NHTSA investigating 2022 Mach-E HVBJB recall (high voltage battery main contactors)

[Secret Sauce]

I think you're totally misunderstanding the investigation.

It pretty clearly says that 12 vehicles got the recall (software updated) and then the HVBJB failed. Therefore, was the recall (software updated to prevent failure) adequate?

I suspect the answer will be no, because a lot more than 12 failed.

No, I'm completely understanding it. The "fix" is apparently supposed to prevent the car from becoming undriveable if the connector overheats. Here is the pertinent language:

An overheated contactor that opens while driving may result in an immediate loss of motive power without re-engagement, increasing the risk of a crash.

Preventing "a loss of motive power" was the purpose of the software. Owners who experienced the "reduced power" mode have had their HVBJB replaced because it has effectively failed.

So nobody is saying the software was adequate. Far from it. I'm saying I suspect Ford will ultimately have to replace all of them if the NTSB mades this finding as well.

Sponsored

 

[MyLittlePony2022]

I had my HVBJB fail on the freeway while I was passing someone. Not full throttle and not during a unsafe situation, like passing on a two lane road. I am glad that Ford had the software in place. It did diminish my power but having the car brick on the freeway would have been much worse if not dangerous. I was able to get the car home and then to the dealer. That alone saved the hassle of trying to get a car towed off the freeway, especially from the median.

I am glad that Ford did the software, but I do agree that it is simply a means to prevent a very bad situation. My HVBJB was replaced and has yet to fail. Based on others having theirs fail, the replacement seems to not be the best and final solution. Hopefully, the NHTSA investigation will result in Ford proving a new and upgraded HVBJB. However, that may not be what happens. The current replacement may be what Ford is required/agrees to install. I also hope that if Ford is forced to do an improved HVBJB that they get rid of that damn 5 second issue. Of course, I also hope for world peace and eliminating hunger. ?

 

[Secret Sauce]

Except it does not work as described and actually prevent further damage. It basically just turns it into a ticking time bomb.

Like it or not, it probably does that much because the affected cars usually don't lose "motive power," they go into a low-power mode so it can still be driven. But the part has still failed and has to be replaced to be restored to full operation. I believe Ford is ultimately going to have to replace all of these parts, even if the failure rate is low because apparently the reason some fail and others don't isn't predictable so they will simply have to design a more robust replacement part. Whether this investigation drives Ford towards that solution, I don't know, but it sure seems to push them further in that direction.

 

[Neil4Real]

I had my HVBJB fail on the freeway while I was passing someone. Not full throttle and not during a unsafe situation, like passing on a two lane road. I am glad that Ford had the software in place. It did diminish my power but having the car brick on the freeway would have been much worse if not dangerous. I was able to get the car home and then to the dealer. That alone saved the hassle of trying to get a car towed off the freeway, especially from the median.

I am glad that Ford did the software, but I do agree that it is simply a means to prevent a very bad situation. My HVBJB was replaced and has yet to fail. Based on others having theirs fail, the replacement seems to not be the best and final solution. Hopefully, the NHTSA investigation will result in Ford proving a new and upgraded HVBJB. However, that may not be what happens. The current replacement may be what Ford is required/agrees to install. I also hope that if Ford is forced to do an improved HVBJB that they get rid of that damn 5 second issue. Of course, I also hope for world peace and eliminating hunger. ?

I was happy with the software as a temporary solution until they can get everyone's HVBJB replaced (with a truly revised part...). But leaving the software update as the solution is wildly inadequate and a horribe look. Now they have the PR from this with MMEs and other EVs tanking in resale value due to the current economy and Teslas just cutting prices nonstop. You constantly hear about people on hear posting how their dealer has a bunch of new MMEs on the lot they can't sell and now this surfaces again? Come on. Ford should have just handled this properly the first time.

 

[Neil4Real]

Like it or not, it probably does that much because the affected cars usually don't lose "motive power," they go into a low-power mode so it can still be driven. But the part has still failed and has to be replaced to be restored to full operation. I believe Ford is ultimately going to have to replace all of these parts, even if the failure rate is low because apparently the reason some fail and others don't isn't predictable so they will simply have to design a more robust replacement part. Whether this investigation drives Ford towards that solution, I don't know, but it sure seems to push them further in that direction.

Yes, it does do that initially. Your car is then a ticking time bomb until it fully fails. Some dealers cannot get you in for weeks or you might be like @DevSecOps out on a road trip and need to get home, forcing you to drive more and not able to just drop it off at your dealer right away. Your car can then fully fail where it does lose motive power and not be driveable. It does not prevent a failure, only warns you of it.

 

[VindictivePantz]

I think that is why engineering was so eager to have me run my routes with the data tracker. They wanted to see my exact conditions and roads that lead to failures of even the revised parts.

