Thanks Andy, that was a really nicely thought out video. I think that to avoid damaging the battery too much, we must do a DBCAM after the reset, that should avoid always resetting to an artificially high amount. Any problem with the battery and the DBCAM will show it with reduced capacity. When I do my car I will set it to 38AH initially to reduce the initial DoD and hopefully not damage the battery too much as I want to keep the car for a few more years (until the Model Y is available). What I would like to see is for MMC to give us definitive instructions for how to charge/discharge the battery optimally for different use cases. I.e. Lots of short trips (EV only), lots of long distance trips, intermediate, etc.; as they do not seem inclined to tell us the BMS algorithm. Maybe they are trying to preserve the battery life so they get lots of good batteries back when the cars are scrapped, so they can build lots of (Mitsubishi) powerwalls. :-)
Hi Andy and thank you so much for doing my test suggestion. I have some more results for you, I will email them...I tested my friends car (93% soh) and compared to my own (80% soh) using the same constant load (using heater) until ice starts test. As theorised the results are consistent. Those lower voltages (under constant load of course) don't seem like much but actually they are a big deal with over 25% of capacity in the 3.7 to 3.8v per cell range, these variations can explain the capacity differences. We can see MMC's point in preserving the battery (and the 8 year warranty) they want to protect. But I feel they are being too aggressive and too conservative in this.
Yes, I am starting to think of is in the same vein as what VW did on a somewhat smaller scale. Accelerating degradation = accelerating increased emissions.
Hey Andy, Long time no comment...Not sure if I agree with your assumptions this time, as if they continually let the battery "degrade by design" then the whole vehicle would become unusable so quickly. Would be interesting to see what BMU software versions are on each PHEV, mine is a 2014 model, although I don't have the watchdog I can't say that I have lost ANY capacity in the 2 years I have owned it. I am still driving past the same landmarks (like your overpass) with the same kms left on the GOM that I had after purchase. As far as I know it has had no updates during this last 5 years, and definitely none in the last two. Still reckon the whole problem is software related, (like your first gut feeling/hunch), as a battery that has TRUE degradation definitely won't achieve 50Km+ after the triple procedure. More work to be done....... By the way, am up for new tyres soon, the original Toyo tyres have done 60000kms (pretty good I reckon), just wondering if you have changed yours and what you went with ? Regards....Andy (from FNQ)
@@unpluggedEV My suspicion is that the cells they are using have a *minimum* of 40AH capacity and that the production process is actually better than the minimum in most cases. Remember they are not giving us the actual specs of the battery and we are *assuming* that they are 40AH cells because they tell us they are. Remember Yuasa can fit 50AH in the same package if they want to. I hope DBCAM is measuring how many coulombs it can squeeze into the battery when it starts off depleated below 30%, but it is basing the 30% point on the 38AH value I think, and it is not always exactly 30%, some discharge below this as the discharge is not part of the DBCAM - it is performed by the machanic. So I think the DBCAM probably charges up to a set bottom voltage then measures coulombs until it reaches the 4.1V top voltage. As most batteries are 'good enough' they fit the full AH in as specified by the BMS (what ever you program into it). Remember the BMS algorithm has been "baby'ing" the battery up to this point. Maybe these "re-programmed" batteries will suffer real degradation going forwards due to the increased DoD. Only time and more DBCAMs will tell. But therein lies another problem, the DBCAM itself is not good for the battery as it represents a worst-case DoD discharge and you don't want to do that too frequently. A software solution from Mitsubishi would be the ideal solution, but until then I for one have ordered a MUT3 and will DIY, as my warranty ran out last March. :-)
A nice visual example there. I think the available info suggests something to us. Consider the following: Firstly we know that the BMU calculates our battery state of health. It is taking in and giving out data based on constants and variables. We know that this system is to some degree programmed. We do not know exactly how the BMU works and, importantly, how much information it truly measures rather than uses code to determine. We would hope that some BMU processing information, like perhaps time, cell voltage and temperature would be absolute values that are measurable and always correct, but even if this is true the processing of these variables is carried out according to software resulting from decision making and susceptible to possible error. Secondly we know from published manufacturer datasheets that the batteries used are expected to be extremely robust. For example, the LEV50N battery datasheet states that when you 100% discharge (down to 2.75V) at a 1C rate (over the course of one hour) repeatedly, you should get about 5,500 charge discharge cycles before the original capacity decreases to 80% of original. At one charge discharge per day, this is around 15 years. Probably longer than the battery construction is intended to work for or the vehicle is expected to last... In reality we are only able to discharge to about 30% remaining capacity (70% dod) due to the BMU programming, intended to restrict depth of discharge to increase battery cycle life. So how much does this improve things? A quick search suggests that restricting Lithium Ion depth of discharge to 50% instead of 100% can have a 3x impact on cycle life (45 years to reduce to 80%?!? Haha!!). So restricting our depth of discharge should extend our battery cycle life and by manufacturer estimate, the battery should have a long and useful service life. Certainly long enough to be acceptable for this intended vehicular use. Thirdly, we know from our reading that there are variable charging parameters changing dynamically according to situation in order to maintain safety and battery health. For example, the battery datasheets refer to different maximum charge currents for different battery temperatures and for safe operation we can assume that the BMU should allow for this. There is also mention of adjustable end of charge voltage technology to extend cell life used with this battery type. Given the above, I would assume that: a) the BMU system does correctly interpret and display values such as volts, amps, time and temperature, so the readable information that we can see is accurate; b) the manufacturer battery reliability expectation helped by the restriction to 70% DOD makes is extremely unlikely that we would see meaningful capacity reduction within the first few hundred charge / discharge cycles (couple of years depending on recharge frequency); c) most likely something else is going on. The most obvious suspects are the programmed variables of end of charge cell voltage and / or charge temperature. What would happen for example, if today the BMU was dynamically controlling the end of charge voltage to around 4.05V, but the coulomb counting routine was written assuming a fixed charged voltage of 4.1V? Or what would happen instead if the battery temperature varied giving a charge rate compensation of -5%, but the BMU did not measure this parameter and instead relied on a lookup table with a slightly different value? Maybe not the best examples but there is plenty of space for error. Over the time spans that we are dealing with, a small difference in programmed versus real data or an unnoticed code error could have a large impact. This is perhaps more likely than physical battery degradation. So where do we look to next? I think the most obvious answer given recent information is to ask the question: Why does the MY19 PHEV appear to lose battery capacity so much faster than the earlier model?? If we can spot the difference here then maybe we are closer to the answer.
Great comment Tim! This is exactly what happens. The battery is fine and should last a very long time. We have certainly some parameters which shorten battery life like C-usage and temperature. The BMU does not take any of such parameters into account when calculating SoH as far as we know and follows this strict algorithm. As you know there is almost no difference from my old battery to the new one in terms of battery degradation.
