Stop Safely Now (HVBJB): Mach-E Owners Biggest Fear - Facts and Info Thread

[scoopman]

happened to me twice in less than 7 months of ownership and 6000mi -- I must be very unlucky if this is indeed soooooooo rare.

Sponsored

 

[ProximusAl]

happened to me twice in less than 7 months of ownership and 6000mi -- I must be very unlucky if this is indeed soooooooo rare.

It’s Blippi I tell ya…..Blippi……well that and twinkies!

 

[VegStang]

Man, this thread grows faster than I can keep up with. Nice to see so many people pitching in to help others as they begin to suffer the same fate. As with the @scoopman I've been running along fine since, although I've spent the last week gradually doing paint correction on the car and not much driving after my 6 week long service visit. I don't have the recall sw however. Still waiting on the dealer to give me the plan to correct their screwups on the front and back.

 

[Mach-Lee]

I'm sorry, but no...

Can Chevy say, oh don't worry people, our fix works for some bolt owners, but your car might still catch fire and kill your family? Do we tell people who have a fear of flying that "this plane may crash because we only mitigated the Max360 problem by 50%, but don't worry - welcome aboard".

The title of this thread includes the word "fear" because that is the word used by many people, not myself. People are taking days off work to get this update because they are scared. Telling someone, oh well there's still a chance is not gonna cut it for most people.

The software is not a fix and it's proving as such.

The Bolt fires are a much more serious issue than what we're experiencing. NHTSA is going to treat that much more strictly since it involves major properly damage or death.

Our issues have caused zero injuries or deaths so far. As long as Ford is making progress to reduce the failure rate and risk of injury, NHTSA will likely be satisfied even if the fix rate isn't 100%. As long as car doesn't die while driving, NHTSA will view the recall as successful. NHTSA isn't going to care if the car still dies after being parked or goes into a reduced power mode while driving because that's not necessarily a safety issue in their view.

My point is expecting the recall to fix 100% of vehicles is unrealistic. 90% might be good enough for the government. Wanting a higher fix rate is a customer satisfaction issue rather than a safety issue.

I want to be clear I'm very supportive of a HVBJB replacement campaign, but it's looking like that will have to come to us from a customer satisfaction approach rather than a safety issue approach.

There is a disconnect here of people that believe the recall software is supposed to 100% fix vehicles so there are no further issues, that wasn't the point of this software. The goal for the software was to reduce the safety risk only, which it appears to be doing by preventing complete shutdown/disablement in most cases. It may do nothing for the reliability (the bad parts out there will still fail eventually). I know that's not the news people want to hear but that's where we're at.

Personally I've accepted the small risk that my HVBJB may still go bad even though I have the recall software installed. It's not a big safety risk, but just a major inconvenience to have it replaced under warranty if it fails. It's also entirely possible my HVBJB will be totally fine for the life of the vehicle if I didn't get any bad contactors. Ford is probably going to take a wait and see approach. There will be a wave of replacements once the OTA hits, but if there are still new failures months after the recall software has been applied to vehicles then an additional remedy (such as part replacement) may be called for.

If people are still unhappy with how things are being handled, then a lawsuit may be the best course of action. But a reasonable person would expect you to get the recall done first before complaining.

 

[MachEnthusiast]

There is a disconnect here of people that believe the recall software is supposed to 100% fix vehicles so there are no further issues, that wasn't the point of this software. The goal for the software was to reduce the safety risk only, which it appears to be doing by preventing complete shutdown/disablement in most cases. It may do nothing for the reliability (the bad parts out there will still fail eventually). I know that's not the news people want to hear but that's where we're at.

That's not something that I, or some of the others in this thread, misunderstand. We understand what Ford has said, and we understand what the software "fix" is supposed to address.

We're saying that there are at least a couple of vehicles that have now had the software update and still had a complete failure. Not the "low power mode" that the software safety update is supposed to introduce. But the same "stop safely now" messaging that people get before the recall software update. And the same need to be towed.

That is not an acceptable fix, since it does nothing to address the safety concern. However you want to look at it. Because if people are still getting the same experience as they were before the recall, then they are not being made safer. And the software recall, at least for these people, did absolutely nothing. I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.

 

[JoeDimwit]

Do you have

That's not something that I, or some of the others in this thread, misunderstand. We understand what Ford has said, and we understand what the software "fix" is supposed to address.

We're saying that there are at least a couple of vehicles that have now had the software update and still had a complete failure. Not the "low power mode" that the software safety update is supposed to introduce. But the same "stop safely now" messaging that people get before the recall software update. And the same need to be towed.

That is not an acceptable fix, since it does nothing to address the safety concern. However you want to look at it. Because if people are still getting the same experience as they were before the recall, then they are not being made safer. And the software recall, at least for these people, did absolutely nothing. I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.

what is this “safety concern”, that is not being addressed, you keep referring to?

 

[MachEnthusiast]

Are you trolling me? You must be. "An overheated relay switch that opens while driving can result in a loss of motive power, which can increase the risk of an accident."

The software update was supposed to put the car into low power mode prior to a complete fault of the contactor/relay switch. Presumably based on some tolerance and sensors for heat. For most people it does.

For some people it doesn't. Therefore, the software fix is not an adequate solution to the recall. If it was something they were offering while they went through the process of manufacturing new parts for all impacted vehicles, I'd accept it. But as the long-term solution for addressing the recall and removing the recall from each of our VINs? Totally not acceptable.

Written another way, if Ford offered us all a new HVBJB as the recall fix, and it was exactly the same HVBJB design that had the recall, would that be acceptable? Because a software safeguard that fails to safeguard some is basically just that.