I am confident that is what is happening now, and I have a feeling my data is really only the starting point for their testing. I actually would not be surprised if I start seeing Ford EV's with manufacture plates out in my neck of the woods in the near future. Like I said in previous threads, I came away with the impression the engineering team is taking this issue very seriously and are working on updates.

To your point, you probably have a few more hills than I do here in Illinois.

I'm at 32k miles in a Job 1 and had a scare that turned out to be another software issue.

I've DCFC'd a reasonable amount (only for trips, some during hot weather), but have not regularly WOT'd, but do hammer on it a few times a week because it's an EV, dammit.

I am glad that the NHTSA is plugged-in, and hope that Ford (and other manufacturers) learn how to improve on what's out there, and future parts as well.

If I were Ford, and the NHTSA "encouraged" a recall, I would use it as an opportunity to increase trained EV techs in their dealer network. Early on, it would be somewhat risky like getting your haircut at a barber's school, but with the right program put in-place, they could turn it into a win for themselves and consumers.

 

[Secret Sauce]

Yes, it does do that initially. Your car is then a ticking time bomb until it fully fails. Some dealers cannot get you in for weeks or you might be like @DevSecOps out on a road trip and need to get home, forcing you to drive more and not able to just drop it off at your dealer right away. Your car can then fully fail where it does lose motive power and not be driveable. It does not prevent a failure, only warns you of it.

Right. As I said, if you get the low power mode warning, the part has effectively failed and you're now driving on borrowed time. I've been through enough recalls with enough cars to know this "ticking time bomb" situation comes with every recall. They are a huge pain in the backside, at best. I see Ford as having to proactively replace all of these parts, no matter how many of them are subject to failure under certain poorly understood conditions. The NHTSA might give them no better options, similar to what happened to GM.

 

[astrorob]

i wonder what the backstory here is. i think i read a recent profile of buttiegieg in which they said he drives an MME. maybe he went thru this debacle, who knows.

i'm glad to hear the government is calling BS on this whole thing, but the question remains if those of us with '23 models and the supposedly enhanced part will eventually see a redesigned part.

 

[heisnuts]

To your point, you probably have a few more hills than I do here in Illinois.

I'm at 32k miles in a Job 1 and had a scare that turned out to be another software issue.

I've DCFC'd a reasonable amount (only for trips, some during hot weather), but have not regularly WOT'd, but do hammer on it a few times a week because it's an EV, dammit.

I am glad that the NHTSA is plugged-in, and hope that Ford (and other manufacturers) learn how to improve on what's out there, and future parts as well.

If I were Ford, and the NHTSA "encouraged" a recall, I would use it as an opportunity to increase trained EV techs in their dealer network. Early on, it would be somewhat risky like getting your haircut at a barber's school, but with the right program put in-place, they could turn it into a win for themselves and consumers.

The dealer network is the weak link. Ford has little control over its dealers when it comes to personnel matters. The recruiting, training and equipment is all in the dealer's hands and if they don't have sufficient people/tools there is not much Ford can do other than say you are not EV certified.

Although I know a lot of dealers signed up to be EV certified, I wonder how many are actually going to go through the great expense of installing all the charging infrastructure, among all the other requirements, to become EV certified. With the current fall off in sales, I would not be surprised if a lot of Ford dealers reconsider their approval of spending the money needed to be EV certified.

 

[DaMeatMan]

"Up to" 150kw. Always be wary of that old advertising trick. Also, I think it is the battery itself that may be the bottleneck, not necessarily the other components.

The battery limits are one thing and i totally get that, particularly when protecting cycle life longevity, but if you read about the failure modes listed in the complaints being investigated by NHTSA, you'll see that the HVBJB can and (has failed during DC fast charging).

Bottom line, if DC fast charging or just driving the vehicle normally can kill the HVBJB, then you've got a very obvious hardware design flaw that MUST be fixed.

 

[VindictivePantz]

The dealer network is the weak link. Ford has little control over its dealers when it comes to personnel matters. The recruiting, training and equipment is all in the dealer's hands and if they don't have sufficient people/tools there is not much Ford can do other than say you are not EV certified.

Yep...I am not sure how Audi does it (other than charging a lot of money for fancy Volkswagens, and I am an Audi owner for 15+ years,) but they have direct lines back to Germany for issues with video and diag equipment for real-time training + troubleshooting + repair, so even if a tech gets in over their skis, they have options for help.

Ford should consider something similar for EVs, but influence and/or incenting dealers to jump-in is tough (as discussed when Ford outlined the rules for EV participation.)

If the laws would allow it, Ford might be better off spinning up small EV-only service centers (think the size of an oil change shop) independent of the dealer network, investing in trade schools and retraining programs and make the dealers compete with the solution. There'd be an investment, but higher control over quality, improvement in customer experience (if it was run tightly,) and it would encourage the market to think about how to service these batteries on wheels more effectively.

The dealership market is ready for disruption, and generationally, "the kids" are not going to understand or tolerate the usual industry excuses and ways of service. The first one to really figure this out will own the market for a long time. Tesla is trying, but from everything I've heard (subjectively,) their service experience is terrible.

