Were New Nissan LEAF Buyers Misled By False Advertising?


News of the Nissan LEAF’s potentially misleading advertising campaign is spreading like wildfire.

In a report by BBC.com, UK owners are allegedly claiming that the marketing campaign by the Japanese car maker misled them in various aspects of this vehicle, resulting in a purchase being made upon behalf of a false advertising claim.

According to several Nissan LEAF owners, the company allegedly made an erroneous report about the car’s charging times and range. In turn, this sparked a possible investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority – a self-regulatory organization of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom.

There have been more than 2,600 new LEAFs sold in the UK where the vehicle was named the Electric Car of the Year for 2018 by What Car? magazine. But it seems the LEAF doesn’t exactly stack up to the manufacturer’s claims for its charging time and range.

When Nissan advertised the LEAF last year, the automaker made a claim to prospective buyers that by using so-called rapid chargers should only take 40 minutes “in moderate driving conditions”, thus allowing them to achieve an 80% charge. For the most part, there seems to be no problem with the first two charges on any given day – for most, these constitute a charge at home and one rapid charge en route to your destination. But, when it comes to the third charge in the day, owners state that their charging times were prolonged, facing them with long waits. In turn, this could potentially affect any journeys longer than 250 miles (400 kilometers). This issue has become widely referred to now as Rapidgate.

This came out as a problem for John Weatherley, a company director from the Forest of Dean, who actually loves his Nissan LEAF. It was when he made a 300-mile (482 kilometers) journey that he faced this issue. It was then when John found himself waiting for a total of two-and-a-half hours when he stopped to charge for the second time.

“If Nissan at the start had said what the car is capable of, without exaggerating the fact on their website, I’d have been fine with it,” he told the BBC.

“They said they could charge in 40 to 60 minutes, so I believed them. But it’s not true. The advertising is totally misleading.”

But, when Mr. Weatherley sent a note to Nissan in order to complain, he was informed that the rapid charging option was only intended for use once in a journey – something that he and many other buyers may be unaware of.  This was further stirred up when Nissan told the BBC that charging can take longer than advertised, depending on various conditions.

“External ambient temperature, the type of driving you’ve been doing beforehand, and the heat you put into the battery if you’ve been doing successive charges can impact the timing,” said Gareth Dunsmore, director of electric vehicles for Nissan Europe.

He further added that the battery automatically slows down a charge in order to preserve its longevity, but also to act as a safety mechanism when it gets too hot. Additionally, he added that in some instances, the slower than advertised charging times might be the result of the charger itself performing poorly.

“We make this clear in the owner’s manual,” said Mr Dunsmore.

Unfortunately for Nissan, Mr. Weatherley’s claims were not alone. For Tony Pitcairn, from Ilkley in West Yorkshire, problems with both the charging times and range made him rethink his decision to buy the LEAF as well. For Mr. Pitcairn, it was a trip that resulted in him and his wife spending 90 minutes at a motorway service in Gloucestershire that made him go public with his experience.

According to claims by Mr. Pitcairn, the range of the new LEAF –  which he bought specifically for long journeys – was way below the advertised numbers. His marketing brochure claimed the car could do 235 miles on a single charge, but having bought the car, he experienced that the range was actually just 155 miles (250 kilometers).

“That was a disappointment to start with,” he said. “So we have, in my mind, been misled twice, because the claimed range on a full charge is not 235 miles. Secondly, nowhere does it say that you will only be able to rapid charge in 40 minutes only once.”

Further boosting the claims was a test drive, held by journalists from What Car? that achieved a “real world” range of just 108 miles (173 kilometers). Way below the advertised numbers.

Nissan revealed that the original claim of 235 miles was correct under an official means of measurement that we know as the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC). However, that claim was corrected due to car makers moving to a different measure – known as the Worldwide harmonized Light vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) – where the Nissan Leaf achieved an official range of just 168 miles (270 kilometers). This does put a dent into Nissan’s sales goals, even though the Leaf is one of the best all-electric small cars available on the market today.

