100,000-Mile Nissan LEAF Taxi Shows Only 12.5% Battery Degradation

JUN 17 2015 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 35

Thanks to regular tipster Brian Henderson, we now have additional battery degradation info on the 2013 Nissan LEAF at C&C Taxi in the UK.

As we initially reported, this LEAF has over 100,000 miles on its odometer.  It covered those miles in just 22 months.  It retains all 12 of its battery capacity bars, but there has been some measurable degradation.

According to Brian Henderson, this LEAF has been “fully charged with: 1788 DCQC’s and 7249 L2 charges.”  In terms of battery degradation, there was a 12.5% loss @ 102,453 miles.

Here’s a look at the battery stats:

Battery Stats - LEAF Taxi

Battery Stats – LEAF Taxi

Hat tip to Brian Henderson!

Categories: Nissan

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

35 Comments on "100,000-Mile Nissan LEAF Taxi Shows Only 12.5% Battery Degradation"

newest oldest most voted

70 miles after 100 000 miles? Nice.

And for longer range car with better battery chemistry, degradation would be even less.

No, there is no such thing. May be you mean with expensive TMS ?

I believe what he means is that if you have a larger battery, you will not drain it down as far. Thus, the battery will degrade less.

Thus, a big Tesla battery that is discharged only down 50% or so will degrade slower than a LEAF battery discharged down 80%.

You simply don’t cycle larger packs as often to cover the same distance. Same holds true for larger diameter wheels as the tyres have a larger overall area thus last longer. Given that width is the same.

evnow said: “No, there is no such thing. May be you mean with expensive TMS ?” No such thing as better battery chemistry than what the Leaf has? Let’s review: 2011-2012: The Leaf had a battery pack with many reported problems of premature fading, particularly in areas with long term hot temperatures, especially Phoenix, and certain areas of Texas and Southern California. 2013-2014: Altho Nissan did not announce any change in battery chemistry, it has been noted that the problems with premature fading suddenly more or less disappeared from Leafs during these model years. It appears that some unannounced change was made. 2015: Nissan announced it would be using a more temperature-tolerant battery pack, dubbed the “lizard battery” by Leaf fans. So, evnow, Nissan has improved its battery chemistry at least once, and probably twice, all within 4 years. Don’t you think it’s rather a stretch to say that “there is no such thing” as better chemistry than what it’s currently using? Do you think no future improvements are possible, or that Nissan couldn’t get “better” batteries right now if they were willing to pay a higher per-kWh price? Trying to identify what is “better” or the “best” battery cell… Read more »

i am pretty sure that the used battery chemistry has an impact an longivety.

So what about those Japanese taxi drivers that complained about reduced charge capacity?

Was that an earlier battery chemistry? Or were they just whining about a small amount of degradation?

Yes, 2013 has different battery chemistry than that in the 2011 and 2012 LEAF. Also typically hotter in Japan than in this taxi’s locale.

Main factors (in order of importance) when it comes to 2011/2012 LEAF battery degradation – HEAT (the big one); time; cycling.

I don’t buy the 2013 battery is different chemistry line. There is a packaging change but when it came out the Nissan announcements said it would not help with heat and that a new chemistry was still in testing that would.

Some people just want to keep parroting the 2013 had a change so it must have fixed it logic.

My contention is that we’ll still see plenty of 2013 cars losing bars this summer/fall.

It’s just too early to call the winner or loser on this one.

While it is true that we don’t know if the chemistry is different, it is very obvious the internal structure of the battery is totally redesigned and even the modules themselves look different. It is reasonable to conclude a very real possibility that the chemistry is also changed.

I know it is just anecdotal, but I haven’t seen any reports of battery degradation on 2013s. Even I, myself, have a 2013 Leaf here in Texas and it has so far not lost any capacity even though my 2011 had lost quite a bit after owning it the same length of time.

Obviously the jury is still out and it may be another 1 to 2 years before we can make any official judgement call. But so far, it certainly appears the 2013s are better.

we have several 1 bar losers in the wiki for 2013 models.

Do you use leafspy or are you just going by bars?

That was the first generation battery if I remember correctly, which is known to be thermally intollerant. I seem to remember the report saying they ran the air-con continuously, ran the batteries right down and then charged them right up using CHAdeMO. In a battery that doesn’t like to get hot, without active thermal management, this kind of behaviour is to be discouraged. Being hot and highly charged over time, is a killer for all lithium ion chemistries.

But in a mildly climate U.K…

12.5% loss in what AHr? GIDs? SOH shows 90%

Seems like the 2013 owners who were able to report AHrs when near new showed around 67AHr (unless they were unlucky in the AHr lottery and got one with less). So, yes, 58.87AHr would be roughly 12.5% off of what should have been expected for a new pack.

