Electrical System Problems of Nissan Leaf - part 1

Vehicle: 2020 Nissan Leaf sv, VIN [[xxx]], ~55,000 miles recall: r24b2 / NHTSA campaign 24v700000 (battery may overheat during level 3 charging — fire risk) I brought my vehicle to conicelli Nissan (conshohocken, PA) for the r24b2 recall software update. The vehicle has been held at the dealership since on or about xxx with the recall remedy incomplete; the dealer says it cannot proceed without Nissan's approval (dealer case xxx). I opened case xxx with Nissan consumer affairs requesting rental coverage while the vehicle is grounded for this safety recall. Nissan verbally denied the request on xxx and refused to put the denial in writing. I have no transportation. Nissan provided rental cars to owners in its xxx Leaf battery recall until repairs were complete, but refuses the same here. I ask NHTSA to intervene: (1) compel completion of the recall remedy, and (2) require Nissan to provide alternate transportation while the vehicle is grounded for a safety recall its own procedure failed to remedy. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

See all problems of the 2020 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

The contact owned a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of NHTSA campaign number: 24v700000 (electrical system). The local dealer was contacted and declined to perform the recall repair, stating that the recall repair would place the vehicle in limp mode, and advised the contact to disregard any warning lights illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue and informed the contact to reach out to the dealer for assistance. The contact had not experienced a failure.

See all problems of the 2019 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

Update to complaint xxx— xxx I am updating my complaint regarding Nissan Leaf recall r24b2 and the dealer’s handling of the recall remedy. On xxx I brought my 2019 Nissan Leaf to ken garff Nissan salt lake to have recall r24b2 performed. The dealer told me that performing the recall remedy could cause the vehicle to enter reduced-power mode or become non-drivable, and that replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. The dealer therefore declined to perform the recall remedy at that time. A representative of ken garff Nissan salt lake also advised me that I could ignore the safety warnings, not have the recall remedy performed, and drive the vehicle through the desert anyway. This was particularly concerning because the recall restricted the vehicle’s use of level 3/chademo quick charging pending completion of the remedy, affecting my ability to safely use the vehicle for a planned interstate relocation. After I escalated the matter to Nissan consumer affairs, Nissan told me that ken garff Nissan salt lake had said it declined to perform the remedy because of a time constraint. That account conflicts with what the dealer told me directly. I asked the dealer to perform the remedy before I mentioned my move or any timeline, and the dealer instead explained that it did not want to perform the remedy because it could leave the vehicle in reduced-power mode or non-drivable while replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. I then obtained an appointment at [xxx] Nissan of murray on xxx, for the r24b2 recall remedy. I will provide the final repair order, diagnostic codes, and outcome when available. My safety concern is not solely that an open recall exists. An authorized dealer declined to perform the prescribed recall remedy because it said the procedure could immobilize the vehicle, while Nissan later relayed a materially different explanation for the dealer’s refusal. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

I own a 2019 Nissan Leaf (recall r24b2/NHTSA 24v-700), 70,000 km, battery state of health 97% per Leafspy (obd-based bms health reading, not the dash gauge). I support the recall's intent and have stopped level 3 fast charging entirely, using only home level 1/2 charging. I'm raising a structural concern, relevant beyond my own vehicle: for cars that trip the soc-fluctuation fault, the only remedy offered is full battery replacement or buyback — scrapping/replacing packs that are often barely degraded, at real environmental cost (mining, manufacturing, disposal) for a risk tied specifically to level 3 charging, not to driving the car. I'd ask the agency to consider whether the remedy framework (repair/replace/refund-less-depreciation under 49 u. S. C. §30120, or canada's equivalent) should allow a fourth, owner-consented option: permanent, verifiable disabling of DC fast-charging (physical connector removal, tamper-evident hardware, disclosed on the vehicle's title/history) in exchange for a smaller cash settlement — no battery replacement, no buyback, for owners who accept this in writing. There's precedent for this working in the used-vehicle market already: lemon-law and flood-damage titles both flag a documented condition change so future buyers can price it in, without requiring the vehicle be destroyed. This would function the same way — a documented manufacturer-owner agreement at a middle ground, rather than a binary full-remedy-or-buyback choice. This would let owners with healthy batteries keep driving, reduce prematurely retired ev packs, and likely cost manufacturers less than replacement or repurchase, while still eliminating the defect condition. I'd ask this be considered for Nissan's remedy program here, and as a standing option for future mode-specific recalls.

