Battery Contactor Recall Software (22S41) Now Available at Dealers

[ZuleMME]

Where are the HVBJB and BECM physically located? I saw a picture further in the tread of four contactors but I don't know how accessible they are. At first I heard talk that they would have to drop the battery to get to them but after reading this I'm wondering if they are in a more accessible location.

The HVBJB is INSIDE the battery, front end. Not sure on the BECM.

Sponsored

 

[Illinibird]

The HVBJB is INSIDE the battery, front end. Not sure on the BECM.

Darn - I thought I had read that! That means they would have to drop the battery to get to it and that would be a big deal and expensive (assuming the dealer has a lift to do it). I can see why Ford wanted this to be a software fix rather than replacing a contactor that isn’t able (wasn’t designed) to take the loads put on it (amps). If the software works and performance doesn’t suffer (and it sounds like it doesn’t judging by what is being reported thus far) then I am happy with the fix.

 

[JCHLi]

Some thoughts on the whole "we need beefier connectors" and "a software fix can't address this".

Although it should not be needed, as this is a pubic forum where no one has to have any credentials prior to making any statement, I want to preface this with I AM NOT AN ENGINEER NOR DO I HAVE ANY INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DESIGN.

Okay, with that out of the way. My extremely simplistic understanding of how the HVJB works is as a switch, when closed a circuit is completed, when open, the circuit is interrupted.

So, there is a moving part, over which current flows. If there is a gap or, as the recall talks about, the contacts become mishaped, the distance between the contacts could increase. This would increase the arc length, and thus the resistance increases, resulting in heat. Ultimately if that arc length increases enough, you could see the parts weld together, which according to the recall info, is what happens.

So, if the is some variability in the tolerances of the contacts of the HVJB (which there will be, there is always tolerances and variability within specified tolerances) the supplier may have met the initial specified standard. Some would have tighter tolerances, some not so tight (a good QA department could even determine from a sample how many fall in which range). Once the issue was noted, the specification could be tightened, however there would be no way to determine which of the ones meeting the prior standard were outside of the new standard, short of removing the component and likey testing it in a lab. (They could, however, determine a percentage of components that likely exceed the newer tolerance).

So, what can be done? Well, if the car had a module that can monitor various values, they could program it to monitor the resistance. If the resistance hits a certain value, it could reduce the amperage to prevent welding.

Now if they wanted to get even more creative with this information, they could monitor the resistance and report it back. Those cars with components at the higher end of the old tolerance could be identified based on higher reported resistance levels. Those reporting below a certain level could be identified as having a component that is within the newer lower tolerance level, and not likely to have any issues.

Just some random thoughts from an Internet stranger. I think I've seen a few other comments similar to this, but after reading 19 pages of this thread, I figured, why not just throw my own wild speculation?

 

[gpgrim]

FWIW, just dropped my 4XP off at the dealer (Walnut Creek Ford, in Walnut Creek, CA) for updates. I had scheduled this before the recall for the TSB from last Nov., but now it'll also get the recall update.

The service manager said they'd get it back no later than tomorrow pm, and when I protested that it was a 0.6 hr job, he noted they only have two techs working the MME. Seemed like plenty to me, but when chatting with a sales rep. when waiting for my ride, he mentioned there were 40 pending deliveries sitting on their storage lot waiting on the same update. I'm not holding my breath on priority here. Ugh.

 

[Logal727]

FWIW, just dropped my 4XP off at the dealer (Walnut Creek Ford, in Walnut Creek, CA) for updates. I had scheduled this before the recall for the TSB from last Nov., but now it'll also get the recall update.

The service manager said they'd get it back no later than tomorrow pm, and when I protested that it was a 0.6 hr job, he noted they only have two techs working the MME. Seemed like plenty to me, but when chatting with a sales rep. when waiting for my ride, he mentioned there were 40 pending deliveries sitting on their storage lot waiting on the same update. I'm not holding my breath on priority here. Ugh.

40 Mach-E? Wow

 

[billy_at]

Went ahead and did this myself last night on my 10/2021 build GT. I last ran FDRS updates in April, so I had 12 updates to do (PCM, SOBDMC, BECM, SOBDM, SOBDMB, OBCC, BCN, GWM, WACM, HVAC, DSM, and CMR).

The 22S41 updates took on the first try with no issues (did PCM first, as recommended here). Only took about 30-45 minutes, but the rest took a couple hours. The CMR in particular took forever. Shoutout to @kmusk01 for sharing some insight on how to get the GWM to take, it was my first update to ever require a USB device.

No noticeable difference in driving to work today.

