SSM 51866 - Overheated Charge Port, DTC P0E5F Stored In The SOBDM

[Mach-Lee]

SSM 51866 2021-2023 Mustang Mach-E - Charge Status Indicator Blinking Red With DTC P0E5F Stored In The SOBDM

Some 2021-2023 Mustang Mach-E vehicles may exhibit an exterior charge status indicator blinking red with diagnostic trouble code (DTC) P0E5F stored in the secondary on-board diagnostic control module A (SOBDM) and the high voltage battery cannot be charged using a 48-amp AC level 2 charger. The vehicle may also exhibit in the next key cycle a Service Soon message in the instrument panel cluster (IPC) and a FordPass warning message. This may be due to an excessive charge port temperature. The concern may not be present when using a 32-amp or lower AC level 2 charger. To correct this condition, remove and replace the charge port. Refer to Workshop Manual (WSM) Section, 414-03B. For claiming, use causal part 14A303 and applicable labor times in Section 10 of the Service Labor Time Standards (SLTS) Manual.

----End SSM----

A faulty charge port can cause an overheat condition, P0E5F will be set when the charge port reaches 105ºC. The charge port should be replaced to fix this level of overheating. Heat is proportional to charge current, so it may only overheat at 48A charge rate, but not 32A.

NOTE: As of this writing, P0E5F (105ºC) will effectively not be set with the current SOBDM software, which limits charge port temp to 80ºC through a derating strategy. 105ºC will never be reached. A vehicle with a defective charge port will only experience a reduced charge rate, with no codes set (silent failure). Therefore I don't see this SSM being very helpful unless you are somehow still on the old SOBDM software that allowed overheat all the way to the 105ºC cutoff threshold.

Sponsored

 

[Murse-In-Airy]

Well, it’s a start. At least they’re admitting there is a problem. That’s exactly what was happening to my wife’s car and the charge port was replaced. Keep in mind that this started in December in North NY on a week where ambient temps were in the mid 40’s Fahrenheit. And I was only charging at 40 amps, not 48 amps.
However with the new software, I get the derating still. So I’m not sure if replacing the charge port helped solve anything at all.

 

[kltye]

Any idea why this is "suddenly" a problem? I had been charging at 48A for over 1.5 years before the code was thrown. And presumably the car was tested to charge at 48A before it was released...

 

[Maquis]

So basically, they updated the SOBDM before releasing this SSM in order to minimize the number of cars that would require warranty replacement of the charge port. There‘s likely a lot of people who never even look at their charge rate and whose use case is such they don’t realize it’s taking longer to charge.

Shenanigans, I say!

 

[WildfireOne]

Fully concur with the shenanigans comment.

This "update" would seem to kill level 2 charging at greater than 32A for whoever has a charge port that can overheat... and that could be anyone from a tiny few owners to, well, everyone. (Sucks if you bought the fancy Ford charger that can do 48A but are now stuck at the speed of the charger that came free with the car, right?).

This is a cost mitigation strategy for Dearborn, but at the expense of those of us who bought their product (even partly) on the basis of their now false/retracted/deprecated/inaccurate claims.

I had no attachment, no relationship to the Ford brand prior to this purchase. This is just another brick added by Ford in what is more likely a wall than a bridge.

 

[kennethjk]

So basically, they updated the SOBDM before releasing this SSM in order to minimize the number of cars that would require warranty replacement of the charge port. There‘s likely a lot of people who never even look at their charge rate and whose use case is such they don’t realize it’s taking longer to charge.

Shenanigans, I say!

Sorry to say but I will say it again, another HVBJB type of fix, shenanigans for sure. No code, no fix and as you say most people won’t even know.

we shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[kennethjk]

Well, it’s a start. At least they’re admitting there is a problem. That’s exactly what was happening to my wife’s car and the charge port was replaced. Keep in mind that this started in December in North NY on a week where ambient temps were in the mid 40’s Fahrenheit. And I was only charging at 40 amps, not 48 amps.
However with the new software, I get the derating still. So I’m not sure if replacing the charge port helped solve anything at all.

Guess they have learned from the HVBJB, they can get away with this.

 

[BigMach-E]

Guess they have learned from the HVBJB, they can get away with this.

Well, maybe. But they might also have people looking elsewhere for their next vehicle.

Listen, I like Ford. I never owned one until the MME. I think they do a lot of things right. But sweeping things under the rug doesn’t inspire confidence.

That being said, I use the FMC exclusively, so I don’t think this affects me. And, in general, speed of home charging, as long as it is fast enough to do 10-85 overnight, doesn’t matter to me. Others may be different.

 

[kennethjk]

Well, maybe. But they might also have people looking elsewhere for their next vehicle.

Listen, I like Ford. I never owned one until the MME. I think they do a lot of things right. But sweeping things under the rug doesn’t inspire confidence.

You are correct because I am the one looking at other vehicles. They really lost me completely if this is another case of the HVBJB.

I will say this, maybe it’s a temp fix because they really don’t know what the fix is, same as HVBJB.

please just give me information . I understand everything can’t be fixed immediately but don’t leave me in the dark.

 

[WildfireOne]

I already had my charge port replaced once (due to overheating, probably, as I observed that the hosel of my charger was damn hot right before the port failed).

The parallel between the HVBJB "fix" and the charge port "fix" is completely and unambiguously equivalent: a software bandaid that cripples the vehicle's intended performance to mitigate the cost of replacing an inadequate hardware component.

I get it. It's corporate prudence. Every company finding themselves in this situation would probably do the same for their investors. Potentially millions of dollars spent replacing hardware under warranty vs. software patch that might fly beneath most people's radar? Not even a close call.

The only way to call Dearborn to account is to make it more expensive for Ford to do their software shenanigans than it is to make our vehicles whole with better hardware.

Unfortunately, that means litigation. Class action lawsuits. Starting an FTC investigation for fraudulent advertising. It's a headache and a half.

The only way out is to have had better hardware engineering in the first place.
Clearly, Ford is not the company for that.
"Quality is job 1" is only a marketing slogan.

So I keep muttering, "First Ford, last Ford..."

 

[azerik]

I’m in the no codes group. I bought a 48amp charger because bigger badttery: I could be fe just stared with my 32 amp 10 yr old ESVE

is this a thing for The Lightning as well?

 

[HuntingPudel]

I have had a 32A EVSE in my garage for a decade. I don’t see myself replacing it (and rewiring from 8awg to 6awg for a bigger unit) soon. So, for the near future I won’t even find out if my hardware may be subject to this issue. ?‍?

Sponsored