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.
goldbrick said:
I see. I don't think I've ever had my Leaf under 7-9% SOC and normally I charge when I drop below 20% so that probably makes it pretty easy for me.

My Leaf is a purely in-town car and while I've done over 100 miles on a single charge (while staying within my self-imposed SOC limits) that is pretty uncommon. Most of my trips are 30 miles or less and for that, it is still just perfect. Hopefully the drop in SOH will slow down now that it's approaching 90%. At least that seems pretty common from what I've read here.

Well, I predicted I would go below 90% by 2021 Q4 (just over 2 years) and still waiting. I am still getting negative adjustments but they have been pretty mild. .17% and .09% were the last two.
 
There was definitely an improvement in chemistry between 2011/2012 and 2015. My 2011 was down to 8 capacity bars after two years while the 2015 took over 4 years and over 60,000 miles to drop to the same capacity. Both had the same initial battery capacity and were driven similar daily/annual distances by the same driver (me) in the same climate. The 2019 is still at 12 capacity bars after 3 years and over 50,000 miles--how much of the improvement over 2015 is due to larger capacity (fewer charge cycles for same mileage) vs. improved chemistry has not been conclusively determined.

I did not participate in the class action lawsuit because I disagreed with the premise of the case being presented and did not want to be a party to the misleading statements (lies) the plaintiff attorneys were spreading at the time. As an original owner of a 2011, I received documents directly from Nissan which added capacity loss coverage to the battery warranty long before receiving any information from the plaintiff attorneys regarding the class action lawsuit. In fact, Nissan contacted me to start the battery replacement process and had a new battery on order before I received information about the class action lawsuit.

The larger capacity now available (40 kWh or 62 kWh) clearly mitigates some of the inconvenience of capacity loss and also reduces that loss over time. I believe the chemistry used in 2011 and 2012 was so susceptible to premature capacity loss in higher ambient temperatures that it would have caused concern even with higher initial range, but it probably would not have gotten attention of class action attorneys who just wanted to collect large fees.
 
Here is my latest full discharge test of the 2019 SL Plus. Three years of data indicate that the battery capacity is dropping slowly over time, as expected.

LEAF 2019 Battery Information 8.jpg

As you can see from the data, capacity loss has been fairly linear over time and about 4% per year (from 3.85% to 4.1% depending upon whether you consider LEAF Spy data or actual charging energy from the wall). I think this is reasonable for an average of 17,235 miles per year in the hot desert climate.
 
GerryAZ said:
Here is my latest full discharge test of the 2019 SL Plus. Three years of data indicate that the battery capacity is dropping slowly over time, as expected.

LEAF 2019 Battery Information 8.jpg

As you can see from the data, capacity loss has been fairly linear over time and about 4% per year (from 3.85% to 4.1% depending upon whether you consider LEAF Spy data or actual charging energy from the wall). I think this is reasonable for an average of 17,235 miles per year in the hot desert climate.

Pretty good considering the crazy weather you get. Your drop is anything but consistent. Unlike mine which was fast the first year dropping to "medium" for a half year to slow since then (about 1 =1½ % annually) you had a 5 measurement stretch with really slow drops in kwh replaced from 5/21 to 2/22 (61.96 - 61.21) but a much greater drop in SOH (93.20 - 89.95)
 
Fascinating.

Here is a link to my 2 Pluses of about the same age, but fewer miles (SV+ built 5/19, and S+ built 9/19) A bit higher SoH. The drive to work now 2x weekly plus the trips to Kansas are starting to up the miles monthly now. The Hx I find interesting as yours continues to drop off. It does seem like longer drives seem to help maintain Hx.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mjGg2SdFQzo3_GzA6YY_Ob1MrfkX9hidN2caTR92xAA/edit?usp=drivesdk
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Fascinating.

Here is a link to my 2 Pluses of about the same age, but fewer miles (SV+ built 5/19, and S+ built 9/19) A bit higher SoH. The drive to work now 2x weekly plus the trips to Kansas are starting to up the miles monthly now. The Hx I find interesting as yours continues to drop off. It does seem like longer drives seem to help maintain Hx.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mjGg2SdFQzo3_GzA6YY_Ob1MrfkX9hidN2caTR92xAA/edit?usp=drivesdk

Hx is a mystery to me as well although I am seeing a bit of a trend with people who DC more than average maintaining a higher (105+) Hx but we get to gig drivers who DC a lot and it tails off so...maybe a sweet spot? But w/o knowing what Hx is, its hard to say if high or lower is better. Maybe 100 is the sweet spot and I am no better off at 115 than someone at 85? Seems far fetched but there are a lot of packs doing well with Hx in the upper 80's low 90's sooo...
 
