IllustrationRECENTLY I GOT A NISSAN LEAF. BATTERY HAS BEEN ACT INCORRECT MILES .I DROVE 2 MILES IT COUNT AS 5 MILES. CHARGING WAS INCORRECT. I WAS CHARGE ON QUICK CHARGE TOOK ME 40 MUNITE FOR 30 MILES.
2011 Nissan Leaf
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2011 Nissan Leaf do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 55.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Leaf years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
350–25K
2125–50K
1250–75K
575–100K
3100–150K
0150K+
76 reports with mileage · 19 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Air Bags. Review the 35 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 16 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
5 crash reports0 fire reports3 injury reports
Power Train complaints
3 reportsTHIS IS NOT RELATED TO ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT HAPPENED TO MY VEHICLE, BUT IT IS RELATED TO CONSUMER SAFETY AND PROTECTION. NISSAN SETTLED A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT AND AMENDED THEIR BATTERY REPLACEMENT/REPAIR WARRANTY SHORTLY AFTER THEY INTRODUCED THE LEAF TO THE US. VERY SOON AFTER THIS AMENDED WARRANTY WENT INTO EFFECT NISSAN SEN…
Read full complaint
THIS IS NOT RELATED TO ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT HAPPENED TO MY VEHICLE, BUT IT IS RELATED TO CONSUMER SAFETY AND PROTECTION. NISSAN SETTLED A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT AND AMENDED THEIR BATTERY REPLACEMENT/REPAIR WARRANTY SHORTLY AFTER THEY INTRODUCED THE LEAF TO THE US. VERY SOON AFTER THIS AMENDED WARRANTY WENT INTO EFFECT NISSAN SENT A LETTER TO ALL LEAF OWNERS AND ASKED US TO BRING OUR CAR IN FOR A "SOFTWARE UPGRADE" THAT WOULD GIVE US A BETTER RANGE DISPLAY. I SUSPECT THAT THIS "UPGRADE" ACTUALLY KEEPS THE CAPACITY (RANGE) DISPLAY ABOVE THE THRESHOLD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE OBLIGATE NISSAN TO REPAIR/REPLACE THE BATTERY. IS YOUR AGENCY THE APPROPRIATE ON TO BRING THIS SUSPICION/COMPLAINT TO AND REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION OR SHOULD I CONTACT SOMEONE ELSE. I DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS MORE THAN A HUNCH. BEFORE THIS ALLEGED ""FIX" MY CAR HAD LOST 2 BARS OF DISPLAY, AFTER, ONLY 1, YET IT HAS BEEN DRIVEN AND RECHARGED MUCH MORE EXTENSIVELY THAN BEFORE THE "FIX". ALSO, NISSAN HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO SHARE DATA ON THE LEAF OR ITS BATTERY, AND INSISTS THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY COMPANY WHO CAN DIAGNOSE THE BATTERY, AND THEREFORE, THE ONLY COMPANY WHO CAN DECIDE IF THE WARRANTY SHOULD BE HONORED IN ANY CASE. THIS IS TROUBLING. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF ANY RESOURCES COULD BE DEVOTED TO LOOKING INTO THIS SOFTWARE "FIX" - THOUGH I UNDERSTAND BUDGET AND PERSONNEL CONSTRAINTS MAY INHIBIT THIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE BEYOND MY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE AND MY GUT FEELING. STILL, IT BEARS CONTACTING YOU TO ASK, AS WE HAVE SEEN HOW OTHER MAJOR AUTO MAKERS ARE WILLING TO BEND RULES AND LAWS IN ORDER TO PAD THE BOTTOM LINE. THANK YOU!! *TR
I HAVE RUN INTO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A SMALL DESIGN FLAW. WHILE USER ERROR IS CLEARLY INVOLVED, A SIMPLE SOFTWARE FIX COULD PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. SCENARIO: 1) LEAF IS PARKED IN GROCERY STORE PARKING LOT ON A SLIGHT DOWNHILL SLOPE. 2) STARTUP SOUND IS TURNED OFF. 3) PUSH START BUTTON WHILE NOT PRESSING ON BRAKE…
Read full complaint
I HAVE RUN INTO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A SMALL DESIGN FLAW. WHILE USER ERROR IS CLEARLY INVOLVED, A SIMPLE SOFTWARE FIX COULD PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. SCENARIO: 1) LEAF IS PARKED IN GROCERY STORE PARKING LOT ON A SLIGHT DOWNHILL SLOPE. 2) STARTUP SOUND IS TURNED OFF. 3) PUSH START BUTTON WHILE NOT PRESSING ON BRAKE PEDAL ADEQUATELY - LEAF GOES INTO ACCESSORY MODE. 4) TRY TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE, NOT LOOKING AT DASH SCREEN TO SEE THAT LEAF IS IN ACCESSORY MODE. 5) PRESS DOWN ON PARKING BRAKE LEVER TO DISENGAGE PARKING BRAKE. 6) PRESS ACCELERATOR. RESULT: THE LEAF IS STILL IN ACCESSORY MODE, BUT HAS SHIFTED INTO NEUTRAL AFTER STEP #4. ONCE PARKING BRAKE IS OFF AND FOOT IS ON ACCELERATOR, THERE IS NOTHING TO KEEP THE LEAF FROM ROLLING FORWARD. THIS IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL, IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE IN THE LAST YEAR. ONE TIME I HIT A SHOPPING CART, BUT FORTUNATELY PUT THE BRAKE ON IN TIME AND THE FRONT LICENSE PLATE HOLDER PROTECTED MY LEAF FROM DAMAGE. COMMENT: IN MY OPINION, TRYING TO SHIFT INTO DRIVE OR REVERSE WHILE THE LEAF IS IN ACCESSORY MODE SHOULD NOT PUT THE LEAF IN NEUTRAL--IT SHOULD STILL BE IN PARK. THIS SIMPLE CHANGE WOULD PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS HAPPENING. THE LEAF CAN STILL SHIFT TO NEUTRAL IN ACCESSORY MODE BY MOVING THE SHIFTER TO THE LEFT AND HOLDING IT THERE FOR 2 SECONDS. *TR
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
PE19015 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Oct 9, 2019 · Closed Jun 1, 2020
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags; Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Additional source detail variants (3)
Air Bags:frontal
