2017 Nissan Leaf: what breaks, and at what mileage
What breaks on the 2017 Nissan Leaf
On the 2017 Nissan Leaf, the failure owners report most often is loss of braking, with 4 reports on file. Across every failure mode on this year, half the dated reports were filed before 20,000 miles. Overall it scores 70 out of 100, high risk for a 2017.
High risk for a 2017 — 189th riskiest of the 263 2017 vehicles we can rate. 27 owner reports; fleet size estimated from this year's own recall paperwork.
What owners report breaking
Owners have reported 11 named failure modes on the 2017 Nissan Leaf, and the three most-reported carry 41% of everything filed.
Loss of braking leads with 4 reports and about 0.2 per 1,000 vehicles.
Other electrical problem follows with 4 reports, median 30,000 miles.
Other fuel system problem follows with 3 reports, median 45,000 miles.
By system, the reports fall mostly into brakes (4), electrical (4) and fuel (3).
When these failures get reported
14 of the reports on the 2017 Nissan Leaf came with an odometer reading, and half of those were filed before 20,000 miles.
Cumulatively, 79% by 50,000 miles of the dated reports had been filed.
The busiest stretch is between 0 and 10,000 miles, which alone holds 43% of the dated reports.
71% of the dated reports were filed below 36,000 miles, which is early enough that a fair number of these cars were still under a factory warranty when the owner complained.
Tick median reported mileage Solid middle half of reports Faint 10th to 90th percentile Colour how bad the failure is when it happens
How reports accumulate
Every report with an odometer reading, cumulative, from 0 to 200,000 miles. A curve that climbs early is a car with early problems, whatever its total.
- Line share of reports filed by that mileage
- Dashed the median reported mileage
What happens when these parts fail
Across the named modes, 3 mention a crash and 1 an injury. Those are the words owners used in their own complaints, and NHTSA does not verify them, but they are the closest thing in this data to a measure of what a failure actually did.
The average severity weight across every report on this year is 4.81, where a stalled engine or a failed airbag weighs many times more than a rattling trim panel, and a figure this high means the reports are dominated by failures with safety consequences rather than annoyances. The weighting is set out in full on the methodology page.
What the top failures cost to put right, as editorial estimates for an independent US shop rather than figures from NHTSA: loss of braking at $400–$3,000, other electrical problem at $250–$2,000, other fuel system problem at $300–$2,200 and head gasket failure at $1,400–$4,000. Dealer labour, a seized bolt or a part that is no longer made can push any of these past the top of its range.
15% of the reports on this year sit in the engine, transmission, drivetrain or cooling systems — the four where a repair bill is usually four figures.
Every reported failure mode
| Failure mode | System | Reports | With reading | 25th | Median | 75th | Per 1,000 | Typical repair | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of braking | brakes | 4 | 2 | — | 5k | — | 0.2 | $400–$3,000 | Critical |
| Other electrical problem | electrical | 4 | 3 | — | 30k | — | 0.2 | $250–$2,000 | Moderate |
| Other fuel system problem | fuel | 3 | 2 | — | 46k | — | 0.2 | $300–$2,200 | High |
| Head gasket failure | engine | 2 | 0 | — | — | — | 0.1 | $1,400–$4,000 | Critical |
| Airbag warning light or occupant sensor fault | airbag | 2 | 0 | — | — | — | 0.1 | $300–$1,600 | High |
| Other speed control problem | adas | 2 | 1 | — | 4k | — | 0.1 | $250–$2,000 | Critical |
| Other visibility problem | glass | 2 | 1 | — | 4k | — | 0.1 | $150–$1,400 | Moderate |
| Other body or interior problem | body | 2 | 1 | — | 100 | — | 0.1 | $200–$2,000 | Moderate |
| Seat belt or retractor failure | airbag | 1 | 1 | — | 12 | — | 0.1 | $200–$900 | High |
| Other engine problem | engine | 1 | 0 | — | — | — | 0.1 | $300–$4,000 | High |
| Other powertrain problem | transmission | 1 | 1 | — | 62k | — | 0.1 | $400–$4,500 | High |
| Unclassified problem | other | 3 | 2 | — | 33k | — | 0.2 | — | Moderate |
Rate per 1,000 uses a fleet-size estimate derived from recall paperwork for this exact model year. It is a lower bound. Repair costs are typical independent-shop ranges for the failure, not figures from these reports.
How often, against how many were built
Scaled by an estimate of how many of these cars exist, the 2017 Nissan Leaf draws about 1.4 per 1,000 vehicles, which puts it in the 75th percentile of complaint rates among 2017 vehicles we can rate.
That denominator is the weakest number on the page and it is fair to say so plainly. Rate per 1,000 uses a fleet-size estimate derived from recall paperwork for this exact model year. It is a lower bound.
The working figure is 18,868 vehicles. If the true number is twice that, every rate on this page is half what it says; the ranking against other 2017 vehicles, which is what the risk score uses, is far more robust than the rate itself.
What owners wrote
Verbatim from NHTSA complaint narratives, trimmed for length. The odometer reading is the one the owner gave.
Loss of braking
Brake failure at low speeds. In the last eight months I have owned this vehicle, twice the car failed to stop when I applied brakes. I was going at around 20-25 MPH in both the cases.