Hi Andy. Good explanation and discussion. My thoughts: What is the point of artificially degrading capacity to "preserve" the battery if MMC's software does not allow us to take advantage of the capacity (these seem inconsistent)? Also, if the concern was really about preserving battery life, then it would have made a lot more sense to set the accessible battery capacity to a lower value from the outset so that owners don't experience the stark difference: initially getting 50 or 60+ kms of range and then seeing that quickly tick down. What I think is more likely is that MMC did not intend to have the BMU software degrade as rapidly as is being experienced--perhaps because they did not fully appreciate how their degradation algorithm would operate in real-world scenarios. In any case, their response seems consistent with a general Japanese cultural reluctance to admit fault. And to offer a software update would be to admit that a mistake had been made. I dunno. I still remain convinced that this is purely a software issue.
I’ve thought all along that it’s a balance between life of battery and EV mileage. Also, maybe, a matter of safety not to overcharge or overdischarge a slowly degrading battery. I think they will have considered all this before programming battery management. It may not be a fault. Interfering may cause problems. I continue to follow this saga with interest. I have ordered a watchdog, but need an android phone as I use an iPhone.
the motivation to do it the way MMC did it could be driven by marketing. Longer range, lower emissions and better fuel efficiency sell better. Once the car went through initial reviews (reviewers only review new cars) are done and the cars are sold another thing becomes top priority: preserve the battery to avoid mass replacements during warranty.
I bet this whole thing is not just software related. The battery degrades and the bmu tries to protect deep discharging. So it lowers the "available" Ah-s to maintain the bottom buffer. As far as I understand the car uses only part of the full capacity of the battery, that's why reset and dbcam work and you can have again the approximate 28ah usable energy. But I guess you can not have multiple resets... There are not so many spare capacity..
Daniel D. Maybe I’m not giving MMC engineers enough credit but my impression is that the whole artificial degradation is a byproduct of their cluelessness, and is not “by-design”. After all MMC now states that the SOH reflects the true capacity of the battery, which we know is not true (BMU reset magically restores the supposedly forever gone degraded battery capacity in a matter of minutes). I personally think that the preservation theory is BS.
Sad.. So the bottom buffer is expanding in time.. Embarrassing,.. They could also cheat on model 2019, bigger battery capacity on advertising could be achieved by temporary lowering voltage of kick on of engine.. without any battery rebuilding . Then for some time you have an illusion of 13.8 kWh.. !! Sheeeet!!!
Here the PHEV is sold as a "Green car" that only uses 2 liters/100km in average. It's ment to be driven in pure electric in daily commuting, and mostly on gas on longer trips. Then it will use about 7 liters/100km. So you HAVE to drive it in pure electric daily to average 2 liters/100km. You can also use the Chademo fastcharge on longer trips, and then the car will charge to 80% in 20min and then drive 30km in pure electric (by default) before the petrol engine kicks in again. One thing they didn't expect when they made the software and the limitings, was that someone would make the Watchdog, and that the customers could confirm the fast loss in capacity. They thought that they could make new models, with just 3km longer range that the customers would testdrive 15km longer, and then trade in their old "short distance" cars. And then Mitsubishi could refurbish the batteries by only resetting the BMU and make a big profit by selling used PHEVs with almost 50km range. Or maby they new the batterys quality was not good enough to last the whole warrantyperiod if cycled between 30-100%, and they have to minimize the usable part fast. But thats fraud. Just like VW and their diesels. I realy hope the politicians get hold on this information and force Mitsubishi to act fast, or get sued and forbidden to sell "Green cars".
Regarding PHEVgate. I totally agree that the declared CO2 emissions are cheated in case of any PHEV vehicle. The measurements are done with a new vehicle with max range available and battery fully charged, but the users will not get the same performance as measured, because battery starts degrading from day 1. For WLTP measurement to be correct, the battery degradation must be calculated in or it does not make any sense. Those who do the WLTP measurement should expect that the battery will degrade and before the test they should discharge the battery to some predefined level and only then do the test. For example, this predefined level could be defined based on a typical battery degradation figures provided by manufacturer over long period of time. I am almost sure that changing test procedure to account for battery degradation will not put any PHEV in those tax friendly zones where users can get large government incentives, because they will lead to emission figures more like ICE cars do in WLTP test. On the other hand, this will not solve any problems for users, but instead will make it impossible to buy any PHEVs as they are too expensive even with government incentives. In this case Mitsubishi will be hurt because their sales will stall, but users will be forced to buy either ICE vehicles or BEVs, so this would be lose-lose situation for everyone.
I guess, that was the main reason to introduce the 2019 model with larger battery in Europe. Due to the raising emission standards, only with the bigger battery they can meet he standards. Note: This vehicle is only available in Europe, nowhere else... Why? Other don't have such high emission standards.
Hi, Andy. Yes, after all Mitsubishi's answers, this is the only plausible explanation. To prevent the battery from actually degrading in 8 years, they use software that simulates a virtual 5-10 times faster degradation. For all customers who don't notice this, they are fine. At the customers who notice this and insist on the warranty they press the reset button and so they are also fine out. After all, the battery was put into a slumber until then at the cost of the originally promised EV range and today it is accepted in society that every modern device has to be booted here and there in order to function properly. This is not only cheating for the promised services, it is also cheating for the promised guarantee and finally, as you mentioned, cheating for the emissions. Yes "Cheating" is the right word, but oh sorry, Mitsubishi calls such a case "optimal" I forgot completely.
Well in Canada it seems Mitsubishi decided to avoid the complaints of loss of battery capacity and loss of range by 1) not giving a capacity warranty and 2) by claiming it only gets 35km EV range. Nobody complains when they get better EV range than it is rated. When our range drops we complain and they can say "What's your problem ? You are getting 35km of EV range aren't you?"
I'm getting about 44kms EV range in mixed city driving up to 80-100km per hour on my "new" 2018 Outlander Phev, but mostly slower, around 50-60km per hour. My car is 2 weeks old, but it's battery is 14 months old - manufactured March 2018. I'm down to 36.9 Ah (started at 37 Ah). Driven less than 500km so far. I've already written Mitsubishi Canada about the artificial degredation because I expected 38 Ah upon delivery (or very close to it). Obviously they did nothing to calibrate the car that had been sitting on the lot for 14 months.
@@Darrenhd2 Hi Darren, I also recently bought a 2018 (new) PHEV, which also had been sitting on the lot for about a year I believe, and is also at 36.9 Ah. I've had mine 3 weeks now. I'd be interested to know what response you get from Mitsubishi Canada.
Down to 36.8 Ah now after only another week. Still getting above 40 km range now in warm conditions (25+ Celcius), but that is sacrificing air conditioning much of the time. I"m also driving very gentle.
