New Lawsuit targets Ford and Mach-E Safety over high voltage battery main contactor issue

[ARK]

Exactly.

If the recall is to be considered a “success,” it has to fix the problem!

The recall, as it stands, doesn’t seem to prevent the problem, it’s more of a “problem warning and detection system.”

Not even remotely the same as a “fix.”

If you have a problem at work where every day your boss unexpectedly slaps you in the face, would the “fix” be that he/she warns you before they slap you?

Closer analogy would be if a company at first doesn’t know which boss is prone to slapping, and they come up with a system where they can stop the slap before it happens, put you and the boss both on administrative leave for a week while they investigate, then fire the bad boss for having tried to slap you ?‍

Sponsored

 

[DevSecOps]

Exactly.

If the recall is to be considered a “success,” it has to fix the problem!

The recall, as it stands, doesn’t seem to prevent the problem, it’s more of a “problem warning and detection system.”

Not even remotely the same as a “fix.”

If you have a problem at work where every day your boss unexpectedly slaps you in the face, would the “fix” be that he/she warns you before they slap you?

What amazes me is that we have the "Chief Engineer" (Per his LinkedIn) of the MME who has stated, on this forum that, some of HVBJB hardware is not up to the task and yet people, who have no insight at all, still want to argue that software is a "fix".

?

 

[Flydivesurf]

How is driving my performance car like a performance car abuse? Where in owners Manuel does it say you can’t floor your car or it’s abuse. I did not buy a 2015 v8 mustang for mpg or to drive it like a b…. And I did not buy a 2021 gtpe to hypermile it. I’ll enjoy my car 1 WOT at a time to the speed limit ?

The mach-e is a CUV. The GT-PE is the performance edition of the Grand Touring trim line of the Mustang-inspired electric CUV. Full throttle, stop light to stop light, etc, is hard on a car whether it's a BEV or an ICE car. It causes problems with all of them if that's the way people consistently drive. It's your car though. Drive it how you please. Just be aware there are consequences, some known, some not for however it's driven, whether your driving habits allow for only two throttle settings (none and WOT) or you're a speed bump to a baling wire and duct-taped 1992 Yugo.

 

[krafty81]

Many of us received a check after joining the lawsuit on Sync in my old Escape.

 

[Flydivesurf]

Lawyer money grab. I will feel vindicated by the 5 cents I will receive in compensation

It depends upon the arrangement the named plaintiffs have with their legal team. If it's a contingency fee arrangement that amount is usually somewhere between 25% and 35% of the judgment or settlement, subject to court approval in Federal cases (as this one is). The attorneys will be working for nothing for quite some time (hundreds of hours on the low side) on the case without payment hence the higher percentages. By the way, the attorneys almost always come out ahead billing by the hour, it's the clients who want the contingency fee arrangement most often.

 

[ARK]

What amazes me is that we have the "Chief Engineer" (Per his LinkedIn) of the MME who has stated, on this forum that, some of HVBJB hardware is not up to the task and yet people, who have no insight at all, still want to argue that software is a "fix".

?

I did not know he was Chief Engineer, but I believe he includes the word 'possible' before that quote.

In any event, I think certain things can be gleaned from what Ford has done so far that suggests they did not/do not expect the software fix to be the full solution.

(1) The creation of the service vehicle soon alert for a HVBJB issue, with the power limitation. It suggests Ford anticipated HVBJB failures to keep occurring despite the software update, i.e., that they would replace the HVBJB on those vehicles that they had to and not for those where the software itself was enough.

(2) The fact that they issued a revised part (twice) for the HVBJB. If the first one was adequate with a software fix, no good explanation of why they would have had to revise the part.

(3) That Ford seemingly had instructions in place for what a dealership was to do after a post-software update HVBJB failure. From the early reports of post-update failures, aside from clueless dealer issues, it seemed Ford anticipated that these failures would still occur and already had in place authorization to replace the HVBJB versus some kind of extraordinary intervention to call out a Ford engineer on-site to figure out what needs to be done.

 

[Mach1E]

Closer analogy would be if a company at first doesn’t know which boss is prone to slapping, and they come up with a system where they can stop the slap before it happens, put you and the boss both on administrative leave for a week while they investigate, then fire the bad boss for having tried to slap you ?‍

That would be a clear analogy…… if the software actually prevented the problem.

It doesn’t. We already in just 2 weeks have multiple threads here of failures after the recall.

We are still getting slapped. I guess in the analogy they set up a video camera to record the slap then fire the boss.

 

[Mach1E]

What amazes me is that we have the "Chief Engineer" (Per his LinkedIn) of the MME who has stated, on this forum that, some of HVBJB hardware is not up to the task and yet people, who have no insight at all, still want to argue that software is a "fix".

?

It’s even in the language of the recall that the hardware isn’t “robust enough.”

I’m definitely hoping this is just the bandaid before they actually fix the problem.

And secretly hoping (although most of this hope is lost at this point) that step 3 is unlocking the 5 second limit. But this seems less and less likely at this point. Especially after this recall, Ford is likely to be more conservative with power delivery until the hardware is up to the task.

 

[ARK]

That would be a clear analogy…… if the software actually prevented the problem.

It doesn’t. We already in just 2 weeks have multiple threads here of failures after the recall.

We are still getting slapped.

I think that in and of itself suggests they didn't expect software to be a full solution, since all these failures (perhaps at an even greater rate then before) began immediately with the launch of the recall software.

Also, I think at a very literal level the software has prevented the prior issue, at least so far. Has anyone actually had their contactors welded after they got the update? In other words, anyone have a stop safely now alert since getting the software update? I don't think so but am open to being corrected on this.

