' don't correspond to any physical property they're useless to consumers for evaluation purposes," I said. "I purchased the car based on the battery's capacity not falling 'below approximately 70%' of original capacity." Both times I was told, "But it's not below 9 bars."
Original EPA range rating of '11 and '12 Leaf was 73 miles. See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=30979. Guess-o-meter values are worthless.

Yes, the way the capacity warranty is warranted is in bars (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13192). Full stop.

As for battery gids or SOH or whatever, Nissan has never released any public documentation on those along w/any caveats (e.g. conditions required for the readings to be accurate, how many watt-hours each gid can represent, etc.) See posts like these from the Leaf Spy auithor: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=516444#p516444 and http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=521773#p521773.

It needs to be below 9 bars before expiration, otherwise they'll tell you to pound sand.

Regarding the last bolded part, when you bought the car in 2011, there was NO warranty at all for gradual capacity loss.
 
cwerdna said:
Regarding the last bolded part, when you bought the car in 2011, there was NO warranty at all for gradual capacity loss.

Thanks cwerdna, you're correct - there was no warranty at all for gradual capacity loss when I bought the car. Yet when I bought the car it had 102 miles of range on a full charge, and Nissan promised me in their "expanded warranty coverage" that

"...the lithium-ion battery for your 2011 or 2012 Nissan LEAF is now also warranted against capacity loss below nine (9) bars (or approximately below 70 percent) as shown on the vehicle’s battery capacity level gauge..."

Do the math yourself - they lied. I was informed of Nissan's warranty-after-the-fact in the same letter which told me to go in and get my operating system "updated" - aka, tweaked to add display miles, without a watthour of additional capacity in the battery - which I guess I'm supposed to find comforting.

I might find out years from now the digits on the speedometer don't correspond to the speed I'm traveling, and the miles on the odometer tick off slower than the actual distance I've traveled, but I don't expect to have the car that long. I'm looking to dump it as soon as possible for a new model from a reputable manufacturer - too many other options. Full Stop.
 
EVadvocate said:
Thanks cwerdna, you're correct - there was no warranty at all for gradual capacity loss when I bought the car. Yet when I bought the car it had 102 miles of range on a full charge, and Nissan promised me in their "expanded warranty coverage" that

"...the lithium-ion battery for your 2011 or 2012 Nissan LEAF is now also warranted against capacity loss below nine (9) bars (or approximately below 70 percent) as shown on the vehicle’s battery capacity level gauge..."

Do the math yourself - they lied.

I really don't see where you get that. A lot of people are upset that they didn't meet the warranty terms, but the warranty terms are clear; you left out a little bit above (the time) period, i.e.
…Nissan LEAF®Lithium-ion battery is also warranted against capacity loss below nine bars of capacity as shown on the vehicle’s battery capacity level gauge for a period of 60 months or 60,000 miles with the 24kWh battery and 96 months or 100,000 miles with the 30kWh battery, whichever comes first…

The only definitive language is "9 bars" and "60 months/60,000 miles." "approximately below 70 percent" is wiggly. good luck arguing over the meaning of "approximately." (That and $6k out of pocket will certainly get you a new battery pack.)

You can dislike the warranty terms, but they're not lying about anything; you're simply out of the warranty. I had a transmission go bad on a Honda out of warranty and they also told me to pound sand even though that model year had known issues with the transmission.
 
sandeen said:
I really don't see where you get that. A lot of people are upset that they didn't meet the warranty terms, but the warranty terms are clear; you left out a little bit above (the time) period, i.e....

I didn't leave anything out Sandeen, those are the exact words they used in my Expanded Warranty Coverage. Interesting, however, that they have now deleted "or approximately below 70% percent" - almost as if they understand it could be misleading. Actually, very much that way.

What if your 4-year-old battery could only retain 25% of its original capacity, but the display still read 9 bars - you still wouldn't be entitled to a new battery, right? What about 10%? Where would you draw the line?
 
EVadvocate said:
What if your 4-year-old battery could only retain 25% of its original capacity, but the display still read 9 bars - you still wouldn't be entitled to a new battery, right? What about 10%? Where would you draw the line?