Andy, just my 2 cents on this issue: what Mitsubishi did different from the similar PHEV - Ampera or Volt from Chevy - is that they did not forsee enough buffer on the initial battery capacity. The Volt has a 16 kWh initial capacity battery but their BMU is programed to use only around 10 kWh before the engine kicks in. The result is that a new Volt performs the same way as a 5 year old one. Why? Because even if the real capacity has reduced to 12 kWh, for example, you can still use around 10 kWh (maybe 9,5 kWh, but very close to 10). In today’s episode you’ve hit the nail in the head: Mitsubishi’s marketing is misleading and I consider that to be the ONLY real problem with this car. Otherwise, the car drives great, gets decent mileage even on long journeys, generous volume, not too expensive maintenance. I’ve started driving hybrid cars back in 2011, the first one being a 2006 Prius. Since then, owned couple of different hybrids, including a 2012 Opel Ampera. The Outlander PHEV is a decent car, but Mitsubishi aproached the EV subject too steep and just targeted high sales - which they’ve also succesfully done :) My opinion is, if you wanna enjoy your car for a few years, don’t force the battery. On the long run it will cost you much more than the extra fuel. I would pay more attention to my charging habits, as those can have a significant impact on SOH. By the way - just got a 1,3% increase in SOH (from 79,2% to 80,5%) just by fully depleting the battery and slowly charging overnight at 6A, for couple of days in a row.
On one hand they are trying to preserve the battery, on the other hand they replace the battery if it goes below a certain point. But what if these obviously good quality batteries degrade far slower than Mitsubishi think? Then they replace a high priced part instead of just giving a far less costly yearly update so we can all enjoy more EV range and still be protected by the 365 days degradation
This is a very interesting twist and would certainly explain a lot. And yet they allow the procedures to take place if a customer, like me, complains enough. It might be they take the view that if they do the procedure the customer is happy and, although the battery is now being hammered, it mat placate the customer for the years the car is kept. That would explain a case by case basis. Do the procedure for those that complain as they are in the minority. But what is 'the life of the car'? It has to be at least 15 years. And the way the battery degrades surely the capacity will be virtually nothing within the first 5 or 6 years. For those that only use the car around town may be satisfied with that as they charge up at home every day. So even if they only get, say, 15 miles, instead of 25 because they have still used no fuel and just charge up again for their next sub 15 mile journey. No one cares about the battery on long journeys as it will represent a small percentage of the overall trip. But again, what is the battery life meant to be anyway? What period of that life are MM trying to protect?
You can think about the battery as if it is a part subject to wear and tear. Any car have plenty of parts like this and no parts have infinite life span. The vehicle will last more than 15 years without any problems, but it does not mean that you will not need to replace some parts. If the car is designed for 15 years, it does not mean that the battery is designed to last that long. For most ICE cars in their lifetime one needs to replace key parts like engine, gearbox, catalytic converter, you name it. The same is with batteries. It is just one of components which may fail over time. When you buy a vehicle, manufacturer will not tell you the lifetime of each components in the vehicle and they cannot, because it depends how those parts are worn based on car driving style, maintenance and many other factors. However, for some car parts you know in advance that they will fail and it is only a question of time. The battery is one of those components. The MMC gives you a warranty that the battery will have no less than 70% of battery capacity after 8 years or 150000 km and what happens afterwards it is your problem. Given that most of car buyers will switch to another car before it reaches these limits, the problem suddenly goes away for MMC, because they do not care about second hand buyers. Their profits originate only from the first buyers and their warranty makes sure of that. This is how the whole car industry works. These concepts apply not just for cars, but for everything you buy these days.
MM Germany isn't making a BMU reset by the cars, they are doing only cell smothing + DBCAM :-( my SOH on 2019model raise from 37.3 ==> 41.8AH, better then nothing but it doesn't make me happy... will wait for the next drops soon
In the USA it is advertised and certified for up to 22miles = 35km of range. So I would say it's correct. Mine with 88% SOH had a range of about 28-29 miles
Hi Andy. I understand that Tesla have recently reduced the capacity via a software upgrade to protect the battery, so this whole thing seems to have an inevitability to it.
I agree that the battery is being degraded quicker than actual, but I don't believe it is on purpose. I still think it is based on the amphr used minus amphr charged * some filter or averaging, in such a way that it errs on the side of caution.
Mitsubishi is not right to steal our battery capacity to lower their battery warranty claims. This is just like Volkswagen sheeting the emissions testing. Same thing exactly!
what do you think about my thought: that what time the engine kicks in doesn't really depends on voltage. it depends on the amount of consumed amperes. bmu measures the amount of consumed amperes, and starts the engine accordingly. if you reset the battery, the bmu will allow to consume 38-10 (bottom buffer) = 28Ah, it doesn't matter how many do you actually have, and the battery might be more depleted. if you see a discharge diagram of a lithium ion battery, the voltage quite identical 4.1V :: 3.xx volts until a point where voltage drops quickly. so, low voltage engine kicks in mean bad battery health. I hope it makes sense.
So, Mitsubishi think they know better than every other electric car manufactuer when it comes to battery management? Setting up some sort of non-standard BMU code to keep "battery health" optimal, but at the same time not allowing the end user to utilise the battery. Makes so much sense! #sarcasm! But seriously now, this WOULD make sense and I WOULD applaude Mitsubishi if they included a BMU Reset/DBCAM as part of the 12 month service schedule. That would complete the picture totally.
The BMU has 10 registers for a DBCAM and the battery has a 10yr life expectation before it hits 80% (here in AU). I guess they have thought about a yearly DBCAM but are not doing it...
If that's the case, Mitsubishi miscalculated the whole thing. If the aim was to preserve the battery to avoid a premature degradation and hence having to replace the battery under warranty, they missed the mark, as the apparent (calculated) degradation of the SOH is forcing them to replace the battery under warranty anyway.That doesn't really adds up, as it costs them at least 2kUS$ every time. Unless, instead of replacing the battery they indeed just make the equivalent of a triple procedure to restore SOH, but pretending otherwise. Did you try to analyze the voltage of when the engine kicks in to see if it supports that change in DOD?
Andy, if you reset an old battery AND do a DBCAM, the DBCAM does an actual real measurement of the battery including reserves. So if you reset and DBCAM and get back to 38, 39 or even 40 Ah then that is what it is. Your explanation would not hold water. Has their been a triple on an old battery? If so what was the reading?
I thought the same until recently. EVFun has done the triple on his 2014er with 160.000km and it came good with 40Ah. All vehicles come up with 40Ah after the triple, regardless if old or new battery. This cannot be right!
@@unpluggedEV Isn't it so that during triple procedure you reset everything in BMU? For example, you write 40 Ah value into BMU regardless of what is the actual battery capacity and then also delete all the history BMU accumulated over time?
