The 62kWh Battery Topic

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.
Interesting video. It appears that my SL+ is doing as well as the Model 3 since current "Gid" reading at full charge is 96.30% of new, current AHr reading is 94.43% of new, and current SOH reading is 94.44% of new after 17 months and 25,707 miles of use.
 
GerryAZ said:
Interesting video. It appears that my SL+ is doing as well as the Model 3 since current "Gid" reading at full charge is 96.30% of new, current AHr reading is 94.43% of new, and current SOH reading is 94.44% of new after 17 months and 25,707 miles of use.
My Model 3 is at 101% of new at 30 months old.

There does seem to be mounting evidence that the + models are doing better than the smaller packs. Since I expected them to do worse and that is increasingly unlikely to be true, I'm happy to say I guessed wrong. It is irony that when Nissan finally made a passive pack that was not crap, they gave up and joined the active thermal control crowd. I presume it is an acknowledgement that 50 - 75 kW charging is not competitive.
 
This video details a repaired bad module on a 40 kWh pack, on a LEAF that's used as a taxi (120,000 miles and over 1200 DC quick charges!)

https://youtu.be/-ySOspbt0BM

At the 1:53 timestamp, the physical bulging of the modules in the back of the pack are very telling. It really underscores how much heat DC quick charging produces within the pack and how woefully inadequate passive cooling is!
 
I thought it was impressive that the other buckled cells hadn't failed. Running a cab on a 40 is quite the duty load.

Guessing the uber drivers with the 62 pack do better as they don't need to do nearly as many DC cycles during a normal day.
 
SageBrush said:
GerryAZ said:
Interesting video. It appears that my SL+ is doing as well as the Model 3 since current "Gid" reading at full charge is 96.30% of new, current AHr reading is 94.43% of new, and current SOH reading is 94.44% of new after 17 months and 25,707 miles of use.
My Model 3 is at 101% of new at 30 months old.

There does seem to be mounting evidence that the + models are doing better than the smaller packs. Since I expected them to do worse and that is increasingly unlikely to be true, I'm happy to say I guessed wrong. It is irony that when Nissan finally made a passive pack that was not crap, they gave up and joined the active thermal control crowd. I presume it is an acknowledgement that 50 - 75 kW charging is not competitive.

Its all about workload. Huge difference between 192 hands verses 288 hands. We do have the sliver segment who roadtrip enough to complain about DC charging speed (which means once every other year :roll: ) but other than that, the Plus has turned out to be a fairly good compromise on price, range and performance.

Still, it is early and I think the key lies in how many miles will most of us have when the "good" range drops below 200 miles which seems to be the line that most people judge?

As far as the thermal thing? I am not sure if its all about EA's decision to marginalize Chademo or Nissan thinking faster charging speeds are needed? Most of the country doesn't have stations that provide more than 125 amps on Chademo so its like "am I missing something I don't know about?" question.

But the more telling thing is range. The Plus allows me to negate charging speed because I simply charge to the knee and go so I don't see the slow DC speeds because that is range I don't need.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
I am not sure if its all about EA's decision to marginalize Chademo or Nissan thinking faster charging speeds are needed?
So far Nissan has given no hint of continuing LEAF with CCS. They may yet change their minds but for now it looks to me like a decision based on LEAF peak charging speed and related rapidgate and coldgate issues.

---
I'll make a prediction:
In the same way that you never missed range until you got more,
you do not miss faster charging, until you get more.

---
A few minutes ago I was planning a 366 mile trip from home to Aspen, CO in our Tesla Model 3. One stop, under 10 minutes of charging. It occurred to me that other than curiosity, there was no reason to plan at all. Just go.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
SageBrush said:
GerryAZ said:
Interesting video. It appears that my SL+ is doing as well as the Model 3 since current "Gid" reading at full charge is 96.30% of new, current AHr reading is 94.43% of new, and current SOH reading is 94.44% of new after 17 months and 25,707 miles of use.
My Model 3 is at 101% of new at 30 months old.

There does seem to be mounting evidence that the + models are doing better than the smaller packs. Since I expected them to do worse and that is increasingly unlikely to be true, I'm happy to say I guessed wrong. It is irony that when Nissan finally made a passive pack that was not crap, they gave up and joined the active thermal control crowd. I presume it is an acknowledgement that 50 - 75 kW charging is not competitive.

Its all about workload. Huge difference between 192 hands verses 288 hands.
That helps by lowering pack resistance (increasing pack from 2P to 3P) but I doubt it is most of the story. After all, lower capacity packs degrade just sitting on dealer lots, and we are all familiar with the observation that age is a lot more important that usage in determining degradation rate.
 
After all, lower capacity packs degrade just sitting on dealer lots, and we are all familiar with the observation that age is a lot more important that usage in determining degradation rate.

This isn't always the case. Lizard packs seem to not be degrading all that much by age.
 
SageBrush said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
I am not sure if its all about EA's decision to marginalize Chademo or Nissan thinking faster charging speeds are needed?
So far Nissan has given no hint of continuing LEAF with CCS. They may yet change their minds but for now it looks to me like a decision based on LEAF peak charging speed and related rapidgate and coldgate issues.

---
I'll make a prediction:
In the same way that you never missed range until you got more,
you do not miss faster charging, until you get more.