We intend to send an official inquiry over to Nissan in order to put a spotlight on this situation and resolve what may be the most intriguing charging time and range conundrum seen this year so far. If anything, Nissan delivers a great product and this should make the car maker sit up and take notice. Grab a look at a snippet from Jonathan Porterfield, from their Leicester to Aberdeen race talking about the same issue right below.

LEAF sales will improve for March, but how much?
29 photos
2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF 2018 Nissan LEAF charging inlets 2018 Nissan LEAF charging

Source: BBC

Categories: Nissan

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

101 Comments on "Were New Nissan LEAF Buyers Misled By False Advertising?"

newest oldest most voted

The battery needs a real Thermal Cooling system.

It comes down to cost, for Nissan to make the Leaf profitably they cut costs of some important systems like decent battery thermal management. Nissan will lose face over this short sighted business decision to go without thermal management, even if it doesn’t effect most of the users, it makes people less want to adopt an EV if they run into issues like this.

I suspect it’s actually more about time-to-market than cost. The original LEAF didn’t have fast charging, so it was not considered an issue. (Degradation problems seem to suggest otherwise — but apparently they didn’t foresee these?) Adding active cooling requires a redesign which they weren’t able to make in time for the 2018 model. But they didn’t want to wait with adding fast charging even longer…

The original Leaf did have fast charge capability – you are mistaken

Indeed I was. Sorry for the noise.

Nissan had EIGHT years to gauge the behavior & performance of the 2010 LEAF. That’s longer than it took to design pretty most (all?) currently sold from-scratch BEVs.
They also had plenty of time to see what Tesla, VW, BMW, GM, Hyundai etc. did. Even Renault has active cooling for the Zoe, based on the car’s climate control.
The 2018 LEAF is basically Leaf 1.5 — an update, not a redesign (same chassis). No time-to-market is not an excuse. If anything, they should have anticipated that a 150mi BEV (officially more under the Euro test cycles) would be considered sufficient for long trips much more than the earlier LEAFs. As has been reported in multiple cases where a 2018 LEAF took the exact same trip as an earlier one, the 2018s actually take longer, by hours, to do a 400+ mile day. Not acceptable without very prominent advertising warnings.

The thing is Nissan HAD to know there were issues with temperature buildup with repeated fast charging/high ambient temps/driving at high speeds on the highway. Instead of engineering a way to remove heat from the battery (at least cooling fans?!), they did nothing and tried to deceive people and hope the number of people complaining would be a very small minority that could be swept under the rug. Whoops, so much for that. Now it’s a full blown scandal.

The problem is not with the car. The problem is with people racing it or driving it beyond its means. Teslas shut down too when driven beyond their means. Why don’t yous go troll Tesla articles?

Sure, if they had acknowledged the problem early on, they could have redesigned it for the new model. But apparently it took them too long to see that it really is a problem that needs to be fixed…

The Nissan was advertised in the states as having a 75 or 85 miles range which could be extended 80% with the optional quick charger. I’m pretty sure they say the same thing now, the range of the car is what it is and it can be extended 80% with a quick charge.

…but the 2018 Nissan e-NV200 40kWh van/combi, based on the LEAF, HAS got Thermal Management.

The “original LEAF” most certainly did have fast charging!

Even in the UK we’re having increasingly hot summers. Heck, affected parties in this very article live in – yep – the UK. Even on cool days, fast charging makes the battery very hot. By omitting a cooling system, they aren’t future proofing the vehicle either – it won’t be able to realise full potential charging up to 50 kW at all.

Nissan;’s biggest problem is is a lot of fake news being spread around about a lack of thermal management being a problem.

You see, you see, now we see the violence inherent in the omission of an active thermal management system!

In cool Britain, no less. This would really suck where the ambient is 95F.

I am being oppressed, I being oppressed.

So, if the Leaf had a liquid cooling/heating for the battery pack, this would be a non-issue?

Yes, I believe so. The reason why the rapid charging speed is reduced is because the battery gets too hot and it’s part of battery protection. If it was liquid cooled, then the battery wouldn’t get anywhere near as hot under normal driving conditions.

The electrolyte ethylene solvent deteriorates with heat,
less solvent, less electrolyte, less range.

All the systems with active thermal management seem to have far less problems with their batteries. Draw your own conclusions.

