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

[newmme]

Now fast forward a year and they notice that the part falls too close to the maximum tolerances for select and premium

Why are they "noticing" the part has issues? Didn't they do testing on the GT? I get it is new to Ford being an EV, but testing a vehicle should not be new to a 100 year old auto maker.

Mr Levine was satisfied with testing.

Sponsored

 

[scoopman]

I am willing to bet the design flaw is related to reusing the same part for select/premium on the GT, not thinking the actual differences between enough warranted a more robust HVBJB. Now fast forward a year and they notice that the part falls too close to the maximum tolerances for select and premium, and behind for the GT's hence why in certain cases especially for the GT's they fail. All cars are affected but ony some will ever have a failure, gt's making having the higher percentage

I would go a little further in speculation here. This is just my speculation, as I have had plenty of time enjoying the $7 gas prices driving around in a rental Ford Explorer to think about this. I'm not under NDA, just a gearhead who is also techie in software.

My feeling is that the GT and GTPE are wonderful cars that are fundamentally flawed because Ford made the decision to use the same battery pack and electronics for them as for the ER AWD.

When they made this decision, they also spec'd these parts to meet the ER AWD level of power requests and thermal tolerances, because they probably believed that the trim mix would much more heavily favor non-GT models than their (70%+ new to the brand) customers wound up ordering.

For the GTs and GTPE, Ford implemented a design philosophy of "derating" the power allowed on the car in order to keep the electrical power and thermals within the tolerances they thought would be acceptable. This strategy of proactively limiting the power that can be available, it was thought, would be effective enough such that Ford would not have to add costly engineering to the common pack used for both ER AWD and GT models to address the GTs.

Again speculating, but some of this engineering could have included bigger bus lines that deliver the electricity from the battery modules, better thermal management through more advanced cooling, and key actual temperature sensors at various points. That last item -- temperature sensors -- is probably the most glaring omission in my mind, because if you have actual sensors, you can limit power when the actual temperatures are getting too high, instead of inferring what the thermals are from simulations and modeling and then using them to proactively cut the power available.

I bet Ford is trying to do everything it needs to do with software modeling that figures out what that temperature should be from lab data (and maybe test mules they run around). But as we have seen, it is very tough with so little experience making EVs in the real world for Ford to have modeled this properly.

And so GT and GTPE owners suffer the consequences. Our cars derate themselves (the jail bars) at seemingly rando times to us, because this is what Ford predicts it must do to use the mid-range battery pack in a high-output application. So the car masquerades as a "PERFORMANCE" car when most of the time, Ford cuts some of the otherwise-capable power to protect its non-robust battery pack.

And most seriously, it has missed some fundamental training data for its model which caused key battery components to fail in spite of its extensive derating software design philosophy. I bet the software recall "fix" is just a further evolution of the derating to be more agressive in new situations they saw when contactors failed on the 300+ vehicles.

But as we've seen from my experience, it's really tough to cover all situations of vehicles in the real world with immature software.

Just ask Elon.

 

[Shayne]

None of us know.

The next one that gets this assuming not a false positive is to run it and get an idea for what it will do. Click OK and hope the pop up disappears if not duct tape. See how it accelerates see how far it will go. If I get a idiot light half way home on a trip I know I will not be looking for the closest dealer. But I normally have no kids in the car which is understandably different.

 

[kdryden99]

I would go a little further in speculation here. This is just my speculation, as I have had plenty of time enjoying the $7 gas prices driving around in a rental Ford Explorer to think about this. I'm not under NDA, just a gearhead who is also techie in software.

My feeling is that the GT and GTPE are wonderful cars that are fundamentally flawed because Ford made the decision to use the same battery pack and electronics for them as for the ER AWD.

When they made this decision, they also spec'd these parts to meet the ER AWD level of power requests and thermal tolerances, because they probably believed that the trim mix would much more heavily favor non-GT models than their (70%+ new to the brand) customers wound up ordering.

For the GTs and GTPE, Ford implemented a design philosophy of "derating" the power allowed on the car in order to keep the electrical power and thermals within the tolerances they thought would be acceptable. This strategy of proactively limiting the power that can be available, it was thought, would be effective enough such that Ford would not have to add costly engineering to the common pack used for both ER AWD and GT models to address the GTs.

Again speculating, but some of this engineering could have included bigger bus lines that deliver the electricity from the battery modules, better thermal management through more advanced cooling, and key actual temperature sensors at various points. That last item -- temperature sensors -- is probably the most glaring omission in my mind, because if you have actual sensors, you can limit power when the actual temperatures are getting too high, instead of inferring what the thermals are from simulations and modeling and then using them to proactively cut the power available.