My question is, for example, can you write 25 Ah into BMU registers after such procedure? If you always write 40 Ah, then I assume that BMU will have to adjust over time by estimating the actual battery capacity and it will give false assumptions that all capacity was recovered. Another question is if you maybe can write lower values, but then nobody chooses to do so or do not know that they can or should do that. I assume there is no MMC instructions for triple procedure, because it is some artificially invented sequence of functions one can execute using MUT device. Moreover, those functions are more or less independent from each other and are meant to be used for different purposes. For example, the reset of top capacity value, I assume, is meant to be used only when installing a new battery, so maybe it is not suitable for used batteries. If you use such procedure, you get full capacity figure shown by BMU, even though the battery do not have it. One more concern is if you can write lower values, how this will be interpreted by BMU? Shouldn't it know what is the original battery capacity regardless of what is the capacity right now? Or maybe it has several places where one can define battery capacity, e.g. the original capacity and the current capacity? I do not know much about how various functions in MUT device works, but it looks like there are some options one can choose and the details matter.
@@MrTytalus old battery, DBCAM similar SOH. Old battery, DBCAM and reset 40Ah result. NEITHER of these results are logical or explainable. The same battery cant have both results but WILL!
If I am understanding correctly, then this an artificial degradation of the usability of the vehicle (total kms in pure EV mode) that was not advertised. This would, in my opinion, be considered a direct breach of consumer rights here in NZ. Their advertising has only ever said that there would be natural degredation of the battery over time, but not expected to drop below 80%. This is not natural degredation.
unplugged EV , we’ve sparred in the past over a top-buffer, where you assured us that there is one (and state such many a time in your videos), so to see this change of tack is a little unexpected. But we are learning more over time. However, if the DBCAM is truly the only real test of a battery, and if it’s carried out correctly, and if the BMU programmed degradation just restarts as expected after such and not steeper, then does that not prove that the batteries are in a good SoH, regardless of year? We’ve discussed good and bad charging habits, and if people follow some of that guidance these batteries may indeed be in a good place. Remember: these are not pure EVs, so there are is no long distance continuous drain, no long time continuous charge at high Amps, no large power drains to get max speed/acceleration due to the ICE... If there was no noticeable degradation of my Prius’s batteries after 13 years, although the battery’s envelope would likely increased under a set period, then done properly, batteries can last a ‘lifetime’.
We were always assuming the Li-ion cells can charge to 4.2V as 100%. Now we have the spec sheet and other documents of the LEV40 and it states 4.1V is 100%. So the top buffer might be very small or even not existing.
unplugged EV, makes me almost tempted to go back to timing charging not to reach maximum... except for messing up the self-levelling, hassle of getting it wrong, doubt it makes any difference to the BMU (which you showed in a previous video) and that we shouldn’t have to! 😡 So back to driving and watching my SoH take the express downhill route to a replacement 😢
I did a full charge from 25% yesterday and it went into balancing right at the beginning. I would not worry too much about levelling. It sorts this out itself.
I want to decide if I'd like to degrade my battery untill there is no pure Li left in it! Not some fat bozo in a skyscraper in Tokyo! I'm paying his salary!
"WHAT IS THE BATTERY LIFE OF MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER PHEV? In 100% electric driving, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV can travel up to 35 kilometers according to the official Mitsubishi figures." What the actual F*&*????? Have they altered the numbers???
Я езжу на приус phev. Результат такой же. Каждая зарядка уменьшает EV расстояние. НО! Зимой я ездил в режиме EV/HV с автоматическим климат контролем и кондиционером в авто режиме. И о чудо! Каждый раз машина заряжалясь на одну и ту же цифру 19,6 км. Сейчас лето и часто машина использует EV режим и я вижу опять падение заряда . Не на много 01,-02 км. В Тойота мне объясняют падение общего заряда - "стилем вождения". Чушь, конечно. После того, как я сделал ресет батареи, как и у вас, получил опять максимальный EV километры. Удачи вам.✌
@@Danmcloud100 Конечно сам. Это просто. Все сводится к 1.отсоедения "-" контакта на маленьком аккумуляторе. 2. Ждём 2-3 минуты, при этом несколько раз выжимаем педаль тормоза (для снятия остаточного заряда). 3. Соединяю клемму аккумулятора обратно. 4. Заряжаем авто - получаем максимальный заряд. Желательно, чтобы большой аккумулятор был полностью разряжен. Ну вот как то так. Желаю удачи.✌
@@Danmcloud100 Возможно, однако, ни кто не мешает вам попробовать по-моему. В момент, когда вы скидываете клемму аккумулятора, вы обесточиваете ваш компьютер и после его подключения, он " думает", что только что с завода. Не думаю, что Митсубиси сильно разошлись с тойотой. ✌
As usual marketing is all about best case scenario and the corresponding fuel / emissions reduction. It is a misleading USP if people rely on it as the reason to buy. Not as much an issue for a leased vehicle, or in a country where there are significant rebates and offsets that sweeten the deal financially? But there are consumer laws and when it comes to emissions reduction the money paid by tax payers / government, in some countries, adds another dimension. I wonder how long R&D was and what testing parameters did they use? 2012 / 2013 is a while ago now, for this technology, and no doubt the engineers were conservative to avoid premature failure of the battery chemistry. A much bigger battery would provide an overhead to work with, but they would just claim even more range. Personally I'd expect a 7 year warranty / 75% batterry range if I bought one new, or the balance of if a few years old. It is difficult to maintain battery capacity over many years without replacing the battery or being conservative in charging and discharging? A PHEV should be the best of both worlds for now, not a scenario where you pay for a battery, engine and ancillary gear but end up with a dead weight in the form of a battery or engine. Looking at Toyota as another Japanese company and how long it takes them to bother to update their Hiace van or Landcruiser, for example. The sales numbers hold up well, so no problem for them.
Thanks Andy, that was a really nicely thought out video. I think that to avoid damaging the battery too much, we must do a DBCAM after the reset, that should avoid always resetting to an artificially high amount. Any problem with the battery and the DBCAM will show it with reduced capacity.
When I do my car I will set it to 38AH initially to reduce the initial DoD and hopefully not damage the battery too much as I want to keep the car for a few more years (until the Model Y is available).
What I would like to see is for MMC to give us definitive instructions for how to charge/discharge the battery optimally for different use cases. I.e. Lots of short trips (EV only), lots of long distance trips, intermediate, etc.; as they do not seem inclined to tell us the BMS algorithm.
Maybe they are trying to preserve the battery life so they get lots of good batteries back when the cars are scrapped, so they can build lots of (Mitsubishi) powerwalls. :-)
The question really is: What is the point of "saving the battery" when the way you do it is to ruin the battery capacity?
Hi Andy and thank you so much for doing my test suggestion.
I have some more results for you, I will email them...I tested my friends car (93% soh) and compared to my own (80% soh) using the same constant load (using heater) until ice starts test. As theorised the results are consistent.
Those lower voltages (under constant load of course) don't seem like much but actually they are a big deal with over 25% of capacity in the 3.7 to 3.8v per cell range, these variations can explain the capacity differences.
