Except for the Chinese made cars manufactured and sold in the Chinese market, that are branded as “Mustang Mach Es”
Thanks for the extensive write up.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 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:
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.
- Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
- Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
- Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.
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.
Awesome analysis!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 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:
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.
- Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
- Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
- Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.
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.
Excellent breakdown by @Mach-Lee , thank you!
So all the WOTs I do are actually helping the software detect a impending failure. Awesome! I can't wait to do another WOT! A WOT before every trip, a WOT to start the day. It's almost as good as that first cup of coffee!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 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:
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.
- Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
- Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
- Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.
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.
I’m in the same boat as you, Mark, but this TSB from August leaves me with a question- my replacement part, as shown on my work order last month, and I assume yours, has the “RM” (for ReManufacured) at the end of the part number. However, this August TSB refers to these specific parts (with the RM) to be used for repairs on cars built on or before 17-Mar-2023… so what I’m wondering is whether or not some of the later HVBJB failures people are referring to include only cars built prior 17-Mar-2023, or repaired prior to the RM part becoming available? Is it possible they weren’t using the RM part prior to March 17th of this year in their manufacturing? Until we know for sure, it appears there’s a chance that we’ve been repaired with a part that will do the job for the longer term. I’m hoping so.
Well how long did it take GM to replace every Bolt battery? (which they are likely still doing now...)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 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:
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.
- Verify if 10C666 has been previously replaced in warranty history. If the part number matches {list}, the HVBJB does not need to be replaced.
- Replace the HVBJB if there is no matching part number found.
- Update the PCM/BECM/SOBDMC software to latest using FDRS.
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.
Not that it will be accurate but the recall claims, if I read it correctly, change outs must be completed by May 2024.
Are you talking about this??
don't you mean your El MME..?
Very presumptuous of you to gender their car. Vehicles are usually referred to as feminine, so it would be La MME. LOL. ??
