the differences in Nissan's testing versus the leaf community real-world testing is a bit alarming. Opossum getting real world results ~10% less Nissan's offical recording pops up red flags everywhere in my head. Specifically, when reproducing the results both ways (via driving and, I am quite sure via GID) outputting the same results really points to a flaw in Nissan's test.
I hate to think they would go through this entire process only to not run the test correctly or even fudge the results. Neither option is rosey at all. Unfortunately there is very little to counter their actions. Their test show 85% - therefore "normal" (i.e. not below 80% in 5 years) - how could you argue against their test? You could produce all the real world data you want and they can easily point to variables tainted it or their method is best because they made the batteries, etc.
I don't see this ending well. In my limited experience handling product problems with other companies, once they have "their" determination of what is wrong/what is not wrong/how it went wrong, etc. It is hard to argue against that again because they either think: you are one of those crazy people who are never satisfied and will always complain, you are seeing a figment problem, or you are trying to extort/lie to them to get free stuff/repairs. Rarely does further complaining despite overwhelming evidence works. I mean, how can their hired/subcontracted specialist be wrong!
This is what I am scared will happen. They will come back and say 85% no problem, situation normal while we have loads of info to back it up its not, which they will just ignore us entirely and think we are weirdo radicals.
Can anyone speculate the inconsitency? Did nissan try and pull carwings data instead of real testing? :lol: It is fairly obvious that they did little on-the-road testing due to the lack of additional miles, which means computer connections, diagonistics, and simulations. The ONLY way I can see the numbers be reconciled is that Nissan included ALL the kWh in the battery (meaning you still have your 3 kWh you can't touch...duh, that is still good capacity, right?) and then, used the usable capacity as a percentage, inflating the number ~10%.
So, say the Oppossum's car has about 73% capacity remaining of the USABLE battery (~21 kWh) = 15.33 kWh remaining capacity. Add 3 kWh to the total for the unusable capacity, and Oppossum's car has a total of 18.33 kWh of total battery (only 15.33 usable). Now take 18.33 kWh and get a percentage of usable battery (21 kWh) = 87%, to me, very close assuming variables that the top end of 21 kWh is not exact nor is the 15.33 kWh was not exact either. I know, its very bad math (so wrong), but it gives numbers equal to what Nissan says versus Oppossum's real life numbers.
In fact, thinking over it, I bet Nissan is going to pull something close to this out of their hat...i.e. "we never said 70% usable capacity, we said 70% capacity" so their fudge of that ~3 kWh in the battery will play back into their favor. Even if they do the math right, that still may save them against more cars (like mine) to figure a "fix". In addition, because we can't access the entire pack, they can easily pull a "our method is the only way to determine because we can access the full pack, blah blah."
What I was trying to illustrate is that all the testing was done with the same models of EVSE known to Nissan, and now there are many more models.