---
A few minutes ago I was planning a 366 mile trip from home to Aspen, CO in our Tesla Model 3. One stop, under 10 minutes of charging. It occurred to me that other than curiosity, there was no reason to plan at all. Just go.

Can't say I was ever happy about 50 KW charging or 125 amps, but 200 amp charging was a significant difference. Combined with the range, I was normally leaving with more range than I had planned for. Now, my idea of road tripping is stopping at least every 2 hours and even that is more than I want to go or "can go" frequently so it was all about having stations spaced in the right places. Twice I ended up stopping before my planned stop because of personal need but no matter. Plug in for 10 to 15 mins, do what I need to do then go. Despite having an hour of range left with the unplanned stop, the SOC was still low enough that most of my short session was over 70 KW. Faster is always better but there comes a point where faster doesn't make life more convenient.

Now, we can all dream up scenarios and a million different "what if?" but no need. It would be wasted on me.
 
My 2 cents are that I would prefer 10 $10k 50KW chargers on the highway vs. 1 $150k 300KW charger. For most trips the charging time difference wouldn't matter.

For those interested, finally made a graph of my SoH(s) Blue is SV+ and red is S+. It was a few months before I started measuring the SV+ purchase in June 2019.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nPxzkiI7XjH-MLVl-gRkLZsdfckBqQAk/view?usp=drivesdk
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
My 2 cents are that I would prefer 10 $10k 50KW chargers on the highway vs. 1 $150k 300KW charger.
Where are you getting the $10K figure for a 50 kW charger? That might be not enough to cover the unit itself and definitely is nowhere near enough to cover hardware + installation.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Can't say I was ever happy about 50 KW charging or 125 amps, but 200 amp charging was a significant difference.
Wait till you experience 400 Amps. 200 Amps will feel like a dog and 125 Amps will elicit a disgruntled laugh.

My Tesla Model 3 peaks at 600 - 700 Amps at the new V3 Superchargers but I have not used any yet. And since they taper faster than just cruising at 400 Amps up to 60 - 70% SoC the road tripping difference may not be enough to particularly care about the difference.

My version of no-compromise long trip driving is to stop for 10-15 minutes every 2-3 hours of driving at 70 - 75 mph on long trips. That type of routine is not in the realm of possible for passive battery EVs since it only starts to be possible at 180 kW average charging.
 
SageBrush said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Can't say I was ever happy about 50 KW charging or 125 amps, but 200 amp charging was a significant difference.
Wait till you experience 400 Amps. 200 Amps will feel like a dog and 125 Amps will elicit a disgruntled laugh.

My Tesla Model 3 peaks at 600 - 700 Amps at the new V3 Superchargers but I have not used any yet. And since they taper faster than just cruising at 400 Amps up to 60 - 70% the road tripping difference may not be enough to particularly care about the difference.

I like to stop for 10-15 minutes every 2-3 hours of driving at 70 - 75 mph on long trips. That type of routine is not in the realm of possible for passive battery EVs since it only starts to be possible at 180 kW average charging.

As I mentioned, faster is always better but there comes a point where it simply doesn't matter. Maybe I haven't taken a long enough trip to care yet. Lake Tahoe was supposed to be that trip but it was derailed. Again, I am not going to sacrifice comfort and safety to be able to crow about charging speed. In many cases (all of mine to this point) 200 amp charging has been more than enough.

TBH; add 400 miles of range and I will never need faster charging.
 
I have seen some Chinese units for 6K...no clue as to costs to route, permit, and set up connectivity to the power.

https://m.alibaba.com/product/1600144635356/Charger-50-Kw-With-Commercial-Ev.html?s=p

It feels like the 200 amp stations are now commodity given their proliferation.
 
Sage

I might be careful with the V3 super chargers and the 220KW+ charging. There is some evidence that 3c+ DC charging still hurts this gen of the Lith-ion batteries.

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/ultra_fast_chargers
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Sage
I might be careful with the V3 super chargers and the 220KW+ charging. There is some evidence that 3c+ DC charging still hurts this gen of the Lith-ion batteries.
I think it is fair to say that 1C damages the battery. I say that based on the continuing nerfing of charging rates by Tesla after some cumulative number of FC episodes *including* CHAdeMO.

To think otherwise is naive. HOWEVER, lots of variables are in play and the amount of damage is small per charge event. So it ends up being a trade-off. I do not FC unless I have a good reason; I avoid FC to a high SoC, and I do not FC to save a few dollars at a free station. Of particular concern for the LEAF is FC at cold battery packs and the temptation to FC at free NCTC.
 
Would be nice to have definitive info. I have decided I will only DC the bottom 2/3rds of the pack or 30 mins or to 100ºF on a normal basis. So who knows? I know that even in Summer, with pack temps in the low 70's, a 30 min charge on a 125 amp machine barely gets me into the low to mid 80's.

Hopefully this Summer's travel plans will happen so I can see some insight. At least the pack will be "broken in"
 
Adjustment Jan 2021; -.63% More than double Oct 2020 adjustment which kinda blows up that temperature theory a bit. My 2018 did the same thing losing more in Winter while 2nd Summer the adjustments were July; +.78 and October; ZERO.

So have to say that Nissan has made progress on that heat related degradation since a few in "warmer" climates are doing significantly better than me. I guess the Pacific Northwest advantage no longer applies.
 
Back
Top