2016-2017 model year 30 kWh bar losers and capacity losses

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.
goldbrick said:
I'm not a litigious person but if you come in 12 hours after the warranty period expires with a missing 4th bar you will be denied a new battery since it is out of the warranty period.

Nissan evaluate each warranty request on a case by case basis. There is history of them granting warranty replacements out of warranty, or at least making monetary concessions. Feedback regarding you as a customer from your dealer is one of the factors they take into consideration when evaluating out of warranty requests. It's not one size fits all.

Legally they have the deck stacked in their favor. Customer relations may be willing to act above their legal minimum response.
 
lorenfb said:
So we find that the two key battery parameters (Ahrs/relative battery conductance) have degraded more so on the 30kWh Leaf than other Leafs. This has resulted in potentially higher warranty claims for Nissan, but only the parameter (Ahrs/bars) defined in Nissan's warranty document is modified, thereby reducing its potential near term liabilities. We find, though, the these batteries still exhibit a higher rate of degradation than other Leafs based on Hx.
Hx is an interesting parameter as the relationship with SoH has been different on 4 bar losers compared to the 24kWh packs. For @waikalua the Hx may have been close to pre-update SoH and note the update has given 11 not 12 bars so may now be around 80% - please share if actual values available.

I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
 
Plotting the Hx over the last 30 days shows it dropping just as fast as before if not more. On 27 June 60.53 and today it is 59.52

On the 24s is the Hx typically a lower value than SOH? My SOH is 82.55
 
dwl said:
lorenfb said:
So we find that the two key battery parameters (Ahrs/relative battery conductance) have degraded more so on the 30kWh Leaf than other Leafs. This has resulted in potentially higher warranty claims for Nissan, but only the parameter (Ahrs/bars) defined in Nissan's warranty document is modified, thereby reducing its potential near term liabilities. We find, though, the these batteries still exhibit a higher rate of degradation than other Leafs based on Hx.
Hx is an interesting parameter as the relationship with SoH has been different on 4 bar losers compared to the 24kWh packs. For @waikalua the Hx may have been close to pre-update SoH and note the update has given 11 not 12 bars so may now be around 80% - please share if actual values available.

I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
The Hx does not change with the update.
 
jbuntz said:
dwl said:
I wonder whether a rough relationship between Hx and SoH is emerging as the cars are updated.
The Hx does not change with the update.
Exactly, but the SoH does change with the update and we now have a new ratio appearing which should be more accurate. While in the past there has been a strong focus on SoH it may be that Hx is a more stable indicator of battery health.
 
We know that the software update changes the value for SOH but not for Hx. Has anyone actually seen an increase in range? If the change in SOH is real there should be a noticeable increase in range, either more miles to VLB or a higher percentage of capacity left after going a fixed distance ( say your usual commute). If there's no change then we're back to Nissan's Smoke and Mirrors tricks again. Since I had my battery changed at the same time as they did the software fix I'm not in a position to answer the question.
 
waikalua said:
I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
 
jlv said:
waikalua said:
I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.

This is why I suggest correcting a range test by consumption rate*. I don't really know if the consumption meter is accurate -- just better than ignoring it completely.

* range / rate = amount (in kWh)
 
SageBrush said:
jlv said:
waikalua said:
I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.

Which is why a range test to VLBW with multiple cars on the same day over the same course is so interesting. Set the cruise control to reduce the driver variation, and have a second person in each car to verify speed with GPS, record the distance and otherwise keep the test safe.

Would be very nice for a 8 bar pre-update car and a new car to be included.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
jlv said:
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
Consumption rates can easily vary by 100% due to driver, traffic, climate and roads.

It looks like Dynomometer/tuning rental rates are about $125/hour for 2-wheel drive:

http://www.enhancedstreetperformance.com/dyno/dyno-tuning-pricing

You may be able to fully charge a 30kw Leaf, put it on a Dyno, and run it down to turtle in under 1 hour (produce 50 hp per the dyno, then engage cruise control). Then take it to Nissan for the update, drive it around for a week or a month to let the BMS values settle, then repeat the dyno run. Total cost should be about $250, which could be crowd-funded on Kickstarter.

You may be able to get free dyno time in exchange for publicity, if you have an EV news website "cover" the story.
 
jlv said:
waikalua said:
I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
i have done a range test. Before I got about 60 miles to LBW and another 25 to turtle. Now I get 80 to LBW and another 10 to turtle. I estimate 1kWh improvement in total capacity.
 
