High Voltage Battery Junction Box (HVBJB) Replacement Recall for recall HVBJB in 30,013 Mach-E

[silverelan]

Excellent information, thanks for posting. The document you attached titled "Part 573 Safety Recall Report" indicates that the remedy will include replacement of the existing HVBJB (Part # LK98-10C666-AB for the GT models) with a new HVBJB (Part # LK98-10C666-AD for the GT models). The new part appears to be the third iteration of the HVBJB, since other previous threads reported that their failed HVBJBs were replaced with Part # LK98-10C666-AC, again for the GT models. So the part # has gone from -AB to -AC to -AD (three versions). The part #'s for the non-GT Extended Range versions appear to follow the same three version pattern.

Further, the document describes the changes in the part as follows: "The updated BEC (NK48-10C666-AC, NK48-10C666-BC, LK98-10C666-AD) design has flat contact surfaces and the groove on the movable contactor surface is removed. "

These changes don't fill me with confidence, as I would like more detail about how this solves the problem and provides a much more robust thermal management system for the contactors. Perhaps the more technical types can weigh in here about their confidence level in these modifications of the part.

This apparent third version of the part also implies that owners whose original failed HVBJB was replaced with the second version of the part will now get the third version of the HVBJB as part of this recall. This is all speculation on my part, so would welcome any other thoughts/opinions as we sort through the mess Ford has made.

Ford, if you are listening , More Information Please!

I’ve seen a couple of instances on Reddit of GTs with the revised HVBJB going bad. I’m glad Ford is coming out with another version of the junction box but I’m not yet convinced it’s adequate.

I got the sense from the original HVBJB design that it was minimal acceptable specifications. Since the revisions are failing too, I am guessing the same philosophy has been applied: What’s the least amount of engineering required to reduce this problem?

If we’re on version #3, then I would really hope Ford changed their approach to: What is it gonna take to make this problem go away forever?

Sponsored

 

[AKgrampy]

We think so. However, that was probably only to the 2nd generation HVBJB. It sounds like they may be developing a 3rd generation.

I just fully read the recall document. It states that the part that will be installed with the recall began being installed in production vehicles May 2022. So it appears even though there may be some new part designation it is not an update of the updated part or Ford misstated things to NHTSA.

 

[AKgrampy]

nice summary actually.... but leaves me wondering what is changed inside the v3 HVBJB.

I think nothing. The report states the hardware we will receive went into production vehicles effective May 25th 2022. After reading the report more fully basically it states the 22S41 did not adequately protect ER and GT models so Ford has to change out their HVBJB but it does adequately protect SR models. Not saying anything else isn’t in the works but that is what the report clearly states and anything else is conjecture of perhaps someone with inside information.

 

[SigSauer]

Once this recall is released, I wonder what that is going to do to the wait times at most dealers for EV work. I also wonder how many dealers will say, "We don't have the staff/tools" for the recall and advise going to another dealer.

Today, my dealer, Krieger Ford, Columbus Ohio, informed me that I had to wait for a letter from Ford before they could schedule the repairs. If done before January 2024. After January they will no longer be an EV approved Ford service dealer and will not work on any MME! Can anyone confirm this? Is Ford aware of this?

 

[kennethjk]

So if the part is the same as those installed in cars produced after 5/25/22 then all ford has done is kicked the can down the road and wasted a lot of everyone’s time Of of course deferred their bottom line hit.

they should have spent the last year producing extra parts so we could have all gotten the newer part by now.

in reality I don’t think they have found the perfect solution to this problem even now, failures will continue at a rate higher than it should be as Ford continues to have a high rate of recalls and warranty claims. Just the way they do business.

 

[JohnFoxeSheets]

Oh Ford?

 

[buzznwood]

So if the part is the same as those installed in cars produced after 5/25/22 then all ford has done is kicked the can down the road and wasted a lot of everyone’s time Of of course deferred their bottom line hit.

they should have spent the last year producing extra parts so we could have all gotten the newer part by now.

in reality I don’t think they have found the perfect solution to this problem even now, failures will continue at a rate higher than it should be as Ford continues to have a high rate of recalls and warranty claims. Just the way they do business.

Yup, typical Ford MO, they haven't learnt anything from the powershift fiasco, along with the multitude of coin that they waste each year on recalls that would have never happened in the fist place had the bean counters not been allowed to pick a part they thought they could get away with.