New Software P/Ns after 22S41 in my GT are:
PCM: MJ98-14C204-ABL
BECM: LK98-14C197-CG
SOBDMC: LK98-14G069-BM
SOBDM: LJ98-14F476-AU
SOBDMB: LK98-14H297-BL

Honest question: why do people do this kind of thing at home? Aren't you worried something off-script will happen and no one will be available to fix it? You bring it to the dealer and something goes wrong, it's their problem.

 

[generaltso]

Honest question: why do people do this kind of thing at home? Aren't you worried something off-script will happen and no one will be available to fix it? You bring it to the dealer and something goes wrong, it's their problem.

Because I want the updates as soon as they're available, not when a dealer can fit me in. I also want to be able to install updates that aren't included in recalls or specific bulletins that the dealer won't get paid to install. No, I'm not worried at all.

 

[fpasta]

40 Mach-E? Wow

Thats where i got mine. When i went there to buy my Mach E a few months ago they were selling those like hot cakes. I am not surprised. Nor surprised they didn't try reaching out to me to get update done like I have read other dealers reaching out their customers. Nor did i even give them a call about taking my car in. I have SR RWD Premium, so i can wait for the OTA.

 

[WyldStallyn]

Honest question: why do people do this kind of thing at home? Aren't you worried something off-script will happen and no one will be available to fix it? You bring it to the dealer and something goes wrong, it's their problem.

I concur with @generaltso. No worries at all and I have had almost no issues (can't actually think of any issue I have had), unlike many who went the dealership route.

That being said, as an owner of a Job 2 all I have really noticeably improved from doing updates myself is an improvement to wireless charging on my iPhone. However, I enjoy having the capability to help fellow owners when I am able.

 

[Neil4Real]

I didn't see much of an improvement after doing the wireless charging module update last night with an iPhone 13 Pro -- still shut off wireless charging after a little while and phone got pretty warm. Ford's charging coils aren't aligned well with the phone, and the phone doesn't stay in one place.

I shoved an Anker MagSafe charging puck in the area and just plop my phone on there and it charges reliably without drama instead of the poor Ford part -- no module updates required as well!

If you want to keep the Ford charging solution, I would play with putting a magnet ring sticky at the precise place you think the phone charges on the Ford coils (you can do so under the rubber tray part). This at least should have your phone align properly and not move around so much -- but still I tihnk the Ford charger has poor performance.

That's a bummer, my WACM update definitely fixed my issue (but I'm also on iOS 16 beta 2, doubtful that's having an impact). Before, I used to have to have the top of my iPhone 13 Pro right at the top little ridge thing and if it slid down to the bottom, which it would obviously do while driving, it would disconnect. Now, it never disconnects and still ends up at the bottom of the charging mat by the end of my drive.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

https://www.te.com/commerce/Documen...DocNm=EVC500-X0000-A001&DocType=DS&DocLang=EN

I admit I'm basing this on @SpaceEVDriver 's post that this spec sheet matches whats in the car. I assume he got the part number from the survey thread in one of those pages. But I'll defer to him.

I pulled the brand and part numbers from various photos of the HVBJB on this site and confirmed that they're the same part numbers for the TE brand contactors as linked in the survey thread. I have not laid hands on the parts myself, so I could be wrong. The 500A-2000A ratings jive with the current that one would expect for this vehicle, so I am fairly confident that these are the correct spec sheets.

 

[KDub]

Was able to make an appointment for what the dealer referred to as the "connector welding" recall. Bringing it in next week. (Walnut Creek Ford) Dealer said it would take 1 hour, maybe 2.

 

[Jmets18]

Dropped my vehicle off yesterday at 10am because we are on a road trip, and as of right now, they still have been unable to perform the full update. They began the update, and apparently the VIN associated with the vehicle was removed in the dealers computer that was performing the update, and they have consequently been unable to complete. Additionally, and I assume it's because they've started the update, I have 3 new alerts too.

Now I'm without a vehicle, 500 miles from home. Recommend y'all wait for the OTA and not go to a dealer!

 

[DrJay32]

The recall fix is now available, ahead of schedule. The fix will be available at dealers now and as an OTA later. You can wait for the OTA in late July/August if you don't want to go to the dealer. Also available in FDRS for self-updaters.

This is a software fix, no parts are required.

A big thanks to the engineers that got this out early! ??

View attachment 22S41 Bulletin.pdf

View attachment 22S41 Tech Info.pdf

Called my nearest dealer, and got this:
1) We don't see an open recall associated with your VIN
2) Our earliest scheduling for recall repairs is December. We'll call you if anything opens up sooner.

 

[LectricGT]

First, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'd like to offer the following not as a rebuttal, but hopefully some insight gleaned from 25 years experience working with the type of electrical device in question. My goal here is to share some knowledge, as there a lot of us here looking for technical insight in various aspects, myself included. I hope that you can find it useful and I'm crossing my fingers that it doesn't come off sounding condescending, which often happens when writing about technical stuff.

