eatsleafsandshoots
Well-known member
This bitty gets charged to 100 percent every day, though I try to time it to my departure.
iPlug said:2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16
30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:
AHr= 82.34
4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SageBrush said:iPlug said:2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16
30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:
AHr= 82.34
4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
That is just depressing.
iPlug said:2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16
30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:
AHr= 82.34
SOH= 103.60%
Hx= 97.45%
Odo= 18,729 mi
QC= 31
L1/L2= 660
Battery Software update already installed
4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SOH= 93.08%
Hx= 79.36%
Odo= 27,556 mi
QC= 36
L1/L2= 902
3-year lease was up this month. Just got 3 month extension.
Re-ran the OBDII/LeafSpy numbers again this morning with different SOC, and the numbers almost identical, a tad less on all metrics. Can wait 3 more months to get into a new lease or possibly buy new BEV if the terms are right.DaveinOlyWA said:iPlug said:2016 Leaf SV leased 4/16
30kWh battery replaced with new battery in 3/18:
AHr= 82.34
SOH= 103.60%
Hx= 97.45%
Odo= 18,729 mi
QC= 31
L1/L2= 660
Battery Software update already installed
4/3/19:
AHr= 73.98
SOH= 93.08%
Hx= 79.36%
Odo= 27,556 mi
QC= 36
L1/L2= 902
3-year lease was up this month. Just got 3 month extension.
That is way too much loss
johnlocke said:May update. 345 GID's 75.58AH SOH=95.09% Hx=83.01% 60627 total mi. 15708 mi on new battery. 15 DCFC and 299 l2 charges on the new battery. The new battery continues to do better than the old one but weather is just starting to warm up. By amp hours the battery is down about 9% but by the GIDs values I've only lost about 5%. I'm beginning to believe that either the software update really worked or that the new battery is much better than the original one. The old battery was down 12% after 10 months as compared to 5% for the new one, That is still too rapid with a projected loss of 40% or more over 8 years. It would leave me at about 70-75% in 5 more years at 150K mi. My best guess is that I will still have close to 80% left as I cross the 100K mark so a third battery is not likely. It does give me 2-3 years to look for a replacement car.
His profile says he lives in Utah.Bought my 2016 SV new in August of 2016...
-Lost my first bar Oct 2017
23,384 miles
-Lost my second bar Apr 2018
33,025 miles
*Got the battery update/recall (30kWh)
June 2018, and got my two bars back.
35,505
-Lost my first bar AGAIN Aug 2018.
38,803 miles
-Lost my second bar AGAIN today May 2019
51,088 miles
Live in temperate climate.
Don't have LEAF Spy.
...Still love my little LEAFY
cwerdna said:Another person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/NissanLeafOwners/permalink/2461228413975133/?comment_id=2461265303971444 also replying to the same person's (initials TC) post (in another group) mentions they're down 2 bars on their 30 kWh Leaf, post-update (with about 17.8K miles). Don't know where they are now, but in older posts, they said they live in Los Angeles.
cwerdna said:The person at https://www.facebook.com/groups/437741293059829/permalink/1212144445619506/ posted there and at least 2 other closed FB groups. He has a 30 kWh Leaf and wrote
His profile says he lives in Utah.Bought my 2016 SV new in August of 2016...
-Lost my first bar Oct 2017
23,384 miles
-Lost my second bar Apr 2018
33,025 miles
*Got the battery update/recall (30kWh)
June 2018, and got my two bars back.
35,505
-Lost my first bar AGAIN Aug 2018.
38,803 miles
-Lost my second bar AGAIN today May 2019
51,088 miles
Live in temperate climate.
Don't have LEAF Spy.
...Still love my little LEAFY
It does seem like these 30 kWh packs are a step backwards from the "lizard" packs, even post-update.
I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.LeftieBiker said:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
SageBrush said:I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.LeftieBiker said:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
Their contract with AESC forces them into a non-competitive, one supplier only position. This is not an LG issue, this is Nissan eating crow to partially exit AESC.DaveinOlyWA said:SageBrush said:I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.LeftieBiker said:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
I think LG capability to supply cells was another factor.
SageBrush said:I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.LeftieBiker said:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
LeftieBiker said:SageBrush said:I'll guess not games, but pack variability. I think AESC QC is poor. It seems fairly clear that Nissan wanted to exit AESC and go with LG cells but they are stuck for now with a 25% ownership stake in AESC and an obligation to use AESC cell ... and even less control over QC than they had before. Not that QC was ever that good to begin with.LeftieBiker said:I was afraid of this. It seems more unpredictable than with the Canary packs, though. Some 30kwh packs lose no bars for years, while others - even in milder climate - lose a bar a year. Nissan is playing games again.
The "games" to which I refer are claiming that this is all just a BMS programming error, and that their BMS update will fix the problem - which never really existed according to them. I was suspicious of this from the first, because a factory programming error should have affected ALL of the BMS units manufactured in a certain time frame - not just some of them.
Do you, or have you done computer programming of embedded systems for a living, Leftie?
Enter your email address to join: