Another GTPE Bites the Dust After 22S41!

[DevSecOps]

You're probably thinking of fallguy, who, ironically, had his car fall of the rack as well. I don't have his VIN to check, but I don't think he had HVBJB failure and they replaced some other module in his car unrelated. His car actually lunged forward and halted, that's not in line with what we've seen with the HVBJB. Additionally, he had DTCs that aren't normally seen with HVBJB failure such as Pre Collision Assist. After re-reading his post I don't see anything which explains why he got motive failure and why the dealer is still getting them. But then again, his car fell from the service rack so I bet he's got a whole slew of issues.

Sponsored

 

[dtbaker61]

No it's not regardless ... Those examples are for SSN, but unrelated to the HVBJB. I have seen MANY SSN while in motion NOT RELATED to the HVBJB (mostly 12v electrical issues, shorts, lose wires), but I haven't seen one related to the HVBJB.

The reason is because the contactor for the drive motor is stuck in the closed, operational, position. It doesn't magically flip to open while the vehicle is in motion and weld itself there.

As you well know Dan, I think the only fix is to replace the HVBJB. I'm adamant about Ford doing the right thing and I am a huge opponent of this software bull sh*t.

All that being said, I am also very opposed to people making things up about what the actual "danger" of the failure is just to boost their agenda. It's a huge issue, but there's no need to scare people to get our point across.

Agreed on all points....

I had conflated the Lvb issues with the Hvbjb before we narrowed the issue down to the contactor

So steering and brakes are not connected as possible safety issues....

But loss of power, lets say while passing, might be. As well as getting stranded in an unsafe place, or waiting for hours for a tow, or being damaged by an untrained tow truck driver.

 

[KevinS]

But if we saw .5% of cars having the original problem, how many will get the wrench message now? 5%? 50%?

More than would otherwise probably, but the risk of 50% seems greatly overexaggerated.

 

[scoopman]

Honestly, I'm starting to think the new software is oversensitive. I'm curious to see what happens after all these post recall update vehicles get new HVBJB's, if they continue to have these issues.

Without knowing any of the details on what the software measures and has as its tripwire threshholds, we have to trust Ford's design that it is not throwing too many false positives.

Instead, it probably is detecting actual contactor damage that the owner and Ford was unaware of before the software release. The number of vehicles already having unplanned ad hoc dealer visits will probably quickly overwhelm Ford (and create friction with its dealers), and I think it will be very interesting what crisis management Ford is going to deploy this week when their corporate offices are back from a week off.

They already have numerous failures and unhappy owners (before the software is deployed to tens of thousands of cars at scale via OTA and mail notices), as well as a class action suit.

Hope they had a good vacation, because I think it will be a long week when they realize what the failure rate is with their detection software on-board, and the looming PR mess, dealer tensions, and poor execution so far on the actual hardware fixes they are going to need to perform at scale for many hundreds if not thousands of cars.

 

[scoopman]

Please link one person who had HVBJB failure in the middle of a freeway or while the vehicle was in motion. Please ...

The poor gentleman who had his Rapid Red GT dropped off a dealer lift had his car have a HVBJB failure in traffic, in the middle of an intersection too I believe. Ford would not have put this willingly in their disclosure to NHTSA if this was not a legitimate (non-zero) danger.

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...r-edit-car-fell-off-the-rack-at-dealer.18083/

I still think it is right to install the recall software because it didn't seem to include many performance limitations, and it lets you get in line to do the recall Ford should have done from the outset, albeit with more pain and hassle to you as an owner.

 

[scoopman]

More than would otherwise probably, but the risk of 50% seems greatly overexaggerated.

I think it is probably safe to believe there are more cars with damaged contactors than some at Ford expected and did any planning to handle. I wonder if it is just an initial batch of damaged cars, or if this is their new normal failure rate....

 

[DevSecOps]

The poor gentleman who had his Rapid Red GT dropped off a dealer lift had his car have a HVBJB failure in traffic, in the middle of an intersection too I believe. Ford would not have put this willingly in their disclosure to NHTSA if this was not a legitimate (non-zero) danger.

https://www.macheforum.com/site/thr...r-edit-car-fell-off-the-rack-at-dealer.18083/

I still think it is right to install the recall software because it didn't seem to include many performance limitations, and it lets you get in line to do the recall Ford should have done from the outset, albeit with more pain and hassle to you as an owner.

Based on what they replaced in his car I don't think he had HVBJB failure. That's what I said in this post.

SSN doesn't always mean HVBJB failure. It's a generic message for a ton of different things. I'm not arguing installing the software or not. I'm not installing it, but that's my choice (well kinda).