This will probably just follow the same Ford pattern that they normally do, hope the revised part will keep the warranty replacement costs to a minimum, while the next gen will get a proper engineered solution from the lessons learned, at which point it will then suffer from a different bean counter derived issue. I have a soft spot for Fords but the mach-e will be my last.

 

[AKgrampy]

Today, my dealer, Krieger Ford, Columbus Ohio, informed me that I had to wait for a letter from Ford before they could schedule the repairs. If done before January 2024. After January they will no longer be an EV approved Ford service dealer and will not work on any MME! Can anyone confirm this? Is Ford aware of this?

Your dealer must not have elected to remain an e-dealer. There were certain requirement they had to fulfill and if not could no longer sell or maintain EV’S.

 

[Barno]

To add the pile, we lost ours (SVS) while going ~35mph on town roads. No recent (for weeks) DCFC either.

Same here last week. 2021 AWD ER pre May 21 build. Previous DCFC about 3 months earlier. Only 16 K miles. Wrench and needs service. Drove 10 miles to dealer. At dealer, “awaiting part”. Opened case with BEV team who told me they credit $40 per day for rental. but pushed for loaner and got one ( ICE Corsair).

 

[Mach-Lee]

OK, I had time to review the NHTSA documents for 23V-687 / 23S56 and give my opinions. First, I'd like to remind folks the previous recall was for software only. This time the HVBJB part is actually being recalled. NHTSA only cares about the vehicle losing motive power while driving as a safety issue. If you get a "Stop Safely Now" while parked and become stranded, that is not considered a safety issue by the government.

The only reason this new recall is happening is because 107 Mach-E's that had the 22S41 software recall done later lost motive power while driving. Which proves what we already knew about the software-only remedy not being able to completely prevent catastrophic HVBJB failure.

For the first time, we might know why the original contactors fail. It's because they had rounded contacts inside, and a groove on the movable contact surface. These would have caused a smaller point of contact than a flat surface. Smaller contact area means more heating and greater likelihood of arcing under load. The rounded contacts and groove likely has to do with fritting or arc suppression, but unfortunately the original design appears to have hampered durability. The new contactors are described to use flat contact surfaces, the increased contact surface should reduce heating.

Here's a picture of what burnt contacts look like (this contactor is not from a Mach-E). The bar on the right is what presses down against the round button contacts on the left part to close the circuit.

Both the original and revised contractors are made by TE connectivity in Mexico. They also make the entire HVBJB.

These changes don't fill me with confidence, as I would like more detail about how this solves the problem and provides a much more robust thermal management system for the contactors. Perhaps the more technical types can weigh in here about their confidence level in these modifications of the part.

See above, the flatter contacts should increase surface area of contact and heat dissipation. The new HVBJB still will not have any temperature sensors or a thermal management system. The only difference is the shape of the contacts.

More from the NHTSA document:

The high voltage battery Bussed Electrical Center (BEC) main contactor design and part-to-part variation is not robust to heat generated from multiple wide-open pedal and DC Fast-Charge events.

This is exactly what we saw. There was significant part-to-part variation which meant some cars are fine for 30k miles and others might fail at only 3k with the exact same driving conditions. Heat from multiple wide-open pedal events in a short time seems to be primary cause of thermal damage, but is not always required for failure. My SVS was triggered by several pedal events in a row. Prolonged hill climbing at higher speeds also caused overheating in some cases, such as the Grapevine failures. DCFC was a lesser factor, but high power 120+ kW DCFC can also contribute to overheating.

Damage to the Extended Range and GT contactors caused by heat and accumulated wear during customer usage prior to the software update may reduce the effectiveness of the software deployed with 22S41. If the contactors are damaged, the contactors may be prevented from properly closing or weld closed when driving.

We also saw this. Older vehicles that had more miles before the recall software was released were more likely to get a SSN error after the recall software was installed versus vehicles that had fewer accumulated miles when the software was installed. This is because they had accumulated more latent damage before the recall software was installed. Ford had likely hoped the software would stop the damage in time to prevent SSN, but some vehicles already had too much damage, or the contacts stuck anyway due to part variation.

For those vehicles that previously received the 22S41 remedy, in most cases the software will proactively detect damage to the contactors and display a warning to the customer.

