Updates on the HVBJB (22S41)

[kennethjk]

Remember, Ford has no customers who are consumers. You cannot purchase a Ford from Ford.
Ford has no interest in Ford owners. This is why there is no customer service at Ford - evidenced by this forum alone, if nowhere else!
The same is true for the political NHTSA (GM's decades long pick-up exploding/fireball gas. tanks are a good example).

This is a good and often helpful forum. But it is no panacea or is it invincible. In this day and age, an expensive product with as many flaws as the MME would motivate someone else to start a similar forum.
Imagine an SVS or an SSN appearing on your screen w/o any previous knowledge.

$2B+/year in advertising spending is a lot of power.
Yes, of course Ford is unequivocally wrong. And Ford's actions, or lack of the same, is unconscionable. No excuses are valid. If Ford stood alone here, it would be notable on a grander scale. That does not make it right. However, that being said, most other manufacturers correct their mistakes willingly when exposed.
We all had our various reasons for purchasing our MMEs. We are pretty much stuck with them and Ford knows it.
"Sell it" is at its best very bad advice. Legally you would have to sell it "as is" and of course that is a red flag. If you chose to sell it w/o disclosing the known HVBJB defect (or any other hidden defect), the buyer is entitled to financial compensation for repair costs from the seller.

I am the last person on this forum to defend Ford (especially because I believe they decided to sell this car probably knowing they had some sort of issue) but they do have customer service agents who have helped or tried to help in some circumstances. I have experienced that when my car had to go into a dealer 1k miles from home on 2 separate problems.

Sponsored

 

[ryano7700]

It blows my mind that Tesla has been building cars for 10 years and, as far as I know, they have no issues comparable to this HVBJB fiasco. Couldn’t/ shouldn’t Ford have just torn down a Tesla and copied it the EV part? The MME has many advantages but getting from point A to B is most important.

 

[Shayne]

It blows my mind that Tesla has been building cars for 10 years and, as far as I know, they have no issues comparable to this HVBJB fiasco. Couldn’t/ shouldn’t Ford have just torn down a Tesla and copied it the EV part? The MME has many advantages but getting from point A to B is most important.

You should go to the tesla forum and post your BS. They have better knowledge to prove that is wrong. Are you actually trying to tell us Elon Musk has ethics?

 

[ryano7700]

You should go to the tesla forum and post your BS. They have better knowledge to prove that is wrong. Are you actually trying to tell us Elon Musk has ethics?

No. I just wonder why my $60+k vehicle broke down at 3,400 miles when it appears the cause of failure has been solved by others.

 

[Shayne]

No. I just wonder why my $60+k vehicle broke down at 3,400 miles when it appears the cause of failure has been solved by others.

I had my 12V die on me 3 times for a year and a half so I hear you. Software fixed that by the car now being smart enough to come on and maintain itself when real cold. Still never buying a Tesla dude. And yes they have a history of HVJB problems. Everyone has problems and none of us are perfect. It is how you fix those problems that is important. This is a MME forum better to just keep Musk out of it.

 

[Regulus7]

My understanding is that for GTs at least, Ford is on their third iteration of the part. Does anyone (@Mach-Lee @benk016 ) know what the specs differences are from the original to the first revision to the latest version?

I am hoping to get my GT back with new HVBJB next week. Does anyone know the part number of these new revisions ? I want to see if I got a new version or not

 

[Shayne]

I am hoping to get my GT back with new HVBJB next week. Does anyone know the part number of these new revisions ? I want to see if I got a new version or not

No you don't. Just done I say it is the new one. It was around May 2022 they changed.

 

[mkhuffman]

I agree Ford PR is really good at suppressing the actual truth. EV bloggers do not want to step on EV's toes? So they say nothing about this EV or good news stories that do not reflect the real truth.

The HVJB and their fix for undersigned hardware with software is of course ridiculous.

The safety issues I have read here due to the HVJB and the lack of care for peoples safety that Ford continues to show is a black mark for me. Many will be looking for a company that has professional engineers that put peoples safety over their bottom line in accordance with their obligation. The engineers that came up with the software HVJB fix should be reported to their associations. Their obligation is to peoples safety first and then their employer/client. Wonder how many engineers with ethics have just quit and walked away. Know you can not have too many real good engineers working for a company that has the policy of putting their bottom line first. That is a snowball going down hill. Don't want to hear the excuse about part shortages anymore as they have built new ones that far exceed the number of the ones they continue to allow on the road that are under designed and unsafe. Don't want to hear that the software helps not create a dangerous condition "most" of the time. Any engineer that supports that I would fire on the spot.

I am sure the decision to deploy software to catch the problem before SSN and to only replace the HVBJB when it fails (or is about to fail) was not an engineering decision. It was a business decision and an economic decision.

Personally I would like Ford to be more proactive and replace my HVBJB now instead of waiting for it to fail, but what if it never fails? The failure rate may be high, but I don't think it is 100%. In fact, I bet it is well below 50%, just based on how many my local dealer has replaced. Time will tell if the business decision was the right one, but I think it was probably the most fiscally responsible one for the company to make.

