2019 Nissan Leaf fuel system problems

Filed Nov 9, 2026 · Electrical, Fuel system · CA

Vehicle: 2019 Nissan Leaf S, 40 kWh, VIN [XXX], ~110,000 miles. Recall 24V‑700 / R24B2 applies to this VIN. On XXX the car was towed dead to Stevens Creek Nissan, [XXX]. The dealer recommends replacement of the main EV battery. Nissan Consumer Affairs denied coverage XXX as out of warranty (case no. XXX). On XXX the dealer installed the recall software. The original battery-failure trouble code then cleared, but diagnostics still show a battery problem and the dealer cannot 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 XXX or a $250 storage fee applies. I am asking the federal safety agency 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)

Filed Jul 1, 2026 · Fuel system · TN

MANUFACTURER RECALL CAMPAIGN: Nissan R24B2 / the federal safety agency Campaign 24V‑700 VEHICLE: 2019 Nissan LEAF (13,801 original miles) SUMMARY OF SAFETY DEFECT & REMEDY FAILURE: The manufacturer's safety recall software remedy has failed to stabilize or remedy a known high-voltage battery defect under real-world driving conditions, creating a severe, immediate risk of unexpected vehicle stalling in active traffic. The vehicle was serviced for the R24B2 campaign and returned a baseline "No DTC" stationary scan at 13,801 miles. Immediately upon driving the vehicle into public traffic post-repair, the high-voltage battery pack suffered a severe energy collapse under standard road loads. I documented the failure via an 11-photograph instrument cluster log in real time over a brief 39-minute window: 05:03 PM | 13,801 miles | 100% Battery | 127 mi Range (Trip Start) 05:07 PM | 13,802 miles | 98% Battery | -- mi Range 05:09 PM | 13,802 miles | 96% Battery | 123 mi Range 05:11 PM | 13,803 miles | 94% Battery | 118 mi Range 05:23 PM | 13,807 miles | 89% Battery | 108 mi Range 05:28 PM | 13,808 miles | 87% Battery | 105 mi Range 05:31 PM | 13,809 miles | 85% Battery | 102 mi Range 05:33 PM | 13,810 miles | 84% Battery | 100 mi Range 05:42 PM | 13,813 miles | 81% Battery | 95 mi Range (Trip End) CRITICAL SAFETY HAZARDS: 1. UNEXPLAINED ENERGY DRAIN: The vehicle consumed 19% of its total battery capacity to travel a distance of only 12 miles. This drops the vehicle's functional real-world range to roughly 63 miles on a full charge. 2. INACCURATE RANGE AND RISK OF STRANDING: While the battery charge dropped by nearly 20% in 12 miles, the dashboard continued to display an inflated, mathematically impossible estimate of "95 miles remaining, creating a risk of sudden, unpredictable stranding. 3. CONSIDERED TOGETHER, this proves that the software update fails to accurately remedy or even measure the state of health and safety of the battery, and adds additional safety risks.

Filed May 28, 2026 · Fuel system · NY

Manufacturer announced a recall regarding L3 charging more than 18 months ago. The announcement included a warning that, under NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should L3 charging be attempted. The announcement included assurances that the fix would be announced by March 2025. In the interim period, two follow-ups have been announced, both coming well after the previous deadline. At this point. I have been unable to use my car in a normal manner, causing us to purchase an additional vehicle to cover the loss of use due to the defect. The manufacturer has offered no fix, no concrete timeline, and no compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle.

Filed May 2, 2026 · Fuel system · CO

I have been waiting 2.5 years for this recall to be addressed, which far exceeds any standard of a "timeline manner."

Filed Apr 22, 2026 · Acceleration, Fuel system · OR

While traveling at normal highway speeds (55 MPH), the vehicle's battery capacity rapidly dropped from 80-90% down to 10% in less than 30 seconds, resulting in activation of the vehicle's "turtle mode" and power throttling, which made it impossible to maintain posted highway speed of 55 MPH. A warning appeared on the dashboard, which stated, "Warning Power Reduced". The vehicle traveled at approximately 40 MPH creating a serious hazard to others on the roadway who were traveling at the posted speed limit of 55 MPH. Upon pulling over to the side of the freeway, the battery charge rebounded back up to 75%, but maintained power throttle, making it unsafe to reenter the roadway, as the vehicle was incapable of accelerating to the posted speed limit of 55 MPH. It was extremely slow to accelerate at all, making it from 0 - 40 in about a minute, which again, was extremely hazardous to others on the roadway. Nissan has since acknowledged that this was due to a factory defect, and covered under their factory warranty. I have attached photos of the warning message displayed, and have videos of the rapid battery loss, but those files are too large to attach.

