😭😭😭 POST BATTERY CONTACTOR RECALL -- FIRST JUNCTION BOX FAILURE 😭😭😭😭

[jddrews]

I will be picking up my Mach-E GT in one month's time in Portland and then driving it home to Missoula. The first week of August (aka "Dog Days"). Through eastern Oregon and Washington and then over both Fourth of July Pass in Idaho, and Lookout Pass, that divides Idaho and Montana. There will be three charging stops along the way. The chances of a brand new part reaching the failing point seems unlikely, but this whole situation will certainly add an interesting element to the trip home.

Man, I love that drive. I’ve made many trips in my earlier days between PDX and Missoula/Bozeman. I wouldn’t worry about your GT. Relax and enjoy the ride. I have 5k miles on my AWD ER and I wouldn’t think twice about making that trek. Let us know how it goes.

Sponsored

 

[ARK]

The only way to lower regen is to put the car in unbridled extend. That disables regen so your brakes are disspating heat instead of the powertrain. Of course you are then wasting all that potential energy instead of recouping it. Turning off one pedal just means you press the brake pedal more to slow the car using the same amount of regen since the brake pedal will only engage the brakes after regen is already maxed out.

However, everything must be in the ideal temperature range for unbridled extend which likely wouldn't be the case after a DC fast charge or hill climb.

In this situation, coming down a mountain, wouldn’t the result be the same? The amount of regen you lose from having your foot off both pedals, you would have to make up by slightly pressing the brake pedal all the way down the mountain instead, unless I am missing something with Unbridled Extend.

 

[DevSecOps]

In this situation, coming down a mountain, wouldn’t the result be the same? The amount of regen you lose from having your foot off both pedals, you would have to make up by slightly pressing the brake pedal all the way down the mountain instead, unless I am missing something with Unbridled Extend.

Additionally, unbridled extend is available in very limited conditions none of which, I assume, include a DTC for HVBJB failure. So, yeah, he's basically stating the impossible.

 

[timbop]

Tbh I don't think scoopman is so unlucky and fried the second HVBJB so fast under normal use. We don't know for sure if the HVBJB is actually fried or if this is a false positive. He is just the first person on a roadtrip after the update.
If the car starts without a warning tomorrow morning and drives fine then maybe it was just a false positive.
My guess is that the new software will have a lot of false positives after long road trips with DCFC.
But either way this Ford's Fiasco.

exactly. We only know that the car went into a "limp mode", which is consistent with the description of the software patch.

the part 110% exists but you cannot get it unless (until?) your underspecd part fails. You’ll be getting a software update only that did not prevent the junction box from frying itself on a long distance drive.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy: You are assuming that the contacts got welded; as you said the dealer appears to have been able to move the car, which is an indication that it did not happen. The software patch mentions that it reduces current to prevent hot contacts from being welded - and what you experienced was reduced power. I think what happened was the patch kicking, cutting your power significantly to prevent the overheating until it welded open.

WITH THAT SAID: if this is how the patch is supposed to work, then Ford screwed up. They needed to both communicate clearly how it will behave to set expectations, and come clean with the fact that it is not a "real" fix but a "hail mary" which is enough to get you off the road and to a dealership but nothing more.

Ford needs to own this and come clean to level expectations AND to begin the process of replacing the parts on EVERY car and not just the ones that crap out. If the fix is just a bandaid to get you to a dealership that is unacceptable: I will have no faith in taking this car on any trips knowing that there is a timebomb waiting to go off which will sink a whole vacation.

I also want to apologize to those of you who said this fix was bullsh*t and I argued with you.

 

[SWO]

no confirmation but I’m hoping to get a photo of the part for us to see what is different when it arrives

look I’m driving the same route back hopefully with the same load so we’ll see what happens. If this fails one more time it is lemon law time and time for me to move on to something else.

Thanks. I have a GT inbound and if new builds have this issue I'm going to have serious second thoughts about swapping my current Mach-E that's been problem-free for a headache.

 

[fpasta]

Ford just wants a clearer picture on who needs a new part now. This is their way of doing it rather than just everyone get their part replaced even when they don't need it "now". Costing them money, our time and supply chain low. This buys them time to order parts and sorting other things out like if the vendor(s) is to blame.

This SW update is doing just that. Most all now this is not a fix. Y'all wanted something this is it.

I don't know what everyone is expecting out of a car created for the first year or two. A perfect car with no problems. Lol.

