2019 Leaf battery overheating

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.
cwerdna said:
lorenfb said:
My 2013 never reached temps in excess of 95F,
although I typically only QCed for 15-30 minutes. My present 2013 Leaf datas indicated in my signature. Luckily, my 2013 battery
doesn't have a worse SOH.
knightmb at https://web.archive.org/web/20170717073322/http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22134 I think has a '13 judging by his VIN and some prior posts. He's gotten his battery to least 131 F (55 C).

I'm pretty sure I've reached battery temps over 90 F just due to high ambient temps w/my current '13 Leaf. My current Leaf doesn't even have a CHADeMO inlet.

Oh, so from the anecdotal data, the implication is that heat soaking a Li ion battery has a marginal long term degradation effect, right?
Based on a sample of one, Leaf owners should discount temperature, e.g. Tucson, AZ owners take note, and focus more on not charging to
greater than 80%.


Did you read the following TomT post?
 
metricus said:
So let's go back to my initial questions:
does anyone have a 2019? does it behave the same? I'd like to understand if my specimen has a problem or i have to just get used to it.

I wish you and others, to not get duped into buying, what amounts to a large battery city car. Nissan did not care to engineer Leaf to be a road trip car even though marketing says it is. The larger American EV market needs a car that they feel is as capable as ICE. The Leafs Achilles Heal is still the battery and its poor design. Also, if Nissan's future is a cabin air cooled battery, that, has proven to be a fail by other manufacturers also. I wish you better luck...
 
lorenfb said:
cwerdna said:
lorenfb said:
My 2013 never reached temps in excess of 95F,
although I typically only QCed for 15-30 minutes. My present 2013 Leaf datas indicated in my signature. Luckily, my 2013 battery
doesn't have a worse SOH.
knightmb at https://web.archive.org/web/20170717073322/http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22134 I think has a '13 judging by his VIN and some prior posts. He's gotten his battery to least 131 F (55 C).

I'm pretty sure I've reached battery temps over 90 F just due to high ambient temps w/my current '13 Leaf. My current Leaf doesn't even have a CHADeMO inlet.

Oh, so from the anecdotal data, the implication is that heat soaking a Li ion battery has a marginal long term degradation effect, right?
Based on a sample of one, Leaf owners should discount temperature, e.g. Tucson, AZ owners take note, and focus more on not charging to
greater than 80%.


Did you read the following TomT post?
Who me? I'm not sure what you're implying. I merely pointed to how hot someone got their gen 1 Leaf battery on a hot day by multiple DC FCs in a day. Nothing more was implied.
 
cwerdna said:
lorenfb said:
cwerdna said:
knightmb at https://web.archive.org/web/20170717073322/http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22134 I think has a '13 judging by his VIN and some prior posts. He's gotten his battery to least 131 F (55 C).

I'm pretty sure I've reached battery temps over 90 F just due to high ambient temps w/my current '13 Leaf. My current Leaf doesn't even have a CHADeMO inlet.

Oh, so from the anecdotal data, the implication is that heat soaking a Li ion battery has a marginal long term degradation effect, right?
Based on a sample of one, Leaf owners should discount temperature, e.g. Tucson, AZ owners take note, and focus more on not charging to
greater than 80%.


Did you read the following TomT post?
Who me? I'm not sure what you're implying. I merely pointed to how hot someone got their gen 1 Leaf battery on a hot day by multiple DC FCs in a day. Nothing more was implied.

Sorry for the tone. We both know well, you more so having owned a Leaf longer, the detriment to battery life that heat is.
 
^^^
Indeed.

I'm still at 11 bars and SOH around 82%... actually has gone up to high 82's on my used 5/2013 built Leaf at under 65K miles. In comparison, this Phoenician at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=473995#p473995 w/the same build month as mine lost his 4th bar in late 8/2016.

We have plenty of examples of Leafs faring worse in terms of degradation in hotter climates than cooler ones for a given chemistry/battery revision.
 
Evoforce said:
I wish you and others, to not get duped into buying, what amounts to a large battery city car. Nissan did not care to engineer Leaf to be a road trip car even though marketing says it is.

This is exactly what we decided after test-driving both models (plus and regular). We did not need to spend the money on more range as long as our daily commute does not justify it. The Plus is 200 kg heavier and it's like carrying a large backpack every day just bc you need it once in a blue moon. It also has higher energy consumption because of the extra weight.

What we did not know is that we would not be able to QC like we did with the 2016 Leaf. I NEVER saw my temp gauge go up like this one does.

FALSE ADVERTISING = The fact that marketing presents it as a road trip car without specifying that in normal turnpike conditions you cannot count on more than one QC per day.
 
metricus said:
What we did not know is that we would not be able to QC like we did with the 2016 Leaf. I NEVER saw my temp gauge go up like this one does.