We can see MMC's point in preserving the battery (and the 8 year warranty) they want to protect. But I feel they are being too aggressive and too conservative in this.
Ps. So I don't need to eat my hat after all? :)
Then they should just set the limit at max when they sell the vehicle and then advertise it at that range. Taking it away slowly is not cool.
Different apraoch this time. Do I feel a lawsuit on the way? Since governments are very sensitive to cheating on emissions.
Yes, I am starting to think of is in the same vein as what VW did on a somewhat smaller scale.
Accelerating degradation = accelerating increased emissions.
Hey Andy,
Long time no comment...Not sure if I agree with your assumptions this time, as if they continually let the battery "degrade by design" then the
whole vehicle would become unusable so quickly.
Would be interesting to see what BMU software versions are on each PHEV, mine is a 2014 model, although I don't have the watchdog I can't say
that I have lost ANY capacity in the 2 years I have owned it. I am still driving past the same landmarks (like your overpass) with the same kms left on
the GOM that I had after purchase. As far as I know it has had no updates during this last 5 years, and definitely none in the last two. Still reckon
the whole problem is software related, (like your first gut feeling/hunch), as a battery that has TRUE degradation definitely won't achieve 50Km+ after
the triple procedure. More work to be done.......
By the way, am up for new tyres soon, the original Toyo tyres have done 60000kms (pretty good I reckon), just wondering if you have changed yours
and what you went with ?
Regards....Andy (from FNQ)
But all vehicles getting the triple procedure are coming out with 40Ah of this process. Can this be right?
@@unpluggedEV My suspicion is that the cells they are using have a *minimum* of 40AH capacity and that the production process is actually better than the minimum in most cases. Remember they are not giving us the actual specs of the battery and we are *assuming* that they are 40AH cells because they tell us they are. Remember Yuasa can fit 50AH in the same package if they want to. I hope DBCAM is measuring how many coulombs it can squeeze into the battery when it starts off depleated below 30%, but it is basing the 30% point on the 38AH value I think, and it is not always exactly 30%, some discharge below this as the discharge is not part of the DBCAM - it is performed by the machanic. So I think the DBCAM probably charges up to a set bottom voltage then measures coulombs until it reaches the 4.1V top voltage. As most batteries are 'good enough' they fit the full AH in as specified by the BMS (what ever you program into it). Remember the BMS algorithm has been "baby'ing" the battery up to this point. Maybe these "re-programmed" batteries will suffer real degradation going forwards due to the increased DoD. Only time and more DBCAMs will tell.
But therein lies another problem, the DBCAM itself is not good for the battery as it represents a worst-case DoD discharge and you don't want to do that too frequently.
A software solution from Mitsubishi would be the ideal solution, but until then I for one have ordered a MUT3 and will DIY, as my warranty ran out last March. :-)
A nice visual example there. I think the available info suggests something to us. Consider the following:
Firstly we know that the BMU calculates our battery state of health. It is taking in and giving out data based on constants and variables. We know that this system is to some degree programmed.
We do not know exactly how the BMU works and, importantly, how much information it truly measures rather than uses code to determine. We would hope that some BMU processing information, like perhaps time, cell voltage and temperature would be absolute values that are measurable and always correct, but even if this is true the processing of these variables is carried out according to software resulting from decision making and susceptible to possible error.
Secondly we know from published manufacturer datasheets that the batteries used are expected to be extremely robust. For example, the LEV50N battery datasheet states that when you 100% discharge (down to 2.75V) at a 1C rate (over the course of one hour) repeatedly, you should get about 5,500 charge discharge cycles before the original capacity decreases to 80% of original. At one charge discharge per day, this is around 15 years. Probably longer than the battery construction is intended to work for or the vehicle is expected to last...
In reality we are only able to discharge to about 30% remaining capacity (70% dod) due to the BMU programming, intended to restrict depth of discharge to increase battery cycle life. So how much does this improve things? A quick search suggests that restricting Lithium Ion depth of discharge to 50% instead of 100% can have a 3x impact on cycle life (45 years to reduce to 80%?!? Haha!!). So restricting our depth of discharge should extend our battery cycle life and by manufacturer estimate, the battery should have a long and useful service life. Certainly long enough to be acceptable for this intended vehicular use.
Thirdly, we know from our reading that there are variable charging parameters changing dynamically according to situation in order to maintain safety and battery health. For example, the battery datasheets refer to different maximum charge currents for different battery temperatures and for safe operation we can assume that the BMU should allow for this. There is also mention of adjustable end of charge voltage technology to extend cell life used with this battery type.
Given the above, I would assume that:
a) the BMU system does correctly interpret and display values such as volts, amps, time and temperature, so the readable information that we can see is accurate;
b) the manufacturer battery reliability expectation helped by the restriction to 70% DOD makes is extremely unlikely that we would see meaningful capacity reduction within the first few hundred charge / discharge cycles (couple of years depending on recharge frequency);
c) most likely something else is going on. The most obvious suspects are the programmed variables of end of charge cell voltage and / or charge temperature.
What would happen for example, if today the BMU was dynamically controlling the end of charge voltage to around 4.05V, but the coulomb counting routine was written assuming a fixed charged voltage of 4.1V?
Or what would happen instead if the battery temperature varied giving a charge rate compensation of -5%, but the BMU did not measure this parameter and instead relied on a lookup table with a slightly different value?
Maybe not the best examples but there is plenty of space for error.
Over the time spans that we are dealing with, a small difference in programmed versus real data or an unnoticed code error could have a large impact. This is perhaps more likely than physical battery degradation.
So where do we look to next? I think the most obvious answer given recent information is to ask the question:
Why does the MY19 PHEV appear to lose battery capacity so much faster than the earlier model?? If we can spot the difference here then maybe we are closer to the answer.
Great comment Tim! This is exactly what happens. The battery is fine and should last a very long time. We have certainly some parameters which shorten battery life like C-usage and temperature. The BMU does not take any of such parameters into account when calculating SoH as far as we know and follows this strict algorithm. As you know there is almost no difference from my old battery to the new one in terms of battery degradation.
I'm totally agree with you, and MMC must take the corrective measures to comply with the stipulations of your advertising/contract.
Hi Andy. Good explanation and discussion. My thoughts: What is the point of artificially degrading capacity to "preserve" the battery if MMC's software does not allow us to take advantage of the capacity (these seem inconsistent)? Also, if the concern was really about preserving battery life, then it would have made a lot more sense to set the accessible battery capacity to a lower value from the outset so that owners don't experience the stark difference: initially getting 50 or 60+ kms of range and then seeing that quickly tick down. What I think is more likely is that MMC did not intend to have the BMU software degrade as rapidly as is being experienced--perhaps because they did not fully appreciate how their degradation algorithm would operate in real-world scenarios. In any case, their response seems consistent with a general Japanese cultural reluctance to admit fault. And to offer a software update would be to admit that a mistake had been made. I dunno. I still remain convinced that this is purely a software issue.
I’ve thought all along that it’s a balance between life of battery and EV mileage. Also, maybe, a matter of safety not to overcharge or overdischarge a slowly degrading battery. I think they will have considered all this before programming battery management. It may not be a fault. Interfering may cause problems. I continue to follow this saga with interest. I have ordered a watchdog, but need an android phone as I use an iPhone.
the motivation to do it the way MMC did it could be driven by marketing. Longer range, lower emissions and better fuel efficiency sell better. Once the car went through initial reviews (reviewers only review new cars) are done and the cars are sold another thing becomes top priority: preserve the battery to avoid mass replacements during warranty.
@@danield.7359 Good point.
I bet this whole thing is not just software related. The battery degrades and the bmu tries to protect deep discharging. So it lowers the "available" Ah-s to maintain the bottom buffer. As far as I understand the car uses only part of the full capacity of the battery, that's why reset and dbcam work and you can have again the approximate 28ah usable energy. But I guess you can not have multiple resets... There are not so many spare capacity..
Daniel D. Maybe I’m not giving MMC engineers enough credit but my impression is that the whole artificial degradation is a byproduct of their cluelessness, and is not “by-design”. After all MMC now states that the SOH reflects the true capacity of the battery, which we know is not true (BMU reset magically restores the supposedly forever gone degraded battery capacity in a matter of minutes). I personally think that the preservation theory is BS.
Sad.. So the bottom buffer is expanding in time.. Embarrassing,.. They could also cheat on model 2019, bigger battery capacity on advertising could be achieved by temporary lowering voltage of kick on of engine.. without any battery rebuilding . Then for some time you have an illusion of 13.8 kWh.. !! Sheeeet!!!
Here the PHEV is sold as a "Green car" that only uses 2 liters/100km in average. It's ment to be driven in pure electric in daily commuting, and mostly on gas on longer trips. Then it will use about 7 liters/100km. So you HAVE to drive it in pure electric daily to average 2 liters/100km. You can also use the Chademo fastcharge on longer trips, and then the car will charge to 80% in 20min and then drive 30km in pure electric (by default) before the petrol engine kicks in again.
One thing they didn't expect when they made the software and the limitings, was that someone would make the Watchdog, and that the customers could confirm the fast loss in capacity. They thought that they could make new models, with just 3km longer range that the customers would testdrive 15km longer, and then trade in their old "short distance" cars. And then Mitsubishi could refurbish the batteries by only resetting the BMU and make a big profit by selling used PHEVs with almost 50km range.
Or maby they new the batterys quality was not good enough to last the whole warrantyperiod if cycled between 30-100%, and they have to minimize the usable part fast. But thats fraud. Just like VW and their diesels. I realy hope the politicians get hold on this information and force Mitsubishi to act fast, or get sued and forbidden to sell "Green cars".
Regarding PHEVgate. I totally agree that the declared CO2 emissions are cheated in case of any PHEV vehicle. The measurements are done with a new vehicle with max range available and battery fully charged, but the users will not get the same performance as measured, because battery starts degrading from day 1. For WLTP measurement to be correct, the battery degradation must be calculated in or it does not make any sense. Those who do the WLTP measurement should expect that the battery will degrade and before the test they should discharge the battery to some predefined level and only then do the test. For example, this predefined level could be defined based on a typical battery degradation figures provided by manufacturer over long period of time. I am almost sure that changing test procedure to account for battery degradation will not put any PHEV in those tax friendly zones where users can get large government incentives, because they will lead to emission figures more like ICE cars do in WLTP test.
On the other hand, this will not solve any problems for users, but instead will make it impossible to buy any PHEVs as they are too expensive even with government incentives. In this case Mitsubishi will be hurt because their sales will stall, but users will be forced to buy either ICE vehicles or BEVs, so this would be lose-lose situation for everyone.
I guess, that was the main reason to introduce the 2019 model with larger battery in Europe. Due to the raising emission standards, only with the bigger battery they can meet he standards. Note: This vehicle is only available in Europe, nowhere else... Why? Other don't have such high emission standards.
Hi, Andy. Yes, after all Mitsubishi's answers, this is the only plausible explanation. To prevent the battery from actually degrading in 8 years, they use software that simulates a virtual 5-10 times faster degradation. For all customers who don't notice this, they are fine. At the customers who notice this and insist on the warranty they press the reset button and so they are also fine out. After all, the battery was put into a slumber until then at the cost of the originally promised EV range and today it is accepted in society that every modern device has to be booted here and there in order to function properly.
This is not only cheating for the promised services, it is also cheating for the promised guarantee and finally, as you mentioned, cheating for the emissions. Yes "Cheating" is the right word, but oh sorry, Mitsubishi calls such a case "optimal" I forgot completely.
I'm down to 63.4% capacity at 120,000km, very much looking forward
to a DIY fix
Still any warranty on your vehicle?
May I ask what model year your PHEV is?
@@unpluggedEV not as far as I know, I'm in WA
@@SarfrazKhan-rt5lx 2014 :)
@@V6Capri82 Then you have a 80%SoH battery warranty over the lifetime of your vehicle (10 years).
Well in Canada it seems Mitsubishi decided to avoid the complaints of loss of battery capacity and loss of range by 1) not giving a capacity warranty and 2) by claiming it only gets 35km EV range. Nobody complains when they get better EV range than it is rated. When our range drops we complain and they can say "What's your problem ? You are getting 35km of EV range aren't you?"
I'm getting about 44kms EV range in mixed city driving up to 80-100km per hour on my "new" 2018 Outlander Phev, but mostly slower, around 50-60km per hour. My car is 2 weeks old, but it's battery is 14 months old - manufactured March 2018. I'm down to 36.9 Ah (started at 37 Ah). Driven less than 500km so far. I've already written Mitsubishi Canada about the artificial degredation because I expected 38 Ah upon delivery (or very close to it). Obviously they did nothing to calibrate the car that had been sitting on the lot for 14 months.
@@Darrenhd2 Hi Darren, I also recently bought a 2018 (new) PHEV, which also had been sitting on the lot for about a year I believe, and is also at 36.9 Ah. I've had mine 3 weeks now. I'd be interested to know what response you get from Mitsubishi Canada.
@@SarfrazKhan-rt5lx I will let me know, if you can email me....darrenhd @ gmail dot com we should talk...(no spaces in email)
Down to 36.8 Ah now after only another week. Still getting above 40 km range now in warm conditions (25+ Celcius), but that is sacrificing air conditioning much of the time. I"m also driving very gentle.
Andy, just my 2 cents on this issue: what Mitsubishi did different from the similar PHEV - Ampera or Volt from Chevy - is that they did not forsee enough buffer on the initial battery capacity. The Volt has a 16 kWh initial capacity battery but their BMU is programed to use only around 10 kWh before the engine kicks in. The result is that a new Volt performs the same way as a 5 year old one. Why? Because even if the real capacity has reduced to 12 kWh, for example, you can still use around 10 kWh (maybe 9,5 kWh, but very close to 10).