At the time of this FSA approval, Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group (CCRG) and Electrical Propulsion Engineering (EPE) teams judged the BECM and SOBDMC software updates to be an acceptable method of preventing the safety risk associated with a loss of motive power. The software update addressed the risk of loss of motive power by monitoring contactor resistance. Customers would receive a warning (described above) when resistance was measured higher than the threshold. In addition to this warning, the software would reduce power to prevent further damage to the contactors and address the risk of loss of motive power. The customer would still be able to accelerate to highway speeds safely with this power derate.

This is the "Service vehicle soon" message and associated power limit that occurs when a high voltage drop across the contactors is detected. However the detection isn't perfect and relies on a high amp draw (wide-open pedal). If you drive your car gingerly, the software may not have a chance to detect a failure.

Owners will be directed to take their vehicle to a Ford or Lincoln dealer to complete a replacement of the Bussed Electrical Center (BEC) also referred to as the High Voltage Battery Junction Box (HVBJB) as per workshop manual. There will be no charge for this service.

Extended range owners that are on the original HVBJB will definitely get a replacement. However the big question is:

Will vehicles that already had the HVBJB replaced with the new part need ANOTHER replacement for this recall?

My opinion is that they will not based on this line from the document:

The updated BEC hardware design was introduced into production on May 25, 2022.

What production vehicles got after May 25th 2022 is the same part we get now for a HVBJB replacement. To me, I don't see any evidence or mention of there being a third revision to the contactors. The part numbers don't tell the whole story, because Ford uses different part numbers on the box vs. the part itself. The part numbers in the NHTSA document refer to the number on the part itself. The catalog number will be different. And Ford can release a newer part revision that still uses the same revised contactors.

I could be wrong, but the recall procedure will probably read something like this:

1. Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
2. Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
3. Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.

There is no mention of new software in the NHTSA document. I don't think anything will change with the software necessarily. Ford mentions a software update in their bulletin, which might just be a matter-of-fact thing to ensure the recall software is installed in case it was somehow missed.

The CCRG is not recommending any additional action on the Standard Range variants previously included in 22S41 because the Standard Range variation will see much less power at the contactors and has a much lower probability of latent contactor damage. Field data received after the completion of 22S41 shows that the remedy addressed the risk of loss of motive power for the Standard Range variants.

Last we have the reason why only the extended packs are getting replacement HVBJBs. The standard range models don't draw as many amps, so the contactors don't heat up nearly as much. There have been only 7 loss-of-power incidents in standard range packs, which was judged to be an acceptably low risk.

In terms of logistics, this is going to be a nightmare to replace 34,762 HVBJBs. It will take YEARS. The dealers are already swamped with HVBJB repairs and there are not enough EV certified techs to do the work. When I took my car in, they had three HVBJBs to do ahead of me.

 

[21st Century Pony]

OK, I had time to review the NHTSA documents for 23V-687 / 23S56 and give my opinions. First, I'd like to remind folks the previous recall was for software only. This time the HVBJB part is actually being recalled. NHTSA only cares about the vehicle losing motive power while driving as a safety issue. If you get a "Stop Safely Now" while parked and become stranded, that is not considered a safety issue by the government.

The only reason this new recall is happening is because 107 Mach-E's that had the 22S41 software recall done later lost motive power while driving. Which proves what we already knew about the software-only remedy not being able to completely prevent catastrophic HVBJB failure.

For the first time, we might know why the original contactors fail. It's because they had rounded contacts inside, and a groove on the movable contact surface. These would have caused a smaller point of contact than a flat surface. Smaller contact area means more heating and greater likelihood of arcing under load. The rounded contacts and groove likely has to do with fritting or arc suppression, but unfortunately the original design appears to have hampered durability. The new contactors are described to use flat contact surfaces, the increased contact surface should reduce heating.

Here's a picture of what burnt contacts look like (this contactor is not from a Mach-E). The bar on the right is what presses down against the round button contacts on the left part to close the circuit.

Both the original and revised contractors are made by TE connectivity in Mexico. They also make the entire HVBJB.



See above, the flatter contacts should increase surface area of contact and heat dissipation. The new HVBJB still will not have any temperature sensors or a thermal management system. The only difference is the shape of the contacts.

