NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
95 reports11,645 miles · Jun 4, 2013
Electrical System
THE INTELLIGENT KEY SYSTEM ALLOWED THE VEHICLE TO BE DRIVEN OFF WITHOUT THE KEY PRESENT (IT WAS IN THE POCKET OF A PERSON STANDING OUTSIDE THE CAR). THE DRIVER AND PASSENGERS THEN WENT ON A 15 MILE TRIP, WHEREIN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED (SAFELY). AFTER AWHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RE-ENTERED, BUT THE DRIVER COULD NOT START THE CAR BECAU…
Read full complaint
THE INTELLIGENT KEY SYSTEM ALLOWED THE VEHICLE TO BE DRIVEN OFF WITHOUT THE KEY PRESENT (IT WAS IN THE POCKET OF A PERSON STANDING OUTSIDE THE CAR). THE DRIVER AND PASSENGERS THEN WENT ON A 15 MILE TRIP, WHEREIN THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED (SAFELY). AFTER AWHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RE-ENTERED, BUT THE DRIVER COULD NOT START THE CAR BECAUSE THE KEY WAS NOT PRESENT. 2 YOUNG CHILDREN WERE LEFT WAITING IN THE HOT SUN, BUT WERE NOT INJURED. EVENTUALLY ANOTHER PERSON RETRIEVED THE KEYS AND BROUGHT THEM TO THE DISABLED CAR AND DRIVER USING A SECOND VEHICLE. IT WAS VERY INCONVENIENT AND STRESSFUL FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND LUCKILY NO ONE WAS INJURED. NOTE: LATER ON, AFTER TESTING THE VEHICLE IN A CONTROLLED SITUATION, THE WARNING SYSTEM DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE KEY WAS NOT PRESENT AS THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATES IT SHOULD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10515049
12,000 miles · Apr 1, 2013
Service Brakes
MY NISSAN LEAF HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT OF ANY SORT, AND HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN DRIVEN OVER A CURB. IT IS LESS THAN 18 MONTHS, AND LESS THAN 15,000 MILES. FRONT THE DAY I GOT IT, I FELT THAT AT TIMES WHEN I PRESSED THE BRAKES ON IT, THAT THEY WOULD SLIP, OR NOT GRAB FOR A 1/2 SECOND, BUT THOUGHT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ME. …
Read full complaint
MY NISSAN LEAF HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT OF ANY SORT, AND HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN DRIVEN OVER A CURB. IT IS LESS THAN 18 MONTHS, AND LESS THAN 15,000 MILES. FRONT THE DAY I GOT IT, I FELT THAT AT TIMES WHEN I PRESSED THE BRAKES ON IT, THAT THEY WOULD SLIP, OR NOT GRAB FOR A 1/2 SECOND, BUT THOUGHT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ME. THE CAR FAILED COMPLETELY 10 DAYS AGO, AND WILL NOT START, TELLING ME THAT MY FOOT WAS NOT ON THE BRAKE! (A CONDITION FOR STARTING). COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT SEE THE BRAKES BEING HEAVILY DEPRESSED (FOR STARTING) AND ITS COMPUTER CONTROLLED BRAKES SLIPPING FOR 1/2 SECOND, IT MAKES ME THINK THAT THE COMPUTER HAS SOME REASON FOR NOT SEEING THE BRAKES WORKING. THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP, AND NISSAN USA HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, AND AFTER 10 DAYS NISSAN USA HAS NOT GOTTEN ANY CLOSER TO A RESOLUTION. IS THIS A COMPUTER/BRAKING DEFECT? IS IT COMMON? IT CERTAINLY AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THOSE RIDING IN A CAR, AS BRAKE FAILURE IS CERTAINLY AS IMPORTANT AS AN ACCELERATOR STICKING. HAS A RECALL BEEN ORDERED FOR THIS, AND HOW MANY CARS ARE INVOLVED IN IT? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10505292
6,130 miles · Feb 25, 2013
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ELECTRICAL AND BATTERY SYSTEM FAILED NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DISCHARGED NUMEROUS TIMES AT LOW SPEED OF 35 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER SEVERAL TIMES FOR THE FAILURE. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THEY COULD NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE MAN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ELECTRICAL AND BATTERY SYSTEM FAILED NUMEROUS TIMES AND THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DISCHARGED NUMEROUS TIMES AT LOW SPEED OF 35 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER SEVERAL TIMES FOR THE FAILURE. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THEY COULD NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND THAT IT WAS PERFORMING ACCORDING TO THE ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE 6,130 WAS AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 6,900.
NHTSA ODI #10500019
14,232 miles · Sep 21, 2012
Electrical System
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE BATTERY AND RAPID RANGE CAPACITY BARS DISAPPEARED, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DECIPHER HOW MUCH FURTHER THE VEHICLE COULD ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS BUT THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DIAGNOSE,…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 NISSAN LEAF. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE BATTERY AND RAPID RANGE CAPACITY BARS DISAPPEARED, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DECIPHER HOW MUCH FURTHER THE VEHICLE COULD ACCELERATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS BUT THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DIAGNOSE, REPAIR OR ADMIT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE DUE TO COMPANY POLICY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE CONTACT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 14,232 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 17,025.