It would certainly be at least far less of an issue, if not a complete non-issue.


Even my lowly Ford Focus Electric has battery cooling

Yeah I’m actually really happy I went with a FFE over a Leaf. Cheaper, longer lasting, holds value better, can CCS charge as much as you need.

Nissan should of liquid cooled the refresh Leaf battery from day 1. Greedy. When/if the come out with the liquid cooled larger capacity the value on the the the lesser Leaf will nosedive. So 2nd Gen 40 kWh Leaf buyers will get screwed over just a little more.

It doesn’t have to be liquid as BMW i3, Ioniq, SoulEV do not use liquid. I don’t hear from eGolf (no active cooling like Leaf) about similar issue, so issue is with Nissan.

Logic and common sense suggest the eGolf must have the same problem with repeated fast-charging sessions within a few hours. But VW isn’t making nearly as many eGolfs as Nissan is making Leafs, and VW probably did not make the same foolish promises that Nissan did here.

So far fewer complaints about the eGolf having the same problem.

I3 is cooked

The i3 is actively cooled though just not with a liquid. It shares the refrigerant from the cooling system which is as good as being liquid cooled and much better than being forced-air cooled from cabin air like in the Soul and Ioniq.

They should have come here and read the comments section.

Nissan knew already. Before the 40kWh Leaf was released, people raised the concern for lack of proper battery thermal management and Nissan dismissed them by saying the range was so large that people won’t care.

And this is true. What normal person would drive more than 500km in a Leaf per day? Only a handful of numpties.

What’s worse than a normal troll? A lazy troll!

If you’re gonna troll, dude, at least put some effort into it! 🙄

How is pointing out that a normal person wouldn’t attempt to drive a short range slow charging EV past twice its range trolling. This is really only for people that hate themselves or are somehow weird.

Nissan had been warned about this before the Leaf was released, people questioned Nissan’s decision on not including liquid battery thermal management and Nissan dismissed this criticism by saying that the range was so large that people wouldn’t care. Clearly, they didn’t take the warning as serious as they did because people do care.

What a debacle. You’d think Nissan would have learned something the 1st time around with the class action lawsuit for battery degradation for early Gen 1 Leafs. Instead Nissan pulls the exact same thing again on customers with the ’18 Leaf! This time with deceptive fast charging advertising. Shame on Nissan!

Yup. As I’ve been saying, Leaf is the ass end of EV.

Indeed. I realize that Nissan has achieved some success at aiming for the bottom end of the plug-in EV market, but surely there is a limit to what customers will put up with! I’m amazed that sales of the Leaf have not tanked.

I think what happened is Nissan simply had not been able to develop an adequate TMS in time for their Leaf 2.0 schedule; this would probably explain the absence of a long(er) range version as well. Teslas and the Bolt seem to utilize every cubic inch of the underbelly to accommodate the largest battery possible, while Nissan’s 40 kWh unit is kinda dangling in the middle of the floor, if we are to believe this pic:


Oh, the decision to cut costs by omitting thermal battery management – AGAIN!

Nissan, when will you learn?

I remember way back after Nissan engineers honestly answered that designing LEAF 1.0
without thermal management was a budgetary move. They then fully admitted that
LEAF 2.0 would be air-cooled as well. At least they were forthright about it. Nevertheless,
this looks like more lawsuits and even more bad press.

Nissan’s executive decision to place LEAF at the “budget” end of EVs seemed smart –
AT FIRST. Now, it seems to have bitten them in the posterior regions – AGAIN.

Now we’ve learned that Nissan’s plans of a thermally managed LG Chem battery pack
becoming available for the 2019 model year will only be on the Nismo model. This
means a premium-priced option… My guess is +/- 60 kwh at $45,000+. My decision to
pop for the Model 3 is looking better and better!

I think the euro cycle is responsible for the missed range expectations not the car itself. The guy gets 150 miles which is what the EPA test tells us we will get. That 255 miler expectation is probably based on that unrealistic euro testing. As for the fast charging issue, most people won’t get to see this anyway.