The electrically-driven intelligent brake unit failed on my 2015 Nissan Leaf. The brakes became inoperative: when pressing the brake pedal there is a loud compression/grinding noise and the pedal goes nearly to the floor with little braking force. The failure appeared suddenly after charging the vehicle; it had been working normally before. The vehicle had to be towed to a Nissan dealership. The dealer diagnosed codes u1000 and u110d stored in the abs module for lost communication with the intelligent brake module, performed an inspection, and confirmed the intelligent brake unit failed. The dealer quoted $5,131. 10 to replace the unit, which approaches the value of the vehicle. This is the same electrically-driven intelligent brake system that was the subject of safety recall 16v119000; the NHTSA VIN lookup shows zero unrepaired recalls for this vehicle, indicating the recall remedy was previously completed, yet the unit failed catastrophically anyway. This failure mode is widely reported by other Leaf owners. Loss of braking without warning is a serious safety risk. The vehicle and failed component are available for inspection at the dealership.

See all problems of the 2015 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

Incident summary & ineffective recall remedy: I am reporting an acute high-voltage battery cell collapse on my 2021 Nissan Leaf (VIN: [xxx]). The vehicle previously received the software update for NHTSA recall #25v655 (Nissan recall #r25c8) at kings Nissan. The software patch failed to repair the underlying defective battery hardware. Following a second service visit on xxx where kings Nissan tested only the auxiliary 12v lead-acid battery to dismiss my complaint, I purchased an independent can-bus diagnostic tool. On xxx (63,702 miles), Leafspy telemetry confirmed cell #31 is severely degraded, exhibiting a 191–307 mv voltage collapse. This causes sudden dashboard state-of-charge drops from 70%+ down to 42–45% on active highways, forcing emergency power limits ("limp mode"). Refusal of post-remedy service: despite active corporate case #xxx with Nissan consumer affairs, authorized dealers (kings Nissan, Nissan of queens and Nissan of staten island) refuse to intake, scan, or ground the vehicle, leaving a severe hardware hazard active on public roads. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

See all problems of the 2021 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

My 2019 Nissan Leaf's battery stopped charging due to a manufacturer defect. Nissan north America confirmed this is covered under NHTSA recall 24v-700 and agreed to repurchase the vehicle (case #1163589). However, Nissan's repurchase process has been severely delayed by issues connected to the recall remedy itself: Nissan requires a physical title to complete the repurchase, but their own financing arm (nmac) failed to release a lien for six years after payoff--despite the law requiring them to--and then provided a defective release letter, stalling the process for over a month. Separately, Nissan's own repurchase letter promised a courtesy rental vehicle for up to 30 days during the process, which was never provided despite requesting. They are also refusing to lock in their repurchase price so every day of their delay is benefiting them while costing me. I am raising this because the recall remedy process itself — not just the underlying defect — has been mishandled, leaving an affected consumer without a resolution or a functioning vehicle for an extended period.

I have attempted to conduct the recall repairs (25v-655) on the Leaf battery. 2 different Nissan locations have cancelled my scheduled appointments stating "we don't have the software to complete these repairs".

See all problems of the 2022 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

The contact owns a 2020 Nissan Leaf. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to the local dealer to be repaired under NHTSA campaign number: 24v700000 (electrical system). The contact stated that 100 miles of using the ed system, the power reduced message was displayed. The contact stated that the battery became disabled. The vehicle was taken back to the local dealer, but the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired after a week. The manufacturer was contacted, and a case was opened, but no further assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 80,000.

VIN [xxx] battery percentage drops drastically and instantly once it reaches 50–60%. Is behavior aligns with the active lithium deposit defects found under open recall r25c8. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

The car was parked in a parking lot, and when we turned it on and pulled out of the space, the brake light, abs light, and other warning lights came on and the brakes went soft. We pulled back into the space and tried again, thinking it was a fluke and heard a strange noise coming from the car when it started. Again the lights came on and the brakes did not work. We had it towed to our normal mechanic and then to the dealership when the mechanic was unable to figure out what was wrong. The brakes looked to be in good repair. The Nissan dealership was unable to reproduce the problem and found only old codes in the system. The codes listed on the receipt were ffd high key cycle counts, c118a, u1000 (abs, ev/hev), p3195, b29c1 however, after I saw similar complaints related to the battery in this car and told them about it, they found that the 12v battery was leaking. They replaced the battery and flushed the brake line to be safe, but did not charge us the diagnostic fee since they were unsure if they fully fixed the issue. I had recently felt like the brakes took more pressure than normal (all the way to the floor) to stop on the highway once recently and so did my husband but we both thought we were imagining things. 2 years ago we had a similar issue happen but the mechanic just sent us back home after not being able to find anything. The codes on the receipt from 2024 are not very legible but I think they say "41000gn comm circuit" "c118a eas system" and "41100 electronic back return. ".