Per the warranty terms, you draw the line at 9 bars. Unfair? Yep maybe so. As specified and enforceable in the warranty? Yup, for sure. There is no other reliable/documented/official method of obtaining battery health information.

If you had a Ford with a component out of warranty past 50,000 miles on the odometer reading and you tried to argue that you had smaller tires so you hit 50,000 way too soon they'd say sorry, no. The warranty specifies the odometer reading, and don't get to argue that it's not accurate or reflective of reality, because that's immaterial as per the warranty terms. They have to draw the line somewhere, and some people will land on the other side of it.
 
cwerdna said:
cwerdna said:
GRA said:
"Bay Area" covers an awful lot of microclimates. One of the local TV forecasters occasionally puts up a graphic showing a 30, 40 and even occasionally a 50 deg. temperature delta over a 35 mile distance, from say Pacifica (coastal fog) to Dublin or Livermore (inland valley heat).
Yep.

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=331394#p331394

As I posted at http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=300216#p300216 in June 2013:
"Today was an illustration of the extreme variance in temps in the Bay Area, probably more so than usual for summer... err spring.

It was pretty darn hot in my part of SJ. News said the city of SJ was 95, but my part gets hotter, I wouldn't be surprised if it got to 97 or 99. Anyhow, today it was 111 F in Dublin, 107 in Livermore, 105 in Walnut Creek but only 62 (!!!) in SF and 67 in Santa Cruz. Other temps for the day: Pacifica at 69, Half Moon Bay at 61 and Bodega Bay at 60."
To add to this, it's not even summer yet, but on the channel 7 11 pm news for 5/18/16, here are some sample high temps for the day:
Half Moon Bay: 64 F
Richmond: 67 F
Santa Cruz: 70 F
San Francisco: 70 F
Oakland: 76 F
Gilroy: 87 F
San Jose: 88 F
Concord: 95 F
Antioch: 100 F
To followup on the Bay Area microclimates, here are some high temps that local KTVU news listed today:
Pacifica 55 F
Ocean Beach (in SF) 58 F
SF 61 F
Hayward 71 F
Oakland 73 F
Redwood City 77 F
Fremont 79 F
San Jose 80 F
Livermore 92 F
Walnut Creek 95 F
Concord 97 F
Morgan Hill 97 F
Antioch 100 F

Pacifica to Walnut Creek is only 38 miles by car but to Antioch, it's 58 miles.
 
Today 11.11.2018 I have 8 bars left in my 2011 Nissan Leaf. The car is more than seven years old and it is 72.667 km driven. There was 9 bars left 15.4.2017 with 60.811 km.
 
I'm surprised this thread's been inactive for about 2.5 years now.
cwerdna said:
cwerdna said:
cwerdna said:
Yep.

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=331394#p331394

As I posted at http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=300216#p300216 in June 2013:
"Today was an illustration of the extreme variance in temps in the Bay Area, probably more so than usual for summer... err spring.

It was pretty darn hot in my part of SJ. News said the city of SJ was 95, but my part gets hotter, I wouldn't be surprised if it got to 97 or 99. Anyhow, today it was 111 F in Dublin, 107 in Livermore, 105 in Walnut Creek but only 62 (!!!) in SF and 67 in Santa Cruz. Other temps for the day: Pacifica at 69, Half Moon Bay at 61 and Bodega Bay at 60."
To add to this, it's not even summer yet, but on the channel 7 11 pm news for 5/18/16, here are some sample high temps for the day:
Half Moon Bay: 64 F
Richmond: 67 F
Santa Cruz: 70 F
San Francisco: 70 F
Oakland: 76 F
Gilroy: 87 F
San Jose: 88 F
Concord: 95 F
Antioch: 100 F
To followup on the Bay Area microclimates, here are some high temps that local KTVU news listed today:
Pacifica 55 F
Ocean Beach (in SF) 58 F
SF 61 F
Hayward 71 F
Oakland 73 F
Redwood City 77 F
Fremont 79 F
San Jose 80 F
Livermore 92 F
Walnut Creek 95 F
Concord 97 F
Morgan Hill 97 F
Antioch 100 F

