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

[Tom L]

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.

Scoopman, sorry for your dilemma. I believe your analysis here is well drawn from the bits and pieces that MME owners have reported on this forum. I have read all the related postings and I think your summary is the most likely explanation of the contractor problems. We owe you a debt of thanks for your leadership.

Sponsored

 

[BigMach-E]

While i understand your position, and it sucks, I wouldn't put any one off this car until i really get an understanding of the % of cars that will absolutely fail. Everyone is going on assumptions, but if everyone does that nobody would ever by anything.

Hmmm, here are some facts:

1: Eventual failure rate is unknown, but it has happened to more than 0.5 percent of these cars, and they have been available for only a little over a year and a half.

2. This has happened to some cars more than once.

3. Ford is trying to mitigate the issue via software. The mitigation software is better than nothing, but it's NOT a "fix". It just lets you get to a Dealership under the car's own power if the part fails.

4. This is a "design" error. IE: Ford's design is responsible for the failures, not a issue with manufacturing.

5. There is a new part, with a new part number, that actually likely fixes the problem. Your car will not as of this time, qualify to get said new part under warranty without failure, as the failure rate is so low as to not "require" it.

6. We don't know when the new cars off the production line started getting the new part installed.

Now, if you intend to use this car as a "road trip" vehicle, please know that if you don't have the new part, this can happen to you, and it's more likely to happen when you drive for hours at a time and DCFC. Doesn't need to be those parameters, but that seems to be a more likely common denominator.

 

[DevSecOps]

6. We don't know when the new cars off the production line started getting the new part installed.

This comes up a lot ... I've asked people at Ford to step up and provide the exact information. I will probably have something next week since they have this week off. It appears from unofficial reports that cars which went into production on May 25 and later will be getting the new HVBJB, but that's not 100% confirmed yet.

 

[ARK]

My guess 150+ million$ (1500+×100 000)

I’d guess that Ford might be taking a two-pronged approach to minimize the cost of replacements, we still don’t actually know if OP experienced a let’s call it traditional HVBJB failure, i.e. if welding occurred.

This issue was already rare, they may have come up with a software fix that made it even rarer. But I’d guess that Ford knowing they couldn’t fully resolve the issue for Mach-Es with the old part, perhaps their split approach was to resolve the issue for most everyone with the software fix, and replace the part for people who still had issues despite the software fix - to minimize their not insubstantial costs.

Except instead of waiting for the welding to occur, perhaps we get a Service Vehicle Soon message if some (unknown) parameter is exceeded, and that could be why OP’s Mach-E cut his available power substantially, i.e., maybe the car thought there was an unacceptable risk of HVBJB failure because some parameter was exceeded and the new software fix means getting limited power (not turtle mode) to try to prevent that along with a message to service vehicle soon because that particular car will need the new part based on owner’s use. This would, in theory, keep the car somewhat drivable/usable and avoid a more serious Stop Safely Now alert until service could happen to replace the part.

The limited power could also be like a stick to not put the issue off. Downside though is what happens if you are far from home when this occurs - would people prefer immediate limited power vs a roll of the dice to see if their HVBJB actually fails knowing the car thinks there is a good chance.

Otherwise, I struggle to guess why they would limit power if OP experienced a traditional HVBJB failure. If welding makes the vehicle dangerous, why not still insist on Stop Safely Now as opposed to a Service Vehicle Soon alert. If the vehicle will be perfectly fine until it is turned off, why limit power at all, that doesn’t ordinarily happen just because a car gets a Service Vehicle Soon alert.

 

[Neil4Real]

I’d guess that Ford might be taking a two-pronged approach to minimize the cost of replacements, we still don’t actually know if OP experienced a let’s call it traditional HVBJB failure, i.e. if welding occurred.

This issue was already rare, they may have come up with a software fix that made it even rarer. But I’d guess that Ford knowing they couldn’t fully resolve the issue for Mach-Es with the old part, perhaps their split approach was to resolve the issue for most everyone with the software fix, and replace the part for people who still had issues despite the software fix - to minimize their not insubstantial costs.

