Is Ford now doing HVBJB replacement for cars that have not failed?

[mwtechy]

Does anyone yet have any real evidence that the newer part is any "beefier" than the prior version? They can increase the part number for any number of reasons. Some at dealers I've seen claim they can't see a difference between the parts either. We also, last I checked have no real specs on the parts in question only specs on parts in the same category which is not the same thing. It's quite possible we haven't seen as many failures from cars starting on that production build date in May due to them installing the protective software at that time on those cars limiting power output when needed while prior damaged parts continued to degrade. Who has actual real numbers of differences between these part numbers because implying all prior cars before that date are somehow "lemmonish" due to some less "beefier" part is rather a speculative statement IMO. We've all heard the rumors but I haven't seen any actual real differences yet. Does anyone here have that?

TLDR: How is the new part "beefier" and what are real world spec differences between old vs new?

Sponsored

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Does anyone yet have any real evidence that the newer part is any "beefier" than the prior version? They can increase the part number for any number of reasons. Some at dealers I've seen claim they can't see a difference between the parts either. We also, last I checked have no real specs on the parts in question only specs on parts in the same category which is not the same thing. It's quite possible we haven't seen as many failures from cars starting on that production build date in May due to them installing the protective software at that time on those cars limiting power output when needed while prior damaged parts continued to degrade. Who has actual real numbers of differences between these part numbers because implying all prior cars before that date are somehow "lemmonish" due to some less "beefier" part is rather a speculative statement IMO. We've all heard the rumors but I haven't seen any actual real differences yet. Does anyone here have that?

TLDR: How is the new part "beefier" and what are real world spec differences between old vs new?

I think it comes down to outcome. There has only been 2 failure after replacement with the updated part. One of those failure occurred right away, so that was probably a bad part.

Before the recall, there were multiple people with repeated failures after HVBJB replacement.

So based on that, it was be resealable to conclude that the new part works better. But only time will tell if it will hold up. So far, so good.

 

[mwtechy]

I think it comes down to outcome. There has only been 2 failure after replacement with the updated part. One of those failure occurred right away, so that was probably a bad part.

Before the recall, there were multiple people with repeated failures after HVBJB replacement.

So based on that, it was be resealable to conclude that the new part works better. But only time will tell if it will hold up. So far, so good.

It's also reasonable to assume that simply means their software is doing exactly what they said it would.

It comes down to this for me, no where anywhere is there any official statement from ford or from the manufacturer of the part stating that this new version of the part is somehow "beefier". When I first came to this forum I read one guy stating he bought four MMEs just for the tax write off so it's not like people here don't have the money to figure this out for themselves. There are plenty of 3rd parties you can go to to answer this question without a doubt if it is "beefier". However continually bouncing around rumors and speculation online doesn't usually say hold up in a court of law let alone reality. Look I love this forum it gives me tons of info about my car I didn't know and it saved my ass more than once but it is still just an online forum and can turn into an echo chamber. To me this has been resolved by Ford with their software patch and prior defective parts were due to poor QA which this part is hardly the only one that suffered from that during the pandemic. Until someone points me to actual data showing the difference or Ford makes some sort of statement...speculation online is only going to serve to lower the resale value of a perfectly fine car.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

It's also reasonable to assume that simply means their software is doing exactly what they said it would.

No, not according to the data. If anything, once the OTA recall software went live, we saw a huge spike in HVBJB failure. What that implies is that there are a ton of time HVBJB time bombs out there. The software doesn't do anything other than to warn people that their HVBJB is about to fail.

 

[mwtechy]

No, not according to the data. If anything, once the OTA recall software went live, we saw a huge spike in HVBJB failure. What that implies is that there are a ton of time HVBJB time bombs out there. The software doesn't do anything other than to warn people that their HVBJB is about to fail.

This is Ford's official statement found here https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V412-9551.PDF it could be read multiple ways because it's intentionally vague IMO. One way to read this is they realized WOT and/or DCFC combined was part of the issue so they simply limited power to prevent damage regardless if the part was defective to begin with or not.

