Capacity Loss on 2011-2012 LEAFs

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.
TickTock, when that 12th capacity bar drops again (really soon), I would once again visit the Nissan dealer and complain that your diminished capacity battery was repaired last week (month), and now, just in that short time, it has once again lost 15% capacity, per the Nissan Service Manual.

Keep all the documentation. Then look up Lemon laws for your state.
 
OK. Although I got my car back with all 12 capacity bars and am reading 10% higher gid counts for an 80% charge (6% higher for a 100% charge), I have established that there is no difference in my battery capacity. In the graph below, I plot the battery voltage versus energy from the wall for three turtle to 100% charge logs. One last November, one just before the service and one just after. You can see that both the before and after service plots are almost identical (despite the charge afterward ending with higher gid count). I actually did two turtle to 100 tests this week just to make sure the first wasn't an anomaly and they both had the same result. So, no cells got replaced - looks like they may have recalibrated what a gids is but the battery performance is the same. To try to avoid overloading this thread any more, I created a separate thread to discuss the implications of variable gid:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689
 

Attachments

  • charge profile.jpg
    charge profile.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 200
TickTock said:
OK. Although I got my car back with all 12 capacity bars and am reading 10% higher gid counts for an 80% charge (6% higher for a 100% charge), I have established that there is no difference in my battery capacity. In the graph below, I plot the battery voltage versus energy from the wall for three turtle to 100% charge logs. One last November, one just before the service and one just after. You can see that both the before and after service plots are almost identical (despite the charge afterward ending with higher gid count). I actually did two turtle to 100 tests this week just to make sure the first wasn't an anomaly and they both had the same result. So, no cells got replaced - looks like they may have recalibrated what a gids is but the battery performance is the same. To try to avoid overloading this thread any more, I created a separate thread to discuss the implications of variable gid:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9689

Well, in that case, never mind what I posted an hour ago...

edatoakrun

...And (assuming TickTock's LEAF still has the original battery) it looks like his capacity at "100%" charge may have only declined from 19.12 kWh to 18.48 kWh, or ~3.5%, since his first gid reading on 10/01/11...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... li=1#gid=1

I assume your post "service" range to turtle was consistent with the lower capacity, you calculated "from the wall", TickTock?
 
From the sales thread:
Randy said:
From a recent Plug-in 2012 conversation with Nissan reps, the Smyrna-produced batteries will be the same as what has come out of Japan. There will be some slight efficiency gains in the MY 2013 car so it uses slightly less energy, but the battery will be the same...
I'd predict Nissan dealers in these states will just *strongly* suggest to customers to lease then Nissan can manage what to do with the batteries when they resell them (2ndary use them and replace the battery from the new TN plant)
 
Battery degradation must be tapering off as Nissan predicted, if you go by the pace of new posts in this thread.. someone should graph it to what the correlation is.
 
So, one could conclude then, that their loss of capacity fix is simply a software change that hides it... Apparently they took a page from the Honda Hybrid playbook!

TickTock said:
OK. Although I got my car back with all 12 capacity bars and am reading 10% higher gid counts for an 80% charge (6% higher for a 100% charge), I have established that there is no difference in my battery capacity.
 
scottf200 said:
From the sales thread:
Randy said:
From a recent Plug-in 2012 conversation with Nissan reps, the Smyrna-produced batteries will be the same as what has come out of Japan. There will be some slight efficiency gains in the MY 2013 car so it uses slightly less energy, but the battery will be the same...
That's disappointing. It looks like Tony was correct.
scottf200 said:
I'd predict Nissan dealers in these states will just *strongly* suggest to customers to lease then Nissan can manage what to do with the batteries when they resell them (2ndary use them and replace the battery from the new TN plant)
I wish I believed that. Unless Nissan puts an end to LEAF sales in hot climates I think dealers will continue business as usual. In fact, I expect they will be stepping up sales efforts to try to keep LEAFs from piling up on their lots.
 
Herm said:
Battery degradation must be tapering off as Nissan predicted, if you go by the pace of new posts in this thread.. someone should graph it to what the correlation is.
An alternate explanation is that people aren't bothering to report loss of capacity bars, since it is a known issue.
 
TomT said:
So, one could conclude then, that their loss of capacity fix is simply a software change that hides it... Apparently they took a page from the Honda Hybrid playbook!

Nice job, Nissan! NOT!

TickTock said:
OK. Although I got my car back with all 12 capacity bars and am reading 10% higher gid counts for an 80% charge (6% higher for a 100% charge), I have established that there is no difference in my battery capacity.