 

[scoopman]

exactly. We only know that the car went into a "limp mode", which is consistent with the description of the software patch.


At the risk of sounding like a fanboy: You are assuming that the contacts got welded; as you said the dealer appears to have been able to move the car, which is an indication that it did not happen. The software patch mentions that it reduces current to prevent hot contacts from being welded - and what you experienced was reduced power.

WITH THAT SAID: if this is how the patch is supposed to work, then Ford screwed up. They needed to both communicate clearly how it will behave to set expectations, and come clean with the fact that it is not a "real" fix but a "hail mary" which is enough to get you off the road and to a dealership but nothing more.

Ford needs to own this and come clean to level expectations AND to begin the process of replacing the parts on EVERY car and not just the ones that crap out. If the fix is just a bandaid to get you to a dealership that is unacceptable: I will have no faith in taking this car on any trips knowing that there is a timebomb waiting to go off which will sink a whole vacation.

I also want to apologize to those of you who said this fix was bullsh*t and I argued with you.

I’ve been told this code is thrown when the part is damaged and needs to be replaced. The contators are damaged and were about to fail. The software did not prevent the damage from occurring.

 

[scoopman]

Ford just wants a clearer picture on who needs a new part now. This is their way of doing it rather than just everyone get their part replaced even when they don't need it "now". Costing them money, our time and supply chain low. This buys them time to order parts and sorting other things out like if the vendor(s) is to blame.

This SW update is doing just that. Most all now this is not a fix. Y'all wanted something this is it.

I don't know what everyone is expecting out for the first two three years. A perfect car with no problems. Lol.

No it isn’t. It’s a way for them to save money at the expense of customer experience and safety. They can make the parts.

 

[scoopman]

Thanks. I have a GT inbound and if new builds have this issue I'm going to have serious second thoughts about swapping my current Mach-E that's been problem-free for a headache.

I wouldn’t get a GT built before may 25th.

 

[fpasta]

I wouldn’t get a GT built before may 25th.

20/20 a b****!

I had an experience with first year model. On motorcycle the new Triumph Daytona they redid. Had clutch sticking problems no one could figure it out. No recall either. I knew what I was getting into about first year models. But we are the same here. We all here have a personality trait that like new things or would be a test pilot like Chuck Yeager in another life. It is what brings all of us here. The ones that are waiting and I guess smarter than us will pull trigger 3-5 years from now.

 

[fpasta]

No it isn’t. It’s a way for them to save money at the expense of customer experience and safety. They can make the parts.

Really? Save money you sue about that? No. How much money have they spent Is the question.

 

[mwtechy]

If Ford was smart they'd repackage this issue as a feature, give MME the first EV with a redline that increasingly gets larger everytime you drive the thing. Then they can claim you didn't drive it within normal operating use. Really hope they are right and it's just a defect and not a design flaw.

Side note, of the people that had 12v issues how many later had a subsequent HVBJB issue?

 

[Logal727]

I’ve been thinking about it and this recall couldn’t be anymore invasive or time consuming than replacing the windshields. I’d actually prefer this one since the windshield required removing a ton of interior trim and also most of the time outsourcing the work. They should just replace the parts.

 

[macchiaz-o]

I’ve been thinking about it and this recall couldn’t be anymore invasive or time consuming than replacing the windshields. I’d actually prefer this one since the windshield required removing a ton of interior trim and also most of the time outsourcing the work. They should just replace the parts.

It does seem like replacing the HVBJB is far simpler than the glass roof repair. The difference this time is the materials are significantly more expensive and perhaps more scarce due to supply issues and the number of parts in that single assembly.

I'll be watching the forum with interest in seeing how the newer vehicles, and how those like ? 'n ? with the newer assembly, fare over time.

If the replacement assembly proves itself out over the next year or two, it would be a good time for Ford to then replace all the older ones.

 

[Neil4Real]

I’ve been thinking about it and this recall couldn’t be anymore invasive or time consuming than replacing the windshields. I’d actually prefer this one since the windshield required removing a ton of interior trim and also most of the time outsourcing the work. They should just replace the parts.

Dropping the pack and pressure testing it requires expensive tools, I believe. Which is the issue some people ran into: their dealer didn’t have the proper equipment and had to try and get it from another dealer who did.

Obviously, they all should have the proper equipment if they’re EV certified, this is one way to make sure everyone does!

Sponsored