Here's my Hx trend along with SOH & Ahr since new. Seems like my Hx was increasing for a while and then went into dropping trend. Have no clue why and how. Sharing here in case it helps make sense of this somehow.

Screen Shot 2022-09-29 at 10.07.39 AM.png
 
Looking at my October 20 to October 21 to October 22 degradation

Year SV+ S+
10/20 94.78% 98.07%
10/21 91.41% 94.03%
10/22 90.92% 92.46%

While the cars were built only 4 months apart (May and Sept 2019), the S+ sat for 9 months before being driven. With that lens, pretending that the S+ was a year younger, pushing down the SV+ the SoH% are pretty identical.


Year SV+ S+
0 xxxxxx 98.07%
1 94.78% 94.03%
2 91.41% 92.46%
3 90.92%

This makes me think that a sitting battery doesn't Ahr that fast.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
Looking at my October 20 to October 21 to October 22 degradation

Year SV+ S+
10/20 94.78% 98.07%
10/21 91.41% 94.03%
10/22 90.92% 92.46%

While the cars were built only 4 months apart (May and Sept 2019), the S+ sat for 9 months before being driven. With that lens, pretending that the S+ was a year younger, pushing down the SV+ the SoH% are pretty identical.


Year SV+ S+
0 xxxxxx 98.07%
1 94.78% 94.03%
2 91.41% 92.46%
3 90.92%

This makes me think that a sitting battery doesn't Ahr that fast.

Barely ½% on year 3 is pretty impressive. I am expecting a range of ¾ to 1¼% annually.
 
Ok, finished another run to Kansas (from north of Chicago) and back.

Every time I am learning a little more on how to improve the travel with the Leaf on this itinerary (584 miles in a day). The outbound was nearly identical charge time (2-3 minutes less) to my trip last fall, but with a little shorter driving time (I drove faster), so a modest win. I do think that 20-90% is the way to go for the longer stops. Also, I tried to chill the pack on the night before we left. I don't think a starting pack temp below 65F helps at all as the reduced efficiency causes higher pull and after 3 hours of driving you end up at the same temp point. We managed the longer stops over breakfast and Lunch so the hour-ish stopping time was not too painful. We did 2 bathroom breaks in the 20 minute arena (one a bit shorter one a bit longer) which also worked well for us biologically. Only a few brief minutes at the top of the 2nd long charge ever dropped below 30kW, with the rest of the time in the sessions in the more tolerable 40s KW charging. I know that is like death for new EV owners in terms of speed, but as I do most or all of the driving, mentally I need the gaps.

I did see much better cooling at 4.5 miles/kWh vs. 4.1 miles/kWh. Even though the former had higher ambient (70F) vs. Later (55F). Staying above 4 miles/kWh though is critical to get any meaningful pack cooling between stops and you need to be down around 100F to have a full speed long DC charge (at a 50KW Chademo).


We broke up the driving over 2 days on the way home as it worked for our schedule. 240ish and 350ish miles by themselves on either day are really nothing even interesting anymore. One curiosity was that at the short stop on day one, my pack was at a perfect 85F at a faster chademo charger and 27% SoC. I was hoping it would have jumped to at least the 60s. Instead it started at 49 and then slowly moved up to about 55KW when the 67% throttle point started pulling it back down under 50. I am still not clear on what logic is used with the Leaf in terms of what amount of power to ask for based on SoC and pack temp. Has anyone studied it?
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
I am still not clear on what logic is used with the Leaf in terms of what amount of power to ask for based on SoC and pack temp. Has anyone studied it?
I have from a "QC charging station" standpoint and come to the conclusion that the QC station can be a big choke point. I've got access to 4 QC charging networks where I am (EVgo, Chargepoint, EA, Nissan), all within a few miles of each other. I can bring in my Leaf to them at an identical pack temperature and charging % at every QC stations and they all charge differently. Basically, some are fast all the way to 100% and others never even hit 50 kW during the entire session. The Free QC that Nissan offers are 100 kWH ChaDeMo, so they smoke all the others for charging time as I can hit nearly 80 kW during a charge session on them. EA comes in second, they have the most aggresive ChaDeMo that can hold 50 kW at the start and nearly 20 kW all the way to 100%. Last, EVGo has the slowest charging, too slow, frustrating, followed by Chargepoint which seems a little better than EVGo but worse than EA, Nissan, etc.