The vehicle failed on xxx ("service ev system / unable to restart") and was towed to abc Nissan, [xxx], where it has remained since (18 days as of this filing). On xxx dealer confirmed hv battery requires warranty replacement, stated that replacement batteries are backordered approx six months, with no loaner was available, and directed us to Nissan's repurchase process. Nissan's filed recall remedy promises a free replacement battery or, where unavailable, a repurchase offer above kbb private-party value initiated within three business days plus complimentary rental vehicle in either situation. No rental has been provided. Dealer confirmed non-availability in writing on 8/8, and we have self-funded a rental ($712 so far as of xxx) after Nissan's own representative recommended on xxx that we keep it. On xxx, Nissan verbally indicated the repurchase was declined because the dealership is "repairing" the vehicle. On xxx, dealership's service dept confirmed that the replacement battery has no arrival estimate and that it has discontinued providing rentals entirely and advised that the resolution must come from Nissan. Nissan's position appears to be that it will not repair on any known schedule, will not repurchase, and will not provide the rental its own filed remedy promises. We have requested reimbursement for incurred rental expenses and a "make whole" buyback at $18,000 which covers the full cost of an equivalent replacement vehicle including tax and licenses. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

Safety complaint / incident description vehicle presented to dennis dillon Nissan on June 20 2026 for a factory high voltage battery recall software update intended to fix level 3 fast charging safety risks. The software update rendered the vehicle completely inoperable by disabling standard level 2 charging. The vehicle has been held in continuous dealer custody for 58 consecutive days without a working repair. Nissan failed to disclose that the recall patch could brick a functioning ev. Loaner support was revoked prematurely forcing 850 in out of pocket rental costs. Inadequate buyback offer via morley companies was rejected. Factory recall update rendered vehicle useless and unsafe to operate.

Battery recall has not been serviced. I was turned away from dealers more than once for recall 25v-655.

Car was fast charged on July 9th. 2026. After fast charging from 13% to 80%, and driving for a few miles, the overheating warning came on and car was forced to stop on the side of a busy highway until the engine cooled off. While there is an active recall for a similar problem (24v700), my car is not included and we were not notified.

See all problems of the 2018 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

My 2019 Nissan Leaf is currently grounded at dublin Nissan with leaking battery cells caused by thermal distress from open safety recall r24b2. Nissan consumer affairs has refused to buy back or repair the vehicle because it has past the 100,000-mile mark, leaving me with an unresolvable, hazardous vehicle that has no available manufacturer remedy.

After having the recall (recall 25v655) remedy applied to my car, it will not restart after charging. I charged it once after receiving it back (the dealership had not fully charged it during the recall work - it was returned at 76%). And it immediately started throwing errors and will only be in neutral now. The dealership service center maintains that this is not the result of the recall issue or the recall fix, which is quite unbelievable. I do not believe the recall remedy is actually a remedy.

My vehicle is subject to open NHTSA recall 24v-700 (Nissan internal r24b2), for excessive lithium deposits in hv battery cells causing rapid heating during level 3 DC fast charging, with a stated fire risk. At approximately 112,000 miles, my vehicle displayed the warning "service ev system. Unable to restart after power off. " I brought the vehicle to dublin Nissan service department on July 2, 2026, where the dealer diagnosed a leak in the hv battery cells consistent with the defect described in recall 24v-700. On July 20, 2026, I received a diagnostic estimate quoting me $5,162. 23 for battery and $2,999. 99 for the accessory/parts — charged to me as a customer-pay repair — along with a stated wait of 3-4 months for battery availability. This directly contradicts Nissan's own published remedy for recall 24v-700, which states: "if a particular dtc for the ev battery is generated, the vehicle cannot be operated without a battery replacement. . . This repair will be performed free of charge for parts and labor. . . Nissan will provide a complimentary rental vehicle. " the recall further states that if the dealer cannot obtain a battery, Nissan will contact the customer within 3 business days to offer repurchase above kelley blue book private-party value. I contacted Nissan consumer affairs, who refused to authorize a free battery replacement and refused to consider repurchase, stating I did not qualify because I purchased the vehicle from a third-party dealer rather than a Nissan dealer. Nothing in the official recall remedy language conditions the free replacement or repurchase offer on where the vehicle was purchased. I am requesting NHTSA's assistance in ensuring Nissan honors the free-of-charge battery replacement and/or repurchase remedy as stated in its own recall documentation for recall 24v-700.