NHTSA ODI #10476674
16,000 miles · Sep 6, 2012
Fuel System, Other
THE NISSAN LEAF WE PURCHASED FROM ABC NISSAN (PHOENIX, AZ) IN MARCH, 2011 BEGAN EXPERIENCING A RAPID DECREASE IN RANGE BEGINNING IN MARCH, 2012. FOR 5 MONTHS, DURING MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS, VISITS TO DEALERS, AND AMONG 2 WEEKS OF TESTING AT THE PROVING GROUNDS, WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THE 30% REDUCTION IN DRIVING RANGE WE HAVE EXPE…
Read full complaint
THE NISSAN LEAF WE PURCHASED FROM ABC NISSAN (PHOENIX, AZ) IN MARCH, 2011 BEGAN EXPERIENCING A RAPID DECREASE IN RANGE BEGINNING IN MARCH, 2012. FOR 5 MONTHS, DURING MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS, VISITS TO DEALERS, AND AMONG 2 WEEKS OF TESTING AT THE PROVING GROUNDS, WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT THE 30% REDUCTION IN DRIVING RANGE WE HAVE EXPERIENCED IS NORMAL, GRADUAL CAPACITY LOSS AND IS NOT COVERED BY WARRANTY. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE DESIGN OF THE LEAF BATTERY CAUSING IT TO RAPIDLY DEGRADE FASTER IN WARMER CLIMATES, ALTHOUGH OWNERS IN CALIFORNIA ARE STARTING TO SEE RANGE LOSS AS WELL. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN TEST REPORTS BY OUR DEALERSHIP THAT OUR TREATMENT OF THE CAR ?IS VERY GOOD FOR YOUR BATTERY.? THE USABILITY AND VALUE OF THE CAR HAS BEEN IRREVOCABLY DIMINISHED DUE TO THIS NONCONFORMIST, DESPITE THE CARE GIVEN TO THE BATTERY AS CONFIRMED BY THE EV BATTERY USAGE REPORTS. OWNERS APPEAR TO HAVE NO RECOURSE AT THIS TIME. ONE OWNER TRIED TO TRADE-IN HIS LEAF TO 11 LOCAL CAR DEALERS, AND 10 REFUSED TO MAKE ANY TRADE-IN OFFER FOR A MINT-CONDITION CAR, NO CAPACITY LOSS, NO FLAWS, LESS THAN 10,000 MILES. WE ARE STUCK WITH A $35,000 CAR THAT WE CAN NO LONGER USE ON A DAILY BASIS. OWNERS HAVE BEGUN TO COLLECT SELF-REPORTED COMPLAINTS ONLINE(1), AND RANGE-LOSS IS EXPERIENCED BY AT LEAST 46 CARS IN ARIZONA (OUT OF 400 TOTAL SOLD), 18 CARS IN TEXAS, AND 12 CARS IN CALIFORNIA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10474173
25,725 miles · Sep 3, 2012
Electrical System
I AM FILING A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE MAIN BATTERY IN MY 2011 NISSAN LEAF. ACCORDING TO NISSAN, I SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED ABOUT A 20% BATTERY CAPACITY LOSS AFTER FIVE YEARS OF OWNERSHIP. I HAVE HAD THE CAR FOR 14.5 MONTHS. AS OF 8/29/2012, THE BATTERY HAS LOST 3 BARS OF CAPACITY (APPROXIMATELY 27.5% CAPACITY LOSS). THIS RATE OF CAPACIT…
Read full complaint
I AM FILING A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE MAIN BATTERY IN MY 2011 NISSAN LEAF. ACCORDING TO NISSAN, I SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED ABOUT A 20% BATTERY CAPACITY LOSS AFTER FIVE YEARS OF OWNERSHIP. I HAVE HAD THE CAR FOR 14.5 MONTHS. AS OF 8/29/2012, THE BATTERY HAS LOST 3 BARS OF CAPACITY (APPROXIMATELY 27.5% CAPACITY LOSS). THIS RATE OF CAPACITY LOSS IS FAR BEYOND WHAT NISSAN EXPECTED AND POSSIBLY MODELED/ENGINEERED. PLEASE HELP INSURE THERE WILL NOT BE ANY SAFETY ISSUES WITH THE BATTERY AS THE CAPACITY DETERIORATES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10473672
5,000 miles · Aug 24, 2012
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
I HAVE RUN INTO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A SMALL DESIGN FLAW. SCENARIO: 1) LEAF IS PARKED IN CONDO PARKING GARAGE WITH GENTLE UPHILL SLOPE ON PARKING SPACE. 2) STARTUP SOUND IS TURNED OFF. 2) FORGET THE LEAF IS STILL PLUGGED IN TO AV L2 EVSE. 3) PUT FOOT ON BRAKE, PUSH START BUTTON. 4) SHIFT INTO REVERSE, NOT LOOKING …
Read full complaint