I bet Ford is trying to do everything it needs to do with software modeling that figures out what that temperature should be from lab data (and maybe test mules they run around). But as we have seen, it is very tough with so little experience making EVs in the real world for Ford to have modeled this properly.

And so GT and GTPE owners suffer the consequences. Our cars derate themselves (the jail bars) at seemingly rando times to us, because this is what Ford predicts it must do to use the mid-range battery pack in a high-output application. So the car masquerades as a "PERFORMANCE" car when most of the time, Ford cuts some of the otherwise-capable power to protect its non-robust battery pack.

And most seriously, it has missed some fundamental training data for its model which caused key battery components to fail in spite of its extensive derating software design philosophy. I bet the software recall "fix" is just a further evolution of the derating to be more agressive in new situations they saw when contactors failed on the 300+ vehicles.

But as we've seen from my experience, it's really tough to cover all situations of vehicles in the real world with immature software.

Just ask Elon.

Why are they "noticing" the part has issues? Didn't they do testing on the GT? I get it is new to Ford being an EV, but testing a vehicle should not be new to a 100 year old auto maker.

Mr Levine was satisfied with testing.

As @scoopman mentioned and as us og members have mentioned many times sim testing can only take you so far. You can double or triple check your numbers and check that everything adds up but there is no replacement for real world testing. I think Ford underestimated certain heat levels for this part just like they underestimated the cold world conditions affecting the car. Ford is not the only company that falls victim of this. Ive said many times Tesla can test their FSD all they want but California is Not Quebec Canada, just like Michigan is not Nevada. Temperatures vary greatly but at a certain point yoh have to go to market and you cant keep dumping money into a car thats not bringing you much return right away. I think Ford's biggest mistake was trying to release a GT to soon. They're trying to beat Tesla and they got too impatient. They should have given the MME a couple of years before releasing a more powerful product when its slower counterpart hadn't gone through the ringer yet. Now they have to deal with it. They thought they could get away with it. Like slapping a coyote on a tranny meant for an ecoboost. It doest work and now they have a problem.

 

[scoopman]

The next one that gets this assuming not a false positive is to run it and get an idea for what it will do. Click OK and hope the pop up disappears if not duct tape. See how it accelerates see how far it will go. If I get a idiot light half way home on a trip I know I will not be looking for the closest dealer. But I normally have no kids in the car which is understandably different.

When you click OK, your power bar (visible without hacking on GT/GTPE only) shows only about 30% of your power is available. The car is very sluggish but not dead.

As I said in the first post, you can actually clear the code using Car Scanner or the like, and your power bar in the car will appear "normal" and all power would be available. But all is not well, and this is another complete design bug by Ford that they are allowing this code to be cleared by users.
I don't think it's a great idea to try this yourself. Having to tow the car is not fun, risks your car being damaged, and even worse yet, this really is a safety issue. I was in the #1 lane on the highway when this occurred, and traffic was easily 75-80mph. If I was not going downhill, or if there was more traffic in other lanes, etc etc it would not have been pretty to get over and get off the road.

 

[kdryden99]

@scootman i still believe there are temp sensors all over the car but many are used for data collection more than anything else. Also we know Ford tried to overengineer certain aspects of this car and they got flamed gor too much redundancy causing added weight. But we know heat was a concern of theirs but the rush to put out a nore powerful, lighter product i think caused them to nake mistakes. Ones they're regretting now.

 

[scoopman]

@scootman i still believe there are temp sensors all over the car but many are used for data collection more than anything else. Also we know Ford tried to overengineer certain aspects of this car and they got flamed gor too much redundancy causing added weight. But we know heat was a concern of theirs but the rush to put out a nore powerful, lighter product i think caused them to nake mistakes. Ones they're regretting now.

The HVBJB has no temperature sensors as far as I understand.

 

[OWG]

My feeling is that the GT and GTPE are wonderful cars that are fundamentally flawed because Ford made the decision to use the same battery pack and electronics for them as for the ER AWD.

@scoopman, I feel your pain, but this does not appear to be just a GT/GTPE issue.
Survey: High Voltage Battery Junction Box issues? | Page 10 | MachEforum - Ford Mustang Mach-E Forum, News, Owners, Discussions
Unscientific I know, but ER-AWD are well represented.

 

[kindofblue]

I would not screw around if you get the UI detailed on the first post in this thread.

DO NOT TURN OFF YOUR CAR.

Go directly to your dealer.

If you turn off your car -- or ignore the wrench -- there is some (unknown to us) risk having your car not restart. Ford isn't transparent on what it is triggering on to warn us, and how much margin they are giving, etc etc. This would be lovely for them to tell us this, but I'm not exactly sure they've thought about any of this for owners.