I should probably put together a study on this instead of complaining about it here, LOL :lol:
 
knightmb said:
DougWantsALeaf said:
I am still not clear on what logic is used with the Leaf in terms of what amount of power to ask for based on SoC and pack temp. Has anyone studied it?
I have from a "QC charging station" standpoint and come to the conclusion that the QC station can be a big choke point. I've got access to 4 QC charging networks where I am (EVgo, Chargepoint, EA, Nissan), all within a few miles of each other. I can bring in my Leaf to them at an identical pack temperature and charging % at every QC stations and they all charge differently. Basically, some are fast all the way to 100% and others never even hit 50 kW during the entire session. The Free QC that Nissan offers are 100 kWH ChaDeMo, so they smoke all the others for charging time as I can hit nearly 80 kW during a charge session on them. EA comes in second, they have the most aggresive ChaDeMo that can hold 50 kW at the start and nearly 20 kW all the way to 100%. Last, EVGo has the slowest charging, too slow, frustrating, followed by Chargepoint which seems a little better than EVGo but worse than EA, Nissan, etc.

I should probably put together a study on this instead of complaining about it here, LOL :lol:


If you do, please post the placard output ratings (V, A, kW) of the different stations you're using, and the brand/model #. They're required to have metal placards on them with this info, plus the model des., input ratings etc. Most CP stations I've seen are 48 (called '50') or 62kW max. EA says 50kW max. for their CHAdeMO, but the chargers themselves are supposed to be capable of 150kW (using CCS). I've never looked at an EVgo or the ones Nissan is using.
 
Funny story...I only have one Electrify America station in my area that I have used a few times....last time I used it I got an error message on my app saying it wasn't charging....But it was charging....and I never got billed :roll:
 
GRA said:
If you do, please post the placard output ratings (V, A, kW) of the different stations you're using, and the brand/model #. They're required to have metal placards on them with this info, plus the model des., input ratings etc. Most CP stations I've seen are 48 (called '50') or 62kW max. EA says 50kW max. for their CHAdeMO, but the chargers themselves are supposed to be capable of 150kW (using CCS). I've never looked at an EVgo or the ones Nissan is using.

My wife is pushing me to do this too (because I complain about it on occasion) :lol: , so I'll try to deluxe it up a little. The fall weather is a great starting point now because having the ability to let them cool down quicker (to the same temperature for example) and same SoC % is helpful for testing. You have a great idea too, check the tech specs on the QC to see how much it is "suppose" to be feeding in. I can also put together some nice LeafSpy screen-shots of the entire charge session, so we all have a side-by-side comparison. Nissan vs. EA vs. EVgo vs. Chargepoint for example. I'll create a separate topic for it to avoid hijacking this one so much. Will take a while, but it's a good start. :D
 
One additional learning. In our first leg, it was cold, much 9f the drive between 36 and 39F. I found running the AC and heat at low 60s after element was up only pulled 500 watts. That didn't seem too bad, and only costs you a couple miles per hour of travel (for for first leg of 170 miles about 6 miles if I was smart and prewarmed the car, which I wasn't so paid the element heat penalty on top....we pulled in with 7.2 kWh left in the battery and 6% on the dash. Not close/risky, but not great for such a short leg).
 
A word of caution about that: it seems that there is a glitch in the energy monitoring system. It doesn't show an increase in consumption when you use the heater and A/C at the same time, even though physics suggests that that can't be the case. This is true even at higher temps.
 
So the draw shown on LeafSpy was low? That might explain why my dash efficiency was lower than I was thinking it should have been. I was running at about 4 - 4.1 miles kWh and then as I ran heat it moved over the course of the next hour down to 3.6. If heat was only 500 watts, I should have only lost a tenth at 68-72mph. I assumed it was a change in wind, but maybe not. That would put draw at 2KW, which would make more sense given drop in efficiency.
 
LeftieBiker said:
A word of caution about that: it seems that there is a glitch in the energy monitoring system. It doesn't show an increase in consumption when you use the heater and A/C at the same time, even though physics suggests that that can't be the case. This is true even at higher temps.

Hmmm.
Could they be wired in parallel ?
 
If they were wired in parallel then the amperage draw would still increase when both were in use at once. I think that some of these more or less fixed values were just programmed into the monitor, rather than being measured, and that someone goofed and left out this particular value.
 
Back
Top