Brake failure at low speeds. In the last eight months I have owned this vehicle, twice the car failed to stop when I applied brakes. I was going at around 20-25 MPH in both the cases.
Recalls on the 2017 model year
NHTSA has issued 2 recall campaigns covering the 2017 Nissan Leaf, affecting an estimated 23,874 vehicles. A recall is a different kind of evidence from a complaint: it is the regulator and the manufacturer agreeing that something has to be fixed, and the fix is free for as long as the car exists.
The campaigns cover visibility:defroster/defogger/hvac system and air bags. Whether the work was actually done on the car in front of you is a question only the VIN can answer, and the manufacturer or NHTSA will answer it free.
One caution about reading these together: a recall usually raises the complaint count for the same part, because owners who read about it go and file. The mileages stay informative; the counts get noisy.
VISIBILITY:DEFROSTER/DEFOGGER/HVAC SYSTEM
94,343 vehicles 2023-04-26- Defect
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2013-2017 LEAF vehicles. The Owner's Manual instructions for defroster operation are incorrect and may result in reduced defroster performance under specific conditions. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems."
- Consequence
- Reduced defroster performance can limit visibility out of the windshield, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Nissan will mail an addendum with updated instructions on how to operate the defroster, free of charge. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed May 26, 2023. Owners may contact Nissan's customer service at 1-800-867-7669. Nissan's number for this recall is R23A1.
AIR BAGS
30,038 vehicles 2017-04-13- Defect
- Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2015-2017 LEAF and 2014, 2016 and 2017 Sentra vehicles. Due to a manufacturing error within the air bag inflators, the passenger frontal air bag may not properly deploy in the event of a crash.
- Consequence
- In the event of a crash, if the front passenger air bag doesn't deploy properly, it can increase the risk of injury to passengers.
- Remedy
- Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front passenger air bag inflator, free of charge. The recall began June 7, 2017. Owners may contact Nissan customer service at 1-800-647-7261.
Recall work is free at a franchised dealer regardless of the car's age. Check the VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls before assuming it was done.
How it ranks in the 2017 field
The score at the top of the page, placed among its peers. The zones are the same thresholds the scorer applies, read out of the scorer itself, so the picture and the band word cannot disagree.
Scores are ranked within the model year, never across years, because an older car has had longer to accumulate reports.
- Left fewer and less serious reports
- Right more, or worse
- Marker this vehicle
Better and worse years of the same car
High risk for a 2017 — 189th riskiest of the 263 2017 vehicles we can rate. Because the ranking is against the same model year only, age cancels out of it.
Across the 13 model years of this car that carry enough reports to score, 2011 comes out best at 68 and 2018 worst at 78, with 2017 itself at 70.
No other year of this model scores meaningfully better than 2017, so if this generation is what you want, the year is not the lever.
Within the 2010–2017 generation specifically, 2011 is the strongest year at 68 and 2015 the weakest at 72.
Scores compare each year against other cars of the same model year, so a low number on an older car is a real result and not an artefact of age.
Shorter is better. Years with too few reports to score are shown without a bar rather than as a zero, because no data is not good news.
Within the 2010-2017 generation, 2011 Nissan Leaf scores best at 68 and 2015 Nissan Leaf worst at 72.
Where these figures stop being useful
27 owner reports; fleet size estimated from this year's own recall paperwork. Every count on this page is therefore a floor: it is the number of owners who went to the trouble of filing with a federal agency, which is a small and self-selected fraction of the owners who had the fault.
Of those 27 reports, 14 carried an odometer reading, so the mileages here describe 52% of the sample rather than all of it. Owners also round: readings pile up on multiples of ten thousand, which is why this site publishes "about 90,000 miles" and not "91,438".
The failure modes are assigned by software reading the owner's own words, which is accurate in bulk and wrong in individual cases. A mode with a handful of reports may contain a misfiled one.
And nothing here predicts what one car will do. These are other people's complaints, filed years apart, on cars maintained by strangers. Read the page as a map of where this model year has previously gone wrong, then have the specific car in front of you inspected.
Questions this page answers
What are the most common problems with the 2017 Nissan Leaf?
The most-reported failures are loss of braking (4 reports, median 5,000 miles), other electrical problem (4 reports, median 30,000 miles) and other fuel system problem (3 reports, median 45,000 miles). Counts come from owner complaints filed with NHTSA, which are voluntary, so they show what owners bothered to report rather than every fault that occurred.
Is the 2017 Nissan Leaf reliable?
It scores 70 out of 100 on our risk index, which is high — 189th riskiest of the 263 2017 vehicles we can rate. The score is a comparison against other 2017 vehicles, not a prediction about any individual car, and it is built from complaint rates, severity and how early failures appear.
Which year of the Nissan Leaf is best?
Within the 2010–2017 generation, 2011 scores best at 68 out of 100 and 2015 worst at 72. Same body, same engines, different luck.
Where this comes from. Every figure above is computed from NHTSA owner complaints and recall records for this exact make, model and year. Complaints are voluntary and self-selected, so treat counts as a floor. The methodology page writes out each formula, and the same numbers are available as JSON.
What breaks at my mileage Compare with another car
Source Owner complaints and recall records published by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, model years 1996–2027 Figures rebuilt Published by AtWhatMileage How every figure is computed