I like it how those snazzy apps which are supposed to be an improvement over the Nissan dashboard display, show all kinds of %ages, but that’s not the number you need – rather, you need to take another obscurely-titled number, and divide it by a quantity known only to the savvy few…

Indeed!
I have the same app and figure the SOH was the number presenting the “state of health”
So, I still have to do the math.
Hum, not impress.

the SOH% is close to the AHr ratio, maybe off by 1 or 2% but more convenient to look at.

There is a component of battery life that decays with recharges, and another the decays with time. If this is mostly time based failure it is not good news, if it is due to cycling it is. I don’t know how to tell them apart.

Nissan Leaf Batteries in the 2011-2012 Models degraded primarily from heat.

You could drive one for 100,000 miles in the cold and not see degradation. You could drive another 10,000 miles in the heat and lose 40% capacity.

See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Real_World_Battery_Capacity_Loss and look at the wide range of miles and charging cycles that saw similar loss.

I live in Michigan and I’m at 18% degradation after 3 years and about 38,000 miles. No DC fast charges, and obviously no baking since Michigan stays pretty cool.

2011-2012 batteries suck no matter where you are. It’s just the degree to which they suck.

2013-2014 are improved. 2014.5+ are considered “lizard” batteries and are most desirable.

I have no idea how to interpret the Battery Stats picture. It looks like the horizontal scale is range in miles. What’s the vertical scale, and is the uniformity of the red bins good or bad? What’s the blue bin? Is the plot a historgram? Inquiring minds want to know.

the bars are voltage of 96 cell pairs in the main battery pack, nothing in that is related to miles.

The vertical scale is volts, the horizontal scale is battery pair number (arbitrary number assigned to internal battery cells)

Dat DCQC count. O.o

My 12 Leaf is at 87% SOH after 24k miles and 2214 L2 charges. It still has 12 bars.

It has NOT been heat-damaged, since I live in the Pittsburgh area, but it has been exposed to a fair bit of cold. I suspect this generation of battery is not only sensitive to the oft-reported heat exposure, but to cold as well. I wish this issue (cold damage) had more publicity.

So this taxi has driven 4X the miles I have, with the same degradation. Interestingly, they have averages only 11 miles between charges! Maybe the lack of deep-cycling is their secret.

Your Leaf has probably lost capacity due to calendar aging, not to cold (which would slow down calendar aging, but not stop it). In other words, the battery loses capacity just sitting around as time passes, not just from cycling it. See the Nissan Leaf wiki for a Battery Aging Model that does a pretty good job of projecting capacity loss for 2011-2012 Leafs:

http://www.electricvehiclewiki.com/?title=Battery_Capacity_Loss#Battery_Aging_Model

Not surprised since UK weather is fairly mild and this almost matched what Steve Marsh saw with his 100K miles LEAF in Washington even with the older 2011 LEAF.

Now, I want to see a 2013 LEAF with 100K miles (with little degradation) from Atlanta, Texas, AZ or Southern California, then I will be fully convinced the issues are fixed…

Only? We have 100,000 electric mile Volts with no discernible degradation.

I don’t know that I’d call 12.5% “only” I hope they keep optimizing their battery tech.

That was my reaction. Seems like nothing to brag about.

The Volt “hides” any potential degradation by under utilizing the battery (although proper cooling also plays a big role in the Volt).

As a customer satisfaction strategy it appears to work quite well with consumers because from the user’s instrumentation perspective Volt batteries simply don’t degrade.

By contrast, the Leaf hangs it all out for the user to see and worry about.

That is partially true.

But how does Volt “hides” the degradation. That is often what people assumes that Volt does. But how does Volt computer precisely measure the degradation each time and open up exact amount of the “window” to compensate for the lost capacity? Considering that Volt is never 100% charged, GM must be very good at figuring that window without fully charging the battery to know exactly how much it lost…

I really want to know specifically how GM can tell the amount lost without fully charging up the battery…

Now, let us even assume it is true, we know that Volt has buffer at both the top and bottom, so with the usable windows+buffers, Volt still hasn’t lost even 75% of the capacity for sure. So, that is still WAY BETTER than some of the LEAF out there which are known to have lost way more than 30% capacity already…

“Volt still hasn’t lost even 75% of the capacity for sure.”

Correction, Volt still hasn’t lost even 25% of the capacity for sure.

75% is about the usable window (EV range) + buffer on top for regen and bottom for the hybrid mode.

Makes me love my 2k14 leaf.

However dealers should learn to treat us better.

It’s funny seeing those people who either don’t know how to interpret the data from LEAFSpy or don’t believe that data poo-poohing the app. If you don’t like it; or it’s too difficult for you to interpret or believe in the data from it, DON’T USE IT!

Those of us who accept this data will not be convinced that this is anything other than the best way to gauge the health of LEAF battery packs. God bless the gentlemen who found what became known as the Gid while digging around in the LEAF’s CANBus early on, and God bless the creator of LEAFSpy.