Manufacturers have used the NEDC range as marketing tools since the beginning of EV’s. They know damn good and well what the real world range is. It’s simple deception based on a crap government standard that (probably) they themselves wrote. When your government is up for sale to the highest bidder it tends to do what the highest bidder wants. The whole “gosh we were just going with what the big bad government told us was the range” is BS. In the US the manufacturers themselves do their own EPA tests and report them to the government who only do spot checks (pro-business conservatives love taking power away from government officials in the name of “getting government off our backs” with the usual results of massive cheating. I believe Ford “misstated” the range of some of their cars a few years back).

You’re giving American auto makers entirely too much credit. The (U.S.) EPA sets the standards for gasmobile MPG and EV energy efficiency / range testing, and auto makers have to follow those test procedures. Furthermore, auto makers were happy to take advantage of previous EPA test procedures which gave ridiculous results before the EPA revised them. Remember the infamous claim of 230 MPG for the 2010 Chevy Volt?

Yes, the EPA testing standards for EVs do yield results much closer to reality than the European test cycles. But that’s because of the EPA’s dedication to meaningful test standards for EVs (not under the current Trumpster administration, of course), not because of any standard of honesty among American auto manufacturers.


To add some background, that photo was taken before the EPA decided on the official formula for calculating MPGe. Since there was no official formula, GM came up with their own.

Yup, and VoltStats.net shows many achieve and exceed that MPG rating. But people will twist facts to suit their own biases.

This advertisement was due to EPA dragging their feet, no fault on Chevy’s part. “Shame on them for being years ahead of everyone else with a PHEV” sheesh! 🙂

The guy is a total imbecile, as I’ve PROVEN dozens of times. My used 2012 VOLT had a lifetime 240 miles per gallon on the history page.

The fact that he can’t count (the advertisement with the then CEO of GM was only meant FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING AN ELECTRIC CAR, which excludes him since he never buys anything) DOES NOT mean the people who were interested didn’t know exactly what the advertisement was trying to convey. It was both 100% truthful and on the conservative side. Unlike statements from NISSAN, the one I Love is from that creep Andrew Palmer, where he said , “If people are complaining about losing BARS, we’ll just modify the software to give them more”.

Hehe. That’s like GLUEING the gas gauge to FULL until it suddenly goes to empty, without fixing the underlying battery degradation problem.

The fact that the 230 MPG was formed with a ‘smiling’ Nema 1-15 receptacle meant that if you plugged in the car on average you would get that mileage. Which many people exceeded. I’m only at 138 MPG with my Caddy ELR since I take too many long vacations with the vehicle and the engine therefore runs more than the average owner.

To show you Pushi how idiotic it is of you to use the ‘230 mpg’ advertisement to be PROOF that the EPA rated 110 mpge is or whatever it is – are talking about

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. MPG is how much gasoline the thing uses. mpge is a truthful energy-equivalent that is a total irrelevancy – it being ‘useful’ only in relative comparison with other PHEV’s.

Since people don’t understand the concept of a ‘prime mover’, the efficiency comparisons implied by mpge are of little use.

BUT to reiterate ad nauseam that this advertisement is somehow untruthful shows you CANNOT EVEN SPELL CORRECTLY. Its MPG chief, not mpge.

it’s legally required to show the NEDC numbers if make a Advertisement, for fair compare reasons to other models. Of course no one hinders you to state aditionally lower more realistic numbers, but normal marketing doesn’t like real values…

yes, and that’s a concern. NEDC needs to be phased out completely. It’s misleading in the extreme, even as a point of comparison. Comparing woefully inaccurate numbers with woefully inaccurate numbers is kind of stupid. People can compare the new cycle figures instead and completely forget NEDC.

The blame is fully on Nissan. They can not hide behind the NEDC. They knew full well that the NEDC is totally unrealistic but they used its full marketing potential nonetheless. To add insult to injury, they ‘tweaked’ their bms to overrate SoC when the battery is near full. So when a customer does a test ride with a full battery, it shows a good range, but as soon as you pass the 75% charge level, the range estimate starts tanking.

They should have taken an example in their alliance partner Renault. They never ever mentioned NEDC range (210 km at the time) for the ZOE, but only an estimated range: 100-150 km, which is spot on for winter/summer. Also, the range estimate of the ZOE was very accurate, thanks to the BMS much more accurately reporting SoC.