"How Remedy Component Differs from Recalled Component : The updated SOBDMC software (LJ98-14G069-AXG, LJ98-14G069-AZG, LJ98-14G069-BBG, LJ98-14G069-BDG) will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. The updated BECM software (NJ98-14C197-AE, NJ98-14C197-BD) will monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage."

"Identify How/When Recall Condition was Corrected in Production : The updated SOBDMC software and BECM software was introduced into production on May 25, 2022."

Also apparently over 200 cars never got the recall software so it's not like all of them have been protected. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLQRT-22V412-3607.PDF

 

[Ghost Ryder]

This is Ford's official statement found here https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V412-9551.PDF it could be read multiple ways because it's intentionally vague IMO. One way to read this is they realized WOT and/or DCFC combined was part of the issue so they simply limited power to prevent damage regardless if the part was defective to begin with or not.

"How Remedy Component Differs from Recalled Component : The updated SOBDMC software (LJ98-14G069-AXG, LJ98-14G069-AZG, LJ98-14G069-BBG, LJ98-14G069-BDG) will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. The updated BECM software (NJ98-14C197-AE, NJ98-14C197-BD) will monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage."

"Identify How/When Recall Condition was Corrected in Production : The updated SOBDMC software and BECM software was introduced into production on May 25, 2022."

Also apparently over 200 cars never got the recall software so it's not like all of them have been protected. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLQRT-22V412-3607.PDF

I'm sure way over 200 cars have not gotten the recall. I'm still waiting for my OTA recall update.

As far as limiting power, it's only after damage has been done. This is because the HVBJB does not have a temp sensor. The software measure resistance. From that, the software infers that there is damage to the contactor and will reduce power and issue a SSN message, trying to limit additional damage giving the owner enough time to limp the car to the dealership.

The OTA does nothing to prevent the failure in the first place.

 

[mwtechy]

I'm sure way over 200 cars have not gotten the recall. I'm still waiting for my OTA recall update.

As far as limiting power, it's only after damage has been done. This is because the HVBJB does not have a temp sensor. The software measure resistance. From that, the software infers that there is damage to the contactor and will reduce power and issue a SSN message, trying to limit additional damage giving the owner enough time to limp the car to the dealership.

The OTA does nothing to prevent the failure in the first place.

So you're saying they lied to regulators? " will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. "

 

[Ghost Ryder]

So you're saying they lied to regulators? " will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. "

There's a lot of nuance in the wording. I'm sure what they submitted to the regulators is more detailed than what is released to the public. But fact remains, there is no temp sensors in the HVBJB so the temp can not be directly measured. The software is only responding to the increase in resistance of the contactors. Once resistance increased, the damage has already been done.

 

[mwtechy]

There's a lot of nuance in the wording. I'm sure what they submitted to the regulators is more detailed than what is released to the public. But fact remains, there is no temp sensors in the HVBJB so the temp can not be directly measured. The software is only responding to the increase in resistance of the contactors. Once resistance increased, the damage has already been done.

So now you've drifted into speculation on what internal documents were exchanged between Ford and NHTSA. 50k cars is no small #. If what even a fraction of what this forum is telling us to believe, there will be far more failures. So it's not like this can't be proven out. Either we sit and wait or someone goes and tests this part. But continually fretting over it and telling everyone not affected by this issue yet that their car is waiting to crap out on them any second if it was built before a certain date is probably not the best approach to take here....heck it might even cause several people to file useless lawsuits that get thrown out of court...I've read this stuff almost a year now. At some point someone needs to accept the software patch was an actual fix and there is no noticeable decrease in performance because of it. But if that's not for you...feel free to fret on.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

So now you've drifted into speculation on what internal documents were exchanged between Ford and NHTSA. 50k cars is no small #. If what even a fraction of what this forum is telling us to believe, there will be far more failures. So it's not like this can't be proven out. Either we sit and wait or someone goes and tests this part. But continually fretting over it and telling everyone not affected by this issue yet that their car is waiting to crap out on them any second if it was built before a certain date is probably not the best approach to take here....heck it might even cause several people to file useless lawsuits that get thrown out of court...I've read this stuff almost a year now. At some point someone needs to accept the software patch was an actual fix and there is no noticeable decrease in performance because of it. But if that's not for you...feel free to fret on.