Filed Apr 20, 2026 · Electrical, Fuel system · WA

April 20, 2026 the federal safety agency Safety Complaint I am reporting an unresolved safety issue involving my 2019 Nissan LEAF subject to the federal safety agency Recall 24V‑700. This recall identifies a battery defect that presents a fire risk and requires avoidance of Level 3 (CHAdeMO) charging. There is currently no remedy available and no repair timeline. This restriction significantly limits the usability of the vehicle, which I rely on for daily transportation and work. The vehicle is also subject to a separate HVAC/defrost-related safety issue that may impact visibility and safe operation, also without an available fix. I made multiple documented attempts to resolve this directly with Nissan Consumer Affairs, including a formal escalation sent via certified mail. Nissan has failed to respond. Additionally, prior written correspondence from Nissan referenced an incorrect vehicle model (“Rogue”) despite having my correct VIN on file, raising serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the review conducted on my case. I am continuing to incur financial hardship for a vehicle I cannot safely or practically use. the federal safety agency records confirm this recall remains incomplete with no available remedy, and that continued use of Level 3 charging presents a risk of battery fire. I am requesting investigation into the lack of remedy and manufacturer response

Filed Apr 20, 2026 · Fuel system · MN

When operating the vehicle above the minimum temperature recommended by the manufacturer, the battery state of charge has dropped multiple tens of percentage points in moments while driving on the highway while driving the speed limit. The starting point for the state of charge in this situation was roughly 64% when beginning the trip. This has occurred at roughly 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The vehicle gives a warning that the driver should pull over immediately, which is very dangerous when driving on an interstate highway in traffic. The state of charge dropped into the teens in moments. This cold weather issue was not disclosed when purchasing the vehicle. The minimum operating temperature for the vehicle is -1 to -13 degrees F depending on the operating conditions (charging, driving, etc.). This should not occur at 10 degrees F. A software fix to the battery to slow the state of charge will not remedy the issue with a faulty battery in this case. Why is this accepted when the Chevrolet Bolt vehicles were required to swap their batteries to remedy the issue? I have not had time to bring this into the dealer due to my schedule availability. I will try to reproduce this upcoming winter. Others online have reported this same problem though.

Filed Mar 31, 2026 · Fuel system · MA

Regarding the federal safety agency Recall 24V‑700 which was first reported in September of 2024. We were told not to use the "fast" charging port because of a fire hazard. Using the slower charging port takes about an extra 8 hours per charge. This was supposed to be fixed in November of 2024. To date....almost 2 years later....not fix is available. This has caused me over 800 additional hours of charging time!!! Nissan should have to pay us for this time as we bought the car with the expectation of using the fast charger.

Filed Mar 31, 2026 · Fuel system · WA

My vehicle is subject to recall number 24V‑700 My Nissan case number is 56497817 I have received 4 recall notices (24V‑700 beginning 18 months ago. All notices state that Nissan is working open a software fix for this problem, but state that the problem is the result of excessive lithium deposits within certain battery cells, hence level three charging my cause a battery fire. This has a significant impact on my use of this vehicle. There is currently no remedy, although they do apologize for the inconvenience. I request that the federal safety agency pressure Nissan to provide a battery replacement. This seems to me to also be a warranty issue. If the battery is still under warranty, shouldn't it be repaired of replaced?

Filed Mar 11, 2026 · Fuel system · NY

Vehicle is subject to Recall R24B2 / the federal safety agency 24V‑700 (battery fire risk during Level 3 DC fast-charging). Nissan issued a "do not use" directive for the CHAdeMO fast-charge port in October 2024 with a projected remedy date of November 2024. As of March 2026 — over 16 months later — no remedy has been provided.The affected component is the high-voltage lithium-ion battery pack. The battery is available for inspection. The defect has been confirmed by Nissan North America via recall notice and by an authorized Nissan dealer (February 2026), who confirmed no remedy is available. No warning lamps or symptoms were observed; the risk is established by Nissan's own recall documentation.Safety risk: Nissan's own recall states that continued Level 3 fast-charging may cause rapid battery heating and fire. The "do not use" directive effectively removes a core advertised feature of the vehicle with no timeline for restoration.I have contacted Nissan Consumer Affairs twice regarding this recall (February 2025 and November 2025) and received no remedy or timeline. Nissan has repeatedly postponed its repair schedule. A second related recall (the federal safety agency 25V655, October 2025) was subsequently issued covering additional model years, further confirming the defect remains unresolved industry-wide.I am formally demanding a vehicle buyback under NY Lemon Law (GBL § 198-a) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act due to Nissan's failure to remedy this defect within a reasonable time.