Nissan Leaf Problems by year

identify the exact fault. The dealer refuses to perform the 20-25 mile drive cycle and code check that Nissan's own recall remedy requires, citing vibration from a failed motor mount, and instead demands $1,100 from me for a teardown to determine whether the failure is recall-related. The dealer also withholds the diagnostic trouble code unless I pay a $350 diagnostic fee, although the DTC check is part of the free recall remedy. The dealer requires pickup by Tuesday [redacted] or a $250 storage fee applies. I am asking NHTSA to record a failure to provide the recall remedy: direct the dealer to complete the drive cycle / DTC check, or authorize and pay for the teardown, and release the DTC. The car is drivable - dealer staff drove it on the lot Nov 6. Buyback floor: I will accept a repurchase only at $6,500 or more. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

created a serious rear-end collision risk. This is my [[redacted]] daughter's daily driver, and I am concerned about a novice driver experiencing the same failure. An immediate independent diagnostic scan showed P33ED-00 (HV Battery Parallel Diagnosis), P3180-97 and P317E-97. Battery telemetry showed SOH 88.51% and Hx 57.24%. I request investigation into whether a battery defect and/or the recall software caused this highway propulsion loss. These readings have not yet been evaluated by a Nissan dealer. On [redacted], Nissan Consumer Affairs/Roadside Assistance agents and supervisors refused complimentary towing from our residence, stating they would not accept third-party diagnostics and required dealer evaluation first. We were told to pay for towing or arrange transport ourselves. The vehicle remains at home with unresolved battery safety concerns. My daughter has lost her transportation; rental/loaner age restrictions prevent her from using a replacement. We still owe $12,158.09 on a vehicle that can not be driven because of a safety recall. I request NHTSA investigate the propulsion failure, adequacy of the R24B2 remedy and Nissan's refusal of towing assistance. I request Nissan provide safe flatbed transport, a permanent remedy and a vehicle buyback resolving the outstanding financing. Diagnostic records and recall service documentation are available. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

service consultant dismissed the warning as a scare tactic from that specific location, said they couldn't consider taking the car back unless we tried the recall repairs, and sent us to a different "partnered" Nissan dealer. On 10/21/2026, that dealership location recommended the LBC/VCM recall reprogramming, kept the vehicle eight hours, and released it as repaired and drivable. Less than 24 hours later, on 10/22/2026, while driving on the highway in heavy rain in moving traffic, the battery failed with [Warning, Service EV System, Power Reduced]. The vehicle was towed to the dealership on 10/23/2026, where the dealer confirmed the EV battery failed, the vehicle cannot be operated without a battery replacement, and batteries are unavailable nationwide. The vehicle has remained at Nissan since. Safety risk: sudden, complete loss of propulsion on a highway in rain creates an immediate crash and injury risk to occupants and surrounding drivers. The failure occurred one day after the recall remedy was completed and the vehicle was released as repaired, indicating the remedy process can leave affected vehicles in an unsafe state on the road. The recall at issue concerns battery cells prone to rapid heating and fire during Level 3 charging, so this vehicle carried an active fire risk as well. The manufacturer has since initiated a vehicle repurchase. The recall bulletin promises a complimentary rental during the remedy process. No rental was ever provided.

vehicle was taken to an authorized Nissan dealership, where the 12-volt battery was identified as the problem and replaced. The braking issue appeared to be resolved at that time. Beginning in early 2026, the vehicle began experiencing intermittent jerking while driving. Initially, the episodes were brief and infrequent. Over time, they became more frequent, violent, and unpredictable. The malfunction typically occurs while traveling straight on dry roads at approximately 35-50 mph. Without warning or driver input, the vehicle begins rapidly jerking as though the brakes are repeatedly engaging and releasing. At the same time, the steering wheel pulls forcefully to the left, requiring immediate corrective steering to maintain control. The jerking sometimes continues even after the accelerator pedal is released. During some episodes, the brake pedal pulsates when subsequently applied. On October 30, 2026, the front-right tire blew out during one of these violent jerking episodes. The vehicle was subsequently taken to a tire retailer, where the tire was replaced. The retailer did not identify or report any unusual condition. It is UNKNOWN whether the tire failure was caused by the underlying malfunction or was a separate event. These incidents create a serious risk of losing control of the vehicle, colliding with another vehicle, or leaving the roadway. The unexpected steering movement and apparent braking behavior are particularly dangerous at highway speed

then as I had been napping in my vehicle with my dog. At the dealership, service dept said my battery failed the post update test; sent me home in (ice) loaner car; said Nissan will reach out within a few days. Finally receive call [redacted] from [[redacted]] on behalf of Nissan North America; received 1st buyback email "offer" Sept 4, 2026 nearly a month after my car was deemed inoperable (this was a Friday at 4:59pm at the start of a major holiday weekend). They requested I pay them $9,411.11 so they can recover title from lender; same unchanged offer [redacted] after "escalation" review. A down payment + over 4 yrs of never missed consecutive payments - $33,000 later - and they are requesting I pay them because of a manufacturing defect which I didn't cause and had no control over. I was planning to drive it another 115K miles +. I want a FAIR resolution - on an inflated asset with Extreme depreciation due to a manufacturing defect and mandated recall. Nissan has not provided a warranty covered battery replacement to get my car running in a 'timely manor'. This [[redacted]]/old consumer is being treated UNfairly. ALL supporting documentation is organized, verifiable and securely filed. Any attorneys out there want to help ? INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

research, there is a recall out for 2019-2022 Nissan leafs with possible fire related issues because of the batteries and the P33ED code that i am getting is directly related to this recall. I believe I have a recalled battery in my vehicle but Nissan won't offer any assistance because my VIN isn't necessarily recalled. I feel unsafe to charge or operate this car, especially under any type of speed or load and Nissan is offering no assistance in repairing the vehicle or even verifying the battery manufacturer date.