I realize the software can't fix the hardware. I have made software for decades. But it's failing to do the job Ford advertises it is going to do (allow you to keep driving the car), and which they have stated is the acceptable solution to this recall.

 

[Mach-Lee]

Here's how the whole process should work in a perfect world:

1. Customer installs recall software at dealer or via OTA.
2. One day the software detects a damaged contactor and displays "Service vehicle soon".
3. Customer calls their dealership, provides their VIN, and dealer sees P0ADA/P0ADE code logged in vehicle telemetry.
4. Dealer orders a new HVBJB immediately and schedules the repair for next week.
5. Customer continues to drive the car to work daily with the power limit in effect.
6. The following week, the customer drops off their Mach-E in the morning for HVBJB replacement and is given a rental car for the day.
7. The HVBJB will be replaced with the updated part, and the software updated to latest.
8. Customer returns their rental car at the end of the day and picks up their Mach-E.
9. The updated part and new software will ensure the contactors don't fail again in the future.

Total time out of service: 1 day

We're saying that there are at least a couple of vehicles that have now had the software update and still had a complete failure. Not the "low power mode" that the software safety update is supposed to introduce. But the same "stop safely now" messaging that people get before the recall software update. And the same need to be towed.

That is not an acceptable fix, since it does nothing to address the safety concern. However you want to look at it. Because if people are still getting the same experience as they were before the recall, then they are not being made safer. And the software recall, at least for these people, did absolutely nothing. I fail to see how anyone could argue otherwise.

Did the post-recall complete failure happen while driving or after they were parked? If it happened while parked it wouldn't be a safety issue to NHTSA. For all we know the new software eliminates in-motion failures which is the primary safety concern.

 

[Logal727]

So if I’m 300 miles away from home and on a road trip and get Service Vehicle Soon am I good to just keep driving till I get to a local dealer? (This is a hypothetical situation btw)

 

[Caramel]

Does the NHSTA consider car that is unable to turn back on and drive a safety concern? Even if it's a parking lot and not the side of a freeway, the mach e leaving people stranded, waiting for hours for a tow in various weather conditions, potentially somewhere it wouldn't be safe to leave their car, it's still not "safe." The car bricking itself in a parking lot is less dangerous than it failing while driving, but it's still dangerous. That's what I think people mean when they're saying it's still a safety concern.

 

[JoeDimwit]

So if I’m 300 miles away from home and on a road trip and get Service Vehicle Soon am I good to just keep driving till I get to a local dealer? (This is a hypothetical situation btw)

I have put over 500 miles on mine since I got the service vehicle soon message.

 

[EELinneman]

A new, more accurate, lawsuit

Second Ford Mustang Mach-E Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Battery Defect (fordauthority.com)

 

[Mach-Lee]

So if I’m 300 miles away from home and on a road trip and get Service Vehicle Soon am I good to just keep driving till I get to a local dealer? (This is a hypothetical situation btw)

Yes. I would avoid high-power DCFC though.

Does the NHSTA consider car that is unable to turn back on and drive a safety concern? Even if it's a parking lot and not the side of a freeway, the mach e leaving people stranded, waiting for hours for a tow in various weather conditions, potentially somewhere it wouldn't be safe to leave their car, it's still not "safe." The car bricking itself in a parking lot is less dangerous than it failing while driving, but it's still dangerous. That's what I think people mean when they're saying it's still a safety concern.

NHTSA doesn’t, owners might.

 

[DevSecOps]

The Bolt fires are a much more serious issue than what we're experiencing. NHTSA is going to treat that much more strictly since it involves major properly damage or death.

Can you point to something that says the NHTSA has a grading system for "safety recalls"? I don't think they have such a thing and I don't think they classify "safety" recalls based on death counts.

This is deemed a safety recall. Not by me, but by the NHTSA:

If you want an analogy that's not death related here goes - When I was helping design cloud infrastructure I don't think I would have kept my job if I told Larry Ellis: "We found a security vulnerability that could expose client data to bad actors. We think we patched it 50% so they might still get some, but let's hope not".

They are telling us that this "safety" issue is resolved, or fixed and that it will (and I quote) "prevent damage to the contactor". It's obviously not. I don't see any way to defend that. It honestly amazes me that people think it's resolved. If they have satisfied the NHTSA by saying we will glide them into a dealer before it happens - well that's BS too because now we see that's not always working.

But a reasonable person would expect you to get the recall done first before complaining.

Then call me unreasonable. Having the software or not doesn't make me any more or less informed. I have spent hours upon hours on this forum over the last week helping people with failures. My goal is to help fellow members and there's many here that will vouch for that. My goal has never been, and never will be, to defend Ford. I call it how it is and that doesn't mean I hate Ford - I own a Ford like almost everyone here. 2 lawsuits have been filed now. There's plenty of legal experts who see it the same way many of us do.

Does the NHSTA consider car that is unable to turn back on and drive a safety concern?

As I said at the very top - this recall, like it or not, is classified as a safety recall. What you, me or anyone else wants to classify it as doesn't matter. Personally, I don't think it's a safety issue myself. I think it's a huge pain-in-the-ass, but it doesn't matter what I think.

So if I’m 300 miles away from home and on a road trip and get Service Vehicle Soon am I good to just keep driving till I get to a local dealer? (This is a hypothetical situation btw)

This is one of the main reasons that I'm so against the recall. I've said this many times. I drive a lot. I just had my 20k done today and I have owned the car for 9 months. I am far away from home very often and the last thing I want is ANY kind of HVBJB failure. I got a quote today for replacement and I'm going to pay to have it replaced.

 

[Logal727]

Yes. I would avoid high-power DCFC though

Ugh, dang, that would be difficult

Sponsored