FALSE ADVERTISING = The fact that marketing presents it as a road trip car without specifying that in normal turnpike conditions you cannot count on more than one QC per day.
Out of curiosity, can you point us to the marketing and "false advertising" you speak of?

I'm not aware of anything to that effect but I may be wrong...
metricus said:
Follow-up on the previous reply: Frankly I think the accuracy of the temp gauge is less relevant at this point. The main problem is the fact that a 220 mile trip caused the car to decrease the charging power to as low as 14 kW. the reason for this is irrelevant for the user.

My problem snowballs after this: EVGO kicks me out after 30 minutes. which means that at a slower power I get less energy in that amount of time.

This means that I have to use my credit card to charge to the level i need which makes the NCTC program a false advertisement.
The temp gauge accuracy and what it represents is of some importance. If you actually had something with precision, you could better identify the sweet spot in terms of speed (in mph) vs. heating the battery vs. not affecting the battery temp vs. actually cooling it. I've been able to observe this w/Leaf Spy Pro on my '13 when outside air temp is considerably cooler than the battery temp.

It would also give you a data point w/some accuracy for actual battery temp to go w/your other data.

The 30 minute session length has been documented at https://www.ez-charge.com/faq for ages. How is it a "false advertisement"? The oldest copy at https://web.archive.org/web/20141110004059/https://www.ez-charge.com/faq/ from Nov 2014 also talks about the 30 minutes.
metricus said:
False advertisement is also the claim that the car can be charged in less than 30 mins on QC because that can only happen once per day if at all. in my case the first charge was at 35 kW not at 43 or "up to 50 kW" as they advertise.
Did they ever advertise you can do two+ fast charges at 43 kW or 50 kW in a single day on a 40 kWh Leaf?

It sounds like your starting SoC was too high on your first DC FC anyway and we don't know the battery temp at that point.
 
Did they ever advertise you can do two+ fast charges at 43 kW or 50 kW in a single day on a 40 kWh Leaf?

You're picking nits. Would you be happy if your Bolt could only do one QC a day, and GM had left that info out of their advertising...?
 
LeftieBiker said:
Did they ever advertise you can do two+ fast charges at 43 kW or 50 kW in a single day on a 40 kWh Leaf?

You're picking nits. Would you be happy if your Bolt could only do one QC a day, and GM had left that info out of their advertising...?
Not really. OP keeps complaining about "false advertising". I want to actually see what he claims is false.

As for the latter, not really, but I've not looked into GM's advertising and verbiage about multiple DC FCs in a day.
 
LeftieBiker said:
lorenfb said:
LeftieBiker said:
I'm sure it's a 40kwh Leaf. That degree of throttling of charge rate isn't likely to happen in cool temps with the ePlus.

In theory maybe, but complete reference data using LeafSpy has not been presented on the Plus battery. Some thought that the 40 kWh
battery having more parallel cells (pouches), i.e. for increased capacity, would result in lower battery resistance, thereby developing less
battery heat at higher QCs. That seems to not be the case whether QCing or driving at higher speeds. Given that, one would question
the logical of the Plus' battery being more heat tolerant than the 40 kWh battery.

I never thought that the 40kwh pack would heat any less. The 62kwh pack has the simple advantage of having much more capacity, so with much more chemical "space" available there need not be as much heating per amp of input charge. That isn't to say that the 62kwh pack won't suffer from high ambient heat, from heat produced by hard driving, or even from heat produced by multiple fast charges. It will just take it longer to get hot - and then longer to cool off again.

Same heat but perhaps less temperature rise due to more mass. And I suspect even slower heat dissipation but that is really hard to guess at since some degree of powered cooling is going on and heat dissipation is a complicated topic.
 
lorenfb said:
That's basically
why I'll only do one QC per day if absolutely necessary. I've also noticed that speeds in excess of 60 MPH can quickly heat the battery too,
so my speeds are generally 50-55 MPH. Luckily here in SoCal that's typically the freeway speed with fairly light traffic.

For those concerned about "RapidGate", potentially lower successive charge rates are a fact one needs to adjust to with larger
capacity Leaf batteries not having TMS.
Sounds about right.

If OP is not annoyed enough yet he can figure out his cost/kWh to 'quick charge.'
 
SageBrush said:
Same heat but perhaps less temperature rise due to more mass.

But that assumes the same charge rate and time. Ideally with a larger battery and thus more range, one would expect
a higher charge rate. Tesla's and other BEV's goal is higher charge rates resulting is less charging time with bigger batteries.
 
TomT said:
And Nissan (still) claims there is no need for a TMS...

Some people need a TMS. I suggest they buy a different EV.

