How should Nissan respond to dropping capacity?

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.
RegGuheert said:
palmermd said:
My first impression on reading the quote several posts above was that it was a great GM marketing post to explain why their active thermal management system is better than Nissan's decision to not include it. On reading the remaining quote above, my suspicions were confirmed when he added that Nissan was rushed and was playing catch-up with GM. Reality is that GM started their battery program much later than Nissan. The entire quote is propaganda and FUD. This entire thread is bordering on FUD.
Actually, if you read the thread I quoted starting from the beginning you will see that the OP is really bashing GM for not doing enough in their TMS to sufficiently cool the battery in the Volt to get a long life in climates like Phoenix. OP of that thread indicates he will work around the limitations of the Volt by leaving it on while he is at work so that the TMS will keep the battery cool.

Again, I will encourage anyone who is interested in the battery in the LEAF to read that thread. There are details about the chemistry and who manufactures the different components of the cells, etc. Dismiss the OP if you like, but he seems to know many details about the application of this chemistry to electric vehicles and wrote about what is being seen in Phoenix 18 months before it was discussed here.
+1.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Again, I will encourage anyone who is interested in the battery in the LEAF to read that thread. There are details about the chemistry and who manufactures the different components of the cells, etc. Dismiss the OP if you like, but he seems to know many details about the application of this chemistry to electric vehicles and wrote about what is being seen in Phoenix 18 months before it was discussed here.
+1.
Indeed, I have to admit that I spent quite a bit of time on the Volt forum last year. Although I understand that it's a competing vehicle, and I'm happily supporting Nissan, I never fully accepted the division lines. I might not identify with everything these two camps think and say about each other. In the end, we are all early adopters, and there is lots to be learned.

Charles struck me a knowledgeable person and a straight shooter. He is a longtime EV activist: member of the Gold Coast Electric Auto Association and executive director of Plugin Florida. I believe that he was an EV1 driver, and has some personal connections to GM from that time. This could help explain why he might appear partial or perhaps even biased. Still, that thread is a great source of information, especially if read critically.


Click to open
 
Charles Whalen said:
Nissan knows and acknowledges that they’re going to have to replace battery packs early, under warranty, in hot climates. (I’ve been in meetings with fleet customers in hot climates where I’ve seen Nissan tell them to expect a 4 to 5 year battery pack life, which is why Nissan is urging them to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease, rather than purchase.) Nissan has done their own financial cost-benefit/trade-off analysis whereby they determined that it will be cheaper for them to replace a few battery packs early, under warranty, in those few hot-climate areas of the country, for those few customers who don’t take the hint to take the Leaf on a 3-year lease rather than purchase, than it would have been for them to design, engineer, develop, and manufacture a sophisticated and relatively expensive active-cooled TMS, especially when most of the country probably won’t need it (as much). (It’s just in really hot climates where the economics strongly favor going with an active-cooled TMS.) For Nissan, it was simply a cold, hard-nosed business decision. There are reasons why the Volt costs $8,220 more than the Leaf.

Charles Whalen said:
In the final analysis, Nissan’s decision to forgo an active TMS for the first generation of the Leaf was really one of expediency that was driven by competitive time-to-market pressures, to shorten the development cycle (in which Nissan was already a few years behind GM and playing catch-up) and bring the Leaf to market at the same time as the Volt. More recently, Nissan has admitted that the lack of an active TMS is a shortcoming that will be corrected in the next major model upgrade to the Leaf, likely in 2013, which will have an active TMS.

I apologize. I did not go and read the referenced thread, but just took these two quotes on their own, as quoted here on the forum. The first post made me suspicious and the second seemed to confirm my suspicion. Only after you all pointed out the original thread again and referenced who this person is who was quoted does the statement seem less biased. He seems like a good guy, and seems to come from an unbiased position. Thanks for correcting me.

Taken alone, the statement that Nissan was years behind and playing catch-up to GM is just false. Nissan started the current battery development of the cells we are using in the early 2000's, it first showed up in the PIVO 2005 show car, and a formal agreement was made with NEC to form AESC in April 2007 to start production of these batteries. GM showed their car in Feb 2007, and began battery development shortly thereafter. And I've not heard anything about Nissan wanting to change to an active TMS on the Leaf.

I stand by the rest of my statement.

me said:
I agree that there is something strange about 6 cars that have lost capacity, but there is still not nearly enough evidence to conclude anything from this. No proof that it was from heat, although it is suspicious. It could still be any number of reasons and just random luck that they are all from AZ. Heck AZ probably has 1/3 of all Leafs sold in the early vehicles (which is what we are discussing). This will continue to be an interesting topic, and I look forward to Nissan's response to this issue, and I'm sure they are well aware of this thread and are working on a response. It took over 1 month for Nissan to send an official response to the cars dying on the road due to the A/C issue last March. I suspect because this issue is less severe that it will take 2-3 months before we hear anything. Perhaps more if they are waiting for data to accumulate from the 1 year checkups. Last May and June were huge sales months, so they should get a big data-set coming in this month. We had under 1000 data points to May, but we'll have an additional 3000 points of data at the end of June. I hope all May and June deliveries get their checkup this month if not already for the May folks. I know I was about 3 weeks past one year (my bad...).
 
Herm said:
Poppycock.. if a) there are real problems in AZ and b) they have to replace 4 year old batteries, then if they knew ahead of time it would have been much simpler to just not sell or lease the cars in Arizona at all.
I think a) is true and b) is false, since they do not warranty the capacity of the battery. I agree that not selling in Arizona would have been a good choice for the LEAF. I have stated that. Offering ONLY leases probably would have been better. But they chose to sell without disclosing their expectations of poor battery life. In other words, they have transferred ALL financial liability to their customers in that area without informing them in advance. That is a bad thing in my book and there will almost certainly be a strong backlash against the LEAF, Nissan and EVs in general. Let's hope the fallout can be contained to just hot areas. I'm not sure the public will be able to differentiate.
Herm said:
Plenty of other places that were clamoring for Leafs. They could have also offered an extra cost battery cooling package for AZ Leafs.
That's the point. They could have done all of these things, but instead they chose to offer the LEAF for sale in hot climates without explaining that the battery would lose capacity at a rapid rate in those areas. If they have explained this point in public and I missed it, please link me to that information.
Herm said:
They also would have made you sign a statement acknowledging the lack of capacity warranty at the time of purchase.
They DID make me sign a disclaimer which was four legal-sized pages at the time of purchase. One of the items in that disclaimer was that there is no warranty for battery capacity. Is this not true for ALL LEAF purchasers?

Still, Nissan executives have made public statements about what their customers should expect regarding the LEAF batteries which make it sound as if 110F is good while 120F is bad. IMO, that is terribly misleading given the reality that 110F is bad and 120F is worse for this battery chemistry.
 
RegGuheert said:
That's the point. They could have done all of these things, but instead they chose to offer the LEAF for sale in hot climates without explaining that the battery would lose capacity at a rapid rate in those areas.

My point is that they did NOT know, otherwise they would have bypassed AZ.

Whalen is a nice guy and I like him, but he was a bit overboard back in the old days.. he may be proven right.
 
Herm said:
My point is that they did NOT know, otherwise they would have bypassed AZ.
O.K. It's a little hard for me to imagine, but I suppose it's possible.

I will repeat that I appreciate that the LEAF uses passive battery cooling to lower the price point. I also hope they don't change that for future years. I just don't understand it if Nissan (or anyone, for that matter) insists that it will work in hot climates when it really doesn't. There is nothing to be gained by doing that since a BEV isn't particularly environmentally friendly if the battery only lasts a few years.
Herm said:
Whalen is a nice guy and I like him, but he was a bit overboard back in the old days.. he may be proven right.
I guess if he's proven right, then perhaps he was not overboard. Time will tell...
 
RegGuheert said:
garygid said:
If one cannot take being on the "leading edge", a very new, innovative vehicle design might not be right for that person?
I will say that is PRECISELY the reason for my post, Gary!

Nissan is currently building two large LEAF and two large battery factories right now. It seems that Nissan, GM and Toyota have worked their way through a large portion of the EV early adopter crowd. If they ONLY want to address the needs of those of us who want to be on the bleeding edge, then they should stop their construction projects. .............<snip>..........
Maybe Nissan has sufficiently learned what they needed to know from the few thousands of us early hand raisers . . . and who's to say that they're not a whole lot more dialed in regarding their capacity issues.
As for there being FIVE AZ folks with 15% capacity loss . . . is there a link where 5 have brought up the issue? Even after the thread aging a bit - I'm still not seeing that many.
 
hill said:
As for there being FIVE AZ folks with 15% capacity loss . . . is there a link where 5 have brought up the issue? Even after the thread aging a bit - I'm still not seeing that many.
See here: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8802&start=725" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
RegGuheert said:
which make it sound as if 110F is good while 120F is bad. IMO, that is terribly misleading given the reality that 110F is bad and 120F is worse for this battery chemistry.
So far no one answered this - what is good/optimal temp for Leaf battery I am asking this again what is the best temp for Leaf battery?
 
EdmondLeaf said:
because no one so far told me what is good/optimal I am asking this again what is the best temp for Leaf battery?
Best temp for what?

For best preservation of battery capacity, probably in the 30's - but this will sacrifice range

For maximal range, probably around 72 or above - but this will sacrifice battery capacity over time

There's no free lunch here.
 
EdmondLeaf said:
So far no one answered this - what is good/optimal temp for Leaf battery I am asking this again what is the best temp for Leaf battery?

room temperature is the standard number, low 70s.. the interesting part is that lots of cell phones are kept all day at nearly 100 degrees.. then again you are lucky if those batteries last a couple of years.
 
Cellphone batteries Ares completely different. They are essentially overcharged to get more ruin time and are treated at 300-500 charge cycles
 
:eek:
Hi all,
When I received my Leave in 5/2011 my range showed 115 to 120 miles.
Now after 13 month with about 9253 miles I lost my first capacity bar.
My range with a full charge shows only 85 miles!?
At my 12 month checkup a week ago they told me that this is normal and I should not be concerned.
But I am concerned, since I drive about 70 miles per day and sometime a little more and that means I have trouble getting home some days.
I really love my Leaf, but I'm going to try to sell or trade my Leaf in the next 4 to 5 weeks.
I'm not very hopeful that Nissan will do anything and I cannot effort to get stuck in the middle of the day with an empty battery, which will happen one day since there are not enough charging stations around.
:?
 
Stoaty said:
azknauer said:
Now after 13 month with about 9253 miles I lost my first capacity bar.
Where do you live?
1


Ly78M8
 
Stoaty said:
Yes, I just wish everyone would include their location in their profile so we don't have to go sleuthing around to figure it out :x
Agreed! While it's really great that so many of us share data online, tracking everything can prove very time-consuming. Wish we had something that scaled better, like the spreadsheet form turbo2ltr put together a while ago. Having a table up on the Wiki would help too. Although I have to admit, sleuthing almost becomes second nature after a while on this forum ;-)
1
 
Back
Top