This recall appointment does not take 2 hours to complete. The dealer quoted me 1-2 days with an inability to offer a loaner vehicle. Several Leaf owners have completed the recall appointment and subsequently been left stranded because the car went into an undrivable mode leaving the owner stranded and incurring towing and rental fees for weeks without resolution. Nissan consumer affairs has denied to consider a buyback without taking the vehicle in for the recall notice even though the recall notice successfully being applied does not guarantee the car will not stop abruptly after that visit. Without the recall appointment, Nissan has limited my ability to safely fast?charge, preventing me from using the full functionality of the vehicle. Nissan is conditioning buyback eligibility on my willingness to undergo the recall inspection, even though the recall remedy has repeatedly resulted in battery failure and sudden loss of power for other Leaf owners. This effectively forces me to expose myself to a known safety hazard in order to qualify for a remedy Nissan itself acknowledges may be required. I am being denied both safe vehicle operation and access to the promised buyback unless I accept a repair that may leave me stranded or without a functioning battery. Nissan recognizes the potential risk of the recall remedy by issuing a second notice dated 6/17/2026 that if the vehicle experiences this battery specific condition within 12 months after the date the software reprogram remedy was completed on the vehicle. Nissan will replace the battery or offer to re-purchase the car. Nissan has also recognized that batteries are rare at this time. I thought that a manufacturer must offer a remedy that was deemed safe and this does not seem like it’s guaranteeing safety.

I am submitting this complaint regarding a manufacturer?performed recall on my 2022 Nissan Leaf that resulted in a complete loss of charging capability immediately after Nissan applied its software update. Prior to the recall, the vehicle operated normally and had no charging issues. Following the recall intervention, the vehicle became unable to charge at all. This failure occurred directly and immediately after Nissan’s recall action. At the dealership, battery replacement was initially presented as a potential remedy. However, Nissan corporate assigned the case to a third?party administrator, and it became clear that no repair option — including battery replacement — was available. Ultimately, Nissan proceeded with a buyback of the vehicle. This outcome raises a significant fairness concern. The vehicle is only four years old, and a battery replacement should reasonably be available to consumers when a manufacturer?initiated recall causes the battery system to fail. Treating a four?year?old electric vehicle as irreparable — and offering repurchase as the only remedy — is not consistent with reasonable consumer expectations, especially when the failure was caused by the manufacturer’s own recall procedure. I am requesting that the agency review Nissan’s handling of this recall, the denial of battery replacement for a relatively new vehicle, and the use of repurchase as the sole remedy. The recall directly caused the vehicle to become inoperable, and Nissan’s refusal to authorize repair left the consumer with no reasonable path other than surrendering the vehicle.

I have two safety recalls from Nissan that says to schedule the appointment with the dealer - daytona Nissan. The dealer cancelled the appointment without any reason and unable to reach the dealer. Screenshot of email as proof.

This is the second high-voltage traction battery failure on this vehicle. The original hv battery failed and was replaced by Nissan under warranty at an authorized dealer on xxx, at approximately 59,000 miles. The Nissan-manufactured replacement pack has now failed after approximately 16 months in service. On xxx, at ~74000 miles, the vehicle was diagnosed at johnson city Nissan ([xxx]) with an internal short circuit within the high-voltage battery pack the error codes were p31e7-00 0b and p0aa6-1a 0b. Dealer service personnel identified the condition as an internal short in the pack. Due to the fire risk associated with an internal short in a lithium-ion traction battery, I declined to take possession of the vehicle, which remains at the dealership. An internal short can lead to thermal runaway without warning, whether the vehicle is being driven, charging, or parked. The failure of a factory replacement battery pack in 16 months, following the failure of the original pack, indicates a potential manufacturing or design defect in Nissan's service replacement hv battery packs for this platform. I am reporting this so NHTSA can evaluate whether other Leaf replacement packs exhibit similar internal short failures. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

The contact owns a 2020 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of NHTSA campaign number: 24v700000 (electrical system); however, the local dealer stated that the part for the recall repair was not available. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue. The contact stated that while operating the vehicle, the message "service ev system - power reduced" was displayed. The failure mileage was approximately 43,000.