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 19-015 was opened as a result of Defect Petition (DP) 19-002 which alleged that model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Nissan Leaf were affected by the same defect addressed in an earlier recall, NHTSA Safety Recall 16V-244, but were not included in the scope of that recall.NHTSA 16V-244 involved a defect in the Occupant Classification System, a system intended to suppress deployment of the passenger's frontal air bag under certain specific conditions. Although the DP19-002 analysis determined the allegation that earlier MY Leaf vehicles should have been included in 16V-244 was not founded, the Office of Defects Investigation nonetheless granted the petition and commenced this investigation into the 2011 and 2012 Leaf since OCS failures were reportedly occurring in these vehicles. Further details on DP19-002 can be found at NHTSA.gov.On October 25, 2019, ODI sent an information request letter to Nissan North America (Nissan) requesting pertinent information on the subject 2011 and 2012 Leaf. Nissan provided its response on December 13, 2019. ODI has reviewed the information Nissan provided as well as new reports submitted to NHTSA's Vehicle Owner Questionnaire database. Based on review of all available information, and at this time, ODI has identified evidence supporting that a total of 76 subject vehicles likely experienced a failure of the subject passenger seat OCS mat. The count represents an incidence rate of about 0.4% on subject vehicles that average 8 to 9 years in service.Consistent with Nissan's explanation of how the subject OCS was intended to function, ODI's review of the reports indicates that when an OCS mat failure occurs, two different warning indicators appear on the instrument panel. The warnings provide clear and unambiguous notice to occupants that an OCS problem has been detected, and the owner's manual provides further information regarding the meaning and consequences of the detected failure, as well as advice to seek service. Additionally the OCS will store a diagnostic trouble code to aid service technician diagnosis, and the occupant warnings remain present until the underlying failure has been corrected.In its responses to ODI, Nissan also provided its assessment of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, stating that it does not believe that an unreasonable risk to safety exists. Nissan states that its assessment of failed OCS mats recently collected from the field showed that external factors (e.g., damage from foreign objects) were responsible for the failures, rather than a design or manufacturing defect. Nissan also cited clear visual warnings and low incidence rates occurring in comparatively older vehicles as factors in its determination that a recall was not warranted. Lastly Nissan noted that most of the complaints received for this issue involved a high customer expense for the cost of repair for the OCS system, which is consistent with ODI's observations. Nissan is apparently considering a reduction in repair part cost as a means to address the customer satisfaction aspect of these complaints.Based on the analysis conducted, this investigation will be closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. NHTSA reserves the right take additional actions if warranted by future circumstances.The 20 ODI numbers cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (ODI) numbers:11176324, 11193091, 11286687, 11290303, 11152569, 11207486, 11180021(duplicate of 11103556), 11103556, 11196006, 11287002, 11101830, 11193208, 11256669, 11172159, 11282156, 11102456, 11123812,
DP19002 · Front Occupant Classification System Mat
Opened Aug 16, 2019 · Closed Oct 16, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:sensor:occupant Classification
A defect petition (see DP19-002) was received July 23, 2019 alleging that the occupant classification system (OCS) sensor (mat) in model year (MY) 2011 Nissan Leaf vehicles is defective and affects the proper deployment of the passenger front air bag. The petitioner provided a list of potentially related NHTSA reports and noted a Nissan recall involving later MY Leaf vehicles with OCS defect. NHTSA is granting the petition and opening a preliminary evaluation in response, please see PE19-015.Since receiving the defect petition, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has determined that the MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf share a common OCS design, both using the same sensor mat for passenger presence sensing. Starting in MY 2013, Leaf OCS was changed to a design using a different sensing system, one that did not use the mat present in prior model year, Nissan Leaf. While MY 2013-2016 Leaf vehicles were recalled for an OCS defect under recall 16V-244, a recall influenced by ODI investigation EA15-004, earlier MY Leaf vehicles were not included because they were not affected by the particular defect involved in that recall.ODI identified and reviewed 13 vehicle owner questionnaire (VOQ) reports in its database, one of which is a duplicate, involving MY 2011 and 2012 Leaf vehicles that allege a problem with the OCS. The VOQs indicate that an OCS warning light illuminated at which point the vehicle was diagnosed and it was determined the sensor mat was the cause of the OCS problem. Most of the VOQs also noted the high cost of repair, which apparently involves replacement of the passenger front seat, according to complainants. None of the VOQs allege a problem with the performance of the passenger air bag, an injury, or a fatality due to the failure of the OCS.During the evaluation of this petition, ODI did not request information from Nissan regarding the complaint data in its possession, and accordingly the manufacturer complaint counts shown above are marked as not applicable. ODI will request this information during the upcoming investigation.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following identification (VOQ) numbers: 11234415, 11207486, 11196006, 11193208, 11180021, 11176324, 11172159, 11152569, 11123812, 11103556 (duplicate of 11180021), 11102456, 11101830, 11052546.