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

[three.jax]

A bit more information in the CNBC article - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/21/us-auto-safety-agency-probes-2022-ford-mach-e-ev-recall.html

21 and 22 models are affected.

Sponsored

 

[dtbaker61]

Yeah, I’m not even sure how that’s allowed. When I filed my complaint, it asks the day the safety incident happened.

I also received an email from an investigator today after I filed a complaint yesterday.

The way I look at this situation is that physical recalls are the mechanism to mitigate known safety risks... not just after you've had the problem. i.e. exploding gas tanks got recalled and replaced rather than wait for failures to continue. Granted 'bricking' a car is not a dangerous as an exploding one.... but getting stranded by the side of a road in bad weather COULD result in hypothermia, heat stroke, injury, or possibly death. The whole idea is to catch it BEFORE anybody dies.

- gen 1 HVBJB were proven to fail without notice
- safety RISKs as a result of sudden catastrophic failure COULD include loss of power steering, braking, failure to start in inclement weather, stranding motorist in dangerous or remote areas for long periods of time waiting for a tow.
- the software 'early warning' software was pretty effective at preventing catastrophic failures, but not perfect, and there are probably LOTS of early owners out of the 65,727 at risk that don't even know about the problem or the 'soft-recall' because there never was a 'physical' recall notice allowing removal/replacement to be scheduled before actual failure.

I filed a complaint and consider the 'date of incident' to be the build date my vehicle was put together with an under-designed part. I wanted to eliminate a KNOWN RISK with a scheduled physical recall before having an unexpected failure.

My vehicle registered the 'soft-failure' DTC required to get my HVBJB replaced, and I worked with my local dealership to get it done in a timely manner (first one they did)... but because the issue never got elevated to a real recall, all the other owners in the area cannot get theirs replaced until after failure.

This is why I think more of the 65,727 owners at risk should file a complaint in hopes this issue is elevated to a physical recall with a re-designed part.

 

[Jaeortiz]

So glad to hear. Ford needs to do better by its customers.

 

[awp0]

I'm excited to read this development. I really don't like wondering when my early-2022 MME will hit this problem and how far from home I'll be, especially reading others' stories of how difficult roadside assistance, dealership experience, loaner process and overall repair timeframe is.

I can imagine situations where this is a legit safety issue, but that's not really how I tend think about it. I feel strongly that Ford should have recalled the physical part because it's a time bomb in an expensive car and it's 100% their design mistake. Just own up to it and fix people's cars with a proper recall. Their handling of this impacts brand perception/loyalty (at least for me it does).

 

[KevinS]

I filed a complaint and consider the 'date of incident' to be the build date my vehicle was put together with an under-designed part. I wanted to eliminate a KNOWN RISK with a scheduled physical recall before having an unexpected failure.

My vehicle registered the 'soft-failure' DTC required to get my HVBJB replaced, and I worked with my local dealership to get it done in a timely manner (first one they did)... but because the issue never got elevated to a real recall, all the other owners in the area cannot get theirs replaced until after failure.

This is why I think more of the 65,727 owners at risk should file a complaint in hopes this issue is elevated to a physical recall with a re-designed part.

In my opinion, that's an irresponsible abuse of the NHTSA complaint system as it is intended to function.

 

[Tha_Ape]

In my opinion, that's an irresponsible abuse of the NHTSA complaint system as it is intended to function.

Agree, they need to know about actual failures, they will then determine how bad this ticking time bomb is and make a judgement. Flooding their database with hypotheticals won't help anyone out. It just wastes their time sifting the chaff.

 

[Blue highway]

I thought this might have been a goal with the software, to sort of slowly trickle everyone in rather than do an immediate recall for everyone all at once, but even if that was a goal, it has apparently been ineffective because (1) some SSN failures are apparently occurring quite soon after SVS first appears, and (2) even with a totally fresh HVBJB that has had the new software for its entire existence, this failure keeps happening.

of course the failures keep happening... it does little to address that beyond reducing current when resistance is detected... if the contacts are damaged enough, they will still weld/or open. It's better than nothing, but not a lot better than nothing.

 

[dtbaker61]

In my opinion, that's an irresponsible abuse of the NHTSA complaint system as it is intended to function.

how do YOU think it is supposed to function ?

Your opinion is that injury has to occur before you can file a complaint with NHTSA?

 

[KevinS]

how do YOU think it is supposed to function ?

Your opinion is that injury has to occur before you can file a complaint with NHTSA?

Yes. They need facts and data, not change.org activism - if they are willing to act based on 12 reports, flooding them with speculation is a waste of their time and our taxpayer money.

 

[kennethjk]

Yes. They need facts and data, not change.org activism - if they are willing to act based on 12 reports, flooding them with speculation is a waste of their time and our taxpayer money.

The fact that this part is a POS is not speculation. It’s a fact, Ford told us so.

 

[dtbaker61]

Agree, they need to know about actual failures, they will then determine how bad this ticking time bomb is and make a judgement. Flooding their database with hypotheticals won't help anyone out. It just wastes their time sifting the chaff.

the RISK exists for anyone still having a gen 1 HVBJB in their car. Are you saying the group at risk is not allowed to file a complaint until their vehicle actually fails?

Are YOU in this group at risk?

Have you had your HVBJB fail?

If yes, what was your experience with dealership 'verifying' failure and executing replacement?

If no, are you comfortable knowing that your vehicle *could* brick without warning?

Knowing that a re-designed replacement part exists and could be scheduled before failure if this were elevated to a 'real' recall.... why do you object to others filing complaints to elevate to a real recall to reduce their risk?

 

[dtbaker61]

Yes. They need facts and data, not change.org activism - if they are willing to act based on 12 reports, flooding them with speculation is a waste of their time and our taxpayer money.

Its not 'speculation'.
The facts are that gen 1 HVBJB fail, and *can* fail without warning, and *can* pose serious safety risks when they fail.

 

[Secret Sauce]

About a $200 million recall. However you would subtract the replacement costs of any vehicles that have already had the HVBJB replaced. Unless they would be required to engineer a new HVBJB and replace every one sold to date.

Where'd you come up with that number?

 

[kodiakng]

Hi Jeff! I can look into your Mach-E's reduced power concern on my end. To get started, could you please send a private message over with the name/location of your local Ford dealer and your Mach-E's VIN?

oh... my. read the room FoMoCo, read the room. ?

 

[KevinS]

Its not 'speculation'.
The facts are that gen 1 HVBJB fail, and *can* fail without warning, and *can* pose serious safety risks when they fail.

Accept the fact that I disagree with you on what the NTHSA's intent for their reporting system is, and let's leave this back-and-forth at that.

Sponsored