In today’s episode you’ve hit the nail in the head: Mitsubishi’s marketing is misleading and I consider that to be the ONLY real problem with this car.
Otherwise, the car drives great, gets decent mileage even on long journeys, generous volume, not too expensive maintenance. I’ve started driving hybrid cars back in 2011, the first one being a 2006 Prius. Since then, owned couple of different hybrids, including a 2012 Opel Ampera.
The Outlander PHEV is a decent car, but Mitsubishi aproached the EV subject too steep and just targeted high sales - which they’ve also succesfully done :)
My opinion is, if you wanna enjoy your car for a few years, don’t force the battery. On the long run it will cost you much more than the extra fuel. I would pay more attention to my charging habits, as those can have a significant impact on SOH. By the way - just got a 1,3% increase in SOH (from 79,2% to 80,5%) just by fully depleting the battery and slowly charging overnight at 6A, for couple of days in a row.
On one hand they are trying to preserve the battery, on the other hand they replace the battery if it goes below a certain point. But what if these obviously good quality batteries degrade far slower than Mitsubishi think? Then they replace a high priced part instead of just giving a far less costly yearly update so we can all enjoy more EV range and still be protected by the 365 days degradation
This is a very interesting twist and would certainly explain a lot. And yet they allow the procedures to take place if a customer, like me, complains enough. It might be they take the view that if they do the procedure the customer is happy and, although the battery is now being hammered, it mat placate the customer for the years the car is kept. That would explain a case by case basis. Do the procedure for those that complain as they are in the minority. But what is 'the life of the car'? It has to be at least 15 years. And the way the battery degrades surely the capacity will be virtually nothing within the first 5 or 6 years. For those that only use the car around town may be satisfied with that as they charge up at home every day. So even if they only get, say, 15 miles, instead of 25 because they have still used no fuel and just charge up again for their next sub 15 mile journey. No one cares about the battery on long journeys as it will represent a small percentage of the overall trip. But again, what is the battery life meant to be anyway? What period of that life are MM trying to protect?
You can think about the battery as if it is a part subject to wear and tear. Any car have plenty of parts like this and no parts have infinite life span. The vehicle will last more than 15 years without any problems, but it does not mean that you will not need to replace some parts. If the car is designed for 15 years, it does not mean that the battery is designed to last that long.
For most ICE cars in their lifetime one needs to replace key parts like engine, gearbox, catalytic converter, you name it. The same is with batteries. It is just one of components which may fail over time. When you buy a vehicle, manufacturer will not tell you the lifetime of each components in the vehicle and they cannot, because it depends how those parts are worn based on car driving style, maintenance and many other factors. However, for some car parts you know in advance that they will fail and it is only a question of time. The battery is one of those components.
The MMC gives you a warranty that the battery will have no less than 70% of battery capacity after 8 years or 150000 km and what happens afterwards it is your problem. Given that most of car buyers will switch to another car before it reaches these limits, the problem suddenly goes away for MMC, because they do not care about second hand buyers. Their profits originate only from the first buyers and their warranty makes sure of that. This is how the whole car industry works.
These concepts apply not just for cars, but for everything you buy these days.
MM Germany isn't making a BMU reset by the cars, they are doing only cell smothing + DBCAM :-(
my SOH on 2019model raise from 37.3 ==> 41.8AH, better then nothing but it doesn't make me happy...
will wait for the next drops soon
In the USA it is advertised and certified for up to 22miles = 35km of range. So I would say it's correct. Mine with 88% SOH had a range of about 28-29 miles
We've got a 54km statement here in Australia and New Zealand.
The manual in the US states 35 miles (depending on driving style).
Hi Andy. I understand that Tesla have recently reduced the capacity via a software upgrade to protect the battery, so this whole thing seems to have an inevitability to it.
This is only partly correct. Tesla has reduced the capacity temporarily on only a few specific models, not on all of its cars.
I agree that the battery is being degraded quicker than actual, but I don't believe it is on purpose. I still think it is based on the amphr used minus amphr charged * some filter or averaging, in such a way that it errs on the side of caution.
Mitsubishi is not right to steal our battery capacity to lower their battery warranty claims. This is just like Volkswagen sheeting the emissions testing. Same thing exactly!
Then it's wrong I get it but they're advertising the car wrong bit like dieselgate
my 2014 show 3,823 volts when engine kick in...on top,always 4,1 volts .
have seen 2014er showing 3.55V with this...
@@unpluggedEV 3,55 V???? 0,3mv more out of my! that could be my missing range....i have now 28,3 AH soc
what do you think about my thought: that what time the engine kicks in doesn't really depends on voltage. it depends on the amount of consumed amperes. bmu measures the amount of consumed amperes, and starts the engine accordingly. if you reset the battery, the bmu will allow to consume 38-10 (bottom buffer) = 28Ah, it doesn't matter how many do you actually have, and the battery might be more depleted. if you see a discharge diagram of a lithium ion battery, the voltage quite identical 4.1V :: 3.xx volts until a point where voltage drops quickly. so, low voltage engine kicks in mean bad battery health. I hope it makes sense.
So, Mitsubishi think they know better than every other electric car manufactuer when it comes to battery management? Setting up some sort of non-standard BMU code to keep "battery health" optimal, but at the same time not allowing the end user to utilise the battery. Makes so much sense! #sarcasm! But seriously now, this WOULD make sense and I WOULD applaude Mitsubishi if they included a BMU Reset/DBCAM as part of the 12 month service schedule. That would complete the picture totally.
The BMU has 10 registers for a DBCAM and the battery has a 10yr life expectation before it hits 80% (here in AU). I guess they have thought about a yearly DBCAM but are not doing it...
If that's the case, Mitsubishi miscalculated the whole thing. If the aim was to preserve the battery to avoid a premature degradation and hence having to replace the battery under warranty, they missed the mark, as the apparent (calculated) degradation of the SOH is forcing them to replace the battery under warranty anyway.That doesn't really adds up, as it costs them at least 2kUS$ every time. Unless, instead of replacing the battery they indeed just make the equivalent of a triple procedure to restore SOH, but pretending otherwise.
Did you try to analyze the voltage of when the engine kicks in to see if it supports that change in DOD?
I'll dig out some old trip cards and compare...
Andy, if you reset an old battery AND do a DBCAM, the DBCAM does an actual real measurement of the battery including reserves.
So if you reset and DBCAM and get back to 38, 39 or even 40 Ah then that is what it is.
Your explanation would not hold water.
Has their been a triple on an old battery?
If so what was the reading?
I thought the same until recently. EVFun has done the triple on his 2014er with 160.000km and it came good with 40Ah. All vehicles come up with 40Ah after the triple, regardless if old or new battery. This cannot be right!
@@unpluggedEV Agreed, evidence suggests the DBCAM is a procedure that does NOT necessarily work as as intended.
unplugged EV, if the DBCAM is a true test, then why should we think it is wrong? Degradation in context is what we don’t have.
@@unpluggedEV Isn't it so that during triple procedure you reset everything in BMU? For example, you write 40 Ah value into BMU regardless of what is the actual battery capacity and then also delete all the history BMU accumulated over time?
My question is, for example, can you write 25 Ah into BMU registers after such procedure? If you always write 40 Ah, then I assume that BMU will have to adjust over time by estimating the actual battery capacity and it will give false assumptions that all capacity was recovered.
Another question is if you maybe can write lower values, but then nobody chooses to do so or do not know that they can or should do that. I assume there is no MMC instructions for triple procedure, because it is some artificially invented sequence of functions one can execute using MUT device. Moreover, those functions are more or less independent from each other and are meant to be used for different purposes. For example, the reset of top capacity value, I assume, is meant to be used only when installing a new battery, so maybe it is not suitable for used batteries. If you use such procedure, you get full capacity figure shown by BMU, even though the battery do not have it.
One more concern is if you can write lower values, how this will be interpreted by BMU? Shouldn't it know what is the original battery capacity regardless of what is the capacity right now?
Or maybe it has several places where one can define battery capacity, e.g. the original capacity and the current capacity?
I do not know much about how various functions in MUT device works, but it looks like there are some options one can choose and the details matter.
@@MrTytalus old battery, DBCAM similar SOH. Old battery, DBCAM and reset 40Ah result. NEITHER of these results are logical or explainable. The same battery cant have both results but WILL!
If I am understanding correctly, then this an artificial degradation of the usability of the vehicle (total kms in pure EV mode) that was not advertised. This would, in my opinion, be considered a direct breach of consumer rights here in NZ. Their advertising has only ever said that there would be natural degredation of the battery over time, but not expected to drop below 80%. This is not natural degredation.
Yep, that is correct.
unplugged EV , we’ve sparred in the past over a top-buffer, where you assured us that there is one (and state such many a time in your videos), so to see this change of tack is a little unexpected. But we are learning more over time.
However, if the DBCAM is truly the only real test of a battery, and if it’s carried out correctly, and if the BMU programmed degradation just restarts as expected after such and not steeper, then does that not prove that the batteries are in a good SoH, regardless of year?
We’ve discussed good and bad charging habits, and if people follow some of that guidance these batteries may indeed be in a good place.
Remember: these are not pure EVs, so there are is no long distance continuous drain, no long time continuous charge at high Amps, no large power drains to get max speed/acceleration due to the ICE...
If there was no noticeable degradation of my Prius’s batteries after 13 years, although the battery’s envelope would likely increased under a set period, then done properly, batteries can last a ‘lifetime’.
We were always assuming the Li-ion cells can charge to 4.2V as 100%. Now we have the spec sheet and other documents of the LEV40 and it states 4.1V is 100%. So the top buffer might be very small or even not existing.
unplugged EV, makes me almost tempted to go back to timing charging not to reach maximum... except for messing up the self-levelling, hassle of getting it wrong, doubt it makes any difference to the BMU (which you showed in a previous video) and that we shouldn’t have to! 😡
So back to driving and watching my SoH take the express downhill route to a replacement 😢
I did a full charge from 25% yesterday and it went into balancing right at the beginning. I would not worry too much about levelling. It sorts this out itself.
I want to decide if I'd like to degrade my battery untill there is no pure Li left in it! Not some fat bozo in a skyscraper in Tokyo! I'm paying his salary!
Check my previous comments a while ago although may have been to your friend in Canada . . . I quoted Mitsubishigate allegation lol
"WHAT IS THE BATTERY LIFE OF MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER PHEV?
In 100% electric driving, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV can travel up to 35 kilometers according to the official Mitsubishi figures." What the actual F*&*????? Have they altered the numbers???
Thanks Andy 👍
I hope you’re not coming down with the flu... it’s seriously nasty!
Я езжу на приус phev. Результат такой же. Каждая зарядка уменьшает EV расстояние. НО! Зимой я ездил в режиме EV/HV с автоматическим климат контролем и кондиционером в авто режиме. И о чудо! Каждый раз машина заряжалясь на одну и ту же цифру 19,6 км. Сейчас лето и часто машина использует EV режим и я вижу опять падение заряда . Не на много 01,-02 км. В Тойота мне объясняют падение общего заряда - "стилем вождения". Чушь, конечно. После того, как я сделал ресет батареи, как и у вас, получил опять максимальный EV километры. Удачи вам.✌
What?
Dmitry Bratkov как вы сделали ресет батареи? Сами или у дилера?
@@Danmcloud100 Конечно сам. Это просто. Все сводится к 1.отсоедения "-" контакта на маленьком аккумуляторе. 2. Ждём 2-3 минуты, при этом несколько раз выжимаем педаль тормоза (для снятия остаточного заряда). 3. Соединяю клемму аккумулятора обратно. 4. Заряжаем авто - получаем максимальный заряд. Желательно, чтобы большой аккумулятор был полностью разряжен. Ну вот как то так.
Желаю удачи.✌
Dmitry Bratkov на моём Mitsubishi phev такое не пройдёт, там вроде всё сложнее, через компьютер
@@Danmcloud100 Возможно, однако, ни кто не мешает вам попробовать по-моему. В момент, когда вы скидываете клемму аккумулятора, вы обесточиваете ваш компьютер и после его подключения, он " думает", что только что с завода. Не думаю, что Митсубиси сильно разошлись с тойотой. ✌
As usual marketing is all about best case scenario and the corresponding fuel / emissions reduction. It is a misleading USP if people rely on it as the reason to buy. Not as much an issue for a leased vehicle, or in a country where there are significant rebates and offsets that sweeten the deal financially? But there are consumer laws and when it comes to emissions reduction the money paid by tax payers / government, in some countries, adds another dimension.
I wonder how long R&D was and what testing parameters did they use? 2012 / 2013 is a while ago now, for this technology, and no doubt the engineers were conservative to avoid premature failure of the battery chemistry. A much bigger battery would provide an overhead to work with, but they would just claim even more range.
Personally I'd expect a 7 year warranty / 75% batterry range if I bought one new, or the balance of if a few years old. It is difficult to maintain battery capacity over many years without replacing the battery or being conservative in charging and discharging?
A PHEV should be the best of both worlds for now, not a scenario where you pay for a battery, engine and ancillary gear but end up with a dead weight in the form of a battery or engine.
Looking at Toyota as another Japanese company and how long it takes them to bother to update their Hiace van or Landcruiser, for example. The sales numbers hold up well, so no problem for them.
One word, 'MISSELLING'.
So mitsubishi paid you 10M AUD to convince you to make this movie, hence the suitcase 🤣
uhmmm...