Except instead of waiting for the welding to occur, perhaps we get a Service Vehicle Soon message if some (unknown) parameter is exceeded, and that could be why OP’s Mach-E cut his available power substantially, i.e., maybe the car thought there was an unacceptable risk of HVBJB failure because some parameter was exceeded and the new software fix means getting limited power (not turtle mode) to try to prevent that along with a message to service vehicle soon because that particular car will need the new part based on owner’s use. This would, in theory, keep the car somewhat drivable/usable and avoid a more serious Stop Safely Now alert until service could happen to replace the part.

The limited power could also be like a stick to not put the issue off. Downside though is what happens if you are far from home when this occurs - would people prefer immediate limited power vs a roll of the dice to see if their HVBJB actually fails knowing the car thinks there is a good chance.

Otherwise, I struggle to guess why they would limit power if OP experienced a traditional HVBJB failure. If welding makes the vehicle dangerous, why not still insist on Stop Safely Now as opposed to a Service Vehicle Soon alert. If the vehicle will be perfectly fine until it is turned off, why limit power at all, that doesn’t ordinarily happen just because a car gets a Service Vehicle Soon alert.

@scoopman has already confirmed that Ford said it wasn’t a false alarm. Also, it doesn’t matter if it is, he’s already stated that the workshop manual states if these DTCs are thrown, you replace the HVBJB and possibly the BECM too.

It’s already been covered extensively in this thread that the message that pops up, and that fact that you can clear it with “ok,” is also a huge miss on Ford’s part.

 

[ARK]

@scoopman has already confirmed that Ford said it wasn’t a false alarm. Also, it doesn’t matter if it is, he’s already stated that the workshop manual states if these DTCs are thrown, you replace the HVBJB and possibly the BECM too.

It’s already been covered extensively in this thread that the message that pops up, and that fact that you can clear it with “ok,” is also a huge miss on Ford’s part.

If he did, I missed that. However, if the vehicle throws up a Service Vehicle Soon alert if something measurable is not quite right, I wouldn’t call that a false alarm, more like a modern equivalent to getting an engine temp alert.

 

[agoldman]

I'm now wondering whether the software fix will increase the warnings due to sensing the "near failures" that we may be experiencing now and not know it. Something tells me that there is a good chance that once we all have this update, we will see many more warnings to head to the shop than we have had so far. I guess that depends on the threshold of the software update sensing the problem.

 

[Shayne]

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

How do we stop the positive contract from sticking open in the cold on these lower trims? Nothing is welding together up here but the contacts do not work well in the cold either from what I have seen.

We are all very used to immediate power with our cars (much more so than with any ICE car), and you will not be able to easily manouver and change lanes like you can typically do. You will have to mentally recalibrate your expectations for reaction time and car performance.

Maybe they are just getting you prepared for what they will be giving you as a rental vehicle when they fix it? As long as it drives who cares if I am back into a clunker.

I went on 400km road trip including multiple climbs, including a 400m climb up and down. DCFC'd 6-8 times on the trip. No issue there and back.

I had a Murano and a Rogue with a tranny that each let go on the highway. Car was in limp mode. Took forever to accelerate and could only reach 30kms an hour. So i know how scary the situation can be. Many of us bought this car knowing the risks. I was one of the first to get one. Even with everything i dont care. Its been great.

Edit: i drive once or twice a month 460kms in a day (sometimes dcfc 0-2 times on the drive no issues) im at 36000kms.

Been there done that. At least we should not have to stop on the highway and fill the rad then ask the home you stopped in front if you can use their garden hose to fill your jugs again.
Waited for 4 months for a hvjb replaced mid April. Old part number. Appreciative of that as the car was still in service and it was not an emergency.

I’d guess that Ford might be taking a two-pronged approach to minimize the cost of replacements, we still don’t actually know if OP experienced a let’s call it traditional HVBJB failure, i.e. if welding occurred.

This issue was already rare, they may have come up with a software fix that made it even rarer. But I’d guess that Ford knowing they couldn’t fully resolve the issue for Mach-Es with the old part, perhaps their split approach was to resolve the issue for most everyone with the software fix, and replace the part for people who still had issues despite the software fix - to minimize their not insubstantial costs.