More from the NHTSA document:



This is exactly what we saw. There was significant part-to-part variation which meant some cars are fine for 30k miles and others might fail at only 3k with the exact same driving conditions. Heat from multiple wide-open pedal events in a short time seems to be primary cause of thermal damage, but is not always required for failure. My SVS was triggered by several pedal events in a row. Prolonged hill climbing at higher speeds also caused overheating in some cases, such as the Grapevine failures. DCFC was a lesser factor, but high power 120+ kW DCFC can also contribute to overheating.



We also saw this. Older vehicles that had more miles before the recall software was released were more likely to get a SSN error after the recall software was installed versus vehicles that had fewer accumulated miles when the software was installed. This is because they had accumulated more latent damage before the recall software was installed. Ford had likely hoped the software would stop the damage in time to prevent SSN, but some vehicles already had too much damage, or the contacts stuck anyway due to part variation.





This is the "Service vehicle soon" message and associated power limit that occurs when a high voltage drop across the contactors is detected. However the detection isn't perfect and relies on a high amp draw (wide-open pedal). If you drive your car gingerly, the software may not have a chance to detect a failure.



Extended range owners that are on the original HVBJB will definitely get a replacement. However the big question is:

Will vehicles that already had the HVBJB replaced with the new part need ANOTHER replacement for this recall?

My opinion is that they will not based on this line from the document:



What production vehicles got after May 25th 2022 is the same part we get now for a recall replacement. To me, I don't see any evidence or mention of there being a third revision to the contactors. The part numbers don't tell the whole story, because Ford uses different part numbers on the box vs. the part itself. The part numbers in the NHTSA document refer to the number on the part itself. The catalog number will be different. And Ford can release a newer part revision that still uses the same revised contactors.

I could be wrong, but the recall procedure will probably read something like this:

1. Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
2. Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
3. Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.

There is no mention of new software in the NHTSA document. I don't think anything will change with the software necessarily. Ford mentions a software update in their bulletin, which might just be a matter-of-fact thing to ensure the recall software is installed in case it was somehow missed.



Last we have the reason why only the extended packs are getting replacement HVBJBs. The standard range models don't draw as many amps, so the contactors don't heat up nearly as much. There have been only 7 loss-of-power incidents in standard range packs, which was judged to be an acceptably low risk.

In terms of logistics, this is going to be a nightmare to replace 34,762 HVBJBs. It will take YEARS. The dealers are already swamped with HVBJB repairs and there are not enough EV certified techs to do the work. When I took my car in, they had three HVBJBs to do ahead of me. The other killer factor here is the upcoming transition to Model e Certified on Jan 1st. After that date, dealers that aren't participating will no longer be able to perform high voltage BEV repairs. So that could be a significant reduction in dealers that are able to do the repair.

Good analysis. Thank you Mach-Lee.

 

[BusyRN]

How could you have it done when Ford hasn't released the new part and new software to dealers yet?

You are correct I just spoke with the dealership bc I could see in my app it still isn’t charging correctly over at the dealership too. When the recall popped up on his computer when I dropped it off, he didn’t realize it was an advanced warning recall so he did just say he wasn’t able to complete it yet, but when he called me to pick up my car last night they thought my charging issue was resolved until they just plugged it back in this morning and it went orange again. I had just assumed the recall was done when they called me to pick it up today until we just spoke. I love this service dept they are excellent, can’t be mad about them being proactive to get the recall done, at least he went into it with good intentions lol.

 

[BusyRN]

Curious what part number is listed on your invoice showing that the recall was done.

I suspect there is a lack of communication. If you took it in for a SVS light that was a result of a HVBJB failure, the dealer would have replaced it with a remanufactured HVBJB. If there was no SVS light, I am sure you will not have a HVBJB replacement showing on your invoice.

It was my error when I called back this morning I was told they didn’t realize it was an advance warning recall which wouldn’t allow them to complete it at this time. Which sucks bc my car still isn’t charging correctly as of this morning so nope I will no longer be picking it back up as of today. 5th time in the shop in four months, cringeworthy I know.

 

[hack-e]

Thank you so much for wading through all the information and summarizing for us. It makes perfect sense to me.

My SVS was triggered by several pedal events in a row.

Same for me. I had passed multiple vehicles in a row at 80+ mph.

 

[hack-e]

As Mach-Lee's summary mentions, like NHTSA is only requiring replacement of the contactors with already updated one, but I will still hold out a little hope that Ford will deploy a 3rd beefier rev to fix it once and for all since the 2nd rev continues to fail and is costing them to repeatedly replace the HVBJBs.

Sponsored