If that's what they do as the "fix", I promise to personally invest my efforts to "make this right". That includes efforts towards class action strategies, and other strategies to "make them famous".

That would include things like media, picketing at Phoenix dealers, capital hill visits, etc. Personally, I think it would put Nissan in the same toilet I think Ecotality swims in.
 
Stoaty said:
Herm said:
Battery degradation must be tapering off as Nissan predicted, if you go by the pace of new posts in this thread.. someone should graph it to what the correlation is.
An alternate explanation is that people aren't bothering to report loss of capacity bars, since it is a known issue.

And folks know that perhaps nothing substantial will arrive because of their report.
 
Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service, I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82 - closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).
 
TickTock said:
Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service, I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82 - closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).
Very interesting data. If a mis-calibrated sensor explains part of the apparent loss, the problem may not be quite as bad as it appears. I wonder if that explains any of the loss for other Leafs. Of course, 15% loss in such a short time is still far from acceptable based on Nissan's representations/assurances. I believe Scott got his Leaf back with 3 capacity bars still missing.

It looks like in some cases such as yours, even the Leafscan would not have given 100% accurate data about capacity loss.
 
TickTock said:
Actually, it appears they just corrected a mis-calibrated sensor rather than trying to make it look like more capacity (possibly by accident just by resetting the computer). Prior to the service,- closer to this nominal target. So it would appear, since I was using gids as a metric, I had more capacity than I thought. I'm still down 15% or so but not the 23% I thought. I used to think gids was our best metric - I no longer do. From-the-wall energy to charge turtle/dead to 100% look most reliable. Especially if the mpkwh display value is also based on gids (which seems likely).

I'm confused.

" ...I was seeing 87wH/gid which is higher than what Ingineer claims is the nominal target of 80. Upon return it was getting 82.."

Exactly how are you calculating wH/gid ? From "the wall", as corrected by what charging efficiency factor?

Are you saying ALL your reports of kWh accepted per charge, prior to your last one, should be adjusted upward by the same constant (to what wH/gid value?) or did this discrepancy vary over time?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An7gtcYL2Oy0dHNwVmRkNkFnaEVOQTVENW5mOTZlb0E&pli=1#gid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
thankyouOB said:
we had to destroy the village to save it.

-infamous vietnam war logic

Positive things can be both the goal, and outcome. One possible goal is working toward legislation that might prevent a scenario where an auto manufacturer sells a product with defects, and then attempts to cover up the defects (aka Honda, which lost court challenges to their post sale battery funny business to try and cover up a defective product). I have a good deal of experience on Capitol Hill with organized lobbying work.

Anyhoo, I know your stand on the issues; be quiet, and don't rock the boat. There might be collateral damage. The bad news is that people who will ultimately sue Nissan won't share your view, and I won't like the out-of-court settlement where nothing changes, and people get paid money to shut their mouth.
 
Stoaty said:
It looks like in some cases such as yours, even the Leafscan would not have given 100% accurate data about capacity loss.

Great points. All the more reason to use physical range tests (with controls that I've outlined many times) and outside measurement of battery energy consumed.
 
I have added a short paragraph on the testing in Casa Grande to the "battery capacity loss" section of the Wiki, but am still missing a couple of links to the forum for the info on Azdre/opossum and Scott Yarosh. If anyone can find these links and add them (or wants to make any other corrections/additions), I would appreciate it:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery,_Charging_System#Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
TonyWilliams said:
thankyouOB said:
we had to destroy the village to save it.

-infamous vietnam war logic

Positive things can be both the goal, and outcome. One possible goal is working toward legislation that might prevent a scenario where an auto manufacturer sells a product with defects, and then attempts to cover up the defects (aka Honda, which lost court challenges to their post sale battery funny business to try and cover up a defective product). I have a good deal of experience on Capitol Hill with organized lobbying work.

Anyhoo, I know your stand on the issues; be quiet, and don't rock the boat. There might be collateral damage. The bad news is that people who will ultimately sue Nissan won't share your view, and I won't like the out-of-court settlement where nothing changes, and people get paid money to shut their mouth.

dont put words in my mouth, please.

at this point, I am among those who see appropriate canary-in-the-coal-mine warnings accompanied, in my view, by odd, and unjustified rampant speculation and sky-is-falling conclusions, along with tin-foil-hat conspiracies.
I prefer to applaud the canaries and wait for some answers.
YMMV.
but dont paint me with your tar brush, please.
 
Back
Top