Because if not, the software can be said to be successfully intervening. Clearly, a power limitation is not a fix. But to the extent the software is supposed to prevent welding before it occurs, and instead send people who appear to be at risk of welding to a dealership in order to get new hardware, that seems to be working.

 

[Mach1E]

I think that in and of itself suggests they didn't expect software to be a full solution, since all these failures (perhaps at an even greater rate then before) began immediately with the launch of the recall software.

Also, I think at a very literal level the software has prevented the prior issue, at least so far. Has anyone actually had their contactors welded after they got the update? In other words, anyone have a stop safely now alert since getting the software update? I don't think so but am open to being corrected on this.

Because if not, the software can be said to be successfully intervening. Clearly, a power limitation is not a fix. But to the extent the software is supposed to prevent welding before it occurs, and instead send people who appear to be at risk of welding to a dealership in order to get new hardware, that seems to be working.

Fair question to which I don’t know.

Not sure if the alert after welding changed from “stop safely now” to whatever it is now. Or if the new alert actually stops you before it gets welded.

I can’t keep all this stuff straight, but even with the old welded shut (or open, can’t remember which) wouldn’t the car still drive it just wouldn’t restart once you shut it off?

But either way, post recall, bad stuff is still happening that results in a trip to the dealer for the same part replacement.

Only change that I can see is you get the alert and drive straight to the dealer vs you stop safely and get a crappy tow.

 

[ARK]

Fair question to which I don’t know.

Not sure if the alert after welding changed from “stop safely now” to whatever it is now. Or if the new alert actually stops you before it gets welded.

I can’t keep all this stuff straight, but even with the old welded shut (or open, can’t remember which) wouldn’t the car still drive it just wouldn’t restart once you shut it off?

But either way, post recall, bad stuff is still happening that results in a trip to the dealer for the same part replacement.

Only change that I can see is you get the alert and drive straight to the dealer vs you stop safely and get a crappy tow.

I think a couple of the people who got service vehicle soon did chance turning their vehicle off after they got the alert, and it did, in fact, come back on and was drivable. As I understand it, if stop safely now comes on because of welding, the car will not move at all (and that's why people have posted recommendations to not park nose in because the vehicle cannot be safely towed from the back).

Anyway, if Ford is doing this, the downside to their approach is it's sort of hanging over everybody when, if ever, they might get the service vehicle soon alert to get new hardware (if that is what is happening). Seems at the very least they need to issue a straight recall for the GTs and GTPEs, and maybe assess how things go for the other powertrains as to whether the software monitoring is enough (because service vehicle soon will be rare), or if those also should be recalled for new hardware proactively.

 

[ctenidae]

Seems to me that when a recall works as one would expect, there would have been no "Service vehicle soon" warning.
However, I suppose from a certain point of view, if Ford released software eliminating Mach-e's ability to DCFC, reduced acceleration to the 0-60 in the 8 second range, and restricted it to a max speed of the posted speed limit, said software would greatly reduce the possibility "that the high voltage battery main contactors may overheat" and therefore would be considered a fix?

I mean, silly proposition there, to be sure, but I'll play along.

I think that would qualify as a bad fix. The fact is, the fix they implemented doesn't slow the car down, doesn't cause the car to brick, and allows Ford to get the limited supply of parts they have to the people who need it most urgently. It doesn't negatively impact those who might have the problem, and identifies those who do so Ford can fix it. I fail to see a problem here.

 

[ctenidae]

That would be a clear analogy…… if the software actually prevented the problem.

It doesn’t. We already in just 2 weeks have multiple threads here of failures after the recall.

We are still getting slapped. I guess in the analogy they set up a video camera to record the slap then fire the boss.

The software doesn't fix the problem - it identifies the problem before it occurs so that it can be fixed. This isn't that complex a thing here, folks.

Contactors might go bad. Software detects which ones are likely to fail in the near term. Driver is warned, dealership replaces the part. Why is this so angsty?

 

[DevSecOps]

I fail to see a problem here.

So if you're on an airplane and there's a known defect with the engines that randomly shut off. You think it would be an acceptable "remedy" for the FAA to say, as long as they can maybe glide down, it'll be okay.

I wouldn't be getting on that plane unless all of those incorrectly designed parts are replaced. Ford, in it's recall announcement, said that the physical part was incorrectly designed. You cannot correct an incorrectly designed part with software. What they are doing is called mitigation, it's not a fix.

They have even admitted this here:

 

[ctenidae]

So if you're on an airplane and there's a known defect with the engines that randomly shut off. You think it would be an acceptable "remedy" for the FAA to say, as long as they can maybe glide down, it'll be okay.

I wouldn't be getting on that plane unless all of those incorrectly designed parts are replaced. Ford, in it's recall announcement, said that the physical part was incorrectly designed. You cannot correct an incorrectly designed part with software. What they are doing is called mitigation, it's not a fix.

They have even admitted this here:

Another silly proposition. The plane wouldn't be allowed to fly in the first place. The recall software identifies a contactor that is likely to fail soon so that it can be replaced. I suspect there will be a significant decline in the number of "bricked" cars, maybe even to 0, as bad contactors are identified and replaced.

It IS possible a subset of hardware is not up to the task. In fact, it's a dead certainty - some of them have failed. Unless Ford's engineers are a bunch of complete morons, they are working to identify the source of the problem (manufacturing defects? poor engineering? bad juju?), which they may have already done and worked into the software parameters. You don't know, but logic would suggest this is the case.

If you feel unsafe in your car, don't drive it. If you think Ford is a bunch of morons, sell your stock. Suggesting ridiculous scenarios and random conspiracies seems a waste of time and energy.

Sponsored