 

[scoopman]

No it's not regardless ... Those examples are for SSN, but unrelated to the HVBJB. I have seen MANY SSN while in motion NOT RELATED to the HVBJB (mostly 12v electrical issues, shorts, lose wires), but I haven't seen one related to the HVBJB.

The reason is because the contactor for the drive motor is stuck in the closed, operational, position. It doesn't magically flip to open while the vehicle is in motion and weld itself there.

As you well know Dan, I think the only fix is to replace the HVBJB. I'm adamant about Ford doing the right thing and I am a huge opponent of this software bull sh*t.

All that being said, I am also very opposed to people making things up about what the actual "danger" of the failure is just to boost their agenda. It's a huge issue, but there's no need to scare people to get our point across.

I hear what you are saying Todd (and @dtbaker61) but I know we don't know the full picture that Ford does and won't disclose publicly for obvious reasons.

I just go by what they put in the official disclosure of the recall to NHTSA, and I don't think they would have included at least the possibility that the HVBJB can fail while driving resulting in complete loss of power, if they did not have to do so. Whether or not our forum's echo chamber has enough users reporting this happening is kinda beside the point -- there is a non-zero chance of stuck-open happening, but it does seem more common for the failure to happen through welding closed as Todd described.

 

[scoopman]

Based on what they replaced in his car I don't think he had HVBJB failure. That's what I said in this post.

SSN doesn't always mean HVBJB failure. It's a generic message for a ton of different things. I'm not arguing installing the software or not. I'm not installing it, but that's my choice (well kinda).

Sorry I cannot read all of the replies quickly enough

I still think stuck-open is a possibility, even if it is more rare. Think we should leave this at Ford's word to regulators, where there can be significant consequences to them as a company if they make material omissions or misrepresentations.

 

[KevinS]

I think it is probably safe to believe there are more cars with damaged contactors than some at Ford expected and did any planning to handle.

I definitely think that's the case. Your info regarding corporate being off this past week was also very eye-opening.

 

[DevSecOps]

Sorry I cannot read all of the replies quickly enough

I still think stuck-open is a possibility, even if it is more rare. Think we should leave this at Ford's word to regulators, where there can be significant consequences to them as a company if they make material omissions or misrepresentations.

If you want to believe the recall that's fine. Personally, I think it's full of errors, including dates (discovery vs first issue), no mention of the new beefier part, and also the fact that they said the software is a "remedy". Clearly, as you know more than most, it's not. The issue is failing HVBJBs and a remedy is defined as "something that corrects a problem". The actual remedy that they introduced on May 25, was the revised part into the production line. I don't think we should believe only the sections of the recall we want to believe. It's all or none. Since there's already many inconsistencies and lies in it, I say none. It's a CYA document to save them money.

 

[scoopman]

I definitely think that's the case. Your info regarding corporate being off this past week was also very eye-opening.

What a great time to take a corporate vacation!

 

[scoopman]

If you want to believe the recall that's fine. Personally, I think it's full of errors, including dates (discovery vs first issue) and also the fact that they said the software is a "remedy". Clearly, as you know more than most, it's not. The issue is failing HVBJBs and a remedy is defined as "something that corrects a problem". I don't think we should believe only the parts of the recall we want to believe. It's all or none. Since there's already many inconsistencies and lies in it, I say none. It's a CYA document to save them money.

I don't think we should conflate the poor, disorganized, and tone-deaf way Ford decided to address its hardware design defect, with what can happen when a contactor fails. It does appear the contactors will most commonly tack closed, but there does seem to be a smaller risk of them getting deformed and not being able to maintain contact.

It would be complete speculation to figure out how that could happen, but what if the fiberglass casing of the contactor deforms and pops the contactor physically off the connection point? Or the welding action causes the contactor to arc and somehow bend as it melts. I just don't know enough about material science or the failure scenarios here, but it's gotta be a possibility or else I would absolutely not want to suggest it was if I were Ford in that document to NHTSA.

 

[Mach-Lee]

I think it is probably safe to believe there are more cars with damaged contactors than some at Ford expected and did any planning to handle. I wonder if it is just an initial batch of damaged cars, or if this is their new normal failure rate....

There will be a steady flood of repairs needed once the OTAs start flowing. We will probably see one a day or more on the forum. It’s because the car will be able to detect a partially fried contractor for the first time. The problem already exists, it just isn’t being detected with the older software until total failure.

I don’t think it’s a problem with the software. It’s sort of like if you install antivirus on your computer for the first time in years, it might detect some preexisting things, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s oversensitive.

Sponsored