As far as the #of total failure, other than Ford, who else have that data? I don't think Ford has released that info. So we can only speculate base on what's reported on this forum. And there continue to have daily reports of failures. Most of which has had the OTA "fix"

I don't think there's a debate whether there was a performance reduction (There isn't one, not until you get the SVS message.)

As far as the software patch being an actual fix, how can you say that if there continue to be HVBJB failure after people got the patch? If it was an actual fix, you wouldn't expect any failures.

 

[dtbaker61]

... 50k cars is no small #..... telling everyone not affected by this issue yet that their car is waiting to crap out on them any second if it was built before a certain date

thats what a real Recall is in response to; to identify the known number of HVBJB (version 1) built with undersized contactors and bus bars.

The software 'recall' update is designed to prevent contactor damage from progressing from SVS status to SSN by displaying an Alert, and clamping down on max output power in an effort to prevent further internal damage and complete failure. The software recall has proven 'fairly effective' in preventing progression to SSN, but not 100%.

50,000 vehicles affected is a lot less than any of the airbag recalls for instance. How would you feel if you had an active airbag recall, because it could injure you if you were in an accident, and the manufacturer said 'we'll replace it for free with a new airbag AFTER you have an accident.'

The re-designed HVBJB (new part numbers) are different, and have not failed after being installed correctly. New parts are the real fix. If your MME is one of 50k with original v1 HVBJB it has been identified as eligible for recall because it is known likely to fail, and the fix is to replace it. The software is just a 'soft Alert' to give you time to get to the dealer, verify code, order part, and schedule replacement.

we can argue about whether that's the right or wrong way to roll out a recall, but that is up to Ford... all we can do is let Ford know that we would be happier if they treated this like a real recall and enabled scheduled replacements BEFORE actual failures occur.... because of the potentially dangerous consequences of getting stranded in bad weather or unsafe locations. NHTSA apparently thinks the risk of injury and death to be low enough to allow Ford to handle it as a two-step process rather than require a 'regular recall'.

The whole point of this thread is to confirm to the OP that 'no, Ford is still not allowing dealers to schedule replacement until the HVBJB fails and codes are verified'.

 

[kennethjk]

thats what a real Recall is in response to; to identify the known number of HVBJB (version 1) built with undersized contactors and bus bars.

The software 'recall' update is designed to prevent contactor damage from progressing from SVS status to SSN by displaying an Alert, and clamping down on max output power in an effort to prevent further internal damage and complete failure. The software recall has proven 'fairly effective' in preventing progression to SSN, but not 100%.

50,000 vehicles affected is a lot less than any of the airbag recalls for instance. How would you feel if you had an active airbag recall, because it could injure you if you were in an accident, and the manufacturer said 'we'll replace it for free with a new airbag AFTER you have an accident.'

The re-designed HVBJB (new part numbers) are different, and have not failed after being installed correctly. New parts are the real fix. If your MME is one of 50k with original v1 HVBJB it has been identified as eligible for recall because it is known likely to fail, and the fix is to replace it. The software is just a 'soft Alert' to give you time to get to the dealer, verify code, order part, and schedule replacement.

we can argue about whether that's the right or wrong way to roll out a recall, but that is up to Ford... all we can do is let Ford know that we would be happier if they treated this like a real recall and enabled scheduled replacements BEFORE actual failures occur.... because of the potentially dangerous consequences of getting stranded in bad weather or unsafe locations. NHTSA apparently thinks the risk of injury and death to be low enough to allow Ford to handle it as a two-step process rather than require a 'regular recall'.

The whole point of this thread is to confirm to the OP that 'no, Ford is still not allowing dealers to schedule replacement until the HVBJB fails and codes are verified'.