It pains me to see that Nissan completely squandered their first mover advantage.

Another year or so and I’ll have my TM3. Won’t shed any tears for my Leaf.

Well as I’ve said before. It keeps the cost down so someone like me can afford a BEV. I am fully aware of the problem with long distance driving, DCFCs and the heat issue. I don’t care. So some folks didn’t do their homework before the purchase and end up crying the blues.. wah wah too bad.

This is a false advertising claim, so it is not about what the car is capable of. It is about the amount of homework people have to do to determine if the car is appropriate for them. People are buying this car based on the advertised capabilities and then finding out that it is not able to do what they expected. The point of false advertising laws is to make it so that people don’t have to spend hours researching their purchases to determine if the manufacturer is making false claims.

If Nissan had said that the DCFC could only be used once per day, there would be no problem. Everyone buying the car would have been aware of the problem and could have made an informed decision. Many people would have still bought it, but some people would have chosen a different car.

I have been active on the EV websites for many years. There were reports of premature battery failures due to overheating but no reports on slow charging before I bought my Leaf. I don’t think it’s fair to say that people did not do their homework before they bought their 2018 Leaf.

Well said. If the attitude of “the customer is responsible for not getting cheated” were allowed free rein, then we would wind up with the Chinese manufacturers’ attitude that anything you can do to cheat the customer is okay if you can get away with it. 🙁

it’s well know that the NEDC number every manufacturer states wont be accieved in the reality (also for ICE cars). Normal people are doing NEDC+30% = real consumption. this is common sense at least in Germany. Increased consumption = less range should also be clear. Most people know their 1000km diesel will only make around 800km range. Why should they suddenly forget this when buying a EV?

It’s not common sense among people that buy a car to go from A to B and has no interest whatsoever in tech. They look at brochures, talks to a sales guy or two and buys in good faith.

I made a 350 mile trip in my Leaf Saturday with 3 CHAdeMO charges. The outside temperature rose to over 100 degrees F during the day. My first charge was at 30 kW but at the last charge the battery temperature gauge was up to 11 bars and I could only charge at 11 kW. When I bought the Leaf I was planning to drive it up to Colorado occasionally using the new Electrify America stations, an 800 mile trip each way. With these slow charging speeds on long trips my trips to and from Colorado are going to take much longer than I expected. My goal Saturday was to see how bad charging would get on a hot day, not to keep battery temperature down. There are things you can do to reduce battery temperature on long trips but I did not know I was going to have charging speed problems when I leased the car. I wish I had known about the charging speed problems before I leased and I think Nissan has a lot to answer for for not telling people. Still, a few extra hours on a long trip a couple times a year is probably… Read more »

I just wanted to add that I didn’t do anything unusual to get the battery so hot Saturday. I just drove the speed limit, about 70 mph, and drove from charger to charger. I also let the battery cool for five minutes before and after each charge.

If Leaf charging at 11 kW using 50 kW charger is only for Leaf, the problem isn’t so bad. But that slow charging affects EVERYONE since CCS handle is locked out when Chademo is being used. Giving free charging with such crap slow charging car means Nissan is actively destroying EV experience for everyone.

So did you get a Bolt?

Are you kidding? At $22.5K post subsidy, who wouldn’t get the Bolt?

Actually, let me amend that since there are still plenty available at the dealer for that price. Maybe people don’t want the Bolt even at that price.

So I’m taking that as a yes. Welcome to the club!

Yup, got the BoltEV as you can see from the name. So far loving it, but I’m afraid first DCFC experience (waiting for free charging Maven Bolt, Leaf, i3) will sour the whole thing. Trying best to avoid virginal DCFC.

The i3 won’t be the one holding you up. At 90% within 30min with my old 2014 22kW. But ran into plenty of Bolt who think they must charge to 100%. The bigger the batterie, the more insecure they get it seems.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

No Active TMS, NO SALE!!!!

Where are all those peeps that keep saying they don’t understand why people fart on the leaf because there is no active TMS?!?!?!?!?

Here is the resaon!!!

Yes insideevs
Please help us with that. We tried to ask Nissan to fix this but the only answer was ‘works as intended’ I am very disappointed in my choice because of rapidgate. Otherwise the car is phenomenal for short distances.