I HAVE RUN INTO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A SMALL DESIGN FLAW. SCENARIO: 1) LEAF IS PARKED IN CONDO PARKING GARAGE WITH GENTLE UPHILL SLOPE ON PARKING SPACE. 2) STARTUP SOUND IS TURNED OFF. 2) FORGET THE LEAF IS STILL PLUGGED IN TO AV L2 EVSE. 3) PUT FOOT ON BRAKE, PUSH START BUTTON. 4) SHIFT INTO REVERSE, NOT LOOKING AT DASH SCREEN TO SEE WARNING THAT LEAF WON'T START. 5) PRESS DOWN ON PARKING BRAKE LEVER TO DISENGAGE PARKING BRAKE. 6) PRESS ACCELERATOR. RESULT: THE LEAF DOESN'T START SINCE IT IS STILL PLUGGED IN TO EVSE. THE LEAF SHIFTS OUT OF PARK INTO NEUTRAL AFTER STEP #4. ONCE PARKING BRAKE IS OFF AND FOOT IS ON ACCELERATOR, THERE IS NOTHING TO KEEP THE LEAF FROM ROLLING BACK. IF IT ROLLS FAR ENOUGH IT WILL DAMAGE EITHER THE L2 CONNECTOR TO THE CAR OR THE EVSE OR BOTH. COMMENT: THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL, IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME 3-4 TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR. FORTUNATELY, I QUICKLY REALIZED THE LEAF WAS STILL CONNECTED TO THE EVSE AND APPLIED THE BRAKE SO THAT NO DAMAGE WAS DONE. IN MY OPINION, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE LEAF OUT OF PARK OR RELEASE THE PARKING BRAKE WHILE THE LEAF IS STILL PLUGGED IN. I WOULD SUGGEST CHANGING THE SOFTWARE TO AVOID POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO THE LEAF L2 CONNECTER, EVSE OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10472379
8,000 miles · Aug 24, 2012
Electrical SystemPower TrainCrash
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
NHTSA ODI #10472378
20,206 miles · Aug 9, 2012
Electrical System
LOST FIRST BATTERY CAPACITY BAR AFTER ONE YEAR OF OWNERSHIP. THIS RESULTS IN A 15% LOSS IN CAPACITY. DIFFICULTIES ARE OCCURING TO ACHIEVE DRIVING DISTANCES AND HABITS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. VEHICLE WILL SOON NO LONGER FUNCTION AS AN FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IF RANGE CONTINUES TO DIMINISH. THE CAPACITY LOSS SEEMS TO BE A DEFEC…
Read full complaint
LOST FIRST BATTERY CAPACITY BAR AFTER ONE YEAR OF OWNERSHIP. THIS RESULTS IN A 15% LOSS IN CAPACITY. DIFFICULTIES ARE OCCURING TO ACHIEVE DRIVING DISTANCES AND HABITS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. VEHICLE WILL SOON NO LONGER FUNCTION AS AN FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IF RANGE CONTINUES TO DIMINISH. THE CAPACITY LOSS SEEMS TO BE A DEFECT IN THE BATTERY AND IS UNACCEPTABLE TO LOOSE A LARGE AMOUNT IN A SHORT TIME FRAME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10469926
10,219 miles · Aug 9, 2012
Electrical System
2011 NISSAN LEAF ELECTRIC VEHICLE, PURCHASED ON 8/6/2011, LOST A BATTERY CAPACITY BAR ON 06/21/2012 - 10 MONTHS, 15 DAYS AFTER PURCHASE. THIS IS A 15% LOSS OF BATTERY CAPACITY. NISSAN ADVERTISES AN EXPECTED 80% CAPACITY REMAINING AFTER 5 YEARS. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER THE NEXT DAY FOR INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD MY BATTERY IS…
Read full complaint
2011 NISSAN LEAF ELECTRIC VEHICLE, PURCHASED ON 8/6/2011, LOST A BATTERY CAPACITY BAR ON 06/21/2012 - 10 MONTHS, 15 DAYS AFTER PURCHASE. THIS IS A 15% LOSS OF BATTERY CAPACITY. NISSAN ADVERTISES AN EXPECTED 80% CAPACITY REMAINING AFTER 5 YEARS. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER THE NEXT DAY FOR INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD MY BATTERY IS "NORMAL," AND SO IS THE LOST CAPACITY. I DISAGREE AND BELIEVE THE BATTERIES NISSAN IS USING IN THIS CAR ARE UNFIT FOR THE HIGH TEMPERATURES IN MY LOCAL AREA OF PHOENIX, AZ. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10469924
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.
Illustration