Correct

I've been told by my dealer if I want to have it done on my dime it’s $3k. Until code diagnostics no warranty work

 

[mwtechy]

My point is though no where has Ford or the manufacturer of the part claimed the new part is any "beefier". No one on this forum or anywhere has been able to prove that. Official statements from Ford claims the software is not just to let you limp home but is a fix to prevent damage entirely. Which they could easily do if some damage was caused by repeated WOT and DCFC as those events are very easily recordible regardless of what temp the contactor is. Lots and lots of posts on this forum on this subject are speculative going on with next to no data. Provide data of actual differences, provide official statements...then maybe I'll begin to believe what is being stated here. I'm hardly the one you need to convince though. You've certainly convinced plenty of other owners of the car and some have even rushed to file lawsuits over it but quickly backed out once they realized they also had no real data to support these claims. Provide real data and the tune of Ford will change immediately cause that real data can also support a lawsuit.

 

[kennethjk]

My point is though no where has Ford or the manufacturer of the part claimed the new part is any "beefier". No one on this forum or anywhere has been able to prove that. Official statements from Ford claims the software is not just to let you limp home but is a fix to prevent damage entirely. Which they could easily do if some damage was caused by repeated WOT and DCFC as those events are very easily recordible regardless of what temp the contactor is. Lots and lots of posts on this forum on this subject are speculative going on with next to no data. Provide data of actual differences, provide official statements...then maybe I'll begin to believe what is being stated here. I'm hardly the one you need to convince though. You've certainly convinced plenty of other owners of the car and some have even rushed to file lawsuits over it but quickly backed out once they realized they also had no real data to support these claims. Provide real data and the tune of Ford will change immediately cause that real data can also support a lawsuit.

So bottom line is, you believe Ford yet they haven’t given you any data points to prove what they say.

People on this forum have had their cars bricked even after the software fix.

Not sure why you have so much faith in ford . They said the part is not robust. They have one of, if not the highest claims reserve in the industry. Sorry if I am skeptical.

If Ford said the original part was not robust enough and now has new parts do you think they didn’t improve it ?

It’s just cheaper for Ford to string this out.

Your belief in Ford is quite remarkable

 

[mwtechy]

So bottom line is, you believe Ford yet they haven’t given you any data points to prove what they say.

People on this forum have had their cars bricked even after the software fix.

Not sure why you have so much faith in ford . They said the part is not robust. They have one of, if not the highest claims reserve in the industry. Sorry if I am skeptical.

If Ford said the original part was not robust enough and now has new parts do you think they didn’t improve it ?

It’s just cheaper for Ford to string this out.

Your belief in Ford is quite remarkable

If the new part was the fix you claim why not just state that in the recall notice? Why only reference the software in the recall notice regarding production builds? If the part fails, of course they have to replace it so the fact that many cars have had this part replaced doesn't tell you a ton of things. Why only reference the components that install the software in the recall notice? Ford has provided plenty data so far. 200 cars not patched, 286 for over a year and a half of 50k cars is not a substantial problem before the recall was even provided. The assumption, even by people on this forum is that the software will detect prior damaged contactors and there will be an increase in repairs before that number goes down. This would again imply the software is doing its job. You also failed to recall this is not the first time the part number has changed. Did they try to fix this multiple times before but failed or something? What I believe is if Ford lies to its customers and to regulatory oversight they will be in so much worse position finacially that it simply doesn't make sense to even risk it. I work in a heavily regulated industry in finance on the tech side and regulatory issues are at the forefront of everything we do. To ignore them or to worse lie to them can spell the end of a company. There are zero reasons for Ford to lie here and only an idiot in Ford's corp structure would believe the truth wouldn't eventually come out. Emails are recorded and retained for a reason.

This is from the report. If you can provide better information than this or actual difference between the new vs old part then please do so.

"Between July 13, 2021 and May 31, 2022, there have been 286 warranty claims in North America related to an open or welded contactor."

"is not robust to the heat generated during DC fast charging and multiple wide open pedal events."

Sponsored