Improvement will happen, and I hope that Ford (selfishly) learns and executes faster than others.

 

[DaMeatMan]

I had my HVBJB fail on the freeway while I was passing someone. Not full throttle and not during a unsafe situation, like passing on a two lane road. I am glad that Ford had the software in place. It did diminish my power but having the car brick on the freeway would have been much worse if not dangerous. I was able to get the car home and then to the dealer. That alone saved the hassle of trying to get a car towed off the freeway, especially from the median.

I am glad that Ford did the software, but I do agree that it is simply a means to prevent a very bad situation. My HVBJB was replaced and has yet to fail. Based on others having theirs fail, the replacement seems to not be the best and final solution. Hopefully, the NHTSA investigation will result in Ford proving a new and upgraded HVBJB. However, that may not be what happens. The current replacement may be what Ford is required/agrees to install. I also hope that if Ford is forced to do an improved HVBJB that they get rid of that damn 5 second issue. Of course, I also hope for world peace and eliminating hunger. ?

That's an entirely different animal your talking about. The 5 second limit is essentially Ford acknowledging the fact that the designed cooling solution is entirely inadequate. With the onboard cooling we are talking about a whole bunch of different components that would be affected like the motor, the battery pack, the inverters etc...

The Ford F150 essentially has double the capacity of the Mach-E’s cooling system, and was designed from the start to allow for the vehicle to handle max loading continuously. Why they didn't think this would also be necessary for the Mach-E is beyond my comprehension. ?

I don't think this can ever really be "fixed" in the Mach-E's currently on the road today, because we're not just talking about 1 part here, we are talking about an entire cooling system that would require a whole new redesign, affecting not only the parts related to cooling, but likely the routing of all other parts around them too, and that just ain't going to happen. Hopefully though best case scenario is they beef it up and fix it for future model years after a design refresh or something.

 

[heisnuts]

Yep...I am not sure how Audi does it (other than charging a lot of money for fancy Volkswagens, and I am an Audi owner for 15+ years,) but they have direct lines back to Germany for issues with video and diag equipment for real-time training + troubleshooting + repair, so even if a tech gets in over their skis, they have options for help.

Ford should consider something similar for EVs, but influence and/or incenting dealers to jump-in is tough (as discussed when Ford outlined the rules for EV participation.)

If the laws would allow it, Ford might be better off spinning up small EV-only service centers (think the size of an oil change shop) independent of the dealer network, investing in trade schools and retraining programs and make the dealers compete with the solution. There'd be an investment, but higher control over quality, improvement in customer experience (if it was run tightly,) and it would encourage the market to think about how to service these batteries on wheels more effectively.

The dealership market is ready for disruption, and generationally, "the kids" are not going to understand or tolerate the usual industry excuses and ways of service. The first one to really figure this out will own the market for a long time. Tesla is trying, but from everything I've heard (subjectively,) their service experience is terrible.

Improvement will happen, and I hope that Ford (selfishly) learns and executes faster than others.

Ford has the support for the dealers like you mention in your Audi example above, but they don't have the ability to force all of their dealers to have X amount of technicians and to make those technicians use the support.

Keep in mind most technicians at the dealer only get paid for the warranty labor times set forth by Ford for the job in question. That does not include time for reaching out to Ford to diagnose and training from Ford for the repair. While the tech can ask for additional time, it is not usually granted and if it is, it is nowhere close to the time the tech has invested waiting on hold and going back and forth with the diagnostics. So although the support might be available, a lot of techs will be hesitant to spend the time on using this support when they can be making hours on another job.

 

[VindictivePantz]

Ford has the support for the dealers like you mention in your Audi example above, but they don't have the ability to force all of their dealers to have X amount of technicians and to make those technicians use the support.

Keep in mind most technicians at the dealer only get paid for the warranty labor times set forth by Ford for the job in question. That does not include time for reaching out to Ford to diagnose and training from Ford for the repair. While the tech can ask for additional time, it is not usually granted and if it is, it is nowhere close to the time the tech has invested waiting on hold and going back and forth with the diagnostics. So although the support might be available, a lot of techs will be hesitant to spend the time on using this support when they can be making hours on another job.

All makes sense, and it's something they have to figure out if they want to play in the EV space. EVs are and will continue to disrupt the entire market. I know Ford gets that, and change is VERY hard, but there's no choice if they want to continue to compete.

If this does turn into a real recall, it'll force the situation - and not all for good as there will be some weaker dealers out there and it'll exacerbate the customer experience issue (which might be another reason they've been hesitant on a recall.)

 

[kennethjk]

Weird that it is 22's. 21's have the same issue. I suspect that if the HVBJB was more easily accessed, it would have been recalled a long time ago.

I think they would have done a real recall if they really knew how to fix this problem, they don’t

Sponsored