Recall for fast charge level 3 chademo has been issued for over 6 months. I am advised not to fast charge due to risk of devastating fire. Very dangerous to continue to use this car in an urban setting. Buyback was denied and told to wait for a fix. No fix yet! I can't get out of philadelphia in this car. Tesla wouldn't let this happen!.

On Saturday, June 20, I was driving my son to soccer. We stopped at a stoplight. When the light turned green, I pressed the accelerator and we went forward. However, when I took my foot off the accelerator, the car continued to accelerate. Luckily it slowed down when I pushed on the break. But every time I took my foot off the break the car continued to accelerate. I did not have a good place to pull over to the side. So at the next stop light, I turned the car completely off. I turned it back on again, but the same thing happened. I arrived at the soccer field and parked the car for the remainder of the day, which was several hours. It did not do that again that evening. The other thing that has happened a couple of times prior to the incident and since is, the Nissan panel display that lights up when you turn the car on turned completely off and on again several times at random while I was driving. Usually the panel stays with eliminated and plays audio or shows a map. It turned itself completely off to black and then back on again as if the car was starting up again. On Tuesday, I took the car to Nissan because I had called the problem in over the weekend, but their service center was not open. They were unable to replicate the problem. However, on my way to Nissan, the accelerator again pressed forward independently of my actions and the car accelerated without warning. This is very scary and felt extremely dangerous. I told the technicians that Nissan that the problem appeared similar to a recall that had been in place a few years ago. But they said that unless they could replicate the problem, they weren’t able to do anything about it. I was very unsatisfied with that because it seemed like a pretty dangerous situation.

See all problems of the 2025 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

My Nissan Leaf was affected in the NHTSA recall 24v-700. We took it into the valley Nissan of longmont, where we initially purchased the car, on 6/19/2026. The dealership checked it out and told us it was fine, so we took the car home that day. We drove it around on 6/20/2026 and received an urgent ev service warning. The car went into turtle mode while we were driving on the highway. We called the dealer, and they said it was the code that indicated our battery was actually degraded. So, they gave us back a car that was unsafe to drive. They weren't able to look at it again til 6/22/2026, but they refused to provide us with a rental or loaner car for the weekend, despite this being our only car, and the recall specifically having a stop-drive order on affected vehicles. On 6/22/2026, we took the car in again, and they confirmed the battery was actually degraded due to the recall. Again, they refused to get us a rental or loaner car. Since Monday, the car has been sitting at the dealer, and as of 6/25/2026, we still have no information about when we will get the car back, if we can get a battery replacement, or what our options are. They have provided us with no information and no alternative vehicle, despite our car being undriveable. They said we could rent a car but refused to confirm if this would be reimbursed as part of the recall. We called Nissan customer affairs, and they have also been unhelpful and not provided any further information on a battery replacement or loaner vehicle. We have been calling multiple times this week to no avail. We want to have the battery fixed, but we have heard from other Leaf owners that this can take many months, and this was our only vehicle. We would not be able to have the battery replaced at no cost to us without a provided loaner vehicle. Since this comes as a result of a stop drive order recall, I think that should be provided from Nissan through direct payment rather than reimbursement.

The car had a faulty DC/DC converter one month after purchase. The vehicle has about 900 total miles. Part number 292a0-8342r.

On [xxx] at about [xxx] pm at 12,488 miles and 67% charge, I was pulling into traffic from [xxx] onto [xxx]. As I accelerated into the gap in traffic, the car momentarily lost traction. Initially, the traction control system intervened and restored traction. Moments later, the car lost traction a second time. However, the second time the car lost traction, the entire car seemed to shut down. The display indicated " service ev system apply parking brake". I immediately turned on the hazard lights and pulled to the side of the roadway. I tried turning the car off and back on again but was unable to get the car to drive. At [xxx] pm, I called the dealership where I bought the car and was told by the service department that they were unfamiliar with this issue. As I was considering options for recovery (insurance, dealership, etc. ) I decided to unhook the 12v battery in an attempt to reset the car. By [xxx] pm, the display was now reading "service ev system no power". I used a 10mm wrench to unhook the positive terminal of the 12v battery. I waited about 30 seconds and then reconnected the positive terminal of the 12v battery. After reconnecting, the car began to work ok and I went back to driving normally. At [xxx] pm, I called the dealership back and informed them of what I had found and that unhooking the 12v battery had reset the car and it was now driving ok. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