With regard to contact arcing; Arcs in a contactor should only occur when interrupting the flow of current (opening/turning off). They can also occur, generally to a lesser extent, when the contactor is engaged due to a condition known as contact bounce. Arcs should not occur, at all, when the contactor is in steady state (fully engaged or disengaged). If arcing is occurring in steady state, then the contactor is most definitely defective. It is also important to note that arcs occur only when there is an electrical load that is being interrupted, and the magnitude of the arc is proportionate to size of the current. No load, no arc, regardless of voltage present.

So, high current being interrupted yields a larger arc, which causes contact surface pitting/burning, which results in contact particulate debris, which causes improper seating of the contact on subsequent engagements from the debris, that generates hot spots on contact surfaces, which get hot and weld the contacts. (whew.)

Now, with all of that being said. I'm pretty sure this is NOT what is happening. The reason is that the contact is not being commanded to open and close under high load conditions. This contact closes when you turn the car on, and remains that way until you turn the car off. Same thing happens when charging. It does not open and close during normal operation and when it does change state, it is normally under lower amounts of current load. This contact is basically a protective main disconnect switch in case the vehicle senses a problem with the various power semiconductors that run the motors and handle the charging. Having a mechanical contactor inline with a solid-state motor drive system that does the real load switching is a common (and sound) practice.

As the contacts in a contactor are conductors, they are subject to resistive heating from current flow, even when working properly. If you run too much current through them, they get hot. These contacts are supported by non-conductive materials, usually some type of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (phenolic in older ones). This plastic will experience deformation (melting) if it gets too hot. When this happens, the mechanical action of the contactor is no longer able to function correctly. The contactor can fail with the contacts in either state. It is likely being labeled a contact weld state simply because from an electrical standpoint, that's what it appears to be, the contact is stuck in the closed (on) state.

ZuleMME posted a link (from yet a previous poster on another thread, thanks to both!) to a TE contactor which appears convincingly to be the part. It is a 500 amp contactor. As many of us have long figured out, the drivetrain can demand currents well in excess of 500 amps during heavy acceleration. Not to worry though. This contactor, like most electrical components has a thermal performance curve. The 500 amp rating is a continuous duty rating, and can handle passing much larger currents for intermittent periods of time. The larger the current, the shorter period of time. In the case of this contactor, up to 2000 amps for 15 seconds is permitted. This transient current rating should be more than adequate for handling things such as full acceleration on a GTPE for example. However, the other side of this condition is that the contactor also needs adequate time to cool before it can handle this excursion again. Failure to do so builds enough heat in successive steps to exceed the upper design limit of the contactor, causing the contactor frame or armature to deform and stick.

​

Sidebar: I've come across melted contactors in my career, often they were switching AC motors on and off. The contactor was sized correctly, but the motor encountered a mechanical failure resulting in operation beyond full load or in a locked-rotor state. Leading up to this, maintenance would be called for the overload protection tripping out, to which they just upped the limits. The contactor ultimately would pay the price for this. The point here is that most contactors are designed to handle loads well in excess of their continuous duty rating to cover things like motor startup or other in-rush currents, but only for short periods of time. When you abuse or miscalculate this headroom, you run into issues.​

The vehicle controls can monitor voltages at various points in the electrical system. Can it monitor this directly (close in) on both sides of the contactor, I'm not completely sure, but would expect that it can to some reasonable degree (with whatever power-carrying cables might be in between). Yet the resolution to monitor a voltage drop (resistance) across the contacts when the battery is not under hard charge or discharge conditions is probably not there. There is no independent ohmmeter to check contact resistance, so it would have to be extrapolated from observing voltage levels as closely as possible on either side of the contactor to ascertain the actual contact resistance. This contactor is also buried inside the battery compartment, so it's not like someone can just pop the hood and put a set of probes across it, either.

The vehicle controls do monitor current load in and out of the HV battery, which means that the current through the contactor can be monitored. From this, a thermal model of the contacts can be produced, and the temperature calculated (not measured). The vehicle can then reduce load (e.g. limit acceleration) to limit the heat added to the contacts.

Now, the real speculation part: Either the thermal time constant was calculated incorrectly (the thermal model was incorrect). Or going back to the manufacturing inconsistencies, some contactors had more resistance (and developed more heat) than was anticipated, meaning again, the thermal model was not an accurate representation of what the contactor was actually experiencing. In both cases, the contactor ultimately gets too hot and fails.

Is the software update a Band-Aid? In some respects, yes. But it likely tweaks (if not overhauls) the thermal model to better protect this contactor. It remains to be seen the efficacy of this update. Regardless, a contactor with a higher rating (i.e. "beefier") would be a better long term fix.

Sponsored