join me in filing a NHTSA complaint on the HVBJB to get a better recall than 22s41

[npgeorgeuw]

So I just bought my MME less than a week ago and the Ford dealer performed the recall via ota update. Yesterday when I was driving on the highway I was trying to pass a car and the power significantly reduced—it was beyond dangerous to say the least. Then I saw a schedule service soon light. If my issue is related to this recall, I 100% agree, the ota update is just a bandaid, not a fix—a true fix would be a replacement part.

If it is the cause (aka they replace the HVJB) please update us and also report it to the NHTSA. I suspect the failure rate of this (based on those that get flagged in car during transit is going to be high).

Sponsored

 

[smaisuria]

If it is the cause (aka they replace the HVJB) please update us and also report it to the NHTSA. I suspect the failure rate of this (based on those that get flagged in car during transit is going to be high).

Absolutely! I completely agree.

 

[Jimrpa]

This is stupid. Please show me the documented engineering studies that indicate a hardware failure is occurring, necessitating replacement with different hardware as opposed to changes in software?

Frankly, I’d much rather energy be spent on the lack of a functioning remote frunk release over 18 months after the vehicle hit the market ?

 

[DevSecOps]

This is stupid. Please show me the documented engineering studies that indicate a hardware failure is occurring, necessitating replacement with different hardware as opposed to changes in software?

So Ford admitting to the public, on paper, and I quote "The design and part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor is not robust to the heat generated ..." is not sufficient for you to at minimum assume that the part is underdesigned?

Your claim is like saying we can make the space shuttles outer shell more heat resistant with software. If your standard is we need "documentation" to believe something then believe the only document we have, the recall which says the part is not robust enough. I think 3 post recall failures today alone should also prove this point.

 

[npgeorgeuw]

This is stupid. Please show me the documented engineering studies that indicate a hardware failure is occurring, necessitating replacement with different hardware as opposed to changes in software?

Frankly, I’d much rather energy be spent on the lack of a functioning remote frunk release over 18 months after the vehicle hit the market ?

Are we living in an alternate universe here? You have a *minimal* Frunk release already (the button inside). You *could* have a failed HVJB at any time, the statistics of which increase the more you drive, the harder you drive and the more you DCFC (I'm taking some liberties here but you get my drift). And, Ford's fix doesn't fix it, it just flags it earlier than "poof".--That is clear. Even new cars and new HVJBs seem to be flagging based on reports here.

Yet, you know, let's just let Ford replace them as they break even though we have zero knowledge what the lifetime failure rate will be.

At the very least Ford should warranty that part with an extension above and beyond the normal powertrain warranty. Subaru and other have done this for slipping transmission issues that were similarly common.

 

[ARK]

Looks like there is at least one forum member who was done waiting and filed a class action lawsuit last week.

@Benjamin Kegele

 

[jlauro]

So Ford admitting to the public, on paper, and I quote "The design and part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor is not robust to the heat generated ..." i

Right from that quote, it sounds like due to the variation, some components are fine and some are not. Who knows what the ratio of fine to marginal to subpar is... does Ford even know yet? If it's mostly fine then why replace the good ones? If 9 out of 10 are likely to fail within a couple of years than yeah they should all be replaced if they can't identify which ones.

 

[DevSecOps]

Right from that quote, it sounds like due to the variation, some components are fine and some are not. Who knows what the ratio of fine to marginal to subpar is... does Ford even know yet? If it's mostly fine then why replace the good ones? If 9 out of 10 are likely to fail within a couple of years than yeah they should all be replaced if they can't identify which ones.

The same recall states 100% of vehicles made between the first day of production and May 25 are affected.

Let's not conveniently leave out the "design" part followed by "and". If they are designed incorrectly they should be replaced.

 

[BigMach-E]

I mean, Ford has said this on the FAQ of the recall that due to design and manufacturing variance, the part is the problem.

Or are you saying that no one knows if B and/or C are actual fixes? There has been no one pedaling misinformation that these are 100% true fixes, even those with insider info believe they are from what Ford has told them, but no one on the forum has had the new part to real world trial it yet. We BELIEVE and hope that they are, but @scoopman and myself are going to be guinea pigs for sure, to see if they actually do fix it.

Fortunately (unfortunately?), what caused my car to fail seems to be the toll road I take to and from work, which is the same grade as @scoopman when his car failed, so I will most certainly get to see if this part really holds true and solid or if I'm in for a world of fun.

Hi. I can't speak about the GT as I don't own one, but I've been running with the B variant part for approximately 4 months, and about 6k miles. Don't know if it's the permanent fix, but my car seems okay.

 

[tesla2mme]

Looks like there is at least one forum member who was done waiting and filed a class action lawsuit last week.

@Benjamin Kegele

I am really happy someone took steps for this to happen.

 

[jlauro]

The same recall states 100% of vehicles made between the first day of production and May 25 are affected.

Let's not conveniently leave out the "design" part followed by "and". If they are designed incorrectly they should be replaced.

The 100% is likely a simple way of saying that can't identify the vehicles impacted and must assume all for purposes of the recall.

It's the design that wasn't designed to work with the part to part variation. Part to part variation sounds more of a manufacturing or parts supply issue. That said, nit picking about semantics is moot... either way many vehicles have the issue and to us the consumers it doesn't make that much if the flaw is more a design issue or from a variance from manufacturing. Probably some of both.

 

[Valkyrie]

So is the Ford.com site flagging your VIN for recall? Mine says no recall on my GT that was built in 3.14.22 ?!?

 

[generaltso]

So is the Ford.com site flagging your VIN for recall? Mine says no recall on my GT that was built in 3.14.22 ?!?

Ford’s recall site isn’t updated yet. Look up your VIN on the NHTSA site.

 

[krafty81]

I am with you. Replace the part when it is available, dealers are trained, and your car is in for a recall. They did the windshield and roof, they can do this!

 

[RickMachE]

Looks like there is at least one forum member who was done waiting and filed a class action lawsuit last week.

@Benjamin Kegele

I'm shocked *not*. I could have told you the name before you posted it.

Sponsored