The knee-slapper here is that, if you have been driving, before you can even fast charge at a stop, YOU MUST WAIT FOR THE BATTERY TO COOL DOWN, before you even begin charging. Only tinkerers will put up with that nonsense and no one from the general public wants that silliness.

I call it silly, because frankly, ICE cars are very convenient to operate – refueling them is safe, fast, and economical. So there is a relatively high bar the EV’s have to meet to get General Acceptance.

Constantly worrying about the battery is not something the general public will ever tolerate, so NISSAN fails at a MINIMUM for this reason. Many other manufacturers somehow manage to have proper battery handling, so there is no excuse for Nissan to come up with a crappy solution. As others have said, they’ve repeatedly tried to pull this crap. Perhaps Nissan Leaf purchasers are not quite as dumb as Nissan thinks they are.

Deceptive marketing certainly doesn’t look good, but “Constantly worrying about the battery” is something public needs to accept, at least if they want to make hundreds of miles per day in BEV. “Constantly worrying about ability to make next mortgage size car payment” is another option of course, and it doesn’t fully remove battery worries either :/

All these extra bells, whistles and goodies don’t come for free so it is up to buyer to choose if they want to pay. This is limitation of current state of this technology.

Man are you misinformed. You don’t have to even THINK about the battery, in ANY GM product in ANY Weather, even in the BOLT ev. The battery actually is so AGRESSIVELY cooled that when stopping and immediately plugging into a Level 2 Six KW wallbox, the refrigeration system will actually take that 6000 watts and still discharge the battery for a few minutes more (Compressor/condenser/glycol pump taking around 7 kw) to get the battery into proper temperature for charging.

To be fair, there is a lot to worry about in an ICE car. Gotta make sure to keep the oils changed. And coolant topped off. Gotta put toxic fuel into once per week to keep it going.

I’m all for BEV’s and disappointed in Nissan,buyers have a grievance,but don’t be rediculous,there is nothing to worry about or make sure of in an ICE, I could drive to Alaska(soon to Russia) or Tierra Del Fuego without a thought.
Very disturbing news ,if true, that even the next generation 2019 Leaf would still not have the TMS ?? !! You have to buy the NISMO? Please ,say this is not true,I’m not wanting to buy one,I just like EV adoption, my ICE will last into the next century, unlike myself.EV adoption is hard with no plug, maybe FCV.

That is not the point, and if you can’t see it you cannot see why only 1% of people buy electric cars. Nissan is doing the EV community a disservice by producing crappy cars that only a tinkerer could love.

Of course in many countries the only car available is the LEAF. So then EV buyers buy that car since there is nothing else.

The Leaf is supposed to get a 60 kW battery with TMS next year and there’s no way the the Leaf will get another major redesign so soon after the 2018 redesign. The 60 kW battery and its’ should fit in the 2018 model. Maybe Nissan will offer an upgrade to those that have a 2018 model.

If not there is still hope that we can get TMS retro-fits. A lot of old Leafs are getting newer batteries with more capacity. When the 60 kW batteries become available we should be able to put those batteries with their TMS systems in the 2018 Leafs and the 60 kW batteries may even fit in older Leafs.

It’s not reasonable to hope older Leafs will ever be fitted with an active TMS. The cars were not designed for it, and retrofittng them for it would cost far more than the old cars are worth.

Where would you put the radiator needed for the cooling system?

Nissan is well known for troublesome Leaf batteries and treating it’s Leaf buyers very poorly.

Just one more example — not that we needed it — of why the Leaf needs a real Thermal Management System (TMS) for its battery pack.

Very disappointing that Nissan has let so many years go by without fixing this rather glaring problem with the Leaf. 🙁

This claim is winnable

The fact there are two Wills on this site is going to become very confusing very fast!

“(It) was clear in the manual” … that you only get after buying the car.

Manual is typically available online for anybody. Though of course nobody studies it before or after buying a car.

By the way, you can find now on Nissan UK website “Nissan Electric Vehicles have charging safeguards to protect the battery during repeated fast charging sessions in a short period of time. The time taken for additional rapid charging (3+ successive procedures) can take longer if the battery temperature activates the battery safeguarding technology.”