By the way, my son's Kia died the day before Thanksgiving. Apparently the engine in his car has a known defect and the only fix is to replace the engine. That's right, the entire engine. Basically all of them will fail eventually, and his failed at 130,000 miles. And Kia replaced the engine at no charge to my son.

Should Kia proactively replace every engine of every car they made with that defect? They made a business decision to replace them when they fail. Just like Ford did with the HVBJB.

 

[Shayne]

I am sure the decision to deploy software to catch the problem before SSN and to only replace the HVBJB when it fails (or is about to fail) was not an engineering decision. It was a business decision and an economic decision.

Personally I would like Ford to be more proactive and replace my HVBJB now instead of waiting for it to fail, but what if it never fails? The failure rate may be high, but I don't think it is 100%. In fact, I bet it is well below 50%, just based on how many my local dealer has replaced. Time will tell if the business decision was the right one, but I think it was probably the most fiscally responsible one for the company to make.

By the way, my son's Kia died the day before Thanksgiving. Apparently the engine in his car has a known defect and the only fix is to replace the engine. That's right, the entire engine. Basically all of them will fail eventually, and his failed at 130,000 miles. And Kia replaced the engine at no charge to my son.

Should Kia proactively replace every engine of every car they made with that defect? They made a business decision to replace them when they fail. Just like Ford did with the HVBJB.

If a brand new vehicle could suddenly loose power when passing and could cause a death I think the answer is obvious. After 130,000 miles is not in the same realm.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

The update was more than just warnings. They added time to the resistor bleed circuit to prevent large inrush to the contactors. That cuts down the current flow thru the contacts. The big power flow was charging the capacitors in the motors. Charging them thru a resistor helps to protect the contactors. So basically, it is a permeant solution unless your car had some damage before the update.

I'm going to pretend I know what you said, and just hope you're right.

 

[mkhuffman]

The update was more than just warnings. They added time to the resistor bleed circuit to prevent large inrush to the contactors. That cuts down the current flow thru the contacts. The big power flow was charging the capacitors in the motors. Charging them thru a resistor helps to protect the contactors. So basically, it is a permeant solution unless your car had some damage before the update.

I have not heard that before and I spend way too much time on this forum. Is that detail available elsewhere, and/or how do you know that's what they did?

 

[Maquis]

I have not heard that before and I spend way too much time on this forum. Is that detail available elsewhere, and/or how do you know that's what they did?

The NHTSA official recall document did mention software changes to prevent failure, but not the kind of detail he mentions.

 

[Fixbear]

I have not heard that before and I spend way too much time on this forum. Is that detail available elsewhere, and/or how do you know that's what they did?

There was a schematic and break down of the junction box back about 6 months ago. Sparked my interest, so I dug into the engineering side of it to try and figure out how the current could exceed the contactor rating by a level that would weld or arc. That's when I realized that they had big capacitors in the drive motors to help with surges of throttle. But when the system is fired up, the capacitors have to charge. And that can be over the rating of the contactor. Which is why Ford adding a smaller contactor and a resistor to come in first for the capacitor charging. Yes, the Chinese maker of the contactor did not provide units fully to spec. But also, the system was designed to close to the edge. By adding a few milliseconds to the main contactor delay, they lowered the likelihood of failure a whole lot. Only Ford know how much. And they aren't good at sharing. But if you can tolerate reading boring white papers, the information is out there in pieces. I spent weeks.

 

[Mach-Lee]

There was a schematic and break down of the junction box back about 6 months ago. Sparked my interest, so I dug into the engineering side of it to try and figure out how the current could exceed the contactor rating by a level that would weld or arc. That's when I realized that they had big capacitors in the drive motors to help with surges of throttle. But when the system is fired up, the capacitors have to charge. And that can be over the rating of the contactor. Which is why Ford adding a smaller contactor and a resistor to come in first for the capacitor charging. Yes, the Chinese maker of the contactor did not provide units fully to spec. But also, the system was designed to close to the edge. By adding a few milliseconds to the main contactor delay, they lowered the likelihood of failure a whole lot. Only Ford know how much. And they aren't good at sharing. But if you can tolerate reading boring white papers, the information is out there in pieces. I spent weeks.

You cite no source for your information that the precharge timing has changed. None of us have heard that before. I was the one that analyzed the junction box, the only change I found was a revision of the main contactors. No contactors or resistors were added. Precharge still works the same way as before, as far as I can tell.

 

[Fixbear]

You cite no source for your information that the precharge timing has changed. None of us have heard that before. I was the one that analyzed the junction box, the only change I found was a revision of the main contactors. No contactors or resistors were added. Precharge still works the same way as before, as far as I can tell.

Correct. But by adding just 2 milliseconds to the precharge, You can lower the contactor current 30%. It all depends on the health of the motor capacitor and specs.

Sponsored