Pacifica to Walnut Creek is only 38 miles by car but to Antioch, it's 58 miles.
To add to the variance on SF Bay Area temps on what was a very hot Thursday, here are some high temps from that day per local ABC 7 news:
Half Moon Bay 67 F
San Francisco 80 F <-- quite high for them
Oakland 90 F
Santa Cruz 90 F <-- quite high for them
San Jose 95 F
Redwood City 103 F <-- weird
Gilroy 106 F
Concord 107 F
Livermore 107 F
Fairfield 110 F

Half Moon Bay and Redwood City are under 17 miles apart via the shortest path by car.

Concord and Livermore normally get quite hot in the summer.
 
cwerdna said:
I'm surprised this thread's been inactive for about 2.5 years now.
cwerdna said:
cwerdna said:
To add to this, it's not even summer yet, but on the channel 7 11 pm news for 5/18/16, here are some sample high temps for the day:
Half Moon Bay: 64 F
Richmond: 67 F
Santa Cruz: 70 F
San Francisco: 70 F
Oakland: 76 F
Gilroy: 87 F
San Jose: 88 F
Concord: 95 F
Antioch: 100 F
To followup on the Bay Area microclimates, here are some high temps that local KTVU news listed today:
Pacifica 55 F
Ocean Beach (in SF) 58 F
SF 61 F
Hayward 71 F
Oakland 73 F
Redwood City 77 F
Fremont 79 F
San Jose 80 F
Livermore 92 F
Walnut Creek 95 F
Concord 97 F
Morgan Hill 97 F
Antioch 100 F

Pacifica to Walnut Creek is only 38 miles by car but to Antioch, it's 58 miles.
To add to the variance on SF Bay Area temps on what was a very hot Thursday, here are some high temps from that day per local ABC 7 news:
Half Moon Bay 67 F
San Francisco 80 F <-- quite high for them
Oakland 90 F
Santa Cruz 90 F <-- quite high for them
San Jose 95 F
Redwood City 103 F <-- weird
Gilroy 106 F
Concord 107 F
Livermore 107 F
Fairfield 110 F

Half Moon Bay and Redwood City are under 17 miles apart via the shortest path by car.

Concord and Livermore normally get quite hot in the summer.

Lived in San Jose (Milpitas actually) and worked in Redwood City. Weird that RC is hotter? Usually its the other way around and not even close most of the time
 
cwerdna said:
I'm surprised this thread's been inactive for about 2.5 years now.
cwerdna said:
cwerdna said:
To add to this, it's not even summer yet, but on the channel 7 11 pm news for 5/18/16, here are some sample high temps for the day:
Half Moon Bay: 64 F
Richmond: 67 F
Santa Cruz: 70 F
San Francisco: 70 F
Oakland: 76 F
Gilroy: 87 F
San Jose: 88 F
Concord: 95 F
Antioch: 100 F
To followup on the Bay Area microclimates, here are some high temps that local KTVU news listed today:
Pacifica 55 F
Ocean Beach (in SF) 58 F
SF 61 F
Hayward 71 F
Oakland 73 F
Redwood City 77 F
Fremont 79 F
San Jose 80 F
Livermore 92 F
Walnut Creek 95 F
Concord 97 F
Morgan Hill 97 F
Antioch 100 F

Pacifica to Walnut Creek is only 38 miles by car but to Antioch, it's 58 miles.
To add to the variance on SF Bay Area temps on what was a very hot Thursday, here are some high temps from that day per local ABC 7 news:
Half Moon Bay 67 F
San Francisco 80 F <-- quite high for them
Oakland 90 F
Santa Cruz 90 F <-- quite high for them
San Jose 95 F
Redwood City 103 F <-- weird
Gilroy 106 F
Concord 107 F
Livermore 107 F
Fairfield 110 F

Half Moon Bay and Redwood City are under 17 miles apart via the shortest path by car.

Concord and Livermore normally get quite hot in the summer.

Lived in San Jose (Milpitas actually) and worked in Redwood City. Weird that RC is hotter? Usually its the other way around and not even close most of the time
 
Back
Top