See all problems of the 2024 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

This vehicle experienced an ev system power failure and low battery message. The manufacturer has diagnosed a covered warranty battery defect but has refused to repair the vehicle citing supply constraints. They are using their parts shortage to pressure a [xxx] senior citizen on a fixed income in an inadequate cash buyback that leaves her stranded without transportation. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

I am filing a complaint regarding NHTSA recall 24v-700 (r24b2) for my 2019 Nissan Leaf s plus, VIN: [xxx], Nissan case no. Xxx. I complied fully with Nissan's recall instructions, avoiding level 3 fast charging for my entire ownership. On or about April 23, I filed a complaint with Nissan consumer affairs (case #xxx) regarding the impact of the charging restriction on my vehicle's usability and requested a buyback. Nissan denied my claim approximately two months ago. I then surrendered my vehicle for the recall repair. The dealer returned it, stating the recall was remedied. Over the following three days, I drove only short local trips with minimal driving — no fast charging. The vehicle lurched violently on a public road, entered turtle mode, and displayed multiple dashboard warning lights. I drove it slowly to the dealership. My dealer confirmed full battery replacement is required and submitted a goodwill warranty claim on my behalf — acknowledging this failure was not due to owner misuse. Nissan north America (case no. Xxx) has since informed me in writing that battery replacement cannot be provided and is now offering repurchase. The battery failure occurred directly after Nissan's purported recall repair with minimal driving. Nissan claimed the defect was fixed — it was not. I am concerned the kbb value Nissan intends to use may be artificially suppressed by five open safety recalls, including 24v-700, and the vehicle's current non-operational status — caused entirely by Nissan's defective repair. I request NHTSA scrutinize Nissan's repurchase valuation methodology for affected owners. I request NHTSA investigate Nissan's failure to remedy this recall. My preferred remedy remains battery replacement. I should not bear the financial consequences of a repair Nissan certified as complete. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u. S. C. 552(b)(6).

I am reporting a critical safety hazard involving my 2021 Nissan Leaf s plus (approx. 117,000 miles). Since January 2025, the vehicle has exhibited dangerous battery degradation and voltage sag during operation. On my 30-mile highway commute, while driving at normal highway speeds—especially on inclines—the vehicle would suddenly display a low-power warning, and the remaining battery percentage would instantly crash. This caused a sudden, dangerous loss of propulsion in high-speed traffic, creating severe crash risks. I primarily charged at home and rarely used DC fast charging. On may 22, 2026, while actively driving, the dashboard flashed: "service ev system unable to restart after power off. " I pulled over, and upon turning the car off, it completely bricked. The auxiliary electronics power up, but the vehicle permanently refuses to enter "ready" (drive) mode due to a high-voltage safety lock. The vehicle was towed to an authorized Nissan dealer. The certified technician's diagnostic report confirmed that the high-voltage traction battery has completely failed and is internally damaged. Crucially, this vehicle is currently under an active, unremedied safety recall (NHTSA recall 25v655 / Nissan r25c8) due to excessive lithium deposits that cause severe battery degradation, sudden power loss, and fire risks. The physical failure of my battery is a direct manifestation of this exact manufacturing defect. Nissan’s software-only "interim remedy" did not fix the hardware defect; it simply bricked my car after exposing my family to highway propulsion loss. Nissan must be held legally responsible for replacing these defective, recalled battery packs regardless of mileage, as they present a severe, systemic risk of catastrophic failure and traffic accidents.

There is a recall on the level 3 charger that has been outstanding for more than 2 years and they still do not have a remedy. We have to rent a car if we need to drive more than 200 miles.

See attached document for complaint.

The manufacturer-installed 40kwh replacement battery has suffered an internal high-voltage isolation short to the vehicle chassis (codes p0aa6/p31e7), creating an immediate fire and shock hazard. The component failed just 2 years after installation in 2024. Nissan is refusing to repair this severe safety defect because the vehicle's original body frame is past its warranty window.

See all problems of the 2017 Nissan Leaf 🔎.

Nissan issued a recall notice well over a year ago about batteries catching fire when using the DC fast charging port. They still have not offered a fix. I can't travel long distances with the car since slower level 2 charging is impractical (8 hrs to full recharge). If I sell the vehicle with this limitation, I will have do to so at a substantial loss, so I cannot replace the car. I want a fix, compensation. Or a buy-back. I called the local dealership today and they can't even offer a timeline for a fix.