Had the need for a full charge this past weekend and grabbed the following stats.... software update was done the evening of 6/20. Car is a '16 30kWh. Battery pack mfg date is 12/15. Here's hoping that another 1.23% SOH drop does not happen after another 584 miles.

Date 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 6/21/2018 6/23/2018 7/3/2018 7/21/2018
AHr 68.58 68.51 73.66 74.27 73.94 72.96
SOH 86.29% 86.20% 92.68% 93.44% 93.03% 91.80%
V 395.67 395.47 395.26 395.66 395.71 395.55
Hx 78.79% 78.70% 78.28% 79.79% 78.98% 76.54%
ODO 32561 32589 32643 32830 33303 33887
QC 9 9 9 9 9 9
L1/L2 1708 1710 1712 1723 1748 1778
SOC 97.80% 97.70% 97.80% 97.70% 97.80% 97.70%
GIDS 313 313 337 339 338 334
kWh 24.3 24.3 26.1 26.3 26.2 25.9

On the bright side, in some very mixed highway/city driving I got 104.7 real world miles (22.8 kWh used / 4.6 miles per kWh in 3 hours of driving).
 
jbuntz said:
jlv said:
waikalua said:
I’ve spent the last two years being frustrated that the extra money I spent for 30 kWh was a waste and somewhat bitterly having to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for the reduced range!
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
i have done a range test. Before I got about 60 miles to LBW and another 25 to turtle. Now I get 80 to LBW and another 10 to turtle. I estimate 1kWh improvement in total capacity.
A charge to full from Turtle would be less susceptible to variation
 
SageBrush said:
jbuntz said:
jlv said:
Have you simply considering doing real life range test? Fully charge and then drive the car to VLBW (or turtle, if you are careful) and what your capacity seems to be? There's a big range difference between 8 and 11 bars.
i have done a range test. Before I got about 60 miles to LBW and another 25 to turtle. Now I get 80 to LBW and another 10 to turtle. I estimate 1kWh improvement in total capacity.
A charge to full from Turtle would be less susceptible to variation
Charging from turtle before and after showed a 1kWh improvement.
 
jbuntz said:
SageBrush said:
jbuntz said:
i have done a range test. Before I got about 60 miles to LBW and another 25 to turtle. Now I get 80 to LBW and another 10 to turtle. I estimate 1kWh improvement in total capacity.
A charge to full from Turtle would be less susceptible to variation
Charging from turtle before and after showed a 1kWh improvement.
Interesting, and thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know if the LeafSpy reported SoC at VLB changed after the update ?
 
SageBrush said:
jbuntz said:
SageBrush said:
A charge to full from Turtle would be less susceptible to variation
Charging from turtle before and after showed a 1kWh improvement.
Interesting, and thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know if the LeafSpy reported SoC at VLB changed after the update ?
VLB is at the same number of GIDs but SOC in LeafSpy is much higher. At turtle SOC still reported 5.7%. Prior to update SOC at turtle was 0.0%
 
jbuntz said:
SageBrush said:
jbuntz said:
Charging from turtle before and after showed a 1kWh improvement.
Interesting, and thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know if the LeafSpy reported SoC at VLB changed after the update ?
VLB is at the same number of GIDs but SOC in LeafSpy is much higher. At turtle SOC still reported 5.7%. Prior to update SOC at turtle was 0.0%
Useful info. Prior to the update did you notice when SOC first reached 0% (how many GIDs)?
 
dwl said:
jbuntz said:
SageBrush said:
Interesting, and thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know if the LeafSpy reported SoC at VLB changed after the update ?
VLB is at the same number of GIDs but SOC in LeafSpy is much higher. At turtle SOC still reported 5.7%. Prior to update SOC at turtle was 0.0%
Useful info. Prior to the update did you notice when SOC first reached 0% (how many GIDs)?
Prior to update up to 6 GID = 0% 9 GID =1.3% 41 GID = 11.5%. Now 5 GID = 5.7 and 5.4 %
 
jbuntz said:
06/20 08 21716 230 50.41 63
06/27 11 22047 296 66.01 83 Aftr Updt

Incredible! ~ +6kW (~ +16 Ahrs, ~ +20% SOC) after the update

Amazing what one can do by changing a few binary numbers, right?
 
jbuntz said:
SageBrush said:
A charge to full from Turtle would be less susceptible to variation
Charging from turtle before and after showed a 1kWh improvement.
Did I miss those results ? They are the most indicative of whether the post update Ahr capacity increase reported by the BMS to LeafSpy is believable.
 
Back
Top