One more note here -- I believe "Service Vehicle Soon" is a message used for other conditions (just like the more serious "Stop Safely Now" messge) so I think anyone on this forum should be investing in an OBD-II reader and the Car Scanner app to get more precise understanding if these messages are for your contactors or some other issue.

If I had to guess at Ford's unsophisticated UI, they tend to have two levels of powertrain issues, you can sorta drive it but something seriously is wrong ("Service Vehicle Soon") and you are screwed ("Stop Safely Now").

In it's infinite wisdom Ford has no further information it gives a driver telling them what these messages mean really and what they need to do.

This would be fine if this was very rare but trust me, this cannot be so rare as they expected.

This is why I believe it is important for us as owners of these cars to get a code reader so you can understand at least what is going on with the car since Ford isn't telling you anything too useful.

If I didn't have a code reader with me, and if my car did not have a power gauge ( only gt cars officially have it) I would be hard pressed as a normal car driver to know anything about what was happening any what I needed to do to avoid a catestrophic failure of the car requiring a tow.

This is another fundamental failing of ford's thinking and philosophy for the UI of this recall software and the car.

Hi Scoopman, Would you please recommend an ODB reader and some tutorial(s) on their use? I think at least some of us here would appreciate that. Thanks.

 

[Shayne]

When you click OK, your power bar (visible without hacking on GT/GTPE only) shows only about 30% of your power is available. The car is very sluggish but not dead.

As I said in the first post, you can actually clear the code using Car Scanner or the like, and your power bar in the car will appear "normal" and all power would be available. But all is not well, and this is another complete design bug by Ford that they are allowing this code to be cleared by users.
I don't think it's a great idea to try this yourself. Having to tow the car is not fun, risks your car being damaged, and even worse yet, this really is a safety issue. I was in the #1 lane on the highway when this occurred, and traffic was easily 75-80mph. If I was not going downhill, or if there was more traffic in other lanes, etc etc it would not have been pretty to get over and get off the road.

Understand. Would not be clearing the code even thou I can unless service says so as it is under warranty. I would drive it like they want me to.

Sluggish so it was slow on take off but still not a traffic hazard? You were in the passing lane and kept on passing vehicles after. You then merged over to the slow lane and were still passing slower vehicles. Just not the same acceleration as normal as to not cause total failure?

It would be the drive of shame all the way home for me. They can tow it from here if it does not power back up again. Just a piece of tin and not to concerned about it getting towed. If it does power back up I may conduct more tests after we both cool down.

Should add your YouTube vid to the first post. I know we still will not see it there either .

 

[kdryden99]

The HVBJB has no temperature sensors as far as I understand.

Probably not as it was most likely considered a high risk part even though there is a high current draw passing through. If its the part i think it is when I first watched the Sandy Munro teardown i remember sandy saying it was overly complicated design that he was waiting to see how it would hold up. But at the same time Ford has to rely on a lot of third party companies where Tesla was all in house. It can complicate design and implementation. I'm quite positive that anybody with a premium and lower will not see many failures even if we do have flawed part. My biggest concern is longer term degradation. Im hoping that the recall will include part replacement so that we can get a guaranteed replacement past warranty

 

[scoopman]

@scoopman, I feel your pain, but this does not appear to be just a GT/GTPE issue.
Survey: High Voltage Battery Junction Box issues? | Page 10 | MachEforum - Ford Mustang Mach-E Forum, News, Owners, Discussions
Unscientific I know, but ER-AWD are well represented.

Oh of course I am aware of this -- we seem to be hearing this is more prevalent for GT/GTPE to fry their junction boxes because there's more electricity and thermals on the GTs.

But this part is under-spec for the tolerances in non-GT Mach-Es as well, it apparently happens less commonly however.

 

[DevSecOps]

Why #3. ? No reason to think 100% increases the risk of failure ?!

Charging on L2 to 100% doesn't have any effect on the HVBJB. It doesn't even use the same contactors.

 

[DevSecOps]

Hey, when we recieve the nortification should we immiddiately take the car to the dealer or in couple of hours/days, any idea?

If you get the notification and you have full reduced power, I would drive it directly the the dealer and assume if you turn it off, it may not turn back on.

 

[MachEnthusiast]

From another thread I read that Ford will not provide a revised HVBJB unless you hit the failure. I'm a little shocked by this. Cost aside, this is their grand entry into electric and it sounds like they are getting bad press around this issue. Why not make it right even at a loss for the company to improve confidence around Lightning and Mach-E?

I'd prefer to get a revised HVBJB proactively instead of crossing my fingers that I never hit this issue. Even with the software update.

Sponsored