Except instead of waiting for the welding to occur, perhaps we get a Service Vehicle Soon message if some (unknown) parameter is exceeded, and that could be why OP’s Mach-E cut his available power substantially, i.e., maybe the car thought there was an unacceptable risk of HVBJB failure because some parameter was exceeded and the new software fix means getting limited power (not turtle mode) to try to prevent that along with a message to service vehicle soon because that particular car will need the new part based on owner’s use. This would, in theory, keep the car somewhat drivable/usable and avoid a more serious Stop Safely Now alert until service could happen to replace the part.

The limited power could also be like a stick to not put the issue off. Downside though is what happens if you are far from home when this occurs - would people prefer immediate limited power vs a roll of the dice to see if their HVBJB actually fails knowing the car thinks there is a good chance.

Otherwise, I struggle to guess why they would limit power if OP experienced a traditional HVBJB failure. If welding makes the vehicle dangerous, why not still insist on Stop Safely Now as opposed to a Service Vehicle Soon alert. If the vehicle will be perfectly fine until it is turned off, why limit power at all, that doesn’t ordinarily happen just because a car gets a Service Vehicle Soon alert.

I think what we saw here was the new software doing what the software was installed to do. Putting the vehicle into service mode reducing power and hence current. It could have been the new software glitched out and put it in service mode when it was not needed. Could be a lot of things. I am interested if you can get it up to 60 mph and for how long while in service mode. As you note it should not be dangerous or damaging or they would not be letting us do it.

 

[agoldman]

I think this whole recall boils down to a way for Ford to "fix upon fail" one by one, rather than a massive hardware parts recall. Something tells me that we will see the full hardware recall sooner than later, depending on the rate of instances once the software patch is more widespread. In the meantime, it does give you pause when driving around. Not the experience I had hoped for.

seems maybe another gtpe towed on the other forum.

 

[Av8tor]

I wonder if this was an early warning sign from Norway.

Will Address Mustang Mach-E Overheating From Regen Braking
https://insideevs.com/news/520468/ford-mustang-mache-overheating-regen/

 

[macchiaz-o]

I wonder if this was an early warning sign from Norway.

Will Address Mustang Mach-E Overheating From Regen Braking
https://insideevs.com/news/520468/ford-mustang-mache-overheating-regen/

It's interesting to me that that wasn't a recall and this is.

The downhill regen issue was worse since the vehicle would shut off and try to engage its parking pawl while going downhill for too long.

My understanding of it was that the downhill regen issue was a true software bug, not a mechanical issue. The software didn't properly handle a specific value and reacted poorly.

 

[agoldman]

ABS system was mentioned on the official dealer recall email.

 

[buzznwood]

I wonder if this was an early warning sign from Norway.

Will Address Mustang Mach-E Overheating From Regen Braking
https://insideevs.com/news/520468/ford-mustang-mache-overheating-regen/

To me the overheating regen issue just shows up Fords piss poor real world testing of the mach-e. No doubt by the time a mach-e model refresh turns up in a few yeas time you would assume it won't suffer from these school boy errors.

The problem for Ford of course if that with all these issues is how many early adaptors have now been put off ever getting a Ford EV again as it doesn't give much faith in the engineering talent when owners are having problems derived from doing the basics of just driving and charging it.

 

[JSW]

I guess I predicted this outcome, sorry, it must have been stressful.

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...ain-contactors-may-overheat.18681/post-449557

I do believe that after enough similarly-stressful experiences Ford might reconsider its approach and provide the more robust part on-demand. Unfortunately, this will take many, many more stressful experiences and complaints to the regulatory authorities.

That said, if it is not necessary to keep the MM-e powered on, and you can limp home and take it to the dealership at your convenience, this issue may never generate sufficient “risk” to warrant replacement prior to the software notice.

 

[HuntingPudel]

<SNIP>
That said, if it is not necessary to keep the MM-e powered on, and you can limp home and take it to the dealership at your convenience, this issue may never generate sufficient “risk” to warrant replacement prior to the software notice.

The thing is, we currently do not know if one is able to turn the vehicle off without it no longer being able to be started from the off state. We will find out once someone does as you outline. It will end up either with the car starting in limp mode or the car not starting and requiring immediate service. As of now, nobody has failed the car with the new software and shut it off. ?‍?

Sponsored