I don’t understand how anyone who does 15 minutes of research doesn’t know that buying an EV without a battery TMS is foolish. So, while I agree that Nissan misled people, the buyers are also somewhat at fault for not doing their homework.

Never believe marketing or salespeople. Read neutral reviews and experiences by real owners before any major purchase.

Just another try from desperate Tesla pushers to put dirt on the best electric car of the world.

LOL…so the complaining Leaf owners are Tesla fans?

Hey, how’s it going?

Lots of people don’t bother with details and so don’t understand total cost of ownership and will blindly buy a LEAF or BOLT over a Tesla. These are the customers Nissan and GM are targeting. Probably VW, BMW, Merc as well. You get what you pay for.

How can a currently available Tesla beat a Bolt on TCO? The Bolt costs less and has virtually zero maintenance cost.

Already having problems with batteries. Nissan also has battery drain issues.


That’s a software issue, and doesn’t impact TCO. Tesla has had recalls too, as has every car maker. They’re annoying, but to be expected in machines this complex.

I’m not sure what you mean by battery drain issues. If you’re talking Vampire Drain and wasted electricity, Tesla leads that. It is important to calculate how much electricity is being wasted by the car when looking at TCO.

Wrong. There is an actual HW issue with the BOLT battery. Excerpt from GM’s statement:

“Only some vehicles may experience the battery low voltage cell condition, but we are asking all 2017 vehicles to participate in the program.”

The SW ‘issue’ you refer to is GM updating its SW to detect this HW issue. Before it couldn’t even detect this cell condition failure. GM crafted a press release to obfuscate this to make it seem as though it was a simple SW fix but they admit it’s HW as you can see above.

Regarding Nissan I’m referring to battery degradation over time. Yes all batteries degrade but Nissan seems to be especially bad. Tesla’s on the other hand has been the best so far.


Nope, there is a software glitch with the cell balancing and detection of out-of-balance cells. The glitch can cause cells to go out of balance and reach unacceptably low voltage.

LG-Chem’s cells are at least as good as Panasonic’s. Same can be said of GM vs Tesla packs. No significant degradation issues in either. I agree that Nissan is a different story when it comes to pack degradation issues.

Anyway, back on topic to TCO: The Bolt can be bought for less than any available Tesla. The Bolt has the same or less maintenance costs than any Tesla. And, the Bolt has well integrated electronics that don’t require HV battery power be used while the car is “off.” IOW, the Volt doesn’t suffer the vampire drain issues that all Teslas have. TCO winner is the Bolt by a long shot.

Nope. It’s HW. On top of that to get this SW ‘fix’ you have to go to the dealership instead of OTA update. Factor in that cost as well of taking time out of your day. Tesla would just push the fix OTA.

Even the link you posted says it’s a recall for a software fix.

Anyway, it was your outlandish claim that a Tesla has lower TCO than a Bolt that I originally responded to. Let’s see some numbers to back up that claim.

To claim false advertising you need to show me some proof. Show me a commercial or official text that Nissan say you can fast charge to infinity. Even Tesla limits fast charging if abused. As for the range claim, that is just pathetic and ignorant on the part of the owners not to know the euro cycle is crap.

Rapid charging a new Leaf is like a box of chocolates…

What? “You never know what you’re gonna get?” How is that applicable when this problem affects ALL of the LEAFs? Your quote implies it only affects some of them.

Great car I hope they sell a million of them this year. Best car we have ever owned. Just be sure it suites your needs. I thought everyone would have know by now it has limited range of 151 miles plus a 80% recharge. We will probably get a 40kWh LEAF this fall.

There’s no cost or complexity to adding a similar active TMS to the i3 or Ionia. Virtually none at all.

When they can not win some cheat.

I was one of the first Leaf owners, and they did the same crap then. They advertised a 100-mile range, and their salespeople just repeated the line, so we were perplexed when the car almost ran out of energy on the 55-mile drive home. Nissan eventually bought that car back, but not before they soured me on their brand. I still can’t believe there is not active battery cooling.

lol well done Nissan… so much for their leadership in EVs.