Some people have no use for a TMS, and would prefer to have a battery that doesn't have one.

Don't impose your solutions on other people's needs and wishes.
 
lorenfb said:
SageBrush said:
Same heat but perhaps less temperature rise due to more mass.

But that assumes the same charge rate and time. Ideally with a larger battery and thus more range, one would expect
a higher charge rate. Tesla's and other BEV's goal is higher charge rates resulting is less charging time with bigger batteries.
I was figuring same ~ voltage and same kW during charging or driving compared to a smaller battery, so same current
 
WetEV said:
Some people need a TMS. I suggest they buy a different EV.

Some people have no use for a TMS, and would prefer to have a battery that doesn't have one.

Don't impose your solutions on other people's needs and wishes.

You are absolutely correct. My problem is Nissan not disclosing these strong limitations upfront so that the customer can make an informed decision.

In essence, after my 235 miles in 50 deg outside temperatures the temp gauge was on red and charge was 19% making the vehicle unusable.

I am an engineer and I perfectly understand the reasons behind these limitations and that you can make adjustments to partially mitigate the effects. I'd say that best case scenario you can count on MAXIMUM 250 miles/trip before you have to let it cool down most likely overnight.

The fundamental issue is that marketing and sales don't make it clear that the car has not only a range limitation between charges but the range are also limited per trip/day. Instead they make it sound that you can drive as much as you want provided you stop for a 30 min charge every 100 km/60mi or so. That's FALSE ADVERTISEMENT.
 
cwerdna said:
If really want to know what's going on w/battery temps, I strongly recommend Leaf Spy.

I can't speak to the '18+ Leaf temp gauge but the '11 to '17 one had huge overlapping ranges. Click on Battery Temperature Gauge at http://www.electricvehiclewiki.com/wiki/battery-d1/. And yes, I do use Leaf Spy and can tell you the temp gauge on the '13 is crap.


I found overlapping to be a minimal issue on my 40 (I gave up trying to quantify the bars on my 24 and 30)

https://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2019/05/temperature-bars-on-leaf.html
 
cwerdna said:
Out of curiosity, is this a 40 kWh car or a 62 kWh Leaf Plus?

Many other EVs have active thermal management... Bolt does but its DC FCing isn't that fast (from what I hear). In the case of https://electricrevs.com/2018/07/17/watch-a-bolt-ev-at-a-chargepoint-express-250-charge-at-up-to-55-kw/, it may start slowing down after 55% SoC. And, I hear it's quite slow if the battery's cold, until it warms up enough.

In a race with the Bolt, 30 kwh LEAF and 40 kwh LEAF, who would win?

Winner; 30 kwh LEAF simply because of its ability to charge at full speed to 80% SOC. Test based on 5 mins plus charge time for each QC stop. There were parameters for trip length with Bolt and 40 having advantage in shorter distances due to higher range which was GREATLY mitigated if all cars started race at 50% SOC.

FYI; The 30 wins barely if the race is long enough BUT the 40 loses badly in anything over 300 miles or so.

But the main advantage of having a bigger pack is simply more charging options convenient to personal needs (which often do not follow a schedule) and the ability to charge the lower 2/3rds of the pack (something Bolt excels) which helps to slow temperature rise.

I tested my 40 last Summer on OR Coast trip with short charging sessions of less than 20 mins and did not see "significant" slow down (on my scale is when pack temps exceed 100º)

Realize bar 6 covers temps from 78 to 96º F abouts which means lower end has earlier knee, upper end is throttled. I was seeing 37 kw at 95º over the 45-46 kw. Most wouldn't have noticed the difference. FYI; a lower starting charge rate does move the knee slightly higher but not enough to overcome the loss.
 
The functional limitations of the LEAF are hard to convey to people not versed in the EV world.
Yesterday my wife and I took a day trip to a resort town in Colorado 200 miles away for biking (me) and soaking (wife and her friends.) There are DC chargers 50 miles into the trip but nada afterwards unless a 60 mile detour is taken and there is only ONE EVSE at the resort.

I left home with a full charge, then added 50 miles of range at the supercharger as insurance and arrived at the resort with 150 miles of range remaining. The EVSE was available and although L2, could supply up to 70 Amps so my Tesla Model 3 LR took 48 Amps. The car spent a total of ~ 3 hours at the EVSE and I had full range again by the time we were ready to leave.

No fuss. If the local EVSE had not been available I would have detoured to a Supercharger 90 miles away which is actually the only other DC charging available within a 150 mile radius of the resort.

Between having a large battery, fast L2 and Tesla network access, and actually fast DC charging as a back-up plan the EV does not restrict where we travel. Any LEAF, including the 62 kWh version, would have been a non-starter even with an overnight stay somewhere.
 
Back
Top